HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06162015 - C.138RECOMMENDATION(S):
RECEIVE the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee report on the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority's effort to develop a Transportation Expenditure Plan for a potential new sales tax measure in November
2016.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
BACKGROUND:
This report from the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) is the first in what will be a series
of reports on the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (CCTA) effort to develop a Transportation Expenditure
Plan (TEP). A TEP is a statutorily required component of a transportation sales tax. CCTA’s 2014 Draft Countywide
Transportation Plan (CTP) process identified a need for additional revenue. At their March 18, 2015 meeting, the
CCTA Board initiated preparations to go to the ballot in November 2016 with a new transportation sales tax.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 06/16/2015 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: June 16, 2015
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc: Steve Kowalewski, John Kopchik, Julie Bueren
C.138
To:Board of Supervisors
From:TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Date:June 16, 2015
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
DISCUSSION:
Due to the different committee assignments of the Board of Supervisors, TWIC recommended providing the
entire Board current information on the subject issue to ensure a common understanding of the status of the TEP
process amongst Board members. CCTA has taken a number of recent actions relative to TEP development.
Relevant documents are attached and itemized below. Issues of interest to the Board of Supervisors are highlighted.
Staff will return to the Board of Supervisors in July with specific recommendations for the County to pursue
during this process.
Principles for a new Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP Principles, attached). The CCTA Board has
adopted the following principles, which are intended to guide them in the development of the TEP:
1. Vision and Goals. Support the vision and goals (1) of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
2. Public Participation. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will conduct a comprehensive public
outreach program to collect input from stakeholders and the communities throughout Contra Costa about
the transportation priorities important for our communities.
3. Accountability. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will continue its commitment to
accountability and transparency.
4. Consensus Based Planning. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will seek to develop a
Transportation Expenditure Plan that reflects consensus between the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority, the public, stakeholders, regional transportation planning committees, cities, towns, Contra
Costa County and transit agencies.
5. Balanced Approach. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will seek to develop a Transportation
Expenditure Plan that provides widespread benefit for all people and areas of Contra Costa, promotes a
healthy environment and strong economy, results in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and per capita
vehicle miles traveled, supports transportation for livable communities’ projects, and addresses future
demographic and technological change and innovation.
6. Public Health and Safety. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will ensure that the
Transportation Expenditure Plan promotes a policy that results in the reduction of transportation impacts
on the environment and provides complementary public health and safety benefits.
7. Maintenance of the Existing System. Maintain the existing local roads, bicycle, pedestrian and transit
systems in a safe and operable condition.
8. Use of Local Dollars to Attract Other Funds. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will continue
to identify federal, State and regional funding opportunities that can maximize the amount of overall funds
available for transportation projects in Contra Costa.
9. Commitment to Growth Management and Cooperative Planning. New development should
comprehensively address infrastructure improvement needs. The Transportation Expenditure Plan will
carry forward Contra Costa’s Growth Management Program and adherence to the Urban Limit Line
Policy, as adopted.
10. Innovation and Technology. Embrace innovation and utilize technology to accelerate and enhance
transportation services.
TEP & CTP Schedule (TEP Schedule and Targets): CCTA has delayed finalizing the CTP in order to
respond to issues raised during the comment period. The TEP and CTP schedule are now being conducted
in parallel. That schedule is below.
DATE TEP CTP
June -
November
2015
Work with Expentiture Plan
Advisory Committee, (EPAC),
Regional Transportation Planning
Committees (RTPCs) and other
stakeholders to develop a
Discussion Draft TEP
Evaluate the
performance of large
projects and programs
using MTC’s
Performance Targets
November
2015
Authority releases Discussion
Draft TEP for public review
Revise CTP and SEIR
to
incorporate Discussion
Draft
TEP
November -
January
2016
Ongoing Outreach / TEP
Adjustments
Authority releases
Discussion Draft TEP
for public review
January
2016
CCTA approves Final Draft TEP
for review and approval by cities
and the County
CCTA releases Draft
SEIR and Draft CTP
for public review
February -
April 2016
Ongoing outreach / cities and
County approval of Final Draft TEP
45 Day Public Review
Period
April 2016 Prepare responses to
comments and prepare
final
May 2016 CCTA Certifies Final CTP SEIR,
Adopts Final CTP, Adopts Final
TEP, and forwards final
Expenditure Plan and Ordinance to
cities/County for review and
approval.
May - June
2016
Cities and County approve final
Expenditure Plan and Ordinance
July 2016 CCTA forwards Final TEP to BOS
for consideration on the Nov
2016 ballot
Publish Final CTP
July -
November
2016
Educational Outreach
November
2016
Election Day
5/22/15 Letter from CCTA requesting Candidate Projects and Programs for a TEP: (Call for TEP Candidate
Projects, attached): The letter provides funding/revenue targets and a schedule. Comments are due to CCTA by
July 24. The County is currently responding to CCTA through the Regional Transportation Planning Committees
and communication from the Board of Supervisors.
TEP Advisory Committees: (TEP Advisory Committees & EPAC, attached) CCTA has a number of standing
and special committees that will provide input on the development of the TEP. Those Committees are listed
below, as is the membership detail of the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC) which was created to
provide special interest input to CCTA on a variety of topics:
Ad Hoc CTP/TEP Committee: Supervisor Candace Andersen
CTP/TEP Task Force: Jerry Fahy (Public Works) John Cunningham (Conservation and
Development)
Regional Transportation Planning Committees: (RTPC) Various DCD staff
Citizens Advisory Committee: County position is currently vacant
Paratransit Coordinating Council: Advisory Council on Agency member: Rita Xavier
Bus Transit Coordinating Committee: N/A
Technical Coordinating Committee: Jerry Fahy, John Cunningham, Will Nelson (Conservation
and Development)
Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee: Jamar Stamps (Conservation and
Development)
Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee: Membership categories are below. Appointments can be
seen in the TEP Advisory Committees & EPAC document, attached:
• Business
• Labor
• Social Justice
• Environmental
• Taxpayers
• Goods Movement
• Disability
• Public Health
• Elderly
• Transit
• Development
• Bike/Pedestrian
• Faith-based Groups
• Youth Advocacy
• Education
TWIC recommended the following activities to respond to CCTA’s TEP development process:
1) The Board of Supervisors provided substantial input on the development of the Countywide Transportation
Plan. Given that the CTP was designed to potentially inform the development of the TEP, staff will continue to
pursue the priorities and projects highlighted in the letter (10-21-14 Letter from the Board of Supervisors to
CCTA re CTP, attached) in staff committees.
2) The TEP process will be a standing discussion item at future TWIC meetings.
3) TWIC will make recommendations on bringing additional reports to the Board of Supervisors and any
necessary/additional coordination with CCTA.
4) Staff will meet and coordinate with the District Offices similar to the process with the Countywide
Transportation Plan.
5) The next report to the Board of Supervisors on this issue is scheduled for July 7, 2015. The next TWIC
meeting with either be July 6th or 13th (TBD).
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
None.
ATTACHMENTS
10-21-14 Letter from BOS to CCTA re CTP
Call for TEP Candidate Projects
TEP Advisory Committees & EPAC
TEP Principles
TEP Schedule and Targets
Kevin Romick, Chair -CCTA
October 21,2014
Page 2 of9
Nationally, there is a well-documented, growing need to address our aging
infrastructure. On the local level it is no different; we are straining to maintain adequate
pavement conditions while being required to be compliant with new water quality,
complete streets, and greenhouse gas reduction statutes and initiatives. While the need
for adequate maintenance funding is mentioned throughout the document, the scale
of the issue warrants a much more prominent discussion in the CTP, particularly
given the discussion of new revenue sources.
