Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03102015 - C.78RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter on the 2014 Draft Final Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) transmitting the County's comments to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The recommendation addresses an outside agency's actions. BACKGROUND: History Measure J (2008), the countywide half-cent transportation sales tax, includes a requirement for periodic updates to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP). The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) manages the sales tax on behalf of its member agencies, the nineteen cities and the County of Contra Costa, and is responsible for maintaining and updating the CTP. The update to the CTP is the subject of this report. The Board of Supervisors discussed this item at their September 23, 2014 meeting and again at the October 21, 2014 meeting. There was substantial background information provided in the staff report accompanying each Board item. Those staff reports can be viewed at the links below: APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 03/10/2015 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 ABSENT: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: March 10, 2015 David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 78 To:Board of Supervisors From:TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE Date:March 10, 2015 Contra Costa County Subject:Comment Letter on the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Draft Final 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan Update BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > September 23, 2014, www.cccounty.us/sept-ctp October 21, 2014, www.cccounty.us/oct-ctp A comment letter was transmitted based on the direction provided by the Board and is attached to this report (attached: BOS Letter to CCTA re: 2014 CTP). Current Discussion The Authority has recently released a Draft Final version of the CTP. The Executive Summary is attached (2014 CCTA CTP Exec Summary.pdf) and the associated Volumes, Action Plans, and appendices are available at the links below (WARNING: some of the files linked below are large): 2014 CTP Volume 1 http://ccta.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=115&meta_id=9160 2014 CTP Volume 3 http://ccta.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=115&meta_id=9161 2014 CTP Volume 3 Countywide Transportation Project List - Excel File http://ccta.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=115&meta_id=9162 Central County Action Plans http://ccta.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=115&meta_id=9163 East County Action Plans http://ccta.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=115&meta_id=9164 Lamorinda Action Plans http://ccta.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=115&meta_id=9165 Tri-Valley Transportation Plan & Action Plans http://ccta.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=115&meta_id=9166 West County Action Plans http://ccta.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=115&meta_id=9167 Draft Response to Comments for the 2014 CTP http://ccta.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=115&meta_id=9168 In addition to reflecting comments in the CTP itself, the Authority developed a formal response to comments which is attached to this report (CCTA to BOS- Response to CTP Comments.pdf). The CTP will be going to the Authority Board for adoption at their March 18, 2015 Board meeting. At that time, The CTP will be going to the Authority Board for adoption at their March 18, 2015 Board meeting. At that time, the Authority may consider whether the needs established in the CTP warrant a new revenue source. A new countywide, transportation-related sales tax has been tentatively discussed. At this time staff believes that the Authority has been responsive to comments on the CTP from both the Board of Supervisors and staff. Continued monitoring will be necessary to ensure that the priorities communicated by the County are reflected in any future expenditure plan. Staff recommends transmitting a letter expressing the County's appreciation for the Authority's work on the CTP and their responsiveness to County comments. A draft comment letter is attached. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If a comment letter is not transmitted, the Board will forgo an opportunity to provide input on the 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan Update. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS Draft BOS Letter to CCTA re: 2014 CTP Draft BOS Letter to CCTA re: 2014 CTP 2014 CCTA CTP Exec Summary.pdf CCTA to BOS- Response to CTP Comments.pdf 2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Volume 1 Draft f i nal February 19, 2015 Final Draft ES-1 Executive Summary  OVERVIEW The Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan, or CTP, is  the blueprint for Contra Costa’s transportation system over the  next 25 years. This long‐range vision for transportation identifies  the projects, programs, and policies that the Authority Board  hopes to pursue. The CTP identifies goals for bringing together  all modes of travel, networks and operators, 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 CTP 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.     2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1  Final Draft  ES-2 Final Draft  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 20 years. New forecasts for the region indicate that, while yearly popula‐ tion growth is slowing slightly, Contra Costa will still add another 289,000 resi‐ dents by 2040, a 27 percent increase.  Unlike population, job growth is expected to speed up. Between 1990 and 2010,  the number of jobs in Contra Costa grew by only 17 percent. We’re expecting the  growth in jobs to more than double to 35 percent, resulting in nearly half a mil‐ lion jobs by 2040.  