HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08171993 - TC.2 Contra
� -
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS _ ;o Costa
FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE County
DATE: August 9 , 1993
SUBJECT: Report on County Comments on MTC' s Notice of Preparation for the 1994
Regional Transportation Plan DEIR
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Review the response prepared by County staff to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission's Notice of Preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report on the 1994 Regional Transportation .
Plan Update (eb: t-A) , and consider authorizing the Chair of
the Board of Supervisors to sign and transmit this response to the
Commission.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On July 8, . the Metropolitan Transportation Commission issued a
Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report on
the 1994 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Update, and announced
a series of public meetings to help develop the RTP. The
Commission has characterized the 1994 RTP as the most significant
update in over two decades. This update will guide Bay Area
transportation investments through to the Year 2013, and will
explore a wide range of policy options using the new flexibility
provided by recent state and federal transportation legislation.
The Commission isrequired to prepare an RTP constrained to
existing revenue sources that are estimated to be available to the
Bay Area over the next two decades. For Contra Costa, about $300
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S) " Tom P rs Gayle Bishop
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: 1C, ?C'1 32- 4 :Z NOES: 12Z: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT:. ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: S.Goetz, CDD,' 646-2134
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED f 3
cc: Public Works Department PHIL B CHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BO RD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
t
Report on NOP for the 1994' Regional Transportation Plan EIR
August 9, 1993
Page Two
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
million (1993 dollars) is estimated to be available for new transportation
investments beyond the existing commitments made by the State Transportation
Improvement Program and the Measure C-1988 sales tax expenditure plan. This
financially-constrained RTP is referred to as "Track 111 .
The Commission also proposes to develop a financially unconstrained RTP that will
provide a more visionary approach to the Bay Area's transportation future. This
financially unconstrained RTP is referred to as "Track 211 , and will be used by the
Commission as .an advocacy tool for acquiring new transportation revenues.
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority is sponsoring a process to develop a
specific list of projects for the Commission to consider in the RTP Track 1, which
will reflect prior commitments and existing local plans. County staff is
participating with the Contra Costa cities and transit operators in this process.
County staff has also recommended that the Board of Supervisors submit comments
addressing key policy issues to be considered by the Commission and specific
concerns arising from the NOP. Based on comments made at the August 9 meeting of
the Transportation Committee, County staff was directed to prepare a response to
the Notice of Preparation for consideration by. the Board of Supervisors. County
staff has been advised by the Commission that written responses are due no later
than August 24 , 1993 .
The Transportation Committee requests the Board to review staff' s response. to the
NOP (see Exhibit A) , revise as appropriate, and authorize its signature by the
Chair for transmittal to the Commission. Copies of the response should also be
transmitted to MTC Comissioner Sharon Brown and the Authority. Copies of the NOP
(see Exhibit B) and the handout distributed at the MTC Community Forum in Walnut
Creek (see Exhibit C) are attached for the Board's information.
SLG:94rtpnop.bo
I
i
E XHIBIT A
� r
Di4tr
August 17 , 1993
Ms. Susan Pultz
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4756
Dear Ms. Pultz:
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has reviewed the
Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report for
the 1994 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Update, and submits
this response for the Commission's consideration. We begin by
addressing key policy issues to be considered by the Commission
and conclude with specific concerns arising from the NOP.
RTP Policy Considerations
The Commission's community forums listed "key policy choices"
that will influence specific projects to be included in the final
RTP. Answers to most of these policy choices cannot be provided
until the evaluation of alternative strategies is completed. The
limited resources described in the NOP require a comprehensive
reassessment of the present transportation investment strategy to
help make the inevitable tradeoffs facing the Bay Area. Existing
plans and programs shouldn't be considered as sacred cows if the
planning process determines that new proposals would provide
superior performance.
At this time, answers can be provided to three policy choices
described in the community forums, regardless of the performance
of the RTP alternatives.
The Commission should require subregional growth management plans
before investing in major expansion of the transportation system.
Growth management plans should be required not only to preserve
the congestion relief provided by major expansion to the
transportation system, but also to prevent future congestion from
developing where it presently doesn't exist.
The Commission should make more of an effort to ensure that there
are sufficiently high existing or proposed land-use densities in
the vicinity of future mass transit extensions. . The performance
of existing mass transit systems clearly demonstrates that public
subsidies for these systems are the lowest where more people are
able to live or work close to transit stops.
Ms. Pultz DRAFT
August 17, 1993
Page Two
The Commission should seek new revenues to pay for additional
transportation improvements. The State Department of Finance
estimates that California's population will grow to 46 million by
2015, an increase of over 40 percent. The prospect of such
growth and the existing transportation needs not addressed by
Track 1 clearly indicate the need for additional revenues. The
Board of Supervisors supports investigating a combination of
revenue sources including additional gas taxes, congestion
pricing, new sales tax measures as well as local or subregional
transportation impact fees.
One policy choice not made explicit by the Commission is whether
it should require consolidation of the planning, operation or
maintenance of existing transit operators before investing in
major expansion of the transit system. Is there a need to unify
the operation of different transit systems to serve existing and
emerging transit markets? Are there economies of scale that
could address looming shortfalls for maintaining and operating
existing transit services. Could introduction of new modes of
transit into new service areas be more effectively utilized by
restructuring the provision of transit service in the Bay Area?
The Commission should take this opportunity to develop a regional
strategy for mass transportation to ensure convenient connections
between transit modes and to operate as a unified system.
Concerns Regarding the Notice of Preparation
The NOP does not include a discrete and finite Project
description, but offers a collection of alternative Projects.
Since the NOP does not specify a preferred alternative, the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) , should examine the
environmental impact of each alternative at the same level of
detail as would be required for the Proposed Project.
MTC should provide an opportunity for the public to evaluate and
comment on the impacts of the Project if the Project is defined
after circulating the DEIR. Failure to do so does not allow for
full disclosure of the Project impacts to the public.
The NOP references a second tier of transportation projects,
"Track 211 , which would extend beyond Track 1, and would be
possible only if more revenue became available. It is unclear
how the NOP proposes to. evaluate Track 2 in the DEIR. Comments
cannot be made on the scope and content of the analysis of Track
2 projects without including information on Track 2 in the NOP.
The NOP specifies actions to improve freight mobility in the
Track 1B and 1C alternatives. The DEIR should estimate future
demand for the movement of all goods, including sea and air
DRAFT
Ms. Pultz
August 17, 1993
Page Three
cargo, required to serve the anticipated economic activity in the
Bay Area. The ability of all alternatives to accommodate this
demand should be assessed, which may require consideration of
intermodal facilities not specified in the NOP. The DEIR should
also consider the ability of pipelines to accommodate the
movement of goods.
The DEIR should evaluate future transportation demand at the
gateways into the nine-county Bay Area (e.g. State Route 160 at
the Sacramento County line, State Route 4 and I-580 at the San
Joaquin County line, etc. ) , the ability of the proposed actions
to accommodate this demand, and their environmental impacts.
