HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09191995 - D5 D.5.
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
�•.s....t....°
FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Contra--
n��: `� Costa
DATE: September 18, 1995 J� County
v
SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE CCTA'S 1995 STRATEGIC PLAN, 1995 CONGESTION
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, AND THEIR POLICY FOR ALLOCATING VEHICLE
TRIP/EMISSION REDUCTION FUNDS.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . Accept report;
2. Request that the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) initiate development of
a financial plan for upgrading State Route 4 West and State Route 4 East as described in the
Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and include an evaluation of all available
funding sources; and
3. Oppose allocation of vehicle trip reduction/vehicle emission reduction funds by the CCTA on
a predetermined formula basis to the Regional Committees and to support a more competitive
process for allocating these funds.
FISCAL IMPACT
None directly. These activities, when completed, may affect the County's ability to compete for
funds for transportation projects and programs.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) is working on various projects of significance
to the County which include the 1995 update of the Strategic Plan, the 1995 update of the
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
X RECOMMENDATIOW"ARD TEEAPPROVEOTHERSIGNATURE(S): Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD ON September 19, 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER __X�L
1. The Board approved the recommendations set forth above by the following vote:
As to 'recommendations 1 and :2; : the vote was unanimous with all five Board members
voting aye.
As to recommendation Number 3, the vote was approved by a 4-1 vote. The vote was
as follows: Ayes: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier, and Torlakson
Noes: Supervisor Bishop.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
_ UNANIMOU TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOE ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSE ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact Person, Steven Goetz, 646-2134 ATTESTED September 19, 1995
Orig: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Btm
, DEPUTY
Status Report on CCTA Issues
September 18, 1995
Page Two
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
Congestion Management Program, and allocation procedures for vehicle trip/emission reduction funds.
The Transportation Committee approved distribution of this report to the Board of Supervisors to keep
Board members informed of these activities.
1995 Update of Strategic Plan
In June 1994, the Authority endorsed a policy for the 1995 update of the Strategic Plan that restricts
additional funding only to completion of already-committed projects, consistent with their previously
approved scopes. The only exception to this policy is the State Route 4 West project, which has a
revised scope that includes construction of an interim safety project to provide four travel lanes
between Cummings Skyway and 1-80. Approximately $47 million in additional Measure C revenue ($26
million in 1988 dollars) will be available for these purposes. Authority staff has identified funding
requests which include $10 million for already-committed projects and $16 million for State Route 4
West. During the next several months, the Authority will decide how to allocate this revenue to meet
existing commitments and to implement a State Route 4 West project.
SR 4 West: The project sponsor is requesting approximately $19 million (1988 $s), which includes
about $16 million more than was programmed in the previous Strategic Plan. If sufficient funds were
available, the ongoing EIR/EIS process could clear an interim project for construction no later than
1999. However, a financial plan has not been prepared for the interim project to determine how the
available Measure C funds could be used to meet a 1999 construction date and what tradeoffs might
be needed with already-committed projects to complete an interim project within the next seven years.
SR 4 East: Authority staff recommends the spending cap for SR 4 East remain at 90% instead of 80%
to allow project development work to proceed for the Bailey to Railroad widening, an EIR/EIS is
underway. Other options are to use Commuterway and Rail Extension funds to continue this work,
which may eventually be necessary anyway to complete the HOV lanes and BART median on this
section. No financial plan has been prepared to determine the cash flow requirements to complete this
project and the funding options.
