HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08121997 - D5 D. 5
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
DATE : August 12, 1997 MATTER OF RECORD
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Report on the Contra Costa Economic Partnership' s
Transportation White Paper, Moving Contra Costa ' s
Economy into the 21st Century.
Supervisor Gerber presented the Transportation Committee
Report on the consideration of the Contra Costa Economic
Partnership ' s Transportation White Paper, Moving Contra Costa' s
Economy Into the 21st Century.
The following persons presented testimony:
Mike Daley, 729 Everett, El Cerrito, Sierra Club Bay Chapter
Transportation Sub-Committee;
Miriam Hawley, 1725 Hopkin Street, Berkeley, AC Transit;
Matt Williams, 1600 Franklin, Oakland, AC Transit;
Jim Gleich, AC Transit;
Tom Mooers, 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, #250, Walnut Creek,
Greenbelt Alliance;
William Cottrell, 2372 Walnut Boulevard, Walnut Creek;
Bud Lake, Contra Costa Council;
Supervisor Gerber suggested possible modifications for
approval by the Board of Supervisors .
The Board discussed the matter and there was no second to
the motion for approval by Supervisor Gerber; therefore, no
action was taken on the matter.
THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY
NO BOARD ACTION TAKEN
Ds'
_ = Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Costa
FROM: Transportation Committee v� County
DATE: July 21, 1997
SUBJECT: Report on the Contra Costa Economic Partnership's Transportation
White Paper, Moving Contra Costa's Economy into the 21st Century
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) AUTHORIZE, the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign the
attached letter to the Contra Costa Economic_ Partnership
regarding their transportation white paper, Moving Contra
Costa's Economy into the 21st Century (see Exhibit A) ; and
2) CONSIDER, whether to include a comment in the letter to the
Contra Costa Economic Partnership indicating that the Board
of Supervisors does not favor consideration of toll roads
and high occupancy toll lanes as possible mechanisms for
funding transportation infrastructure (see Exhibit B) .
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE
OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) : Donna G er 411,
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED
Contact Person: Steven Goetz, 335-1240 PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
cc: Public Works, TE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY ,
DEPUTY
SLG:ccep.bo
Report on Contra Costa Economic Partnership's Transportation White Paper
July 21, 1997
Page Two
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
On June 3 , 1997 , the Board of Supervisors referred to the Transportation
Committee, the Contra Costa Economic Partnership's Transportation White
Paper, Moving Contra Costa's Economy into the 21st Century. A draft letter
that reflects the Committee's comments on the white paper is attached (see
Exhibit A) .
The Transportation Committee could not agree on a proposal to include a
comment in the letter indicating that the Board of Supervisors did not favor
the use of toll roads or high-occupancy toll lanes (HOT lanes) as possible
mechanisms for funding transportation infrastructure. A comment to that
effect is attached to this Transportation Committee report (see Exhibit B) .
The Board of Supervisors can decide if such a comment should be included in
the letter to the Contra Costa Economic Partnership.
A copy of the white paper is included as well (see Exhibit C) .
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A: Draft comment letter to CCEP.
Exhibit B: Optional comment on tolls/HOT lanes.
Exhibit C: Moving Contra Costa's Economy into the 21st Century
L DRAFT
EXHIBIT A
August 5, 1997
Alex Mehran, Chair
Contra Costa Economic Partnership
1001 Galaxy Way , Ste. 102
Concord, CA 94520
Dear Alex Mehran,
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors was pleased to
receive the Contra Costa Economic Partnership' s (CCEP)
Transportation White Paper, Moving Contra Costa ' s Economy into
the 21st Century, which was distributed at the Contra Costa
Council ' s transportation forum of May 9, 1997 . The Board has
reviewed this paper and offers the following comments for the
CCEP's consideration.
The white paper provides an excellent inventory of regionally
significant highway needs. This inventory will help initiate
discussion with others on a broader range of other regionally
significant transportation needs such as transit and road
maintenance.
The Board of Supervisors agrees that the 1998 update of the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) provides a significant
opportunity to capture state funds for Contra Costa projects.
Recently, the Board reaffirmed its prior commitment to seek funds
to complete improvements for the State Route 4 corridor. The
Board identified five candidate projects on State Route 4 for the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) to consider in
establishing its funding priorities for the 1998 STIP. We urged
the CCTA to use criteria for developing funding priorities that
incorporate many of the principles described in the white paper.
The search of funding sources and strategies for public
infrastructure improvements such as highways has become much more
difficult since the Proposition 13 mandate. Prior to that time,
property taxes were a significant source of funds for county
highways, with the tax burden shared by residential and business
property owners. Now the property tax burden has shifted to the
homeowner, due to the difference between residential and business
property turnover rates, and no revenues are allocated to county
highways. Most new financing mechanisms continue to shift the
burden for public infrastructure largely on the back of
homeowners and residents. The search for new funding sources
should include mechanisms that have the business community resume
paying its fair share of public infrastructure improvements.
[INSERT EXHIBIT B HERE IF APPROVED BY THE BOARD]
The Board of Supervisors believes that implementing sound land
use planning is just as important to addressing our
transportation needs as is the search for additional
transportation funding. Sound land use planning can improve the
proximity of jobs and housing and transportation facilities,
reducing the number and extent of commute trips by automobile.
We hope that the future efforts of the CCEP will examine how land
use planning decisions can help address our transportation needs.
We commend the CCEP on their efforts thus far and appreciate the
assistance it provides to local jurisdictions in addressing
countywide transportation issues.
Sincerely,
Mark DeSaulnier, Chair
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
CC: Contra Costa Transportation Authority
EXHIBIT B
The CCEP's white paper refers to toll roads and high-occupancy
toll lanes (HOT lanes) , as possible mechanisms to fund
transportation infrastructure. The Board of Supervisors does not
favor these mechanisms. If high-occupancy vehicle lanes are
justified to the public based upon reducing single-occupancy auto
trips - it isn't good public policy to allow single-occupancy
auto use at any price. The Board of Supervisors also believes
that toll roads may be impractical in Contra Costa due to the
legal requirement to provide a "free" alternative (thus two roads
in the same corridor) and we challenge their appropriateness
given the shift in the tax burden stated above.
LXtIIBIT.C
Contra Costa Eoonomio Partnership
Transportation White Paper
Moving
Contra Costa's Economy
Into the
21 at Century
Prepared for
Contra Costa Economic Partnership
l A O
� J
by o ,
William R Gray& Company
In cooperation with Zell &Associates
April 9, 1997
Table of Contents
Introduction ............ ...... ............................................. 1
Funding Transportation Improvements .. ..................... ................ .. 5
Contra Costa's Transportation System ....................... ................ . 11
East County . . . . ........ ....... ........ . ...... ...... ..... ...... . .......... 13
Funded Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Unfunded Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
West County . .. . .. . ... .. . . . .. .. . . . .. .. . . . .. ... .. ...... ...... .. ..... . . . . . . 17
Funded Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Unfunded Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
CentralCounty . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . .. 21
_ Funded Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Unfunded Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Summary of Future Needs and Recommended Strategies . . .. . . . .. .... . . . .. .. . . . . . . 25
Introduction
The Contra Costa Economic Partnership,formed in 1996,is a coalition of business,government
and education leaders in Contra Costa County with the Mission ofRetaining and Gnarling
Quality Jobs far Contra Costa to Maintain the Cowry's Quality of Life. The Partnership has set
the following goals:
• Realign the Permitting Process to be"Customer Driven;"
• Retain Basic Industries with Ffiigh Wage Jobs;
• Expand and Attract Emerging lfigh-Tech Industries;
• Link Education and Training to the Skills Needed;and
• Improve Countywide Transportation by Developing Priorities for Projects of Regional
Significance.
It is as a result of this last objective that the Partnerships's Transportation Compact Steering
Committee commissioned William R. Gray and Company to develop this transportation white
paper. It is the intent that information in this report be used in advocacy efforts by other public
policy groups such as the Contra Costa Council. The Contra Costa Economic Partnership,in
collaboration with the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority,the Bay Arta Council and
the Mevopolitan Transportation Commission hopes to reach agreement on a priority list of
projects of regional significance in order to take advantage of potentially available state and
federal transportation funds.
At the Partnership's October 31, 1996 Economic Vitality Summit,the over 200 community
leaders from business,govonrnent and education in attendance identified the top three priorities
for the Contra Costa Economic Partnership as Jobs,Education and T=Tortation. The
attendees also indicated that the most important economic development issue for Contra Costa is
more collaboration on important issues"such as transportation.
As indicated above,one of the goals of the Economic Partnership is to"improve Countywide
transportation"by developing priorities for services and securing funding through existing and
new sources. Three specific transportation objectives were identified in the Partnership's first
year action plan:
oeEP-Moms cmrn Cmu's Em•amy tto the 21•C.mmy nye 1
1. Prioritize projects relative to their economic impact on jobs, secure public input, and
propose actions by relevant transportation agencies and business organizations.
2. Identify funding sources and strategies for implementing regional tiaasportation solutions.
Evaluate extending the Measure C sales tax.
3. Reduce regulatory delay;encourage reform to reduce project costs. Explore partnerships
with public policy organizations such as the Bay Area Council,the Transportation Users
Group,the Tri-Valley Business Council and the Contra Costa Council.
The movement of people,goods and services in and around the greater San Francisco Bay Area
and Contra Costa County is facUitated by a system of highways and freeways,major arterial
streets,buses and rail(BART and Caltrain)as well as ferries and airports(both international and
local). The economies of the Bay Area Counties are interdependent. The Area's highway and
transit systems link housing,job and comm=W centers wound the Bay and to the rest of the
region. For example,affordable housing needed to support rapidly expanding job opportunities in
the Silicon Valley are provided by Contra Costa and other Bay Area counties. Eastern Contra
Costa provides one of the greatest opportunities for affordable housing within the greater San
Francisco Bay Area.
With strong local leadership and aggressive public-private partnerships,Contra Costa has enjoyed
considerable success in attracting significant stat&gWeral funds for high priority transportation
projects. BART extensions into westem and central Contra Costa,the Knox Freeway(Interstate
580),the 680/24 interchange in Walnut Creek,and Hugh Occupancy Vehicle(HOV)lanes on
Interstates 80 and 680 are all examples of projects where funding has been obtained through the
efforts of a strong local public-private partnership.
While significant local, state and federal transportation funds have historically been available to
improve the Bay Area's transportation system,increasing congestion on local streets and roads,
increased demand for transit services and diminishing federal and state revenues led to a number
of"self-help"initiatives, authorizing additional local sales taxes,throughout the San Francisco
Bay Area,including Contra Costa County. These local transportation sales taxes have helped to
finance a number of significant improvements to the region's transportation system.
Funds from Contra Costa's local transportation sales tax(Measure C),as well as other local
sources, have been used to supplement more traditional state and federal funds to complete
important local projects such as the Richmond Parkway,Route 4 over the Willow Pass Grade and
the extension of BART into east county. Still more funds are needed for important economic
development enhancing projects such as Route 4 in east and west county,Interstate 680 in central
county and the critically important east county corridor and connections to Alameda and San
Joaquin Counties.
The primary purpose of this report is to identify improvements Deeded to Contra Costa's portion
of the Bay Area's regional transportation system and to Quantify the scope, limits and cost of the
various projects. This report is intended as the first step in a cooperative public-private effort to
1)prioritize regionally significant local transportation projects and 2)secure additional state,
CCU-Momg cash co u'e Eamaay into*e 21'C nary PW 2
federal and local funding for improvements to Comm Costa's transportation system. Through
this and follow-up reports,priorities will be suggested and opportunities to secure additional
funding identified and evaluated. Most significantly, opportunities to extend Contra Costa's local
transportation:ales tax,Measure C,will be evaluated.
OCEP•Moving Cams Cate's Ecommy ao*e 21'Camay PW 3
CCEP•lrohot CDam Cau•.EamOIDy eto 912 1•C+mary
PW 4
2
Irnnding Transportation
Improvements
Improvements to Coate Costa's regional transportation system have historically been funded
through a combination of traditional sources-state and federal gas taxes and(for the toll bridges
and their approaches)toll revenues. More recently,developer fees,a local transportation sales
tax(Measure C),land secured assessments and other local sources have supplemented funding
from more traditional sources.
Contra Costa,through cooperative public-private partnerships,has a long history of success in
smacdng state and federal funds for completion of priority local transportation projects.
Examples of projects funded over the last twenty to twenty-five years through these partnership
efforts include the Concord and Richmond BART lines,the Knox Freeway in Richmond
(interstate 580),the 680/24 interchange in Walnut Creek,the proposed new Benicia-Martinez and
Carquinez bridges(Regional Measure 1),the widening of Interstate 680 through central County
and High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes on Interstate 80 in west county. To a great degree,the
County's success has been achieved through strong business and political leadership,consensus
and the ability to focus on one or two"regionally significant"projects at a time.
Beginning in the late-1970'x,the ad hoc`public-private"partnership that had been so successful in
attracting state and federal funds for important local projects began to recognize that traditional
funding for large scale projects was diminishing. Local governments began working with the
development community to establish impact fee programs. Property owners,recognizing the
benefit of improved transportation infrastructure,agreed to advance funding for a member of
important projects through direct contributions and/or various land secured financing mechanisms .
such as Assessment Districts. Examples of projects completed through developer contributions
and/or fee programs include infirastructure around the Pleasant Hill BART Station,an interchange
on Interstate 680(Bollinger Canyon Road)and major arterial improvements in Antioch, San
Ramon,Danville,Richmond,Concord and other incorporated and unincorporated areas
throughout Contra Costa county.
Recognizing that significant new funds would be needed to address some of the more significant
owaportation needs,the ad hoc partnership in 1986 began to evaluate the possibility of a local
transportation sales tax in Contra Costa County. Proposals were submitted to the voters in 1986
oCEP•Aivvkg Calve CMA's Eamamy iso at 2I•cssary ?w 5
and again in 1988 along with an Expenditure Plan of priority local projects"of regional
significance"and a promise that the local funds would be used to leverage additional state and
federal funds for improvements to the County's transportation system. Major projects included
on the Expenditure Plan included Route 4 (west and east),the Richmond Parkway and the
extension of BART to east county. The second proposal,Measure C,was approved by the voters
in the fall of 1988 and has provided significant funding for much needed improvements to the
County's transportation system.
While past efforts have been successful, still more funding is needed to complete critical elements
of Contra Costa County's regional transportation system such as Route 4 in both west and east
county. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority(CCTA),which administers the Measure C
program,has been working in partnership with the local private sector interests to identify
additional funding, beyond that available from traditional state/federal sources and Measure C, for
high priority local projects. One of these partnerships led to the formation of the East County
Regional Fee and Financing Authority(ECCRFFA). This joint exercise of powers agency,which
includes the cities of Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood as well as the County of Contra Costa,
collects fees from new residential and commercial development in east county to improve the sub-
regional highway system.
CCTA has been working with the County and incorporated cities in central and west county to
establish similar programs in those areas. The West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory
Committee(WCCTAC)has retained a consultant and is working to establish a Sub-regional
Transportation Mitigation Program(STMP)to raise funds for improvements to Route 4 and other
priority local projects. Similar efforts are underway in the tri-valley area and a South County
(Danville, San Ramon and the County)Fee Program is in place.
Even with past success in attracting state and federal transportation funds for important local
projects,the passage of a local transportation sales tax(Measure C)and ongoing efforts to
establish developer fee programs, still more funding is needed to maintain Contra Costa as a
leader in the Bay Area's competitive economic development market. Funding from traditional
state and federal sources in past years has been very limited and available local revenues have not
been sufficient to fund all of the needed improvements to the County's transportation system. An
extended downturn in California's economy resulted in less than expected sales tax revenues.
While groups such as the Economic Partnership,the Bay Area Council and the Contra Costa
Council, in cooperation with CCTA and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC),
have been evaluating potential alternative sources such as variable bridge tolls,toll roads and/or a
regional gas tax to finance transportation improvements in the Bay Area,none of these efforts
have been successfal to date. While public and private interests throughout the state recognize
that transportation is a critical statewide issue,the legislature has been unable to reach consensus
on new funding programs.
State and Federal transportation funds in California are programmed by the California
Transportation Commission(CTC)through the biennial State Transportation Improvement
Program(STIP). The CTC is required to allocate funds based upon statutory north-south split
CCEP-%damg Caron Cou's F.am m alo me 21*Cawvy PW 6
requirements' as well as statutory county minimum'requirements. Because of past aucoesses in
attracting state and federal monies,Conte Costa has been a"surplus county"for years and
effectively precluded from competing for new state and federal fmds. Because the federal
program had been focused on completion of the Interstate system,most available state and federal
fiends have been focused on completion of improvements to the Interstate Highway System. As a
result, significant fiords became available and were programmed for improvements to Interstates
80, 580 and 680 in Contra Costa. Over the past twenty years or so,very little has been available
for improvements to Contra Costa's non-hnerstate system highways such as Routes 4,24, 84,
160,239 and 242.
This situation has now changed. As a result of a high cash balance in the state highway account,
the passage of Proposition 192 in the fall of 1994,two years of"nevi'revenues and other factors,
the 1998 STIP promises to be one of the largest ever with new programming capacity in excess of
53.5 billion'. The 1994 and 1996 STIP's allocated significant fiords to projects in southern
California. As a result of statutory north-south split requirements,northern California projects
will have an advantage in the early years of the new STIP,partiaAlarly those that can be
"delivered"in the early years of the seven year program`.
Because county minimum requirements"zero out"every four years(quadremium), Contra
Costa's"surplus"status effectively expired with approval of the 1996 STIP. Contra Costa did
not receive it's county minimum in the 1996 STIP and is now considered a"deficit"county.
CTC policy requires deficits be`carried forward"and made up before programing funds for
projects in other counties.
As of December, 1996, Contra Costa's deficit was estimated to be in the range of S30 to S32
million. A review of the overall funding situation by the Transportation Task Force of the Contra
Costa Council found that Contra Costa's share(county minimum)of new state and federal
highway funds in the 1998 STIP(currently scheduled for adoption in December of 1997)could be
in the range of S90 to 5100 million. The CTC typically allows counties to propose(or bid)
projects totaling as much as 1 SOOK or more of their statutory minimum. As a result,Contra Costa
may be able to bid for as much as S 140 to$1 SO million in new projects in the 1998 STIP.
' The CTC must allocate sixty pert(60%)of available state and federal transportation
dollars to ten southern California counties.
' To provide equity in the allocation of highway funs in California,the statutes require
the CTC to allocate available state and federal transportation funds to counties on a formula basis
over four year quadrennium's.
' Californians for Better Transportation(CBT),November 8, 1996 Legislative Update.