While both jobs and population will increase throughout Contra Costa, some ar‐ eas of the county will grow faster than others. Population growth in West Coun‐ ty, Central County and East County is expected to be the highest, at 29 percent  each, followed by the Southwest subarea County at 16 percent 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 Lamorinda subarea of Southwest County, 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. Figure E‐1 below shows the percentages of use by different  modes for work trips in by Contra Costa residents.  Executive Summary  Final Draft  Final Draft ES-3  Figure E-1: Travel Modes, Share of Commute Trips, 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010.   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‐2. Will that percentage continue to in‐ crease through 2040? And if so, could telecommuting reach levels of 10 to 20 per‐ cent? Higher participation rates for telecommuting will help alleviate future traf‐ fic congestion. Bicycle commuting also has increased by 20 percent in recent  years, and the Authority, working with local jurisdictions, can do a lot to contin‐ ue to facilitate this in the future.1                                                         1 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2000, 0.5 percent of commuters bicycled to work, and by  2010, 0.6 percent of commuters bicycled to work, a 20 percent increase over the ten year period.  Drive Alone 70.4%Carpool 12.0% Transit 8.9% Bicycle 0.6% Walk 1.7% Other 0.8% Work From Home 5.6% 2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1  Final Draft  ES-4 Final Draft  Figure E-2: Work From Home, Share of Commute Trips, 1980-2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. The Economic Recovery The so‐called “Great Recession,” which began in 2007, resulted in higher unem‐ ployment rates, which in turn meant that fewer people were driving to work.  Consequently, between 2007 and 2010, traffic growth in the Bay Region remained  flat, and in Contra Costa even decreased somewhat. Measurements taken in 2010  indicated that traffic levels in many areas of Contra Costa had dropped to below  the levels previously seen in 2000. At present, the economy is recovering from  the recent recession. As shown in Figure E‐3, since 2010, unemployment levels  have been steadily dropping towards pre‐recession levels.  Executive Summary  Final Draft  Final Draft ES-5  Figure E-3: Unemployment Rate, 2007-2014 Source: California Employment Development Department, 2014, http://www.edd.ca.gov/. 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, 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‐4) to  continue, with further increases in roadway traffic, and more hours spent on  congested roadways.  2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1  Final Draft  ES-6 Final Draft  Figure E-4: Average Daily Hours of Congestion, 1986-2013 Source: 1986-2008 Hi-Comp Report; 2009-2012 Mobility Performance Report; 2013 Vital Signs. 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 total number of miles 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 elec‐ tric cars join the fleet, harmful emissions from tomorrow’s vehicles will be re‐ duced 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  roads serve as aestablished the nation’s largest secure test‐bed for a federally‐ funded pilot program intended to accelerate the deployment of connected vehi‐ cles/‐autonomous vehicles (CAVs).  Executive Summary  Final Draft  Final Draft ES-7  WHO WE ARE The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is a public agency formed by  Contra Costa voters in 1988 to manage the countyʹs transportation sales tax pro‐ gram and to do countywide transportation planning. CCTA is responsible for  maintaining and improving the county’s transportation system by planning,  funding, and delivering critical transportation infrastructure projects and pro‐ grams that connect our communities, foster a strong economy, promote a healthy  environment, and safely and efficiently get people where they need to go. We  work to improve our quality of life and help make our community great – now  and in the future. The Authority is also the countyʹs designated Congestion Man‐ agement Agency, responsible for putting programs in place to keep traffic levels  manageable.  The Authority’s Mission The Authorityʹs mission is to deliver a comprehensive transportation system that  enhances mobility and accessibility, while promoting a healthy environment and  strong economy by:   Leading a collaborative decision‐making process with local, regional and  state agencies;   Establishing partnerships to effectively deliver transportation projects  and programs;   Facilitating a countywide dialogue on growth and congestion that dis‐ closes and seeks to mitigate the impacts of development while respecting  the responsibilities of local jurisdictions;   Taking into account the diverse character of Contra Costa communities.  The Authority is responsible for ensuring the completion of a wide variety of  projects that were included in the original Measure C Expenditure Plan and the  Measure J Expenditure Plan. Some major projects, primarily on State highways,  are being developed directly by the Authority. Others are administered by cities,  the county, Caltrans, or transit districts with funds provided by the Authority.  The Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) – our 25‐year transportation blue‐ print – is prepared every five years. The CTP establishes a comprehensive list of  transportation projects for submittal to the Metropolitan Transportation Com‐ mission for possible inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan.  2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1  Final Draft  ES-8 Final Draft  The Authority also prepares a Strategic Plan, which is updated approximately  every two years. The Strategic Plan allocates funds to individual projects in spe‐ cific years over the upcoming seven year period. For projects that have local pro‐ ponents (city, county, transit districts or other special districts), the Authority  enters into cooperative agreements, approves fund appropriation resolutions and  reimburses project proponents upon satisfactory billing for completion of the  particular phase of work. For projects on the State Highway System, the Authori‐ ty works cooperatively with Caltrans by retaining consultants and managing  single or multiple phases of the work. The Authority also reviews progress on  projects funded by Measure C and/or Measure J through a program management  system.  