Future demand at these gateways should consider the growth in
commuter and non-commuter trips to or from neighboring counties.
Previous travel demand efforts have not adequately considered the
ability of the Bay Area and neighboring counties to accommodate
the labor supply required to satisfy the job growth for each
region and the interregional travel patterns that would occur
from this growth.
The DEIR should evaluate the impacts of alternative actions
proposed to state highways upstream and downstream from the
proposed action. This is particularly important where sections
of highway cannot be expanded any further and could become
significantly overloaded if other freeway bottlenecks are
relieved.
The DEIR should discuss any inconsistencies between the level of
growth assumed to occur during the 20-year plan and adopted
General Plans. This is particularly important if the DEIR
assumes growth based on forecasts prepared by the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) . In some cases the ABAG forecasts
assume growth will occur in areas that are not proposed for
development in local general plans.
The DEIR should include construction of the Midstate Tollway in
the assessment of cumulative impacts. The facility is authorized
by state law, Caltrans has executed a franchise agreement setting
the conditions for implementation, and the project sponsor is
negotiating with interested parties on development of the
project. These facts support consideration of the Midstate
Tollway as a reasonably anticipated future project.
The DEIR should evaluate future growth in air passenger traffic
and the ability of commercial airports in the Bay Area .to
accommodate this growth.
The NOP does not include any actions regarding the development of
high speed ground transportation. Previous efforts by the State
Ms. Pultz
August 17, 1993
Page Four
(AB-971 Study) have identified potential corridors for high-speed
rail such as the Sacramento-Bay Area 'Corridor and the Bay Area-
Los Angeles Corridor. Would the DEIR include development of
these corridors for high-speed ground transportation as a Track 1
project (using funds available to the CTC) , a Track 2 project, or
part of the analysis of cumulative impacts?
The Board of Supervisors looks forward to working with the
Commission as one of its partners is developing the 1994 Regional
Transportation Plan Update. Please keep us informed as work on
this update and the DEIR progresses.
Sincerely yours,
Tom Torlakson, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
cc: Commissioner Sharon Brown
Chair Darryl Tucker, CCTA
EXHIBIT B
r
Gp
MTC p
' METROPOLITAN 0�•� t^ �/� Osf�
TRANSPORTATION ✓�l` 0", �p
COMMISSION �0.o�'y%,
~Fyj�y 9
O /
Alameda Counh DATE: July 8, 1993
EDWARD R.CAMPBELL
DAVID S.KARP TO: Interested Agencies and Citizens .
Contra Costa Countv
Tom POWERS FR: Executive Director
SHARON 1.BROWN
Marin Counh RE: 1) MEETINGS TO HELP DEVELOP THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
KAREN KUNZE COMMISSION'S 1994 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP) UPDATE—THE
BLUEPRINT FOR FUTURE INVESTMENTS IN THE BAY AREA'S TRANSPORTATION
Napa County SYSTEM:
FRED NECRI 2) NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
San Francisco-
Cit.and County
REPORT ON THE 1994 RTP UPDATE
-
Tom HSIEH
RuBIN GLICKMAN
San Mateo Counh, RTP DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS
MARY GRIFFIN
IANEBAKER The MTC envisions the region's transportation network as a comprehensive
Chairwoman mix of roads and transit consistent with local land use plans and
Santa Clara County enhanced by the best that technology has to offer. Bay Area citizens can
ROD DIRIDON help steer the region toward this better course by participating in the
JAMES T.BEALL,JR. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan Update (RTP). MTC expects the 1994 RTP
SolanoCounty Update to reflect a widespread consensus on how the region should move
IAmESSPER-c people and goods into the 21st century. Towards this end, community
Sonoma County forums will be held as follows:
PETER C.FOPPIANO .
Association of
Bay Area Governments August 3, 1993 August 4, 1993 August 16, 1993
DIANNE MCKENNA 5:00 — 7:00 P.M. •7:00 — 9:00 p.m. . 6:00 - 8:00 p.m.'
vicer
S.F.Bay Consen.atio�ation Park Plaza Joseph P. Bort Mt. View City Council
and Development 1395 Civic Dr. MetroCenter Chambers
cOmmCSA
ANcao 1.SlwcUsA Walnut Creek 101 Eight St. 500 Castro St.
Oakland Mt. View
State Business.
Transportation and
Housing Agency August 17, 1993 August 18, 1993
ETON W KELL" 7:00 — 9:00 P.M. 6:00 — 8:00 p.m.
U.S.Department So. S.F. Conf. Ctr. Novato School District
of Transportation 255 So. Airport Blvd. Education Center
WILLIAM P.DurussEA
South San Francisco Conference Room A&B
U.S.Depart K4. 1015 Seventh Street
of Housing .
and Urban Development Novato
GoitDON H.MCKAY .
MTC plans to.develop the RTP in two tiers. One tier, Track 1, will
consist •of a package of projects that could be constructed with the
Executive Directorrather limited funding pot anticipated for the region over the next 20
LAWRENCE D.DAHALS
Deputy Executive Director
WILLIAM F.HEIN
JOSEPH P. BORT METROCENTER 0 101 EIGHTH STREET • OAKLAND,CA 94607-4700
510/464-7700 a TDD/TTY 510/464-7769 at FAX 510/464-7848 . 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE 1994 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN:
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
I. Response to. Notice of Preparation
MTC will accept written comments, pertinent to the scope and content
of the environmental information to be included in the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) , postmarked by August 18, 1993. Comments may be
mailed to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Attention:
Susan Pultz, 101 Eighth Street, Oakland, CA 94607.
II. Purpose
This letter and its enclosures constitute a Notice of Preparation
(NOP) to initiate an EIR for the proposed 1994 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) . The EIR will be prepared and processed
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et M.).
As provided under Public Resources Code Section 21068.5, this EIR
will be prepared as a "tiered" EIR. More commonly known as a
program EIR, the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal . Admin. Code Section 15168)
describe this as an approach "which may be prepared on a series of
actions that can be characterized as one large project and are
related either: (1 ) geographically, (2) as logical parts in the
chain of contemplated actions, or (3) in connection with activities
carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory
authority and having generally similar environmental effects which
can be mitigated in similar ways." Because the project is, in this
case, a future (20 year) plan, the EIR assessment of physical and
social impacts will emphasize regional and corridor scale impacts
associated with the construction and/or implementation of new
transportation facilities and activities. The CEQA Guidelines
provide, however, that any subsequent activities in the program must
be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an
additional environmental document must be prepared. Therefore,
specific impacts of previously undocumented RTP project components
will be subject to subsequent EIRs.
III. Project Description
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is required by its
enabling legislation (Government Code Section 66510. et seq) to
prepare and adopt annually a Regional Transportation Plan. The plan
must include (but is not limited to) the following segments of the
regional transportation system:
(a) The national system of interstate and defense highways, the
California freeway and expressway system, and other highways
within the state highway system.
(b) The transbay bridges.
(c) Mass transit systems.