' Personal conversation,Pete Hathaway,Deputy Director,California Transportation
Commission.
CCEF•Movkg Comm Comu's Eamamy im ew 21•Gory PW 7
In addition to additional state and federal funds through the STIP process,the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority is likely to make as much as$35 to$45 million in new Measure C funds
available for important local projects with a proposed update to their Strategic Plant. The new
money available through the STIP and the ability to program additional Measure C funds provides
an opportunity to fiord for a number of important local projects.
In the early years of the Measure C program,the Contra Costa Transportation Authority(CCTA)
sold bonds to advance completion of priority local projects such as Route 4 over the Willow Pass
Grade,the Richmond Parkway and BART to east county and used Measure C fiords to leverage
additional state and/or federal funds for these projects. To secure the bonds,the Authority
pledged future tax revenues to cover debt service. In recent years Measure C cash flow has been
a problem because revenues are being used to pay debt service. While new Measure C funds will
be available for programming with the 1997 update to the Authority's Strategic Plan,CCTA's
ability to leverage new STIP monies through the We of bonds is now limited.
Over the past few years,a number of local sales tax authorities advanced local funds to accelerate
completion of programmed STIP projects with the understanding that they would be reimbursed
once the state funds became available'. As a result of a number of factors,the cash balance in the
state highway account is now very high and suggests a reverse of the previous process. If state
funds could be advanced for local projects, agencies(such as CCTA)could reimburse the state
once local (Measure Q revenues become available. Because the CTC wants to advance projects
in northern California and because a number of local projects have a relatively high"state of
readiness, Contra Costa may be in a somewhat unique position to partner with the CTC and
advance completion of priority local projects. Legislation would be required to implement this
concept.
As indicated in Chapter 1, one purpose of this report is to begin a public-private effort to evaluate
the feasibility of extending Contra Costa's local transportation sales tax program. A recent
decision by the California Supreme Court,which overturned a voter approved extension to Santa
Clara's local transportation sales tax, promises to make this a real challenge. The court ruled that
the proposed extension is a"special taxes"under Proposition 62,and thereby requires a super-
majority(213)vote. As a resuh of this decision,many local elected officials and business leaders
believe that extending Contra Costa's local transportation sales tax(Measure C)will be difficult -
if not impossible.
Responding to continued transportation needs, Santa Clam voters on November 5, 1996
approved two measures designed to address continued local transportation needs. Faced with a
court decision that defines local transportation sales taxes as"special taxes",the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors placed two measure on the ballot. The first(Measure A)proposed
a general increase in the local sales tax(one-half percent)and the second(Measure B)was an
advisory measure outlining a proposed transportation improvement program should funding
'Authorized by Assembly Bill 30%.
ocgr•tAuvag cmm caa.•,Ery into dw z,•Caiury Par:a
become available. The two measures were not linked. Because Measure A proposed a"general"
increase in the sales tax(versus a"special"tax),only a majority(versus a two-thirds)vote was
required. While both measures passed,a challenge is expected.
Again,while past efforts have bees succndA additional effort is needed to ensure that Contra
Costa County remains economically competitive with the rat of the Bay Area and the state.
Additional finding is needed to fund critically important improvements to Route 4 in both west
and east county and to complete High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV)lane and auxiliary lane
improvements along Interstate 680 in central county. Significant finding will be needed to
complete the important east county corridor.
Over the next few months and years,elected officials and business leaders in Contra Costa will be
asked to support efforts to attract additional state and local finds and to consider a variety of
traditional and non-traditional finding options. Some of the non-traditional sources that will be
considered include an extension to Contra Costa's local transportation sales tax(Measure C),new
regional gas taxes, toll mads, congestion pricing,High Occupancy Toll (HOT)lanes ,increased
and/or variable bridge tolls, new and/or increased developer fees. To provide a context for these
discussions, it is important to understand the scope, cost and relative priority of improvements
that will be required over the next fifteen to twenty years.
6 Legislation authoriffig the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to implHOT lanes has
bean proposed in the Authority's 1997 Legislative program.
CCEF•hdomt Cmn Can•.Eom=y ao me 2 r•Conry PW 9
3
Contra Costa's Transpol Cation
System
Contra Costa's regional transportation system includes Major Interstate and State Highways, a
number of significant local arterial roadways as well as iced rail(BART)and bus transit. In
addition,two regional airports serve Contra Costa County-Buchanan Field in Concord and the
Byron Airport in Byron. Major rail lines pass through the west,north and east county areas and
deep water port access is available in Richmond and along the Sacramento River in northern
Contra Costa County.
wRN ae<ANO ,
COUNTY COUNTY
JOAWIN
CCUWY
S%4
PRANCOM
r'\
1
1
\ .+a
G"�
UN ANNE Fs
Figure 2-Regional Setting
Major interstate highways serving the county include Interstates 80, 580 and 680. Major state
highways include Route 24 and Route 4. The county is geographically divided,by topography
and social-economic characteristics,into three distinct geographic sub-regions.
CLEF-Momt CmmCMU'.EMD=Y iso 6e 21•oMWy PW 11
For the purposes of this report,the review of needed transportation improvanents is divided into
west,central and east county.
� — s
I WEST
EAST
CENTRAL
Figure 3 -Contra Costa's Regions
As indicated previously, and noted throughout this report, over the past twenty to twenty-five
years,most of the state and federal monies allocated for local projects has been focused to on the
Interstate Highway system. Very little has been available for improvements to the County's state
highway system, such as Route 4 (west and east).
Examples of some of the major highway projects completed within the past ten to fifteen years
and/or currently under construction using traditional statelfederal sources include.
Project Cost(Sl m)
The Knox Freeway(Interstate 580) 250
Interstate 680 widening(southern portion) 75
Interstate 680/24 interchange project 315
Interstate 80 HOV lane project(CC portion) 125
Carquinez Bridge replaoem t(1-80) 300
Second Benicia-Martinez Bridge(1-680) 290
OCEP-M*vt coin Cou'e Emomy m die 21•Ceaavy rye 12
East County
Major regional transportation 5cHities saving eastern Contra Costa induce Route 4,Route 160,
Vasco Road and BART. In addition,two new state highway routes have bees identified by the
Kate legislature that will link eastern Contra Costa Coon ty to San Joaquin County and the
Interstate 5 corridor(Route 239)and to Alameda and Santa Clara counties(Route 84). Other
significant transportation hdhties in east county include Railroad AvenueXvker Pass Road,
which provides socess into central Contra Costa County and Buchanan Road,which provides an
arterial connection between the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg south of Route 4. A new road,
referred to as the Buchanan Road Bypass,is proposed to provide additional capacity in this area.
Route 4 in eastern Contra Costa,often referred to as Route 4 East,is that segment of Route 4
between Route 242 in Concord and the San Joaquin County line an Discovery Bay. Route 4
passes through the cities of Concord,Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood as well as the
unincorporated communities of Bay Point and Oakley. The highway provides access to the
Concord Naval Weapons Station and major industry along the San Joaquin and Saawnento
River. The highway is one of three regional links between the San Francisco Bay Area and
California's Central Valley. Eastern Contra Costa provides affordable housing opportunities for
the rest of the County and well as the entire East Bay Area.
Eastern Contra Costa County has not benefitted as much as central and west county from
traditional state and/or federal funds for transportation projects. The lade of state and/or federal
firnding for east county projects is a result of two fimctors- 1)Bower papulation densities and 2)
most significantly,federal funds in recent years have bees directed to completion of the Interstate
Highway system East county does not have arry Interstate highways.
The need for funding to widen and lower Route 4 over the Willow Pass Grade and to actend
BART to east county(Bay Point)provided a major impetus for the ad hoc public-prime
partnership referred to in Chapter 2 to propose a local transportation sales tax program for Contra
Costa County(Measure Q. Although Route 4 is technically a freeway between Rome 242 in
Concord and the Route 4/160 mange in Antioch,significant additional improvements are
needed to eliminate substandard design features and to accommodate olds*and projected
traffic demand in the corridor. Route 4 between east and central county is heavily congested
during morning and evening commute times. The emsting freeway is substandard and in need of
CICEF-Mwt cows cs,•.Eomamy intoft 21'casury tis 13
significant safety and operational improvements between Bailey Road and I�llcrest Avenue in
Antioch. The highway must be reconstructed before BART can be extended beyond the Bay
Point station.
CCTA has completed, and/or provided funding for,two major east county projects identified in
the Measure C Expenditure Plan-Route 4 over the Willow Pass Grade and the extension of
BART to Bay Point. Because CCTA was sucoessfi l in leveraging additional state funds for these
projects, some limited Measure C funds retrain available for east county projects. CCTA utilized
a portion of these funds to advance project development work and to define the scope and cost of
needed improvements to Route 4. The Authority intends to proceed with additional widening of
Route 4,between Bailey Road and Railroad Avenue in Pittsburg,if Measure C and other funds
become available,within the next few years.
The most significant major new project being planned for eastern Contra Costa is the Route 4
Bypass. An Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the project was recently adopted by a joint
powers authority composed of the County and the cities of Brentwood and Antioch. This
proposed new expressway will replace existing Route 4 through Oakley and Brentwood. The
proposed highway begins at Route 4 at the interchange with Route 160 and passes to the west of
Oakley and Brentwood. In addition to Route 4,the California State legislature has identified two
additional state highway corridors,Routes 84 and 239,as appropriate to serve eastern Contra
Costa County. Route 84,which was intended to generally follow the alignment of existing Vasco
Road in Contra Costa County, is intended to link the 4/160 interchange in Antioch to Livermore
and Palo Alto over the Dumbarton Bridge. Route 239 is intended to link the 4/160 interchange to
Interstates 5 and 205 near Tracy and provide a link between eastern Contra Costa and the San
Joaquin Valley.
Recognizing the need for improvements to Route 4 and the need for additional transportation
facilities to support residential development planned for eastern Contra Costa,the County, in
cooperation with the cities of Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood formed the Eastern Contra Costa
Regional Fee&Financing Authority(ECCRFFA). The ECCRFFA, a joint exercise of powers
authority,collects fees from new residential and commercial development in East County to fund
new development's share of needed improvements to three major transportation facilities-
Route 4,the Buchanan Road Bypass and the Route 4 Bypass. While the fee program will raise
significant dollars,additional funding is needed to complete these and other improvements to East
County's regional transportation system.
The City of Pittsburg has initiated project development work on the proposed Buchanan Road
Bypass,a proposed two lane arterial parallel to Route 4. The proposed bypass will allow traffic
from Antioch and Pittsburg access to Kirker Pass Road.
Funded PJ00ft
l.
Route 4 -Bailt-v Road to Railroad Avenue. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(CCTA),in cooperation with BART,has completed initial project development studies for
CCEP-)Avjmi Com m Cow's Eomomy so the 21'Cly rye 14
the widening of Route 4 between Bailey Road and Railroad Avenue. CCTA has sufficient
funds available to widen this segment of Route 4 to eight lanes(including two HOV lanes)
within the next few years. The HOV lanes would extend to Railroad Avenue in Pittsburg.
Sufficient rights-of-wry will be acquired for the planned future extension of BART in the
median of the freeway. While the project will allow HOV lanes constructed with the
Willow Pass OWe project(Route 242 to Bailey Road)to open and reduce eadsting
congestion,available fimding is not adequate to reconstruct the substandard Railroad
Avenue intermhange or to improve Route 4 through Pittsburg.
2. Merest Avenue nt hs=— The ECCRFFA Strategic Plan includes funding for Phase 13
of the Merest Road iatetchaage project. This project will provide a new loop on-ramp
for northbound Hillcrest Avenue traffic that wants to go west on Route 4 and improve the
existing eastbound Route 4 off-ramp to IfiiUc est Avenue.
3. Route 4 -Railroad Avenue to Route 4/160 Interchange ftject DeveloX= Studies).
The CCTA,in cooperation with Caltrans and the ECCRFFA, is working to complete a
Major Investment Study(MIS)and Project Study Report(PSR)for Route 4 between
Railroad Avenue and the 4/160 interchange. This study includes an initial environmental
analysis of improvements to this portion of Route 4 -both major steps in the formal
Caltrans Project Development Process. Upon completion,detailed information regarding
the scope and cost of needed improvements will be available. Detailed studies are
underway for the Railroad Avenue interchange to accommodate a planned future BART
station. Upon completion of these studies, CCTA and Caltrans will be in a position to
protect rights-of-way needed for the future widening and identify appropriate funding and
construction phases.
4. Route 4 Dams-Antioch to Byron. Fees collected by the ECCRFFA are being used to
design initial segments of the Route 4 Bypass between Antioch and Balfour Road west of
Brentwood. ECCRFFA's adopted Strategic Plan calls for completion of an initial two
lane segment of the bypass between Lone Tree Road and Balfour Road by the year 2000.
Completion of the bypass as a four-lane expressway between Route 4 and Lone Tree and
oomstuction of a portion of a two-lane roadway between Balfour Road and Marsh Creek
Road are scheduled for 2005. Additional improvements,between Route 4 and Vasco
Road will be completed by 2010. Revenues from ECCRFFA fees will fund approximately
Wle of the cost of the proposed improvements. Additional funding from other sources is
needed.
u!nfuna/aa/ P".100ls
1. Route 4 -Railroad Avenue to Route 4/160. As indicated above,while some additional
mainline widening and one interchange improvement on Route 4 can be completed with
available and projected Measure C and ECCRFFA firnds, significant additional revenues
will be required to complete Route 4 to the planned width of six lanes plus two HOV lanes
between Railroad Avenue and the Route 4/160 interchange in Antioch.
CCEP-Movkt Cam Cou's Easy iso dw 21•Gmry ?W 15
Current estimates suggest that needed improvements to this segmeru of Route 4 will cost
over 5230 million to complete. As noted above,the ECCRFFA is collecting fees from
new development for improvements to three major East County muportation facilities,
including this segment of Route 4. The ECCRFFA anticipates collecting approximately
$I 10 million in fees for Route 4.
Additional fiords needed-S120 million
2. Route 4/Route 160 Lercha_* . This new interchange will connect Route 4 in Antioch to
the proposed new Route 4 bypass.
Additional funds needed-S40 million
3. Route 4 Bypass-Antioch to Brentwood. The ECCRFFA adopted strategic plan predicts
fee revenues of$75 million will be sufficient to fiord two lanes of this planned four-lane
facility. The estimated cost of the full four lane highway is S 150 million.
Additional fimds needed-S75 million
4. East County Corridor- Alameda Connection(Route 84). This proposed four to six lane
freeway would generally follow the alignment of existing Vasco Road south of Brentwood
and provide much needed access to the Alameda County portion of the Tri-Valley. Again,
while the legislature has identified the need for the corridor(Route 84)and it is included in
the circulation element of Contra Costa's General Plan and strongly supported in eastern
Contra Costa, a major project in this corridor would be inconsistent with Alameda
County's General Plan. Some opportunity exists for interim improvements to existing
Vasco Road, although they would not be sufficient in the long term.
Estimated cost-$400 to 5600 million
5. East County Corridor- San Joaquin Connection(Route 239). This proposed four lane
freeway generally follows the alignment of odsfmg Byron Highway and will link east
Contra Costa County with San Joaquin County and Interstate 5,California's major north-
south interstate highway.
Estimated cost-$250 million
6. Buchanan Road Bnass. This S18 to S20 million project would be jointly fielded by the
City of Pittsburg and the ECCRFFA. The Fee Authority's adopted Strategic Plan includes
a$4 million contribution to the project. Additional funds are likely to be required.
Estimated cost-S18 to$20 million
OCff P•Movag Can»Cats•.Eamawy ilo ort 21•Cavy til 16
5
West County
West County's regional transportation system consists of Interstate 80,Interstate 580,Route 4,
the Richmond Parkway as well as a number of major local arterial roadways,including San Pablo
Avenue and San Pablo Dam Road. BART'S Richmond line serves western county residents.
Over the years,Western Contra Costa County has benefitted with traditional state/federal funding
for a number of large transportation projects. Among the most significant is the now complete
Knox freeway(Interstate 580),a new freeway through the City of Richmond that provides access
between Interstate 80 in Alameda County and the Richmond-San Rafael bridge. Cattrans is in the
process of completing major improvements to Interstate 80,including a High Occupancy Vehicle
(HOV)lane between the Bay Bridge in Alameda County and Willow Avenue in Hercules. In
addition,Caltrans has proposed to replace the oldest of the two bridges over the Carquinez Straits
and add a westbound HOV lane on the new bridge. Unfunded projects along the Interstate 80
corridor in (between El Cerrito and Crockett)include the San Pablo Avenue interchange, and
HOV lanes between Willow Avenue in Hercules and the new Carquinez Bridge.
The Richmond Parkway,an expressway between Interstate 80 near Hiilhop Drive in Richmond
and Interstate 580 near the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge,is nearing completion. Tbis S 175
million project was a high priority project in Contra Costa's Measure C program and is being
funded through a combination of state and local funds. With the exception of an interchange at
San Pablo Avenue,the project is fully funded.
The only other significant west county project is Route 4 West project between Interstate 80 in
Hercules and Cummings Skyway. This segment of Route 4 is a winding,narrow two-lane
roadway. It is beavily congested during morning and evening commute times. Route 4 is the only
east-west link between west county and central county. Route 4 was previously improved to full
f veway standards between Cummings Skyway and Interstate 680 in Central County. The
Measure C Expenditure Plan calls for Route 4 west to be improved to"full fieeway standards"
between Cummings Skyway and Interstate 80.
A Caltrans Project Study Report(PSR)was completed in 1993 to define the scope and cost of
needed improvements to this segs cent of Route 4. While the Expenditure Plan calls for upgrading
this portion of Route 4 west to full fireeway standards,funds allocated by the Exper6ture Plan
CCE?•Moves came Cosa'.Eamamy ro me 21'Camry rqe 17
(S45 million, 19885)are not sufficient. CCTA has estimated the cost of improving this segment
of Route 4 to full freeway standards at S 112 million in 1996 dollars.
Because local funding to improve Route 4 west was limited, CCTA staff has been working with
Caltrans and the City of Hercules to define a strategy to phase implementation of improvements
to Route 4 west. A$65 million"Phase I"project has been identified that will improve Route 4 to
fully divided conventional highway(Parkway) standards. As with the recently completed
Richmond Parkway,one or two traffic signals may be required to address safety issues. The full
freeway would be completed as"Phase II"of the Route 4 West Improvement Project when
additional funds become available. While a majority of the Phase I(conventional highway)
improvements are compatible with Phase II(full freeway),somewhere between$4 and S8 million
would be expended unnecessarily if funding for Phase II is not available before Phase I goes to
bid.