Transit Service Improvements
There is increasing pressure to improve transit service due, in part, to new State
statutes. As called out in the CTP, our maturing transportation network'and land use
patterns are at the point where we are facing diminishing returns on roadway capacity.
In this light transit investments may be more attractive. Transit agencies in Contra Costa
County are likely to need additional resources to respond to this increase in demand for
service and the draft CTP acknowledges this unfunded demand. More specific
comments:
• With conventional fixed route service, a number of potential mitigation
measures proposed by the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in their efforts
to implement SB 743 (2013) relate to improved transit service. As acknowledged
in the ~TP, SB 743 eliminated congestion based transportation impact measures
(level of service/LOS) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A
proposed alternative metric, likely to be Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), is
intended to better reduce greenhouse gas production. However, in Contra Costa,
our local policies compel us to continue using LOS in addition to the new impact
measures imposed by the State. In order to offset any potential adverse impact
on development activity caused by multiple mitigation measures, the Board of
Supervisors requests that the Authority explore the possibility of using an
expansion of bus service or bus service funding to establish a transit mitigation
bank or programmatic VMT mitigation for member agencies.
The Board of Supervisors continues to be committed to the policy of having
development pay for any facilities required to meet the demands resulting from
growth. However, subjecting applicants to the full cost of both LOS and VMT
analysis and mitigation may inappropriately constrain needed economic and
housing development activities.
• Paratransit service for the elderly and people with disabilities, in addition to
requiring additional funding, will also require fundamental administrative
changes if 1) the Authority is to respond adequately to the projected demand for
Kevin Romick, Chair -CCT A
October 21,2014
Page3 o£9
service, and 2) expect that response to be cost-effective. In addition to the oft-
cited demographic changes (aging population), the impact on travel demand for
this portion of our constituency is likely to be further magnified by the
consolidation of medical services and new health trends. The inclusion of these
significant challenges would improve the "new challenges", "challenges ahead"
sections of the CTP.
• The Board of Supervisors is aware of the Authority's efforts to implement the
Mobility Management Plan (MMP) which could improve coordination and
operating efficiencies of multiple transportation providers. We understand that
progress is being made and applaud the efforts of Authority staff in navigating
this complex issue. While we recognize that the MMP is mentioned in the Action
Plan section of the CTP, given the countywide implications of the MMP a
detailed discussion may be warranted in a more prominent place in the
document.
Surveys conducted in the beginning of the CTP indicated that the Authority
should be "more aspirational" in its undertakings. The implementation of a
coordinated, countywide mobility management program would be responsive to
that direction.
Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program
The Authority's Safe Routes to School Master Plan Task Force assisted with the
development of a needs assessment to estimate the cost of SR2S projects and programs.
The Board of Supervisors thanks the Authority for their leadership on this effort and we
look forward to the findings and recommendations being implemented.
In order to make better use of past and future SR2S investments, we encourage the
Authority to capitalize on one particular finding in the 2011 survey conducted early in
the Master Plan effort. The survey established that the most consistent reason cited by
parents and school administrators for K-12 students not walking and bicycling to school
is related to traffic, either "driver behavior'' or "driving too fast". This finding is consistent
with statewide and national survey results.
The County has developed a 2015legislative proposal to enhance school zones through
expansion and increased penalties. We have met with our legislative delegation on our
proposal. The members were supportive of the concept and offered assistance. The
County is in the process of securing support from other agencies and we are formally
requesting the Authority support in this effort. The goal of the legislation, in
combination with existing projects and program, is to assist in reversing the well-
known low walk and bike rates to and from K-12 school. This may be another area
Kevin Romick, Chair -CCTA
October 21,2014
Page4 of9
where the Authority could be responsive to the "more aspirational" findings in the
surveys.
Major Projects & Emerging Planning Initiatives
A comprehensive response on project priorities can be seen in the attached list. This list
includes the Board of Supervisors high priority projects including, but not limited to,
TriLink (SR239), North Richmond Truck Route, I-680 HOV Gap Closure, Iron
Horse/Lafayette-Moraga Trail Connector, Kirker Pass Road Truck Climbing Lane, Vasco
Road Safety Improvements, and Northern Waterfront Goods Movement Infrastructure
Projects.
In addition to these projects, the Board of Supervisors requests continued Authority
advocacy and fu ... 11ding for activities supportive of economic development in areas of the
County where such investment is needed and desired by local communities. For
instance, this support could fund activities within Priority Development Area (PDAs)
and as part of the Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative. We are
supportive of CTP actions that include planning and implementation funding for
transportation projects and programs, infrastructure improvements and other
expenditures that facilitate needed economic development. Such investment will help
balance jobs and housing and make more efficient use of our transportation
infrastructure. The Board of Supervisors considers these efforts as integral to the
continued growth of our region and economy.
CHAPTER COMMENTS
Executive Summary
Page ES-3
The telecommuting information is informative; the document would benefit from other
relevant changes in commute patterns listed. Nationwide, bicycle commuting has
doubled in a shorter time frame than telecommuting and the Authority has more direct
responsibility to facilitate further growth in this area.
Page ES-13
Sustainable Communities Strategy
The Board of Supervisors thanks the Authority for their tireless engagement with the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area
Governments on the process to implement SB375. In particular, we encourage continued
advocacy for additional resources and consideration for subareas that accommodate a
substantial amount of planned growth. For the benefit of our constituents, MTC, and
the State, it may be useful to point out in the CTP that our planned growth is, and has
Kevin Romick, Chair -CCTA
October 21, 2014
PageS o£9
been for some time, well-managed not through State or regional mandate but through a
voter-approved Urban Limit Line and Growth Management Program ..
Pages ES-11-14The information on SB 375 (2008) in the document is useful given the
land use and transportation emphasis in the legislation. However, we believe that
additional focus on AB 32 (2006), in particular the Cap-and-Trade Program, should be
included in the CTP. This information could better position the County to receive
Program revenues. At a minimum, the relationship between the "transformative" transit
investments contemplated in the CTP and the "Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities" and "Transit and Intercity Rail Capital" Cap-and-Trade programs should be
strengthened.
Prior to contemplating a new transportation sales tax, we believe all other funding
opportunities should be examined and maximized to the extent possible in the CTP.
As indicated earlier in this letter and acknowledged later in the CTP, SB 743 (2013) is
likely to substantially influence how agencies can 1) claim exemption from CEQA and
2) how we will analyze and mitigate the transportation impacts for development. While
implementation policies are still being developed by the State; some mention of the
issue in the Executive Summary is warranted considering the potential impact on
member jurisdictions and the development community.
At this time, focus on SB 743 issues is being directed at the State. This is understandable
given that implementation strategies are currently being developed. However, once the
State's work is finished, focus will shift to local jurisdictions who are ultimately
responsible for analyzing and mitigating for VMT. As mentioned earlier·in this letter,
additional attention should be given to potential mitigation strategies. This would be
valuable to both your member agencies and the development community.
The Board of Supervisors appreciates the Authority's efforts to engage the State on this
critical issue.
Page ES-20
Regarding the need to "renew the sales tax measure", prior to establishing this need in
policy we ask that the Authority conduct additional outreach to all member
jurisdictions, including all members of the Board Supervisors. As you are aware, the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has diverse obligations which vary
substantially throughout Supervisorial Districts. In considering whether to support
such a measure the Board of Supervisors would consider factors such as possible
Kevin Romick, Chair -CCT A
October 21, 2014
Page 6 o£9
conflicts with other public finance priorities, and the need for additional transportation
funding.