(9522p)
1876 Regional Rail Agreement. The counties with sales tax measures
will have limited flexibility in how they spend money from other
sources due to their commitment to fund sales tax measure projects,
which may be subject to shortfalls. Non-sales tax measure counties
will have more flexibility in how they spend funds during the
20-year period.
Another constraint, despite the new flexibility provided by ISTEA,
is that most revenues can be spent on capital improvements, but not
operations. This is a major, chronic challenge facing the region.
Build Alternatives--General Description
All of the three build alternatives reflect the "Track 1" financial
constraints identified for the region and individual counties. All
the build alternatives also include the fully funded projects in the
1993 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a common base of
projects. In addition, they address transit operating shortfalls
for the existing transit systems, Metropolitan Transportation System
(MTS) Local Streets and Roads deficits, and seismic retrofit
projects for all Bay Area bridges, except the Golden Gate. The
alternatives include all Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
required to meet federal air quality standards. However, the
alternatives include different packages of State TCMs. The
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal requirement that
is addressed in all alternatives. However, significant capital and
operating funds to meet this mandate have not been identified in all
counties.
The alternatives are drafts that were developed by MTC staff
following consultation with local government staffs. This
consultation will continue throughout the Notice of Preparation
review period and the alternatives will be revised, as necessary, in
September 1993, when the work on the Craft EIR will commence.
1 . ALTERNATIVE #2: "Track W — LOCAL PLANS/PRIOR COMMITMENTS
This alternative was designed to reflect the transportation
planning priorities of Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs),
county sales tax authorities, and other local and regional
transportation agencies. All projects included in this
alternative were drawn from the following plans and programs:
Congestion Management Programs, Countywide Plans, MTC Resolution
1876 Regional Rail Agreement, Sales Tax Measure Program, Short
Range Transit Plans, bid lists for the Surface Transportation
Programs (STP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Programs
(CMAQ) , 'and Flexible Congestion Relief Programs (FCR).
2. ALTERNATIVE #3: "Track 1B" — MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS
MANAGEMENT
This alternative includes low cost, cost-effective projects that
maximize the existing transportation system's performance. It
includes the expanded (500-mile) Traffic Operating System (TOS),
(9522p)
Attachment A
LOCATION/)URISDICTION OF
MTC REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
o -
t � 29
6000MA '9 n3
MAS
'` RrYWti 12
12 12 •�� 29 121 1\
�•` 1 VOWM
SOLANO
1 •\ rwarrr� 12 ! �rtwa ti
12
Mor�b \ 37
MARIN 9 •Q C.
4
sr. a tie rit
war" CONTRA
H oo.w COSTA
SAN
O�k1ed
FRANCLSOO
piy L#rn
Gy wrwe pbsey
b11D t:r ie ALAMEDA
w.o
01 M
MMI —_—_—_—_—_—_—_
c
SANM
YATEO �1+'M
as SANTA
• CLARA
w 17
t
LEGEND
.�•••� Say Area Rapid Transit(BART) a'°1
CalTraln 112
San Francisco Municipal Railway(Muni Metro) a
Santa Clara Light Rail Transit(SCLRT)
in,c awn X090
5
s -
ATTACHMENT B
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
'1
Alameda County
Common to all alternatives are AC Transit capital costs, AC Transit trolley buses in the Telegraph
Corridor and on Foothill/Bancroft,local transit operators,bicycle projects, and transportation
control measures (TCMs) for air quality.
Alternative #2 - "Track lb" Local Plan/Prior Commitment- This alternative reflects prior
commitments by taxpayers and jurisdictions; it emphasizes highway widenings, a Hayward
bypass, and partial support of the existing transit routes. Full support is committed to extending
BART to Warm Springs. This alternative includes the Port of Oakland 1niermodal container.
Alternative#3-"Track lb"Maintenance, Operations &Management-This alternative optimizes
the use and operations of facilities within the County. Rather than utilizing available funds for
expanding highway capacity, it adds truck lanes to improve traffic movement, fully funds existing
transit routes, supports BART facilities and the Dublin extension,and adds both Traffic Operations
Systems and a "Weight-in-Motion Facility"for freight carriers to insure smooth movements of
traffic and freight. A rail connector to the South Bay would be built.
Alternative #4- "Track lc"Transportation/Land Use Coordination-This alternative emphasizes
improvements to facilitate travel within the County and includes road construction and
maintenance and support of local transit operations. Transit projects include the on
extension
to Warm Springs and light rail in the San Pablo corridor.
- 6-
KK:7/8/93
Contra Costa County
Common to all alternatives are the I-80 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOVYlane extension, the AC
Transit capital and operating shortfall,the CCCTA capital shortfall, and bicycle/pedestrian
projects.
Alternative #2 - "Track la" Local Plan/Prior Commitments -This alternative reflects prior
commitments by taxpayers and jurisdictions of the County by including sales tax expenditure plan
projects. The project list emphasizes highway widenings, auxiliary lanes, and arterial
improvements. It includes the Richmond Parkway.
Alternative #3 - "Track lb" Maintenance and Operations Management-This alternative optimizes
the use and operations of the facilities existing within the County. It adds HOV lanes and parallel
arterial improvements, the Traffic Operations System on several major routes,local transit service
provided by AC Transit and CCCTA, and the BART capital shortfall.
Alternative #4 - "Track Ic"Transportation/Land Use Coordination- This alternative emphasizes
improvements to faciliate travel within Contra Costa,focussing on HOV lanes, expansion of local
and BART feeder bus service in the I-680 corridor,express bus service, and light rail from Oakland
to Hilltop. Also included is enhanced Amtrak Capitol Corridor service.
KK:7/8/93
-8-
Marin County
Common to all alternatives are arterial improvements, signalization, and bicycle projects and the
Golden Gate Bridge Transit District Capital Replacement Program.
Alternative#2- "Track la" Local Plan/Prior Commitment-This alternative reflects prior
commitments by including a segment of the county's highest priority highway project, the Rte 101
High Occupancy Vehicle Lane "gap closure."While a substantial federal investment in the
Northwest Pacific(NWP) Right-of-Way has been made, the county has not reached agreement on
transit improvements in the NWP corridor. Therefore, these alternatives do not include funding for
such projects.
Alternative #3 -"Track lb"Maintenance and Operations Mana eg ment-This alternative excludes the
"gap closure"project,but.adds more funds for arterial improvement and signalization projects. It
also funds arterial improvement and signalization projects, local streets and roads projects on roads
not considered major,and expanded Traffic Operations System (TOS),and the San Francisco
Downtown Bus Storage Facility.
Alternative #4- "Track lc"Transportation/Land Use Coordination-This alternative emphasizes
improvements to facilitate travel within Marin. Therefore it includes the "gap closure"project,major
arterial improvements, and the expanded TOS.