CCTA’S VISION, GOALS, AND STRATEGIES The following vision encapsulates the role the transportation system will play in  supporting the people, economy, and environment of Contra Costa:  Strive to preserve and enhance the quality of life of local communities by promot‐ ing 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 net‐ work should integrate all modes of transportation to meet the diverse needs of  Contra Costa.  To achieve this vision, the Authority has also identified five goals and corre‐ sponding 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  Executive Summary  Final Draft  Final Draft ES-9  5. Continue to invest wisely to maximize the benefits of available funding.  ISSUES & OPPORTUNITIES The purpose of the 2014 CTP is to identify and implement specific actions and  strategies that support our shared goal of safe, strong, and efficient transporta‐ tion 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 pric‐ ing at gateways or in central business districts, and pricing based on parking  demand are a few potential sources.  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. Millennials are driv‐ ing, and even getting a license to drive, less frequently. Partly, they are respond‐ ing to the high cost of owning and operating a vehicle, especially with the signif‐ icant student 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 sStates with higher and lower unemploy‐ ment rates have seen drops in VMTvehicle miles traveled as well. 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 farther to get  to work.  2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1  Final Draft  ES-10 Final Draft  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 supports the development of job centers and neighbor‐ hoods that are easier to get to by transit and safe and convenient to walk or bicy‐ cle in,. By investing in transportation improvements that are supportive of the  Sustainable Communities Strategy (required under SB 375 and incorporated into  Plan Bay Area), the Authority can foster 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 after an earthquake? Will increased frequency of storm  surges harm our rail lines and roadways?  Maintaining Local Streets and Roads Critical to the county’s transportation network, Contra Costa’s local streets and  roads are aging and continue to face growing demands. Local streets and roads  must accommodate heavier vehicles, more traffic, and multiple transportation  modes. According to the 2014 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads  Needs Assessment report, Contra Costa’s average pavement condition of local  streets and roads has worsened in the past decade and is now considered “at  risk” and could fall into “poor” condition without adequate maintenance and  repair.2 Funding improvements to repair and maintain local streets and roads  can help ensure Contra Costa’s transportation network functions safely, smooth‐ ly, and reliably in the coming decades.   Using Technology Over the last two centuries, technology has revolutionized how we move people  and goods. From carriages to trains to bicycles and then cars and trucks, we have  used technology to get where we want to go more quickly.  That process is con‐ tinuing. We are finding new technologies to help make travel and goods move‐                                                        2 California Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment, 2014 Update,  www.savecaliforniasstreets.org.   Executive Summary  Final Draft  Final Draft ES-11  ment safer, more efficient, and more cost‐effective while minimizing the impacts  of travel on the environment.       As technology advances, it is shifting the ways that people access and use the transportation system; for example, real‐ time ridesharing is facilitated in Contra Costa by companies such as Carma, pictured above.       Improvements to automobiles, from shatterproof glass and anti‐lock brakes to  seat belts and air bags, have made them safer andincreasingly safer over the  years. Several new technologies are on the horizon that have the potential to sig‐ nificantly improve auto safety. Collision warning and automatic braking, for ex‐ ample, which are already being incorporated into new cars, warn drivers if they  approach other cars too closely and automatically slow the vehicle if the driver  doesn’t respond.   Another potential new improvement that could have a significant profound im‐ pact, not just on safety but also on the efficiency of our roadways, is vehicle au‐ tomation. If we can get cars to drive themselves, we stand to gain significant im‐ provements in safety and efficiency. Connected vehicles/automated autonomous  vehicles (CV/AVs) could also have environmental benefits by making travel  more efficientsignificantly reducing fuel consumption and emissions.  ITo help  2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1  Final Draft  ES-12 Final Draft  transition CV/AVs from a science‐fiction dream to reality, in October 2014, the  Authority initiated a testing project for self‐driving cars at the Concord Naval  Weapons Station. In partnership with the City of Concord, the Department of the  Navy, and a number of automobile manufacturers, the Authority will help the  auto industry’s efforts to test and refine the technology, and tell us what changes  to the roadway infrastructure and equipment will be needed to accommodate  connected vehicles/autonomous vehicles. Many issues remain to be overcome,  from setting up the protocols for communicating among cars to ensuring that  their use doesn’t worsen the environment for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit  users.  