Because the estimated $65 million cost of the Phase I improvements exceeds available Measure C
funds,additional funding is required for the proposed Phase I(conventional highway)of the
Route 4 West Improvement Project. CCTA staff is assuming that sufficient state and/or federal
funds will be available for the Route 4 project through the 1998 STIP'.
Both the Phase I and Phase 11 of the Route 4 West Improvement Project is being evaluated in an
environmental document being prepared by CCTA CCTA has advised that,at present,the final
environmental document will clear only the Phase I (conventional highway)project due to Federal
Highway Administration(FHWA)regulations related to"fundable projects'." A Supplemental
Environmental Document (SEIS)will be required before the Phase II (full freeway)project can
proceed. CCTA staff advises that the required SEIS would require six to nine months to
complete once funding for the project is identified.
West county residents(and others in the region)are served by the Richmond BART line and
Intercity Rail Service-the Capitol Corridor. While BART has evaluated a number of potential
alternative alignments for an extension of the Richmond be,no funding has been identified.
Estimates suggest that extending BART to Hercules could cost as much as$1.5 billion. The
legislature recently approved a bill under which BART will take over operation of Caltrans
intercity rail service-the Capitols. BART has announced peens to provide additional passenger
service in the corridor. At this point,this appears to be a much more cost effective way to
' The Route 4 West project is a priority for new STIP funding-Paul Maxwell,Deputy
Director of CCTA.
'A project must be included in MTC's financially constrained Regional Transportation
Plan(RTP)or the federal TIP to be considered"fundable." If the CTC should include the Phase
II project in the federal TIP,it would be considered"fundable."
CCEP•gloving Came Co u's Eom�y iao tee 21•Commy Pw is
provide rail service to northwestern Contra Costa than extending the Richmond BART fine.
Additional improvements are needed at the Richmond BART station to facilitate transfers
between the Capitol Corridor and BART. A new station is planned for West County10,although
no funding for the project has been identified.
Funded 1XIA10090
1. Interstate 80 HOV Protect. Construction of continuous High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV)
Lees between Willow Avenue in Hercules and the Bay Bridge toll plaza in Oakland are
underway. Various segments are scheduled for completion in 1997 and the entire$335
million project should be complete by late 1998.
2. Route 4 West -Phase I(fi÷d conventional highWyj. While the Measure C
Expenditure Plan calls for upgrading Route 4 west to full freeway standards between
Cummings Skyway and Intastate 80,local transportation sales tax fiends are insufficient
to fund the full freeway improvement. Because of signficant congestion,operation and
safety issues,CCTA has proposed to"phase"improvantats to this segment of Route 4 so
that some of the more critical capacity and safety issues an be addressed as quickly as
possible.
Phase I of the Route 4 West Improvement Project will improve the highway to fully
divided conventional highway standards between Cummings Skyway and Interstate 80.
One or two traffic signals may be required in Phase I to address some of the more
significant safety issues. For the most part,Phase I is consistent with the ultimate
freeway. Phase lI would upgrade the conventional highway to full freeway standards(ser
below) once fiunding becomes available. It is important to note that mailable Measure C
,funds me not sufficient to complete the Phase 1 project and that supplemental frm&ng
trust be secured before the Proposed Project cm be completed'1
Si pplemenud funds required-$25 million
3. Caltrans has been evaluating options with respect to seismically
retrofitting the two existing Carquinez bridges to bring then up to current standards.
Regional Measure 1 includes funds to replace the oldest of the two bridges(constructed in
1927). Because of increased concern with respect to maintenance and seismic issues with
this bridge,Caltrans is accelerating completion of the new bridge as a"seismic retrofit"
project. The new bridge,proposed for construction to the west of the two existing
' Intestate 80 Corridor Study,Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 4996.
'0 Draft Capitol Corridor Business Plan,BART, 1995.
" CCTA intends to request supplemental funding through the 1998 STIP process.
CCEP-1/0Ang Cm n Ca"'s Famamy acme 21•Csmvy PW 19
bridges,is estimated to cost S 180 million. Seismic retrofit work on the newer of the two
bridges(completed in 1958),should begin in the Spring of 1997.
Unlundod Pr OJe0ls
1. Route 4 West -Phase n(Full FMCM). Upon completion of the Phase I project
(conventional highway),upgrading Route 4 to frill freeway standards(Phase U)as
envisioned in the Measure C Expenditure Pian is wed to cost$47 million.
Additional funds required-$47 million
2. hAerstate 80 HOV Lanes-Willow Avenue to Q=mWaggc_ Skvway. Nigh Oowpancy
Vehicle(HOV)lanes are proposed along Interstate 80 in the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission's Regional Transportation Plan(RTP). HOV lanes are under construction
between the San Francisco Bay Bridge and Willow Avenue in Hercules and will be
completed between Cummings Skyway and Solano County in conjunction with the
Carquinez Bridge project. Upon completion of these projects,the addition of HOV lanes
between Willow Avenue and Cummings Skyway is likely to become a priority. This
segment of Interstate 80 is considered part of the approach to the Carquinez Bridge and
Regional Measure 1 funds could be available.
Estimated Cost -S48 million
3. Richmond Parkwav/San Pablo Avenue Interchange. This proposed interchange is
necessary to separate traffic from two major West County highways-the Richmond
Parkway and San Pablo Avenue.
Estimated cost-S12 million
4. Inter ate 80/Route 4 ImerchuU. This project would reconstruct the existing sub-
standard interchange to anrrent standards. The capacity of the existing ramps would be
increased.
Estimated cost -STBD
5. Interstate 80/San Pablo Dam Road IaterchaW. This project will upgrade and reconfigure
the existing interchange to aurent standards and improve the connection between these
two regional routes.
Estimated cost-S16 to S25 million
6. CWhol Corridor/BART. As indicated above,extending BART'S Richmond line to
Hercules and/or Crockett within the next 20 to 30 years is not financially feasible. Near
term rail transit in this oon idor will be provided through upgrades to the acsting Capitol
Corridor intercity service. Existing stations in Richmond and Crockett will require
upgrading. A new station is planned for Hercules. Cost estimates for needed capital
improvements are not currently available. Estimated cost - STBD
OCEP-Uovs Cis Cm'.Eomomy iaothe 211 C nowy hi 20
6
Conga/ Covn�y
Central County's most significant vansportation ficilities include Interstate 680,Route 24,Route
4 and BART. Interstate 680 is a major north-south corridor which passes through the cities of
Martinez,Concord,Pleasant Dill,Walnut Crede,Danville and San Ramon as wall as the
unincorporated communities of Pacheco and Alamo. Interstate 680 provides access to Alameda
and Santa Clara Counties to the south and Solano County and Sacramento to the north.
Because of Interstate 680, significant state and federal funds have been available for projects in
central county. Major improvements to Interstate 680 in south county were completed within the
last few years and a 5350 million total reconstruction of the 680/24 interchange in Walnut Creek
is underway.
Other major transportation corridors serving central county include Route 4,which passes
through Martinez and Concord and links sties in Central County to both western and eastern
county areas. Route 24 links central county to the Fast Bay through the Calde Cott Tunnel.
Route 24 passes through the cities of Orinda and Lafayette. Central County is served by BART's
Concord line with stations serving Orinda,Lafayette,Walnut Creeds,Pleasant Hill,Concord, and
North Concord/Martinez.
A number of major local arterial roadways supplement central county's state and interstate
highway system. Most significant is Ygnacio Valley Road,a major east-west corridor that
provides access between central and east county over Kirker Pass. Other major central county
arterial roadways include Treat Boulevard,Pleasant Kill Road,Taylor Boulevard, San Ramon
Valley Boulevard,Crow Canyon Road and Alhambra Valley Road. Measure C funds have been
utilized to improve a number of interchanges and/or arterial roadways in central county. For the
most part,central county's arterial roadway system is complete and no major new capacity
enhancing projects are proposed or planned. In those areas where additional improvements might
be posuble,local agencies have concluded that other fiators(noise and other environmental
Wtors,quality of life;etc.)make additional inp ova ba ts undesirable.
Central county cities have decided to focus on additional imp.o s to Intestate 680 and the
state highway system as well as transit improvements as the most appropriate way to address
congestion problems in Central County. In this regard,fligh Occupancy Vehicle lanes(HOV
OW-MovingCoon Coca's EAMCWY bu t a 21.Owt+ry PW 21
lanes)are being considered for Interstate 680, (north of the 680/24 interchange)and on
Route 242 through Concord to connect with an HOV lane being planned for Route 4 in East
County.
The 680/4 interchange in Pacheco is sub-standard and will need to be reconstructed within the
next five to ten years. In addition to the 680/4 interchange,other improvements Deeded along
Interstate 680 in central county include a High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV)lane between Pleasant
Hill and the Benicia-Martinez bridge(discussed above)and auxiliary lanes between the 680/24
interchange in Walnut Creek and the 680/580 interchange in Alameda County. The need for
awaliary lanes along 680 fourth was identified by Caltrans during completion of traffic studies for
the recently oompeted HOV lane project(south of Rudgear Road). Caltrans decided to proceed
with the HOV lane project without the auxiliary lanes so that the project could be completed
within time frames established by the CTC(i.e. before completion of improvements to the 680/24
interchange). Studies completed by CCTA confirm the Deed for auxiliary lanes along this portion
of Interstate 680.
While physically located in Alameda County,the Interstate 680/580 interchange in Pleasanton is
critical to central Contra Costa's transportation system. The existing interchange is sub-standard.
5120 million in improvements are needed to address significant morning and evening congestion
problems. Because a number of Contra Costa residents work in Alameda County and a number
of Alameda County residents work in Contra Costa,the Tri-Valley Transportation Council
(TVTC), a two County joint powers agency, has been working to address funding for the 680/580
interchange. The TVTC has been working to establish a subregional traffic impact foe similar to
that developed by the ECCRFFA to fund high priority local projects.
Route 242 is a short freeway that passes through the City of Concord and links Intestate 680 in
Pleasant Hill to Route 4 in north Concord. Measure C funds are available to widen the existing
four lane freeway to six lanes. The improvements are needed to accommodate traffic increases
anticipated upon completion of improvements to the 680/24 interchange in Walnut Creek and to
accommodate traffic projected from approved development in eastern Contin Costa.
Improvements to the Concord Avenue interchange are currently underway.
Route 24,between Walnut Creek and Orinda,is currently an eight-lane freeway. BART is
located within the median of the freeway. Other than the addition of a HOV lane and some minor
ramp and interchange improvements,no major improvements are planned for this portion of
Route 24.
The Caldecott Tunnel complex,which links central Contra Costa to Oakland and San Francisco,
consists of three,two-lane tunnels. Because of a significant directional split during morning and
evening commute times, Caltrans is able to reverse the direction of one of the tunnels and provide
four lanes of capacity on Route 24 in the peak commute direction. Over the past few years,
increased job opportunities in Walnut Crede and San Ramon have increased the so-called
"reverse"commute and are beginning to reduce the historically high morning and evening
directional split. As a reale congestion(in the reverse commute direction)on Route 24 has been
CCEP•h4aos Ctrs Car's Eamamy iso The 21•C,mry Psi 22
steadily increasing over the past few years. While the Expenditure Plan approved by Contra
Costa voters with Measure C in 1988 would allow a loan of funds to Caltrans to commence
preliminary studies,no work has been completed to date. Estimates completed by Cahrans in
approximately 1986 or 1987 suggest that the cost to complete a fourth tunnel may be in excess of
$400 million. Given the high cost,some consideration to toll financing and/or the concept of a
High Occupancy Toll(HOT)tunnel should be considered m the future.
A major project to seismically retrofit the existing Benicia-Martinez bridge is scheduled to begin
in the Spring of 1997. In addition,the 1988 voter approved Regional Measure I program
contains funds for a second bridge between Martinez and Benicia. Caltrans has completed the
necessary environmental evaluation of the second bridge and construction could begin as early as
late 1998 or early 1999. Assuming construction begins on schedule,the second bridge would be
complete by 2001. Upon completion of the bridge, Interstate 680,over the Carquinez straits,will
have four lanes in the southbound direction(mto Contra Costa)and five lanes in the northbound
direction(out of Contra Costa). The edsfmg toll plaza is to be relocated to the south side of the
bridge. The second bridge is estimated to cost$290 million.
The Lamorinda Area is comprised of the communities of Orinda,Moraga and Lafayette. Because
support for a proposed major new highway in the area was unclear,the Measure C Expenditure
Plan set aside funding and required completion of the Gateway-Lamorinda traffic study before any
"regional"Measure C funds could be spent in the Lamorinda Area. The adopted Lamorinda
Traffic Program calls for actions and measures to mitigate traffic congestion between SR 24 and
the Town of Moraga. In developing the Lamorinda Traffic Program,the three communities
evaluated potential capital projects, operational improvements and transit programs. While a
number of local improvements were identified and a school bus program developed, the study
concluded that no additional major new regional facilities are needed in the area.
Funded ProJeals
1. 680/24 Interchanve. This$315 million project is scheduled for completion in 1998. The
project is completely reconstructing and reconfiguring the existing interchange complex as
well as major portions of Interstate 680 through Pleasant Hill. The Monument Boulevard
interchange in Pleasant Hull is being reconstructed. The project is one of the largest
interchange reconstruction projects in California. Upon completion,Interstate 680 will be
sic Wm wide through the interchange and ramps to/from Route 24 will be three lanes
wide. Interstate 680,between Rudgear Road in Walnut Creels and Willow Pass Road in
Concord,is being widened in conjunction with this project.
2. Concord Avenue InterchangeMnute 242. This project is reconstructing the existing
Concord Avenue interchange. Upon oompletion,existing sub-standard ramps will be
relocated,and Concord Avenue under the freeway will be widened.
CCEP-Mows Canna Casae Eamamy into&e 31•Qotory take 23
3. Route 242 J=royemews. This project will widen Route 242 to six lanes between
Interstate 680 in Pleasant Hill and Route 4 in north Concord. The new Ones may be HOV
lanes.
4. lRenicia-Martineg Rrida A second bridge is proposed to be constructed to the east of the
existing bridge. The new bridge will provide five lanes for northbound traffic. The
existing bridge will be restriped to provide four southbound lanes,as well as a separate
area for bicycles and pedestrians.
Unfunded Pro/ao>�s
1. I-680 Alndliary Innes-Rudaear Road to Alameda Camt;r Line. This project will provide
andliary lanes between the existing off-and on-ramps along Interstate 680 between
Rudgear Road in Wal= Crede and Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon. Caltrans identified
the need for this project in studies completed in conjunction with the design of the recently
completed HOV lane project on this segment of Interstate 680. Ibis project is likely to
become a much higher priority upon completion of the 680/24 interchange project.
Estimated cost-$50 to$70 million
2. I-680 HOV Lanes -Martinez to Concord. This project would construct HOV lanes along
Interstate 680 and complement improvements being completed to the 680/24 interchange
and the proposed second Benicia-Martinez bridge project.
- Estimated cost-S25 million
3. Interstate 680/Route 4 Interchange Complex. This project would reconstruct the existing
substandard interchange in Pacheco. Project can be implemented in stages.
Estimated cost - 5100 to$200 million
CCEP-k4awkg Camp Cris'{F®aM iso The 21•Caeay PW 24
7
Summary of Fsfer+e Heeds and
Ifecommendea/ Strategies
As indicated in this report,tnost of the significant miprovemeats to Contra Costa's regional
transportation system have been fimded through a combination of state and federal gas taxes and
bridge toll revenues. More recently,developer fees,a local transportation sales tax(Measure C),
land secured assessments and other sources have been used to supplement funding from the more
traditional sources.
Through cooperative ad hoc public-private partnerships,Contra Costa has a history of success in
attracting significant state and federal funds for completion of priority transportation projects.
This success has been achieved through leadership, consensus and the ability to focus on one or
two"regionally significant"projects at a time. While past efforts have met with success, still
more effort is needed to complete critical projects on Contra Costa County's transportation
system.
Even with past success in attracting state and federal funds for important local projects,a loca!
transportation sales tax(Measure C)and ongoing efforts to raise funds through developer fee
programs,additional funding is needed to maintain Contra Costa as a leader in the Bay Area's
competitive economic development market. Funding from traditional state and federal sources in
past years has been limited and available local revenues have not been alf cient to fund needed
improvements to the County's transportation system.
State and Federal transportation funds in California are programmed by the California
Transportation Commission(CTC)through the State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP). The CTC allocates funds based upon statutory requirements. Because federal programs
have been focused on completion of the Interstate system most available fiords have been used to
complete improvements to Interstates 80, 580 and 680. Very little has been available for
. rovenelts to Contra Costa's non-Intestate system highways such as Routes 4,24, 84, 160,
239 and 242.
Additional funding is needed for critically important improvements to Route 4 in both west and
asst county,as well as HOV and auxiliary lane improvements along Interstate 680 in central
CCU•lfood Caeca Cou'i Ery iso The 21•Cammy FW 23
county. As a result of a number of Euctors,the 1998 STIP is likely to be large with significant
new funds available for high priority local projects.
Previous chapters of this report identified and discussed a number of regionally significant
projects throughout Contra Costa County. The following is a summary of unfunded (and partially
funded)regionally significant highway projects in Contra Costa County. Estimated costs are in
millions of 1996 dollars:
East County
Route 4 -Railroad Avenue Int =,w=. Measure C funds are available S55 to S80
to widen to eight lanes(with two HOV lanes)between Bailey Road and
Railroad Avenue. Additional funding is needed to complete the
Railroad Avenue interchange.
Route 4-Railroad Avenue to 4/160 interchange. This project would S200f
complete Route 4 to the planned width of eight lanes(with two HOV
lanes).
Route 4/Route 160 Interchange. This is a new interchange connecting S40
existing Route 4 to the proposed East County Corridor(Route 4
bypass)and would be partially funded by the ECCRFFA.
` Buchanan Road Bvoass. This is a planned new arterial roadway parallel S18 to S20
to Route 4 between Antioch and Pittsburg and would be partially
funded by the ECCRFFA
Route 4 Bypass -Antioch to Brentwood. This is a four lane roadway S75
around Oakley and Brentwood and would be partially funded by the
ECCRFFA.
EAst[_'n=U Corridor-AlarnedA Connection(Route 84). This would be $400 to 5600
a new four to six lase freeway between Brentwood and livermore
along existing Vasco Road corridor.
Fast Cot=Corridor-&m Joa_V>a Connection(RMe 2=9). This is a 5250
new four lane freeway between Brentwood and Tracy along existing
Byron Nughway.
West County
Route 4 West -Phase I(conventional tighmal. This project would $25
improve Route 4 to fully divided conventional highway(Parkway)
standards. Traffic signals would be installed if required. Additional
furls is needed to supplement aYWLable Measure C funds.