Comparison of Alternatives*
RTP
Major Project/Program Funding" Track 1a Track 1b Track 1c
Highway/Local Streets & Roads
• High Occupany Vehicle Lane Gap Closure on 101 42.4 X X
• Arterial Improvements/Signalization (minor). 1.6 X
Arterial Improvements/Signalization (major) 2.9 X X
• Local Streets& Roads Rehabilitation(major roads) 29.7 X X
Local Streets& Roads Rehabilitation (major roads 70 X
and portion of other roads)
Transit
• GGBHT Downtown SF Bus Storage Facility 10 X X
• GGBHT Capital Replacement Program 45.1 X X X
• Implementation of Americans with Disabilities Act 4 X X X
Operational improvements
• Expanded Traffic Operations System 5 X X
Other
• Seismic retrofit of Bay Area bridges 5.2 X X X
• Bicycle Projects 1.6 X I X X
Projects currently fully funded with STIP/STP/CMAQ and local sales,tax monies are not shown. Other unfunded
projects could compete with those shown above,or be funded with Track 2 revenues.
RTP Funding shows the amount of funds from STIP/STP/CMAQ and SB 602 required over the next 20 years to fully
fund the project. Amounts indicated are for the portion of capital and operating costs in escalated dollars that would
be met with these RTP funds through the year 2013.
-10-
KK:7/8/93
San Francisco County
Common to all alternatives are support of the Port of San Francisco operations,bicycle and
pedestrian projects, and improvements and signalization of local arterials.
Alternative #2 - "Track la" Local Plan/Prior Commitments-This alternative reflects prior
commitments as set out in the County's sales tax expenditure plan. The focus includes purchase
of right-of way land for Doyle Drive improvements, and maintenance of primary local roads. In
addition,it includes the Muni Metro East Facility, trolleys, light rail vehicles, and construction
of the CalTrain Downtown extension.
Alternative #3 - "Track lb" Maintenance and Operations Management-This alternative
optimizes the use and operations of the facilities existing within the City. It includes a CalTrain
System Upgrade,an increased share of Muni operating costs and BART capital costs.
AIternative #4- "Track lc"Transportation/Land Use Coordination- This alternative
emphasizes improvements to faciliate travel within the City. It supports an increased share of
Muni operating costs, trolleys,light rail vehicles, and the CalTrain Downtown Extension.
Comparison of Alternatives*
RTP
Major Project/Program Fundin `* Track 1a Track 1b Track 1c
Highway/Local Streets & Roads
• Arterial improvements/Signalization 5.2 X X X
• Doyle Drive Improvements (right-of-way only) 3 X
• Local Streets & Roads Rehabilitation (major roads) 18.6 X
Local Streets & Roads Rehabilitation (increased fund) 27.4 X
Local Streets & Roads Rehabilitation (fully funded) 85.4 X
Transit
• Muni Operating Shortfall 205.3 X
Muni Operating Shortfall (increased share) 302.1 X X
• Muni Capital Replacement Program Shortfall 23.5 X X X
• Muni.- 15 expansion trolleys 16 X X
• Muni-9 expansion light rail vehicles 34.2 X
• Muni-24 expansion light-rail vehicles 91.9 X
• Muni- Metro East Facility/Illinois St. Bridge 117.1 X
• CalTrain Upgrade/Downtown Extension (SF share) (1) 85.5 X
• CalTrain System Upgrade (SF share) (2) 57.5 X
• CalTrain Capital Improvements (SF Share) 1 X X X
• BART Capital Improvements (SF Share) 19.5 X
• Implementation of Americans with Disabilities Act ^ X X X
Other
• Expand Traffic Operations System(partially funded) 1.1 X
Expand Traffic Operations System (fully funded) 3 X X
• Seismic retrofit of Bay Area bridges 14 X X X
• Bicycle& Pedestrian Improvements 4 X X X
• SF Port Projects 1.2 X X X
tax m
Projects currently fully funded with STIP/STP/CMAO and local salesonies are not shown.Other unfunded projects court
compete with those shown above,or be funded with Track 2 revenues.
•'RTP Funding shows the amount of funds from STIP/STP/CMAC and SB 602 required over the next 20 years to fully fund the
project.Amounts indicated are for the portion of capital and operating costs in escalated dollars that would be met with these
RTP funds through the year 2013.
"Costs to be determined based on information obtained in Summer 1993.
(1)JBP has not agreed to a funding formula for sharing costs of Downtown Extension;County'share would be for a downtown
connection with available sources and uses of funds. (2)Future system improvements to be determined by the JBP.
KK:7/12/93 -12-
Santa Clara County
Common to all alternatives are capital costs for express bus service, CalTrain system upgrade, Santa
Clara County Transit District (SCCTD) capital improvements, and SCCTD operating and
maintenance shortfall
Alternative #2- "Track 1a" Local Plan/Prior Commitment-This alternative reflects prior
commitments by voters in November, 1992, including widening of Hwy 85 and US.101 and
synchronization of expressway traffic signals. Transit projects include the Vasona Light Rail
Extension, other Measure A light rail extensions, and express bus service.
Alternative #3 - "Track lb" Maintenance and Operations Mana eQ ment-This alternative optimizes
the use and operations of facilities existing within the County. Improvement and rehabilitation of
local streets and roads are a major emphasis. This alternative supports the Traffic Operations
System components, ramp metering,park and ride lots, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements.
It also includes a rail extension to Alameda County, and enhanced Amtrak Capitol Corridor
service.
Alternative #4 - "Track lc"Transportation/Land Use Coordination- This alternative reflects
improvements to facilitate travel within the County. Transit projects include express bus service,
Vasona Light Rail and other Measure A light rail extensions to be specified by the Congestion
Management Agency and Local Transportation Authority.
KK:7/8/93
-14-
Solano County
Common to all alternatives are the Traffic Operations System on Route 37,1-80/680 interchagne
improvements, an I-80 reliever route, construction of rail stations, signalization, ridesharing,
bicycle/pedestrian projects and funding for Vallejo Transit capital shortfall.
Alternative #2- "Track 1 a" Local Plan/Prior Commitment-This alternative includes high priority
projects from county bid lists for.federal and state funding.Major highway projects include
construction of the Rte 37/29 Interchange,.I-80 interchange improvements, and widening of Route
12. The major transit project in this alternative is the purchase of the Southern Pacific Branch Line
Right of Way between Suisun and Napa County. -
Alternative #3- "Track lb" Maintenance,Operations &Mana eg ment-This alternative excludes the
major capacity increasing highway projects and the Southern Pacific Branch Line Station. It includes
an expanded Traffic Operations System (TOS) that covers I-80, I-680,and I-780 as well as Rte. 37,
major increases in express bus service in the I-80/I-680 corridor, and the upgrade of.the Capitol
Corridor Rail Services.
Alternative #4- "Track 1c"Transportation/Land Use Coordination-This alternative supports land
use development trends that would de-emphasize out commuting to neighboring counties and
encourages within county travel. The arterial improvements and widening of Route 12 included in
this alternative would support such travel patterns. The alternative also includes transit projects that
support the growing commutes between Solano cities as well as some continued out-commutes,
such as the,Capital Rail Corridor Upgrade.
