HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08122014 - D.3RECOMMENDATION(S):
RECEIVE presentation from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) on the 2014 Countywide
Transportation Plan (CTP) update, PROVIDE preliminary comment to Authority staff on the process and CTP, and
DIRECT County staff to work with the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) to develop
detailed comments for subsequent consideration by the Board of Supervisors.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No Impact.
BACKGROUND:
At the June 5, 2014 Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee (TWI) meeting staff provided a report on
the Authority's 2014 update to the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP).
The CTP is the primary planning document for the development of the transportation system over the next 30 years.
This long range plan is comprised of projects, programs, policies and associated funding needs relative to the
development and maintenance of the transportation system.
The TWI Committee directed County staff to coordinate with the Authority to bring a presentation to the full Board
of Supervisors on:
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 08/12/2014 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: John Cunningham, (925)
674-7833
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: August 12, 2014
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc: Julie Bueren, John Kopchik, Wendel Brunner
D. 3
To:Board of Supervisors
From:TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Date:August 12, 2014
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Presentation by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority on the 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan and Related
Research
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
1) The status of the CTP update, and
2) The research (interviews, telephone poll, etc.) that has been conducted in support of the CTP update and
potential ballot measure.
This discussion item responds to that direction.
Subsequent to the June TWI Committee meeting, the Authority approved the release of the CTP 2014 Draft for
review and comment (See Exhibit 1 – CTP Release.pdf). Comments are due by September 30, 2014.
Authority staff will be present at the August 12, 2014 Board of Supervisors meeting to give a presentation on the
CTP (See Exhibit 6 - CTP Presentation August 12.2014_BOS.pdf) and to respond to questions.
Next Steps For the Board of Supervisors
County staff will be discussing our internal review and comment process at the August 7, 2014 TWI Committee
meeting. Staff recommendation will include formal County comments on the CTP being discussed at the
September TWI Committee meeting and brought to the full Board of Supervisors for consideration in late
September.
Background on 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan
The CTP is separated in to three volumes:
Volume 1 - Draft 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan
Executive Summary Attached (See Exhibit 2 – CTP ExecSumm.pdf)
Full Document available here:
http://ccta.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=63&meta_id=4579
Volume 2 - Draft Action Plans from the five subregions
All Action Plans compiled for viewing in one file:
http://ccta.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=63&meta_id=4580
Actions Plans separated out by subregions are available at the following links:
West County - WCCTAC
http://ccta.net/about/download/532b67db9e137.pdf
Central County - TRANSPAC
http://ccta.net/about/download/532b6766c5b4c.pdf
East County - TRANSPLAN
http://ccta.net/about/download/532b678f2ad2c.pdf
South County - SWAT (Lamorinda)
http://ccta.net/about/download/532b67a7a8c06.pdf
South County - SWAT (Tri-Valley)
http://ccta.net/about/download/52978d54a5750.pdf
Volume 3 - Draft Comprehensive Transportation Project and Programs Listing
Available for viewing here:
http://ccta.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=63&meta_id=4581
Voter Research
The Authority retained EMC Research who completed two separate research efforts in support of the CTP
development. EMC staff will be present at the August 12 Board of Supervisors meeting to present those results.
The presentations are attached:
Contra Costa County Voter Research CCTA Board Meeting – 2/19/14 (Exhibit 3 CCTA Report - Board
presentation 2-19-14.pdf)
Contra Costa County Voter Research 2014 Survey 2 CCTA Board – March 19, 2014 (Exhibit 4 CCTA
Report - Board Presentation 3-19-14.pdf)
CTP Development Context
The update of the CTP was initiated in 2012. The Issues and Opportunities document was prepared in late
2013/early 2014 and distributed by the Authority in the Spring to guide the development of the CTP. That
document is attached (See Exhibit 5 - 2014 CTP Update I&O.pdf) and contains background information used in
the CTP development such as commute patterns, relevant policies, demographic information, etc. A summary of
the guidance in the Issues and Opportunities document is below:
CCTA Vision
Strive to preserve and enhance the quality of life of local communities by promoting a healthy environment and a
strong economy to benefit all people and areas of Contra Costa, through
1) a balanced, safe, and efficient transportation network;
2) cooperative planning; and
3) growth management.
The transportation network should integrate all modes of transportation to meet the diverse needs of Contra
Costa.
CCTA GOALS
Support the efficient and reliable movement of people and goods using all available travel modes
Manage growth to sustain Contra Costa’s economy, preserve its environment and support its communities
Expand safe, convenient and affordable alternatives to the single occupant vehicle
Maintain the transportation system
Continue to invest wisely to maximize the benefits of available funding
Strategies for Achieving Our Goals
Support the Efficient and Reliable Movement of People and Goods
Manage Growth to Sustain Contra Costa's Economy and Preserve its Environment
Expand Safe, Convenient and Affordable Alternatives to the Single-Occupant Vehicle
Maintain the Transportation System
Key Considerations for the 2014 CTP Update
Funding
Improving Mobility for the Next Generation
Using Transportation Technology
Managing the Effects of Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Emissions on Our Climate
Implementing Plan Bay Area
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
Without taking action, the Board of Supervisors will forgo an opportunity to communicate the position of the
Board to the Authority on the update to the Countywide Transportation Plan.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
Not Applicable.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 - CTP Release
Exhibit 2 - CTP ExecSumm.pdf
Exhibit 3 CCTA Report - Board presentation 2-19-14
Exhibit 4 CCTA Report - Board Presentation 3-19-14.pdf
Exhibit 5 - 2014 CTP Update I&O.pdf
Exhibit 6 - CTP Presentation_August 12.2014_BOS.pdf
2014
Countywide
Comprehensive
Transportation Plan
Volume 1
Prelim
i
n
a
r
y
Draft f
o
r
Planni
n
g
Commit
t
e
e
r eview
July 2, 2014
Attachment A
Executive Summary
4.B.8-8
Cover photo by Noah Berger | CCTA
Commissioners
Kevin Romick, Chair, East County,
City of Oakley
Julie Pierce, Vice Chair, East County,
City of Clayton
Janet Abelson, Mayor, West County,
City of El Cerrito
Newell Arnerich, Southwest
County, Town of Danville
Tom Butt, West County,
City of Richmond
David Durant, Central County,
City of Pleasant Hill
Federal Glover,
County Board of Supervisors
Dave Hudson, Southwest County,
City of San Ramon
Mike Metcalf, Southwest County,
Town of Moraga
Karen Mitchoff,
County Board of Supervisors
Robert Taylor, Mayor, West County,
City of Brentwood
Ex-‐‑Officio Members
Amy Worth, City of Orinda
Myrna De Vera, Mayor, City of
Hercules
Gail Murray, Director, BART Board
of Directors
Executive Director
Randell H. Iwasaki, P.E.
4.B.8-9
The preparation of this report has been financed through a grant from the U.S.
Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. The
content of this report does not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of
the U.S. Department of Transportation.
4.B.8-10
Preliminary Draft for Planning Committee Review I-i
Volume 1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................. I-1
1
Introduction ............................................................................................ I-19
About the Comprehensive Transportation Plan ..................................................... I-18
Contra Costa by the Numbers: Context and Implications for Travel ............... I-29
The Regional Transportation Planning Committees ............................................... I-22
Plan Bay Area: What does it mean for Contra Costa? .......................................... I-33
Contents of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan ........................................... I-41
Review and Approval Process ...................................................................................... I-41
2
Visions, Goals and Strategies ................................................................ I-43
Vision ................................................................................................................................. I-43
Goals and Strategies for the 2014 Update ................................................................ I-44
3
The Transportation System ................................................................. I-49
Roadways .......................................................................................................................... I-50
Transit, including Buses, Rail, Paratransit, and Ferries .......................................... I-53
High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes .................................................................................... I-60
Trails in Contra Costa of Countywide or Regional Importance ......................... I-66
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................... I-65
Facilities for Goods Movement .................................................................................... I-75
Revenues Available and New Funding Needed ........................................................ I-78
4
Cooperative Planning: Action Plans and Growth
Management ........................................................................................... I-81
Components Of The Action Plans .............................................................................. I-85
Action Plan Summaries .................................................................................................. I-85
West County ................................................................................................................... I-86
Central County ................................................................................................................ I-92
East County ...................................................................................................................... I-98
4.B.8-11
2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
Preliminary Draft
I-ii Preliminary Draft for Planning Committee Review
Lamorinda ....................................................................................................................... I-104
Tri-Valley ......................................................................................................................... I-110
Growth Management Program .................................................................................. I-114
5
Implementation ................................................................................... I-119
Funding the Plan ............................................................................................................. I-120
Detailed Implementation Tasks ................................................................................. I-121
Appendix A: Routes of Regional Significance ............................................... I-129
Appendix B: Glossary ...................................................................................... I-135
Volume 2: Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance
Volume 3: Comprehensive Transportation Project List
4.B.8-12
Preliminary Draft for Planning Committee Review I-1
Executive Summary
OVERVIEW
The Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan, or CTP, is
the blueprint for Contra Costa’s transportation system over the
next 30 years. This long-‐‑range vision for transportation identifies
the projects, programs, and policies that the Authority Board
hopes to pursue over the lifetime of the Plan. The CTP identifies
goals for bringing together all modes of travel, networks and op-‐‑
erators, to meet the diverse needs of Contra Costa.
By improving the transportation system, we can help to address
the challenges that a growing population, more jobs, and more
traffic will bring. The Plan lays out a vision for our transporta-‐‑
tion future, the goals and strategies for achieving that vision, and
the future transportation investments needed to promote a grow-‐‑
ing economy, advance technological changes, protect the envi-‐‑
ronment, and improve our quality of life.
4.B.8-13
2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
Preliminary Draft
I-2 Preliminary Draft for Planning Committee Review
CHALLENGES AHEAD
Census data shows that the population of Contra Costa grew from 804,000 in
1990 to just over one million residents in 2010, an increase of 30 percent over
twenty years. New forecasts for the region indicate that, while yearly population
growth is slowing slightly, Contra Costa will still add another 270,000 residents
by 2040, a 27 percent increase over the next thirty years.
Unlike population, job growth is expected to speed up. Between 1990 and 2010,
the number of jobs in Contra Costa grew only 17 percent. We’re expecting the
rate of job growth to more than double to 35 percent, resulting in nearly half a
million jobs by 2040.
While both jobs and population will increase, some areas of the county will grow
faster than others. Population growth in West County, Central County and East
County is expected to be the highest, at 29 percent each, followed by Lamorinda
and the Tri-‐‑Valley, at 16 percent each by 2040. Job growth in East County and
Central County is expected to outpace other areas with increases of 40 percent
and 37 percent, respectively, with the slowest rate of job growth found in Lamor-‐‑
inda, with an expected increase of 25 percent by 2040.
How We Get to Work
Commuters have a variety of options for getting to work: driving alone, carpool-‐‑
ing, taking transit, walking, or biking. Alternatively, in recent years many com-‐‑
panies have begun to allow employees to telecommute from home.
Since 1980, the percentage of commuters who drive alone has remained steady at
about 70 percent. Similarly, transit ridership has also held steady, at approxi-‐‑
mately 9 percent. What has changed most dramatically over the 30 years between
1980 and 2010 is the number of people who now indicate they work from home:
the percentage of people who work from home has more than doubled, from 1.9
percent in 1980 to 5.6 percent in 2010, as shown in Figure E-‐‑1. Will that percent-‐‑
age continue to increase through 2040? And if so, could telecommuting reach
levels of 10 to 20 percent? That would be a major balm to congestion.
4.B.8-14
Executive Summary
Preliminary Draft
Preliminary Draft for Planning Committee Review I-3
Figure E-1: Work From Home, Share of Commute Trips, 1980-2010
Source: CCTA, 2013.
The economy is also recovering from the recent recession. As shown in Figure E-‐‑
2 below, unemployment levels have been steadily dropping towards pre-‐‑
recession levels since 2010.
4.B.8-15
2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
Preliminary Draft
I-4 Preliminary Draft for Planning Committee Review
Figure E-2: Unemployment Rate, 2007-2013
Source: CCTA, 2013.
What does this mean for traffic?
The end of the Great Recession comes as welcome news for the economy and res-‐‑
idents of the Bay Area. This may mean, however, more people on the road and
on BART and buses, making for heavier traffic and more crowded commutes.
Although more residents may work from home to avoid the commute, traffic
congestion will remain a growing problem. People will continue to travel from
home to work, school, and other destinations. As a result, we can expect past
trends (shown in Figure E-‐‑3) to continue, with further increases in roadway traf-‐‑
fic, and more hours spent on congested roadways.
4.B.8-16
Executive Summary
Preliminary Draft
Preliminary Draft for Planning Committee Review I-5
Figure E-3: Average Daily Hours of Congestion, 1986-2012
Source: 1986-2008 Hi-Comp Report; 2009-2012 Mobility Performance Report.
According to our forecasts, by 2040, traffic between East County and Central
County will increase by 70 percent. Other corridors will experience significant
traffic growth as well.
The good news is that we also expect more people to take transit such as BART
or a bus, or switch to walking or bicycling. The number of hours per person that
vehicles are driven has been dropping over the last decade, a trend that pre-‐‑dates
the Great Recession. And there is more good news. California has always been a
front-‐‑runner in low-‐‑emissions vehicle technology. As progress continues, and
more hybrid and electric cars join the fleet, harmful emissions from tomorrow’s
vehicles will be reduced to a small fraction of what they are today.
We also need to look no farther than our own backyard to see what further inno-‐‑
vations lie ahead. In Mountain View, the autonomous Google® car is being per-‐‑
fected, and here in Contra Costa we have volunteered to have our streets and
4.B.8-17
2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
Preliminary Draft
I-6 Preliminary Draft for Planning Committee Review
roads serve as a test-‐‑bed for a federally-‐‑funded pilot program intended to accel-‐‑
erate the deployment of connected-‐‑autonomous vehicles (CAVs).
CCTA’S GOALS AND STRATEGIES
The Authority has identified five goals and corresponding strategies for the 2014
CTP.
Goals
1. Support the efficient, safe, and reliable movement of people and goods
using all available travel modes;
2. Manage growth to sustain Contra Costa’s economy, preserve its envi-‐‑
ronment and support its communities;
3. Expand safe, convenient and affordable alternatives to the single-‐‑
occupant vehicle;
4. Maintain the transportation system; and
5. Continue to invest wisely to maximize the benefits of available funding.
Issues & Opportunities
The goal of the 2014 CTP is to identify and implement specific actions and strate-‐‑
gies that support our shared goal of safe, strong, and efficient transportation
networks that improve the quality of life of Contra Costa residents. As we work
together to develop solutions for our county, we also need to be mindful of new
challenges and opportunities that may affect the CTP’s goals.
Funding
Funding is critical to meeting the stated goals of the CTP and helping Contra
Costa remain one of the most desirable places to live and work in the Bay Area.