Introduction
Page 1-15
This section discusses auto-ownership rates and age distribution in the context of
demographics. Mention of the increase in the elderly segment of the population, and the
impact on transportation needs, would serve to make the demographics discussion
more useful in the context of the CTP.
Figure 3-1: Roadway Action Plan Projects and Programs
The park/open space data used to compile this figure (and other Figures with the same
data) is outdated. It is important that the most current dataset is used so that the status
of preserved lands relative to planned improvements is understood. This will help
avoid conflicts between transportation planning and conservation efforts. Notably,
conserved land data is missing from areas around Vasco Road, the Byron Airport, and
along Kirker Pass Road south of the City of Pittsburg. A current dataset can be obtained
from East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy.
As I am sure you are aware, many critical transportation projects have received
streamlined permitting as a result of this program including Vasco Road Widening, SR-
4/S-160 Connectors, Deer Valley Road safety shoulders, eBART, State Route 4 between
Lone Tree and San Jose Avenue (including Sand Creek Interchange), and State Route 4
medians and shoulders from Discovery Bay to Byron Highway.
Vision, Goals and Strategy
Page I-28
The Board of Supervisors supports the approach described in the "Finding the Right
Balance" section. The approach of "Recognizing the differing needs and situations of Contra
Costa's subareas ... " has worked well in this diverse County in the past. We expect it to
continue to be successful well into the future.
Page 1-29
Goal1: Movement of people
With respect to the language in the first Goal, " ... all available travel modes ... ", the
subsequently listed Strategies would be more representative of all modes, and more
consistent with Goal 3, if non-motorized facilities w ere to be addressed in a manner
similar to the road system.
Kevin Romick, Chair -CCTA
October 21,2014
Page7 o£9
For example, "Define and close gaps in the Countywide and Regional Bikeway Network,
including gaps in Class I and major off-street paths". In addition, this change would
improve internal consistenc}" in the "Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities" section the
following action is highlighted, "Close gaps in the regional trail system ... ".
Goal1: Movement of Goods
Consistent with Authority support for, and assistance with the Northern Waterfront
Economic Development Initiative, please include the following language, "Identify new
strategies to improve freight movement on freeways, waterways and rail lines to improve
air quality and the safety and efficiency of goods movement".
Page 1-32
The discussion regarding "Maintaining the transportation system" would be more
informative and complete if new requirements, often required to be implemented
concurrent with maintenance projects, were described in this section. Complete streets
and water quality requirements can result in substantially increased maintenance costs.
Page 1-36
"Our ability to expand the roadway system is extremely limited": In addition to the barriers
to roadway expansion listed in this section (limited right-of-way, noise, air pollution,
etc.), please include "expanding maintenance obligations".
Page 1-41
Transit, Including Buses, Rail, Paratransit, and Ferries
As indicated in the Priorities section above, some mention of Authority leadership on
the implementation of the MMP would be informative in this section.
Page 1-51
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
This section may benefit from a review by the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Committee (CBPAC) who could assist in finding solutions to the numerous
barriers to improving non-motorized transportation identified in the CTP.
The barriers to increased walking and cycling identified in the CTP are not unique to
Contra Costa County. These barriers can be addressed through a methodical planning
and investment response. The 2009 Update to MTC's Regional Bicycle Plan for the San
Kevin Romick, Chair -CCTA
October 21,2014
Page 8 o£9
Francisco Bay Area indicates that Contra Costa County is tied with Solano County for
the lowest rate of bicycle commuters. A strategic approach to address identified barriers
and improve that ranking may be another "aspirational program". As indicated in the
draft CTP, the County has numerous attributes that we could capitalize on; excellent
climate, favorable topography, an excellent multi-use path network, and second only to
Alameda County in terms of numbers of BART stations.
On a related note, the Authority may wish to consider combining the Safe Routes to
School Master Plan Task Force with the CBPAC to form an "Active Transportation
Working Group". The subject matter addressed by the committees is similar and
combining the committees may result in a critical mass of issues to address that would
ideally lead to regular consultation and collaboration.
Page 1-61
Facilities for Goods Movement
The Board of Supervisors appreciates the Authority's assistance with the Northern
Waterfront Economic Development Initiative. Considering the initiative addresses
goods movement infrastructure including maritime, rail, and highway projects, some
mention of the Northern Waterfront effort would strengthen this section.
Page 1-65
The Board of Supervisors welcomes the description of the Comprehensive
Transportation Project List (CTPL) as "evolving". As subregional and local priorities
change and we are required to respond to changing policies it is essential that we are
afforded the flexibility of a "living document".
Page 1-105
Implementation
The comments in this letter suggest possible changes to activities listed in the
Implementation section including, but not limited to; 1) addition of State policy
advocacy, and 2) updates to other Measure J implementation documents as suggested at
the Technical Coordinating Committee (Technical Procedures Manual, Measure J
Growth Management Implementation Guide, etc).
The Board of Supervisors appreciates the outreach of the Authority Board and its staff
to obtain comments on the Draft CTP Update and we look forward to additional dialog
and engagement on this effort.
Kevin Romick, Chair -CCTA
October 21, 2014
Page9 o£9
Sincerely,
ci6 }1u:t~ Ka~Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District IV
C:
Janet Abelson, Chair-WCCTAC
Candace Andersen, Chair-SWAT
Salvatore Evola, Chair, TRANSPLAN
Mark Ross, Chair -TRANSPAC
Attachments:
Comments on Volume 3: Comprehensive Transportation Project List
File: Transportation> Transpmiation > Committees > CCT t, : CCT A Board of Directors
File: TrJnspmtation: Projects: CCTA ~ CTP 2014-15
g:\transpmiationl20 14ctpupdate\bostocctar~20 14ctpfinal( I 0-21-14 ).doc
()
COMMISSIONERS
Juae Pierce. Chair
Dave Hudson.
Vice Chair
Janet Abelson
Newell Arnerlch
Tam Butt
Davld Durant
Federal Glover
Karen MllI:hoff
Kevin Romick
Don Tatzln
Robl!rt Taylor
Randell H. Iwasaki.
Executive Director
1999 Dok Road
Suite 100
Walnut Creek
CA 94597
PHONE:
925.256.4700
FAX: 925.256.4701
_.etta.net
CONTRA COSTA
transportation
authority
Date: May 22, 2015
To: Reg ional Transportation Planning Committees
From: Randell H. Iwasaki, Executive Director tit J"Jr.)L"
RE: Request to Submit candidate Projects and Programs for Consideration
in the development of a DRAFT Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP)
for a New Sales Tax Measure
At its meeting of March 18, 2015, the Authority directed staff to undertake tasks
to develop a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) for consideration on a
possible ballot as early as November 2016. The Authority asked staff to engage
and seek input from all affected stakeholders, including the Regional
Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs), Authority standing advisory
committees, a proposed Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC), and the
general public in development of a Draft TEP.
New Measure Time Frame and Financial Constraints
To start the discussion, the Authority is assuming the new measure would
increase the sales tax by ~ percent for 25 years, starting on April 1, 2017 and
ending on March 31, 2042. Such a measure would be expected to raise
approximately $2.3 billion in constant dollars. Exhibit A shows each subregion
share based on its population at the midpoint of the new measure.