Comparison of Alternatives*
RTP
Major Project/Program Funding" Track 1a Track 1b Track 1c
Highway/Local Streets & Roads
• Construction of Route 29/37 Interchange 30 X
• 1-80 Interchange Improvements 40 X
• 1-80 Reliever Route 18.7 X X X
• Widen Route 12 between Red Top and Napa 17.9 X X
• 1-80/680 Interchange Improvements 5 X X X
• Local Streets & Roads Rehabilitation (major roads) 27.7 X X X
• Local Streets & Road Rehabilitation (minor roads) 15 X
• Arterial Improvements 20 X
Transit
• Southern Pacific Branch Line/Station Right-of-Way 12 X
• Minor increase in Express Bus Service on 1-80/680 0.9 X X
Major increase in Express Bus Services on 1-80/680 48.3 X
• Intercity Rail Services(incl Amtrak Capitol upgrade) 23 X X
•Vallejo Transit capital shortfall 11.3 X X X
• Construct Rail Stations in Fairfield, Benicia, Dixon 8 X X X
• Implementation of Americans with Disabilities Act" 31 X X
Other
• Traffic Operations System on Route 37 3 X X X
• Traffic Operations System on 1-80/680/780 10 X X
• Signalization 2 X X X
• Ridesharing/PedBicycle Projects 4.5 X X X
• Seismic Retrofit of Bay Area Bridges 7.8 X X X
Projects currently fully funded with STIP/STP/CMAQ and local sales tax monies are'not shown.Other unfunded projects could
compete with those shown above,or be funded with Track 2 revenues.
"RTP Funding shows the amount of funds from STIP/STP/CMAO and SB 602 required over the next 20 years to fully fund the
project.Amounts indicated are for the portion of capital and operating costs in escalated dollars that would be met with these
RTP funds through the year 2013.
^Level of funding for ADA in Track 1A to be determined based on Information obtained In Summer 1993.
-16-
ATTACHMENT C
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST FORM
I. Background
1 . Name of Proponent: Metropolitan Transportation Commission
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
101 Eighth Street. Oakland. CA 94607
(510) 464-7793
4. Name of Project: 1994 Regional Transportation Plan
II. Environmental Impacts
Yes &ybe No
1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in
geologic substructures? X _
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over-
covering of the soil? X _
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief
features? X
d. The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features? _ X _
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site? _ X
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands,
or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,
in let orlake? _ X _
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure. or similar hazards? _ X _
-18-
(9522p)
Yes Maybe No
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of plants? X _
c. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species? _ X _
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _ X _
S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or num-
bers of any species of animals (birds, land
animals including reptiles, fish and shell-
fish, benthic organisms or insects)? X _
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? _ X
c. Introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of animals? _ X
d. Deterioration to exising fish or wildlife
habitat? _ X _
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? _ X _
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare? _ X
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantial alteration of the present or planned
land use of an area? _ X _
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? _ X _
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil , pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? _ X _
-20-
(9522p)
Yes Maybe No
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources or energy, or require the development
of new sources .of energy? _ X _
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new -systems, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Power of natural gas? _ X _
b. Commuication systems? _ X _
c. Water? — X _
d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ X
e. Storm water drainage? _ X _
f. Solid waste disposal? _ X _
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? X _
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? _ X _
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view? _ X _
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? _ X _
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? _ X _
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? _ X _
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? _ X _
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses within the potential impact
area? _ X
-22-
(9522p)
I find that although the proposed-project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE
PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and a SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required. X
Date Signature
For
9522p/5-11
-24- (9522p)
EXHIBIT C
C*�
MTC.
METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
Agenda For August 1993
MTC Community Forums:
Draft 1994
Regional Transportation Plan
1. Welcome & Introductions 10 minutes
2. Overview — MTC's Draft RTP 20 minutes
3. Question & Answer Session 10 minutes
4. Break-Out Sessions 60 minutes
5. Adjourn
MTC
METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION
C O M M I S S I O N
August 1993
Dear Bay Area Citizen:
Alameda Count, Attached is information summarizing the draft 1994 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP),
EDWARD R.CAMPBELL
DAVID S.KARP a 20-year blueprint to guide Bay
Area transportation investments. The public review
+
process for the RTP began last March,when MTC released a draft policy element with
Contra Costa Countv four basic goals for Bay Area transportation: '
Tom POWERS
SHARON 1.BROWN Improve mobility for persons and freight;
Matin Counts 0 Promote equity for users of the transportation system;
KAREN KUNZE Enhance sensitivity to the environment; and
Napa Cont, Support economic vitality of the region.
FRED NEGRI
San Francisco- Along with these important goals come the financial realities. Thus,MTC is taking a two-
Cit%and COUntx tiered approach to developing the RTP. Track 1 will offer a range of alternatives for
TOM HSIEH investing the limited funding expected to flow to the region from existing sources over the
RUBIN GLICKMAN next two decades. A companion Track 2 is intended to form the basis for a more
San Mateo County visionary approach to transportation that looks beyond the funding constraints.
MARY GRIFFIN
JANE BAKER While funding is in short supply, MTC hopes this planning effort will provide Bay Area
ChainAoman citizens with an opportunity to explore policy options in the form of some basic questions:
Santa Clara County Should we continue on the course set by local.officials and voters in county sales tax plans
ROD DIRIDON and by regional and state spending programs? Should we focus more intently on
JAMES T.BEALL,JR. maintaining and managing what we have? Or,can we begin to weave closer ties between
Soianc.;nun,, transportation investments and land-use planning in order to focus development in some
JAMES SPERING areas and not in others?
Sonoma Count
PETER C.FOPPIANO These three questions form the framework for a trio of investment options now up for
public review. They are intended as a starting point for discussion. To help you review
Association of
Bay Area Governments this admittedly detailed and complex plan,we have included the following:
DIANNE MCKENNA
Vs rvati n • MTC's schedule for developing the RTP(page 1);
S.F.Bay Consen-ation
and Development A thumbnail sketch of the draft RTP alternatives (page 2); '
Commission
ANGELO 1.SIRACUSA Detailed information on the draft RTP alternatives (pages 3-6)
Sate • Key policy choices on which MTC is seeking comment (pages 7-10)
Trans�l onat Business,a • A summary of RTP Track 1 investment options (pages 11-13)
Housing Agency A special issue of MTC's monthly newsletter, Transactions, devoted to the RTP
PRESTON W.KELLEY (a separate hand out)
U.S.Department
of Transportation Thank you for taking the time to contribute to this critical planning process. MTC is
WILLIAM P.DDPussEA excited about the possibilities for charting a new transportation vision in this post-
U.S.Department Interstate Highway era. Your active participation will be vital to ensuring that we have a
ohousing
f and Urban Development lopme t plan that mirrors.the transportation,land-use and environmental priorities of the region.