In addition to examining how we can most responsibly and efficiently use exist-‐‑
ing funding sources -‐‑ such as traditional State and federal funds, Cap and Trade
funds, OneBayArea Grants, and voter-‐‑approved Measure J funds -‐‑ we also need
to consider new sources of revenue. Open road tolling, congestion pricing at
gateways or in central business districts, and pricing based on parking demand
are a few potential sources.
4.B.8-18
Executive Summary
Preliminary Draft
Preliminary Draft for Planning Committee Review I-7
Changing Travel Choices
As noted earlier, the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita has been
decreasing over the last decade. This drop is driven primarily by the changing
habits of the “millennials”, the generation born after 1982. This group is driving,
and even getting a license to drive, less frequently. Partly, this results from the
high cost of owning and operating a vehicle, especially with the significant stu-‐‑
dent debt many millennials carry. And partly it results from changes in where
millennials – and many retiring Baby Boomers – are choosing to live, namely in
close-‐‑in, walkable neighborhoods. This change does not, however, seem related
to unemployment. Both states with higher and lower unemployment rates have
seen drops in VMT.
If this recent trend continues, it would mean that forecasts of increased conges-‐‑
tion may be excessively dire. But even so, we expect that, in many locations, we
will see more delays on our roads, especially where people must go further to get
to work.
Improving Mobility for the Next Generation
The Authority has long been concerned with how we can continue to maintain
and improve our roads, freeways, transit, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities in
ways that sustain our economy, our environment and our quality of life.
Making new improvements, while maintaining what we have, is a prominent
issue for the 2014 CTP as the Authority addresses new State legislation such as
SB 375. This legislation, and the Sustainable Communities Strategies required by
it, supports the development of job centers and neighborhoods that are easier to
get to by transit and safe and convenient to walk or bicycle in, changes that will
reduce the need for long commutes to work, shopping and other destinations.
We also need to ensure that our roads and transit systems are resilient: can we
continue to get around following an earthquake? Will increased frequency of
storm surges harm our rail lines and roadways?
Using Transportation Technology
Throughout our history, people have used technology to address problems. Over
the last two centuries, technology has revolutionized how we move people and
goods. Instead of horse-‐‑drawn carriages and wind-‐‑driven ships, we now rely on
trains, planes, buses and cars. These new technologies haven’t been without their
downsides. For example, the engines propelling our ships, trains, planes, and
4.B.8-19
2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
Preliminary Draft
I-8 Preliminary Draft for Planning Committee Review
vehicles are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. And the increased
speeds these technologies allow have contributed to the sprawling character of
many of our communities.
As technology advances, it is shifting the ways that people use and access the transportation system; for example, real-‐‑time
ridesharing is facilitated in Contra Costa County by companies such as Carma, pictured above.
Source: Noah Berger, CCTA.
Technology can also help address the negative effects of our modern transporta-‐‑
tion network. The increased use of electric (or partially electric) vehicles will re-‐‑
duce greenhouse gas emissions in our urban areas (though this may be offset by
the need to increase electricity generation), and the increased use of electric vehi-‐‑
cles will increase the need for charging infrastructure. While autonomous vehi-‐‑
cles may make more efficient use of our roadways and may reduce the number
of collisions, they could also require dramatic changes in how we design our
roadways.
Other technologies focus on the roadway itself. Intelligent transportation sy s-‐‑
tems, or ITS, can benefit our transportation network by improving safety and ef-‐‑
ficiency. This benefits the environment by limiting the waste of fuel and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. ITS encompasses many techniques, including elec-‐‑
tronic toll collection (such as FasTrak in the Bay Area), ramp metering, traffic
4.B.8-20
Executive Summary
Preliminary Draft
Preliminary Draft for Planning Committee Review I-9
signal coordination, and traveler information systems, for freeways, arterials and
transit systems.
The 2014 plan considers how this evolving transportation technology should be
incorporated into our transportation system.
Technology advancements sometimes require changes to our infrastructure; for example, as electric vehicles are
increasingly used across Contra Costa, more electric vehicle charging stations are needed to support them.
Source: Noah Berger, CCTA.
Managing the Effects of Greenhouse Gases
Climate change will have to be considered in our growth management plan due
to the California Governor’s order mandating an 80 percent reduction of green-‐‑
house gases below 1990 levels by 2050, as shown in Figure E-‐‑4. Any efforts to in-‐‑
crease the resiliency of the our transportation system in light of future sea level
rise will also need to take into account future vulnerabilities, such as bay-‐‑lands
and access points near San Francisco Bay and the implications for infrastructure
and land use.
4.B.8-21
2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
Preliminary Draft
I-10 Preliminary Draft for Planning Committee Review
Figure E-4: Reaching Statewide AB 32 GHG Reduction Targets
Constrained Core Concentration
Initial Vision/Core Concentration
Focused Growth
Outward Growth
Current Regional Plans
9.4%
9.1%
8.2%
7.9%
7.0%
SCS Regional Contribution***
Scenarios
IMPROVED FUEL EFFICIENCY (PAVLEY I & II)
LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARDS
REGIONAL LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION (SCS)Million Metric Tons CO2 Equivalent15%
0%
50
1990 2000 2010
100
250
300
350
150
200
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
2020 2030 2040 2050
Projected Land Use & Transportation Emissions Reductions
80%
427
4
3
2
1
610
1
2
3
4
5
Science and Technology Report, 2011
NON-TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS REDUCTION
ACTUAL/PROJECTED EMISSIONS
***MTC’s regional contribution ampli ed to re ect
the contributions of all California MPOs
FIGURE 3: Regional Land Use and Transportation SCS
ACHIEVING ST ATEWIDE AB 32 GHG REDUCTION TAR GET S
Source: Plan Bay Area
ACHIEVING THE GOVERNOR’S DIRECTIVE:
REACHING STATEWIDE AB 32 GHG REDUCTION TARGETS
800
*Million Metric Tons CO2 Equivalent
**Estimate based on California Council on Science and Technology Report, 2011
427427
85
Target 2050 Emissions
(20% of 1990 Emissions):
85 Tons*
Required to meet
Governor’s Executive
Order S-3-05
Forecast 2050
Emissions**
507
4.B.8-22
Executive Summary
Preliminary Draft
Preliminary Draft for Planning Committee Review I-11
COOPERATIVE PLANNING
The 2014 CTP relies on collaboration with and between our partners, both at the
countywide and regional levels. As a critical component of the countywide
transportation planning process, each of the county’s five Regional Transporta-‐‑
tion Planning Committees (RTPCs) creates an Action Plan, which identifies a
complete list of Actions to be completed as a result of the Action Plan. The 2014
Action Plans are unique in the sense that they focus on additional consideration
of multimodal transit options including pedestrian and bicycling facility im-‐‑
provements and changes.
The 2014 updates of the plans also demonstrate an increased concern for intra-‐‑
regional routes and impact of traffic diverting from inter-‐‑regional routes, in-‐‑
creased support for freeway management strategies, and the recognition of
BART and freeway management as important inter-‐‑regional strategies. The
Growth Management Program (GMP), which is Contra Costa’s program to en-‐‑
force collaborative transportation and land use planning, began a new stage
when Measure J passed in 2009. With the implementation of Measure J, the GMP
remains in effect through 2034.
Role of Action Plans in Identifying and Evaluating New Projects
As part of the Action Plan planning process, each RTPC identified projects and
programs in the form of Actions to be included in the Action Plan for the Routes
of Regional Significance. The 2014 Action Plans used the 2009 Action Plans as a
base, with new Actions and Regional Routes of Significance identified through
discussion, collaboration, and reviewing by each committee. Each Action Plan
states its vision, goals, and policies; designates Routes of Regional Significance;
sets objectives for these routes; and presents specific Actions to achieve these ob-‐‑
jectives. The Actions are listed on both a route-‐‑by-‐‑route and a regional scale and
aim to support the transportation objectives as specified by each RTPC’s respec-‐‑
tive committee(s). Figure E-‐‑6 shows the Action Plan approval process.
The Growth Management Program (GMP)
The GMP will continue to provide cooperative planning on a countywide basis,
as mandated by Measure J. So far, the GMP has vastly improved interjurisdic-‐‑
tional communications regarding transportation and land use issues. By working
with the cities and towns to manage growth, the Authority has facilitated crea-‐‑
tion of a regional mitigation program that has generated more than $250 million
in new revenues for regional transportation projects. The GMP will continue to
4.B.8-23
2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
Preliminary Draft
I-12 Preliminary Draft for Planning Committee Review
be implemented in accordance with the requirements of Measure J through 2034.
As shown in Figure E-‐‑5, the Measure J GMP has seven components that local ju-‐‑
risdictions must implement to maintain compliance with the GMP, and receive
funding for local streets and roads in return.
Figure E-5: The Measure J Growth Management Program
Implementing Plan Bay Area
Adopted last year, Plan Bay Area is the Bay Area’s long -‐‑term transportation,
land use, and housing strategy through the year 2040. It includes the Bay Area’s
Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy. Plan Bay
Area was created by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and
the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in response to State legisla-‐‑
tion (SB 375). Plan Bay Area envisioned that implementation details would be
taken up in partnership with transportation planning agencies and local jurisdic-‐‑
tions. As such, the 2014 CTP addresses how elements included in Plan Bay Area
fit into our vision for Contra Costa.
Growth Management Program
To receive Measure J local street funds, a jurisdiction must:
Adopt a Growth Management Program
Adopt an Urban Limit Line
Develop a local and regional transportation
mitigation program
Show progress on providing housing options and
consider bicycle, pedestrian and traf c access in
new developments
Participate in cooperative, multi-jurisdiction planning
Adopt a transportation demand management program
Develop a ve-year capital improvement program
4.B.8-24
RTPCsAction Plan Process Update
CCTA
RTPCs
REVISE Action Plan Goals
& Objectives
IDENTIFY new/rened MTSOs &
Actions consistent with revised
goals
COMPILE updated Action
Plan for circulation &
review
RTPCs RECEIVE
Comments from
the Public
RTPCs INCORPORATE
comments AND APPROVE Final
Action Plans
CCTA CERTIFIES Final EIR &
Adopts Final CTP with Final
Action PLans
RTPCs ADOPTS Final
Action Plans
FORWARD updated
Action Plan to CCTA
CCTA ISSUES Draft CTP and
Draft EIR
Public
Review
REVIEW status of Action
Plans and Existing MTSOs
Figure E-6: Action Plan Development and Approval Process
4.B.8-25
2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
Preliminary Draft
I-14 Preliminary Draft for Planning Committee Review
Elements of Plan Bay Area that are reflected in this plan include:
Priority Development Areas (PDAs);
Use of California Cap and Trade funds;
Other initiatives, including those for freeway performance, carpooling
and vanpooling, smart driving strategies, streamlining the environmental
review process, goods movement, and industrial lands inventories;
MTC’s Regional Prosperity Plan, which removes barriers for the disad-‐‑
vantaged and discusses the unresolved regional issues of mobility and
equity;
Complete Streets, which serve all modes, and reasonable accommod a-‐‑
tions for all modes; and
How and when to incorporate Plan Bay Area’s land use forecasts for
transportation into model updates.
IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
The 2014 CTP will play an important role in shaping our transportation policy
and investment decisions. But how will the Plan be carried out? The Authority
will need to work with many agencies to fund and prioritize the programs and
projects that will work towards achieving its goals. The CTP outlines the strate-‐‑
gies, the partnerships and the guidelines essential for a smooth transition from
concept to reality, building on lessons learned since the first CTP was prepared
in 1995.
Detailed implementation tasks fall under the following seven broad categories:
Implement Measure J funding programs
Plan for Contra Costa’s transportation future
Support growth management
Develop transportation improvements
Improve system management
4.B.8-26
Executive Summary
Preliminary Draft
Preliminary Draft for Planning Committee Review I-15
Build and maintain partnerships
Fund transportation improvements
The 2014 CTP represents the Authority’s long-‐‑term plan for achieving a healthy
environment and a strong economy that benefits the people and areas of Contra
Costa through investment in our transportation system, cooperative planning
and growth management. Working with its partner agencies, the Authority will
apply these strategies outlined in the 2014 CTP to achieve the vision for Contra
Costa’s future.
FUNDING OVERVIEW
Over the life of Measure J, the Authority anticipates total revenues of $2.7 billion
(escalated dollars) from the one-‐‑half percent sales tax. Of these, about 58 percent,
or $1.56 billion, is dedicated to programs such as local streets and roads, bus op-‐‑
erations, and Transportation for Livable Communities. The remaining 42 percent,
or $1.14 billion, goes to specific transportation projects.
Measure C (1988-‐‑2004) had a different project/program split. Of the $1.1 billion
generated by Measure C, specific transportation projects received 60 percent of
total revenues, while programs received 40 percent.
Measures C and J have made a substantial dent in funding needed for projects
and programs, not only from the revenues they generated, but also the funding
they attracted from other sources. As shown in the table below, total past and
future project expenditures, including state and federal funds leveraged by
Measures C and J, total $6.5 billion.
4.B.8-27
2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
Preliminary Draft
I-16 Preliminary Draft for Planning Committee Review
TABLE E-1: MEASURES C AND J PAST AND FUTURE PROJECT
EXPENDITURES
MEASURE C AND MEASURE J (X $1,000) PAST UPCOMING TOTAL
Roadway (highways, arterials and maintenance) $754,989 $1,030,733 $1,785,722
Transit (bus, ferry, express bus, paratransit,
commute alternatives)
$433,548 $737,643 $1,171,192
Pedestrian & Bicycle (TLC, trails, safe transport
for children, subregional needs)
$11,152 $322,812 $333,964
Other $143,915 $372,998 $516,913
Subtotal $1,343,605 $2,464,187 $3,807,792
Leveraged funds on Measure C & J projects $1,721,000 $970,000 $2,691,000
TOTAL FUNDS $2,064,605 $3,434,187 $6,498,792
The CTP contains a detailed listing of projects covering all modes of transport.
As shown in the table below, the total cost of proposed future projects is estimat-‐‑
ed at nearly $11.7 billion, of which only $4.8 billion is funded through local, re-‐‑
gional, state, and federal sources
TABLE E-2: TOTAL COSTS OF PROPOSED FUTURE
PROJECTS
PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($1,000) SHARE OF TOTAL
Arterial/Roadway $1,954,075 16.8%
Bicycle/Pedestrian/SR2S/TLC $579,159 5.0%
Transit $5,072,089 43.5%
Freeway/Expressway/Interchanges $3,875,997 33.3%
Intermodal/Park-and-Ride $131,854 1.1%
Studies $38,035 1.3%
TOTAL COST $11,651,209 100.0%
In addition to the projects, there are a number of transportation programs that
are needed to preserve, protect, and operate our investments and to serve our
travellers. The CTP estimates that approximately $14 billion would be required
to carry these programs through to 2040. Of this, only $11.4 billion is funded. The
following table summarizes the cost by program type.