CLEP-M&vwg Camra Cou's Eam my iso&e 21`Cwswy hi 26
Route 4 West-Phase II(Ufton). This project would upgrade the $47
Phase I(eon ventioual highway)project to full freeway standards as
envisioned in the voter approved Measure C Expenditure Plan-
1-80 HOV Kaes. This project would complete Haigh Occupancy S48f
Vehicle(HOV)lanes between Willow Avenue in Hercules and the new
Carquinez Bridge.
Richmond Parkway/San Pablo Avenue. A new interchange is required $12f
to separate traffic on these two busy arterials.
I-80/Route 4 Interchange. Reconstruct eadsting interchange to Connect $75f
to Route 4 West(included in the Measure C Expenditure Plan).
I-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange. Upgrade existing interchange S20t
to wrreat standards.
Central County
1-680 Airxibea Lines-Rudgearr Roan to Alamo& Count;Line. S50 to S70
Provide auxiliary lanes between Rrdgear Road in Walnut Creek and
Mcosta Boulevard in San Ramon.
1-680 HOV Lanes. Add HOV lanes between Concord and Martinez. S25f
I-680/Route 4. Reconstruct the existing substandard interchange. 5100 to S200
The following map illustrates these projects:
a,. W"M sx. MHm
WMR IMes wasr yyt� Ari srr. wr
w carr
�►M. OWW
smut
I rpWNM
' WEST EAST
CENTRAL
s�roA
arisen.
�M
R�
i AIR
Mlit
Figure 4 -Major Transportation Projects
CMP•Moft Gama cou's Eamamy oto 6e 21'Csmry Pae 27
The above discussion suggests a number of specific action steps over the next few months
including:
• Prioritize local projects for CCT&MTC as well as our legislative and congressional
delegations in conjunction with the 1998 STIP process.
► Schedule legislative briefings,in cooperation with groups such as the Contra Costa
Council,to severe support for important local projects and strategies.
► Work to reinforce established public-private partnerships and cooperate with CCTA in
presentations to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC)and the California
Transportation Commission(CTC).
• Work with the Bay Area Council and others in support of efforts to identify and secure
additional revenues for important local and regional transportation projects.
► Continue efforts initiated by the Economic Partnership and others to identify options and
evaluate the possibility of extending Contra Costa's local transportation sales tax.
► Prepare a draft Expenditure Plan(for discussion purposes)to provide a focus on potential
benefits for such a proposal.
One of the most significant near term challenges is development of a list of priority local projects
for consideration by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority(CCTA)in conjunction with their
development of specific proposals to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)and
_ the California Transportation Commission(CTC)with respect to the 1998 State Transportation
Improvement Program(STIP). The following is a suggested list of"principles"for consideration
in establishing a priority list of projects for the 1998 STIP:
1. Projects identified in the 1988 voter approved Expenditure Plan for Measure C should
receive priority for available funding.
2. Projects should demonstrate broad economic benefit to the County in the movement of
people, goods and services in order to reoeive a high priority.
3. Projects must be technically feasible and"deliverable"in accordance with applicable
state/federal standards within the time frames required for available funding.
4. Projects which link two or more geographic sub-regions of the county and/or link Contra
Costa to another county should have priority over other projects.
S. Projects which provide identifiable safety improvements to existing unsafe roadways of
regional significance should have priority.
6. Projects that can attract state and/or federal money or leverage available Measure C funds
should have priority over other projects.
7. Competing projects which have significant local funds should be considered in establishing
priorities.
CCEP-/ wAng Caen car.•.Ery iro 6e 21.Om:y PW 29
The total cost of needed future improvements is well in excess of$1.5 billion. While some S100
million or more may become available through the 1998 STIP,and CCTA will program between
S40 and S45 million in additional Measure C funds for priority projects,more funding is needed.
Given efforts in both Washington and Sacramento to encourage funding from local sources,it is
likely that developer fee programs will continue(and be expanded)and an extension to Contra
Costa's local transportation ales tax program,Measure C,will be proposed.
Over the past few years,the Contra Costa Council,in cooperation with groups such as the
Coalition of Labor and Business(COLAS),the Homebuilders Association(HIDA),Cmual Labor
Council,the Association of Realtors,and the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association has been
focused on improving Route 4,in both west and east county. The Council identiSad the Route 4
corridor as the highest-priority unfunded project in Contra Costa County because it links three
major geographical area of the county and because improvements art needed to keep Contra
Costa economically competitive with the Bay Area and the rest of California. CCTA has
supported efforts to focus attention on Route 4 and, over the past few years,has been working to
advance the state-of-readiness of a number of important projects in the corridor.
Because of opportunities presented with the 1998 STIP,consideration must be given to utilizing
the previously successful"partnership"approach to ensure that the County receives as much
STIP money as possible for high priority local projects. While the 1998 S71P presents an
opportunity,this report identifies a number of challenges. Some of the more significant
(challenges and opportunities)include:
Establishing a priority list of local projects presents a challenge.
The potential for significant new state/federal funds in 1998 STIP is an opportunity(the
relatively high state of readiness of a number of local projects should position Contra
Costa to complete well for new STIP funds).
Current cash flow problems with Measure C revenues is a challenge. Aggressive bonding
in the early years of the Measure C program required the Authority to"pledge"future
revenues to cover debt service. As a result,current revenues for priority projects are
somewhat limited. A strategy to address this situation is needed.
Efforts of CCTA and others to establish sub-regional developer fee programs is a major
challenge. The business community needs to monitor and support these efforts and
participate to ensure sensitivity to economic development issues.
Maintaining a strong public-private partnership provides both challenges and
opportunities. The business community needs to participate actively in presentations to
CCTA,MTC and the CTC.
In light of recent court decisions,efforts to extend Contra Costa's local transportation
:ales tax program(Measure C)will present a real challenge. Options and opportunities to
address this situation must be identified and evaluated.
Expanding the suoeessful"Contra Costa Partnership"to include Alameda and San Joaquin
counties is a challenge that could result in significant opportunities for all parties with
respect to economic development opportunities in the East Bay Area.
CCEP-M"ing Cams Cau's Eamamy Imo ax 21-Cmry Pas 29
r
West Contra Costa--Transportation
1. Where are residents taking trips? Not far. Most trips are made around the home. 51%
of all trips taken in the cities of Richmond,San Pablo,
El Cerrito and the unincorporated areas of El Sobrante
and North Richmond are local. Another ii% are to
and from southern neighbors Albany and Berkeley.
Less than 6%of trips are to or from distant Marin,
San Mateo,Santa Clara,Solano and Sonoma counties.
2. Are non-commute trips important? 64%of all trips taken in West Contra Costa are non-
commute. Commute trips account for the balance,
36%.
3. Is transit used in West Contra Costa? Yes. A total of 35,000 transit boardings occur daily
in the AC Transit service area in West Contra Costa.
The mode split is 62% for AC Transit(bus) and 38%
BART (rail—Richmond, Del Norte and E.C. Plaza).
4. Are buses cost-effective? Very. The annualized capital and operating cost per
transit passenger for AC Transit(bus)is $2.65; BART
(rail) is $5.23; subtracting the average fare collected
provides the subsidy per passenger. For AC Transit,
the subsidy per passenger is $2.18; for BART, $3.97•
Owning a car in the Bay Area costs about $5,00o a
year, compared with $S40 for a year's supply of bus
passes.
5. Is transit supported by residents? Widely. According to a poll published in the San
Francisco Chronicle, "Expanding bus systems" was
favored by 81% of West Contra Costa residents.
Freeway expansion received a lower rating-579/x, and
toll roads just 19%.
6. Are land use and air quality important? The Bay Area League of Women Voters has told the
Alameda County committee responsible for placing
a new half cent sales tax for transportation on the
1998 ballot that it will oppose any measure which
does not take land use (sprawl) and air quality into
account.
Bottom Line
Most trips are fairly short and close to home. Non commute trips are more numerous than trips involving
a commute. Transit is important to the economy of West Contra Costa. The public subsidy per bus
passenger is about half that of a rail passenger. West Contra Costa residents overwhelmingly favor more
bus service over other improvements. Land use and air quality are two factors that cannot be ignored if
community support is sought for new transportation programs.
Sources 1)and 2)DKS Associales—�for AC Transit Strategic Flan,April 19%;3)AC Transit and BART passenger surveys,late 1995 and early 1996;4)AC Transit finance Department report using FTA 615
transit operator reports,and MTC for automobile cost;S)poll by Mark Baldassare and Associates,published in the San Francisco Chronicle August 11,1997;6)LWV to Alameda County Expenditure Plan Steering
Committee,June 1997.Mari W liams,510 891.7146 voice,891.4705 fax,mwlllia@uclmk2.berkelgedu.August 1997.
V
` n
ao OD co —i
0 0 0
+ 0 0 4 o n o D
co
n a n co () co D - D co co D D Q
I Vi D 0 a b D y D 0 D w m CCD SD 0' y 7
0 3 a 6 o a •.' � : v a) o o n
2 0 SD
y SD a vpi 00i cn - N � '� C') U3 70
(D o o "* N Q o 0 .. o a W C ,!
C a n n cQ ch a cN 7Do o D (1) W
o a
� o ; D m o Su 0
C) 0 d = m � CD lb a y
CD v, o
(D O W co ?. N 3 3 N.
(p 0 N w �� -0. y � S Su a N
Oo uoi n� oa 0,
c
(A ton 3 Ami7C-
m a :3 a :3 Q_
CD o w n �, C
D�1 Vi 17I y n •• A� Q
N
cy C
00
6 �• Q _D_
(D p O
o CD
CD y C
(D
N
W N 1 W N
W N -+ A O W d 0 0 (O OD
(.n -+ W m (D L CO A (O W O 0
OD W O O D ? (,0 0 j 1 W O OD Ul v -Al N
N)
4 — Ln o (n M o c OD (T W Ln 00
0 o N (O W o o O N 0D p � o O N A W -+ Q
n
i.
. Q
o (D
OrL �Xv. :: co N
CV.
0 Poi (D
Q
.." \ \f♦I♦ t W ♦!♦I♦!♦ ♦ \ ♦ \ \ to
(D
\ \ \ \ \ CD \ \ \ \ \ S \!\!♦I♦f S
y (D 7
m s
oc¢'n m
Co
m
n
su
$20
°'o
�C�►a a m
Transit Boardings—Trips Within West Contra Costa
AC Transit Line Area Boardings Cumulative West Contra Costa
76 Richmond, San Pablo 2,499 2,499
74 Richmond 2,088 4,587
71 Richmond, San Pablo 1,735 6,322
68 EI Cerrito, Richmond 1,335 7,657
69 EI Sobrante, Richmond 893 8,550
70 EI Cerrito, San Pablo, EI Sobrante 797 9,347 AC daily boardings on
78 Richmond, San Pablo 473 9,820 lines operating only in
75 EI Cerrito 453 10,273 West Contra Costa
School Suppl. WCC schools 2,492 12,765 12,765
West Contra Costa BART stations—daily boardings
EI Cerrito Plaza Del Norte Richmond Totals
to WCC 224 232 263 719
West County Transit Boardings—AC Transit & BART*
/`/�/•
It i
/
Tiansix
5
®AC Transit 95%
BART 5%
..... ..... .. .. . .
i
* West County trips: Only boardings on AC lines that operate solely within West Contra "•.
Costa are counted here. BART boardinQ s are for travel within West Contra Costa.
West Contra Costa-Transportation
i. Where are residents taking trips? Not far. Most trips are made around the home. 51%
of all trips taken in the cities of Richmond,San Pablo,
El Cerrito and the unincorporated areas of El Sobrante
and North Richmond are local. Another II%are to
and from southern neighbors Albany and Berkeley.
Less than 6% of trips are to or from distant Marin,
San Mateo,Santa Clara,Solano and Sonoma counties.
z. Are non-commute trips important? 64%of all trips taken in West Contra Costa are non-
commute. Commute trips account for the balance,
36%.
3. Is transit used in West Contra Costa? Yes. A total of 35,000 transit boardings occur daily
in the AC Transit service area in West Contra Costa.
The mode split is 62%for AC Transit (bus) and 38%
BART (rail—Richmond, Del Norte and E.C. Plaza).
4. Are buses cost-effective? Very.The annualized capital and operating cost per
transit passenger for AC Transit(bus)is $2.65; BART
(rail) is $5,23; subtracting the average fare collected
provides the subsidy per passenger. For AC Transit,
the subsidy per passenger is $z.18; for BART, $3.97•
Owning a car in the Bay Area costs about $5,000 a
year, compared with $540 for a year's supply of bus
passes.
5. Is transit supported by residents? Widely. According to a poll published in the San
Francisco Chronicle, "Expanding bus systems" was
favored by 81% of West Contra Costa residents.
Freeway expansion received a lower rating-579/6, and
toll roads just iq%.
6. Are land use and air quality important? The Bay Area League of Women Voters has told the
Alameda County committee responsible for placing
a new half cent sales tax for transportation on the
1998 ballot that it will oppose any measure which
does not take land use (sprawl) and air quality into
account.
Bottom line
Most trips are fairly short and close to home. Non commute trips are more numerous than trips involving
a commute. Transit is important to the economy of West Contra Costa. The public subsidy per bus
passenger is about half that of a rail passenger. West Contra Costa residents overwhelmingly favor more
bus service over other improvements. Land use and air quality are two factors that cannot be ignored if
community support is sought for new transportation programs.
Sowce=1)and 2)OKS Associates--Report for AC Transit Strategic Plan,April 1996;3)AC Transit and BART passenger surveys,late 1995 and early 1996;4)AC Transit Finance Department report using FTA 615
transit operator reports,and MTC for automobile cost;S)poll by Mark Baldassare and Associates,published in the San Francisco Chronicle August 11,1997;6)LWV to Alameda County Expenditure Plan Steering
Committee,June 1997.Matt Wiliams,510 891.7146 voice,891.4705 tax,mvAllia@uclWZberkeleyedu.August 1997.
i
D
g n
m GO Co —A
Cb a°, lb Q
a o n 0 n o o D a y
n co D D W (J) U3 D D W D D_ Q
a, C7 0 (7 : y T D m o SyS 7DJD D W CO 3 oSD
CD
y
ti. \ _Q a ? Q a 1'i► � � T \/ Q _Q.. -+ fir"
° 3 3 O s� a 6 ° y co O ° 7 0 � _ �' 3 ' D
c = `� �'' en O o w 3 CL (A cr CL 0 - w n �n 7v
c SI) (o D g v fm 3 ca o
a C n (n a u, a
3 m � 3 m O
o
�
N m p N � n
0 CD SD m
a' in ch
in
0 n C mm �. m 3 n O
Cl) v a) D a y
aD. W M. 0 4 (D
(n H `` 0 (n .a 0
c
3 m a a
CD
"0. 0 n SDCD
n 3 � 0 _ W
v y T E?• j N O
3
? :3 O
v CT QCD 0
�.
O �'
CD
p� CD
NC
3 at
CD
N
--r
W N 1 1 W N
W N 1 O W O O (D 1 OD C�
M 1 W On (D Ln W A co W O Q
W O O D W --m -� -, CD W O 00 ,4 A N 3
00 K)
v — � o M Ln n' o u OD M W Ln OD
0 o N (D co o O N OD p o m N o. W T 0
Q
0 (D
..> 0 OL W H
"O 3 nOi N
n
<.
f f f r f f f f f f f f =r f r • r fA (D
1 1 1 1 \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ 1 \ CD \ \ 1 \ ♦ CD \
� CD
m
0 y (D
.:: .3•.
go
i W '
Al
n
- �
dcn
"�, �m
—n CI
Transit Boardings—Trips Within West Contra Costa
AC Transit Line Area Boardings Cumulative West Contra Costa �
76 Richmond, San Pablo 2,499 2,499
74 Richmond 2,088 4,587
71 Richmond, San Pablo 1,735 6,322
68 EI Cerrito, Richmond 1,335 7,657
69 EI Sobrante, Richmond 893 8,550
70 EI Cerrito, San Pablo, EI Sobrante 797 9,347 AC daily boardings on
78 Richmond,San Pablo 473 9,820 lines operating only in
75 EI Cerrito 453 10,273 West Contra Costa
School Suppl. WCC schools 2,492 12,765 12,765
West Contra Costa BART stations—daily boardings
EI Cerrito Plaza Del Norte Richmond Totals
to WCC 224 232 263 719
West County Transit Boardings—AC Transit & BART*
:;.
8>�RT
; .
\ . \
, , ..
.: ♦ ♦
{
or
01
050
011
{
♦ i
i
rv°
{
®AC Transit °95/0
�B T5%
` West County trips: Only boardings on AC lines that operate solely within West Contra
Costa are counted here BART boardings are for travel within West Contra Costa
West Contra Costa—Transportation
1. Where are residents taking trips? Not far. Most trips are made around the home. 51%
of all trips taken in the cities of Richmond,San Pablo,
El Cerrito and the unincorporated areas of El Sobrante
and North Richmond are local. Another 11% are to
and from southern neighbors Albany and Berkeley.
Less than 6% of trips are to or from distant Marin,
San Mateo,Santa Clara,Solano and Sonoma counties.
2. Are non-commute trips important? 64%of all trips taken in West Contra Costa are non-
commute. Commute trips account for the balance,
36%.
3. Is transit used in West Contra Costa? Yes. A total of 35,000 transit boardings occur daily
in the AC Transit service area in West Contra Costa.
The mode split is 62%for AC Transit (bus) and 38%
BART (rail—Richmond, Del Norte and E.C. Plaza).
4. Are buses cost-effective? Very. The annualized capital and operating cost per
transit passenger for AC Transit (bus) is $2.65; BART
(rail) is $5.23; subtracting the average fare collected
provides the subsidy per passenger. For AC Transit,
the subsidy per passenger is $2.18; for BART, $3.97•
Owning a car in the Bay Area costs about $5,00o a
year, compared with $540 for a year's supply of bus
passes.
5. Is transit supported by residents? Widely. According to a poll published in the San
Francisco Chronicle, "Expanding bus systems" was
favored by 81% of West Contra Costa residents.
Freeway expansion received a lower rating-579%,,, and
toll roads just 1g%.
6. Are land use and air quality important? The Bay Area League of Women Voters has told the
Alameda County committee responsible for placing
a new half cent sales tax for transportation on the
1998 ballot that it will oppose any measure which
does not take land use (sprawl) and air quality into
account.
Bottom line
Most trips are fairly short and close to home. Non commute trips are more numerous than trips involving
a commute. Transit is important to the economy of West Contra Costa. The public subsidy per bus
passenger is about half that of a rail passenger. West Contra Costa residents overwhelmingly favor more
bus service over other improvements. Land use and air quality are two factors that cannot be ignored if
community support is sought for new transportation programs.