GoRDON H.McKAY
Sincerely,
Executive Director
LAWRENCE D.DAHMS Jane Baker
Deputy Executive Director Chairwoman
("hairwoman
WILLIAM F.HEIN
JOSEPH P. BORT METROCENTER • 101 EIGHTH STREET • OAKLAND, CA 94607-4700
510/464-7700 • TDD/M 510/464-7769 • FAX 510/464-7848
1994 Regional Transportation Plan
Summary Package
for Public Outreach
.!4
E,>l'
p D
Q
August 1993
MTC
METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
Thumbnail Sketch of
Draft 1994 RTP Alternatives
• Ground Rules.-
Each
ules:Each alternative is constrained by same 20-year revenue estimate
All projects must be fundable in 20 years
Funding equity among counties is assumed, largely based on population
Projects must be usable segments
Includes only projects financed with RTP funds
A no-build alternative is required by the California Environmental Quality Act
• Common to All Alternatives:
Maintenance of major streets and roads
Seismic retrofit of all Bay Area bridges, except Golden Gate
Transit services for disabled persons (Required by Americans With Disabilities Act)
Projects to improve air,quality (Required by federal Clean Air Act)
Projects fully funded in approved local, regional and state transportation programs
• Prior Commitments/Local Plans (Referred to as Track la)
Emphasizes projects from existing voter-approved sales tax plans, the regional rail
extension agreement, transit operator plans, and county-developed transportation
plans. Assumes no changes in existing funding rules that restrict ability to fund
transit operating costs.
Includes a heavier emphasis (than other alternatives) on highway and rail
expansion. Includes major rail projects, such as extending BART beyond Fremont.
• Maintenance & Operations Management (Referred to as Track lb)
Emphasizes more maintenance and efficient use of existing system. Assumes more
flexibility than existing rules allow for using federal funds for transit operating costs.
Includes a regionwide Traffic Operations System to reduce congestion, operating
strategies such as ramp metering and traffic signal timing, higher level of road
maintenance, increased funding of transit operations shortfalls, transit service
restructuring (such as replacing buses with light rail), and projects to improve
freight movement.
• Transportation/Land Use Coordination (Referred to as Track lc)
Reflects transportation projects that best match existing or planned land uses.
Concentrates on areas with high densities or potential for in-fill development.
Promotes projects that reduce reliance on solo drivers. Recognizes differences
between rural and urban needs. Assumes more flexibility than existing rules allow
for using federal funds for transit operating costs.
Includes light-rail transit in populated corridors such as San Pablo Ave. in Alameda,
increased funding of Santa Clara County light-rail projects, and highway and arterial
improvements that support intra-county travel rather than long commutes.
-2-
Descriptions of Alternatives:
Draft 1994 Regional Transportation Plan
All draft alternatives were developed by MTC staff for purposes of review,discussion and
revision through summer 1993.
No Project Alternative -- As required by the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA)
1. This alternative includes only existing Metropolitan Transportation System
facilities and services,plus any approved projects that have signed
construction agreements or are expected to,be under contract by December
31, 1993. (The Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS)is those streets
and roads, highways, mass transit routes,bikeways, transfer points,
airports and seaports considered essential to regional mobility.)
Policy Choices Assumed in the Other Three Alternatives:
1. Each alternative must be fundable under projected 20-year revenues.
2. Each alternative addresses—but does not fully fund —shortfalls in the
operation of existing mass transit systems.
3. Each alternative funds the estimated shortfall for maintenance of those
streets and roads found in the region's Metropolitan Transportation System
(MTS). (The MTS is those streets and roads,highways,mass transit routes,
bikeways, transfer points, airports and seaports considered essential to
regional mobility.) The shortfall is based on projections from MTC's
Pavement Management System (PMS), which is a computerized system for
analyzing pavement conditions and prescribing cost-effective maintenance
and repairs.
4. Each alternative includes fully funded projects in the 1993 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). (The TIP is primarily a spending plan for
federal funding expected to flow to the region from all sources for
transportation projects of all types; it covers a three- to seven-year period.)
5. Each alternative reflects geographic equity in transportation funding,
based primarily on population.
6. Federal Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)—measures to reduce
vehicle trips, congestion and idling—required to meet federal air quality
standards are addressed in all alternatives. Beyond this,TCMs to meet
state clean air standards are included in varying degrees, depending upon
the alternative.
-3-
Policy Choices Assumed in the "Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS)
Maintenance and Operations Management" Alternative (Track 1B)
1. Maximizes performance of the existing transportation system for
passengers and freight.
2. Considers projects that restructure transit systems to increase short-or
long-range operating efficiencies (e.g.,electric trolley-buses in place of
existing diesel bus services along heavily traveled corridors).
• 3. Implements the Traffic Operations System (TOS) on 500 miles of roadway
(TOS includes new technologies to ease traffic on highways, such as closed-
circuit television cameras, changeable mesage signs,highway advisory
radio, detectors embedded in pavement to monitor traffic flows);
TransLink (the region's prototype for a universal ticket valid on all transit
modes, from BART to buses to ferries,now being tested by BART and
Central Contra Costa Transit Agency) and ramp metering (use of a traffic
signal on an entrance ramp to a freeway in order to regulate vehicles
entering the freeway, thereby increasing its efficiency).
4. Includes.additional high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes only where they
significantly improve highway operations.
5. Includes a heavy emphasis on traffic signals, bike lanes or other operations
categories or programs.
6. Includes projects to improve the movement of freight on the region's
Metropolitan Transportation System, those routes considered essential to
regional mobility.
7. Emphasizes low-cost,cost-effective strategies and projects.
8. Places a higher priority on eliminating some of the funding shortfalls for
maintenance of local streets and roads that are not part of the Metropolitan
Transportation System. In most counties, though, the funding shortfall is
still not fully funded. (Only 13 percent of local streets and roads are
included in the Metropolitan Transportation System.)
9. Assumes that after 1996,federal Surface Transportation Program (STP)
funds can be spent on transit operating costs as well as on capital projects.
[The existing legislation that spells out the federal government's role in
funding transportation and defines the funding programs—the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Assistance Act(ISTEA)—will expire in
1996. This is the next opportunity to make any changes to the legislation in
order to allow more flexibility in how STP funds can be spent; under
current rules, STP monies can not be used for transit operating costs.]
-5-
Key Policy Choices in the
Draft 1994 Regional Transportation Plan
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is taking a two-tiered approach to
developing the Draft 1994 Regional Transportation Plan. Track 1 is financially
constrained,or limited to programs or projects that can be funded with revenues
anticipated to come to the region over the next 20 years. Track 2 is intended to provide
an opportunity for looking beyond the funding constraints to chart a more visionary
future for Bay Area transportation. Any improvements contained in Track 2 must come
from new funding sources.
Specific projects to be included in either track of the final RTP will depend partly on the
following key policy choices that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission must
consider.