4.B.8-28
Executive Summary
Preliminary Draft
Preliminary Draft for Planning Committee Review I-17
A major challenge facing the Authority is to prioritize this $26 billion in projects
and programs, and determine which should receive highest priority over the
next 30 years. In addition, the Authority must seek new sources of funding to
bridge an approximate $10 billion funding gap. Through renewal of the sales tax
measure, and by keeping a close eye on other funding opportunities that may
present themselves, the Authority will continue working diligently to achieve
Contra Costa’s transportation vision for 2040.
TABLE E-3: TOTAL COSTS OF PROPOSED PROGRAMS
PROGRAM TYPE
TOTAL COST (X
$1,000) SHARE OF TOTAL
Arterial/Roadway $5,977,720 41.1%
Bicycle/Pedestrian $231,599 1.6%
Bus $1,419,053 9.8%
Freeway/Expressway/Interchanges $935,440 6.4%
Green Programs $500,000 3.4%
Innovation $100,000 0.7%
Paratransit $113,500 0.8%
Rail/Rapid Transit $5,229,000 35.9%
Safe Routes to Schools $23,013 0.2%
TDM $26,600 0.2%
TOTAL COST $14,556,726 100.0%
4.B.8-29
2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
Preliminary Draft
I-18 Preliminary Draft for Planning Committee Review
This page intentionally blank
4.B.8-30
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Contra Costa County Voter Research
CCTA Board Meeting – 2/19/14
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 2
1. Meet with
Authority
Staff and
Consultants
2. Review
existing
available
relevant
opinion
research
3. Meet with
appropriate
commission
members/
committees
4.Conduct
Qualitative
Research
(focus
Groups)
5. Analyze
Qualitative
Research
6. Conduct
Quantitative
Research
(telephone poll)
EMC’s Research Process
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 3
Region Subgroups
21%
23%
32%
16%
8%
Focus Groups
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 5
Focus Group Methodology
•Eight focus groups with Contra Costa County voters, two in
each planning region:
–East county (held in Antioch) – September 24, 2013
–Central county (held in Walnut Creek) – September 25, 2013
–South county/Lamorinda (held in Walnut Creek) –
September 26, 2013
–West county (held in Richmond) – October 3, 2013
•One group of women and one of men held in each location
•All groups recruited for a mix of age, ethnicity, party
registration, residence city, and regular modes of
transportation used
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 6
Summary of Focus Group Findings
•The importance of traffic and transportation as high-profile
problems is returning with the resurgence of the economy
•While the road/highway network is catching up with
population growth in the area, BART and public transit remain
inadequate
–They can see the promise of public transit through their
experiences with BART and MUNI
•The CCTA doesn’t exist, the transportation sales tax doesn’t
exist, and county-level transportation planning is
underappreciated
•They think current highway improvement projects are the
result of state and federal funding and Caltrans management
–They like what’s been done, but they don’t know what role
Contra Costa residents have played in it
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 7
Summary of Focus Group Findings (continued)
•The public wants the CCTA to be more aspirational
•Their world doesn’t end at the county line; the plan needs to
look farther
•Many improvements are unpopular before they are built, but
they prove their worth once they have been experienced
•Many of the planned improvements will be popular once
people understand what they are
•Use plain language
Telephone Survey
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 9
Please note that due to rounding, some
percentages may not add up to exactly 100%.
Telephone survey of registered voters in Contra Costa County, with oversamples in
key regions
Interviewing conducted January 21 - February 4, 2014
814 total interviews countywide; Margin of Error = + 3.4 points
Weighted to reflect overall countywide likely November 2014 voter population
using key demographics
Interviewing started trained, professional interviewers
Methodology
Region
Number of
Interviews
(Unweighted n)
Margin of Error
(+/-) Unweighted % Weighted %
West 168 n 7.6 pts 21% 21%
Central 224 6.5 28 32
San Ramon Valley 131 8.6 16 16
Lamorinda 104 9.6 13 8
East 187 7.2 23 23
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 10
Demographics by Region
Overall West Central San Ramon
Valley Lamorinda East
Dem 50% 67% 47% 34% 43% 54%
Rep 26% 11% 28% 39% 33% 25%
DTS/Oth 24% 22% 25% 26% 23% 21%
Male 46% 43% 46% 48% 47% 46%
Female 54% 57% 54% 52% 53% 54%
18-49 42% 44% 39% 43% 39% 46%
50-64 34% 32% 34% 35% 36% 34%
65+ 24% 24% 27% 22% 25% 20%
Commutes to
Work/School with any
mode frequently
50% 48% 50% 53% 50% 51%
Less frequently 50% 52% 50% 47% 50% 49%
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 11
Bay Area: Right Direction/Wrong Track
About half of Contra Costa voters think things in the Bay area are heading in the right direction. This
sentiment is especially strong among San Ramon and Lamorinda voters.
49%
48%
47%
61%
60%
41%
20%
19%
28%
10%
15%
21%
31%
33%
26%
29%
24%
38%
+ 19%
+ 16%
+ 21%
+ 32%
+ 36%
+ 3%
Overall
West
Central
San Ramon Valley
Lamorinda
East
Right Direction Don't know Wrong Track Net R/D
Q4. Do you think things in the Bay Area are generally going in the
right direction, or do you feel that things are pretty seriously off on
the wrong track?
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 12
Contra Costa: Right Direction/Wrong Track
A majority of voters believe things are going in the right direction for Contra Costa, in particular.
Voters in Contra Costa’s East region are comparatively split.
54%
51%
57%
64%
60%
45%
19%
17%
18%
13%
16%
16%
27%
32%
25%
23%
23%
39%
+ 26%
+ 19%
+ 32%
+ 42%
+ 37%
+ 6%
Overall
West
Central
San Ramon Valley
Lamorinda
East
Right Direction Don't know Wrong Track Net R/D
Q5. Do you think things in Contra Costa County are generally going
in the right direction, or do you feel that things are pretty seriously
off on the wrong track?
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 13
Contra Costa: Right Direction/Wrong Track
57%
45% 47%
36%
54%
20%
12% 15%
21% 16%
23%
43%
38%
43%
29%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Right Direction Don't know Wrong Track
Q5. Do you think things in Contra Costa County are generally going in the right
direction, or do you feel that things are pretty seriously off on the wrong track?
Since dropping in 2010, voters’ right direction sentiment has rebounded to near-2001 levels.
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 14
Most Important Problem by Region
Q6. What is the most important problem facing Contra Costa County today?
Transportation is among the most important problems in the County.
Overall West Central
San
Ramon
Valley Lamorinda East
Unemployment/jobs/Economy 17% 22% 19% 14% 10% 14%
Traffic/transportation/roads/highways/
infrastructure 15% 8% 15% 17% 21% 18%
Schools/education/teacher layoffs/school
budget 11% 18% 9% 12% 11% 5%
Violence/crime/drugs 11% 12% 6% 4% 6% 21%
Water/water supply/shortage/drought 9% 5% 14% 8% 8% 5%
Housing/cost of housing/lack of affordable
housing 4% 3% 4% 5% 5% 4%
Budget/financial issues/too much spending 4% 4% 5% 5% 1% 3%
Police/Fire fighter layoffs/public safety budget 3% 3% 2% 2% 0% 7%
Homeless/Poverty 2% 0% 4% 2% 2% 2%
Taxes 2% 1% 2% 7% 2% 0%
None/Nothing/Don't Know 14% 14% 14% 14% 21% 11%
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 15
Breakout of “Transportation” Response by Region
Overall West Central
San
Ramon
Valley Lamorinda East
Traffic/transportation/roads/highways/
infrastructure 15% 8% 15% 17% 21% 18%
Traffic/Parking 8% 4% 8% 11% 11% 9%
Transportation system 3% 1% 4% 3% 4% 5%
Roads/Highways/Bridges 3% 2% 1% 3% 6% 4%
Infrastructure 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%
Traffic is the top transportation-related response.
Q6. What is the most important problem facing Contra Costa County today?
Local Funding
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 17
Local Funding Support – Overall
Just over two-thirds of voters support a sales tax increase to fund transportation improvements
within Contra Costa.
Q20. [Sales Tax Vote – Full text above]
68%
3%
29%
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject
All Countywide Voters The following measure may be on a future ballot in
Contra Costa County:
Shall voters authorize implementing the Contra Costa
County twenty-five year Transportation Expenditure
Plan to:
•Expand BART in Contra Costa County;
•Improve transit connections to jobs and schools;
•Fix roads, improve highways and increase bicycle and
pedestrian safety;
•Reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality;
•Enhance transit services for seniors and people with
disabilities?
Approval increases by half a cent and extends the
existing County sales tax, with independent oversight
and audits. All money spent will benefit Contra Costa
County residents.
If this measure were on the ballot today, are you likely
to vote yes to approve it, or no to reject it?
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 18
Sales Tax Support – by Region
While two-thirds of countywide voters support the transportation tax, support is strongest in East
and West Contra Costa; it is just below two-thirds in San Ramon and Lamorinda.
Q20. [Sales Tax Vote] If this measure were on the ballot today, are you likely to vote yes to
approve it, or no to reject it?
68%
75%
70%
66%
63%
61%
3%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
29%
21%
26%
31%
33%
36%
+ 39%
+ 54%
+ 43%
+ 34%
+ 30%
+ 25%
0%33%67%100%
Overall
East
West
Central
Lamorinda
San Ramon Valley
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject Net
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 19
Sales Tax Support – by Vote History
Support is stronger among less-frequent voters but opposition increases with vote propensity.
Q20. [Sales Tax Vote] If this measure were on the ballot today, are you likely to vote yes to
approve it, or no to reject it?
68%
74%
67%
61%
3%
4%
1%
5%
29%
22%
32%
34%
+ 39%
+ 51%
+ 35%
+ 27%
0%33%67%100%
Overall
Low (voted 0-3/6)
Medium (voted 4-5/6)
High (voted 6/6)
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject Net
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 20
Need for Transportation Funding
Q16. Would you say that there is a great need for additional funding, some need, a
little need, or no real need for additional funding for Contra Costa County’s
transportation network?
A supermajority of voters believe there is at least some need for additional transportation funding in
Contra Costa. Just under a third consider it a ‘great’ need.
30%
37%
24%
20%
20%
40%
42%
38%
45%
47%
46%
37%
72%
75%
70%
67%
66%
77%
Overall
West
Central
San Ramon Valley
Lamorinda
East
Great need Some need
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 21
Need for Transportation Funding
Q16. Would you say that there is a great need for additional funding, some need, a
little need, or no real need for additional funding for Contra Costa County’s
transportation network?
Though it remains high, voters’ perception of need for funding has decreased slightly since 2010.
30% (-7)
37%
42% (+3)
39%
72% (-4)
76%
2014
2010
Great need Some need
Attitudes
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 23
Attitudes About Transportation – Top
Q21-33. I’d like to read to you a few statements. For each of the statements, please tell me
if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the
statement.
75%
59%
58%
59%
53%
51%
18%
30%
30%
26%
30%
32%
93%
88%
87%
85%
83%
83%
Q33. We need to attract more good jobs to Contra Costa
County so people don't have to commute as far
Q26. CC needs to actively manage impacts of growth to
sustain our economy & preserve our environment
Q28. We must have long term planning in our area that
accommodates drivers
Q31. There should be a plan that addresses transp. needs
all across the entire Bay Area, not county by county
Q25. We need to enhance transit services for seniors and
persons with disabilities
Q24. It is important to improve BART and other public
transportation to prepare for an aging population
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Total Agree
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 24
Attitudes About Transportation – Bottom
Q21-33. I’d like to read to you a few statements. For each of the statements, please tell me
if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the
statement.
49%
34%
31%
31%
31%
30%
22%
36%
36%
35%
32%
29%
71%
70%
67%
66%
62%
59%
Q21. Taking public transportation is not a practical option
for me most of the time
Q23. Contra Costa's transportation network needs to be
more resilient
Q22. Technology can reduce traffic congestion in my area
Q32. It is crucial to have high quality roads and public
transit, even if it means raising taxes
Q29. Fixing potholes and maintaining roads should be
our highest transp. priority
Q27. We need to drastically reduce our reliance on cars
in our area, even if doing so is difficult for us today
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Total Agree
Priorities
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 26
Q35-42: Priority Ratings on a 7-point scale
(1 - Very low priority; 7 - Very high priority)
34%
37%
37%
31%
28%
30%
26%
24%
23%
21%
18%
19%
20%
18%
16%
13%
22%
19%
22%
22%
23%
22%
21%
24%
78%
77%
77%
72%
70%
70%
63%
61%
Q38. Smoothing traffic flow on major roads
by synchronizing lights & adding turn lanes
Q35. BART extensions and new passenger
rail services
Q41. Repairing potholes and road surfaces
on local streets & roads
Q36. A more reliable, comfortable, and
convenient bus network
Q37. Completing our highway system and
network of carpool lanes
Q42. Better use of technology to reduce
congestion and give people real-time info
Q39. Creation of a safe and accessible
network of bike lanes and paths
Q40. Improvements to sidewalks,
crosswalks, and paths
7 - Very high priority 6 5 Total 5-7
Concept Category Ratings (Independent)
Q35-42. I am going to read you a brief description of several different types of projects and programs being considered to
include in the Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan. For each one, please tell me how high a priority you think that
should be for transportation planners as they consider how to spend our limited resources.
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 27
Modified Pairwise Comparison Testing
Each respondent was read a series of lists of four
transportation items of the eight at right. For each list, the
respondent was asked to pick their one highest priority
from the list. Combining the answers to this series of
questions, results in a robust understanding of how survey
respondents rank the importance of the entire set of items.
This technique enables a full comparison of all eight items
while significantly reducing respondent burden.
Question Text: Now I am going to read you some lists of items that
transportation planners could spend more money on in Contra Costa
County. For EACH SET of four items I read you, please tell me which
ONE ITEM would be YOUR highest priority to increase funding for in
Contra Costa County. You may hear some items repeated as we
progress through this section and you are free to choose those items
each time, but for EACH particular SET of four items I read you, you
may only choose one.
Each question: One, <<insert item>>, two, <<insert item>>, three,
<<insert item>>, or four, <<insert item>>.
(As needed: Of the four things I just read you, which one would be
your highest priority to increase funding for in Contra Costa County?)
Priority Items
1. BART
2. Buses
3. Highways
4. Traffic smoothing on major
roads
5. Bike lanes and paths
6. Sidewalks and crosswalks
7. Pothole repair
8. Technology
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 28
Modified Pairwise Comparison Methodology
Every respondent was read the same
fourteen lists of four items. For each list of
four services, the respondents were asked
to choose the one most important item
from that list.
–14 questions total
–Each item appeared 7 times
–Both question order, and the order of items
within each question were randomized
This enabled a comparison of all eight
items, while significantly reducing
respondent burden by not asking 36
separate questions comparing only two
items at a time.
