HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09152015 - D.7RECOMMENDATION(S):
ACCEPT a report on CCTA's development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan and potential sales tax ballot
measure; DIRECT staff as appropriate, including potentially returning to the Board with a draft comment letter to
CCTA, as recommended by the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. The recommendation addresses an outside agency's actions.
BACKGROUND:
Table of Contents/Summary of Recommendations:
1] INTRODUCTION
Recommendation: None, information only.
2] PROCESS: Relevant statutes, etc.
Recommendation: Initiate a dialog with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) on the proposed process
to adopt and implement a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP).
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 09/15/2015 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
Contact: John Cunningham,
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: September 15, 2015
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: , Deputy
cc: Steve Kowalewski, Julie Bueren, Rich Seithel, John Kopchik, Maureen Toms
D. 7
To:Board of Supervisors
From:TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Date:September 15, 2015
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Report on the Development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan and potential sales tax ballot measure by the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
3] CCTA UPDATE: Polling information
Recommendation: None, information only.
4] COMMITTEE INPUT: Regional Transportation Planning Committees and Expenditure Plan Advisory
Committee
Recommendation: None, information only.
5] MAINTENANCE AND THE “LOCAL STREETS MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM” : Discussion regarding level of funding needed and state transportation initiatives
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt a position on the level of maintenance
funding in a new TEP consistent with the recommendations provided by the Regional Transportation Planning
Committees (RTPCs).
6] ACCESSIBLE SERVICES/MOBILITY MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES
Recommendation: Staff recommends sending communication to CCTA and Contra Costa County transit districts
that:
1) Re-asserts the position that implementation and funding of mobility management is a priority, highlighting the
Santa Clara mobility management/brokerage model and cost information provided in this report,
2) Formally requests participation in the OUTREACH/Santa Clara County tour from CCTA and transit district
leadership,
3) Recommends that eligibility for any transit operations program funding in the TEP is contingent on
participation in the implementation of a mobility management program and other identified improvements, and
4) Asserts that it is the intent of the Board of Supervisors to insulate the existing paratransit client population from
service degradation or interruptions as implementation efforts move ahead and requests that CCTA and the transit
providers adopt the same position.
7] BETTER COORDINATION OF LAND USE: AN ALTERNATIVE FORM OF TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board provide initial feedback on these concepts.
8] BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
Recommendation: Staff recommends sending communication to CCTA proposing the development and funding
of a bicycle project and program strategy that substantially increases the County’s trip-by-bike rate.
9] MAJOR PROJECTS
Recommendation: Staff recommends communicating BOS project priorities for a TEP to CCTA.
1] INTRODUCTION
The CCTA, on behalf of its member agencies, is currently developing both a Countywide Transportation Plan
(CTP) and Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP):
CTP development is a requirement of our Growth Management Program (GMP). The GMP is a
requirement of Measure J (2004), the current countywide ½ cent transportation sales tax.
The TEP is being developed for inclusion in a possible 2016 ballot measure for a new transportation sales
tax.
The proposed sales tax would be for 25 years (expiring in 2042), for ½ cent, running concurrently with
Measure J (expiring in 2034) and is forecasted to generate $2.3 billion.
As established in the October 21, 2014 letter to CCTA regarding the CTP, the Board of Supervisors has not
yet endorsed the proposed transportation sales tax.
The Board of Supervisor’s October 2014 letter to CCTA (attached) established that, prior to supporting such a
measure, the County 1) expects additional outreach to member jurisdictions, including members of the Board of
Supervisors, 2) needs to consider conflicts with other public finance priorities, and 3) will consider if the need for
additional funding justifies a new transportation sales tax.
The information and activities described in this report provide additional policy and technical information on
CCTA's TEP relative to the priorities set by the Board of Supervisors in the October 2014 letter. Concepts that
have not been previously discussed by the Board of Supervisors are identified as new where appropriate.
This report is being brought before the Board of Supervisors to:
1) Discuss the statutory process and authority under which a transportation sales tax measure would be developed
and brought before the Board of Supervisors,
2) Provide additional information and analysis in support of Board of Supervisors refining its position and
priorities for possible inclusion in a comment letter to CCTA (to be considered at a future Board of Supervisors
meeting), and
3) Update members on recent activities that have taken place relative to TEP development.
The broad recommendation of this report is to "DIRECT staff as appropriate, including potentially returning to
the Board with a draft comment letter to CCTA …" Explicit recommendations in specific areas are found in the
Table of Contents above and repeated at the end of each of the topical sections below in bold, and underline.
Statewide Context: In order to better understand the statewide context relative to transportation related taxes, the
table Transportation Related Taxes in California is attached.
In summary, there are eight counties that have multiple, concurrent transportation and transit sales taxes. Seven
counties are located in the San Francisco Bay Area, with the eighth being Los Angeles County.
The most recent example in the Bay Area is Alameda County’s Measure BB which passed in November 2014 with
70% support. Measure BB, which is forecast to generate $8 billion in revenue, renewed an existing ½ cent
transportation sales tax and increased the sales tax by ½ cent for 30 years.
Three counties have transportation sales taxes that are more than 1% (Alameda, Los Angeles, and Santa Clara),
and Santa Clara is considering an additional .5% for 2016.
Information Not Available For This Report
The following information was not available at the time this report was submitted. However, staff anticipates the
information being available by the September 15th Board of Supervisors meeting:
1: CCTA’s most recent polling results (CCTA and consultant staff have confirmed they will be present at the
September 15th discussion.
2: The minutes and summary from the August 10th Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee.
History: Reports on this issue have been brought to previous Board of Supervisors meetings. Those reports
included a substantial amount of background information and are available at the following links:
June 16, 2015
http://64.166.146.245/docs/2015/Board of Supervisors/20150616_591/601_6-16-15%20Board of
Supervisors%20Packet.pdf#page=1222
October 21, 2014
http://64.166.146.245/docs/2014/Board of
http://64.166.146.245/docs/2014/Board of
Supervisors/20141021_482/493_10-21-14_1410_AGENDApacket.pdf#page=453
September 23, 2014
http://64.166.146.245/docs/2014/Board of
Supervisors/20140923_476/487_09-23-14_1017_AGENDApacket.pdf#page=28
2] PROCESS: Proposed 0.5% Sales Tax Increase for the Support of Countywide Transportation Projects and
Programs
In 1988, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure C, a transportation sales tax measure. In November 2004,
the voters approved Measure J to continue the half-cent transportation sales tax for 25 more years beyond the
original expiration date of 2009. According to the CCTA’s website, Measure C was approved by 71% of the voters.
Statutory Setting: The Legislature has limited the maximum combined rate of sales, transactions and use taxes
that can be imposed in California at 9.5% (the “cap”). Cities and counties may collectively impose up to 2% of
this amount.
The cities of Richmond, Moraga and Pinole each have sales and use tax rates at the 9.5% cap.
Last year, El Cerrito obtained special legislation that allowed it to exceed the 2% cap by 0.5%. City voters
approved the additional 0.5% sales tax effective January 1, 2015, increasing the sales tax rate in El Cerrito to 10%.
In 2013, the Legislature amended Sections 7291 and 7292 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, allowing Alameda
County and Contra Costa County each to impose a one-half cent (0.5%) transactions and use tax for countywide
transportation programs above the maximum sales tax rate cap of 9.5%.
Specifically, Revenue and Taxation Code section 7291 states:
Notwithstanding any other law, the County of Alameda and the County of Contra Costa may each impose a
transactions and use tax for the support of countywide transportation programs at a rate of no more than
0.5 percent that would, in combination with all taxes imposed pursuant to Part 1.6 (commencing with
Section 7251), exceed the limit established in Section 7251.1, if all of the following requirements are met:
(a) The county adopts an ordinance proposing the transactions and use tax by any applicable voting
approval requirement.
(b) The ordinance proposing the transactions and use tax is submitted to the electorate and is approved by
the voters voting on the ordinance pursuant to Article XIII C of the California Constitution.
(c) The transactions and use tax conforms to the Transactions and Use Tax Law, Part 1.6 (commencing with
Section 7251), other than Section 7251.1.
Because this legislation authorizes a new one-half cent (0.5%) transactions and use tax, for countywide
transportation programs “notwithstanding any other law,” a new half-cent sales tax increase could be proposed to
the Contra Costa County voters in November 2016, even though the result would be that the sales and use tax
rates in some cities in this County would exceed the 9.5% cap (i.e., the sales and use tax rate in Richmond,
Moraga and Pinole would increase to 10% and the rate in El Cerrito would increase to 10.5%).
Under this authority, in November 2014, Alameda County voters approved Measure BB, which increased the
local sales tax by 0.5% to support local transportation programs.
To implement a similar sales tax in Contra Costa County to support transportation programs, the ordinance
proposing the special tax would need to be approved by four members of the Board of Supervisors and thereafter
by two-thirds of qualified voters voting in the election, (R&T § 7287.5, Gov. Code § 53724(b), PUC § 180201).
The authority to impose this tax expires if the voters have not approved the new tax by December 31, 2020.
Recommendation:Initiate a dialog with CCTA on the process to adopt and implement a TEP, in the event the
effort receives the necessary support from the cities, County, and CCTA Board.
3] CCTA UPDATE
Polling: CCTA is conducting public opinion surveys of Contra Costa residents to assist in identifying CTP and
TEP projects and programs most likely to accomplish public objectives and improve transportation and growth
management, while sustaining the quality of life in Contra Costa.
The most recent poll was only just recently completed; results were not available at the time this report was
published. This latest poll included 800 Contra Costa County voters likely to vote in November 2016. It was
conducted between the dates of August 26 and September 3, 2015. The survey has a margin of error of +- 3.5%.
Respondents were split into four sample groups with each receiving one of four sample potential sales tax
measures. The sample sales tax measures tested were a 1/2 cent county specific tax; a 1/4 cent county specific tax;
a 1/2 cent CCTA specific tax and a 1/4 cent CCTA specific tax. The survey also studied the effect of a potential
BART bond measure sharing the November 2016 ballot.
CCTA and consultant staff will be present at the September 15 Board of Supervisors meeting to discuss the
results of the poll and respond to questions.
Recommendation: None, information only.
4] COMMITTEE INPUT
Input on the TEP is being brought to CCTA through a number of forums which were listed in the June 16, 2015
report to the Board of Supervisors. Included below is input from the a) Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee,
and b) Regional Transportation Planning Committees.
a) Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC) TEP Input: CCTA formed this committee as a part of its
comprehensive outreach program for TEP development. Membership on the committee reflects a broad range of
issues and interests in the County including environmental, construction, bicycling, labor, elder issues, etc. The
complete roster is attached. EPAC met on June 3, 2015; these meeting minutes are attached (EPAC 6-3-15
Meeting Minutes). CCTA provided the following summary of "common themes" expressed at the meeting:
• Interest in developing a balanced plan that voters will support.
• Using the Urban Limit Line to encourage density and development in the right places, expressed by both
environmental and business advocates.
• Continuing to use funding from a potential ballot measure to leverage additional moneys, co-invest with other
public agencies, and fill gaps resulting from State cutbacks.