Concurrent Activities
On May 8, 2015 the Authority released the call for projects for MTC's Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). By aligning the TEP and RTP call for projects, each
subregion will be provided the opportunity to identify its priority projects and
programs that are not expected to be fully funded from existing revenue sources
over the RTP period (2018-2042) and are good candidates to be funded from a
new measure. Careful consideration shou l d be given to existing Measure J
projects that are not fully funded and do not have plans to fully fund from other
existing revenue sources . A list of Measure J projects with fund i ng shortfa lls is
included in Exhibit B.
C:\U~ts l fortega\AppOCl hl\Loco/\Mlcroso/t\Wlndaws \Temporoty Intemet Flles\Content.Outloolr\QQ6BNFVO\3.3 AttodIment 8 -TEP ca/I
torprojectslefter.docx ~B _ 4rTl9~Hn1P;vr
Specific Submittals
Regional Transportation Planning Committees
May 22, 2015
Page 2
The Authority requests each RTPC to submit a Summary Memo and Information
Sheets by July 24, 2015 providing details on capital projects and programs it
would like to be considered for the new expenditure plan, while not exceeding
the RTPC funding target.
The Summary Memo should contain the following information:
1. Regional and/or Countywide Projects: A list of candidate projects or
project categories (including potential project concepts) of regional
and/or countywide significance, including estimated cost and prospective
sales tax funding sought;
2. Subregional and local Projects: A list of candidate projects or project
categories (including potential project concepts) of sub-regional (i.e.
within central, east, southwest, and west county sub-areas) and local
significance, including estimated cost and prospective sales tax funding
sought;
3. Program Levels: Proposed annualized funding levels for new and ongoing
programs such as bus transit, paratransit, bicycle and pedestrian,
Transportation for livable Communities, and local streets and roads
maintenance. Proposals should take into consideration infrastructure
condition and needs in each subregion. The RTPCs are encouraged to
invite transit operators, City County Engineers Advisory Committee of
Contra Costa (CCEAC), and other groups to help assess the various needs
in the county. For reference, Exhibit C contains percentages of annual
sales tax revenue that each Measure J programs receives, and specific
allocations In FY 2014-15.
In addition to the Summary Memo, an Information Sheet (Exhibit D) for each
candidate project and program is requested. Where specific capital projects
would be relatively small, or not well defined, aggregation of such individual
projects into project categories is recommended to increase future flexibility,
while still providing some specificity for the voters to consider. (For example,
Measure J included East County Corridors and Interchange Improvements on
Interstate 680 and SR 242.)
Polling results from a survey conducted by the Authority in March 2014 are
included in Exhibit E. This information should help to determine which projects
and programs resonate well with Contra Costa voters.
Regional Transportation Planning Committees
May 22, 2015
Page 3
Transit Operators and other agencies should work with their respective RTPCs
during this effort. The Authority will use Input from the RTPCs, transit operators,
EPAC and other advisory committees to establish a framework for a new TEP in
Fall 2015.
Authority staff Is available to meet with RTPCs and RTPC Technical Advisory
Committees (TACs) to discuss this process and assist in Initiating the call for
projects. Should you have any questions, please contact Hlsham Noelml at
925.256.4731 or Ross Chittenden at 925.256.4735.
Thank you In advance for your input.
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Funding Target By Subregion
Exhibit B: Ust of Measure J Project with Funding Shortfalls
Exhibit C: Measure J Allocations to Programs
Exhibit D: Information Sheet Form
Exhibit E: Polling Results from March 2014
,.-4
Funding Targets by Subregion
2030 Percentages 25-year Measure
CONSTANT $ POPULATION REVENUE Ix 1,000)
TRANSPLAN 28.25% $ 660,756
TRANSPAC 29.37% $ 686,929
WCCTAC 23.26% $ 544,032
SWAT 19.13% $ 447,366
TOTAL· 100.00% $ 2,339,083
• may not add up due to rounding
~ :r -. cr -. .... ,.
Exhibit B
MEASURE J CAPITAL PROJECTS
(\ OE 00llal"ll1 10001
~ J
CALDEC01TTUNNEL FOURTH BORE TOTAL SHORTFALL Cen!lll West Southwest Eaa
IDOl Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore 12S,OOO 0 II II
Subtm.1 125,000 0
II
BART -EAST CONTRA COSTA EXTENSION TOTAL SHORTFALL Central West Southwest Bast
2001 East contra Costa Rail Extension (cBARn 137.702 0 X
2002 Pittsburg Center Station 2,904 0 X
Subte .. 1 140.606 0
,I
STAT E ROUTE 4 EAST WIDENING TOTAL SHORTFALL Central West Southwest East
3001 SR 4 East Widening: Somersville Road to SRI60 94,105 0 x
3003 SR4 East Widening: Loveridge Rd to Somersville Rd 30,720 0 X
Subtotal 124,825 0
:1 rUNlJlNU
CAPITOL CORRIOOR IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL SHORTFALL Ccatrll West Southwest East
4001 Hercules Rail Station 7,961 38000 X
4002 Martinez IntermodaJ Station· Phase 3 7.770 0 X
Subtotal 15,731 58000
:1
EAST COUNT\' CORRIDORS TOTAL SHORTFALL Ccallal West Sou!h\WSt East
3002 SR4: Widen to 4 Lanes· Laurel Rd to Sand Creek Rd 4.269 0 II
5003 SR4: Sand Creek Interchange· Phase I 13,647 0 II
SOOS SR4: Balfour Road Interchange· Phase I 38,000 13000 X
5006 Vasco Road SIlfety Improwmcnts • Phase I (CC County) 647 0 X
SOlO SR4 : Segments 1 and 3 25,001 0 X
5011 East County Reserve 19,645 0 X
S.btolal 10 1,209 13000
MUSUIWJ .... ·~u·~
INTEIlCIIANGE IMPROVEMENT ON J.68O" STATE ROUTE Z4Z TOTAL SHORTFALL Central West ~st East