Question number
(RANDOMIZE Q43-
Q56) Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4
43 1 2 3 5
44 2 3 4 8
45 2 4 5 6
46 1 3 7 8
47 1 3 4 6
48 4 6 7 8
49 1 2 4 7
50 3 5 6 8
51 1 4 5 8
52 2 3 6 7
53 1 5 6 7
54 2 5 7 8
55 3 4 5 7
56 1 2 6 8
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 29
Modified Pairwise Comparison Results
Question
number
(RANDOMIZED) Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4
43 BART (37%) Buses (15%) Highways (34%) Bike lanes and paths (14%)
44 Buses (20%) Highways (27%) Traffic smoothing on major
roads (36%) Technology (18%)
45 Buses (23%) Traffic smoothing on major roads
(47%) Bike lanes and paths (13%) Sidewalks and crosswalks
(17%)
46 BART (34%) Highways (23%) Pothole repair (30%) Technology (14%)
47 BART (33%) Highways (22%) Traffic smoothing on major
roads (31%)
Sidewalks and crosswalks
(14%)
48 Traffic smoothing on major
roads (39%) Sidewalks and crosswalks (12%) Pothole repair (33%) Technology (16%)
49 BART (27%) Buses (15%) Traffic smoothing on major
roads (30%) Pothole repair (28%)
50 Highways (45%) Bike lanes and paths (16%) Sidewalks and crosswalks
(15%) Technology (24%)
51 BART (33%) Traffic smoothing on major roads
(40%) Bike lanes and paths (13%) Technology (14%)
52 Buses (18%) Highways (36%) Sidewalks and crosswalks
(12%) Pothole repair (34%)
53 BART (39%) Bike lanes and paths (9%) Sidewalks and crosswalks
(12%) Pothole repair (40%)
54 Buses (21%) Bike lanes and paths (12%) Pothole repair (45%) Technology (21%)
55 Highways (27%) Traffic smoothing on major roads
(29%) Bike lanes and paths (11%) Pothole repair (33%)
56 BART (40%) Buses (18%) Sidewalks and crosswalks
(19%) Technology (23%)
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 30
Priority Scores
(The scores are calculated using the percentage of times each item was chosen.
They range from 0 to 100 where 0 means nobody chose that item and 100 means everyone chose that item in
every instance)
36
35
35
27
19
19
14
11
Traffic smoothing on major roads
Pothole repair
BART
Highways
Technology
Buses
Sidewalks and crosswalks
Bike lanes and paths
Priority Ranking Scores - Overall
Q43-46. Of the four things I just read you, which one would be your
highest priority to increase funding for in Contra Costa County?
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 31
Priority Ranking Scores – Regional Comparison
Voters prioritize traffic smoothing, BART and pothole repair in all regions.
Highways are a top priority among San Ramon and East Contra Costa voters.
Q43-46. Of the four things I just read you, which one would be your
highest priority to increase funding for in Contra Costa County?
Overall West Central San Ramon
Valley Lamorinda East
Traffic smoothing on major
roads 36 30 39 41 29 36
Pothole repair 35 38 33 34 33 35
BART 35 34 33 36 44 33
Highways 27 23 24 33 24 33
Buses 19 24 20 14 18 15
Technology 19 19 17 21 23 17
Bike lanes and paths 11 10 12 9 12 11
Sidewalks and crosswalks 14 17 17 7 13 14
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 32
Q43-56: Total number of times each item was chosen
(7 is the maximum number of times each item could be chosen)
10
15
14
5
5
4
21
16
16
14
8
7
6
4
30
25
26
33
18
22
19
14
20
16
14
21
19
19
18
17
4.97
4.38
4.10
4.40
3.63
3.53
3.11
2.78
Traffic smoothing on major roads
Pothole repair
BART
Highways
Buses
Technology
Sidewalks and crosswalks
Bike lanes and paths
6 to 7 4 to 5 2 to 3 1 Mean
Priority Ranking Frequency
Q43-46. Of the four things I just read you, which one would be your
highest priority to increase funding for in Contra Costa County?
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 33
Q43-56: Percentage not choosing each item
(6 is the maximum number of times each item could be chosen)
64%
55%
49%
48%
30%
28%
27%
19%
Bike lanes and paths
Sidewalks and crosswalks
Buses
Technology
BART
Pothole repair
Highways
Traffic smoothing on major roads
% Never choose item
Priority Ranking Frequency
Q43-46. Of the four things I just read you, which one would be your
highest priority to increase funding for in Contra Costa County?
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 34
Q57-93. Now I’d like to read you some of the specific projects and programs being
considered for inclusion in the Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan. For each one,
please tell me how important you think it is to include in the plan…
57%
57%
49%
49%
48%
48%
45%
40%
38%
37%
32%
30%
34%
37%
34%
30%
31%
33%
42%
40%
88%
87%
83%
86%
83%
79%
77%
73%
80%
77%
Q85-89. Synchronize traffic lights along major roads
(region-specific)
Q67. Improve safety in BART stations and parking lots
Q73. Better coordinate BART and bus schedules to
make connections easier with less waiting
Q83. Use technology to improve traffic flow on major
roads when there is an accident on the freeway
Q61. Increase parking at all BART stations in Contra
Costa County
Q58. Extend BART to Brentwood in East Contra Costa
County
Q77. Improve the intersection of Highways 4 & 680
Q59. Create a new BART line that connects Dublin to
Walnut Creek with stops in Danville and at Bishop…
Q90. Extend freeway on-ramp lanes to the next off-
ramp to reduce accidents & make traffic flow more…
Q68. Replace BART's forty year old rail cars
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
Improvement Priorities – Top Items Overall
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 35
57%
48%
48%
40%
37%
35%
30%
27%
30%
34%
30%
33%
40%
37%
35%
38%
87%
83%
79%
73%
77%
71%
66%
64%
Q67. Improve safety in BART stations and parking lots
Q61. Increase parking at all BART stations in Contra
Costa County
Q58. Extend BART to Brentwood in East Contra Costa
County
Q59. Create a new BART line that connects Dublin to
Walnut Creek with stops in Danville and at Bishop…
Q68. Replace BART's forty year old rail cars
Q60. More frequent BART trains at stations in Contra
Costa County
Q57. Extend BART up the I-80 Corridor between
Richmond and Hercules.
Q66. Mobile apps and electronic signs to help me
quickly find parking at BART
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
Improvement Priorities – BART
Q57-93. Now I’d like to read you some of the specific projects and programs being
considered for inclusion in the Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan. For each one,
please tell me how important you think it is to include in the plan…
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 36
47%
49%
48%
49%
47%
45%
47%
52%
51%
58%
36%
32%
32%
31%
36%
31%
34%
17%
36%
28%
82%
81%
80%
80%
83%
76%
81%
69%
87%
86%
WEST
Q61. [West] Increase parking at all BART stations in CCC
Q65. …at Richmond, Del Norte & El Cerrito Plaza BART
CENTRAL
Q61. [Central] Increase parking at all BART stations in CCC
Q63. …at WC, PH, Concord & N Concord BART
SAN RAMON
Q61. [San Ramon] Increase parking at all BART stations in CCC
Q62. …at Orinda, Lafayette & WC BART
LAMORINDA
Q61. [Lamorinda] Increase parking at all BART stations in CCC
Q62. …at Orinda, Lafayette & WC BART
EAST
Q61. [East] Increase parking at all BART stations in CCC
Q64. …at Pittsburg/Bay Point, N Concord & Concord BART
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
BART Parking – Local vs. Countywide
Q57-93. Now I’d like to read you some of the specific projects and programs being
considered for inclusion in the Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan. For each one,
please tell me how important you think it is to include in the plan…
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 37
Q57. How important it is to include in the plan: Extend BART up the I-80 Corridor between
Richmond and Hercules.
30%
52%
30%
18%
24%
22%
35%
33%
37%
27%
32%
41%
66%
85%
67%
45%
56%
64%
Overall
West
Central
San Ramon Valley
Lamorinda
East
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
BART Extension: I-80 Corridor
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 38
Q58. How important it is to include in the plan: Extend BART to Brentwood in East Contra
Costa County.
48%
39%
48%
32%
39%
71%
30%
34%
33%
36%
35%
18%
79%
73%
81%
68%
74%
89%
Overall
West
Central
San Ramon Valley
Lamorinda
East
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
BART Extension: To Brentwood
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 39
Q59. How important it is to include in the plan: Create a new BART line that connects
Dublin to Walnut Creek with stops in Danville and at Bishop Ranch in San Ramon
40%
28%
50%
43%
37%
36%
33%
47%
28%
19%
40%
34%
73%
75%
78%
63%
77%
70%
Overall
West
Central
San Ramon Valley
Lamorinda
East
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
BART Extension: Dublin-Walnut Creek
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 40
49%
35%
34%
32%
21%
34%
41%
42%
38%
32%
83%
77%
76%
69%
53%
Q73. Better coordinate BART and bus schedules to
make connections easier with less waiting
Q70. Use smaller buses on routes with fewer riders
Q71. Mobile apps that make riding the bus easier and
more convenient, like real-time bus arrival times and
stop notifications
Q69. More frequent buses
Q72. Create dedicated bus-only lanes along major
commute corridors, like I-80 and I-680
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
Improvement Priorities – Bus
Q57-93. Now I’d like to read you some of the specific projects and programs being
considered for inclusion in the Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan. For each one,
please tell me how important you think it is to include in the plan…
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 41
Q72. How important it is to include in the plan: Create dedicated bus-only lanes along
major commute corridors, like I-80 and I-680.
21%
30%
19%
8%
13%
29%
32%
29%
34%
25%
29%
39%
53%
59%
52%
33%
42%
68%
Overall
West
Central
San Ramon Valley
Lamorinda
East
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
Bus-Only Lanes
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 42
45%
34%
33%
26%
20%
18%
31%
33%
29%
34%
31%
35%
77%
67%
62%
60%
51%
53%
Q77. Improve the intersection of Highways 4 & 680
Q74. Widen and improve Highway 4 in East Contra
Costa County
Q76. Widen and improve Vasco Rd. between
Brentwood and Livermore
Q79. Improve the intersection of Highway 80 & San
Pablo Dam Rd.
Q75. Create a new highway that connects Brentwood
and Tracy
Q78. Improvements along the Richmond Parkway
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
Improvement Priorities – Highway
Q57-93. Now I’d like to read you some of the specific projects and programs being
considered for inclusion in the Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan. For each one,
please tell me how important you think it is to include in the plan…
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 43
Q77. How important it is to include in the plan: Improve the intersection of Highways 4
and 680.
45%
40%
46%
26%
22%
70%
31%
33%
35%
36%
34%
21%
77%
73%
80%
62%
56%
92%
Overall
West
Central
San Ramon Valley
Lamorinda
East
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
Highway 4 & 680 Intersection
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 44
Q74. How important it is to include in the plan: Widen and improve Highway 4 in East
Contra Costa County from Discovery Bay to Highway 5 near Stockton.
34%
34%
30%
18%
18%
55%
33%
29%
38%
30%
38%
28%
67%
63%
69%
48%
57%
83%
Overall
West
Central
San Ramon Valley
Lamorinda
East
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
Widen & Improve Highway 4
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 45
Q76. How important it is to include in the plan: Widen and improve Vasco Rd. between
Brentwood and Livermore.
33%
19%
28%
31%
27%
55%
29%
28%
33%
28%
21%
29%
62%
47%
61%
59%
48%
84%
Overall
West
Central
San Ramon Valley
Lamorinda
East
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
Vasco Road Improvements
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 46
Q79. How important it is to include in the plan: Improve the intersection of Highway 80
and San Pablo Dam Rd.
26%
50%
18%
13%
28%
23%
34%
29%
38%
32%
31%
38%
60%
79%
56%
44%
59%
61%
Overall
West
Central
San Ramon Valley
Lamorinda
East
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
I-80 & San Pablo Dam Rd. Intersection
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 47
Q75. How important it is to include in the plan: Create a new highway that connects
Brentwood and Tracy.
20%
17%
17%
10%
9%
39%
31%
27%
36%
25%
25%
32%
51%
45%
52%
35%
34%
71%
Overall
West
Central
San Ramon Valley
Lamorinda
East
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
New Highway: Brentwood-Tracy
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 48
Q78. How important it is to include in the plan: Improvements along the Richmond
Parkway, including a new overpass at San Pablo Ave. and new on and off ramps at
Highway 580.
18%
26%
16%
8%
8%
24%
35%
44%
33%
28%
42%
34%
53%
70%
49%
36%
50%
58%
Overall
West
Central
San Ramon Valley
Lamorinda
East
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
Richmond Parkway Improvements
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 49
57%
49%
38%
30%
21%
27%
32%
37%
42%
42%
39%
31%
88%
86%
80%
72%
60%
58%
Q85-89. Synchronize traffic lights along major roads
(region-specific)
Q83. Use technology to improve traffic flow on major
roads when there is an accident on the freeway
Q90. Extend freeway on-ramp lanes to the next off-
ramp to reduce accidents & make traffic flow more
freely
Q81. Use metering lights on freeway on-ramps to
reduce accidents and make traffic flow more freely
Q82. Create ramps that go directly from carpool lanes
on the freeways to major job centers
Q84. Turn carpool lanes into Express Lanes that solo
drivers can pay to use while remaining free for carpools
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
Improvement Priorities – Traffic Flow
Q57-93. Now I’d like to read you some of the specific projects and programs being
considered for inclusion in the Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan. For each one,
please tell me how important you think it is to include in the plan…
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 50
57%
62%
56%
56%
54%
52%
32%
29%
35%
31%
33%
34%
88%
90%
91%
87%
86%
86%
Q85-89. [All regions combined] Synchronize traffic lights
along major roads
Q87. [Central] Synchronize traffic lights along major
roads, including Ygnacio Valley Rd., Taylor Blvd., Treat
Blvd. and Clayton Rd.
Q89. [West] Synchronize traffic lights along major
roads, including San Pablo Ave., San Pablo Dam Rd. and
Pinole Valley Rd.
Q86. [Lamorinda] Synchronize traffic lights along major
roads, including Mt. Diablo Blvd., Pleasant Hill Rd. and
North and South Main
Q85. [San Ramon] Synchronize traffic lights along major
roads, including Crow Canyon Rd., Camino Tassajara and
Alcosta Blvd.
Q88. [East] Synchronize traffic lights along major roads,
including Willow Pass, Kirker Pass and Buchanan Roads
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
Synchronize Traffic Lights – Local vs. Countywide
Q57-93. Now I’d like to read you some of the specific projects and programs being
considered for inclusion in the Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan. For each one,
please tell me how important you think it is to include in the plan…
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 51
Q82. How important it is to include in the plan: Create ramps that go directly from carpool
lanes on the freeways to major job centers, like Bishop Ranch.
21%
23%
20%
16%
11%
26%
39%
42%
37%
30%
44%
44%
60%
65%
57%
47%
55%
70%
Overall
West
Central
San Ramon Valley
Lamorinda
East
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
Carpool Lane Ramps
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 52
36%
33%
28%
24%
40%
38%
34%
38%
76%
71%
62%
62%
Q91. Make it easier for people to access real-time
traffic info on their mobile devices
Q80. Lighting and safety improvements in the three
older bores of the Caldecott Tunnel
Q93. Expanded ferry service to San Francisco
Q92. Improve major biking & walking routes
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
Improvement Priorities – Safety & Other
Q57-93. Now I’d like to read you some of the specific projects and programs being
considered for inclusion in the Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan. For each one,
please tell me how important you think it is to include in the plan…
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 53
Q80. How important it is to include in the plan: Lighting and safety improvements in the
three older bores of the Caldecott Tunnel.