• Identifying performance standards for the transportation system that facilitate comparison of options.
b) Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs)
The RTPCs were given the following targets to meet:
Below is a summary table the input provided to CCTA from the RTPCs (Also attached as RTPC TEP Input):
TRANSPAC
Programs Cost
(x1000)
% of
Share
Local Streets Maintenance/Multi-Modal
Improvements $206,100 30.0%
Bike/Pedestrian/Trail Enhancement and
Maintenance $20,000 2.9%
Transportation for Seniors and Disabled $21,300 3.1%
Safe Routes to School $10,800 1.6%
Increased Bus to BART $57,900 8.4%
Commute Alternatives $10,000 1.5%
Transportation for Livable Communities $24,700 3.6%
Technology Upgrades $20,000 2.9%
Subtotal Programs $370,800 54.0%
RTPC TOTAL $687,000 100.0%
Capital Projects Cost
(x1000)
% of
Share
New BART Cars $10,000 1.5%
I-680/SR-4 Interchange $60,000 8.7%
SR-242/Clayton Road On/Off Ramps $17,700 2.6%
I-680 Operational Improvements $15,000 2.2%
SR-4 Operational Improvement $30,000 4.4%
Pacheco Boulevard Widening $20,300 3.0%
Alhambra Avenue Widening $10,000 1.5%
Galindo Street Corridor Improvements $4,400 0.6%
Contra Costa Boulevard/Concord Avenue
Interchange $24,000 3.5%
Clayton Road/Treat Boulevard Intersection $1,000 0.1%
Ygnacio Valley Road Complete Streets $20,000 2.9%
Concord Boulevard Complete Streets $8,000 1.2%
Willow Pass Road Capacity/Complete Streets $5,000 0.7%
Contra Costa Boulevard Complete Streets - Phase
Five and Six $12,800 1.9%
Gregory Lane Complete Streets $17,700 2.6%
Pleasant Hill Road Complete Streets - Phase Two
and Three $16,600 2.4%
West Downtown Public Improvements $24,000 3.5%
Olympic Corridor Bike/Trail Connector $11,700 1.7%
Ferry Service $8,000 1.2%
Subtotal DRAFT Capital Projects $316,200 46.0%
TRANSPLAN
Programs Cost
(x1,000)
% of
Share
Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements $198,227 30.0%
Pedestrian/Bike $9,911 1.5%
Transportation for Seniors and Disabled $46,914 7.1%
Safe Transportation for Children/"Street Smarts"$8,259 1.2%
Bus Service $33,038 5.0%
Express Bus $13,876 2.1%
Commute Alternatives $6,608 1.0%
TLC $16,519 2.5%
Ferry Service in East County $6,608 1.0%
Subregional Transportation Needs $10,110 1.5%
Subtotal DRAFT Programs $350,070 53.0%
Capital Projects Cost
(x1,000)
% of
Share
Major Streets in East County $20,000 3.0%
BART Parking/Access/Other Improvements $10,000 1.5%
BART Safety and System Reliability $10,000 1.5%
eBART (Antioch to Brentwood)$80,000 12.1%
Tri-Link (SR-239 - Brentwood to Tracy
Expressway)$120,000 18.2%
SR-4 Operational Improvements $30,000 4.5%
Vasco Road Improvements $40,000 6.1%
Subtotal DRAFT Capital Projects $310,000 46.9%
SWAT
Programs Cost
(x1,000)
% of
Share
Local Streets & Roads (Option A)1 $134,000 30.0%
Local Streets & Roads (Option B)2 $112,000 25.0%
Pedestrian/Bike/TLC/Complete Streets $40,000 8.9%
Transportation for Seniors $10,000 2.2%
Safe Transportation for Children $25,000 5.6%
Expanded Transit Access to BART $60,000 13.4%
Commute Alternatives $5,000 1.1%
Technology Upgrades (Signal Coordination, etc.) $5,000 1.1%
Option A Subtotal DRAFT Programs $279,000 62.4%
Option B Subtotal DRAFT Programs $257,000 57.4%
Option A RTPC TOTAL $448,000 100.1%
Option B RTPC TOTAL $448,000 100.1%
Capital Projects Cost
(x1,000)
% of
Share
Major Streets $16,000 3.6%
Expanded BART Service (Option A)1 $28,000 6.3%
Expanded BART Service (Option B)2 $50,000 11.2%
I-680 Transit Congestion Relief $80,000 17.9%
SR-24 Interchange Operational Improvements $20,000 4.5%
PDA Bypass (Lafayette)$25,000 5.6%
Option A Subtotal DRAFT Capital Projects $169,000 37.8%
Option B Subtotal DRAFT Capital Projects $191,000 42.7%
WCCTAC
Programs Cost
(x1,000)
% of
Share
Local Streets/Sidewalk Maintenance $152,329 28.0%
Pedestrian, Bike, Trails $27,202 5.0%
Transportation for Seniors and Disabled $27,202 5.0%
Safe Routes to School $5,440 1.0%
Student Bus Pass Program $27,202 5.0%
Bus Service Improvements $54,403 10.0%
Commute Alternatives (TDM) $2,720 0.5%
Ferry Service in West County $27,202 5.0%
Subregional Transportation Needs $2,720 0.5%
Richmond Pkwy Maintenance $13,601 2.5%
Clean Transportation $10,881 2.0%
No Displacement from PDAs $10,881 2.0%
Subtotal DRAFT Programs $361,783 66.5%
RTPC Total $544,034 100.0%
Capital Projects Cost
(x1,000)
% of
Share
Major Roads, Bridges, Grade Separations $13,600 2.5%
BART (Station, Safety, Other Improvements) $43,523 8.0%
I-80 Interchange Improvements $59,844 11.0%
High Capacity Transit Improvements $54,403 10.0%
Hercules Intermodal Transit Center $10,881 2.0%
Subtotal DRAFT Capital Projects $182,251 33.5%
*At the 8/3/2015 SWAT Committee meeting, the SWAT Committee was split on whether to allocate 30% to
Local Streets and Roads or allocate only 25% to Local Streets and Roads and increase funding to expanded
BART service. The SWAT Committee approved the Draft SWAT TEP with a split in vote on the amount to
allocate to Local Streets and Roads and expanded BART service.
1 Option A based on Draft SWAT TEP proposal with 30% dedicated to Local Streets and Roads
2 Option B based on Draft SWAT TEP proposal with 25% dedicated to Local Streets and Roads and increased
funding to expanded BART service
5] MAINTENANCE AND THE “LOCAL STREETS MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM”
Due to the well-documented need, the Board of Supervisors previously supported increases in maintenance
funding in communication both to CCTA and the State. The information below is provided to establish a more
explicit basis on which to request increases in maintenance funding and identify an amount. Ultimately, this
information would be distributed to CCTA in support of the Board of Supervisors efforts to increase maintenance
funding.
Maintenance funding in the TEP has generated substantial dialog in many forums, in particular the RTPCs and the
Public Managers Association/City-County Engineering Advisory Committee.
Generally, the conversation is in these areas:
What is the need for new maintenance funding and how much funding should be dedicated to maintenance
in a new TEP?
a.
How much transportation funding will be available from the state in the future (may impact the amount in
a) above)?
b.
a) Level of Need for Funding for Maintenance in a New TEP: Currently, Measure J provides 18% for the
maintenance program referred to as "Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements". Due to the well documented
maintenance backlog (see the problem statement in the attached, "Fix our Roads Fact Sheet"), there is general
consensus that maintenance funding needs to be substantially increased. The dialog at the RTPCs and various staff
committees has focused on how much of an increase is appropriate. The following information is being submitted
in support of the staff recommendation for a specified maintenance funding level in a new TEP.
Detailed information on the maintenance backlog is available in the attached documents. State level information
can be seen in the aforementioned – attached Fix our Roads Fact Sheet, and regional data can be seen in the
Pavement Condition Index* (PCI) from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Pavement
Management Program (MTC CC County PCI). This information is summarized below:
• MTC performed a 24-year analysis that establishes how much funding is necessary to bring roads up to a state
of good repair, assuming consistent revenues. The analysis shows a revenue shortfall in unincorporated Contra
Costa County of approximately $179 million in pavement needs. If related, non-pavement needs are included
($263 million), that shortfall increases to $442 million.
If the proposed new 30% TEP program for Local, Streets Maintenance funding is added to MTC’s assumed
revenue (approximately $93 million in the 24- year analysis period for unincorporated Contra Costa), there would
still be an $87 million shortfall in pavement needs alone for unincorporated Contra Costa County (in the 24-year
analysis period). The shortfall is $350 million if the related, non-pavement needs are included.
In addition to the MTC projections, Contra Costa County Public Works Department (PWD) tracks PCI in the
unincorporated area. Their data indicates an even larger shortfall than the MTC data.
Important Notes
Maintaining roads in a "state of good repair" is not solely to provide a smooth driving experience for the
driver, it is primarily a critical, long-term cost saving measure. If pavement condition is allowed to
degrade, expensive rehabilitation and reconstruction is ultimately required. The cost of rehabilitation and
reconstruction dwarfs the relatively small maintenance investment which greatly extends the original
construction investment.
While pavement condition data and costs are most frequently reported, the directly related, non-pavement
needs exceed the pavement needs. These non-pavement needs are included in this discussion because they
are inextricably linked to road maintenance costs and activities. Some of these costs include signage, traffic
signal systems, shoulder maintenance, lighting, drainage/stormwater infrastructure (culverts, gutter,
hydrauger, etc.), clean water infrastructure requirements, guardrail/crash cushion, sweeping, landscaping,
street trees, curb/sidewalk, retaining walls, etc. This is an incomplete list.
The establishment of additional maintenance funding could improve the County’s competitiveness in grant
applications. In particular, sustainable infrastructure grants often have a landscaping component. Currently,
the County does not have adequate maintenance funding to maintain new landscaping. In this example,
either we would not compete well with those applications or we would forego the grant opportunity.
There are other assessments districts and revenue sources that can assist in funding some of the
non-pavement costs mentioned above. However, those sources are not always available consistently
throughout the unincorporated area and the available revenue stream is typically overwhelmed by costs.
The Area of Benefit programs only fund capital costs, not maintenance.
*PCI is expressed by a number between 0 and 100 and is used to indicate the general condition of a pavement.
Widely used in transportation civil engineering, it is a statistical measure and requires a pavement survey.
b) State Transportation Funding: There has been substantial dialog regarding two emerging state level
transportation funding initiatives that could impact the decision on how much maintenance funding to dedicate in
the TEP:
The recent convening of a special session of the legislature to address state transportation
funding/budgeting, and
The relatively new Cap & Trade Program.
These state initiatives are being discussed in the context of a new local transportation sales tax. If substantial new
state transportation revenues are provided to local jurisdictions it could reduce the need for TEP dedications to
maintenance. In considering the dynamic between local and state funding the following should be considered:
• New State Transportation Funding Initiative
State revenues are potentially less useful than revenue from a local measure because the control of the revenue
stream is with the state and expenditure priorities may not be flexible or correspond with local priorities.
However, the special session currently underway is considering a partial solution to this situation. Mark Watts, our
state legislative advocate, is tracking these discussions closely continues to provide updates to staff. Discussions
include placing funding formulas in statute with a follow-up constitutional amendment to prohibit reallocations.