6001 1-68O/SR4 Interchange Improvements· Phase 3 34,46 1 34000 II
6001 1·6801SR4 Interchange Improvements. Phase I, 2, 4, 5 324000 X
600216004 SR242lC1ayton Road Southbound Off·Ramp 4,651 46000 X
6006 State Route 4 Operationallmpro~mcnts 1,511 2S5000 X
Subtotal 40,623 659000
,J
1-80 CARPOOL LANE EXTENSION AND INTERCHANGE IMPROV. TOTAL SHORTFALL Central West So~ East
7002 l·gOlSan Pablo Dam Road Interchange Irnpnm:menta • Phase I 12,038 0 X
7002 1-80lSan Pablo Dam Road Imerdlango Impro~ements· Phase 2 . 71000 X
7003 (-8OfCentraI Avenue Interchange Improvements 11.584 9000 X
7005 1·80 lmc p1lll:d Corridor Mobi lity 7.022 0 X
Sublotal 30,644 80000
J.68O CARPOOL LANE GAP CLOSlJREfI'RANSIT CORRIDOR IMPROV. TOTAL SHORTFALL Central West Southwest East
800 1 1-680 CaJpouJ Lane CompletionlEapress LaIICS (Central County) 32,055 0 X
1002 1-680 Southbound Carpool Lane Extension (Restripe) 2,011 0 X
1003 1-680 Direct AI:cess Ramps 20 ,592 90000 x
8004 1-680 Rcscm: in Central County 27JHJ 0 X
S.btatlIl 81.927 90000
H ··tuNDINO
RICHMOND PARKWAY TOTAL SHORTFAll. Cenbal West Southwest I!a5t
9001 Richmond Parkway Upgrade Study 136 0 X
9002 Richmond Parkway MaintcnancclUpgrade 1,998 0 X
9003 Marina Bay Parkway Grade Separation 11,800 0 X
Subtotal 13,934 0
d
BART PARKING, ACCESS, aad OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL SHORTFALL CenmJ West Southwest East
10001 BART Parking, Ac:c:css and Other Improvements -Central County 14,178 0 X
10002 BART Parki l18, Al:ccss and Other ImprovcmcntJ -West County 16,690 0 X
10003 BART Parking, Acc:css and Other Improvements -Soulhwl:st County 3,989 0 X
10004 BART Ploong, Access and Other Improvements -East County 2,000 0 X
Subtotal 36,857 0
~J
ADDrrlONAL BUS TRANSrr ENHANCEMENT TOTAL SHORTFALL CcnmJ West Southwest East
19002 WestCAT Transit Cllpillll Im provemCIII5 I,OSI 0 x
Subtotal 1,051 0
MAJOR STIl£&TS: TRAFnC FWW, SAnTY. '" CAPACITY IMPROV, TOTAL SHORTFALL CClltraI west SouIhwI:st East
24001 Marsh Creek Road Upgnule (Clayton) 1,153 0 X
24003 Pacheco Blvd Realignment and Widening (Contra Costa County) 5,930 19700 X
24004 Kirker Pass Road Truck Lanes -NorthboWld (CoDlrll Costa County) 6,148 4300 X
24005 Court StlCCt Ovcrcrossing -Phase 1 (Martinez) 25S 0 X
24006 Buskirk Avenue Widening -Phase 2 (Plell5ant Hill) 11,663 0 )(
24007 Geary Rd Widening -PhB5e 3 (Walnut Creek Ill. Pleasant Hill) 9,88 1 0 )(
24013 Salvlo Street CDmplete Streel5 227 0 X
24009 Danville Major Streets Improvements (Danville) 3,504 0 )(
24010 Olympic BlvdlRelicz StatiDn Rd (Lafayette) 2,102 0 )(
24011 TraffIC Operation and Congestion Improvements in Downtown Corridors (LafayeUc) 200 0 X
24012 Farm Bureau Road Safe Route to Scboollmprovements 4,081 0 )(
24014 St Mary's RoadJRhccm Blvd Roundabout (Moraga) 450 7000 )(
24015 Rhcem Blvd Landslide Repair and Repavins (Moraga) 729 700 )(
24016 Canyon Road Bndge Replacement (Morap) 393 0 X
24017 Camino Pablo Pavement Rehabilitation (Orinda) 2,043 0 X
24020 Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Completion (County) 1,000 0 X
24021 Alcosta Blvd Pavement Rehabilitation (San Ramon) 2,500 0 X
24022 Crow Canyon Road Pavement Rehabilitation (San Ramon) 1,4 14 0 )(
24023 Norris Canyon Safety Barrier (County) 1')00 0 X
24024 Downtown Alamo Pedestrian Safety Improvements (County) 1,247 0 )(
24025 Major Stn:ets in East County 19,400 0 )(
24026 Contra Costa Blvd Improvements (Pleasant HiU) 1,262 0 )(
24027 Ygnacio Valley Road Pertnancnt Restoration -Ph_ 2 (Concord) 2,547 0 II
24028 Clayton Rdffrcat BlvdlDenkingcr Rd Intersection Capac ity Improvements (Concord) 2,329 1000 )(
24029 Old Marsh Creek Road Overlay (Clayton) 370 0 II
24031 Alhambra Creek Bridge and Ferry Street Improvements (Martinez) 10,013 0 X
Subtolal 92,141 32 700
MC.ASU Illi J
CAPrroL CORRIDOR RAR-STATION IMPROVEMENTS AT MAR11NEZ TOTAL SHORTFALL Ceatral West SouIhwI:st East
27001 CaJlltol Corrido r Rai l Station Improvements at Martinez 2,831 0 )(
Subto tal 2,837 0
SHORTfAL18Y SUBREGION 932700 684000 131000 97700 13000
AUOCAnONS TO EXISTING MEASURE J PROGRAMS IN FY 2013-14
Central west Southwest East
I Sales Till Revenue (FY 2013-14) $ 75.899.000
"lnfY2OU..
" In Measure J 14 FY 2IIa-14
lDatl 5treets Maintenance & Improvements 18.0% 18.1»' $ 13.661,820 5.400% $ 4.098.546 4.140" $ 3.142.219 3.96"" $ 3,005,600 4.51lm' S 3,415,455
TLC 5."" 5.0%". $ 3.794,950 1.45OK S 1.100,536 1.200" $ 910,788 0.900" $ 683,091 1.45OK $ 1,100.536
PecI/IIlke 1.5" 1.5" $ 1,138.485 0375" $ 284,621 0.375" $ 284,621 0375" $ 284,621 0.375" $ 284.621
Bus ServIce 5."" 5.0% $ 3.794.950 1.230% $ 933,558 2.600" $ 1,973,374 o.n"" $ 584,422 0.400% $ 303.596
Tlllnspartatlon for 5enIon a PIIopIe with Dlsablllles 5."" 3.9%. $ 2,91iO.061 0.975" $ 740,015 1.365" $ 1,036,021 0.663" $ 503,210 0 .89776 $ 680,814
Elqlreslul 4.3" 4.~ $ 3,263.657 1.()()()% $ 758,990 2.00D76 $ 1,517.980 l.ll1lO% $ 758,990 O.3()O% $ 227.697
CammuIIe AIIInwtIwes 1"" 10% $ 7S8,990 0324" $ 245,913 0.227% $ 172,291 0.202% $ 153.316 0.247% $ 187.471
CoIIpstIon Manqement, TllliGpIIIUI ....... I't8nnlnl. FKIIdes 3."" 3.0% $ 2,276,970 0.75OK $ 569.243 0 .75OK $ 569,243 0.7~ S 569,243 0 .75OK $ 569,243
AddIliDlal Bus TI1InsIt EnII.~ 3.425" 3.425"·· $ 2,599.541 1.2Ilm' S 910,788 2.225" $ 1.688,753 $ . $
Alfcfltlonal TIII ..... tallon for SenIon end People with DlslblDtles L1S"" 1.150% $ 872.839 0.51lm' $ 379,495 0.6~ $ 493,344 $ . $ .
s.tW Tl'ilnspartItIon fur Children 4.545" 4.545" $ 3.449.610 051lm' $ 379,495 0 .725" $ 550.268 33~ $ 2,519,847 $
Fltry 5ervIm In West County 2.25" 2.25" $ 1,707.728 S . 2.250" S 1.707,728 S -S
Additional Streets and Roads Maintenance 2.09" 2.09" $ 1,586.289 1'()()()% $ 758,990 0550" $ 417,445 0540% $ 409,855 $
Additional TLC 0.4" 0.4" $ 303.596 $ -0,400" $ 303,596 $ -$
AdditIonal PecI/IIlke 0.04" 0.04" $ 30.360 $ -0 .040% $ 30.360 $ -$ .