Deployment of new Ttechnologiesy has been used to reduce the negative effects  of our modern transportation networksystem has a long‐standing record of suc‐ cess. Catalytic converters, more efficient engines, and other improvements such  as lighter construction and better aerodynamics have helped reduce emissions of  air pollutants from gasoline‐powered vehicles to a small fraction of what they  used to be. More recently, and the increased useemergence of electric or hybrid‐‐ electric vehicles in the fleet promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our  urban areas even furtherfrom automobiles. (Thiese reductions, however, may be  offset by emissions from the power plants generating the need to increase elec‐ tricity generation and the increased use of electric for these vehicles will increase  the need for charging infrastructure.)   Other technologies focusing on the roadway will also play a role. Intelligent  transportation systems, or ITS, can also benefit our transportation network by  improving safety and efficiency, benefiting 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 coordination, and traveler information systems, for  freeways, arterials and transit systems. The I‐80 Integrated Corridor Mobility  (ICM) project, which incorporates these and other improvements, is expected to  lead to significantly increases in capacity on theimprove freeway operations and  safety.  The 2014 CTP considers how this evolving transportation technology should be  incorporated into our transportation system, and what needs to be done to capi‐ talize on the benefits offered by these innovations.  Executive Summary  Final Draft  Final Draft ES-13  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.       Managing the Effects of Greenhouse Gases Climate change will have to be considered in our growth management plan due  to the California Governor’s orders (S‐3‐05 and B‐16‐2012) mandating an 80 per‐ cent reduction of greenhouse gases below 1990 levels by 2050, as shown in Figure  E‐5. Any efforts to increase the resiliency of our transportation system in light of  future sea level rise will also need to take into account future vulnerabilities,  such as baylands and access points near San Francisco Bay and the implications  for infrastructure and land use. This Plan includes mitigation measures for  greenhouse gases carried forward from the 2009 update, which also were identi‐ fied in the Draft SEIR as needed to ensure that the Plan supports the Governor’s  order.     2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1 Final Draft ES-14 Final Draft Figure E-5: Reaching Achieving Statewide AB 32 GHG Reduction Targets and Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-16-2012 Executive Summary  Final Draft  Final Draft ES-15  ASSEMBLY BILL 32 AND SENATE BILL 375 The passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 in 2006 set the stage for transitioning Cali‐ fornia to a low‐carbon fuels future. It required a 15 percent reduction in green‐ house gas (GHG) emissions by 2020 – bringing emissions levels back to 1990 lev‐ els. Senate Bill (SB) 375, approved in 2008, addressed the component of AB 32  pertaining to emissions from cars and light trucks. aAs part of California’s efforts  to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicle trips, SB 375  made three significant changes to State law:  1. It required the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and oth‐ er regional planning agencies to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strate‐ gy, or SCS, as part of its Regional Transportation Plan.  2. It linked the regional housing needs allocation, or RHNA, process to the  regional transportation process while maintaining local authority over  land use decisions.  3. It exempted transit priority projects and other residential or mixed‐use  projects from some of CEQA’s requirements.  The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) The SCS must identify an integrated land use and transportation system that to‐ gether will meet the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets approved by the  California Air Resources Board (CARB). This pattern of land uses and transporta‐ tion facilities must also include enough development to accommodate the ex‐ pected future population over both the next eight five and the next 20 years as  well as serve the transportation needs of the region.   If the SCS falls short of these greenhouse gas targets, regional agencies must de‐ velop an “alternative planning strategy” (APS) that meets the targets. The APS  can include bolder ideas that may require additional funds or changes in law.   MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted their first  SCS in 2013 as part of Plan Bay Area, the 2013 Bay Area Regional Transportation  Plan (RTP). The SCS was able to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets with‐ out requiring the preparation of an APS. The 2014 CTP Update supports a num‐ ber of initiatives from Plan Bay Area, by providing resources, both directly and  indirectly through partnerships, to local jurisdictions that seek to accommodate  planned growth and reduce GHG emissions, as envisioned in Plan Bay Area. It  2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1  Final Draft  ES-16 Final Draft  also is important to note that the regional pattern of development in Contra Cos‐ ta has locally been managed under Measure J with a voter‐approved Urban Limit  Line and Growth Management Program – an initiative put in place before the  SCS strategy was enacted.   Neither the SCS nor the APS will supersede a city’s or county’s general plan or  other planning policies or authorities. N nor must a local agency’s planning poli‐ cies be consistent with either strategy.  