Without these fixes, the reliability of state revenues is somewhat speculative. This is distinct from local funds
which are insulated from being used for other purposes. Local funds are relatively stable for the life of local
transportation measures, subject only to the performance of the overall economy.
The outcome of the special session is currently unknown although it will be known prior to the adoption of the
TEP. Mr. Watts and CCTA staff are closely monitoring the special session and CCTA staff will inform the CCTA
Board of any actions that could impact our local TEP decision making.
Given the glaring maintenance shortfall that remains even after an assumed increase in local maintenance funds,
staff does not consider the potential for increased state maintenance funding and funding reliability as
substantially off-setting the need for increases in local maintenance funding. (The current proposal from the
Governor’s office (9/8/15), as we understand it at this time, does not come close to funding the gap discussed in
the “Level of Need for Funding” section above.)
• Cap-and-Trade Program*: Currently, the only transportation programs in the Cap-and-Trade expenditure plan
are high speed rail, intercity rail, and the transit-oriented development grant program. There have been discussions
about using Cap-and-Trade funding for maintenance but this is unlikely. In theory, the transit-oriented grant
program could offset programs in either our existing Measure J or the proposed augmentation. However,
Cap-and-Trade funds are granted through a statewide competitive grant, rather than the programmatic manner in
which local sales taxes are often disbursed.
The Cap-and-Trade Program is relatively new and the expenditure plan is likely to evolve and expand over time.
However, any evolution in funding eligibility is constrained in that projects must have a clear nexus between
project character/activity and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This typically prevents the funds from being
used for routine maintenance. Future Cap-and-Trade programs are more of an unknown and the revenue stream is
more unprotected relative to our local funding.
Staff does not consider Cap-and-Trade revenues as substantially off-setting the need for increases in local
maintenance funding.
In summary of the discussion above, even in the event that a substantial amount of maintenance funding is
established in the proposed TEP, and the State increases funds to local jurisdictions for maintenance, the deferred
maintenance demand will continue to greatly exceed revenues, at a minimum in the short term. If, in the
long-term, we have achieved our target PCI, the TEP can be amended to redistribute funds to higher priority
projects.
*Cap-and-Trade defined: The California Cap-and-Trade Program is a market-based mechanism to lower
greenhouse gas emissions. This mechanism is intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from regulated
entities by more than 16 percent between 2013 and 2020. Under Cap-and-Trade, companies must hold enough
emission allowances to cover their emissions, and are free to buy and sell allowances on the open market.
Companies must purchase allowances at an auction. Auction revenues are spent according to a state adopted
program. Program activities must have a direct nexus to greenhouse gas reduction.
Other Considerations
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Tax Increase: Similar to the deferred maintenance backlog faced by
transportation agencies, BART has a substantial unfunded maintenance program. In BART's recent report on their
2015-2024 Capital Improvement program, BART has reported a $4.8 billion shortfall in funding. BART has plans
to seek authorization from the voters in 2016 for a tax increase.
Other Staff Input: The Contra Costa Public Managers Association (PMA) and City County Engineering
Advisory Committee (CCEAC) are both discussing the matter. Final input is not yet available from these groups.
However, at the time of the submission of this report, the majority of PMA and CCEAC members support 30%
maintenance program.
Expansive Definition of Maintenance: The dialog regarding increases in maintenance funding has been
somewhat confounded by the evolving definition of what activities are included in "maintenance" projects.
The existing Measure J Expenditure Plan includes the following categories – Transportation for Livable
Communities, and Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trail Facilities – which, directly or indirectly, support alternatives to
auto-based travel. At the time these project categories were developed (early 2000's), the state of transportation
planning and engineering was such that if there was a desire for funds to be dedicated to these types of activities,
they needed to be called out separately. Over 10 years later, transportation planning and engineering has evolved,
advocacy efforts related to safety, livability, and the expansion of alternatives to the automobile have changed the
state-of-the-practice.
With this evolution, the current dialog on maintenance funding has struggled to keep up with the
state-of-the-practice which is now that consideration/accommodation of pedestrians and cyclists in all
transportation projects is typically obligatory in some manner. This is not to say these "alternative" programs
should necessarily be reduced or subsumed in to the general maintenance category. Rather, decision makers
should consider that there is overlap between the categories of maintenance, bicycle/pedestrian trails,
transportation for livable communities, etc.
In addition to including alternative modes in transportation projects, our well-documented deferred maintenance
costs are magnified by ever stricter water quality requirements. Transportation projects, new construction and
maintenance, are required to have runoff and pollution controls installed with the project to meet requirements in
our Municipal Regional Stormwater/National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit.
Recommendation:Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt a position on the level of maintenance
funding in a new TEP consistent with the recommendations provided by the RTPCs*.
* RTPC Local Streets Maintenance Recommendations: TRANSPAC = 30%, TRANSPLAN = 30%, SWAT =
25-30%, WCCTAC = 28%.
6] ACCESSIBLE SERVICES/MOBILITY MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES
Notes:
Accessible Services: The type of transit service discussed in this section is referred to in shorthand as “accessible
services”. This includes many different types of service provided by different types of agencies including
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandated paratransit service, senior/disabled service provided by private
non-profit providers, mobility management programs, volunteer based programs, cities, community based
programs, etc.
Mobility Management Defined: Mobility management is a strategic approach to service coordination and
customer service, directing passengers to the most appropriate and cost-effective transportation service
providers. A well-managed service area provides a full range of well synchronized mobility services in a cost
effective manner.
This issue was included as a priority in the October 2014 letter from the Board of Supervisors to CCTA. The letter
emphasized the need for additional funding along with the need for "fundamental administrative changes". This
issue is longstanding, and was a Board of Supervisors priority during the reauthorization of Measure C in 2004,
(see attached letter: 2004 Board of SupervisorstoCCTA Comments Re Measure C Reauthorization).
Primary barriers to progress on this issue are 1) accessible transit responsibilities are diffused (geographically and
organizationally) throughout the county resulting in no single agency or organization falling naturally into a
leadership role, 2) understandable resistance to implementing a countywide service that is now provided
sub-regionally, 3) similar understandable resistance to changes in the way service is provided to a sensitive
population, and 4) the initial investment necessary in an agency or organization that will be necessary to develop
adequate administrative, technical and operational capacities to implement necessary changes.
The information below is provided to address some of the barriers listed above and to establish a more explicit
rationale and more specific proposal on how we can make progress. Ultimately, this information could be
distributed to CCTA and the transit providers in the County to pursue a more coordinated approach to improve
accessible services.
Accessible Services Topics:
Issue Summarya.
Increasing Costsb.
Contra Costa County Mobility Management Planc.
2014 Federal Transit Administration Study: Accessible Transit Services For Alld.
Contra Costa County Public Works/General Services Involvemente.
Santa Clara County – OUTREACH Tourf.
Coordination requirementsg.
Acknowledgment of Sensitivityh.
a) Issue Summary: In order to cost effectively manage a range of accessible services, an agency must be able to
manage:
Clients with a wide range of intellectual and physical capacities,
Transportation service providers with different vehicles/drivers/costs/capacities,
deployment of new technology and systems in an seamless and effective manner,
An array of funding sources with different policy eligibility and geographic eligibility,
Trips with an array of origins/destinations (as opposed to fixed route bus service with set routes/stops), The
co-mingling of the aforementioned funds, clients, and trips.
An agency with the capabilities mentioned above is relatively sophisticated and will require an investment. Due to
economies of scale with such an operation, such an investment is not likely to be efficient on a sub-regional level;
the return on investment is only likely to be reasonable if it is made on a countywide scale.
b) Increasing Costs: Costs for the provision of specific, required ADA paratransit by transit operators have
increased as has been predicted for some time. Cost figures for Contra Costa County transit operators are
provided below. The cost figures for Santa Clara County paratransit provider OUTREACH is also provided for
context given the discussion further below in this report.
Data source: 2004-2013 National Transit Database (NTD)
ADA Paratransit is reported as “demand response” in the NTD reporting system
"CC County Average" includes cost for AC Transit, County Connection, Tri Delta, and WestCAT demand
response services. Note that “VTA” is the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
The cost control shown by VTA-OUTREACH in the chart above is a result of a maturing mobility management
program combined with a brokerage model. A brokerage is a central operation which selects the most appropriate
and cost-effective transportation service providers for varying clients and trips and is provided by contractors to
the broker. OUTREACH fulfills VTA's Americans with Disabilities service obligations in addition to providing
other accessible services. OUTREACH is nationally recognized as a best-practice model for cost-effective
procurement/contracting and operating practices (See 2014 FTA Accessible Transit Study section below).
In order to address the cost increases, and to improve service, a fundamental change in the way accessible services
are administered is necessary. Mobility management was proposed in the Measure C reauthorization process and
is suggested in the current Mobility Management Plan discussed further below. Currently, each transit district
fulfills its ADA paratransit obligations independently, some cities provide additional accessible services to its
citizens, and some specialized programs that serve elder clients or clients with disabilities provide their own
transportation.
The recommendation in this report is for Contra Costa County and CCTA to examine the Santa Clara County
brokerage model as a potential operation to replicate as an eventual evolution of the Mobility Management Plan
mentioned above and discussed below. This approach would involve the countywide consolidation of services (as
opposed to agencies).
The provision of lower-cost transportation providers such as volunteer programs, sedan services, Uber/Lyft, etc.
alone will be inadequate to control costs. Efficient management of these resources, and the ability to quickly and
accurately connect appropriate clients with the most appropriate lower-cost transportation provider is critical in
reducing costs. Mobility Management and a brokerage model are not proposed in place of these lower-cost
services, but rather to enable them.
c) Contra Costa County Mobility Management Plan:
A County Connection led effort in 2013 resulted in the "Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan" (MMP) being
developed. The MMP provides recommendations for implementation of a program in the County:
Phase 1: Adoption of Plan
Obtain Transit Operator Support
County Connection Board Adoption
Forward MMP to CCTA for Implementation
Phase 2: Form MMP Oversight Board
Members include executive staff from County Connection, Tri-Delta Transit, WestCAT, AC Transit, CCTA,
BART, and three executives representing human service agencies
CCTA Presentation
Phase 3: Form a Consolidated Transportation Service Agency as the Mobility Management Agency
Oversight Board Hires Manager
Oversight Board Conducts Performance Review
Currently, the process is in Phase 2. A meeting of the MMP Oversight Board has been called. Staff will keep the
Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee and Board of Supervisors informed of progress on this
issue.
d) 2014 FTA Study: Accessible Transit Services for All
As mentioned in the Increasing Costs section above, the Federal Transit Administration released a study in 2014
called“Accessible Transit Services for All” which examined the state of accessible transit service in the
nationwide. The study is critical because of its comprehensive nature but also because it provides contemporary
examples of successful service models. Examination of current programs are important given the evolving nature
of the accessible transit services field.
An excerpt from the study is attached, "FTA Report: OUTREACH Excerpts", and information related to the
mobility management program, brokerage operation and associated cost savings are bookmarked and highlighted.
e) Contra Costa County Public Works/General Services Involvement
The FTA study mentioned above investigates the various reasons for the success of the OUTREACH program. Of
interest to the Board of Supervisors may be the involvement of Santa Clara County government in the operation.