SUbreslDnai Transportation Needs L53" L53"···· $ 1,138.485 0.81OK $ 614.782 0300" $ 227.697 0.235" $ 178.363 0.185" $ 140,413
AdmlnlstTatlDn L"" LO% $ 7S8.990 0.250% $ 189,748 O.25OK $ 189.748 0.250% $ 189.748 0 .250% $ 189,748
SlIm 5!Ja 58.1" $ 44.097,319 15.764% $ 11.964.718 20.1)47% $ 15,215,473 12.965" S 9.840,305 9354" S 7,099.592
ICIIdfantfllllllllllb.....,--...... IID.....-tt.~ ...... ,...IIIIaGlpltllIa .. _MDII
• T1iII......,...IIIIIDcMaI ...... OIi_ ......... ~ .......... In FY21114t111t ........ _s.-. " .. -...w,", _01 __ •
··AparII .... '.-,_jii ......... IIDWeslCATfar ....... pratoct
••• A pootIen 11A5tCI-.... __ .. ca,IIII n.c proJads In fast Caunty
•••• A ponIoa (.151"1_ jii.wNiiid lIDapIaiI n.c pntJ-cllIrt fast County
~ :w-
iT -. .. n
Exhibit D
PROJECT/PROGRAM INFORMATION FORM
ENTER NAME OF SUBREGION
Subregional PrioritY
Project, Project Category or
Program Name
Brief Description
Eligible Components (address
degree of flexibility in Language)
Cost Estimate (specify year of
estimate)
Funding Requested (2015 $, % of
Subregion Share)
Other Likely Sources of Funding
Status in MTC 2017 RTP Specify
if project is shown in committed,
financially constrained or vision
lists)
Status of Environmental Review
and Conceptual Engineering
Top Priorities by Region
Overall
1. Sync traffic lights along major roads
2. Improve safety In BART stations and parking lots
3. Better coordination between BART and bus schedules
4. Technology t o im prove traffic flow o n major roads when there's an accident on the freeway
S. Increase parking at all BART stations in Co ntra Co st a County
West
1. Improve safety in BART stations and parking lots
2. Better coordination between BART and bus schedules
3. Sync lights along major roads
4. Extend BART up 80 between Richmond & Hercules
S. Improve intersection of 80/San Pablo Dam Road
Central
1. Sync lights along major roads
2. Improve safety in BART stations and parking lots
3. New BART line between Dublin & Walnut Creek
4. Increase parking at we, PH, Concord, North Concord BART
5. ExtendBARif to Brentwood
~ :r -. CT _ . ....
m
~r-/:~ 2? :;C3 5 C~}!~':tc C.Js::= ::o ~!::ry Sl.lfVev 1
Top Priorities by Region
San Ramon Valley
1. Sync lights along major roads
2. Improve safety in BART stations and p arking lots
3. Increase parking at all BART stations in Contra Costa County
4. Increase parking at Orinda, La fayette, we BART
5. New BA RT line between Dublin & Walnut Creek
Lamarinda
1. Sync lights alonl major roads
2. Increase parking at Orinda, Lafayette, we BART
3. Technology to I~prove traffic flow on major roads when there's an ac ci dent on the freeway
4. Increase parking .at all BART stations in Contra Costa County
5. Better coordination between BART and bus schedules
East
1. Extend BART to Brentwood
2. Improve intersection of 4/680
3. Improve sofety in BART stot/ons ond porkih, lots
4. Technology to improve traffic flow on major roads when there's an accident on the freeway
5. Increase parking at Pittsburg/Bay Point, Concord, North Concord BA RT
EMC 13-5035 Contra Costa County Survey I 2
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 20, 2015
Subject Approval of Principles for Development of a Transportation
Expenditure Plan (TEP)
Summary of Issues Development of a TEP should be aligned with the Vision, Goals and
Strategies identified in the draft 2014 CTP, as well as reflect the values
that have governed cooperative planning over the life of Measures C
and J. Accordingly, staff has developed a proposed set of principles for
consideration by the Authority to help guide the TEP effort. A first draft
of the principles was presented by staff at the April 15, 2015 Authority
Board Meeting. Comments provided at that meeting have been
incorporated into an updated proposed set of principles.
Recommendations Staff seeks Authority approval of the Principles for Development of a
Transportation Expenditure Plan (Principles).
Financial Implications There is no cost to approve the Principles. However, development of
the TEP requires considerable staff and consult ant support, as well as
other anticipated costs such as the fees paid to the Registrar of Voters
and the County Clerk–Recorder. Staff and our consultant team continue
to develop a detailed work program and budget to finalize development
of a TEP for discussion at a future Authority meeting.
Options 1. Modify the proposed Principles.
2. Do not proceed with TEP effort.
Attachments A. Principles for Development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan.
B. Principles for Development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan
showing edits to the version discussed at the April 15 Authority
meeting.
Changes from
Committee
N/A
3.1-1
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
May 20, 2015
Page 2 of 3
Background
Since 1989, the Authority has administered sales tax revenues collected through voter-
approved transportation improvement funding measures. Measure C, passed in 1988, created
the Authority, and established a half-cent transportation sales tax for 20 years expiring in 2009.
In 2004, the voters of Contra Costa approved Measure J, which continued the half-cent
transportation sales tax for an additional 25 years through 2034. Together, the two measures
will generate more than $3.8 billion in local sales tax funds. When leveraged with federal, State
and regional funds, the two measures will result in over $6.5 billion invested in transportation
projects and programs in Contra Costa.
The projects and programs that are advanced with these funds were defined in a TEP that was
developed by the Authority with input from many stakeholders. Each successful ballot measure
involved a complex development process that eventually led to approval by the voters of
Contra Costa.
The current Measure J half-cent transportation sales tax will expire in 2034. Approximately 58
percent of the overall revenues are used for "pay-as-you-go" programs and 42 percent for
capital improvement projects. During the first ten years of the measure, all of the major capital
improvement projects (SR-4 East, eBART, I-680 and I-80 corridor investments and others) will
be complete or in construction. Consequently by 2018, approximately 82 percent of the
Measure J project funds will have been expended, and any remaining project revenues will go
towards repayment of bonds.
Adoption of TEP Principles
At its meeting in March, the Authority directed staff to initiate the development of a TEP for a
possible November 2016 ballot measure. An initial step in this process is to adopt Principles for
Development of a TEP (Principles). Development of a new TEP should be guided by principles
that build on the Vision, Goals and Strategies identified in the 2014 CTP and that embrace the
values of collaboration between the Authority and its partner agencies. Development of a TEP
will require technical, political, public and stakeholder engagement. The Principles will help
guide the Authority through the TEP stakeholder engagement and development process and
the range of issues that will be part of the discussion leading to a TEP.
The proposed Principles for a new TEP include supporting the Authority’s vision and goals;
conducting a robust public participation effort; adopting a consensus-based approach; finding
3.1-2
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
May 20, 2015
Page 3 of 3
the right balance for a healthy environment and strong economy for future generations;
maintaining the system; leveraging funds and continuing our commitment to growth
management and cooperative planning.
Draft Principles were presented for consideration at the Authority's April 15, 2015 meeting.
Comments were provided and staff was directed to revise the Principles to incorporate
comments. Attachment A is the proposed Principles for adoption. Attachment B is the same
document with the changes from the version discussed in April shown in "track changes"
format.
Staff and the Authority's consultant team are discussing the draft Principles at initial meetings
with Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs) and other stakeholders. Staff will
update the Authority on comments received from the RTPCs and other stakeholders.
3.1-3
Page 1
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Principles for Development of a
Transportation Expenditure Plan
May 20, 2015
PREAMBLE
Since 1989, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority has administered sales tax revenues
collected through voter-approved transportation improvement funding measures, Measures C
and J. Together, the two measures will generate more than $3.8 billion in local sales tax funds.