Srwrces.,1)and 2)DKS Associates--Report for AC Transit Strategic Plan,April 1996;3)AC Transit and BART passerger suneys,late 1995 and early 1996.4)AC Transit Finance Department report using FTA 415
transit operator reports,and MTC for automobile cost;S)poll by Mark Baldassare and Associates,published in the San Francisco Chronicle August 11,199y;6)LWV to Alameda County Evenditure Plan Steering
Committee,June 1997.Matt Wiliam,510 891.7146 voice,891.4705 fax,mwillia@uclink2.berkeftedu.August 1997.
D
c° C)
n m OD
CD O Olb lb to
O
' 0 4 0 4 0 > o D Q
D D m to Cl) a) D D co � W D — � Q
D C� 6 C7 D H D C7 6 n D H D (� D m
' 0co CD SD
7 3 0
SI)
7 o j W o N CL _
CD
O B.
SI)
n w co n cN o ,� D Co W
CL -� n
cfl cn co j D m o m O
(no y 01 O NCD co 0 . w Q
a w
CD 2 n 0 2: D ty W cc o ra
CD 0 th =rr Q
co CD 0
(p c7 . CD
(D p� C7 y m
o o m CD CD =3 C�
O
O n— D
cx 14.
(D
C 0 w( 'C 7 p (D 77-
3 (D CL 7 a :3 O1 Q
Cl—
Cf) -n G>
CbOEP
m y m C O
00 = t0 Q
(7
v yCO 0
�.
Cp O CQ
O) CD N
CD
ra
3
N
N
W N jW N
W N j A O W t C 0 c0 OJ
U1 W. (1� co U9 W ? O W O Q
W O O a) ? W O 1 1 co W -4 OD V A N
o V 1 cn O -� U7 Ln n O O m Ln W Ln OD
0 o N (D W o O N OD p o
�. n
O
N
Q
i� o � (D
O
m
\ \f\f\ \ \f\f\f\ ♦ \ ♦ \ \ (O L
' fiffff _ :'. fffff � ffff � cn N
\ \ \ \ \
CD \ \ \ \ \ S \f\f\f\f
N (D
O Vi S
O
W m
0
SD
iA o 90 WIS
0! W
a N �
�.,
Transit Boardings—Trips Within West Contra Costa
AC Transit Line Area Boardings Cumulative West Contra Costa
76 Richmond, San Pablo 2,499 2,499
74 Richmond 2,088 4,587
71 Richmond, San Pablo 1,735 6,322
68 EI Cerrito, Richmond 1,335 7,657
69 EI Sobrante, Richmond 893 8,550
70 EI Cerrito, San Pablo, EI Sobrante 797 9,347 AC daily boardings on
78 Richmond, San Pablo 473 9,820 lines operating only in
75 EI Cerrito 453 10,273 West Contra Costa
School Suppl. WCC schools 2,492 12,765 12,765
West Contra Costa BART stations—daily boardings
EI Cerrito Plaza Del Norte Richmond Totals
to WCC 224 232 263 719
West County Transit Boardings—AC Transit & BART*
JWFYO \
! !
\!\
A �"1'S1'nSI'�
%
I
®AC Transit 95%
BART 5%
West County trips: Only boardings on AC lines that operate solely within West Contra
Costa are counted here BART boardings are for travel within West Contra Costa
r
West Contra Costa—Transportation
i. Where are residents taking trips? Not far. Most trips are made around the home. 51%
of all trips taken in the cities of Richmond,San Pablo,
El Cerrito and the unincorporated areas of El Sobrante
and North Richmond are local. Another ii% are to
and from southern neighbors Albany and Berkeley.
Less than 6%of trips are to or from distant Marin,
San Mateo,Santa Clara,Solano and Sonoma counties.
2. Are non-commute trips important. 64%of all trips taken in West Contra Costa are non-
commute. Commute trips account for the balance,
36%.
3. Is transit used in West Contra Costa? Yes. A total of 35,000 transit boardings occur daily
in the AC Transit service area in West Contra Costa.
The mode split is 62% for AC Transit (bus)and 38%
BART (rail—Richmond, Del Norte and E.C. Plaza).
4. Are buses cost-effective? Very. The annualized capital and operating cost per
transit passenger for AC Transit(bus)is $2.65; BART
(rail) is $5.23; subtracting the average fare collected
provides the subsidy per passenger. For AC Transit,
the subsidy per passenger is $2.18; for BART, $3.97•
Owning a car in the Bay Area costs about $5,00o a
year, compared with $S40 for a year's supply of bus
passes.
5. Is transit supported by residents? Widely. According to a poll published in the San
Francisco Chronicle, "Expanding bus systems" was
favored.by 81% of West Contra Costa residents.
Freeway expansion received a lower rating—S79/6,and
toll roads just i9%.
6. Are land use and air quality important? The Bay Area League of Women Voters has told the
Alameda County committee responsible for placing
a new half cent sales tax for transportation on the
1998 ballot that it will oppose any measure which
does not take land use (sprawl) and air quality into
account.
Bottom line
Most trips are fairly short and close to home. Non commute trips are more numerous than trips involving
a commute. Transit is important to the economy of West Contra Costa. The public subsidy per bus
passenger is about half that of a rail passenger. West Contra Costa residents overwhelmingly favor more
bus service over other improvements. Land use and air quality are two factors that cannot be ignored if
community support is sought.for new transportation programs.
SouMes:1)and 2)DKS Associates--Report for AC Transit Strategic Plan,April 1996 3)AC Transit and BART passenger sunays,We 1995 and early 1996;4)AC Transit Finance Department repot using FTA 615
transit operator reports,and MTC for automobile cost;5)poll by Mark Baldassare and Associates,published in the San Francisco Chronicle August 11,1997;6)LWV to Alameda County Expenditure Plan Steering
Committee,Jura 1997.Matt Wiliam,510 891.7146 voice,891-4705 fax,m*ilia@uclink?berkeleyedu.August 1997.
D
°c n
03 t73
Cb
n
0 4 0 4 o n o D 4 H
Q7 D D c] to cn co D D co to W D = � D_
S-11 n o r m ` T D m n o n ySS n n w o ycc
V = 1 �• ^ m S
0 3 cQ 0 3° 6 \ . ca ° y. O° 0m zr
D
c :r N a N O
cD o 0 3 •• m a o 0 3 ° a D (7 3 ?
c nCl) n n w cy cD 3a cC°n o q D eD W
a -i
C o m Cl) co _� (j)jw SD CL 3
D W 3 0t13 Q
cD C7 CD C7 m
(D W m
cn o m CD
o CD
m _ 3 () O
03
d o D a to
0 CD
0 p, a 4
rt `< <n ID° OCD
w o n
Cl) :3 ID
(D aCD
3 a D) II
cr o w- -Ti
3 n CP
1 0`
W
N W Q
? Vi o O
v A Q
O 4Ccio
O
CD N G
3 ra
3
N
W N -+ W N
W N 1 A O W d 0 0 (D i OD n
cn -+ W ()I t0 U7 :3
W ? tD W O Q
W O O D 1\ W O 0. W O OD V A N
00 N)
v 1 M o -+ Ut Ul o Ch o OD C" W U7 OD
o o N t0 CA)
o o O N 00 po o
n
Xx
Q
CDD
0 03a
-'
r♦r♦r♦r♦ ♦r♦ !♦r♦f\/\r\/♦ ♦ CD
=rJ♦f♦f\J\ fA
♦ \ ♦ \ \ CD` \ ♦ \ ♦ ♦ S \f1 f\f♦/
N CD 3
O N S
(D
XX3
`G y.
n
TI
Transit Boardings—Trips Within West Contra Costa
I
4'
AC Transit Line Area Boardings Cumulative West Contra Costa
76 Richmond, San Pablo 2,499 2,499
74 Richmond 2,088 4,587
71 Richmond,San Pablo 1,735 6,322
68 EI Cerrito, Richmond 1,335 7,657
69 EI Sobrante, Richmond 893 8,550
70 EI Cerrito, San Pablo, EI Sobrante 797 9,347 AC daily boardings on
78 Richmond,San Pablo 473 9,820 lines operating only in
75 EI Cerrito 453 10,273 West Contra Costa
School Suppl. WCC schools 2,492 12,765 12,765
West Contra Costa BART stations—daily boardings
EI Cerrito Plaza Del Norte Richmond Totals
to WCC 224 232 263 719
West County Transit Boardings—AC Transit & BART*
ijSA � , , .
JJ
.. .-. h 4
{
f J`
J\ 1
J`
3
n ► 95/o
®AC Tr s't °
BART 5%
..
" West County trips: Only boardings on AC lines that operate solely within West Contra
Costa are counted here. BART boardings are for travel within West Contra Costa.
' West Contra Costa--Transportation
i. Where are residents taking trips? Not far. Most trips are made around the home. 51%
of all trips taken in the cities of Richmond,San Pablo,
El Cerrito and the unincorporated areas of El Sobrante
and North Richmond are local. Another 11% are to
and from southern neighbors Albany and Berkeley.
Less than 6%of trips are to or from distant Marin,
San Mateo,Santa Clara,Solano and Sonoma counties.
2. Are non-commute trips important? 64%of all trips taken in West Contra Costa are non-
commute. Commute trips account for the balance,
36%.
3. Is transit used in West Contra Costa? Yes. A total of 35,000 transit boardings occur daily
in the AC Transit service area in West Contra Costa.
The mode split is 62% for AC Transit (bus) and 38%
BART (rail—Richmond, Del Norte and E.C. Plaza).
4. Are buses cost-effective? Very. The annualized capital and operating cost per
transit passenger for AC Transit (bus) is $2.65; BART
(rail) is $5.23; subtracting the average fare collected
provides the subsidy per passenger. For AC Transit,
the subsidy per passenger is $2.18; for BART, $3.97•
Owning a car in the Bay Area costs about $5,00o a
year, compared with $S40 for a year's supply of bus
passes.
5. Is transit supported by residents? Widely. According to a poll published in the San
Francisco Chronicle, "Expanding bus systems" was
favored by 81% of West Contra Costa residents.
Freeway expansion received a lower rating-579/6, and
toll roads just 19%.
6. Are land use and air quality important? The Bay Area League of Women Voters has told the
'Alameda County committee responsible for placing
a new half cent sales tax for transportation on the
1998 ballot that it will oppose any measure which
does not take land use (sprawl) and air quality into
account.
Bottom Line
Most trips are fairly short and close to home. Non commute trips are more numerous than trips involving
a commute. Transit is important to the economy of West Contra Costa. The public subsidy per bus
passenger is about half that of a rail passenger. West Contra Costa residents overwhelmingly favor more
bus service over other improvements. Land use and air quality are two factors that cannot be ignored if
community support is sought for new transportation programs.
Sounc=1)and 2)DKS Associates--Report for AC Transit Strategic Pian,April 1996;3)AC Transit and BART passenger surveys,We 1995 and early 1996;4)AC Transit Finance Department report using FTA 615
transit operator reports,and MTC for automobile cost;5)poll by Mark Baldassare and Associates,published in the San Francisco Chronicle August 11,1997;6)1WV to Alameda County Expenditure Plan Steering
Committee,June 1997.Matt Wiliams,510 891.7146 wive,891-4705 fa;nmillia@uclinlaberkele}cedu.August 1997.
U D
tri
Cb
a o
40 4 o n o D 4 H
SDw w -r
D n a n co to co D D � CD D = D p
y CO D C) Q• o D H D n D O m
-i SD ?� n ( � 3 p_
o D O _ � o
CD
N a y S oSI) O - w cr CL � w 4 (� a
n ( n n : CD (D FL o
= cy m o D ((p (`)
o a _ �,
(D cQ = cn co : C D m o w m � O
C N CD m 0 p N 3 ► » Q H 3
_ �' ••
CD n,cc, ID cc °
V
CD O V! CD 3 �� 3CD
N
om WH =rw a N
= o ° m m e� CD a n O
Oo ,
coo� ° D -*�
0 Cb
Co CD
OCL
CD
CA C � yi (°!1 7 = p
< � (D Q = p-
(D
Q
3 = 7 =tp lb
Ov
a O
fU
A> Q
n
O C
0' C Q_
CD o (pCD CA
CD
(D y
= to
0
N
CO N C, O Wd O O O i OD n
cn - W (T CD (Jt n W A O W CA 0
W O O O A W O -4- 1 O W O v -06 :N O
00 o 4 1 Ln c Ln Cn n o o W 0 W 0 O
0 o N O W o o O N W p � o O N A W -+ Q
O
..: Q
° (D
W N
CL
Q
tQ �'
=rr r ! f N (D
\ \ ♦ \ \ `(D \ \ \ \ \ S 1 \ \
m
o (ten CD
_
n
......
y �
Transit Boardings—Trips Within West Contra Costa v
1
AC Transit Line Area Boardings Cumulative West Contra Costa
76 Richmond, San Pablo 2,499 2,499
74 Richmond 2,088 4,587
71 Richmond,San Pablo 1,735 6,322
68 EI Cerrito, Richmond 1,335 7,657
69 EI Sobrante, Richmond 893 8,550
70 EI Cerrito,San Pablo, EI Sobrante 797 9,347 AC daily boardings on
78 Richmond, San Pablo 473 9,820 lines operating only in
75 EI Cerrito 453 10,273 West Contra Costa
School Suppl. WCC schools 2,492 12,765 12,765
West Contra Costa BART stations—daily boardings
EI Cerrito Plaza Del Norte Richmond Totals
to WCC 224 232 263 719
...::::.
West County Transit Boardings—AC Transit & BART*
1
f f
\ i
f
\ \
f
....:. .:.. f
1 'rsf#
...:3
{
95/
®AC Transit °
BART 5%
. ... .
" West County trips. Only boardings on AC lines that operate solely within West Contra
Costa are counted here. BART boardings are for travel within West Contra Costa
.. . . . :
West Contra Costa—Transportation
i. Where are residents taking trips? Not far. Most trips are made around the home. 51%
of all trips taken in the cities of Richmond,San Pablo,
El Cerrito and the unincorporated areas of El Sobrante
and North Richmond are local. Another ii%are to
and from southern neighbors Albany and Berkeley.
Less than 6%of trips are to or from distant Marin,
San Mateo,Santa Clara,Solano and Sonoma counties.
2. Are non-commute trips important? 64%of all trips taken in West Contra Costa are non-
commute. Commute trips account for the balance,
36%.
3. Is transit used in West Contra Costa? Yes. A total of 35,000 transit boardings occur daily
in the AC Transit service area in West Contra Costa.
The mode split is 62%for AC Transit (bus) and 38%
BART (rail—Richmond, Del Norte and E.C. Plaza).
4. Are buses cost-effective? Very. The annualized capital and operating cost per
transit passenger for AC Transit (bus) is $2.65; BART
(rail) is $5.23; subtracting the average fare collected
provides the subsidy per passenger. For AC Transit,
the subsidy per passenger is $2.18; for BART, $3.97•
Owning a car in the Bay Area costs about $5,00o a
year, compared with $S40 for a year's supply of bus
passes.
5. Is transit supported by residents? Widely. According to a poll published in the San
Francisco Chronicle, "Expanding bus systems" was
favored by 81% of West Contra Costa residents.
Freeway expansion received a lower rating-57%, and
toll roads just 19%.
6. Are land use and air quality important? The Bay Area League of Women Voters has told the
Alameda County committee responsible for placing
a new half cent sales tax for transportation on the
1998 ballot that it will oppose any measure which
does not take land use (sprawl) and air quality into
account.
Bottom line
Most trips are fairly short and close to home. Non commute trips are more numerous than trips involving
a commute. Transit is important to the economy of West Contra Costa. The public subsidy per bus
passenger is about half that of a rail passenger. West Contra Costa residents overwhelmingly favor more
bus service over other improvements. Land use and air quality are two factors that cannot be ignored if
community support is sought for new transportation programs.
SWMefi 1)and 2)DKS Associates-�port for AC Transit Strategic Plan,April 1996;3)AC Transu and BART passenger sunays,late 1995 and early 1996;1)AC Transit Finance Deperlment report using FTA 615
transit operator reports,and MTC for automobile cost;S)poll by Mark Baldassare and Associates,published in the San Francisco Chronicle August 11,1997;6)LNN to Alameda County Expenditure Plan Steering
Cornmihee,June 1997.Matt Wiliams,510 891.7146 voice,891-4705 fax,mwill a@uclink2.berkeleyedu.August 1997.
D
n
t D �
Cb o0 0
o 0 o a o o D a
n -�
C13 D D W CO Lu D D 07 W D - Q
C7 0 n y 71D C7 0 C7 N n N N m SI)
0 H
-i
o 7 O ' 7 3 ? 7 p��i 0 SD = ? D
y (O N. N C2 0 » co y 3 OSI) 3 (O
N Q n to � N a a 07 a' 0
CD o o •• m Q o 0 3 o y : D C)
15 a co n co cy n c o ,� D CD W
O w �
� c z v, co :k Co m 0 ID m m O
Crin
CL
(� O �_ D oa > W cn oCD 0 CA
Q
.N•. "� 3 CCD
u, o "* -+ CA w SD a N
o m m CD m :3 nCL
p
n <
N a' M W n <
0 w c 'C 3 0
3 m a = a y' =3Cb n►
c 0 cn -tn
n� v j
a 3 cn o
0 .�. W
v y m O
ID o0 . ¢ Q_
6 rh cx �.
rn m o ' CQ
CDN
CD
CD
N
W N
W N
co N -+ P O W d O O c0 • OD C�
Cn 1 W Ln c0 cn W A 0 W O p
W O O O) ? W O i (O co O CO -1 ? N
O O Ln cn O O OD Ln W Ln c
0 o N cD W o o O N OD Q o
.:: Q
pCD
co
dam ' w ((DD
a
CL
5 t.
\ ♦r\r\ \ '; (n \r\r♦r♦ ♦ \ ♦ ♦ ♦ c0
CD
CD
\ ♦ \ \ ♦ \ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ S \r\r♦r♦r _�
m
C) m m
o
co m
o �! . sp 0! w
a y N �
o* A
Transit Boardings—Trips Within West Contra Costa
AC Transit Line Area Boardings Cumulative West Contra Costa
76 Richmond, San Pablo 2,499 2,499
74 Richmond 2,088 4,587
71 Richmond,Son Pablo 1,735 6,322
68 EI Cerrito, Richmond 1,335 7,657
69 EI Sobrante, Richmond 893 8,550
70 EI Cerrito, San Pablo, EI Sobrante 797 9,347 AC daily boardings on
78 Richmond,San Pablo 473 9,820 lines operating only in
75 EI Cerrito 453 10,273 West Contra Costa
School Suppl. WCC schools 2,492 12,765 12,765
West Contra Costa BART stations—daily boardings
EI Cerrito Plaza Del Norte Richmond Totals
to WCC 224 232 263 719
West County Transit Boardings—AC Transit & BART*
AT ,.;.;.