As noted in the study, County government provides competitive pricing to OUTREACH and VTA for the
following: vehicle parking, vehicle maintenance, and bulk fuel purchase.
Staff from Public Works and Conservation and Development are currently exploring if this arrangement could be
replicated in Contra Costa County.
f) Santa Clara County – OUTREACH Tour
The Transportation, Water, Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) expressed support for a tour of the
OUTREACH/Santa Clara County operation and directed staff to begin making arrangements. Originally projected
to take place in September, the tour will take place later in the fall due to scheduling conflicts with OUTREACH.
g) Coordination Requirements : In order to compel and accelerate implementation of the recommendations of
the MMP and any outcomes or findings from the OUTREACH/Santa Clara County Tour, the Board of
Supervisors should consider recommending to CCTA that eligibility for transit funding in a new TEP is
contingent upon participation with mobility management and other identified efforts. This type of requirement is
not without precedent:
At the federal level, United States General Accounting Office produced a report in 2003,"Disadvantaged
Populations: Some Coordination Efforts Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, But
Obstacles Persist". The report found that increased coordination improved service and reduced costs.
Subsequent to this report, an Executive Order was issued directing increased coordination. With the next
Subsequent to this report, an Executive Order was issued directing increased coordination. With the next
iteration of the federal transportation funding authorization (SAFETEA-LU), coordination was required
pursuant to the Executive Order. To be eligible for certain federal transit funding for accessible type
services coordination was required. Those requirements continued with each subsequent funding program
and continuing resolution.
At the regional level, the MTC passes along the federal coordination requirements mentioned above to local
recipients of federal transit funding.
At the local level, requirements currently exist in Measure J, albeit not relative to transit funding. Local
jurisdictions are required to participate in, and demonstrate consistency with the Growth Management
Program in order to be eligible for "Local Streets Maintenance & Improvements" program.
h) Acknowledgement of Sensitivity
Compounding the complexity of implementing a system is the sensitive nature of the client population being
served. The existing client population should be insulated from any extreme or sudden changes in service
provision. This issue is reflected in recommendation #4 immediately below.
Recommendation: Staff recommends sending communication to CCTA and Contra Costa County transit districts
that:
Re-asserts the position that implementation and funding of mobility management is a priority highlighting
the Santa Clara brokerage model and cost information provided in this report;
1.
Formally requests participation in the OUTREACH/Santa Clara County tour from CCTA and transit district
leadership;
2.
Recommends that eligibility for any transit operations program funding in the TEP is contingent on
participation in implementation of the countywide mobility management program, and other identified
improvements;
3.
Establishes that it is the intent of the Board of Supervisors to insulate the existing paratransit client
population from service degradation or interruptions as implementation efforts move ahead and requests
that CCTA and the transit providers adopt the same position.
4.
7] BETTER COORDINATION OF LAND USE: AN ALTERNATIVE FORM OF TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM
The County’s October 2014 letter included a funding request for economic development supportive activities
under the heading of “Major Projects & Emerging Planning Initiatives”. Further detail included a funding request
for “transportation projects and programs, infrastructure improvements and other expenditures that facilitate
needed economic development.” This section is intended to expand on that idea, describe the connection to
transportation and suggest for discussion purposes some alternative approaches that could be further evaluated
and pursued for possible inclusion in the TEP.
The reverse-commute direction on regional routes is often under used. For example, State Route 4 in East Contra
Costa County carries approximately 30,000 vehicles during the westbound AM and Eastbound PM commute
direction. This is approximately 70% of the tot
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
If a comment letter is not transmitted, the Board will forgo an opportunity to provide input on the development of
the Transportation Expenditure Plan.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Speakers: Debbie Toth, Rehabilitation Services of Northern California; Mary Bruns, Lamorinda Spirit;
Vincent Wells, President Firefighters' Local 1230; Ella Jones, resident of San Pablo; Elaine L. Welch, Senior
Helpline Services; Ralph Hoffmann, resident of Walnut Creek.
Staff prepared a PowerPoint presentation regarding polling on a possible tax measure that was not yet
available at the time of publication of the agenda. By unanimous vote of all Supervisors present, the Better
Government Ordinance 96 hour time limit for material submission is WAIVED. (attached) In regard to
recommendation 7, Better Coordination of Land Use: An Alternative Form of Transportation Program, the
Board supported staff having further conversations with County Counsel and conducting further analysis
about policies designed to reduce transportation needs and stimulate growth, with more focus on creating job
opportunities where housing structure is already in place. The possible policy incentive(s) should include
consideration of Priority Industrial Area's, and infrastructure needs such as power and water. The Board
expressed a desire to have the matter of possibly pursuing a county-wide sales tax measure scheduled on an
October 2015 agenda. ADOPTED the recommendations of staff as presented today.
ATTACHMENTS
RTPC TEP Input
EPAC Roster (September 2015)
FTA Outreach Excerpts
10-21-14 BOSLettertoCCTAreCTP
Transportation Related Taxes in California
6-3-15 CCTA EPAC Mtg Minutes
Fix Our Roads Fact Sheet
MTC CC County PCI
2004 BOStoCCTA Comments Re Measure C Reauthorization
Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee
Meeting Date: September 14, 2015
Subject EPAC Membership
1. Bay Area Council
Mike Cunningham
Emily Loper (A)
2. Bike East Bay
Dave Campbell
Kenji Yamada (A)
3. Building and Construction Trades Council
Bob Lilley
Alternate to be determined
4. Building Industry Association
Lisa Vorderbrueggen
Bob Glover (A)
5. California Alliance for Jobs
Andy Fields
Michael Quigley (A)
6. Central Labor Council
Margaret Hanlon‐Gradie
Cheryl Brown (A)
7. Contra Costa Community College District
Tim Leong
Alternate to be determined
8. Contra Costa County Taxpayers Association
Jack Weir
Mike McGill (A)
9. Contra Costa County Office of Education
Bruce Burns
Terry Koehne (A)
Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee
September 14, 2015
Page 2 of 3
10. East Bay Economic Development Alliance
Dennis Freeman
Anne O (A)
11. East Bay Leadership Council
Kristin Connelly
Steve Van Wart (A)
12. East Bay Regional Park District
Sean Dougan
Erich Pfuehler (A)
13. Genesis
Reverend Hubert Ivery
Mary Lim‐Lampe (A)
14. Greenbelt Alliance
Joel Devalcourt
Tom Brickley (A)
15. Paratransit
Rita Xavier
Shirley Cressey (A)
16. Rehabilitation Services of Northern California
Debbie Toth
Tighe Boyle (A)
17. Save Mount Diablo
Ron Brown;
Seth Adams (A)
18. TRANSFORM
Joel Ramos
Geoffrey Johnson * (A)
19. United Contractors
Emily Cohen
Man‐Li Lin Kelly (A)
20. Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE)
David Sharples
Jovana Fajardo (A)
Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee
September 14, 2015
Page 3 of 3
21. Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative
Rich Seithel
Jamar Stamps * (A)
22. Sierra Club
Patrisha Piras
Matt Williams (A)
23. TRANSDEF
Peter Lydon
David Schonbrunn (A)
24. Urban Habitat
Bob Allen
Ellen Wu (A)
25. California Trucking Association
Eric Sauer
Chris Shimoda (A)
26. Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust
Kathryn Lyddan
To be determined (A)
27. Business Parks
Alex Mehran
Chris Truebridge (A)
28. Public Health
Rebecca Rozen *
Alternate to be determined
29. John Muir Trust
Linus Eukel *
Alternate to be determined
* Interim appointment by CCTA Chair
Accessible Transit Services for All
DECEMBER 2014
FTA Report No. 0081
Federal Transit Administration
PREPARED BY
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF)
Marilyn Golden
In collaboration with:
the Collaborative–David Chia
KFH Group–Buffy Ellis
TranSystems Corporation–Russell Thatcher
Excerpts re:
OUTREACH/
Santa Clara County/
VTA
Case StudiesAPPENDIX
D
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-1
APPENDIX D:
Case Studies
Twelve case studies were conducted to document actual practices in operating cost-effective ADA
complementary paratransit service and implementing inclusive service designs. The transit agencies
studied and the specific topics covered are shown in the table below. Case studies are presented in the
order listed.
Transit Agency/Provider Topics Studied
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
and Outreach and Escort Service, Inc. (OUTREACH),
San Jose, CA
Service design – brokerage;
Cost-effective procurement and contracting;
Cost-effective operating practices
Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT) and ACCESS
Transportation Systems, Inc.(ACCESS), Pittsburgh, PA
Service design – brokerage
Coordination
San Mateo County Transit District, San Carlos, CA General public demand responsive service;
Service design – contracted turnkey
STAR, Arlington County, VA
Service design – contracted call/control center with
contracted service providers;
Coordination;
Cost-effective contracting and procurement;
Cost-effective operating practices;
Use of taxis;
Use of technologies
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), Dallas, TX
Service design – contracted turnkey with taxi
component;
Contract monitoring;
Use of Technology
Pelivan Transit, Big Cabin, OK Coordination;
Use of Technologies
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(CapMetro), Austin, TX
Service design – in-house call/control center with
contracted service providers;
Use of taxis;
Flex-routes
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
(SEPTA), Philadelphia, PA
Cost-effective contracting and procurement;
Performance monitoring;
Use of technologies
Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public
Transportation Authority (NAIPTA), Flagstaff, AZ
Use of Taxis
Broward County Transit (BCT), Broward County, FL Community bus service
Utah Transit Authority (UTA), Salt Lake City, UT FLEX Route services
Metro Transit, Seattle, WA Coordination (Community Transportation Program);
Use of taxis
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
and Outreach and Escort Service, Inc. (OUTREACH),
San Jose, CA
Service design –brokerage;
Cost-effective procurement and contracting;p
Cost-effective operating practices
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-4
Agency: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and
Outreach and Escort Service, Inc. (OUTREACH),
San Jose, CA
Topics: Paratransit Service Design – Full Service Brokerage
Cost-effective Procurement and Contracting
Cost-effective Operating Practices
Background
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is an independent special district that is
responsible for multi-modal transportation planning and public transit services in Santa Clara County,
CA. VTA oversees the operation of fixed route transit—including light rail and fixed route bus
services—as well as ADA paratransit services throughout the county. VTA also serves as the
Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County and the cities that are located in the
county. As part of its role as the CMA, VTA conducts comprehensive countywide planning for highway
as well as transit services. VTA also partners with the state and with neighboring counties to provide
intercity rail services, commuter rail services, and regional bus services for the region.
VTA’s service area includes all of Santa Clara County, which is at the southern tip of San Francisco Bay.
There are 15 cities within the county, including the City of San Jose. Santa Clara County has a growing
population and is home to many of the country’s largest technology companies. The county covers 346
square-miles and had a population of 1,816,486 in 2013.