When these funds are combined with federal, State and regional funds, over $6.5 billion will be
invested in transportation projects and programs approved by voters as part of Measures C and
J. The two measures also include a Growth Management Program that requires new growth to
pay its own way and encourages cooperative planning to address growth and transportation
issues.
Measure C, passed in 1988, created a half-cent transportation sales tax for 20 years expiring in
2009. In 2004, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure J , with a 71 percent vote, to
continue the half-cent transportation sales tax for an additional 25 years beyond the original
2009 expiration date. All of the major projects identified in the Measure J Transportation
Expenditure Plan are either underway or completed with accelerated delivery strategies so the
benefits of the projects will be realized within the first 10 years of the enacted measure.
Through Measures C and J, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority is reducing the impacts
of transportation on the environment, encouraging alternative modes of transportation, and
providing congestion relief, including:
BART extensions and improvements
Bus and ferry service improvements
Highway 4 improvements from Hercules to Discovery Bay
New Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore
Richmond Parkway
Highway 24 and Highway 242 corridor improvements
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements
I-80 corridor improvements
I-680 corridor improvements
Transit service improvements for students, seniors and people with disabilities
Local street and road improvements
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
Every 5 years, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority updates its Countywide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan to provide a blueprint for future investment in Contra
Costa’s transportation system and identify projects, programs and policies anticipated to be
needed over the next 25 years. The update underway includes a comprehensive public
Attachment A
3.1-4
Page 2
outreach program to collect input from stakeholders and the communities throughout Contra
Costa. The result is a Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan that identifies goals for
bringing together all modes of travel, networks and operators to meet the diverse
transportation needs of Contra Costa County.
VISION AND GOALS FOR THE COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Measure J requires the development and regular update of a Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan.
As outlined in its “vision,” the Contra Costa Transportation Authority will:
Strive 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.
To achieve this vision, the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan identifies the
following 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 environment , 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.
The challenge now facing the Contra Costa Transportation Authority is to prioritize $32 billion in
projects and programs, as our transportation needs significantly exceed available revenue. The
projected revenue from federal, State and regional sources is not sufficient and a $10.9 billion
shortfall is identified. Over the last two decades, local funds have become the driving force in
funding transportation improvements. Development and approval of a new countywide
transportation sales tax measure will be critical to help address the funding gap.
3.1-5
Page 3
PRINCIPLES FOR A NEW TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will apply the following principles in developing a
new Transportation Expenditure Plan that will define the use of funds from a potential new
transportation sales tax measure for Contra Costa:
1. Vision and Goals. Support the vision and goals of the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority.
2. Public Participation. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will conduct a
comprehensive public outreach program to collect input from stakeholders and the
communities throughout Contra Costa about the transportation priorities important for
our communities.
3. Accountability. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will continue its commitment
to accountability and transparency.
4. Consensus‐Based Planning. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will seek to
develop a Transportation Expenditure Plan that reflects consensus between the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority, the public, stakeholders, regional transportation
planning committees, cities, towns, Contra Costa County and transit agencies.
5. Balanced Approach. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will seek to develop a
Transportation Expenditure Plan that provides widespread benefit for all people and
areas of Contra Costa, promotes a healthy environment and strong economy, results in
a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and per capita vehicle miles travelled, supports
transportation for livable communities’ projects, and addresses future demographic and
technological change and innovation.
6. Public Health and Safety. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will ensure that
the Transportation Expenditure Plan promotes a policy that results in the reduction of
transportation impacts on the environment and provides complementary public health
and safety benefits.
7. Maintenance of the Existing System. Maintain the existing local roads, bicycle,
pedestrian and transit systems in a safe and operable condition.
8. Use of Local Dollars to Attract Other Funds. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority
will continue to identify federal, State and regional funding opportunities that can
maximize the amount of overall funds available for transportation projects in Contra
Costa.
9. Commitment to Growth Management and Cooperative Planning. New development
should comprehensively address infrastructure improvement needs. The Transportation
3.1-6
Page 4
Expenditure Plan will carry forward Contra Costa’s Growth Management Program and
adherence to the Urban Limit Line Policy, as adopted.
10. Innovation and Technology. Embrace innovation and utilize technology to accelerate
and enhance transportation services.
3.1-7
Page 1
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Principles for Development of a
Transportation Expenditure Plan
April 15, 2015
May 20, 2015
PREAMBLE
Since 1989, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority has administered sales tax revenues
collected through voter-approved transportation improvement funding measures, Measures C
and J. Together, the two measures will generate more than $3.8 billion in local sales tax funds.
When these funds are combined with federal, State and regional funds, over $6.5 billion will be
invested in transportation projects and programs approved by voters as part of Measures C and
J. The two measures also include a Growth Management Program that requires new growth to
pay its own way and encourages cooperative planning to address growth and transportation
issues.
Measure C, passed in 1988, created a half-cent transportation sales tax for 20 years expiring in
2009. In 2004, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure J, with a 71 percent vote, to
continue the half-cent transportation sales tax for an additional 25 years beyond the original
2009 expiration date. All of the major projects identified in the Measure J Transportation
Expenditure Plan are either underway or completed with accelerated delivery strategies so the
benefits of the projects will be realized within the first 10 years of the enacted measure.
Through Measures C and J, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority is reducing the impacts
of transportation on the environment, encouraging alternative modes of transportation, and
providing congestion relief, including:
BART extensions and improvements
Bus and ferry service improvements
Highway 4 improvements from Hercules to Discovery Bay
New Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore
Richmond Parkway
Highway 24 and Highway 242 corridor improvements
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements
I-80 corridor improvements
I-680 corridor improvements
Transit service improvements for students, seniors and people with disabilities
Local street and road improvements
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
Every 5 years, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority updates its Countywide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan to provide a blueprint for future investment in Contra
Costa’s transportation system and identify projects, programs and policies anticipated to be
Attachment B
3.1-8
Page 2
needed over the next 25 years. The most recent update in 2014underway includesd a
comprehensive public outreach program to collect input from stakeholders and the
communities throughout Contra Costa. The result is a Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan that identifies goals for bringing together all modes of travel, networks and
operators to meet the diverse transportation needs of Contra Costa County.
VISION AND GOALS FOR THE COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Measure J requires the development and regular update of a Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan.
As outlined in its “vision,” the Contra Costa Transportation Authority will:
Strive 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.
To achieve this vision, the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan identifies the
following 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 environment , 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.
The challenge now facing the Contra Costa Transportation Authority is to prioritize $32 billion in
projects and programs, as our transportation needs significantly exceed available revenue. The
projected revenue from federal, State and regional sources is not sufficient and a $10.9 billion
shortfall is identified. Over the last two decades, local funds have become the driving force in
funding transportation improvements. Development and approval of a new countywide
transportation sales tax measure will be critical to help address the funding gap.
3.1-9
Page 3
PRINCIPLES FOR A NEW TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will apply the following principles in developing a
new Transportation Expenditure Plan that will define the use of funds from a potential new
transportation sales tax measure for Contra Costa:
1. Vision and Goals. Support the vision and goals of the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority.
2. Public Participation. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will conduct a
comprehensive public outreach program to collect input from stakeholders and the
communities throughout Contra Costa about the transportation priorities important for
our communities.
3. Accountability. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will continue its commitment
to accountability and transparency.
4. Consensus‐Based Planning. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will seek to
develop a Transportation Expenditure Plan that reflects consensus between the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority, the public, stakeholders, regional transportation
planning committees, cities, towns, Contra Costa County and transit agencies.