Housing Needs SB 375 requires that the allocations of regional housing needs that ABAG pre‐ pares must be consistent with the development pattern adopted in the SCS and  the schedule of the RTP process. This Plan and the SEIR use ABAG’s Projections  2013 for the countywide computer modeling and the impact analysis of the  CTP’s goals and strategies and the proposed projects and programs for transpor‐ tation presented in detail in Volume 3 and summarized in this volume. Local  governments will now need to update their housing elements within three years  of the adoption of the SCS to be consistent with ABAG housing needs allocations.   Changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemp- tions SB 375 streamlines CEQA review for two types of projects: residential or mixed‐ use projects, and “transit priority projects”. If a residential or mixed‐use project  conforms to the SCS, its CEQA review does not have to cover address growth‐ inducing impacts or cover either project‐specific or cumulative impacts dealing  with climate change. Transit priority projects that meet certain criteria can quali‐ fy for either a full CEQA exemption or a streamlined environmental assessment.   Senate Bill 743, which the State Legislature passed in 2013, made changes to the  CEQA Guidelines to reduce the scope of analysis required for projects in “transit  priority areas.” More significantly, under SB 743, lead agencies could no longer  find a level‐of‐service (LOS) violation to be a significant impact. In addition, the  Office of Planning and Research, which is developing these changes to the  Guidelines, is proposing to apply this change to the whole state and to substitute  use changes in vehicle miles traveled for LOS in findings of significance. The Au‐ thority will review its Technical Procedures and Implementation Guide to respond to  these changes to the CEQA Guidelines.   Executive Summary  Final Draft  Final Draft ES-17  Implementing Plan Bay Area As discussed earlier, Plan Bay Area is the Bay Area’s long‐term transportation,  land use, and housing strategy through the year 2040. Adopted in 2013, it in‐ cludes the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communi‐ ties Strategy. Plan Bay Area was created by MTC and ABAG in response to SB  375. Plan Bay Area envisioned that implementation details would be taken up in  partnership with transportation planning agencies and local jurisdictions. As  such, the 2014 CTP addresses how elements included in Plan Bay Area fit into our  vision for Contra Costa.  Elements of Plan Bay Area that are reflected in this CTP 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;   The draft framework for MTC’s Economic Prosperity Plan (publication  forthcoming), which removes barriers for the disadvantaged and discuss‐ es the unresolved regional issues of mobility and equity; and    Complete Streets, which serve all modes, and reasonable accommoda‐ tions for all modes.; and   The Authority’s travel demand forecasting model incorporates Incorporation of  Plan Bay Area’s land use forecasts (Projections 2013) for the Authority’s travel de‐ mand forecasting model. ABAG’s development of a monitoring “dashboard”  will make it easier for local jurisdictions and the Authority to track trends in  where new housing is located and compare them with the projections.   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  2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1  Final Draft  ES-18 Final Draft  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 Action Plans also demonstrate an increased concern for  intra‐regional routes and the impact of traffic diverting from inter‐regional  routes, increased support for freeway management strategies, and 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 Regional Transportation Plan‐ ning Committee identified projects and programs in the form of actions to be in‐ cluded in the Action Plan for the Routes of Regional Significance. The 2014 Ac‐ tion Plans used the 2009 Action Plans as a base, with new actions and Regional  Routes of Significance identified through discussion, collaboration, and review  by each committee. Each Action Plan states its vision, goals, and policies; desig‐ nates Routes of Regional Significance; sets objectives for these routes; and pre‐ sents specific actions to achieve these objectives. The actions are listed on both a  route‐by‐route and a regional scale, and aim to support the transportation objec‐ tives as specified by each Regional Transportation Planning Committee. Figure  E‐7 shows the Action Plan approval process.    The Growth Management Program (GMP) The Growth Management Program will continue to provide cooperative plan‐ ning on a countywide basis, as mandated by Measure J. So far, the Growth Man‐ agement Program has vastly improved interjurisdictional communications re‐ garding transportation and land use issues. By working with the cities and towns  to manage growth, the Authority has facilitated creation of a regional mitigation  program that has generated more than $250 million in new revenues for regional  transportation projects. The Growth Management Program will continue to be  implemented in accordance with the requirements of Measure J through 2034. As  shown in Figure E‐6, the Measure J Growth Management Program has seven  components that local jurisdictions must implement to maintain compliance with  the GMProgram, and receive funding for local streets and roads in return.  As  Executive Summary  Final Draft  Final Draft ES-19  outlined in Chapter 4, refinements to the Growth Management Program will be  reviewed and updated as necessary to comply with recent legislation.  