VTA operates a fleet of 99 light rail transit (LRT) cars over 42.2 miles of rail line that connect 62
stations. The LRT system is fully accessible to persons with disabilities. All grade-separated stations are
equipped with elevators. The majority also have escalators. And all platforms at stations provide level
boarding to the trains. LRT operates at 15 minute headways during peak hours, 15-30 minute headways
during mid-day and weekend hours, and 15-60 minutes headways at night. In fiscal year 2012, the VTA’s
Light Rail provided over 10.3 million unlinked passenger trips and had an average weekday ridership of
32,716.
VTA also operates an extensive fixed route bus service. A fleet of 426 buses operate over a network of
71 routes with 1,236 route miles. Ninety of the buses are hybrid powered low emission. VTA’s bus
route system includes 53 local routes and 18 express and limited stop routes. The bus system can be
reached by customers at 3,782 bus stops (2,220 with benches and/or shelters), 16 transit centers and 10
Park & Ride lots. All of VTA’s buses are accessible, with a mix of ramps and lifts. In fiscal year 2012, the
bus system provided over 32 million unlinked passenger trips and had an average weekday ridership of
104,583.
VTA encourages the use of its bus and light rail system by seniors and persons with disabilities by
offering community oriented travel training outreach services. This involvement in travel training grew
out of VTA’s 2008 FTA New Freedom funded Mobility Options Program.
The Mobility Options Program was initiated to provide persons with disabilities the skills and confidence
needed to independently travel on VTA’s transit system. VTA’s current travel training efforts, in
partnership with its’ ADA paratransit broker and other community social service agencies, focus on
increasing the use of fixed route services through a Train the Trainer Academy, Daycation events,
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and
Outreach and Escort Service, Inc. (OUTREACH),
San Jose, CA
Paratransit Service Design – Full Service Brokerage–
Cost-effective Procurement and Contracting
Cost-effective Operating Practices
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-5
educational campaigns, public outreach, and a mobility device Securement Marking and Tethering
program.
VTA’s ADA Paratransit Service
VTA provides ADA paratransit for persons with disabilities who are not able, because of their disability,
to use the fixed route rail or bus services. VTA’s ADA paratransit service is provided as part of a
coordinated transportation brokerage. The brokerage is managed by Outreach and Escort Service, Inc.
(OUTREACH), a regional non-profit public benefit agency.
The ADA paratransit service covers all origins and destinations that are within ¾-mile of non-commuter
bus routes, or within a ¾ mile radius of rail stations. VTA also provides “premium” service to origins
and destinations that are up to 1 mile outside these boundaries.
ADA paratransit is provided during the same days and hours as fixed route transit. Fares for ADA
paratransit are $4 per trip, twice the non-discounted fixed route adult fare.
ADA paratransit is provided on a “next day” basis. Eligible riders can call up to the close of the
reservations office to reserve a ride for any time the following day. Riders can also reserve trips up to 3
days in advance. The reservations office is open seven days a week, 365 days a year from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m. VTA also offers same day service on a space-available basis. Riders may use the IVR (Interactive
Voice Response) system for trip confirmations, trip cancellations and to book trips.
In FY 2012, a total of 775,553 trips were provided by a fleet of 255 vehicles composed of hybrid gas-
electric sedans, accessible minivans, raised-roof modified vans, and cutaway small buses. Average
weekday ridership was 2,742 with 7,095 eligible ADA paratransit customers taking at least one trip
during the fiscal year.
Riders can request trips based on either a desired arrival time (typically done for going trips with
appointments), or a desired pickup time (typically done for return trips). For return trips, riders can
either request a set pickup time, or can request an “Open Return” and call when they are ready. Open
returns are provided on a space available basis, are not offered for trips after 8 p.m. or on a subscription
basis, and riders can only request one Open Return trip per day. Policy allows open return pickups to
be made up to 90 minutes after a call is received, but in practice riders wait 15 to 30 minutes on
average. The fare for Open Return trips is also higher ($16) than the standard ADA paratransit fare.
Drivers provide assistance to and from the door. At larger facilities and apartment complexes, service is
provided to the exterior door of the lobby. Door-to-door service is provided as long as drivers do not
lose sight of their vehicles.
VTA also allows riders to make limited adjustments to return pickup locations. Return trip pickups can
be changed to be at a different location at the same facility, or to nearby addresses (such as across the
street from the original location). This flexibility was introduced to respond to changes in trips plans
that are sometimes outside of the rider’s control and to then prevent no-shows. Riders only need to call
before the start of their 30-minute pickup window to request a different, nearby pickup location.
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-6
ADA Paratransit Service Design within the OUTREACH Brokerage
and Mobility Management Center
VTA and OUTREACH have a longstanding contractual and working relationship, going back to 1993, for
the operation and management of the brokerage. OUTREACH had been providing specialized
transportation and individualized mobility options along with social services, information and assistance,
and individualized case management since the 1970s. OUTREACH and VTA were early adapters to
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and Information Technology (IT) for the paratransit program
dating back to the early 1990s and have continuously updated systems to reflect advancements in
technology. OUTREACH is somewhat atypical as a brokerage as it designs and implements many of its
own ITS and IT systems—often with the involvement of local volunteer talent.
OUTREACH Coordination and Mobility Management Services
OUTREACH serves as the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) for the region with its
first designation in 1982 and most recent re-designation in 2013. This is a designation bestowed by the
San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in accordance with California’s
Social Service Transportation Improvement Act of 1979.
MTC is both the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) and the (Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, and in this capacity serves as a
designated recipient of federal transportation funding. Under more recent federal requirements, MTC
has developed a “blueprint” for implementing a range of strategies intended to promote and advance
local efforts to improve transportation for persons with disabilities, older adults, and persons with low-
incomes. The Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan (Coordinated Plan) first
developed in 2007 and revised in 2013 emphasizes the designation of CTSAs to avert duplication of
efforts, to oversee a number of diverse funding sources, to facilitate sub-regional mobility management
and transportation coordination and to help build continuity of services between public transit,
paratransit and health and human service transportation.
CTSAs are recognized by the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and allowed to procure
goods and services on the state contract. As the county’s CTSA, OUTREACH endeavors to reduce
service costs coordinating health and human services transportation and public paratransit services,
enhance the efficient use of vehicles, purchase insurance and equipment at reduced costs, coordinate
grant applications, and register its vehicles at discounted prices, among other coordination activities
across a range of training, educational, and mobility options.
Through its one-stop eligibility and call center, the OUTREACH brokerage coordinates services to
varied customers including but not limited to:
xPersons with Disabilities who are Certified ADA Eligible
xRegional Center persons with Developmental Disabilities
xNon/Limited English Speaking Riders
xRefugees/Immigrants
xSeniors
xHomeless Riders
xChildren, Youth and Families
xVeterans
xTransportation Disadvantaged
xResidents of Institutional Settings
Through its one-stop eligibility and call center, the OUTREACH brokerage coordinates services to
varied customers including but not limited to:
x Persons with Disabilities who are Certified ADA Eligible
x Regional Center persons with Developmental Disabilities
x Non/Limited English Speaking Riders
x Refugees/Immigrants
x Seniors
x Homeless Riders
x Children, Youth and Families
x Veterans
x Transportation Disadvantaged
x Residents of Institutional Settings
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-7
xWelfare-to-Work and Low Income
xManaged Care Riders
xIndividuals Living in Communities of Concern
xMembers of Faith Based Groups and Participants of Community Based Organizations/Non-
profits
To serve this variety of riders, OUTREACH coordinates a number of funding sources, including but not
limited to:
xFTA Job Access and Reverse Commute Small urban and Large urban Areas
xFTA New Freedom Small and Large urban Areas
xHUD Community Development Block Grant
xLocal City General Funds
xCounty General Funds
xOlder American Act Funds
xState Transit Assistance
xFTA Section 5310
xState Proposition 1B for capital
xCar and Cash Donations and Foundation and Corporate Grants
xTemporary Assistance for needy Families (TANF)/CalWORKs (California Work Opportunity
and Responsibility to Kids)
xState Health and Human Services
Coordinated services include but are not limited to:
xADA paratransit and Fare Subsidies
xSenior Transportation
xEmployment and Low-Income Transportation
xVolunteer Transportation
xManaged Care Transportation
xMenu of Mobility Options such as Fixed Route Bus Passes, Gas Cards, Ride Sharing, Vehicle
Sharing, Biking, Healthy Walking, Discount Taxi, Mileage Reimbursement, Older Driver Safety
Courses, Individual and Group Travel Training Instruction, etc.
With funding from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), OUTREACH undertook a
planning grant with the community to develop a mobility management center in 2009 to centralize many
functions and activities into a one-call/one-click center. The following graphic illustrates the concept.
The Mobility Management Center serves as a central repository for storing and sharing information
about transportation services. It links to key organizations and public information systems, including the
AAA (Area on Aging), ILC (Independent Living Center), 2-1-1 (Santa Clara County United Way with
health and human services Information and Referral), transportation providers and funders, 511.org (for
regional transit), VTA.org (for local transit), services for Veterans (VA), among others. Consumers,
social service agencies, and transportation providers and funders can then access this information
through the Center.
To serve this variety of riders, OUTREACH coordinates a number of funding sources, including but not
limited to:
x FTA Job Access and Reverse Commute Small urban and Large urban Areas
x FTA New Freedom Small and Large urban Areas
x HUD Community Development Block Grant
x Local City General Funds
x County General Funds
x Older American Act Funds
x State Transit Assistance
x FTA Section 5310
x State Proposition 1B for capital
x Car and Cash Donations and Foundation and Corporate Grants
x Temporary Assistance for needy Families (TANF)/CalWORKs (California Work Opportunity py
and Responsibility to Kids)
x State Health and Human Services
Coordinated services include but are not limited to:
x ADA paratransit and Fare Subsidies
x Senior Transportation
x Employment and Low-Income Transportation
x Volunteer Transportation
x Managed Care Transportation
x Menu of Mobility Options such as Fixed Route Bus Passes, Gas Cards, Ride Sharing, Vehicleypg
Sharing, Biking, Healthy Walking, Discount Taxi, Mileage Reimbursement, Older Driver Safety
Courses, Individual and Group Travel Training Instruction, etc.
Welfare-to-Work and Low Income
x Managed Care Riders
x Individuals Living in Communities of Concern
x Members of Faith Based Groups and Participants of Community Based Organizations/Non-
profits
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-8
Figure D-1. OUTREACH Mobility Management Concept
&RQVXPHUV
02%,/,7<
0$1$*(0(17
&(17(5
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ
3URYLGHUV
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ
)XQGHUV
Transportation
Social Services
Planning for
Emergency
Services
6&&
$$$
,/&
RUJ
9$
In addition to providing live support and direct delivery of transportation services, OUTREACH has also
created a web portal for virtual, “one-call/one-click” mobility management services. Nonprofits,
community groups and other entities may set up accounts for their members or clients and use the
cloud-hosted web portal at no charge. Typical users are faith-based groups, Veterans organizations,
homeless shelters, senior/gerontology groups, and health care providers. Or nonprofits, community
groups and other entities may call or have their clients call OUTREACH’s multi-lingual mobility
managers through the one-call center 800-number. These live agent and/or web portal call functions and
activities include but are not limited to:
xEmergency planning for transportation and evacuation of vulnerable populations in the event of a
disaster or security threat through:
-Fleet and driver inventory resource management system linked to County office of
Emergency Operations Center
-Mapping of encrypted at-risk vulnerable populations to be accessed only when
emergency is declared; encrypted file updated every 90 days.