33%
31%
34%
18%
27%
47%
38%
39%
41%
43%
33%
32%
71%
69%
75%
61%
60%
79%
Overall
West
Central
San Ramon Valley
Lamorinda
East
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
Caldecott Tunnel Improvements
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 54 Q93. How important it is to include in the plan: Expanded ferry service to San Francisco.
28%
42%
25%
17%
21%
31%
34%
27%
37%
31%
28%
40%
62%
69%
62%
48%
49%
71%
Overall
West
Central
San Ramon Valley
Lamorinda
East
Very Important Somewhat Important Total
Ferry Service to San Francisco
Brand Ratings
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 56
Agency Favorability
Nearly half of Contra Costa voters either haven’t heard or can’t rate CCTA. Of those who rate the
agency, over 3 out of 4 are favorable of CCTA.
72%
61%
38%
5%
15%
50%
23%
24%
12%
3.14
2.51
3.29
Q17. Bay Area
Rapid Transit
System, or BART
Q19. California
Department of
Transportation,
or Caltrans
Q18. Contra
Costa
Transportation
Authority, or
CCTA
Favorable Can't Rate/Never Heard Unfavorable Favorability Ratio
Q17-19. I'm going to read you a list of organizations and I'd like you to tell me if you have a
strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or strongly unfavorable
opinion of each one…
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 57
CCTA Favorability – Benefits Message
94. (SAMPLE A) The Contra Costa
Transportation Authority is responsible for
maintaining and improving Contra Costa’s
transportation system. They plan, fund, and
deliver critical transportation infrastructure
projects and programs that connect our
communities, foster a strong economy, reduce
congestion, and safely and efficiently keep
Contra Costa moving. The Authority manages
the funds generated by a voter-approved
transportation sales tax and serves as the
county's Congestion Management Agency.
Having heard this, would you now say you have
a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable,
somewhat unfavorable or strongly unfavorable
opinion of the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority?
Now I’m going to read you a description of the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority….
73%
7%
20%
Favorable Don't know Unfavorable
Positioning Statement A
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 58
CCTA Favorability – Funding Message
Now I’m going to read you a description of the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority….
94. (SAMPLE B) The Contra Costa
Transportation Authority is responsible for
maintaining and improving Contra Costa’s
transportation system. They get you where you
need to go by providing critical funding for local
street repair, highway improvements, BART, AC
Transit, and major transportation projects like
the Caldecott Tunnel. As the county's
Congestion Management Agency, they fund
innovative programs to reduce congestion and
promote alternative transportation. The
Authority manages the funds generated by a
voter-approved transportation sales tax.
Having heard this, would you now say you have
a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable,
somewhat unfavorable or strongly unfavorable
opinion of the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority?
74%
8% 17%
Favorable Don't know Unfavorable
Positioning Statement B
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 59
CCTA Favorability– Pre & Post-Positioning
Now I’m going to read you a description of the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority.
39%
73%
38%
74%
49%
7%
51%
8%
12%
20%
11%
17%
+ 26%
+ 30%
Q18. CCTA initial
rating
Q94A. CCTA [after
A statement]
Q18. CCTA initial
rating
Q94B. CCTA [after
B statement]
Favorable Don't know Unfavorable Net Change
Sample A
Sample B
EMC 13-4993 & 13-5035 CCTA Research | 60
The mood of the public, particularly in East County, is
improving along with the economy
Most Contra Costans want traffic smoothing, road repair, and
more/better BART
–Other projects and programs have narrower, but still passionate,
audiences
An augmentation and extension of the Contra Costa County
Transportation Sales Tax may be feasible in even a moderate-
turnout election
–Traffic smoothing, road repair, and BART should be central features
–Technology is a tool for improvements, not an end in itself
–Each region of the county has locally-specific interests, and
communications should be tailored
Conclusions
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Contra Costa County Voter Research
2014 Survey 2
CCTA Board – March 19, 2014
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 2
Region Subgroups
21%
23%
32%
16%
8%
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 3
Please note that due to rounding, some
percentages may not add up to exactly 100%.
Telephone survey of registered voters in Contra Costa County
Interviewing conducted March 3-10, 2014
606 total interviews countywide; Margin of Error = + 3.98 points
Weighted to reflect overall countywide likely November 2016 voter population using key
demographics
Interviewing started trained, professional interviewers
Where applicable, results compared with survey conducted January 21st – February 5th, 2014
(n=814; MoE: + 5.6 % points)
Methodology
Region Number of Interviews
(Unweighted n)
Margin of Error
(+/-) Unweighted % Weighted %
West 114 n 9.2 pts 19% 17%
Central 174 7.4 29 33
San Ramon Valley 97 10.0 16 16
Lamorinda 79 11.0 13 10
East 142 8.2 23 25
Summary
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 5
Key Findings
1.The results of the March survey match the January survey
About 2/3rds of Contra Costa voters are willing to augment the current
transportation measure
In both surveys, 68% say they would vote yes on a county transportation measure
2.Voters are more supportive of a measure that continues the work of the
current measure than they are of one that appears to be new
3.The survey shows a vote ceiling near 70% and a floor near 60%
Information about possible projects and programs does little to improve support
from the initial vote
Information that is critical of the measure drops support below the two -thirds
level
4.Lower propensity voters are most supportive of a transportation measure
Modeling for 2014 shows a net decrease of four (4) points as compared to 2016
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 6
Sales Tax Increase & Extension (Sample A)
Over two-thirds of voters support an increase and extension of the existing County sales tax.
Q8. [Sales Tax Increase/Extension Vote – Full text above]
68%
6%
26%
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject
All Countywide Voters The following measure may be on a future ballot in
Contra Costa County:
Shall voters authorize implementing the Contra Costa
County twenty-five year Transportation Expenditure
Plan to:
•Expand BART in Contra Costa County;
•Improve transit connections to jobs and schools;
•Fix roads, improve highways and increase bicycle and
pedestrian safety;
•Reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality;
•Enhance transit services for seniors and people with
disabilities?
Approval increases by half a cent and extends the
existing County sales tax, with independent oversight
and audits. All money spent will benefit Contra Costa
County residents.
If this measure were on the ballot today, are you likely
to vote yes to approve it, or no to reject it?
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 7
Measure Support – January and March Surveys
Support for an increase and extension is unchanged since the January survey.
Q8-Q9. [Sales Tax Vote – Sample A & Sample B]
68% 68%
3% 6%
29% 26%
January '14*March '14
Increase/Extension
(Sample A)
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject
*January 2014 ballot language was the same as
Sample A ballot language
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 8
New Sales Tax (Sample B)
Nearly two-thirds of voters support authorizing a half cent sales tax.
Q9. [New Sales Tax Vote – Full text above]
65%
7%
29%
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject
All Countywide Voters The following measure may be on a future ballot in
Contra Costa County:
Shall voters authorize implementing the Contra Costa
County twenty-five year Transportation Expenditure
Plan to:
•Expand BART in Contra Costa County;
•Improve transit connections to jobs and schools;
•Fix roads, improve highways and increase bicycle and
pedestrian safety;
•Reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality;
•Enhance transit services for seniors and people with
disabilities?
Approval authorizes a half cent sales tax, with
independent oversight and audits. All money spent will
benefit Contra Costa County residents.
If this measure were on the ballot today, are you likely
to vote yes to approve it, or no to reject it?
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 9
Measure Support – Overall
There is higher support for a measure that indicates a sales tax already exists.
Q8-Q9. [Sales Tax Vote – Sample A & Sample B]
68% 68% 65%
3% 6% 7%
29% 26% 29%
January '14*March '14
Increase/Extension
(Sample A)
March '14
Augmentation (Sample B)
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject
*January 2014 ballot language was the same as
Sample A ballot language
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 10
Local Funding Support – Vote After All Information
Information that is critical of the measure drops support below 2/3rds.
Q64. [Sales Tax Vote – After All Information]
68% 69% 69% 60%
6% 6% 6%
6%
26% 25% 25% 34%
Initial Vote Elements Positives Negatives
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject
65% 68% 67% 62%
7% 6% 6% 6%
29% 25% 27% 32%
Initial Vote Elements Positives Negatives
Support for Sales Tax
Increase & Extension
(Sample A)
Support for Augmentation
(Sample B)
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 11
Vote arcs (Contra Costa & Alameda)
68%
69% 69%
60%
72% 75%
62%
69%
77%
79%
71%
77% 75%
73%
81%
84% 84%
75%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
Initial vote After elements After positives After negatives
CCTA 2014 (Increase + Extend)CCTA 2004 ACTC 2011 ACTC 2013 ACTA 2000
Initial vote questions have been highly predictive.
2012 Measure B3: 66.6%
2004 Measure J: 71%
2000 Measure B: 81.5%
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 12
68%
75%
63%
59%
6%
6%
6%
7%
26%
19%
31%
34%
+ 41%
+ 57%
+ 32%
+ 25%
0%33%67%100%
Overall
Low (voted 0-3/6)
Medium (voted 4-5/6)
High (voted 6/6)
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject Net
Sales Tax Increase & Extension – by Vote History (Sample A)
Support for an increase and extension is highest among low propensity voters.
Q8. [Sales Tax Increase/Extension Vote] If this measure were on the ballot today, are you
likely to vote yes to approve it, or no to reject it?
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 13
68%
66%
65%
64%
6%
6%
7%
7%
26%
28%
29%
30%
+ 42%
+ 38%
+ 36%
+ 34%
0%33%67%100%
November 2016
November 2014
November 2016
November 2014
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject Net
2016 & 2014 Election Models
2014 modeling shows a net four (4) point drop. Increase & Extension (Sample A) Augmentation (Sample B) Q8-Q9. [Sales Tax Vote – Sample A & Sample B]
Low propensity Medium propensity High propensity
Nov. 2016 46% 29% 25%
Nov. 2014 32% 40% 28%
Full Report
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 15
Demographics by Region
Overall West Central San Ramon
Valley Lamorinda East
Dem 50% 64% 51% 37% 47% 48%
Rep 26% 11% 27% 43% 27% 23%
DTS/Oth 24% 25% 21% 20% 25% 29%
Male 45% 43% 44% 47% 47% 44%
Female 55% 57% 56% 53% 53% 56%
18-49 38% 37% 34% 45% 31% 44%
50-64 34% 34% 34% 31% 38% 36%
65+ 27% 30% 32% 24% 31% 20%
Voted 6/6 (perfect voter) 25% 30% 25% 26% 34% 18%
Voted 4-5 / 6 29% 27% 32% 32% 27% 28%
Voted 0-3 / 6 46% 43% 43% 43% 39% 54%
Revenue Measure
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 17
Sales Tax Increase & Extension (Sample A)
Over two-thirds of voters support an increase and extension of the existing County sales tax.
Q8. [Sales Tax Increase/Extension Vote – Full text above]
68%
6%
26%
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject
All Countywide Voters The following measure may be on a future ballot in
Contra Costa County:
Shall voters authorize implementing the Contra Costa
County twenty-five year Transportation Expenditure
Plan to:
•Expand BART in Contra Costa County;
•Improve transit connections to jobs and schools;
•Fix roads, improve highways and increase bicycle and
pedestrian safety;
•Reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality;
•Enhance transit services for seniors and people with
disabilities?
Approval increases by half a cent and extends the
existing County sales tax, with independent oversight
and audits. All money spent will benefit Contra Costa
County residents.
If this measure were on the ballot today, are you likely
to vote yes to approve it, or no to reject it?
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 18
Measure Support – January and March Surveys
Support for an increase and extension is unchanged since the January survey.
Q8-Q9. [Sales Tax Vote – Sample A & Sample B]
68% 68%
3% 6%
29% 26%
January '14*March '14
Increase/Extension
(Sample A)
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject
*January 2014 ballot language was the same as
Sample A ballot language
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 19
New Sales Tax (Sample B)
Nearly two-thirds of voters support authorizing a half cent sales tax.
Q9. [New Sales Tax Vote – Full text above]
65%
7%
29%
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject
All Countywide Voters The following measure may be on a future ballot in
Contra Costa County:
Shall voters authorize implementing the Contra Costa
County twenty-five year Transportation Expenditure
Plan to:
•Expand BART in Contra Costa County;
•Improve transit connections to jobs and schools;
•Fix roads, improve highways and increase bicycle and
pedestrian safety;
•Reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality;
•Enhance transit services for seniors and people with
disabilities?
Approval authorizes a half cent sales tax, with
independent oversight and audits. All money spent will
benefit Contra Costa County residents.
If this measure were on the ballot today, are you likely
to vote yes to approve it, or no to reject it?
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 20
Measure Support – Overall
There is higher support for a measure that indicates a sales tax already exists.
Q8-Q9. [Sales Tax Vote – Sample A & Sample B]
68% 68% 65%
3% 6% 7%
29% 26% 29%
January '14*March '14
Increase/Extension
(Sample A)
March '14
Augmentation (Sample B)
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject
*January 2014 ballot language was the same as
Sample A ballot language
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 21
Local Funding Support – Vote After All Information
Information that is critical of the measure drops support below 2/3rds.
Q64. [Sales Tax Vote – After All Information]
68% 69% 69% 60%
6% 6% 6%
6%
26% 25% 25% 34%
Initial Vote Elements Positives Negatives
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject
65% 68% 67% 62%
7% 6% 6% 6%
29% 25% 27% 32%
Initial Vote Elements Positives Negatives
Support for Sales Tax
Increase & Extension
(Sample A)
Support for Augmentation
(Sample B)
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 22
Vote arcs (Contra Costa & Alameda)
68%
69% 69%
60%
72% 75%
62%
69%
77%
79%
71%
77% 75%
73%
81%
84% 84%
75%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
Initial vote After elements After positives After negatives
CCTA 2014 (Increase + Extend)CCTA 2004 ACTC 2011 ACTC 2013 ACTA 2000
Initial vote questions have been highly predictive.
2012 Measure B3: 66.6%
2004 Measure J: 71%
2000 Measure B: 81.5%
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 23
Sales Tax Increase & Extension – by Region (Sample A)
Support for an increase and extension is highest in Central and Lamorinda.
Q8. [Sales Tax Increase/Extension Vote] If this measure were on the ballot today, are you
likely to vote yes to approve it, or no to reject it?