Figure E-6: The Measure J Growth Management Program      RTPCsAction Plan Process Update CCTA RTPCs REVISE Action Plan Goals & Objectives IDENTIFY new/rened MTSOs & Actions consis- tent 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 ADOPT Final Action Plans FORWARD updated Action Plan to CCTA CCTA ISSUES Draft CTP and Draft EIR Public Review REVIEW status of Action Plan and Existing MTSOs Figure E-7: Action Plan Development and Approval Process Executive Summary  Final Draft  Final Draft ES-21  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 its stakeholders many agencies to fund and prioritize the  programs and projects that will work towards achieving its goals. The CTP out‐ lines the strategies, 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 program   Develop transportation improvements   Improve systems management   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 all 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 Year‐of Expenditure 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 operations, and Transportation for Livable Communities.  The remaining 42 percent, or $1.14 billion, goes to specific transportation pro‐ jects.   2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1  Final Draft  ES-22 Final Draft  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.  TABLE E-1: MEASURES C AND J PAST AND FUTURE PROJECT EXPENDITURES MEASURE C AND MEASURE J (Year of Expenditure Dollars x $1,000) PAST FUTURE 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      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 BART 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 San Ramon Danville Moraga Lafayette Orinda Pleasant Hill Walnut Creek Concord Clayton PittsburgMartinezHercules Pinole Richmond San Pablo El Cerrito 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 SR-4 Operational Improvements Clayton Road On and Off Ramps Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing at Treat Blvd I-680 Direct Access Ramps eBART Extension to Brentwood eBART Pittsburg Center 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 eaConstruct I-80 Eastbound HOV lane Cummings Skyway to Carquinez Bridge 780 680 80 80 680 680 580 580880 980 580 580 80 24 24 13 4 4 242 160 4 4 Additional Funding Needed Figure E-8: Major Projects Funded Through Measure C and Measure J Fully Funded, Under Construction, or Completed 0 2 4 6 MILES 8 Transit Hub Roadway Projects eBART Interchange Improvements Transit Hub Roadway Projects eBART Interchange Improvements 2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1 Final Draft ES-24 Final Draft  This page intentionally blank  Executive Summary Final Draft Final Draft ES-25 Volume 3 of the CTP contains a detailed listing of projects covering all modes of transport. Some of the major projects recently completed, under construction or planned for the future, are shown in Figure E-8. As shown in the table below, the total cost of proposed future projects is estimated at $11.96 billion, of which only $4.83.4 billion is funded through local, regional, State, and federal sources. 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 travelers. The CTP estimates that approximately $14.617.2 billion would be re- quired to carry these programs through to 2040. This estimate may change de- pending upon the way that regional program needs are allocated to each county. Furthermore, the shortfall amount for programs is more difficult to estimate, giv- en that in many cases, the program cost is already dictated by the availability of funding for each program. The following table summarizes the cost by program type. TABLE E-2: TOTAL COSTS OF PROPOSED FUTURE PROJECTS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST (X $1,000) SHARE OF TOTAL Arterial/Roadway $1,954,075 16.8% Bicycle/Pedestrian/SR2S/TLC $579,159 5.0% Transit $5,072,089 43.7% Freeway/Expressway/Interchanges $3,875,997 33.4% Intermodal/Park-and-Ride $131,854 1.1% TOTAL COST $11,613,174 100.0% TABLE E-2: TOTAL COSTS OF PROPOSED FUTURE PROJECTS (CONSTANT 2014 DOLLARS) PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST (X $1,000) SHARE OF TOTAL Arterial/Roadway $2,300,000 19.3% Bicycle/Pedestrian/SR2S/TLC $1,280,000 10.8% Transit $4,390,000 37.0% Freeway/Expressway/Interchanges $3,790,000 32.0% Intermodal/Park-and-Ride $102,000 0.9% TOTAL COST $11,872,000 100.0% 2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1 Final Draft ES-26 Final Draft A major challenge facing the Authority is to prioritize this $2628 billion in pro- jects 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 $6.88.4 billion funding gap for projects, and a potentially similar gap for programs. 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 trans- portation vision for 2040. Executive Summary Final Draft Final Draft ES-27 TABLE E-3: TOTAL COSTS OF PROPOSED PROGRAMS PROGRAM TYPE TOTAL COST (X $1,000) SHARE OF TOTAL Arterial/Roadway $5,978,000 41.1% Bicycle/Pedestrian $232,000 1.6% Bus $1,419,000 9.7% Freeway/Expressway/Interchanges $935,000 6.4% Green Programs $500,000 3.4% Innovation $100,000 0.7% Paratransit $114,000 0.8% Rail/Rapid Transit $5,229,000 35.9% Safe Routes to Schools $23,000 0.2% TDM $27,000 0.2% TOTAL COST $14,557,000 100.0% TABLE E-3: TOTAL COSTS OF PROPOSED FUTURE PROGRAMS (CONSTANT 2014 DOLLARS) PROGRAM TYPE TOTAL COST (X $1,000) SHARE OF TOTAL Arterial/Roadway $4,092,295 24.0% Bicycle/Pedestrian $148,900 0.9% Bus $3,742,900 21.9% Freeway $596,000 3.5% Innovation $100,000 0.6% Paratransit $158,900 0.9% Rail/Rapid Transit $8,174,800 47.9% Safe Routes to School $32,600 0.2% TDM $26,600 0.2% TOTAL COST $17,073,000 100.0% Response to Letter I 0 -Contra Costa County The Authority appreciates the words of support from the County. Responses to issues raised fol- low the order of topics in the letter. PRIORITIES The Authority shares the County's concern about the importance of addressing aging infrastruc- ture, and the Final Draft of the 2014 CTP does highlight this issue. More discussion will take place following plan adoption as the Authority moves forward to flesh out details of a Transportation Expenditure Plan and a specific proposal to take to the voters. The County's involvement in that process is welcome as it will involve a dialogue about funding priorities vs.local and regional needs. • See text revisions in Executive Summary, Issues and Opportunities. The Final Draft of the 2014 CTP does include a new implementation task in Chapter 5 to respond to the Board's request for analysis of the