-Mapping of accessible shelters, staging areas and evacuation routes, etc.
xVolunteer driver modules
xVehicle sharing modules across organizations
xTrip booking system for reservations
-Single trips or standing sent by agency to vendor dashboard in real time
-Agency may select one or more paid vendors (accessible vans, discount taxi, nonprofit,
etc.) or volunteers to perform trips
-Trip bookings with other organizations to share vehicles or seats
-Google mapping for shortest distance,
-Trip authorization functions based on customized business rules and policies
-Reporting and invoicing
-Fee or charge functions if needed
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-9
-Fund accounting if managing more than one funding source
-automated invoices and reports, and linked in real time to vendor service providers via
dashboards
-Trip booking for paid providers like accessible van companies or discounted taxi
companies
-Trip bookings with other organizations to share vehicles or seats
-Trip bookings for volunteer drivers
xMobility option or benefit management system for tracking gas cards, bus passes, ADA eligibility
subsidies, mileage reimbursement, bikes, healthy walking programs, etc.
The screen print the following page captures many of the business and operational functions on the left
and the simple reservations system on the right of the screen.
Figure D-2. OUTREACH Mobility Management Center TripNet Web Portal
Current and future ADA Certified Eligible persons have many options within the OUTREACH
brokerage in addition to paratransit. Accurate and easy access to information about resources is a key
factor to identifying, comparing, and selecting one or more options. OUTREACH provides a
“Community Search System” to the public. This system is a searchable database of transportation and
community resources that can be compared in terms of location, services, eligible criteria, accessibility,
hours of operation, wheelchair accessibility, target populations, languages, fees, contact information and
many other features. The user may select language of choice as well as size of font and can save, email
or print off results. Searches can be general or targeted by rider type such as older adults, persons with
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-10
disabilities, Veterans, low-income individuals and so forth. A live chat support assists with any questions
about resources. This tool is being expanded through partnerships with Salinas-Monterey Transit to the
south and Marin Transit to the north of OUTREACH creating a regional system stretching over 250
miles among others as part of VTA and OUTREACH’s VTCLI grant (Veterans Transportation and
Community Living Imitative).
OUTREACH also partnered with the National Center for Senior Transportation to develop a person-
centered, rider choice model providing over 800 persons with disabilities and older adults with a range
of flexible mobility options for travelling to places to a range of community services. The goal of the
program is to provide individuals with a wide range of transportation options and to allow them to
choose the option that best meets their needs. Figure D-3 illustrates the wide range of mobility options
that have been developed for accessing various community services.
The Administrative Brokerage Model
OUTREACH manages all of these programs as an “administrative broker.” This means that OUTREACH
does not directly operate vehicles, but contracts with transportation companies for the delivery of
service. OUTREACH’s broader roles and responsibilities as the administrative broker and CTSA are to:
xDevelop partnerships with local and regional agencies
xCooperatively plan and develop transportation services
xContract with funding agencies to manage the delivery of transportation services
xPursue additional funding to supplement monies provided through contracts, including the
preparation of grant applications and local fundraising
xCooperatively negotiate overall budgets for service and manage the proper allocation of costs to
participating agencies
xWork cooperatively with funding agencies to develop public information and market the
transportation services provided
xConduct open, competitive procurement processes, in compliance with state and federal laws,
for companies to delivery transportation services
xMonitor service provider contracts and performance
xPerform customer service and quality assurance duties
xReceive rider input and investigate and resolve rider complaints and concerns
xReview and process invoices from service providers and bill funding agencies
xManage rider fares and accounts
xPrepare required service and financial reports for funding agencies
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-11
Figure D-3. OUTREACH Mobility Management Options
Depending on the needs of participating funding agencies and the transportation services being provided
for them, OUTREACH also performs other more specific tasks. For example, for VTA and the ADA
paratransit service, OUTREACH:
xAccepts applications from individuals and makes determinations of ADA paratransit eligibility
xAdministers an appeal process for ADA paratransit eligibility
xOperates a call and control center to accept and schedule trip requests and to provide radio
dispatch services
xProvides support to VTA, as needed, to meet regulatory requirements, including NTD
reporting, safety and security planning, Title VI and LEP planning and compliance, and SBE and
DBE plans and goals
xOversees fuel and vehicle maintenance contracts with the County of Santa Clara
xPrepares and submits annual California State Excise Tax Rebate forms
VTA sets overall policies for the ADA paratransit service, including eligibility requirements, service area,
days and hours of operation, fares, and other riders and service policies. VTA also negotiates and
manages the contract with OUTREACH for brokerage services, develops funding for the ADA
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-12
paratransit service, reviews invoices for service provided, processes payment to OUTREACH, and
monitors service quality.
At the time of the case study in April 2013, OUTREACH had contracts with several companies for the
delivery of service. The largest contract was with a company for the operation of vehicles “dedicated”
to the paratransit service. The vehicles and on-board equipment (MDTs, AVL) used in this part of the
operation are leased to the dedicated provider as part of the company’s contractual relationship with
OUTREACH. The lease is $1.00 per equipped vehicle. OUTREACH is unique in that it designs the in-
vehicle system and develops the software that links the dispatch center to the vehicles in real-time. VTA
and OUTREACH both seek public grants for hardware and technology having been early adaptors to
automated scheduling, vehicle routing and tracking, and digitized mapping since the early 1990s when
FTA and Caltrans New Technology grants were implemented. OUTREACH is now on its 4th generation
of Intelligent Transportation systems (ITS).
OUTREACH develops daily schedules and batch optimizes the trips that are transmitted to the service
provider. The “dedicated” service provider is paid a monthly amount for fixed cost, plus a per trip rate
for variable costs.
As one of several cost savings initiatives (described below), OUTREACH has negotiated a contract that
allows paratransit vehicles operated by the dedicated service provider to be maintained at County
garages by staff that also maintain other County vehicles. This arrangement was possible because of the
positive working relationship that both VTA and OUTREACH together have with the County, as well as
separately though other contractual arrangements. OUTREACH as a broker also has agreements with
the County for other social service mobility options, transportation services and case management.
Dedicated vehicles are fueled at County fueling stations to take advantage of bulk purchase savings.
OUTREACH has also arranged for dedicated vehicles to be parked at VTA and County facilities to
reduce service provider facility costs.
The dedicated service provider is mainly responsible for managing staff involved in the direct operation
of service. This includes drivers, road supervisors, pullout (“window”) dispatchers, managers, and
administrative staff. The dedicated service provider is responsible for hiring, background checks, training,
and supervision of these staff. Other responsibilities include:
xProviding vehicle and general liability insurance
xContracting for the repair of body damage
xOperating vehicles in compliance with contract requirements
xAccident and incident reporting and claims management
xProviding OUTREACH with daily and monthly service reports
OUTREACH developed a somewhat unique approach for control and dispatch of paratransit service a
decade ago. While OUTREACH has sole responsibility for trip reservations and scheduling, it shares
responsibility for radio dispatch and management of vehicle runs with its dedicated service provider.
Both parties have access to OUTREACH’s software systems and vehicle locating and tracking systems in
an area called the “Day of Service Department.” At each dispatch “station,” there is an OUTREACH
representative as well as a dedicated service provider dispatcher. These two professionals work as a
collaborative team.
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-13
This dispatching partnership allows OUTREACH to
provide the client with individual assistance and to be
directly involved in making any required changes to
schedules and to ensure that service policies are
followed. At the same time, it allows the dedicated
service provider to maintain responsibility for supervising
and managing its drivers, and to ensure that the drivers
are supported in the field. In practice, this collaborative
team atmosphere ensures the well-being of both
OUTREACH’s clients and the service provider’s drivers
in the field.
OUTREACH’s dispatch approach has resulted in
improved on-time schedules, less time to resolve service
issues or challenges in real-time, more satisfied clients,
and drivers that are able to get timely rest and meal
breaks. Since the introduction of this collaborative
dispatch method, the combined number of FTEs for broker and vendors personnel in the Day of
Service/Dispatch Department has declined at the same rate as the overall staffing levels of the
paratransit program as follows:
xTotal OUTREACH paratransit personnel declined 35% from 73 to 48 FTEs from FY 02 to FY 13
xTotal Dedicated Vendor paratransit personnel declined 29% from 301 to 215 FTEs from FY 02
to FY 13
In addition to its dedicated service provider contact, OUTREACH contracts with local taxi companies
to provide “non-dedicated” service. A daily list of trips is developed by the call center and transmitted
to each taxi company. Each company then dispatches and provides the trips as part of its overall taxicab
operation. Taxi vendors are reimbursed for local trips based on the number of miles of service
operated. The miles to be paid are generated by the OUTREACH scheduling system and are based on
revenue vehicle miles. Deadhead is excluded and the same mileage rate is paid regardless of the number
of riders on the vehicle. This arrangement allows OUTREACH to group taxi trips whenever possible for
cost savings.
Long distance taxi trips are reimbursed on a flat rate based on distance. At the time of the case study,
trips from 10 to 19.99 miles were $30; trips 20-29.99 miles were $42.50; and trips 30-40 miles were
$55.
In addition to having the same general operating responsibilities of the dedicated service provider, taxi
vendors are responsible for providing vehicles and on-board equipment, for purchasing fuel, and for
maintaining vehicles. The taxi vendors also dispatch vehicles directly, although vehicle information from
the taxi dispatch software is “patched” into the OUTREACH control center so that the delivery of
service by taxis can be monitored in real time. In 2013, OUTREACH procured accessible vehicles with
FTA New Freedom funds through MTC. These vehicles are being provided to taxi providers in order to
allow them to better serve riders with mobility devices for both the paratransit program and the general
public as these vehicles will not be restricted. VTA also enables taxi companies to increase their
accessible vehicles by allowing the Broker to make available those vehicles that are being retired from
the paratransit fleet during replacement cycles.
Figure D-5 illustrates the above described roles and responsibilities under the brokerage model that has
been developed by VTA and OUTREACH.
Figure D-4. Dispatch Teams at
OUTREACH Call and Control Center
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-14
Figure D-5. VTA-OUTREACH Brokerage Model
Broker
(OUTREACH)
Non-Dedicated
Service Providers
Provide trips assigned
by Broker on own
non-dedicated
vehicles
Brokerage Partners
(VTA, County, Cities, AAA, Councils on Aging, Caltrans, Others)
- Set service policies - Provide funding
- Manage contract with broker
- Monitor service quality and costs
Mobility
Management
- Information and
referral
- Develop options
(volunteers, gas
cards, mileage
reimbursement,
walking & biking,
travel training)
Service Planning and
Development
- Build partnerships
- Prepare studies and
plans
- Develop funding
(grants, fundraising)
Paratransit
Operations
- Operate call and
control center
- ADA Eligibility
determination
- Contract with and
manage service
providers
-Customer service
- Prepare service and
financial reports
Dedicated Service
Providers
Operate assigned
runs on dedicated
vehicle (vehicles,
maintenance, and
fuel by broker and
partners )
VTA and OUTREACH Vehicles
VTA and OUTREACH work on multi-year vehicle purchasing plans based on fleet needs and the
availability of capital funding from both federal and state sources. In FY 2013, the combined VTA and
OUTREACH fleet for paratransit was 255 vehicles (187 VTA owned vehicles and 68 OUTREACH
owned vehicles). Table D-1 shows the composition of this dedicated fleet.