Pleasant Hill BART Access Improvements: This project has been programmed in the Strategic Plan
since 1991 under the 1-680 Corridor category. Although funds have been allocated to Pleasant Hill to
proceed with project design and environmental review, no funds have been expended. You may be
aware that County staff is seeking authorization from the Board of Supervisors to proceed with a study,
using County funds, to work with affected parties to define a project for construction. Authority staff
is raising the issue of whether funding for this project should be maintained. The current cash flow
schedule programs $3.7 million for construction in FY 2003. Removal of this project would free-up
funds for another project in FY 2003. Other projects requesting additional funds in FY 2003 are SR
4 West and the Gateway/Lamorinda Program.
County Projects: Projects sponsored by the County include the 1-680/Stone Valley Road interchange
modification and the Crow Canyon Road truck climbing lane at the Alameda County line. The 1-
680/Stone Valley Road project is programmed for completion in 1997. The Crow Canyon Road project
is scheduled to receive funds for project development in 2003. Advancing the Crow Canyon project
is particularly complex since it is linked with a similar improvement in Alameda County which has no
funds available to contribute.
Commuterway Funding Category: The Strategic Plan eligibility requirements for the Commuterway
funding category are defined as bus/van commute lanes connecting eastern, central and southern
Contra Costa including planned widening on SR 4, SR 242 and 1-680, right-of-way preservation on
these corridors and park and ride lots. Two major projects seeking funds from this category pose
significant programming issues, the SR 242 widening project and the Martinez Intermodal Facility
project. If ongoing traffic operational studies recommend that the additional lanes on the SR 242
widening be mixed flow rather than HOV, is it appropriate to continue programming the project with
Commuterway funds or should funding be assigned to the 1-680 category? For the Martinez Intermodal
Facility, are the pending requests for additional funds eligible for Commuterway funds and should they
be granted without a financial plan to complete the project? The expenditure of Commuterway funds
for these projects will affect how much revenue could be available to support HOV use on SR 4 East.
Status Report on CCTA Issues
September 18, 1995
Page Three
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
1995 Update of the Congestion Management Program
State law requires each county to prepare a Congestion Management Program (CMP) that identifies all
significant projects and programs to be constructed in the next seven years. These projects must
improve the performance of the CMP network which includes all state highways and locally-designated
1 "principal arterials" (see Exhibit A). The law requires that the CMP be updated every two years. In
July, the Authority circulated a draft of the 1995 Update of the CMP for comment. Two comments
are brought to your attention here, one from MTC and the other from TRANSPAC.
The MTC comment requested removal of the first phase of the State Route 4 Bypass from the CMP to
ensure consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan. In 1994, the Authority specifically requested
that the SR 4 Bypass be included in the Regional Transportation Plan. MTC declined to do this since
no funds have been identified for the project. This funding issue was addressed with establishment
of a regional traffic mitigation fee program by jurisdictions in eastern Contra Costa. The fee program
allocates $75 million for the SR 4 Bypass. County staff has discussed MTC's comment with Authority
staff. Although the Authority staff report on the CMP has not been released, it is our understanding
that the Authority staff will be recommending that a request be made to include an initial phase of the
SR 4 Bypass to be funded by developer fees in the Regional Transportation Plan.
The TRANSPAC comment requests that the Authority examine the issue of giving first priority for state
and federal funding to projects which are located on the designated CMP network. This issue was
discussed when the CMP was initially prepared in 1991 . The Authority at that time included a polity
which states "grant special priority for State or federal funding to CMP network or related projects."
The problem with the priority requested by TRANSPAC is that it bases funding decisions primarily on
where are project is located, not on project need, project effectiveness, and the ability to leverage other
sources of funding. The present CMP policy recognizes the other factors important to funding decisions
as well as the fact that constructing projects off the designated network can be very effective in
relieving congestion on the CMP network. The Authority staff position on this comment is not known
yet.
Allocation Policy for Vehicle Trip/Emission Reduction Programs
On September 20, the Authority will consider a draft policy for allocating Vehicle Trip Reduction/Vehicle
Emission Reduction funds in Contra Costa. These funds consist of $400,000 in Measure C
Carpool/Vanpool/Park and Ride program, and $1 .1 million in the AB 434 program which the Authority
allocates annually. The recommended policy would annually allocate these funds ($1 .5 million) by
formula to each Regional Committee and lets them decide how to spend it. The Authority provides
guidelines on what is an eligible project.