1. Addressing Funding Shortfalls for Different Transportation Needs
Background
The costs to both sustain and improve the present system of transit,highways, streets
and roads exceed projected local, state,and federal funds and passenger fares over
the next 20 years. This situation results in funding shortfalls or deficits for providing
or improving transportation services. The major shortfalls to address include the
follotiring:
• Bus and rail car rehabilitation and replacement for different transit systems
• Operating existing transit systems
•Maintaining major streets and roads which provide for regional mobility
•Maintaining other major streets and roads which provide for local mobility
• Strengthening seven major bridges crossing the Bay and Delta to better withstand
earthquake damage
• CalTrain extension to downtown San Francisco
• BART extension to Warm Springs (or another Fremont-South Bay transit connection)
•Fully funding transit services for disabled persons (as required in federal Americans With
Disabilities Act)
•Fully funding priorities from county sales tax programs and other local plans
The RTP is the arena for deciding how to address these competing shortfalls with
limited financial resources over the next 20 years. Some of the key tradeoffs between
funding different shortfalls are illustrated in the differences between two RTP
alternatives:
The Prior Commitments alternative, which includes local and regional priorities for
system expansion and other improvements, along with a basic level of maintenance;
—7— KM:POLICY CHOICES/August Z 1993
more difficult and costly. An alternative way to address some transportation
problems is to improve the way we use the existing system through various types of
operational improvements.
Examples of operational improvements include developing a common TransLink
ticket for boarding different transit systems, numerous signal timing improvements
on streets throughout the region, and completing the Traffic Operations System to
provide more current information to travelers on highway traffic conditions and help
clear stalled vehicles from highways more quickly.
The Prior Commitments and Maintenance and Operations alternatives compare an
emphasis on expanding the transportation system versus an emphasis on operating
the existing system more efficiently through operational improvements.
Policy Choice
a. Should the Commission give priority to operational improvements for the existing
system over expanding the system?
4. Land-Use/Transportation Coordination Emphasis
Background
Substantial growth in many parts.of the Bay Area over the past two decades has
placed significant demands on the region's transportation system. The volume and
pattern of development has led to extensive suburban development, characterized by
�,"�pmp►`:lA_r�, onrinnt +rave-1 and hio 13, congested road conditions. FvturP growth
promises only to increase travel in the region and exacerbate congestion.
The Transportation/Land-Use Coordination alternative presents a more deliberate
approach to linking a range of different transit, arterial street,and highway
improvements with land-use development. The basis of this alternative is an attempt
to use transportation investments to support city-centered,in-fill development as
opposed to existing dei 2lopment patterns.
Policy Choices
a. Should the Commission give priority to transportation investments which serve
city-centered and other densely developed areas?
b. Should the Commission require subregional growth management plans before
investing in major expansion of the transportation system?
c. Should the Commission make more of an effort to ensure that there are sufficiently
high land-use densities (or zoning policies)around proposed mass transit
extensions?
-9- KM:POLICY CHOICES/August 2,1943
SUMMARY OF RTP TRACK 1 INVESTMENT OPTIONS
Prior Commitments/ Maintenance& Transportation/Land
Local Plans Operations Management Use Coordination
PROJECT (Track 1A) (Track 1B) (Track 10
TRANSIT—MTC RAIL PROG.
RESOLUTION 1876
•CalTrain upgrade/downtown Assumes local funding System upgrade to be System upgrade to be
extension commitments per Res. determined by JPB determined by JPB
1876 and a fundable (joint Powers Board) (joint Powers Board)
downtown connection
*Tasman light rail extension* Fully funded* Fully funded* Fully funded*
*BART to SF Airport Has an operating & Fully funds the operating Fully funds the operating
maintenance shortfall &maintenance shortfall &maintenance shortfall
•BART to Dublin extension* Fully funded* Fully funded* _ Fully funded*
Adds third station
*BART to West Pittsburg ext.* Full),funded* Fully funded* Fully funded*
•BART to Warm Springs Funds 1-station ext. to Lower cost Fremont- 1-station extension to
extension Irvington (in Fremont) South Bay connection Irvington(in Fremont)
TRANSIT
•BART/SF Muni rail car Largely,funded** Largely funded** Largely funded**
rehabilitation** Add'1 funds provided
•Future overhaul/replacement Amount needed to be Amount needed to be Amount needed to be
needs for BART cars determined determined determined
*AC Transit capital shortfall Fully funded Fully funded Fully funded
•AC Transit operating& Partially funded Partially funded Fully funded
maintenance shortfall
Conversion of AC Transit Provides fiends for Provides funds for Funds Foothill,
diesel bus routes to electric Foothill and Telegraph Foothill and Telegraph Telegraph,Broadway,&
trolleys Ave. corridors Ave. corridors MacArthur corridors
•Conversion of AC Transit bus Included
routes to LRT along San Pablo
Ave. to Hilltop Dr/Richmond
•1-80 express bus service Included
(Solano,Contra Costa)
-SF Muni operating& Partially funded Funds more than la,but Funds more than la,but
.maintenance shortfall does not eliminate deficit does not eliminate deficit
*SF Muni trolley/LRV exp. $50 million(24 vehicles) $109 million(39 vehicles)
•CalTrain grade separations Partially funded Partially funded Partially funded
*Santa Clara County Transit op. Almost fully funded Fully funded Fully funded
&maintenance shortfall
*Santa Clara County Measure A Provides$470 million in Provides$148 million in Provides$629 million in
rail projects RTP funding for Vasona RTP funding for Vasona RTP funding for Vasona
and other extensions to extension and other extensions to
be determined be determined
*Transit operating&maint. Fully funded Fully funded Fully funded
shortfall in Sonoma County
•GGate Transit capital shortfall Partially funded Partially funded Partially funded
*Northwestern Pacific(NWP) Marin portion funded;
right-of-way funds Sonoma portion
•Capitols rail service upgrade Included Included in Solano Cty.
*Americans With Disabilities Amount needed to be Amount needed to be Amount needed to be
Act required transit services determined f determined determined
-11- Rev.7/30/93
SUMMARY OF RTP TRACK 1 INVESTMENT OPTIONS
Prior Commitments/ Maintenance & Transportation/Land
Local Plans Operations Management Use Coordination
PROJECT (Track 1A) (Track 111) (Track 10
HOV LANES
*Extend I-80 HOV lanes Included Included Included
(Alameda &Contra Costa)
•Hivy. 101 gap-closure(Marin) Included Included
•Rtes. 85,X37&Central Expwy. Included
(Santa Clara County)
•H,.vy.101 HOV lane (Sonoma) Included
*Rte.4 HOV lanes (Contra Included Included
Costa County)
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
•Implement TOS on Bay Area Provides$4 million Provides$245 million Provides$61 million
freeways (partial funding) (full funding) (partial funding)
•Signal timing on arterials Provides$95 million Provides$120 million Provides$85 million
(partial funding) (partial funding) (partial funding)
NON-MTS ROAD
MAINTENANCE
*Non-MTS road maintenance Provides$24 million Provides$592 million Provides$12 million
Total demand: $2,241 million (partial funding) ( artial funding) (partial funding)
INTERMODAL FREIGHT
*Port of Oakland yard Included Included
•I-580 truck climbing lane Included
•I-880&I-80 truck weigh-in- Included
motion stations
-SF Port project Included s
BIKES/PEDESTRIAN
•New facilities Provides$25.2 million Provides$27.2 million Provides$31.5 million
SEISMIC
•Seven state-owned Bay Area Fully funded Fully funded Fully funded
Bridges
*Golden.Gate Bridge Amount needed to be Amount needed to be Amount needed to be
determined determined determined
FEDERAL/STATE TCMs
oTransportation Control Included,need further Included,need further Included,need further
±��Ieasures (TCMs) definition for state TCMs definition for state TCMs definition for state TCMs
*Tbis project already funded—it does not need"new"RTP funding.