possibility of expanding the development mitigation program to include a "Transit Bank" and programmatic VMT reductions to mitigate the impacts of development. The Authority also recognizes that changes in the Technical Procedures and Im- plementation Guide will be needed once CEQA Guidelines are amended in response to SB 743, as addressed in the Executive Summary, Chapter 1, and Chapter 4. Chapter 5 specifically calls for the Authority to work with the Technical Coordinating Committee and local agencies to address new CEQA requirements for assessing transportation impacts in transit priority areas and on in- fill sites where LOS can no longer be used. As part of this effort, the Authority will seek ways to streamline the process with menus of programmatic mitigation related to VMT reductions. This should eliminate the concern raised about imposing duplicative costs on applicants for both LOS and VMT analysis. • See text revisions in Executive Summary, AB 32 and SB 375, Changes to the California Environmental Quality Act; Chapter 1, PDAs, TPPs, and Regional Investment Strate- gies; Chapter 4, Growth Management Program; Chapter 4, Congestion Management Program; and Chapter 5, Table 5-2, under "Support Growth Management Program" and "Respond to State and Federal Legislative Mandates. • Paratransit service needs are addressed in new tasks included in Chapter 5. One of these calls for working with MTC and the County Connection on formulating, adopting and implementing a viable Mobility Management Plan to enable better coordination of transportation services for Contra Costa's aging population as required by AB 120. A second calls for the Authority to work to expand the Lifeline Transportation Program and other programs that will improve mobility for low-income residents. A third new task calls for work with CCTA's current partner (CARMA) and others to apply technology to help provide more efficient services for seniors and those with disabilities. The Authority believes these additions, coupled with other text revisions and new im- plementation tasks, will make the document more "aspirational" in its undertaking. • See text revisions in Chapter 3, Transit; Chapter 3, Mobility Management Plan; and Chapter 5, Table 5-2, under "Develop Transportation Improvements, • "Build and Maintain Partnerships, • and "Respond to State and Federal Legislative Mandates. • The request for support of the County's legislative proposals for the Safe Routes to Schools pro- gram are best taken up separately, outside the context of the CTP as it involves details that are not normally included in the CTP (e.g. school zone delineation and penalties). The County also has requested additions to the Comprehensive Transportation Project List and these have been incorporated into Volume 3. The County has asked for Authority involvement in continued advocacy and funding for activi- ties that support economic development. Chapter 2's strategies include more support for econom- ic development, and Chapter 5 envisions such advocacy in the tasks listed under "Partnerships" and "Fund Transportation Improvements". ABAG's development of a monitoring "dashboard" will make it easier for local jurisdictions and the Authority to track trends in where new housing is located and compare them with the projections (particularly in PDAs). The Authority will be supporting the use of Cap & Trade funds for infrastructure and development incentives. These new initiatives will support the overall economic development programs that the Board notes are integral to continued growth of the region. • See text revisions in Chapter 5, Table 5-2, under "Build and Maintain Partnerships, • "Fund Transportation Improvements, • and "Plan for Contra Costa's Transportation Future." CHAPTER COMMENTS ES-3: The Final Draft of the 2014 CTP includes additional information on the SCS, as suggested, and the following text is now in the Executive Summary on this page: " ... Bicycle commuting also has increased by 20 percent in recent years, and the Authority, working with local jurisdictions, can do a lot to continue to facilitate this in the future." In the body of the Plan additional infor- mation on bikeway network improvements also is included in response to comments received. • See text revisions in Executive Summary, How We Get to Work; Executive Summary, AB 32 and SB 375; and Chapter 3, Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. ES-13: The Final Draft of the 2014 CTP includes additional information on the SCS, as suggested. • See text revisions in Executive Summary, AB 32 and SB 375. ES-11-14: The Final Draft of the 2014 CTP does include additional information about AB 32 and how Cap & Trade Funds can be used and specifically describes the potential to use AHSC funds. The Authority also agrees that all funding sources need to be explored, and says this in the im- plementation tasks on funding in Chapter 5. Revisions to address SB 743 also are included in several chapters, as noted above, and the Coun- ty's proposal for a menu of potential mitigation strategies can be developed as part of the expan- sion of the development mitigation program under the Growth Management Program. Doing this through an existing program is preferable to creating a new one to analyze and mitigate VMT. o See text revisions in Executive Summary, AB 32 and SB 375; Chapter 1, PDAs, TPPS, and Regional Investment Strategies; and Chapter 5, Table 5-2, under "Respond to State and Federal Legislative Mandates." ES-20: The Final Draft of the 2014 CTP includes information on the public outreach conducted to date and notes that additional outreach will be undertaken when the Transportation Expendi- ture Plan is prepared, following adoption of the CTP. o See text revisions in Chapter 1, Outreach Activities and Participation. 