Table D-1. Joint Fleet of 255 Vehicles Dedicated to VTA Paratransit
Vehicle Type Owned By
VTA OUTREACH
Hybrid Sedan 100 31
Mini Van 64 10
Modified Van 3 16
Cutaway Van 20 11
Total 187 68
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-15
VTA recently completed a replacement of 154 paratransit vehicles bringing the average fleet age to 2.5
years. Some of the retired vehicles went to OUTREACH to support other transportation programs.
Some also went to other nonprofits to support transportation services operated directly by these
agencies. Some went to local taxi companies to increase the accessibility of taxicab fleets.
OUTREACH also owns an additional 72 vehicles for its other non-VTA social service transportation
programs. These vehicles can also be used for VTA paratransit services if needed. Table D-2 shows the
composition of this additional OUTREACH fleet. As noted above, several of these additional vehicles
were obtained from VTA during recent dedicated fleet replacements.
Table D-2. Additional OUTREACH Brokerage Vehicles
Used for Non-VTA Services
Vehicle Type Owned By
OUTREACH
Hybrid Sedan 56
Mini Van 12
Modified Van 2
Cutaway Van 0
Total 72
The joint VTA and OUTREACH vehicle procurement program anticipates an additional 26 accessible
vehicles from FTA 5310 Cycle 10 and Cycle 11 grant awards to OUTREACH. With Cycle 12 underway,
an additional 13 accessible vehicles will be acquired.
VTA and OUTREACH are also the recipients of state funding for a back-up fleet wide emergency radio
communication system as well as funding to procure 70 to 90 plug-in electric vehicles and charging
system. Procurement of these vehicles will occur in 2013 and 2014 and the County of Santa Clara will
partner in terms of charging infrastructure and locations.
History and Development of the OUTREACH Brokerage Program
Prior to the passage of the ADA in 1990, VTA met its Section 504 requirements by operating accessible
fixed route services. Paratransit services in Santa Clara County were provided by non-profit
organizations and local communities. OUTREACH was the largest provider of special needs
transportation among the nonprofit providers with service dating back to the 1970s and the War on
Poverty.
To respond to the ADA requirement to provide both accessible fixed route and paratransit service,
VTA undertook a study in 1992 to examine alternative paratransit service delivery designs and
approaches. Because a strong network of local services already existed, VTA chose to pursue the
development of a brokerage model to build on these services, rather than to develop a separate ADA
paratransit program.
In 1993, VTA issued a RFP for a paratransit broker. OUTREACH, which was the largest of the then five
CTSAs in the area, responded and was selected to be the broker. OUTREACH worked with the other
CTSAs, as well as with the 15 cities within the county, to coordinate existing transportation services
into a single brokerage program throughout the entire VTA service area. Given that OUTREACH
operated a number of different community transportation programs within the umbrella of the overall
brokerage, OUTREACH developed an overall program budget and contracted with VTA as well as
other participating organizations.
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-16
The initial contract between VTA and OUTREACH, which became effective in 1993, was for three years
with two option years. In 1998, based on the success of the program, VTA opted to negotiate a five year
extension rather than to re-bid. VTA has elected to do the same thing ever since, extending the
OUTREACH contract each time it was scheduled to expire. This approach is not atypical in California
where other transit agencies have long-standing relationships for decades with the same nonprofit
CTSAs as in Los Angeles (LA Access Services) and in Sacramento (Paratransit Inc.) given the high degree
of coordination that the relationship brings when the nonprofit CTSA is also engaged in paratransit
management and service delivery. Nonprofit CTSAs can apply for grants and health and human funding
sources that are not otherwise available to transit agencies.
VTA and OUTREACH staff noted that the long-term relationship that has developed between the
agencies is a partnership rather that a short-term contractor/vendor relationship. VTA and OUTREACH
work collaboratively—together with other partners and funding agencies—to develop and improve the
service. As a non-profit public benefit agency, OUTREACH’s costs are also regularly audited by VTA and
other organizations, which provides for detailed cost accountability and control.
It is important to note that year-after-year, the direct service provider costs comprise 80% or greater of
the program operating costs. Vendor services are competitively procured by OUTREACH on a regular
frequency, following Federal Transit Administration Circular C4220 for guidance on best practices used
in the industry for competitive third party contracting requirements. These competitive procurements
also meet all state and VTA procurement requirements.
VTA noted that in 2003 FTA changed its requirement that all services be competitively procured at least
every 7 years. FTA now allows transit agencies to maintain the kind of partnerships that VTA has with
OUTREACH if this is a business decision determined to be in the best interest of the transit agency and
the region.
Over time, VTA and OUTREACH have worked together to build and strengthen the brokerage model.
Different combinations of dedicated and non-dedicated service providers have been used. Expanded
collaborative arrangements with the County and other local and state agencies have also been
developed to expand services and achieve cost-savings. The design of the call center has also been
revised. Prior to 1999, OUTREACH only handled trip reservations and scheduling. Contracted service
providers were responsible for radio dispatching and run management. Over the past decade, the
dispatching of dedicated service was also centralized. OUTREACH and VTA have found that this has
given them much better control over service efficiency and service quality.
Annual budgets for brokerage of ADA paratransit services are negotiated each year by VTA and
OUTREACH. These annual budgets are then incorporated into VTA’s two-year budget process. The
OUTREACH budget has four components:
xBroker Services – This includes overall broker management and administrative functions, as well
as call and control center costs for trip reservations, scheduling, dispatch, customer service,
fleet management and IT functions.
xVendor Services – This includes dedicated and non-dedicated service provider costs. It also
includes operating costs outside of service provider contracts, such as fuel, vehicle maintenance,
vehicle registrations, communications, and vehicle depreciation.
xEligibility Certification – This includes costs incurred by OUTREACH for managing the ADA
paratransit eligibility certification and appeals processes.
xCapital – This includes non-vehicle capital, such as computer system costs.
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-17
The VTA and OUTREACH Brokerage model has the following budgetary and control characteristics:
Allowable Costs and Total Compensation. OUTREACH abides by the “Cost Principles for Non-
Profit Organizations” established by the federal Office of Management and Budget and published in
Circular A-122, and VTA only compensates OUTREACH for costs allowable pursuant to the principles
stated therein. OUTREACH is compensated for services performed based on actual allowable costs.
This compensation does not exceed the amount authorized by VTA’s Board of Directors.
Biennial Budget Projections. OUTREACH provides VTA with a proposed budget and annual trip
estimates by a date requested by VTA (typically December 1) for the preparation of VTA’s biennial
budget. After review and consultation with OUTREACH, the proposed budget is incorporated into
VTA’s biennial budget document, which is subject to VTA Board approval. In determining the proposed
budget, the parties consider the cost per trip, projected growth, program policies and services, and cost
containment strategies. In the spirit of the partnership that has been developed, OUTREACH’s financial
records are open and a reasonable budget is negotiated to achieve the goals established each year.
Long Term Budget Estimates. Upon request of VTA, OUTREACH develops longer term (5-10
years) budget(s) and trip estimates to support VTA service and financial planning efforts.
Annual Budget Submittal. In the last quarter of each fiscal year, OUTREACH develops and submits
an annual line-item budget for all expenses to provide paratransit services for the subsequent fiscal year.
All line-items have corresponding back-up justification and explanation. The proposed budget shall be
due by a date specified by VTA (typically June 1). After review, and modification as needed, the VTA
Project Manager approves such annual budget in writing. The budget may be amended at mid-year or
when needed, reasonable and justified, to reflect changes in vendor costs, broker costs, eligibility costs
or capital needs brought on by unforeseeable circumstances or by changes in VTA-approved service
policies, procedures, guidelines and service delivery practices. The budget includes costs for broker and
vendor services, capital procurements and the ADA paratransit eligibility certification program. The
budget submittal also includes an organizational chart, staffing plan, vehicle assignment list, a description
with budget impact of any proposed programmatic change and other documents needed to support the
requested budget.
Additional and/or Alternative Funding. If OUTREACH receives additional or alternative funding
that is incorporated into the paratransit program budget, OUTREACH identifies these revenues, the
type of funds, funding source, amount of funding and the potential impacts to the paratransit program as
part of the budget process. Any agreement between OUTREACH and a third party to provide these
funds is made available to VTA upon request. A typical example of this additional funding that has been
recognized in the annual budget is the contribution of the County of Santa Clara, Aging an Adult
Services, which will contribute to part of the cost of the paratransit trips for ADA-certified eligible
riders to and from the network of 39 senior/community/nutrition centers in Santa Clara County. The
County contribution goes beyond covering the rider fare and contributes to the actual cost per trip.
Fare Collection. OUTREACH collects over $2.4 million per year in client fare payments using a virtual
paratransit pre-paid debit account payment system. This system is highly secure and eliminates any fraud
at the time of the ride. Customers enjoy the convenience of the system in not having to carry cash,
tokens, tickets, or smart cards. Fares collection is automated through this virtual debit system with each
client having an individual account with OUTREACH eliminating the need for in-vehicle fare equipment
and costly fare collection procedures. Customers have the convenience of setting-up standing or single
payments. Clients can pay into their accounts using cash, checks, commuter checks, credit cards, and
other options. The fare account system is designed to accept ride sponsors and subsidies. The Broker
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-18
submits fare reconciliation sheets to VTA monthly showing all transactions. Fare-box recovery is in the
12% to 15% range.
Invoices – Paratransit Brokerage Service. VTA pays OUTREACH in advance for broker services,
based upon estimates for costs to be incurred for each billing period. Cost estimates are submitted to
the VTA Project Manager who reviews and approves for processing of the invoice and payment by the
10th day after receipt of the invoice. OUTREACH submits a month end invoice by the 20th day of each
month for services provided during the previous month, to include billings for actual costs incurred by
OUTREACH. OUTREACH reconciles the difference between the prior period’s advance payments and
actual costs incurred for that invoice period. OUTREACH adjusts the subsequent advance payment
requests for any underestimated costs and VTA is credited any over-estimate in costs for the brokerage
services.
Invoices – Paratransit Vendor Services. VTA pays OUTREACH in advance for the Vendor fixed
cost, which is a pre-determined amount, set in the contract(s) between OUTREACH and its Vendor(s)
for each billing period. OUTREACH submits to VTA’s Project Manager who reviews and approves for
processing of the Invoice(s) and payment(s) by the 10th day after receipt of the Invoice. For services
provided by vendors, OUTREACH submits a provisional claim to VTA’s Project Manager by the 5th and
20th of each month for services performed. VTA arranges a wire transfer of funds no later than the
15th and 30th of each month. OUTREACH submits a month-end invoices by the 20th of each month for
services provided during the previous month, to include billings for actual costs incurred by
OUTREACH. OUTREACH reconciles the difference between the prior period’s advance payments and
actual costs incurred for that invoice period. OUTREACH adjusts the subsequent provisional claim
request on the 20th of each month for any underestimated costs and VTA is credited any over-estimate
in costs for the vendor services.