County staff is concerned that draft policy entitles the Regional Committees to these funds regardless
of how effectively they are used. A more appropriate procedure would be to establish bid targets rather
than a predetermined division of funds. The bid target would give the Authority some discretion is
allocating funds among regions based on merit. The targets would give Regional Committees an
incentive to compete for a greater share of the money if they have used past funds effectively or were
able to develop a better program than would otherwise occur with a predetermined allocation.
An appropriate action by the Authority would be to refer this draft policy to the Technical Coordinating
Committee and its TDM Subcommittee.
• EXHIBIT A
.. 10AQViN COUNTY
222 Cn
C,Z
sm
zQcl
Ll
:
a
� o
U
` _,..
......... t C
Z 10 U
w�;n��r•a 1\6 cl
•1w
® ...a O a 1 U
1
`1
`: t1 vve 1
1
1
.......
r
c
p. p Sppe
Nov
P
fin~.
6
p.
y,
X %
� L
00
No
bo= s
su
' ��.. aye " �• tG,�:'p.., y � N
Gf iC W
Y'.✓' 1' °'ti' w I y T 3
r ,a•� � as
•:• r' / CL
um > V c
o
Now
( • ! N
I r
,
t v�
... :::..:.... .. ..
13
`a
6 4.
ea
u
O
t
a
3
a....,..:::
a�
'= z
a
�I�j
•n,:.:,..::•..:...:::::a:c:s.:o::....:....::..:.::........:..s:5. ..... .. ':::1'::: ##i iiiiiii:«:>:y3's3 r3:!3!;3r:#33i3>:
Is
,:o:Js:•srl w,;•.s:,:4.: �sssssss s:sss::?>::,
... ...n...... :.......::......:. .. ;... .: :.
�sss:onsss s
fi,..v.x..o:::: :::.::.::...... ............�.....,.n.....ass.o: ...........:,.......... ... ....:::;:sssss::::. ........ _.«..
..,
........:.::.�aa. . ...:.�....:.:.
o•.ss:a:....ss:::. ,..:.s:...,.,,.:::5+.,.:.,.:.,.......:..:::........::5.•.*�.�s::•^.:::::::....:.:....:. is .. .. cd �.
U
3
b t
.............
)YQ,53
y
A
F
•.:::::.:.;..::::.Ca><is;;'#:#::"::>:?;::##::i:#it:::": �:. :5,:55:?':;';:>:::>::?:::� ..::.:::::::.�:.:�.;:.;:.;:.;:.:�::. .;:.::5•>::.::5.:
....::..::::. ..::.:.:5.,.:55>.55.r::;5a:;.:5.:;;., .:.;:::.;::.;:.;#.,.#,•#;::•.,... .,. ..:................,..... .::.;;::5,:.:::.,:.:::,::4!:::::::.:::::.:n:.:.::.... .... .....................:...
.... :.::. .. .
w
Q Q e
...,.,...,...::::n<::•„+.:�,.;..k.:,s:nv:::a.::...:..::.:..n..,..:,.:.a^,..,.nn n•..mi:.:.:::: ........ ................ .................,. ..d::i;::?ii':::::?#:#::#`:.'
to
ZH
o4 a in w w:.
W
a!3:i
>+
W
:•s'?`:
33ia.
; 'asi!;SYii'.':
55550:55•:::;:?;;;5•;:: W
NNowr ± No No NoNoar ■rNr ■rwwwww
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND/OR COPIES OF RECORDS
W//� OF THE CLERK OF THE BOARD
Name +C� Date
Address
City 2 State Zip
Telephone No. J""'
Seeking Review of:
Requests for copies. Requests for copies will be accommodated in accordance
with workload priorities and the availability of staff. Charges for copies:
50 cents per page; $i.00 for certifying documents.
I request copies of the following (List below the Board agenda
date, the agenda item number, and the subject matter pertinent to
.the documents you desire copies of) :
• (Signature)