1-35: The Final Draft of the 2014 CTP includes additional information on the elderly population and their mobility needs, and the following text is now in the Executive Summary on this page: " ... The mobility challenges of the senior population also need to be considered as they may rely more on transit and para transit than the working population." Further discussion of this issue is presented in the context of the Mobility Management Plan in Chapter 3. There is a new task to support further development of this Plan, which the Authority has adopted "in concept", but also has requested be returned to them for further consideration based on issues raised at the public meeting which was held to discuss it. o See text revisions in Chapter 1, Contra Costa by the Numbers; Chapter 3, Transit, Pro- posed Programs and Projects; and Chapter 5, Table 5-2, under "Respond to State and Federal Legislative Mandates." Figure 3-1 and others: A new layer has been added to reflect the most up-to-date park/open space data. 1-29: The Authority believes that the text revisions to the strategies under Goal1, including the addition suggested for closing bikeway network gaps, and Goal 3 in the Final Draft of the 2014 CTP respond to the concerns raised. The text addition for freight movement on waterways also has been made. o See text revisions in Chapter 2, Goals and Strategies, Goals # 1 and #3. 1-32: The following text has been added as a bullet under #4: " ... Facilitate meeting new require- ments, such as Complete Streets and stormwater quality management, which may affect mainte- nance and rehabilitation projects." o See text revisions in Chapter 2, Goals and Strategies, Goal #4. 1-36: Suggested text addition included. o See text revisions in Chapter 3, Roadways, Issues. 1-41: The following text has been added to Chapter 3: " ... A new initiative in this area is known as "mobility management", which involves coordinating a broad mix of service delivery and support strategies directed at the travel needs of seniors, the disabled, and low income individuals. The Authority intends to support public and private non-profit transportation services in their efforts to provide better options for the transportation needs of those populations and improved effi- ciency of public transit funding. • In addition, the following "sidebar" text was added to Chapter 3: "A draft Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan was prepared and adopted by the County Connection Board in October 2014 with funding through a New Freedom Grant from MTC. The plan addresses the need to coordi- nate paratransit services being provided by non-transit, social service/non-profit operators. While there are many benefits to the new services being provided, the future for those providers is un- certain because most rely upon grants. A Mobility Management Plan could keep volunteer-based programs going, bringing together resources and spreading nominal costs across many different programs and providers. Given limited resources and inefficiencies of the current situation, it makes sense for the Authority to be looking at a better way to facilitate coordination of these ser- vices, consistent with Measure J and the CTP, and that a Mobility Plan can provide a needed poli- cy framework and pathway for implementation. The Authority has adopted the concept for a mobility management plan and directed staff to work with MTC to determine the possibility of redirecting the grant funding for mobility man- agement plan purposes, to meet with the RTPCs to obtain their input not only on the concept of a mobility management plan but also on some specific policy and program options developed by CCCTA, and return to the Authority with a robust report for further consideration. The Authori- ty recognizes that there are differing levels of awareness of the issues and problems throughout Contra Costa, and varying levels of equity in service delivery. How to improve regional connectiv- ity is particularly important, and this is an area where the Authority can exhibit leadership." • See text revisions in Chapter 3, Roadways, Proposed Programs and Projects . 1-51: The Final Draft of the 2014 CTP will be sent to the Committee for comment, but this Advi- sory Committee does not participate in the formal review and adoption process that CCT A uses for the CTP. The CBPAC is expected to be involved in CTP implementation and particularly in the update of the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The specific issues raised in the com- ment letter about the low rate of bicycle commuting might best be addressed through that plan update, following the broad policy guidance and program and project support in the CTP. The proposal to combine the Safe Routes to School Master Plan Task with the CBPAC is noted and will be considered by the Authority as part of CTP implementation; it is a detail that need not be resolved as part of Plan adoption. 1-61: Suggested text addition included. The Final Draft of the 2014 CTP now states: " ... The Au- thority also is assisting the County in the Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative, which addresses goods movement infrastructure, including maritime, rail, and highway projects. This initiative is a regional, cluster-based economic development strategy with a goal of creating 18,000 new jobs by 2035. The initiative focuses on advanced manufacturing sub-sectors in five targeted clusters (advanced transportation fuels, bio-tech/bio-medical, diverse manufacturing, food processing, and clean tech) and leveraging existing assets to retain existing firms. In coopera- tion with public and private stakeholders, the initiative will retain existing business, help them expand, and attract new businesses. • o See text revisions in Chapter 3, Facilities for Goods Movement, Proposed Programs and Projects. 1-65: Comment noted. 1-105: Chapter 5 of the Final Draft of the 2014 CTP now includes implementation tasks on: o State policy advocacy and response to State and federal mandates; o Updating implementation documents, in particular the LOS procedures to reflect SB 743 as well as the Implementation Guide. o See text revisions in Chapter 5, Table 5-2, under "Respond to State and Federal Legislative Mandates."