** This project uses BART and SF Muni internal funds,plus federal Section 3 funds.
Rev.7/30/93
-13-
'i1r✓ -
The Board of Supervisors Contra CPhkl ffthehelor Board
and
County Administration BuildingCjo Costa County Administrator
651 Pine St., Room 106 I (510)646-2371
Martinez, California 94553-1290 County
Tom Powers,1st District
Jett Smith,2nd District
Gayle Bishop,3rd District
Sunne Wright McPeak,4th District =_
Tom Torlakson,5th District J�
•yl�; _ yy OZ
c+os... ', •'cP
rq cour;`�
August 17, 1993
Ms. Susan Pultz
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4756
Dear Ms. Pultz:
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has reviewed the
Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report for
the 1994 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Update, and submits
this response for the Commission's consideration. We begin by
addressing key policy issues to be considered by the Commission
and conclude with specific concerns arising from the NOP.
RTP Policy Considerations
The Commission's community forums listed "key policy choices"
that will influence specific projects to be included in the. final
RTP. Answers to most of these policy choices cannot be provided
until the evaluation of alternative strategies is completed. The
limited resources described in the NOP require a comprehensive
reassessment of the present transportation investment strategy to
help make the inevitable tradeoffs facing the Bay Area. Existing
plans and programs shouldn't be considered as sacred cows if the
planning process determines that new proposals would provide
superior performance.
At this time, answers can be provided to three policy choices
described in the community forums, regardless of the performance
of the RTP alternatives.
The Commission should require subregional growth management plans
before investing in major expansion of the transportation system.
Growth management plans should be required not only to preserve
the congestion relief provided by major expansion to the
transportation system, but also to prevent future congestion from
developing where it presently doesn't exist.
The Commission should make more of an effort to ensure that there
are sufficiently high existing or proposed land-use densities in
the vicinity of future mass transit extensions. The performance
of existing mass transit. systems clearly demonstrates that public
' r
Ms. Pultz
August 170 1993
Page Two
subsidies for these systems are the lowest where more people are
able to live or work close to transit stops.
The Commission should seek new revenues to pay for additional
transportation improvements. The State Department of Finance
estimates that California's population will grow to 46 million by
2015, an increase of over 40 percent. The prospect of such
growth and the existing transportation needs not addressed by
Track 1 clearly indicate the need for additional revenues. The
Board of Supervisors supports investigating a combination of
revenue sources including additional gas taxes, congestion
pricing, new sales tax measures as well as local or subregional
transportation impact fees.
One policy choice not made explicit by the Commission is whether
it should require consolidation of the planning, operation or
maintenance of existing transit operators before investing in
major expansion of the transit system. Is there a need. to unify
the operation of different transit systems to serve existing and
emerging transit markets? Are there economies of scale that
could address looming shortfalls for maintaining and operating
existing transit services. Could introduction of new modes of
transit into new service areas be more effectively utilized by
restructuring the provision of transit service in the Bay Area?
The Commission should take this opportunity to develop a regional
strategy for mass transportation to ensure convenient connections
between transit modes and to operate as a unified system.
Concerns Regarding the Notice of Preparation
The NOP does not include a discrete and finite Project
description, but offers a collection of alternative Projects.
Since the NOP does not specify a preferred alternative, the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) , should examine the
environmental impact of each alternative at the same level of
detail as would be required for the Proposed Project.
MTC should provide an opportunity for the public to evaluate and
comment on the impacts of the Project if the Project is defined
after circulating the DEIR. Failure to do so does not allow for
full disclosure of the Project impacts to the public.
The NOP references a second tier of transportation projects,
"Track 211, which would extend beyond Track 1, and would be
possible only if more revenue became available. It is unclear
how the NOP proposes to evaluate Track 2 in the DEIR. Comments
cannot be made on the scope and content of the analysis of Track
2 projects without including information on Track 2 in the NOP.
. � J
Ms Pultz
August 17, 1993
Page Three
The NOP specifies actions to improve freight mobility in the
Track 1B and 1C alternatives. , The DEIR should estimate future
demand for the movement of all goods, including sea and air
cargo, required to serve the anticipated economic activity, in the
Bay Area. The ability of all alternatives to accommodate this
demand should be assessed, which may require consideration of
intermodal facilities not specified in the NOP. The DEIR should
also consider the ability of pipelines to accommodate the
movement of goods.
The DEIR should evaluate future transportation demand at the
gateways into the nine-county Bay Area (e.g. State Route 160 at
the Sacramento County line, State Route 4 and I-580 at the San
Joaquin County line, etc. ) , the ability of the proposed actions
to accommodate this demand, and their environmental impacts.
Future demand at these gateways should consider the growth in
commuter and non-commuter trips to or from neighboring counties.
Previous travel demand efforts have not adequately considered the
ability of the Bay Area and neighboring counties to accommodate
the labor supply required to satisfy the job growth for each
region and the interregional travel patterns that would occur
from this growth.
The DEIR should evaluate the impacts of alternative actions
proposed to state highways upstream and downstream from the
proposed action. This is particularly important where sections
of highway cannot be expanded any further and could become
significantly overloaded if other freeway bottlenecks are
relieved.
The DEIR should discuss any inconsistencies between the level of
growth assumed to occur during the 20-year plan and adopted
General Plans. This is particularly important if the DEIR
assumes growth based on forecasts prepared by the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) . In some cases the ABAG forecasts
assume growth will occur in areas that are not proposed for
development in local general plans.
The DEIR should include construction .of the Midstate Tollway in
the assessment of cumulative impacts. The facility is authorized
by state law, Caltrans has executed a franchise agreement setting
the conditions for implementation, and the project sponsor is
negotiating with interested parties on development of the
project. These facts support consideration of the Midstate
Tollway as a reasonably anticipated future project.
The DEIR should evaluate future growth in air passenger traffic
and the ability of commercial airports in the Bay Area to
accommodate this growth.
w
J
Ms. Pulte
August 17, 1993
Page Four
The NOP does not include any actions regarding the development of
high speed ground transportation. Previous efforts by the State
(AB-971 Study) have identified potential corridors for high-speed
rail such as the Sacramento-Bay Area Corridor and the Bay Area-
Los Angeles Corridor. Would the DEIR include development of
these corridors for high-speed ground transportation as a Track 1
project (using funds available to the CTC) , a Track 2 project, or
part of the analysis of cumulative impacts?
The Board of Supervisors looks forward to working with the
Commission as one of its partners in developing the 1994 Regional
Transportation Plan Update. Please keep us informed as work on
this update and the DEIR progresses.
Sincerely yours,
Tom Torlakson, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
cc: Commissioner Sharon Brown
Chair Darryl Tucker, CCTA
I
I