. .
i
f
/*
f,
Tra�nt
ri°o
{
Flo
®AC Transit 95%
EI BART 5%
" West County trips: Only boardings on AC lines that operate solely within West Contra s
;:Costa are counted here BART boardings are for travel within West Contra Costa
Y
West Contra Costa—Transportation
r. Where are residents taking trips? Not far. Most trips are made around the home. 51%
of all trips taken in the cities of Richmond,San Pablo,
El Cerrito and the unincorporated areas of El Sobrante
and North Richmond are local. Another ij%are to
and from southern neighbors Albany and Berkeley.
Less than 6%of trips are to or from distant Marin,
San Mateo,Santa Clara,Solano and Sonoma counties.
2. Are non-commute trips important? 64%of all trips taken in West Contra Costa are non-
commute. Commute trips account for the balance,
36%.
3. Is transit used in West Contra Costa? Yes. A total of 35,000 transit boardings occur daily
in the AC Transit service area in West Contra Costa.
The mode split is 62%for AC Transit (bus) and 38%
BART (rail—Richmond,.Del Norte and E.C. Plaza).
4. Are buses cost-effective? Very. The annualized capital and operating cost per
transit passenger for AC Transit (bus) is $2.65; BART
(rail) is $5.13; subtracting the average fare collected
provides the subsidy per passenger. For AC Transit,
the subsidy per passenger is $2.18; for BART, $3.97.
Owning a car in the Bay Area costs about $5,000 a
year, compared with $S40 for a year's supply of bus
passes.
5. Is transit supported by residents? Widely. According to a poll published in the San
Francisco Chronicle, "Expanding bus systems" was
favored by 81% of West Contra Costa residents.
Freeway expansion received a lower rating-57°/% and
toll roads just r9%.
6. Are land use and air quality important? The Bay Area League of Women Voters has told the
Alameda County committee responsible for placing
a new half cent sales tax for transportation on the
1998 ballot that it will oppose any measure which
does not take land use (sprawl) and air quality into
account.
Bottom line
Most trips are fairly short and close to home. Non commute trips are more numerous than trips involving
a commute. Transit is important to the economy of West Contra Costa. The public subsidy per bus
passenger is about half that of a rail passenger. West Contra Costa residents overwhelmingly favor more
bus service over other improvements. Land use and air quality are two factors that cannot be ignored if
community support is sought for new transportation programs.
So irm I)and 2)DKS AssociMs--Report fa AC Trmsit Strategic Gbn,Apri(1446;3)AC Trwsit and BART passenper surveys,late 1445 and earty 1496;4)AC Transit Finance Department report ussiN FTA 615
transit operator reports,and MTC for automobile cost;5)poll by Mark Baldassare and Associates,published in the San Francisco Chronicle August 11,1997;6)LWV to Alameda County Expenditure Plan Steering.
Committee,June 1997.Matt Wiliams,510 891.7146 voice,891.4705 fax,mvrillia@uclink2.berkeley.edu.August 1997.
D
n
CD o 0 0
y Di 01 Di Q
p Q O Q O 0 O D Q N
n N N N N m
Q7 D D co to (n co D D ca 4a co D � D —i k Q
o A3 N .► o A� cr n Q Q .w W
to -,
(�D .-0p' 'y" (D Q o p 3 ? ° 3 D n 7 3 ?
Q n w CO (D o cy O D (o W
a
CD (o cn CD W m w 3 m O
27n d .� N c of
((Oo C7 O ? m n O (D
(Du� m
cn o o m CD m =3 n p
O w o D a y �'
y. 3 C Cn Q w o n tD
m
(D a n
a lb
, -% Q
0 o
tU N 0 EP
-7 n. S' n c O
UD
ch
n y G
v (n
CD
O
O CQ
0 N
m y <
3
CD
N
-m
j
W N t W N
W N j O W d O O co -' OD n
(r — W U I (O Ln W ? w co O p
W O O O A W O -� -� c0 W O OD 1 V 1� N
OD N)
4 s Ln o Ul M n o u co Ln W Ut co
0 o N CO W o O N 00 v o o O N A W Q
n
N
Q
O (C
� : . O
QQ
_.
(D
3 _
♦ ♦t♦r♦ ♦ ♦t♦r♦r♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦... <.
_ y (D
CD
r t r r r r r r r r r r r r
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 3 ♦r♦r♦r♦r _S
CD 3
M
p y (D
..
....:
N W
n
o go
v
,n
Transit Boardings—Trips Within West Contra Costa
AC Transit Line Area Boardings Cumulative West Contra Costa
76 Richmond, San Pablo' 2,499 2,499
74 Richmond .2,088 4,587
71 Richmond,San Pablo 1,735 6.322
68 EI Cerrito, Richmond 1,335 7,657
69 EI Sobrante, Richmond 893 8,550
70 EI Cerrito, San Pablo, EI Sobrante 797 9,347 AC daily boardings on
78 Richmond, San Pablo 473 9,820 lines operating only in
75 EI Cerrito 453 10,273 West Contra Costa
School Suppl. WCC schools 2,492 12,765 12,765
West Contra Costa BART station"aily boardings
EI Cerrito Plaza Del Norte Richmond Totals
to WCC 224 232 263 719
West County Transit Boardings—AC Trans BART*
.;
SITrf
, .
\ ,
K.
\ 1
/ l
Tr�ln�i"it
Sir°�/
ro
®AC Transit 95%
BART 5%
* West County trips: Only boardings on AC lines that operate solely within West Contra
Costa are counted here. BART boardings are for travel within West Contra Costa.
r West Contra Costa—Transportation
i. Where are residents taking trips? Not far. Most trips are made around the home. 51%
of all trips taken in the cities of Richmond,San Pablo,
El Cerrito and the unincorporated areas of El Sobrante
and North Richmond are local. Another i1% are to
and from southern neighbors Albany and Berkeley.
Less than 6%of trips are to or from distant Marin,
San Mateo,Santa Clara,Solano and Sonoma counties.
2. Are non-commute trips important? 64%of all trips taken in West Contra Costa are non-
commute. Commute trips account for the balance,
36%.
3. Is transit used in West Contra Costa? Yes. A total of 35,000 transit boardings occur daily
in the AC Transit service area in West Contra Costa.
The mode split is 62% for AC Transit (bus) and 38%
BART (rail—Richmond, Del Norte and E.C. Plaza).
4. Are buses cost-effective? Very. The annualized capital and operating cost per
transit passenger for AC Transit(bus)is $2.65;BART
(rail) is $5.23; subtracting the average fare collected
provides the subsidy per passenger. For AC Transit,
the subsidy per passenger is $2.18; for BART, $3.97•
Owning a car in the Bay Area costs about $5,000 a
year, compared with $S40 for a year's supply of bus
passes.
5. Is transit supported by residents? Widely. According to a poll published in the San
Francisco Chronicle, "Expanding bus systems" was
favored by 81% of West Contra Costa residents.
Freeway expansion received a lower rating—S7%, and
toll roads just 1g%.
6. Are land use and air quality important? The Bay Area League of Women Voters has told the
Alameda County committee responsible for placing
a new half cent sales tax for transportation on the
1998 ballot that it will oppose any measure which
does not take land use (sprawl) and air quality into
account.
Bottom Line
Most trips are fairly short and close to home. Non commute trips are more numerous than trips involving
a commute. Transit is important to the economy of West Contra Costa. The public subsidy per bus
passenger is about half that of a rail passenger. West Contra Costa residents overwhelmingly favor more
bus service over other improvements. Land use and air quality are two factors that cannot be ignored if
community support is sought for new transportation programs.
Sources:1)and 2)DKS Associeles—4eport for AC Trani Strategic Plan,April 19%;3)AC Ransil and BART passenger surveys,late 1995 and early 1996;4)AC Transit Finance Department report using FTA 615
transit operator reports,and MTC for automobile cost;S)poll by Mark Baldassare and Associates,published in the San Francisco Chronicle August 11,1997;6)LWV to Alameda County Expenditure Plan Steering
Committee,June 1997.Matt Wdiams,510 891.7146 voice,891.4705 fax,mwilha a@uclinMberkeleycedu.August 1997.
h
Q D
C n
03 tl3 rm
a 0 4 0 4 o n --i D 4 H
w D D co Cl) - w D D W W D - D -i
D C7 C7 D y D n 6 n D �' D f7 D m m su C7CD
y
n a� nCL
0 3 3 0 0 Q 0 7 3 p _? 0 7 p� 6 0 ¢> > ?
Cb o o a o m j o j D n 3
CL n n co w a a cy O. � D ep W
o Cl) CL aS n
0 cQ cn cc � CO m p m SD m O
(D �_' 0) cn� o �' ? 7D c�n SD a y 3
CD .�
(D O
ca CD CD Ln
D p of 7 .c -. :3
0 (D SI) H A) a N
o C m m (D CD n
C7 eD
�i y Q n '� 5 CD
Vii o ID CO Q N n n CD
O Z ND( Q 7. 7
0..
a =cr Cf) m Q
0 - n n
m N 0
O
Al n
? N n O C
CL
(O O O
�_ O CII
CD y S
3 �
3
CD
N
A., O W O O CO j W n
Ul 1 W (T1 (O (T W ? (O W Q
W O) O O 4�, W O r .f (O W O ,DD -+ v A N
OD N) v 1 � o o Ln (JIn o o OD (n W (n OD
0 o N (D W o o O N OD p � o O)
0
to
0
O �!
W
O Q w N
(n n
♦ftftft -? <•
f f r f f f f f ! ! !
\ 1 t \ \ CD
Cl)
(D f ! ! r
7
m g
0 y (D
< � ! m
CO
opo W
0 1 ;
Transit Boardings—Trips Within West Contra Costa
AC Transit Line Area Boardings Cumulative West Contra Costa
76 Richmond, San Pablo 2,499 2,499
74 Richmond 2,088 4,587
71 Richmond,San Pablo 1,735 6,322
68 EI Cerrito, Richmond 1,335 7,657
69 EI Sobrante, Richmond 893 8.550
70 EI Cerrito,San Pablo, EI Sobrante 797 9,347 AC daily boardings on
78 Richmond, San Pablo 473 9,820 lines operating only in
75 EI Cerrito 453 10,273 West Contra Costa
School Suppl. WCC schools 2,492 12,765 12,765
West Contra Costa BART stations—daily boardings
EI Cerrito Plaza Del Norte Richmond Totals
to WCC 224 232 263 719
West County Transit Boardings—AC Transit & BART*
. x.
SRT
� fr
, . ,
, , d
aro
AC Tkansi#
o
i
®
AC runs 95/
T
V.
BART S%
* West County trips:Only boardings on AC lines that operate solely within West Contra
Costa are counted here BART boardings are for travel within West Contra Costa
s
West Contra Costa—Transportation
i. Where are residents taking trips? Not far. Most trips are made around the home. 51010
of all trips taken in the cities of Richmond,San Pablo,
El Cerrito and the unincorporated areas of El Sobrante
and North Richmond are local. Another i1%are to
and from southern neighbors Albany and Berkeley.
Less than 6%of trips are to or from distant Marin,
San Mateo,Santa Clara,Solano and Sonoma counties.
2. Are non-commute trips important? 64%of all trips taken in West Contra Costa are non-
commute. Commute trips account for the balance,
36%.
3. Is transit used in West Contra Costa? Yes. A total of 35,000 transit boardings occur daily
in the AC Transit service area in West Contra Costa.
The mode split is 62%for AC Transit (bus)and 38%
BART (rail—Richmond, Del Norte and E.C. Plaza).
4. Are buses cost-effective? Very. The annualized capital and operating cost per
transit passenger for AC Transit (bus) is $2.65;BART
(rail) is $5.23; subtracting the average fare collected
provides the subsidy per passenger. For AC Transit,
the subsidy per passenger is $2.18; for BART, $3.97•
Owning a car in the Bay Area costs about $5,00o a
year, compared with $540 for a year's supply of bus
passes.
5. Is transit supported by residents? Widely. According to a poll published in the San
Francisco Chronicle, "Expanding bus systems" was
favored by 81% of West Contra Costa residents.
Freeway expansion received a lower rating-579/6,and
toll roads just 19%
6. Are land use and air quality important? The Bay Area League of Women Voters has told the
Alameda County committee responsible for placing
a new half cent sales tax for transportation on the
1998 ballot that it will oppose any measure which
does not take land use (sprawl).and air quality into
account.
Bottom Line
Most trips are fairly short and close to home. Non commute trips are more numerous than trips involving
a commute. Transit is important to the economy of West Contra Costa. The public subsidy per bus
passenger is about half that of a rail passenger. West Contra Costa residents overwhelmingly favor more
bus service over other improvements. Land use and air quality are two factors that cannot be ignored if
community support is sought for new transportation programs.
Scm, 1)and 2)DKS Associalas Fcport to AC Transit Strategic Plan,April 1996;3)AC Transit and BART passenger surveys,lata 1445 and early 1996;4)AC Transit Finance Department report using FTA 615
transit operator reports,and MTC for automobile cost;5)poll by Mark Baldassare and Associates,published in the San Francisco Chronicle August 11,1997;6)LNN to Alameda County Ependiture Plan Steering
Committee,Jure 1997.Matt Wiliam,510 891.7146 voice 891.4705 faK mw Ilia@uclink2.berkeleXedu.August 1997.
D
ao ao to --I
�Cb' p
ra to lb a
0 4 0 4 o n o D d c0_n
co D D co to (n Co D D CD Co D - Q
~ D C7 6 f7 D y p7 D c7 6 o D (A D 0 D m m � su v (A �
0 3 Q 3 0 3 o > > 7 Q Z 0 3 6 WSI) 0CL CL
Cp
m o o =3 m Q a o D 0 o CO �' c _. —I
Cl) (� co w co a c0 o .� D W
a -� SD
O 3 —I to CD CD m Q A) Rt O
A>
(� tyj O 7 CD's to > W co 0 Q
CD O to 7 CD l< N C N.
io d g m D C7 � °
ccOii o a ° w 0I � th w =r � a N
o p m CDD to CD o n O
w �' �► O w � D
CD
0 CL CL
Ch
CD
'• CD Q 7 a 'N—" 7 d 0
CO
O 3 "y~'SD ()
Cp
v to 3 ?7 y. Cl) O
fu Q
? tW n O C
.a cr
O
O(pi OCD
CQ
3 �
p CD
N
Cfl -• W CT O CP W ? CO W O Q
WO O D ? W O 1 1 W W O m i V ? N O
co N)
4 1 cn a 1 Cjl to n o o w U9 W Ln co
o O N CO W o O N Op o M N A W 1 Q
n
:. ....;;
N
Q
..: OCD
co
W
O [2 �' 0 y
CL co v (�D
—.
cn Q A
O
O (D
cc
O
♦ \ 1 1 \ 1 C ♦ \ \ \ t t \ 1 t t \ G
♦ \ \ \ ♦ (D ♦ t ♦ \ \ S ♦r\r\rtr .. S
cn
CD 7
n S
p y CD
7
!A o 90Co
a
, "�'
Transit Boardings—Trips Within West Contra Costa
AC Transit Line Area Boardings Cumulative West Contra Costa
76 Richmond,San Pablo 2,499 2,499
74 Richmond 2,088 4,587
71 Richmond,San Pablo 1,735 6,322
68 EI Cerrito, Richmond 1,335 7,657
69 EI Sobrante, Richmond 893 8,550
70 EI Cerrito, San Pablo, El Sobrante 797 9,347 AC daily boardings on
78 Richmond, San Pablo 473 9,820 lines operating only in
75 EI Cerrito 453 10,273 West Contra Costa
School Suppl. WCC schools 2,492 12,765 12,765
West Contra Costa BART stations—daily boardings
EI Cerrito Plaza Del Norte Richmond Totals
to WCC 224 232 263 719
z
West County Transit Boardings—AC Transit & BART*
i
. ,
. .
{
1 'rans #
.
.a
®AC Transit 95%
BART 5%
* West County tips: Only boardings on AC lines that operate solely within West Contra
..Costa are counted here. BART boardings are for travel within West Contra Costa
TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS
Percent of people in favor of the following solutions
to traffic problems in Contra Costa County
Expanding bus systems
100—
e,
80_
7e 7a 7a
so-
40-
0-40—
20—
0—
County Wide West Central East
Adding Freeway Lanes
100—
so-
60-
40-
20—
C)
County
00-
80-
60-40-20-
0County Wide West Central East
Building toll roads
35—
3'1
30- 27 2B
25-
20-
15-
10-
5-
0—
County
520-15-1O-5-0—
County Wide West Central East
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, August 11, 1997
From a poll conducted in July, 1997
gA E7 RECEIVE®
SIERRA CLUB
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CHAPTER Ali i997
Serving the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin an fan
�. � FSUPERVISORS
SDG 'DEO Bookstore: 6014 College Avenue, Oakland, CA 94618 • (510) 658-7470
New Office: 2530 San Pablo Ave., Suite I, Berkeley, CA 94702 (510) 848-0800
Contra Costa Board of Supervisors August 11, 1997
Dear Supervisors,
The Board of Supervisors is to be commended for looking to the future and considering how to solve our county's
transportation problems. Although there are tremendous deficiencies in the"Transportation White Paper"
produced by the Contra Costa Economic Partnership,I also commend them for developing a vision. We will need
vision and foresight to solve these problems and remain a place where people want to live.
The vision this White Paper supports,however,is a vision of Contra Costa as what Supervisor Gerber calls"Los
Angeles North." It is a vision where every time a freeway fills up we add another lane. It is a vision where the
suburban sprawl which has surrounded Mount Diablo on three sides is enabled to continue to the east by creating a
freeway infrastructure that supports it.
It is a vision that almost never talks about how can we use our existing transportation infrastructure more
efficiently. If anyone of you can find a mention of getting people out of their cars and into buses as a solution,I
would appreciate your pointing it out to me. I looked, and I couldn't find it.
Attached to this letter you will find two newspaper articles concerning how freeways fill up nearly as fast
as they are built.
While I don't agree with all of the solutions recommended by the Bay Area Council,their"Call to
Action"recognizes that part of the answer has to be using existing infrastructure more efficiently by
discouraging demand. It is a common expression among transportation experts is that"we can no longer
build our way out of traffic congestion." (You even hear it from Caltrans these days! West County
Times, 5/15/97) It is an expression which doesn't seem to have been heard by the writers of the
"Transportation White Paper"before you for consideration.