5. Balanced Approach. Balance the needs andThe Contra Costa Transportation Authority
will seek to develop a Transportation Expenditure Plan that provides widespread
benefits for all people and areas of Contra Costa, to provide promotes a healthy
environment and strong economy, considering impact onresults in a reduction of vehicle
miles travelled and greenhouse gas emissions and per capita vehicle miles travelled,
supportsing transportation for livable communities’ projects, while accounting forand
addresses future demographic and technological change and innovation.
6. Public Health and Safety. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority will ensure that
the Transportation Expenditure Plan promotes a recognizes that transportation policy
can that results in thea reduction of transportation impacts on the environment and
provides complementary public health and safety benefits.
7. Maintenance of the Existing System. Maintain the existing highway, local roads, bicycle,
pedestrian and transit systems in a safe and operable condition.
8. Use of Local Dollars to Attract Other Funds. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority
will continue to identify federal, State and regional funding opportunities that can
maximize the amount of overall funds available for transportation projects in Contra
Costa.
9. Commitment to Growth Management and Cooperative Planning. New development
should comprehensively address infrastructure improvement needs. The Transportation
3.1-10
Page 4
Expenditure Plan will carry forward Contra Costa’s Growth Management Program and
adherence to the Urban Limit Line Policy, as adopted.
10. Innovation and Technology. Embrace innovation and utilize technology to accelerate
and enhance transportation services.
3.1-11
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 20, 2015
S:\03-Authority Packets\2015 ccta\052015\TEP Ad Hoc\3.2 - Brdltr.CTP Adoption Schedule.rev3.docx
Subject Approval of Revised Schedule for the 2014 Countywide Transportation
Plan (CTP) to Align with Proposed Transportation Expenditure Plan
(TEP) Schedule
Summary of Issues While the CTP and TEP involve separate approval processes, staff
recommends treating the CTP and the TEP as part of the same overall
CEQA “project” and analyzing their impacts together in one CEQA
document. The proposed process involves performing an analysis of
large projects using MTC's performance targets. The results of this
analysis will be provided to the Regional Transportation Planning
Committees (RTPCs), the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC)
being created to assist in the development of a TEP, and other
stakeholders. The schedule for the 2014 CTP has been revised
accordingly for Authority review and approval.
Recommendations Review and approve the proposed revised schedule for the 2014 CTP.
Financial Implications The proposed revised CTP schedule entails additional staff time and
consultant costs, to be presented at the June 3 Planning Committee
meeting.
Options 1. Revise proposed CTP schedule
Attachments A. MTC’s Project Performance Targets
Changes from
Committee
N/A
3.2-1
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
May 20, 2015
Page 2 of 3
S:\03-Authority Packets\2015 ccta\052015\TEP Ad Hoc\3.2 - Brdltr.CTP Adoption Schedule.rev3.docx
Background
The previous 2014 CTP adoption schedule had the Authority finalizing the CTP in March 2015,
prior to commencing a TEP process. Based upon comments received, staff now recommends an
approach that would treat the CTP and the TEP as part of the same overall CEQA “project” and
analyze their impacts together in one CEQA document. Performing activities needed to
complete the CTP concurrently with development of a TEP will provide additional analysis of
project performance for consideration by the RTPCs and EPAC.
This would involve revising technical studies to account for the impacts of the recently revised
CTP project list and forthcoming TEP; evaluating projects and programs using MTC’s
performance targets (see Attachment A); identifying a financially constrained list (TEP +
potential other projects on a 2040 horizon year); analyzing differences in impacts between the
Comprehensive Transportation Project List (CTPL) and the financially constrained TEP list;
acknowledging any new potential significant impacts; and recirculating SEIR.
Anticipated Schedule
Following is a proposed schedule that aligns the CTP completion and TEP development
processes with the completion of CEQA review. Under this schedule, consideration and
potential certification of the SEIR and approval of the CTP and TEP could occur concurrently –
with a potential May 2016 certification/approval date.
Date TEP CTP
June – Nov 2015 Work with EPAC, RTPCs and
other stakeholders to develop a
Discussion Draft TEP
Evaluate the performance of
large projects and programs
using MTC’s Performance
Targets
Nov 18, 2015 Authority releases Discussion
Draft TEP for public review
Revise CTP and SEIR to
incorporate Discussion Draft
TEP
Nov – Jan 2016 Ongoing Outreach / TEP
Adjustments
3.2-2
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
May 20, 2015
Page 3 of 3
S:\03-Authority Packets\2015 ccta\052015\TEP Ad Hoc\3.2 - Brdltr.CTP Adoption Schedule.rev3.docx
Date TEP CTP
Jan 20, 2016 CCTA approves Final Draft TEP
for review and approval by cities
and the County
CCTA releases Draft SEIR and
Draft CTP for public review
Feb – April 2016 Ongoing outreach / cities and
County approval of Final Draft
TEP
45-day public review period
April 2016 Prepare responses to
comments and prepare final
May 18, 2016 CCTA Certifies Final CTP SEIR, Adopts Final CTP, Adopts Final TEP,
and forwards final Expenditure Plan and Ordinance to cities/County
for review and approval.
May – June, 2016 Cities and County approve final
Expenditure Plan and Ordinance
July 20, 2016 CCTA forwards Final TEP to BOS
for consideration on the Nov
2016 ballot
Publish Final CTP
July - Nov 2016 Educational Outreach
Nov 8, 2016 Election Day
3.2-3
PERFORMANCE TARGETS
PLAN BAY AREA – JULY 2013
Target No. Goal Description
1 Climate Protection Target #1: Reduce per-capita CO2 emissions from cars
and light-duty trucks by 15 percent.
2 Adequate Housing Target # 2: House 100 percent of the region’s projected
growth by income level (very-low, low, moderate,
above-moderate) without displacing current low-income
residents.
3 Healthy and Safe Communities
Reduce Particulate Matter
Target # 3a: Reduce premature deaths from exposure to
fine particulates (PM 2.5) by 10 percent.
Target # 3b: Reduce coarse particulate emissions (PM10)
by 30 percent.
Target # 3c: Achieve greater reductions in highly
impacted areas.
4 Reduce Injuries and Fatalities
from Collisions
Target # 4: Reduce by 50 percent the number of injuries
and fatalities from all collisions (including bike and
pedestrian).
5 Active Transport Target # 5: Increase the average daily time walking or
biking per person for transportation by 70 percent (for
an average of 15 minutes per person per day).
6 Open Space and Agricultural
Land
Target # 6: Direct all non-agricultural development
within the year 2010 urban footprint (existing urban
development and urban growth boundaries).
7 Equitable Access Target # 7: Decrease by 10 percentage points (to 56
percent from 66 percent) the share of low-income and
lower-middle income residents’ household income
consumed by transportation and housing.
8 Economic Vitality Target # 8: Increase gross regional product (GRP) by 110
percent – an average annual growth rate of
approximately 2 percent (in current dollars).
9 Transportation System
Effectiveness
Increase Non-Auto Mode Share
Target # 9a: Increase non-auto mode share by 10
percentage points (to 26 percent of trips).
Reduce VMT per Capita Target # 9b: Decrease automobile vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) per capita by 10 percent.
10 Transportation System
Effectiveness
Local Road Maintenance
Target # 10a: Increase local road pavement condition
index (PCI) to 75 or better.
Highway Maintenance Target # 10b: Decrease distressed lane-miles of state
highways to less than 10 percent of total lane-miles.
Transit Maintenance Target # 10c: Reduce the share of transit assets past
their useful life to 0 percent.
3.2-4
Attachment A