68%
72%
71%
68%
66%
60%
6%
3%
8%
8%
1%
10%
26%
25%
21%
24%
33%
30%
+ 41%
+ 47%
+ 50%
+ 44%
+ 33%
+ 30%
0%33%67%100%
Overall
Lamorinda
Central
West
East
San Ramon Valley
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject Net
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 24
65%
75%
65%
64%
61%
52%
7%
4%
6%
8%
9%
6%
29%
22%
28%
28%
30%
41%
+ 36%
+ 53%
+ 37%
+ 36%
+ 31%
+ 11%
0%33%67%100%
Overall
West
East
Central
San Ramon Valley
Lamorinda
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject Net
Augmentation – by Region (Sample B)
Support for augmentation is highest in the West.
Q9. [Augmentation Vote] If this measure were on the ballot today, are you likely to vote yes
to approve it, or no to reject it?
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 25
68% 72% 71% 68% 66%
60%
65%
52%
64%
75%
65% 61%
Overall Lamorinda Central West East San Ramon
Valley
Measure Support by Region
% Yes - Increase & Extend (A)
% Yes - Augment (B)
Sales Tax Increase & Extension by Region – Samples A & B
The drop off is most pronounced in Lamorinda.
Q8. [Sales Tax Votes] If this measure were on the ballot today, are you likely to vote yes to
approve it, or no to reject it?
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 26
68%
75%
70% 66% 63% 61%
68% 66% 68% 71% 72%
60%
68% 71% 69% 68% 68%
61%
Overall East West Central Lamorinda San Ramon
Valley
Averaged Support for Measure over Two Surveys
% Yes - Survey 1
% Yes - Survey 2
% Yes - Average
Sales Tax Increase & Extension by Region – Averaged Support
Accounting for the margin of error (by averaging), still shows strong support in the East & West.
Q8. [Sales Tax Increase/Extension Vote] If this measure were on the ballot today, are you
likely to vote yes to approve it, or no to reject it?
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 27
68%
75%
63%
59%
6%
6%
6%
7%
26%
19%
31%
34%
+ 41%
+ 57%
+ 32%
+ 25%
0%33%67%100%
Overall
Low (voted 0-3/6)
Medium (voted 4-5/6)
High (voted 6/6)
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject Net
Sales Tax Increase & Extension – by Vote History (Sample A)
Support for an increase and extension is highest among low propensity voters.
Q8. [Sales Tax Increase/Extension Vote] If this measure were on the ballot today, are you
likely to vote yes to approve it, or no to reject it?
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 28
65%
68%
62%
62%
7%
8%
8%
3%
29%
24%
30%
36%
+ 36%
+ 44%
+ 32%
+ 26%
0%33%67%100%
Overall
Low (voted 0-3/6)
Medium (voted 4-5/6)
High (voted 6/6)
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject Net
Augmentation – by Vote History (Sample B)
Support for a new tax is also highest among low propensity voters.
Q9. [Augmentation Vote] If this measure were on the ballot today, are you likely to vote yes
to approve it, or no to reject it?
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 29
68%
66%
65%
64%
6%
6%
7%
7%
26%
28%
29%
30%
+ 42%
+ 38%
+ 36%
+ 34%
0%33%67%100%
November 2016
November 2014
November 2016
November 2014
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject Net
2016 & 2014 Election Models
2014 modeling shows a net four (4) point drop. Increase & Extension (Sample A) Augmentation (Sample B) Q8-Q9. [Sales Tax Vote – Sample A & Sample B]
Low propensity Medium propensity High propensity
Nov. 2016 46% 29% 25%
Nov. 2014 32% 40% 28%
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 30
Measure Elements
Focusing exclusively on the tax still brings majority support, but not 2/3rds.
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
72%
49%
51%
30%
28%
29%
24%
24%
16%
28%
24%
27%
28%
26%
27%
27%
88%
78%
76%
58%
56%
54%
51%
51%
Q28. Include a detailed plan that shows exactly how all of the
money will be spent
Q26. Include independent oversight and audits
Q27. Benefit Contra Costa County residents
Q22. (SAMPLE A ONLY) Increase the existing 1/2 cent county
transportation sales tax by 1/2 cent
Q24. (SAMPLE B ONLY) Authorize a new 1/2 cent county
transportation sales tax that would expire in 2039
Q25. Authorize a one cent sales tax for transportation in
Contra Costa County
Q21. Authorize a 25 year Transportation Sales Tax for Contra
Costa County
Q23. (SAMPLE A ONLY) Extend the county transportation sales
tax until 2039
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
Projects and Programs
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 32
Projects/Programs - Top
Repairing of potholes is strongly supported by 2/3rds of voters.
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
68%
62%
59%
60%
55%
55%
52%
19%
24%
26%
24%
26%
26%
28%
87%
86%
86%
84%
81%
81%
81%
Q18. Repair potholes and road surfaces
Q20. Enhance transit services for seniors and people with
disabilities
Q39. Better maintain the roads and services we already
have
Q12. Fix roads
Q13. Improve highways
Q29. Better coordinate BART and bus schedules to make
connections easier with less waiting
Q35. Smooth traffic flow on major roads by synchronizing
lights and adding turn lanes
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 33
Projects/Programs, cont.
Many projects and programs have support well in excess of 2/3rds.
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
56%
56%
53%
51%
54%
54%
52%
24%
24%
27%
29%
26%
25%
27%
80%
80%
80%
80%
79%
79%
79%
Q15. Reduce traffic congestion
Q16. Improve air quality
Q14. Increase bicycle and pedestrian safety
Q17. Smooth traffic flow on highways, streets, and roads
Q37. Improve major freeway intersections to smooth traffic
and reduce bottlenecks
Q11. Improve transit connections to jobs and schools
Q19. Improve parking and safety for BART riders
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 34
Projects/Programs, cont.
Many projects and programs have support well in excess of 2/3rds.
Q10-Q41. Now I'm going to read you some of the specific elements of the ballot measure.
After each please tell me if you support or oppose that particular element.
52%
47%
45%
51%
49%
46%
45%
44%
35%
36%
23%
30%
31%
23%
27%
29%
28%
28%
31%
24%
76%
76%
76%
75%
75%
75%
73%
73%
66%
60%
Q36. Install technology that keeps traffic flowing smoothly on
major roads when there is an accident on the freeway
Q30. Increase parking at Contra Costa County BART stations
Q41. Improve and complete bike paths and sidewalks
throughout the county
Q10. Expand BART in Contra Costa County
Q38. Use technology to make real-time travel information
more easily available…
Q33. Improve BART stations to allow BART to accommodate
more riders and more frequent trains through the stations
Q31. Replace BART’s 40 year old rail cars
Q32. Allow more frequent BART trains to reduce waiting time
on BART platforms
Q40. Support new ferry service from points in Contra Costa
County to San Francisco
Q34. Support building housing near BART or transit stations to
encourage neighborhoods where people aren’t as …
Strongly Support Somewhat Support Total Support
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 35
Local Funding Support – Vote After Projects/Programs
Measure elements, including clarification on the tax amount, equalizes the two approaches.
Q42. [Sales Tax Vote – After Measure Elements]
68% 69%
6% 6%
26% 25%
Initial Vote Vote 2
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject
65% 68%
7% 6%
29% 25%
Initial Vote Vote 2
Support for Sales Tax
Increase & Extension
(Sample A)
Support for Augmentation
(Sample B)
Impact of Information
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 37
Measure Information - Top
No argument moves more than 2/3rds of voters to yes.
Q49-Q56. Now I’m going to read you some things people might say about the
transportation sales tax ballot measure. After each statement, please tell me if it would
make you less likely or more likely to support this measure, on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1
means much less likely to support it and 7 means much more likely to support it.
30%
33%
31%
31%
18%
15%
12%
16%
19%
18%
22%
19%
5.16
5.15
5.10
5.07
Q56. Measure allows us to continue improving local
transportation systems, like Caldecott, Hwy 4, and
BART extensions, all only possible because of local
transportation measure
Q49. All money raised by this measure will be spent
to improve transportation for the people who live in
Contra Costa County
Q53. This measure will make it easier for people in
Contra Costa County to get where they need to go
Q52. The improvements that will be made if this
measure passes will attract new businesses and jobs
to Contra Costa County so that people who live here
could work here too
7- Much more likely to support 6 5 Mean
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 38
Measure Information - Bottom
No argument moves more than 2/3rds of voters to yes.
Q49-Q56. Now I’m going to read you some things people might say about the
transportation sales tax ballot measure. After each statement, please tell me if it would
make you less likely or more likely to support this measure, on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1
means much less likely to support it and 7 means much more likely to support it.
30%
29%
27%
24%
16%
15%
17%
15%
17%
19%
17%
19%
5.07
5.03
4.93
4.83
Q55. With local sales tax, CC able to get funding from
state/fed govt at a rate of about 3 to 1 - every dollar
raised locally, we get 3 towards transportation
projects
Q51. If this measure passes, every community in
Contra Costa County will benefit with improvements
to local roads, highways, BART, buses, and bike and
pedestrian routes
Q50. This measure makes improvements to BART so
that it can serve more parts of the county with more
trains running more often and be a more reliable
system for all of us
Q54. This measure gives CCC cutting-edge 21st
century transportation system by installing modern
road and transit technology and making real-time
information accessible to all
7- Much more likely to support 6 5 Mean
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 39
Local Funding Support – Vote After Information
No positive movement after positive information.
Q57. [Sales Tax Vote – After Messages]
68% 69% 69%
6% 6% 6%
26% 25% 25%
Initial Vote Vote 2 Vote 3
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject
65% 68% 67%
7% 6% 6%
29% 25% 27%
Initial Vote Vote 2 Vote 3
Support for Sales Tax
Increase & Extension
(Sample A)
Support for Augmentation
(Sample B)
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 40
Measure Negatives
There is some concern about the sales tax rate.
Q58-Q63. Now I’m going to read you a few more things people might say about the
transportation sales tax ballot measure. After each statement, please tell me if it would
make you less likely or more likely to support this measure, on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1
means much less likely to support it and 7 means much more likely to support it.
32%
22%
16%
13%
15%
13%
7%
6%
6%
8%
7%
6%
10%
10%
10%
10%
11%
10%
3.29
3.99
4.24
4.26
4.35
4.38
Q61. If measure passes, will increase the sales tax rate in
some parts of CCC to 10%, highest in state
Q63. This measure would double the county
transportation sales tax to a whole cent, while extending
it to 2039. Too much of an increase for CCC to bear
Q59. With the economy just starting to show signs of
improvement, now is not the right time to raise taxes
Q62. Transportation improvements should be paid for by
state and federal governments, not by our local
government
Q60. We just can’t trust the government to spend our tax
dollars wisely
Q58. There are more important things, like education,
police & fire services, & securing water system, this is not
the time for a new tax
1- Much less likely to support 2 3 Mean
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 41
Local Funding Support – Vote After Negatives
Information that is critical of the measure drops support below 2/3rds.
Q64. [Sales Tax Vote – After More Messages]
68% 69% 69% 60%
6% 6% 6%
6%
26% 25% 25% 34%
Initial Vote Vote 2 Vote 3 Vote 4
Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject
65% 68% 67% 62%
7% 6% 6% 6%
29% 25% 27% 32%
Initial Vote Vote 2 Vote 3 Vote 4
Support for Sales Tax
Increase & Extension
(Sample A)
Support for Augmentation
(Sample B)
Issue Environment
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 43
Bay Area: Right Direction/Wrong Track
Half of Contra Costa voters think things in the Bay area are heading in the right direction. This
sentiment is especially strong among Lamorinda voters.
51%
55%
53%
54%
61%
39%
20%
22%
20%
18%
10%
24%
29%
23%
27%
28%
30%
37%
+ 21%
+ 32%
+ 26%
+ 27%
+ 31%
+ 2%
Overall
West
Central
San Ramon Valley
Lamorinda
East
Right Direction Don't know Wrong Track Net R/D
Q5. Do you think things in the Bay Area are generally going in the
right direction, or do you feel that things are pretty seriously off on
the wrong track?
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 44
Contra Costa: Right Direction/Wrong Track
A majority of voters believe things are going in the right direction for Contra Costa, in particular.
56%
53%
57%
65%
65%
46%
19%
23%
22%
14%
14%
17%
25%
23%
21%
22%
21%
37%
+ 30%
+ 30%
+ 37%
+ 43%
+ 44%
+ 9%
Overall
West
Central
San Ramon Valley
Lamorinda
East
Right Direction Don't know Wrong Track Net R/D
Q6. Do you think things in Contra Costa County are generally going
in the right direction, or do you feel that things are pretty seriously
off on the wrong track?
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 45
Contra Costa: Right Direction/Wrong Track
57%
45% 47%
36%
54% 56%
20%
12% 15%
21% 16% 19%
23%
43%
38%
43%
29% 25%
2001 2003 2004 2010 Jan. 2014 Mar. 2014
Right Direction Don't know Wrong Track
Q6. Do you think things in Contra Costa County are generally going in the right
direction, or do you feel that things are pretty seriously off on the wrong track?
Since dropping in 2010, voters’ right direction sentiment has rebounded to near-2001 levels.
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 46
Need for Transportation Funding
Q7. Would you say that there is a great need for additional funding, some need, a
little need, or no real need for additional funding for Contra Costa County’s
transportation network?
The vast majority of voters believe there is at least some need for additional transportation funding
in Contra Costa County.
34%
36%
35%
42%
29%
25%
41%
42%
41%
33%
45%
48%
76%
78%
76%
75%
75%
73%
Overall
Central
Lamorinda
East
West
San Ramon Valley
Great need Some need Total
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 47
Need for Transportation Funding
Q7. Would you say that there is a great need for additional funding, some need, a
little need, or no real need for additional funding for Contra Costa County’s
transportation network?
Voters’ perception of need for funding is over 2/3rds.
34%
30%
37%
41%
42%
39%
76%
72%
76%
March 2014
Jan. 2014
2010
Great need Some need
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 48
Attitudes About Transportation
Strong agreement for fix it first.
Q43-Q48. Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?
37%
36%
31%
32%
31%
14%
31%
29%
33%
25%
19%
28%
68%
65%
65%
56%
50%
41%
Q48. We should focus on repairing and maintaining the
transportation systems we have, including our roads,
highways, BART, and buses, instead of thinking about…
Q46. Extending BART should be a top priority for the Bay
Area
Q45. It is crucial to have high quality roads and public
transit, even if it means raising taxes
Q47. Fixing potholes and maintaining roads should be our
highest transportation priority, even if it means putting
off other transportation projects and improvements
Q44. Taxes are already high enough; I’ll vote against any
increase in taxes
Q43. I trust our local elected officials to properly manage
our tax dollars.