Yes, let's look to the future. Let's try to solve our transportation problems. But we can't have our cake
and eat it too. We can grow out into Eastern Contra Costa. We can ring Mount Diablo with new towns,
suburbs and the freeways to serve, them,but let's not kid ourselves that this is how we will end gridlock.
This is how we will continue to imitate the growth patterns of Los Angeles. This is how we will lose our
open space, increase air pollution, and have hundreds of miles of new freeway lanes that are all full
within a few years, if not months,of their construction. This is how we lose the East Bay we all know
and many of us love.
Thank you for
rcconsideration of this letter.
Mike Daley
Chair, Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter Transportation Subcommittee
®Recycled
e
.�n,; - - •�: is 2 �� � F � � ._ i. i ..
CA
to ; o aca SEE as
ZC4 a
C4 o ego
5 �a 4 LST
A. � ps
-
U� m�>
' • rv/,� v� �+siG�b�'O �i Gti omi tiOG �NZ'+cb�.di V 'p��p�y .
`/•TV•t p pa0 nO SCO G..ir' t E
E E N 9 1,": 5SO p'�Q�
� 4t-a. c ra4: $zea, 353 ��o25s°°aL,pop
�ya��ca O�tj -U OOp� G�m
E�12-3 � 10. 58ji
tom, C ,C G ms d v� � L, Go,aeffiwE.°
• :,-- Via," �':•:: �'; .; �
fir,'+ 777 3
IM
wk
oC0000m
Y
c ! ¢ q
tom; C N.2
mO t $ ae
2 E co t m
m 07 cm
t!
E- 7S m
g
■ C.7 o c COM (D
c m w
ID
c"
mow; m� d I c '�c
�- ►. v�" a7 3 rd. m �u1 7 ��yp+l� J
.r. .■ .rel C 0 o ; O m m W
W�t
i E Ec
a sOcc
3 �� �
-� oG , E�y ., m ■� r mcc
o
cis C,3
> >.Vq C° gm� d �L 3>
9?V V n�btEd m 9 E ooE- Q \
W C'sma ., 9 � xo3 U9a3_ xa?o
Mg
- >+c�5x .l c au mQ a
° Lo �', oei � � 7:v$ cx � I c ° ° >' ` Eo' v � m � s7 w_ 'o
•.� ."r7-� a,��•o 3= >.°it a,� o �° °'. I °� =pdi ffi a, v � nc � ffi� cam,
yw
xi2 IS > cffi Y c�c � �° >,i� � c� r�� 3
.. �o ��0ffi .� �� > oo,.: at
a o= c-. a a, E-rJ a�b u 3 m a ° -- i-z=:E t E v ° S d >' c 3 0"°a��
w w Q 1 f� V ..too `7 >o,vB ` � _ ti � ���'�a"u S�C7v3y m m
LL S = ¢ ¢ FS� r �; � °�� E L� m > 'moo o ° Za E > GvE m
d� c�b� L° c oCg x at`
w Q Y t ►J woo `ota>a� .SSo 53a0�" 0 �=
28 FC sAN JOSE woruRy NEWS■Local■WEDNESDAY,OCTOBER 30.1986
shm rovm fi.re&�ays- NHpitas firm feces cam g ;
more f L4i1 C N FINE with development ilea—a total nooks and crannies o
from page 1B of 164,800 for making similar re practices in around
Imbursements. Since then, there Area."
ineaw
TRAFFIC make the nine-mile drive from I• Several of the officials who re- has been much speculation within gut Huckaby would
ft"Ori11 page I B 280 to Great America Parkway in ceived the illegal contributions— the'political community about whether additional inve
a snappy 13 minutes. But this mostly San Jose City Council can. why the FPPC was zeroing in on are pending or who sp:
Congestion may decrease for a:year,it takes 18 minutes. didates—said they had no ides. San Jose. FPPC spokesman Gary Initial FPPC Inquiry.
time, and more people may be ::. When an extra lane was added that'campaign laws had been vio- Huckaby said Tuesday, "It's not Deveon has acted as i
able to use the road — but, al- ;over the Sunol Grade on 1-680, lated. In San Jose,the law limits like we're out to blitz San Jose." al contractor on major
awet certainly, the Jams will•re-.:the 18 mites from Bernal Road to donations to$260 in council races But he acknowledged that inves- for Cisco Systems,Silicv
ern, Scott Creek took 27 minutes.This and 1600 in mayoral contests. tigators have actively pursued ice and for Adobe Syst
On 237,the Impact wai imme- ..Year:it's a 70-minute drive dur- Gary Robinson, chief of staff San Jose-area contributions after downtown San Jose 1.
diate. When state engineers -ing the commute. for-Hammer and her campaign findings from the earlier cases in- ters. The company an,
flipped on the metering lights for 1.880 got an extra lane between `manager when most of the dona- dicated there was a pattern. ployees have been mato
eastbound travelers four weeks'.Decoto Road and Highway 237, tions in question were made,said, "Some of these suspicious Ir- uton, giving$26,300 s:
ago, they were stunned to find but•the commute still takes 14 "We were absolutely unaware regularities were brought to the to local cwnpalgns•
the commute took longer—up to more minutes than it did in 1993. that anything inappropriate was , attention of the FPPC and when Deveon controller Br
20 minutes for some travelers. 1 have never seen It like this going on. If we had, we would the investigators took a closer — who along with his
The reason is that a whopping before," said Patrece Molina of have never accepted the money." look, a pattern-was revealed of been reimbursed for
600 extra can an hour Jumped San:Jose, a commuter on 1.680 Last April,the FPPC fined six widespread money laundering. contributions given
onto the new freeway, lured by :from McKee Road to Race Street. local companies — several also .. . They have gott into the names — on Tuesday
.'AM hope of finding a better alter- What is going on'.
native to the Dumbarton Bridge, The answer: Jobs, Jobs and
Montague Expressway or a vara- -more Jobs. An average of 6,000 � • •• y�
-ety of city streets. new jobs a month the first half of Superyr.•L'ors defy on on iiliiliigl
"ttAS year in Santa Clara County.
:POttt4*demand "We're going through this tree
This sort of pent-up demand is mendous economic boom,and the ByTINITRANWe need to counter this current
-common in Silicon Valley. Time pent-up traffic demand out there W"mrr Nm.suNWnter
.and time again, highway im. is hist as tremendous,"said Mike As welfaire reform and a gover-
'-'dOrovements are quickly over- Evanhoe of the county's Conges. nor's directive threaten to end mood by reaffirming what this bit
matched by the thousands of mo- tion Management Program. benefits to illegal immigrants,the
"Corists who want to use a particu- Impact hard to gaup• Santa Clara County Board of su- already knows. This is not only tl
Z.1ar road but don't — until the As crazy as traffic is,it's hard pervisors vowed Tuesday to con-
construction construction is done. to predict precisely what would tinue its long-established "open right thing to do; its solid public
That's not to say that Santa happen to the sections of high- door" policy of providing health
Clara County highways won't way targeted by measures A and care to all &unty residents, re olio 9
•benefit from the measures A and B. gardless of residency status. policy.
--$transportation tax plan.Projec- Surely,some of the wont com- The issue has come to the fore- —SuperviaorAf
•'••Tipns show traffic will be even mutes would get better. Traffic front with Gov.Pete Wilson's ex-
"swill-a without its proposed wid- now Jams up nearly around the ecutive order, signed in late Au- said the county must be ever right thing to do;it's sol
'=fe ling and interchange work. But clock where 1.880 dwindles from gust. The order is generally seen
`1voters should be realistic:In Sili- six to four lanes. Sunday nights as using welfare reform to effect more vigilant in righting for the policy."
con Valley, congestion will at- on Highway 101 outside Morgan the goals of Proposition 187 — rights of all its residents. Studies show that eve
"ways be with us. Hill—a place where drivers lose the 1994 state initiative to deny a We need to counter this cur- spent on prenatal care sa'
rent mood by reaffirming what 113 on care the postnatal t
Said Paul Vilandre of Menlo one lane—are misery.The mea- range of government benefits to
...park:"(Highway)237 used to be sures add lanes In both places. illegal immigrants. this board already knows,"Hon- need.
,,.Dad one day out of the week.Now New interchanges in Mountain Proposition 187's implementa- da said. "This is not only the Valley Medical Ceni
Wi bad three and sometimes four View and Milpitas should uncork tion has been stalled in federal
oiys out of five." bottlenecks on adjoining free- court. Under federal welfare re-
Motorists on other freeways ways. form, however, the states may Judge delays prison for c�
'have had much the same expert• Yet thousands more drivers cut off certain benefits to illegal
ence, would be lured to those roads, immigrants — authority Wilson ordered Dolts to torn him
When Highway 101 was wid- enticed by the same hope that used to order counties to stop 0 DALJS authorities on Friday.Ho
toed to eight lanes three years brought so many new commuters providing health care to them. h page 1B
o, motorists suddenly could to Highway 237. Supervisor Mike Honda, who medical-emergency arc
sponsored Tuesday's resolution, which this month refused to re- forced postponement.
view his claim that the sentence During Tuesday's heart
Mayor"Injury can was influenced by newspaper nerny also remarked that
Firms heavily back transit tax publicity. made a point w going to
• LOS ANGELES(AP)—Mayor Dalis, who engineered a $3.9 pital Monday when Dabs
TRAFFIC MONEY Almost all the high-tech comps- Richard Riordan reported for million profit-skimming opera- dergoing surgery."I can t
files are members o[ the Santa Jury duty a happy camper,and he tion,pleaded guilty to nine counts careful man,"he told Rol
efrvMpage 1B Clara Valle Manufacturing San didn't even ask to be excused. of tax evasion,conspiracy to vio- After a lengthy disco:
*It6 that Mar che'3t,the Yes on Group,which has coordinated the "It's a welcome change to be late campaign larva,conspiracy to
cam treated like a normal human be. defraud and grand theft.
,
Measure A & B forces will have campaign and provided'much of Ing again," Riordan said. Last Thursday, Mclnerny had ��
virtually unparalleled resources its political muscle. A host of (�l
dispense their message in radio high-tech companies, including Q�
ani! television spots before the Amdahl Corp., Adobe Systems5��� j
election. Inc;, Advanced Micro Devices *CON HIRE the �`
^Usually,statewide,businesses Inc., Adaptec Inc. and Netscape lJ �(•`�• 1
fiOt taxes tooth and nail," said Communications Corp.,contrlbut- 'rU q Un—Retired
Carl Guardino, the campaign ed$26,000 each. •TRUCA
manager for the committee. "But Databank for the American •
',Yrl'Santa Clara County, to our The campaign has also received .orkrerc• ever ss. Fee to CM
ertdit,we recognize that traffic is less hefty contributions from candidate s3srrr. Employer
ptir biggest frustration." companies with a direct interest $100/Job Listing for"d4716 In road buildingsuch as Granite SIDING
Guardino said he was "grati. , 40$'371.9064
'iSed"that six of every l0 coniri- Construction ($10,000); Kaiser AnpcnarrtaM.oem • APS
Sand&Gravel($6,000);and Mis
'buttons were made by people who T con c
cion Valley Rock($6,000). S S
,had given 1160 or less. And he OFFERAN
pointed out that donations had T1te list of donors Is similar— San JoSe job inlormallonDalabanfc
come from the Greenbelt Alliance though not identical—to the list • -
',arid the League of Conservation that funded 1992's Measure A,an lor stucco!
Voters, two influential environ- earlier attempt to extend the tax.
mental groups. The top donors then were Lock- "I Lost 30 Pounds in 3 Short Months INSULATION
The Mercury News analysis, heed Martin Missiles & Space,
'however,shows that 87.6 percent Hewlett-Packard and internation- With Hypnosis...
of the money was raised from a!Business Machines Corp. 1 fl��'en t Eisen This Skinny'Since I was 12 Fears Old'"
'donors of 116,000 or.more, with If it is passed,this year's mea-
LIFETIME WAR�
high-tech companies making up sure is expected to raise 111.1 bile Lose up to 20 Ibs.
Materials 18 of the top 20 donors. lion over nine years. in 30 days: •
' ,knrolC.
•Creast neu-eafinghabiii calodo of
•pmck Mnpao
_i
,l
} s;
Partially complet-
ed overpasses
ti
loom above traffic . .:.-
headed for the 3
Bay Bridge.Road-
building construc-
tion projects,from
Hercules to the .�
bridge to down-
town Oakland,ac- `
count for 19 miles
of improvements.
EXAMPER/CRAKE LU
EastaYOdlock: et used to it
created 19 miles of freeway im-- daily traffic has increased 13 per-
Improvements can't . provements, including a replace- cent in just four years.
went for the Cypress Structure Studies show that despite the
Outpacetraf he and 17 miles of car pool lanes. construction,lone East Bay drivers
� Yet, after spending more than on some routes will soon face com•
gY'Owth, State Says $1 billion,state transportation offi- mutes half again as long as they're
cials admit the improvements used to.
By Erin McCormick won't be enough to solve the traffic "We can't build our way out of
of im EXAmPeR sTwF nightmare that looms over most congestion, said Rod McMillan,a
East Bay drivers. senior planner for the Metropoli-
Along a huge sweep of the East While the constriction will add tan Transportation Commission,
Bay shoreline,an army of bulldoz• one lane to the Eastshore Freeway which has budgetary oversight over
ers,cement tricks and pile drivers and ire the link once provided much of the freeway work. "We're
works around the clock on what by Oakland's Cypress Stricture,it going to have to use more of a
has become the area's most con- won't begin to keep pace with the management approach."
gested strip of freeway. 12,000 new commuters a year The only glimmer of hope is to
By 1999, these massive road- pouring onto East Bay roads• create time-saving incentives to
building projects — stretching Nor can the construction ease coax drivers out of their care and
from Hercules to the Bay Bridge to the problems at the area's ultimate into buses and car pools,planners
downtown Oakland — will have bottleneck; the Bay Bridge,where (See FREEWAY,A-16
A-16 Wednesday,October 9, 19%** SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER -tz`
.�
♦ FREEWAY from A-1
' a AF��u�
Constractlon can't
keep up with traffic.
say.
In fact,unblce most drivers,mo-
torists wilting to share rides could
actually we a cut in drive times •
The biggest draw for ride-shar-
ing will be the new 16-mile,unin-
terrupted car pool lane running
along I-M from the Bay Bridge to
Hercules,a stretch already so rid-
dled with traffic jams that it ranks
as the most congested roadway in ... .
the Bay Area "
The lane,which will include an ~~
1
elevated flyover delivering drivers
right to the Bay Bridge car pool n '"'� ,-; "'■
lanes, is the major component of
the$355million 1-80 construction
pro ��rurai►'
ms j
Even with that new construe- °`A16i°sA101g
tion,by the year 2010,the travel dasbocUen Wore fir",uaaden fo^ns for pouring concrete on an Oakk nd freemey job.
time for a lone commuter driving
between Vallejo and downtown molded over the Bay Bridge,sp-
San Francisco will have jumped by proach,often as cera pass under- t
nearly 50 percent,according to an Death For motorists,the construe-
MTC study tion has meant frequent reroutings
Currently, during peak com- on the Bay Bridge approach and
mute times,the drive takes about occasional surprise freeway de-
an hour for car pools and lone driv- tours in the middle of the night.
erg alike. But by 2010 lone com- '"Phe current construction only
maters making the same trip will added to the mess,"said El Cerrito
be stuck in their can for 90 min- commuter Elaine Anderson, who
1.
utes,moving only about 15 to 20 said she has watched her occasion-
mph,the study found. al commute to the northern part of
On the other hand,car pools will The City get longer, with it now
make it to San Francisco in about taking about an hour.
50 minutes, according to traffic
forecasts. faar oosnnwte w91 get worse
"What we're finding is that by She fears the new car pool lanes
the year 2010,there will be major and the flyover from I-80 will make
congestion all the way from the her commute even worse and leave
Carquinez Bridge to the toll plaza," most traffic sitting at the metering
McMillan said."But the(car pool) lights that control the now on the
lanes will flow along at speeds of 50 Bay Bim, '
to 55 miles per hour." "The agony of crawling into y
The 3-mile section of the I-880 The City will be shared with every- `h
freeway under construction runs one else,"she said."It's not a viable
west of the old Cypress, along a plan.-
mostly
ian"mostly industrial stretch of West - Ory,the Cypra,project,
Oakland.The freeway will eventu- part of which will open in 1997,was
ally have two arms,one connecting budgeted at $700 million, accord-
drivers directly to the Bay Bridge ing to quokeaman Steve Williams. i
toll plaza,the other moving them But because Caltrans had to puu-
to northbound I-80 in Emeryville. chase)ted,do some toric cleanup
and pay for mitigation project,for
Cypress Shwitrure r*aced those the
Caltrans is replacing the double- cost lure near may,is expected to climb to
decked Cypress Structure that col- $900 million by the time the struc
lapsed in the 1989 Loma Prieta tune is complete in 1895.
earthquake,the logs of which has "This is probably the most ex = '.
forced cars moving between the pensive freeway per mile ever:
Bay Bridge and I4M to travel a built," said Caltrans spokesman
twisted route through the MacAr- Jones,
thur Maze.
While the structure also will in- rn�tad ty7stsit
elude car pool lanes, it, primary The construction has raised its enough to satisfy the ever-incress- commuters out as far as Solaro
purpose will be to redia Oakland's share of opposition, particularly m8 demand I and Napa counties,the MTC proj-
road system to what it was before from environmentalists who argue "We're simply shifting bottle- ecte East Bay's population will
the quake. that money should have been spent necks around to the tune of a bil- grow by 36 pent between 1990
Rebuilding the freeway is a huge to improve public transit, rather lion dollars,"said David Nesmith and the year 2010.
undertaking, with massive con- than on an expanding a network of of the Sierra Club,which sued to The number of East Bay con-
crete ribbons of elevated road being roadways that could never grow stop the I-80 expansion in the early muters will jump 29 percent to 1.5
19905 and lost. "We think this is million by the year 2010,while the
bad management of taxpayer mon- number of people traveling from
ey.We need to look at alternatives, the Fest Bay to jobs in San Fran-
unless we want to build 44-lane cisco and San Mateo counties is
freeways." expected to increase 20 percent tr`
With housing costs pushing 189,000.
RECEIVE®
SIERRA CLUB12 1997
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CHAPTER AUG
p ��f�P�i,1 fgiAOF SUPERVISORS
Serving the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin and �pSTA CO.