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Total Agree
EMC 14-5170 CCTA Research | 49
Contacts
Alex Evans
alex@emcresearch.com
510.550.8920
Sara LaBatt
sara@emcresearch.com
510.550.8924
Jenny Regas
jenny@emcresearch.com
510.550.8929
2014 Update
Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan
Issues and Opportunities
March 2014
Commissioners
Kevin Romick, Chair
Council Member, City of Oakley
Julie Pierce, Vice-Chair
Mayor, City of Clayton
Janet Abelson
Mayor, City of El Cerrito
Newell Arnerich
Council Member, Town of Danville
Tom Butt
Council Member, City of Richmond
David Durant
Council Member, City of Pleasant Hill
Federal Glover
Board of Supervisors, District 5
Dave Hudson
Council Member, City of San Ramon
Mike Metcalf
Council Member, Town of Moraga
Karen Mitchoff
Board of Supervisors, District 4
Robert Taylor
Mayor, City of Brentwood
Ex-Officio Members
Amy Worth, MTC
Joel Keller, BART
Myrna de Vera, Bus Operators
Randell H. Iwasaki,
Executive Director
2999 Oak Road, Suite 100
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925-256-4700
www.ccta.net
A Message to
Contra Costa Residents
As our agency embarks on its 25th year, we are eager to build on
the success and legacy of Measure J, the half-cent transportation
sales tax approved by Contra Costa voters in 2004. Measure J has
helped fund the Caldecott Tunnel’s fourth bore, improvements on
I-680 and State Route 4, the I-80 Integrated Corridor Manage-
ment project, expanded transit service, new bikeways and trails,
and maintaining your local streets and roads. As we plan for the
future, we want you to continue to share your opinions and stay
involved in shaping our county’s transportation future.
Every five years, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(CCTA) evaluates and updates its Countywide Transportation Plan, or
CTP, our 30-year blueprint for the county’s transportation future.
With feedback from stakeholders throughout the county, updating
the CTP helps ensure that we accurately plan, fund, and imple-
ment your transportation vision for Contra Costa.
The pages that follow describe the factors that may affect our net-
work of roads, freeways, transit, sidewalks and trails over the next
30 years, as well as the vision and goals identified the last time we
engaged you in this process. You will also find highlights of in-
vestment projects we’ve accomplished through the CTP and funds
from Measure C and Measure J. This brochure is our starting point
for a 2014 update of the CTP. Your input is crucial for informing
whether the path we’re on is the right one, or whether we need to
chart a new course in addressing the issues and challenges facing
our current transportation network.
I encourage you to become involved in the 2014 CTP process and
help us decide which projects are important and how we should
spend any future revenue. The last page of this brochure describes
how you can become involved in the 2014 CTP process. You can
also email your comments directly to us at: 2014CTP@ccta.net.
I look forward to working with you to create this new vision for
Contra Costa’s transportation future.
Sincerely,
Randell H. Iwasaki, Executive Director
Cover Photo: Caldecott Tunnel at night (by Karl
Nielsen/Metropolitan Transportation Commission)
Caldecott Tunnel (Photo by Karl Nielsen/Metropolitan
Transportation Commission)
Transit Oriented DevelopmentWalnut Creek BART Station
Transportation Investments Made Through
Measures C and J
All of Contra Costa has benefitted from the trans-
portation improvements funded by Measure J
and Measure C. The Caldecott Tunnel Fourth
Bore, the widening of State Route 4, BART exten-
sions in East County, new BART parking in West
County, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, the
I-80 Integrated Corridor Management project,
railroad grade separations, and the Martinez multi-
modal center were all funded. The measures also
helped fund local street maintenance, transit and
paratransit operations, school bus service, commute
alternative programs, express buses, and transporta-
tion for livable communities programs.
Over the life of Measure J, transportation programs
should receive about $1.56 billion or 58 percent of
the estimated $2.7 billion in revenues expected.
The remaining 42 percent, or $1.14 million, would
go to specific transportation projects. Out of the
$1.1 billion generated by Measure C, transporta-
tion programs got about $344 million (one-third of
the total), while the remaining $700 million went
to projects, bond financing, and program/project
management.
All of the funding from the two measures goes to
fund transportation projects and programs.
SUMMARY OF SALES TAX EXPENDITURES
(Rounded to Nearest $Million)
PROJECT CATEGORIES PAST FUTURE TOTAL
Roadways — highways, arterials & maintenance $755 $1,031 $1,786
Transit — rail, bus, express bus, ferry, paratransit, commute
alternatives
$434 $738 $1,172
Pedestrian & Bike — bicycle and pedestrian, Safe Routes to
School
$11 $323 $334
Other — financing costs and operations $144 $373 $517
Sum $1,344 $2,465 $3,809
TOTAL MEASURE J AND MEASURE C EXPENDITURES
Leveraged Funds on Measure C/J Projects $1,721 $970 $2,691
Total Funds $6,500 1
Planning for Our Future:
Contra Costa by the Numbers 2010–2040
As more people choose to live and work in the Bay
Area, every county in our region will experience
growth. Contra Costa’s expected growth — in the
form of population, jobs, households, and residents
— will strain our current transportation resources
and increase travel and commute time within the
transportation network.
To minimize these impacts, it is vital that our roads
and highways and our transit and bike facilities can
meet the challenges of a growing population.
Contra Costa County Population Growth, 2010-2040 by Region
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
Central (TRANSPAC) East (TRANSPLAN) Lamorinda (LPMC) TriValley (TVTC) West (WCCTAC)
Contra Costa County Population Growth, 2010-2040 by Region
2040 Population
2010 Population
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Central (TRANSPAC) East (TRANSPLAN) Lamorinda (LPMC) TriValley (TVTC) West (WCCTAC)
Contra Costa County Job Growth, 2010-2040 by Region
2040 Jobs
2010 Jobs
Contra Costa County Job Growth, 2010-2040 by Region
Vehicle miles traveled in Contra Costa
will increase 18 percent by 2040
2
Challenges Ahead
Population in Contra Costa has grown continually
over the past several decades. Census data shows
that our population grew from 804,000 in 1990 to
just over one million residents in 2010. New fore-
casts for the region indicate that, while growth is
slowing slightly, Contra Costa is estimated to add
another 270,000 residents between 2010 and 2040,
an increase of about 27 percent.
Job growth, however, is expected to speed up. Be-
tween 1990 and 2010, Contra Costa added about
50,000 jobs, a 17 percent increase. We’re expecting
to add over 122,000 jobs, a 36 percent increase, by
2040, raising the total to half a million jobs.
While both jobs and population will increase into
2040, some areas of the county will grow faster
than others. The chart on the previous page shows
the expected countywide population growth by
sub-region. Population growth in East County is
expected to be the highest, at 41 percent, followed
by the Tri-Valley, at 33 percent. Additionally, the
Lamorinda and Central areas are expected to ex-
perience less growth, at 13 and 20 percent, respec-
tively.
How We Get to Work
Commuters in Contra Costa have a variety of op-
tions for their daily commute: drive alone, carpool,
use transit, walk, or bike. More recently, many
companies have begun to allow employees to “tele-
commute” or work from home.
What has changed most dramatically over the 30
years between 1980 and 2010 are the number of
people who now indicate they work from home
and the number of people who commute togeth-
er. As shown above, the percentage of people who
work from home has more than doubled, from 1.9
percent in 1980 to 5.6 percent in 2010.
The economy is also recovering from the recent
recession. As shown in the chart on the next page,
unemployment levels are expected to continue
dropping towards pre-recession levels.
Highway 4 widening construction Treat Boulevard pedestrian overcrossingInterstate 680 improvements
Title:
Work
From
Home:
Share
of
Commute
Trips
in
Contra
Costa
Title:
Carpools:
Share
of
Commute
Trips
in
Contra
Costa
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
1980 1990 2000 2010
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
1980 1990 2000 2010
Work From Home: Share of Commute Trips
in Contra Costa
3
HOV lanes on I-680 will increase traffic carrying capacity Mount Diablo and other open space, protected by urban limit linesBike lockers at Pleasant Hill BART Station
Unemployment Rate, 2007-2103What Does this Mean for Traffic?
The worst days of the Great Recession seem to be
ending, welcome news for the economy and resi-
dents of the Bay Area. This also means, however,
more people on the road and on BART, making
for heavier traffic and crowded commutes. While
more residents will work from home and avoid the
commute, traffic congestion will remain a growing
problem. People will continue to travel from home
to work, school, and other destinations.
As a result, we can expect past trends to continue,
roadway traffic to increase, and more hours spent
on congested roadways. (See the chart on the lower
right.) According to our forecasts, by 2040, traf-
fic between East County and Central County will
increase by 70 percent. Other corridors will experi-
ence significant traffic growth as well.
The good news is that we also expect more people
to take transit such as BART or a bus, or switch
to walking or bicycling. And there is more good
news. California has always been a front-runner in
low-emissions vehicle technology. As progress con-
tinues, and more hybrid and electric cars join the
fleet, harmful emissions from tomorrow’s vehicles
will be reduced to a small fraction of what they are
today.
Average Daily Hours of Congestion, 1986-2012
Contra Costa County
Data Sources: 1986-2008 Hi-Comp Report; 2009-2012 Mobility Performance Report
Average Daily Hours of Congestion
10,000
5,000
0
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008201020124
What is the Countywide Transportation
Plan?
The Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) is our
30-year blueprint for maintaining and improving
the county’s roads, freeways, transit, and bicycle
and pedestrian facilities. The CTP lays out a vision
for the county’s transportation future, the goals and
strategies for achieving that vision, and future trans-
portation priorities for program and project fund-
ing. Delivering a coordinated approach that creates
a balanced, functional transportation system, while
strengthening links between land use decisions and
transportation, is no small feat. Especially since the
CTP must also consider and reflect Contra Costa’s
cultural, geographic, and economic diversity.
The CTP is intended to carry out the Authority’s
five major goals, while responding to changes in
the area’s population and the ways in which resi-
dents understand and use the transportation system.
In many areas of Contra Costa, transportation de-
mand will rise faster than increases in roadway ca-
pacity, largely because we’re running out of room
to expand roads. As the cost of expansion continues
to rise, the Authority must identify realistic ways to
keep both people and goods moving.
5
Electric vehicle charging stations support increased use of electric vehicles
VISION
Strive to preserve and enhance the
quality of life of local communities by
promoting a healthy environment and
a strong economy to benefit all people
and areas of Contra Costa, through
1) a balanced, safe, and efficient
transportation network; 2) cooperative
planning; and 3) growth management.
The transportation network should
integrate all modes of transportation to
meet the diverse needs of Contra Costa.
GOALS
Support the efficient and reliable
movement of people and goods
using all available travel modes
Manage growth to sustain Contra
Costa’s economy, preserve its
environment and support its
communities
Expand safe, convenient and
affordable alternatives to the single-
occupant vehicle
Maintain the transportation system
Continue to invest wisely to
maximize the benefits of available
funding
Map
6
Completed or
Under Construction
Additional Funding
Needed
MAJOR PROJECTS
0 2 4 6
MILES
Major Projects Funded Through Measure C and Measure J
Martinez
Multi-modal
Transit Center
Capitol Corridor
Train Station
Hercules
Richmond-San Rafael
Bridge Seismic Retrofit
Benicia-Martinez
Bridge HOV &
Class I Bike Path
Caldecott
Tunnel
4th Bore
I-80/San Pablo Dam Rd
Interchange: Reconstruct
I-680: Auxiliary Lanes
Sycamore Valley Road
to Crow Canyon Road
I-680/Alcosta Boulevard
Modify Interchange
Central County
Crossover
I-80 Integrated
Corridor Mobility
Project
I-80: Eastbound HOV
lanes Willow Road to
Crockett Interchange
State Route 4 Bypass:
Westbound SR 4 Bypass to
Northbound State Route 160
State Route 4 Bypass:
Sand Creek Road
Interchange
State Route 4 Bypass:
Balfour Road Interchange
Vasco Road
Safety
Improvements
State Route 4
Widening
East County
Rail Extension
(eBART)
CONTRA
COSTA
COUNTY
SanRamon
Danville
Moraga
Lafayette
Orinda
PleasantHill
WalnutCreek
Concord
Clayton
PittsburgMartinezHercules
Pinole
Richmond
SanPablo
ElCerrito
Antioch Oakley
Brentwood
ALAMEDA
COUNTY
Richmond Transit Village
BART Parking Structure
Marina Bay Parkway
Railroad Grade Separation
I-80/Central Ave
Interchange
Modifications
wBART extension
to Hercules
I-680/SR-4
Interchange
Improvements
Clayton Road
On and Off Ramps
Iron Horse Trail
Overcrossing
at Treat Blvd
I-680 Direct
Access Ramps
eBART Extension
to Brentwood
eBART
Railroad Ave
Station
I-680 Northbound
HOV Extension
I-680 Southbound
HOV Extension
Pacheco
Transit Hub
SOLANO
COUNTY
SACRAMENTO
COUNTY
SAN
JOAQUIN
COUNTY
T
r
i
-L
i
n
k
S
t
u
d
y
Ar
ea
Map
7
Completed or
Under Construction
Additional Funding
Needed
MAJOR PROJECTS
0246
MILES
Major Projects Funded Through Measure C and Measure J
Martinez
Multi-modal
Transit Center
Capitol Corridor
Train Station
Hercules
Richmond-San Rafael
Bridge Seismic Retrofit
Benicia-Martinez
Bridge HOV &
Class I Bike Path
Caldecott
Tunnel
4th Bore
I-80/San Pablo Dam Rd
Interchange: Reconstruct
I-680: Auxiliary Lanes
Sycamore Valley Road
to Crow Canyon Road
I-680/Alcosta Boulevard
Modify Interchange
Central County
Crossover
I-80 Integrated
Corridor Mobility
Project
I-80: Eastbound HOV
lanes Willow Road to
Crockett Interchange
State Route 4 Bypass:
Westbound SR 4 Bypass to
Northbound State Route 160
State Route 4 Bypass:
Sand Creek Road
Interchange
State Route 4 Bypass:
Balfour Road Interchange
Vasco Road
Safety
Improvements
State Route 4
Widening
East County
Rail Extension
(eBART)
CONTRA
COSTA
COUNTY
SanRamon
Danville
Moraga
Lafayette
Orinda
PleasantHill
WalnutCreek
Concord
Clayton
PittsburgMartinezHercules
Pinole
Richmond
SanPablo
ElCerrito
Antioch Oakley
Brentwood
ALAMEDA
COUNTY
Richmond Transit Village
BART Parking Structure
Marina Bay Parkway
Railroad Grade Separation
I-80/Central Ave
Interchange
Modifications
wBART extension
to Hercules
I-680/SR-4
Interchange
Improvements
Clayton Road
On and Off Ramps
Iron Horse Trail
Overcrossing
at Treat Blvd
I-680 Direct
Access Ramps
eBART Extension
to Brentwood
eBART
Railroad Ave
Station
I-680 Northbound
HOV Extension
I-680 Southbound
HOV Extension
Pacheco
Transit Hub
SOLANO
COUNTY
SACRAMENTO
COUNTY
SAN
JOAQUIN
COUNTY
T
r
i
-L
i
n
k
S
t
u
d
y
Ar
ea
Strategies for Achieving Our Goals
8
SUPPORT THE EFFICIENT AND RELIABLE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS
MANAGE GROWTH TO SUSTAIN CONTRA COSTA’S ECONOMY AND PRESERVE ITS ENVIRONMENT
Reduction in congestion can occur through a variety of
strategies, including capital improvements to the roadway
system itself, influencing the location and nature of new growth,
increased traffic management, and expansion of multi-modal
mobility, which has been a cornerstone of our planning.