7
oG ,$gti Bookstore: 6014 College Avenue, Oakland, CA 94618 • (510) 658-7470
DEO
New Office: 2530 San Pablo Ave., Suite I, Berkeley, CA 94702 (510) 848-0800
Contra Costa Board of Supervisors August 11, 1997
Dear Supervisors,
The Board of Supervisors is to be commended for looking to the future and considering how to solve our county's
transportation problems. Although there are tremendous deficiencies in the "Transportation White Paper"
produced by the Contra Costa Economic Partnership,I also commend them for developing a vision. We will need
vision and foresight to solve these problems and remain a place where people want to live.
The vision this White Paper supports,however,is a vision of Contra Costa as what Supervisor Gerber calls"Los
Angeles North." It is a vision where every time a freeway fills up we add another lane. It is a vision where the
suburban sprawl which has surrounded Mount Diablo on three sides is enabled to continue to the east by creating a
freeway infrastructure that supports it.
It is a vision that almost never talks about how can we use our existing transportation infrastructure more
efficiently. If anyone of you can find a mention of getting people out of their cars and into buses as a solution,I
would appreciate your pointing it out to me. I looked, and I couldn't find it.
Attached to this letter you will find two newspaper articles concerning how freeways fill up nearly as fast
as they are built. `
While I don't agree with all of the solutions recommended by the Bay Area Council,their"Call to
Action"recognizes that part of the answer has to be using existing infrastructure more efficiently by
discouraging demand. It is a common expression among transportation experts is that"we can no longer
build our way out of traffic congestion." (You even hear it from Caltrans these days! West County
Times, 5/15/97) It is an expression which doesn't seem to have been heard by the writers of the
"Transportation White Paper"before you for consideration.
Yes,let's look to the future: Let's try to solve our transportation problems. But we can't have our cake
and eat it too. We can grow out into Eastern Contra Costa. We can ring Mount Diablo with new towns,
suburbs and the freeways to serve them,but let's not kid ourselves that this is how we will end gridlock.
This is how we will continue to imitate the growth patterns of Los Angeles. This is how we will lose our
open space,increase air pollution, and have hundreds of miles of new freeway lanes that are all full
within a few years, if not months, of their construction. This is how we lose the East Bay we all know
and many of us love.
Thank you for consideration of this letter.
,e,�l f�
Mike Daley
Chair, Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter Transportation Subcommittee
®Recycled
01
s
ch m � Y
. Z`o°EY'>x000 W-
,(a„ 06 y•O�y C per -6 G,M iA
i C.
t.H �] a $x ce4aS
TSISI >. ag O G -�r1 a,3 9° as
CIS t4-4E
V� N
s`.
S •� �
�► :; ,:e i�l 81M
v
ivj wt
CD
JAI
(n •� > @Cc
W w
� � Q
1 j r-
C11)
Co
R wr+ca as
a
cn
0 cd
_ w
��c�:o � wV CG4yt� , ,\
r L a °e� 4S
d w 3 db>�T�a�
a3
• T a' a w�u � �� a 't'� CT ur+p°' � y;`� aa *- y,Oca3
rvt.�� .,,,n 'O a7 y T gG;«�`fe •6�K 'G pj p x'O� � FO ��.aG. t "�y{' y �^a^��75 dp "�I�' p.T� e0 v"' �id U'�
�yan' d� G° �7a6GpO41mC!^ai� m
l�o � � ao pbbu3ae•- .,oma-.y.� �oo�'� aiz., � mac °Oat3Y,' i=en
w7•( O w aO G:QT Ta O aG O �Y.+ 7 XJ LnG
Ur : V � x "'G Eat � c°� QOr 06P— �LU
�y OSS
w W F"wG Odt G
o
W U,
�, a w
28 FC SAN,OSE NcRcuRr NEWS■Local■WEDNEWAV,OCTOBER 30,1806
4mprovink *eewa s NppitAs firm Bees cY —
more tra;f�ic FINE with development ilea i a total nooks and Crannies
roun o
Page IB of(64,800 for making similar re- practices in around
•rte imbursements. Since then, there Area."
TRAFFIC make the nine-mile drive from I• Several of the officials who re. has been much speculation within gut Huckaby would
frOrlt Plage 1B 280 to Great America Parkway in ceived the illegal contributions— the,political community about whether additional Inve
- a snappy 13 minutes. But this mostly San Jose City Council can- why the FPPC was zeroing In on are pending or who sp.
Congestion may decrease for a:year,It takes 18 minutes. didates—said they had no ides. San Jose. FPPC spokesman Gary initial FPPC inquiry.
time, and more people may be When an extra lane was added thaCcampaign laws had been vio. Huckaby said Tuesday, "it's not Deveon has acted as i
able to use the road — but, al. ;over the Sunol Grade on 1.680, lated. In San Jose,the law limits like we're out to blitz San Jose." al contractor on major
swat oertalrtly, the jams wit •. 18 miles from Bernal Road to donations to$250 in council races But he acknowledged that inves- for Cisco Systems,Silio
fin• Scott Creek took 27 minutes.This and$600 in mayoral contests. tigators have actively pursued ics and for Adobe Syst
On 237,the impact was imme• Year; it's a 70-minute drive dur• Gary Robinson, chief of staff San Jose-area contributions after downtown San Jose 1.
diate. When state engineers .Ing the commute. for Hammer and her campaign findings from the earlier cases In- ters. The company an,
flipped on the metering lights for 1-880 got an extra lane between manager when most of the dona- dicated there was a pattern. ployees have been majo
eastbound travelers four weeks ,.Decoto Road and Highway 237, tions in question were made,said, "Some of these auspicious ir- utors, giving $26,300 s-
ago, they were stunned to find but'the commute still takes 14 "We were absolutely unaware regularities were brought to the to local campaigns•
the commute took longer—up to more minutes than It did in 1993. that anything inappropriate was , attention of the FPPC and when Devcon controller Br
20 minutes for some travelers. I have never seen it like this going on. If we had, we would the investigators took a closer — who along with his
The reason is that a whopping -before," said Patrece Molina of have never accepted the money." look, a pattern was revealed of been reimbursed for
600 extra cars an hour jumped San:Jose, a commuter on 1.680 Last April,the FPPC fined six widespread money laund3ring. contributions given
onto the new freeway, lured by -from McKee Road to Race Street. local companies — several also . .. They have golf into the names — on Tuesday
.'A*hope of finding a better alter- .:••"What Is going on?"
11ative to the Dumbarton Bridge, The answer: jobs, jobs and
Montague Expressway or a vari- -more jobs. An average of 6,000 ym ••� y� y� • •
7ety of city streets, new jobs a month the first half of Supell
r ors deiry oli on
•[itis}lar In Santa Clara County. r
::Pant-W demand "We're going through this tree
This sort of pent-up demand is mendoui economic boom,and the BY TINi TRAN
--common In Silicon Valley. Time pent-up traffic demand out there nrnvr,N_.surrwrit, IS We need to counter this current
and time again, highway im- is just as tremendous,"said Mike As welfare reform and a gover.
+provements are quickly over- Evanhoe of the county's Conges- nor's directive threaten to end mood by reaffirming what this bi
matched by the thousands of mo- tion Management Program. benefits to illegal immigrants,the
.'torira sts who want to use a particu- Impact hard to gau" Santa Clam County Board of su- already knows. This is not only tl
�'1ar road but don't — until the As crazy as traffic is,it's hard pervisors vowed Tuesday to con- s
construction is done. to predict precisely what would tinue its long-established "open right thing to do; its solid public
'That's not to say that Santa happen to the sections of high- door" policy of providing health
•Clara County highways won't way targeted by measures A and care to all ebunty residents, re- policy.I
.-benefit from the measures A and B. gardless of residency status.
••B transportation tax plan.Projec- Surely,some of the worst com- The issue has come to the fore- —SuperviaorM
'.Vphs show traffic will be even mutes would get better. Traffic front with Gov.Pete Wilson's ex-
'4voYse without its proposed wid- now jams up nearly around the ecutive order, signed in late Au- said the county must be ever right thing to do;it's sol
'=•Yehing and interchange work. But clock where 1-880 dwindles from gust. The order is generally seen
roteta should be realistic:In Sili• six to four lanes. Sunday nights as using welfare reform to effect more vigilant in fighting for the policy."
con Valley, congestion will al- on Highway 101 outside Morgan the goals of Proposition 187 — rights of all its residents. Studies show that eve
''says be with us. We need to counter this cur- Spent on prenatal care sa
Hill—a place where drivers lose the 1994 state initiative to deny a rent mood by reaffirming what $3 on care the postnatal t
Said Paul Vilandre of Menlo one lane—are misery.The mea- range of government benefits to this board already knows,"Hon- need.
,Parks"(Highway)237 used to be sures add lanes in both places. illegal immigrants. da said. "This is not only the Valley Medical Cent
,.,bid one day out of the week.Now New interchanges in Mountain Proposition 187's implementa-
1t's bad three and sometimes four View and Milpitas should uncork tion has been stalled in federal
`.¢rays out of five." bottlenecks on adjoining free- court. Under federal welfare re-
Motorists on other freeways ways. form, however, the states may Judge delays pri
son for c,
"have had much the same expert- Yet thousands more drivers cut off certain benefits to illegal
once. would be lured to those roads, immigrants — authority Wilson ordered Dalis to torn him
When Highway 101 was wid- enticed by the same hope that used to order counties to stop ■DALIS authorities on Friday.Ho
;teed to eight lanes three years brought so many new commuters providing health earn to them. from Paqe 1B medical emergencyy arc
motorists suddenly could to Highway 237. Supervisor Mike Honda, who
sponsored Tuesday's resolution, which this month refused to re- forced postponement.
view his claim that the sentence During Tuesday's heart
Mayorget:sjury affl was influenced by newspaper nerny also remarked that
Firms heavily back transit tax publicity. made a point of going to
• LOS ANGELES(AP)—Mayor Dalls, who engineered a $3.9 pital Monday when Dallis
IiITRAFFIC MONEY Almost all the high-tech comps- Richard Riordan reported for for profit-skimming opera- dergoing surgery."I can t
rales are members of the Santa jury duty a happy camper,and he- tion,pleaded guilty to nine counts careful man,"he told Rol
.1r"fte 1B Clara Valle Manufacturing Santa
didn't even ask to be excused. of tax evasion,conspiracy to vio- After a lengthy discus
*16 that*Ir chest,the Yes on Group,which has coordinated the "It's a welcome change to e. late campaign rand conspiracy to
treated tike a normal human be- defraud and grand theft.
ktea,ure A & B forces will have campaign and provided much of Ing again." Riordan said. Last Thursday, McInerny had
virtually unparalleled resources its political muscle. A host of (�1 ��
to dispense their message in radio high-tech companies, including Q�
"anuli television spots before the Amdahl Corp., Adobe SystemsStp4� }
"election. Inc.,, Advanced Micro Devices *
'- oN� HIRE the
Usually,statewide,businesses Inc.,[nc., Adaptec Inc. and Netscape lJ
'fight taxes tooth and nail," said Communications Corp.,contribut- �1
TU G Un_Retired
Carl Guardino, the campaign ed$26,000 each. •TRUCKS•V
.manager for the committee."But oatsbant for the American .
Yrl'Santa Clara County, to our The campaign has also received .ortroree over s•. Fee to
CER
•eredit,we recognize that traffic is less hefty contributions from Candidate$311/yr. Empl•rer
Dile biggest frustration." companies with a direct interest 11.1/Job Listing for"days,
SIDING �1
Guardlno said he was "grab- in road building,such as Granite 40$'3719064
"fled"that six of every 10 contri- Construction ($10,000); Kaiser •, p:ry„rfan�,,, • AW
`buttons were made by people who Sand&Gravel($6,000);and Mis- OFFERAN
had given $60 or leg. And he
Sion Valley Rock($6,000). T 11iOfS J,
{{
pointed out that donations had Tee list of donors is similar— Jobintornution Databarrll
corpe from the Greenbelt Alliance though not identical—to the list 16 110P LIS intr•,
',and the League of Conservation that funded 1992's Measure A,an lor
'Voters, two influential environ- earlier attempt to extend the tax.
Lock-
mental groups. The top donors then were Lock• Ffla!en't
ounds in 3 Short MonthsINSULATION
The Mercury News analysis, heed Martin Missiles & Space,
- BY INCL
however,shows that 87.6 percent Hewlett-Packard and Internation- is...
of'the money was raised from al Business Machines Corp, h s Skinn}Since I Kas 12 Feats Old'"donors of (5,000 or•more, with If It t9 passed,this years meaLIFETIME WAR
-
high-tech companies making up sure is expected to raise$1.1 bil- a. Malerials -
18 of the top 20 donors. lion over nine years. in 30 days: Jenoff
•CM f nes evmgh3hm Ga6n0o o/
•pmc4: Mnpan
Partially complet-
ed overpasses
loom above traffic
headed for the
Bay Bridge.Road-
_ --
building construc-
tion projects,from a
Hercules to the
bridge to down-
town Oakland,ac-
count for 19 miles }
of improvements.
EXAMOER/CRA10 LEE
astaY oc : Get use to It
•�
created 19 miles of freeway im-- daily traffic has increased 13 per-
ImprovementS Can't . provements, including a replace- cent in just four years.
_[� ment for the Cypress Structure Studies show that despite the
outpace traffic and 17 miles of car pool lanes. construction,lone East Bay drivers
�L Yet, after spending more than on some routes will soon face com-
y owtil, state Says $1 billion,state transportation offi- mutes half again as long as they're
cials admit the improvements used to.
By Erin McCormick won't be enough to solve the traffic "We can't build our way out of
OF THE EXAMNER STA" nightmare that looms over most congestion,"said Rod McMillan,a
East Bay drivers. senior planner for the Metropoli-
Along ehuge sweep of the East While the construction will add tail Transportation Commission,
Bay shoreline,an army of bulldoz- one lane to the Eastshore Freeway which has budgetary oversight over
ers,cement trucks and pile drivers and restore the link once provided much of the freeway work. "We're
works around the clock on what by Oakland's Cypress Structure,tt going to have to use more of a
has become the area's most con- won't begin to keep pace with the management approach."
ge8ted strip of freeway. 12,000 new commuters a year The only glimmer of hope is to
By 1999, these massive road- pouring onto East Bay roads. create time-saving incentives to
building projects — stretching Nor can the construction ease coax drivers out of their cars and
from Hercules to the Bay Bridge to the problems at the area's ultimate into buses and car pools,planners
downtown Oakland — will have bottleneck: the Bay Bridge, where [See FREEWAY.A-16
A-16 Wednesday,October 9, 1996** SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER
v
♦FREEWAY from A-1
rt t - n
bolls can't
keep up with traffic � �
say-
In1..
f`..
fact,unlike most drivers,mo-
torists willing to share rides could
actually see a cut in drive times +.
The biggest draw for ride-shar-
ing will be the new 16-mile,linin-
terrupted car pool lane Winning
eking I-80 from the Bay Bridge to
Hercules,a stretch already so rid-
died with traffic jams that it ranks �-
ss the most congested roadway in
the Bay Area
The lane,which will include an
elevated flyover delivering drivers
right to the Bay Bridge car Pool n :� '``�• _ w-r
lanes,is the major component of 1 6
the$355 million I-80 construction "c=project. 1
Even with that new construe- axa►eet,aur+LEE
tion,by the year 2010,the travel CoWectles cr w pepars wooden forms for pouring concrete on an Oakland/neetooy job.
time for a lone commuter driving
between Vallejo and downtown mokled over the Bay Bridge ap-
Sanciscoill have jumped
p�h' often as cars pass under- T
Y 50Percer foto an neath.For motoriata,the construe-
MTC study. tion has meant frequent rerouting$
Currently, during peak com- on the Bay Bridge approach and
mute times,the drive takes about occasional surprise freeway de-
an hour for car pools and lone driv- tours in the middle of the night.
ere alike. But by 2010 lone com- fbe current construction only
routers making the Same trip will added to the mea$,"Said EI Cerrito
be stuck in their cars for 90 min- commuter Elaine Anderson, who . .
utes, moving only about 15 to 20 said she has watched her occasion-
mph,the study found. al commute to the northernart of -
On the other hand,car pools will The P
make it to San Francisco in about gay abouutt an hour.
longer, with it: now
50 minutes, according to traffic
foretaste. Fear emmute will est worse .. _
"What we're finding is that by She fears the new car pool lanes -+ �
the year 2010,there will be major and the flyover from I-80 will make
congestion all the way from the
her commute even worse and leave
Carquinez Bridge B ' to the toll y`
N' Pte," most traffic sitting at the metering
McMillan Said.`But the(car pal lights that control the flow on the
lanes will flow along at speeds of 50 Bay Bim, -
to 55 miles per hour." `The agony of crawling into :.
The 3-mile section of the I-880 The City will be shared with,r cry.
freeway under construction runs one else,"she said"It's not a viable
west of the old Cypress, along a plan."
mostly industrial stretch of West . Originally,the Cypress project,
Oakland The freeway will eventu- pm{,of which will open in 1997,was
ally have two arms,one connecting budgeted at $700 million, &word-
drivers directly to the Bay Bridge ing to spokesman Steve Williams.
toll plaza,the other moving them But because Caltrans had to pur-
to northbound I-80 in Emeryville. chase land,do some tame cleanup
o
pay for mitigation projects for
Cypress Struetnre replaced
� r the freeway,the
Caltrans is replacing the double
coat is expected to climb to _
decked Cypress Structure that col- $900 million by the time the stru�-
lapsed in the 1989 Loma Prieta fure is complete in 1998.
earthquake,the loss of which has `"I7»S is probably the most ex-
forced
z forced can moving between the pensive freeway per mile ever
Bay Bridge and I 880 to travel a built," said Caltrans spokesman * .
twisted route through the MacAr- Donee
thur Maze. _
While the structure also will in- Enwhveggaltdish wanted transit
elude car pool lanes, its Primary The construction has raised its enough to satisfy the ever-inoses- commuters out as far as Solano
purpose will be to return Oakland's. share of opposition, particularly demand end Nape counties,the MTC ptroj-
road system to what it was before from environmentalists who argue "We're simply shifting bottle- sets East Bay's population will
the quake• that money should have been spent necks around to the tune of a bil- �the year 36 percent between 19W
Rebuilding the freeway is a huge to improve public transit, rather lion dollars,"Said David Nesmith
undertaking, with massive con- than on an expanding a network of of the Sierra Club,which sued to The number of East Bay com-
crete ribbons of elevated road being roadways that could never grow stop the I-80 expansion in the early routers will jump 29 percent to 1.5
1990s and lost. "We think this is million by the year 2010,while the
bad management of taxpayer mon' number of people traveling from
ey.We need to look at alternatives, the East Bay to jobs in San Fran-
unless we want to build 44-lane cisco and San Mateo counties is
freeways." expected to increase 20 percent tr f
With housing costa pushing 189,000. I