Examples of what’s been accomplished:
Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore: CCTA developed a new,
two-lane tunnel that connects Orinda to Oakland, relieving
congestion along this heavily-traveled segment of Highway
24.
Highway 4 Corridor Project: Considered one of the top ten
worst commutes in America, CCTA is leading a $1.3 billion
dollar transportation investment in East County to widen the
highway, reduce congestion, and improve transit access for
more than 250,000 residents.
I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Project: Optimizes the
use of the existing infrastructure within the corridor to reduce
congestion, reduce travel time, provide real time information
to drivers and improve safety.
New Caldecott Tunnel opened in 2013
Highway 4 Corridor project
Achieving this goal involves:
Strengthening Partnerships
Cooperative Planning
More coordination of land use planning
Supporting the Urban Limit Line
Promoting infill development
Respect community character and the environment
Examples of what’s been accomplished:
Establishment of the Urban Limit Line: In local
jurisdictions across the county, voters have approved Urban
Limit Lines as part of the requirements of Measure J.
Implementation of the Growth Management Program:
To meet the Measure J requirements, local jurisdictions
throughout Contra Costa have updated the Growth
Management Element of their General Plans to reflect the
Authority’s model element.
Downtown Pittsburg
Richmond intermodal station
9
EXPAND SAFE, CONVENIENT AND AFFORDABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE SINGLE-OCCUPANT VEHICLE
MAINTAIN THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
WestCAT Bus Stop
Pleasant Hill BART Station
Ways of achieving this goal include expansion of BART and
bus service, paratransit, pedestrian and bicycle routes, and
carpools.
Examples of what’s been accomplished:
511 Contra Costa: CCTA provides funding that enables
trip planning services for commuters and residents who
need help planning bike routes, managing public transit
options, or finding the best rideshare program.
Bus Transit: CCTA provides funding for local bus
services (5% of Measure J revenues), express bus
services (4.3%), transportation service for seniors and
the disabled (4%), and commute alternatives (1%), for
a total expenditure of $10,725,000 annually.
Real-Time Ridesharing: CCTA is using new
technology to enable local commuters to coordinate
carpooling opportunities. Through the smart-phone
app Car.ma, drivers and riders can find each other in
advance or on the fly to plan a shared travel schedule or
route.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements. Measure J
funds have improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities
across the county.
This goal depends upon acquiring adequate, stable
funding for transit operations and reducing the backlog of
rehabilitation and maintenance needs. In the long term, the
strategy is to increase preventative maintenance, which will
promote the long-term health of the transportation system
and help the economy.
Examples of what’s been accomplished:
Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds:
Local street maintenance also is funded by the CCTA
under Measure J. Each year, local jurisdictions receive
18% of gross sales tax proceeds (approximately $12.5
million) to use towards maintenance of local streets and
roads. Receipt of funds is contingent upon compliance
with the Measure J Growth Management Program.
Maintain and Improve East Bay Regional Park
District Trails: Some of the funds available through
Measure J go to maintain and improve paved regional
trails in Contra Costa. These include the Contra Costa
Canal Trail, the Delta-de Anza Trail, and the Bay Trail.
Highway 4 widening
Highway 4 construction
Key Considerations for the 2014 CTP Update
The goal of the 2014 CTP is to identify and imple-
ment specific actions and strategies that support our
shared goal of safe, strong, and efficient transporta-
tion networks that improve the quality of life for
Contra Costa residents. As we work together to de-
velop solutions for our county, we also need to be
mindful of new challenges and opportunities that
may affect the CTP’s goals.
Funding
Funding is critical to meeting the stated goals of the
CTP and helping Contra Costa remain one of the
most desirable places to live and work in the Bay
Area. In addition to examining how we can most
responsibly and efficiently use existing funding
sources such as traditional State and federal funds,
Cap and Trade funds, OneBayArea Grants, and
voter-approved Measure J funds, we also need to
consider potential sources of new revenue like open
road tolling and congestion pricing at gateways or
in central business districts, as well as pricing based
on parking demand.
Improving Mobility for the Next
Generation
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority has
long been concerned with how we can continue to
maintain and improve our roads, freeways, transit,
bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in ways that sustain
our economy, our environment and our quality of
life.
Making new improvements, while maintaining
what we have, will be a prominent issue for the
2014 CTP as CCTA addresses new State legislation
such as SB 375. This legislation, and the Sustainable
Communities Strategies required by it, supports the
development of job centers and neighborhoods that
are easier to access by transit and safe and conve-
nient to walk or bicycle in, changes that will reduce
the need for long commutes to work, shopping and
other destinations.
We also need to ensure that our roads and transit
systems are resilient: can we continue to get around
following an earthquake? Will increased frequency
of storm surges harm our rail lines and roadways?
$11 billion
$4.8 billion
Needed: $11 Billion
Source: Plan Bay Area.
Available Funding
Under Measure
J And Regional
Transportation Plan
(Including State
And Federal Funds):
$4.8 Billion
10
Contra Costa’s Funding Shortfall
Using Transportation Technology
Technology has radically changed the pace of inno-
vation and the world of transportation. Throughout
our history, people have used technology to address
problems. Over the last two centuries, technology
has revolutionized how we move people and goods.
Instead of horse-drawn carriages and wind-driven
ships, we now rely on trains, planes, buses and cars.
These new technologies haven’t been without their
downsides. For example, the engines propelling
our ships, trains, planes and vehicles are a major
contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. And the
increased speeds these technologies allow have con-
tributed to the sprawling character of many of our
communities.
Technology, however, can also help address the
negative effects of our modern transportation net-
work. The increased use of electric (or partially
electric) vehicles will reduce greenhouse gas emis-
sions in our urban areas (though this may be offset
by the need to increase electricity generation), and
the increased use of electric vehicles will increase
the need for charging infrastructure. While auton-
omous vehicles may make more efficient use of our
roadways and may reduce the number of collisions,
they could also require dramatic changes in how
we design our roadways.
Other technologies focus on the roadway itself. In-
telligent transportation systems, or ITS, can benefit
our transportation network by improving safety
and efficiency. This benefits the environment by
limiting the waste of fuel and reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. ITS encompasses many techniques
including electronic toll collection (such as FasTrak
in the Bay Area), ramp metering, traffic signal co-
ordination, and traveler information systems for
freeways, arterials and transit systems.
Our new plan needs to consider how this evolving
transportation technology should be incorporated
into our transportation system.
Managing the Effects of Greenhouse
Gases and Carbon Emissions on
Our Climate
Climate change will have to be considered in the
CTP due to the California Governor’s Execu-
tive Order mandating an 80 percent reduction of
greenhouse gases below 1990 levels by 2050. Any
efforts to increase the resiliency of the our trans-
portation system will also need to take into account
future vulnerabilities such as baylands and access
points, near San Francisco Bay. Creating a resilient
transportation system contributes to the long-term
health and economy of Contra Costa.
The CTP guides investments in Complete Streets,
with multi-modal facilities and transit service
Bus CarpoolClass II Bike Lane
11
Implementing Plan Bay Area
Constrained Core Concentration
Initial Vision/Core Concentration
Focused Growth
Outward Growth
Current Regional Plans
9.4%
9.1%
8.2%
7.9%
7.0%
SCS Regional Contribution***
Scenarios
IMPROVED FUEL EFFICIENCY (PAVLEY I & II)
LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARDS
REGIONAL LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION (SCS)Million Metric Tons CO2 Equivalent15%
0%
50
1990 2000 2010
100
250
300
350
150
200
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
2020 2030 2040 2050
Projected Land Use & Transportation Emissions Reductions
80%
427
4
3
2
1
610
1
2
3
4
5
Science and Technology Report, 2011
NON-TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS REDUCTION
ACTUAL/PROJECTED EMISSIONS
***MTC’s regional contribution amplied to reect
the contributions of all California MPOs
FIGURE 3: Regional Land Use and Transportation SCS
ACHIEVING ST ATEWIDE AB 32 GHG REDUCTION TAR GET S
Source: Plan Bay Area
ACHIEVING THE GOVERNOR’S DIRECTIVE:
REACHING STATEWIDE AB 32 GHG REDUCTION TARGETS
800
*Million Metric Tons CO2 Equivalent
**Estimate based on California Council on Science and Technology Report, 2011
427427
85
Target 2050 Emissions
(20% of 1990 Emissions):
85 Tons*
Required to meet
Governor’s Executive
Order S-3-05
Forecast 2050
Emissions**
507
Achieving the Govenor’s Directive: Reaching Statewide AB 32 GHG Reduction Targets
12
The recently adopted Plan Bay Area, created by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
and the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG), envisioned that implementation details
would be taken up in partnership with transporta-
tion planning agencies and local jurisdictions. As
such, the CTP Update will need to address how
elements included in Plan Bay Area fit into our vi-
sion for Contra Costa.
Elements of Plan Bay Area that will need to be con-
sidered include:
Priority development areas (PDAs);
Use of Cap and Trade funds;
Other initiatives, including those for freeway
performance, carpooling and vanpooling, smart
driving strategies, streamlining the environ-
mental review process, goods movement, and
industrial lands inventories;
MTC’s Regional Prosperity Plan that removes
barriers for the disadvantaged and discusses
the unresolved regional issues of mobility and
equity;
Complete Streets, which serve all modes, and
reasonable accommodations for all modes; and
How and when to incorporate Plan Bay Area’s
land use forecasts for transportation into model
updates.
Be a Part of the
Countywide Transportation
Plan Process!
What do you think is missing? What projects are important to you? How
do you think we should spend any future revenue? Your input is critical to
the 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan update. You can contribute your
ideas and share your thoughts on the goals and priorities that will shape our
shared transportation future through the various public engagement oppor-
tunities detailed below.
CTP Schedule for Completion
Follow updates on our website!
Visit our website to stay current on the 2014 CTP Update and discover
additional opportunities to be part of the discussion at:
www.ccta.net/funding/our_future
Email Us Your Comments
Email your comments directly to our staff at: 2014CTP@ccta.net
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Complete Action Plans
Complete Draft 2014 CTP
and EIR
Public Outreach
Adoption of 2014 CTP
13
2999 Oak Road, Suite 100
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925-256-4700
www.ccta.net
Revision 1, April 28, 2014
Countywide Transportation Plan –2014 UpdateJuly 16, 2014Page 1
HistoryVoters approved Measure C in 1988Established half-percent sales tax to fund a variety of projects and programsIncluded a Growth Management ProgramVoters approved Measure J in 2004Sales tax generates $3 billionPage 2
Accomplishments Since 2009 (Projects)• Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore• Widening of State Route 4• New HOV and Auxiliary lanes on I-680• New BART parking in West County• New High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes• Intermodal transit centers• New pedestrian overcrossingsPage 3
Caldecott Tunnel Fourth BorePage 4
Widening of State Route 4Page 5
New HOV Lanes & Aux LanesPage 6
New BART Parking in West CountyPage 7
Intermodal Transit CentersPage 8
New Pedestrian OvercrossingsPage 9
Accomplishments Since 2009 (Programs)• Local Streets and Roads• Bus Service/Express• Transportation for Livable Communities• Safe Routes for Children• Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Facilities• Transportation for People with Disabilities• Growth Management ProgramPage 10
Growth Management Program1. Assures that new growth paid its way 2. Creates a process for cooperatively managing growth in Contra Costa3. Establishes a Countywide ULL/support efficient infill4. Requires development and update of a CTP (1995, 2000, 2004, 2009) Page 11
CTP Building Blocks: Action Plans• Identify Regional Routes• Set performance measures: Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSO)• Adopt actions for achieving them• Establish procedures for review of GPAsPage 12
The ChallengesPage 13
We’re Still GrowingPage 14
Contra Costa Jobs: Projected Growth by 2040Page 15
Contra Costa County Traffic: Projected Increase by 2040Page 16
Where will traffic increase?Page 17
Must Reduce GHG Emissions to Comply with SB 375Page 18
Reaching GHG Emissions TargetsPage 19
We’re Taking ActionPage 20
Implementing the Growth Management ProgramPage 21
Growing Priority Development AreasPage 22
Supporting Clean Technology and Alternative Modes of TravelPage 23
Constructing ProjectsPage 24
eBART ExtensionPage 25
Funding ProgramsPage 26
Innovation is the KeyPage 27
What’s inside the CTP?Page 28
The CTP VisionStrive to preserve and enhance the quality of life of local communities by promoting a healthy environment and strong economy to benefit all people and areas of Contra Costa, through (1) a balanced, safe, and efficient transportation network, (2) cooperative planning, and (3) growth management. The transportation network should integrate all modes of transportation to meet the diverse needs of Contra Costa.Page 29
Goals and Strategies• Efficient, safe, and reliable movement of people and goods• Manage growth• Expand safe, convenient and affordable alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle • Maintain the transportation system• Invest wiselyPage 30
How We Build a CTPPage 31
Inside the CTPVolume I: CTP• Introduction• Visions, Goals, Strategies• The Transportation System• Cooperative Planning• ImplementationVolume 2: Action Plans• West County• Central County• East County• Lamorinda• Tri-ValleyVolume 3: CTPL•Projects• ProgramsPage 32
What We’ve Learned So FarPage 33
Projects Funded and UnfundedPage 34
Unfunded Projects• I-80 San Pablo Dam Road Interchange (Costs: $114 million, need $60 million)• I-680/Highway 4 Interchange (Costs: $226 million, no funding available for phases 1, 2, 4 & 5)• Highway 4 Operational Improvements (east of I-680/SR4) (Costs: $259 million, only $4.6 million available)Page 35
Unfunded Projectse-BART Phase 2 ($608 m)Page 36
Unfunded ProjectsTriLink SR-239 ($750 m)Page 37
$11.6 Billion in Proposed ProjectsTABLE E-2: TOTAL COSTS OF PROPOSED FUTURE PROJECTS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($1,000) SHARE OF TOTAL Arterial/Roadway $1,954,075 16.8% Bicycle/Pedestrian/SR2S/TLC $579,159 5.0% Transit $5,072,089 43.5% Freeway/Expressway/Interchanges $3,875,997 33.3% Intermodal/Park-and-Ride $131,854 1.1% Studies $38,035 1.3% TOTAL COST $11,651,209 100.0% Page 38
Projects Funding Shortfall$4.7 billionidentified$6.8 billionstill neededTotal Funding Required = $11.6 billionPage 39
Did We Miss Anything?Page 40
Schedule12.17.14CCTA Board Adopts CTPAUG9.30.14Comment Period Ends8.01.14DRAFT CTPSEPOCTNOVDECPublic Review Workshops, On-line Engagement ToolCompile Public Comments, Finalize CTP DocumentJAN 2015Develop TEPPage 41
How Can You Participate?• Upcoming Community Meetings• Online tool• Other public forumsPage 42
Thank Youhttp://www.ccta.net/sources/detail/11/1 Page 43