Invoices – Eligibility Services. OUTREACH submits invoices to the VTA's Project Manager by the
20th of each month for Eligibility Services provided during the previous month. The Eligibility Service
invoices include billings for actual costs incurred by OUTREACH.
Invoices – Capital Expenses (Excluding fleet/vehicles jointly procured separately).
OUTREACH submits an invoice to the VTA’s Project Manager by the 20th of each month for capital
purchases incurred during the previous month, as needed. OUTREACH is paid by VTA within 30 days
upon receipt of such invoice.
Back-up Documentation. OUTREACH provides appropriate back up documentation supporting the
amounts billed in the invoices, including, but not limited to, receipts, complete third party invoices
including fuel invoices, work orders, ridership information and documents used to pay vendors.
OUTREACH provides VTA with an invoice, detailing each item of expense. All third party invoices and
other supporting documents are provided to substantiate all capital costs. OUTREACH provides
additional reports and documents upon VTA request.
Year-End Invoice. OUTREACH submits the year-end “close-out” invoice to VTA for the June 30th
close-out of the fiscal year by July 20th. In this invoice, OUTREACH reconciles actual costs for
brokerage and vendor services incurred for the immediately preceding fiscal year with the annual budget
of that year.
Annual State Fuel Tax Exemption Claim. OUTREACH submits an end of year state fuel tax
exemption claim. OUTREACH submits the fuel tax exemption refund from the California Controller to
VTA to offset paratransit expenses. OUTREACH provides a copy of the claim to VTA.
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-19
Reporting: VTA requires the Broker to submit extensive monthly and quarterly reporting of financial
and operational data.
Auditing: OUTREACH submits an annual audit and indirect cost audit to VTA conducted by an
independent third party CPA firm. VTA conducts extensive auditing the paratransit program as part of
the VTA Internal Audit Work Plan. In 2012 VTA’s Internal Auditor reported to the VTA Board that an
extensive paratransit contract compliance audit had been conducted using the services of Deloitte &
Touche LLP. The audit team conducted a 300 hour extensive review of the budgeting, invoicing, fare
collection, reporting, procurement practices, control procedures, data management and verification,
among other focus areas. The audit firm concluded that OUTREACH had strong and effective controls
and was complaint with its contractual requirements.
As a non-profit public benefit agency, OUTREACH’s costs are also regularly audited by other
organizations given the diverse funding sources, which provides for detailed cost accountability and
control.
Advantages of the OUTREACH Brokerage Model
The brokerage approach to delivering ADA paratransit service has several advantages for VTA as well as
for the region.
xVTA is able to manage the ADA paratransit service with a relatively small staff since
OUTREACH performs many administrative functions on its behalf.
xBrokerage services are shared by all funding partners. Once OUTREACH establishes its overall
administrative budget, these costs are allocated to all funding partners.
xThe services developed by OUTREACH through its mobility management center have provided
ADA paratransit eligible individuals with multiple additional travel options. These additional
options have reduced reliance solely on ADA paratransit services. Also, the options selected by
riders through the mobility manager are often less costly to provide.
xVTA benefits from the relationships and contacts that OUTREACH has with other organizations
in the community. These relationships are often important for developing alternative funding or
service delivery options. OUTREACH’s non-profit status also assists with obtaining grants and
raising supplemental funds.
xOUTREACH, as the broker, has the flexibility to change or expand the pool of direct service
providers. This can produce lower costs, as more cost-effective service providers or delivery
options are developed. It can also help to ensure service quality, as non-performing providers
can easily be replaced with performing providers.
xChange at the service delivery level is also possible with minimum disruptions or transitions.
With vehicles owned by VTA and the Broker, and software and information centralized with the
broker, it is a relatively straightforward matter to involve a new service provider or switch out
an existing provider.
xAs a non-profit public benefit agency, OUTREACH’s sole priority is to deliver quality, cost-
effective service.
xBecause OUTREACH is strictly an administrative broker and does not operate any of the
service, it can make decisions on assigning trips to providers without bias.
One small example of the added value of the model to VTA is the outside fund-raising that OUTREACH
has done to make ADA paratransit service more affordable to low-income residents. At $4.00 per trip,
paratransit is unquestionably a bargain, but an $8.00 round-trip to shop or get to an appointment can be
unaffordable to some. Above and beyond the contract with VTA, OUTREACH has raised $275,000
Advantages of the OUTREACH Brokerage Model
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-20
from local communities and organizations to help pay fares for low-income riders. These types of efforts
not only are beneficial to riders, but help build community support. The client accounting system with
individual accounts enables a robust subsidy system that can target individuals and/or individual trips. For
example, the City of Santa Clara uses CDBG funding and subsidies a flat amount for rides taken by all of
its residents. This subsidy is automated and easy to track for accountability.
The broader community also benefits from the expertise that has been created at OUTREACH. Other
human service agencies and communities can get assistance with expanding and improving
transportation in the county. OUTREACH is also available to assist with new initiatives like the mobility
management initiative, emergency preparedness planning, and other important programs.
Service Statistics and Costs
Figure D-6 shows annual ADA paratransit ridership in the VTA area from FY2003 through FY2011.
Ridership dropped significantly from FY2003 through FY2005. VTA and OUTREACH staff noted that
this was during the economic downturn and that the decline in the local economy was mainly
responsible for this decrease in ridership. From FY2006 through FY2009, ridership increased back to
FY2003 levels. In FY2010 and FY2011, ridership has decreased again—by 12.8% from FY2009 to FY2010,
and by 11.3% from FY2010 to FY2011.
FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
1,036,768 930,540 912,668 981,098 1,025,937 1,055,426 1,067,115 930,156 824,813
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11Annual ADA Paratransit RidershipFigure D-6. VTA Annual ADA Paratransit Ridership
(Unlinked Passenger Trips)
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-21
VTA and OUTREACH staff noted that the most recent decreases in ADA paratransit ridership were
due to a combination of factors, including:
xIncreased use of other travel options made available through the Mobility Management program
such as free or greatly discounted taxi rides, free gas cards,
volunteer trips, among other flexible and affordable
solutions
xIncreased use of fixed route transit services, due in part to
expanded travel training services and free access to fixed
route via the VTA/OUTREACH picture ID. Use of the ID
card (see sample ID card) accounts for 2% of VTA overall
bus ridership.
xSome reductions in premium service trips provided with
premium fare increases and VTA bus service reductions
and paratransit policy changes
Analysis in FY2012 by VTA and OUTREACH showed the impact of increased use of fixed route transit
and other travel options on ADA paratransit ridership. As shown in Figure D-7, ADA paratransit
ridership was just under 800,000 trips in FY2012. ADA paratransit eligible individuals also took over
600,000 trips that year on the VTA fixed route bus system (note that the analysis did not count
ridership on VTA rail services, rather only boardings on fixed route bus services are counted), and
almost 400,000 trips that year using other travel options available through the Mobility Management
program. In total, ADA paratransit eligible individuals made almost 1.8 million trips on all these modes
and only about 40% the total trips were on the ADA paratransit service.
Figure D-7. Trip-Making by ADA Paratransit Eligible Riders (2012)
In FY 2013, paratransit customers took an average of 48,000 trips per month on VTA bus services using
the OUTREACH Picture ID. This level of bus ridership exceeds the average monthly 45,000 paratransit
trip taking by clients in FY 2013 by 7%. The combined ridership (bus and paratransit) is 93,000 per
month across modes, where 52% is on VTA fixed route bus (light rail data not available). The expense
to the paratransit program if all of the trips were performed as demand responsive would be an
additional $1.1 million per month.
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-22
Approximately 48% of all certified ADA eligible riders have been certified as “conditional” with the
expectation that they may take some or all of their trips on fixed route independently as their functional
disabilities and the situation permits. OUTREACH has a strict eligibility program and for those deemed
conditional, OUTREACH provides travel training and other support to encourage fixed route utilization.
OUTREACH also tracks conditional ridership patterns to see what additional support the client may
need to access fixed route.
It should be noted that the 93,000 trips per month does not include the trip count for all of the
alternative trips with gas cards and other options that OUTREACH provides. The bottom-line is that
there is increased mobility in Santa Clara County through the VTA and OUTREACH coordinated
partnership. Over 1,600 car pool trips are being taken each month through the OUTREACH Mobility
Management web portal (TripNet). OUTREACH’s gas card programs are gaining community support
among car pools and volunteer drivers due to these programs’ flexibility.
OUTREACH provides software and training to manage rider options via TripNet to other nonprofits at
no charge. In addition to coordination and procurement strategies as a CTSA, and the benefits of the
Mobility Management Center’s multiple strategies to build rider choice, OUTREACH continued business
cost containment measures reduced budgeted expenses in FY 13 by $2.7 million.
Figure D-8 shows productivity (unlinked passenger trips per vehicle-revenue-hour) for the ADA
paratransit service from FY2003 through FY2011. As shown, VTA and OUTREACH have been able to
steadily increase the productivity of the service over time—from 2.11 trips per vehicle-revenue-hour in
FY2003 to 2.58 trips per vehicle-revenue-hour in FY2011. This statistic is based on 100% of all trips
system wide and not a sampling. Peak hour passenger per tends to run higher as OUTREACH provides
group trip services, standing orders/subscription trips, and has shared vehicle arrangements where
riders are coming and going from common locations. Operating practices that have been used to
increase service productivity are described in the next section.
Figure D-8. ADA Paratransit Productivity
(Unlinked Passenger Trips/Vehicle-Revenue-Hour)
2.11
2.31 2.3 2.31 2.3 2.36 2.39
2.5 2.58
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11Productivity (Trips/Rev-Hr.)
Figure D-9 shows the total operating cost for ADA paratransit service from FY2003 through FY2012.
Total operating costs, including OUTREACH brokerage costs and service provider costs (including fuel,
maintenance and facility costs) are included. VTA administrative costs are not included. As shown, the
Figure D-8. ADA Paratransit Productivity
(Unlinked Passenger Trips/Vehicle-Revenue-Hour)
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-23
cost per trip increased slightly from FY2003 to FY2004 mainly as a result in the significant drop in
ridership that year related to the economic downturn (see Figure D-8). Prior to FY 07, the service
provider rate included capital for vehicles, fuel, maintenance, parking yards, and communications among
other expenses. Starting in FY 06-07, VTA and OUTREACH have been able to steadily reduce the cost
per trip by using more grant dollars for vehicles and equipment, by jointly procuring vehicles and leasing
to vendors, by introducing more energy efficient vehicles into the fleet mix, by having the Broker
control fuel and maintenance expenses directly through contract partnerships with the County of Santa
Clara, and by using existing parking yards owned by VTA and the County. The cost per trip has been
reduced from $30.40 in FY 04 to $ 26.46 in FY 12, which is well below the most recently published Top
50 NTD value. If the cost of living during this time period was factored in the decrease in unit cost
would be even more significant (cumulative decrease of 26.8% or approximately $7 per ride).
Figure D-9. ADA Paratransit Operating Cost per Trip
$30.40
$29.09 $29.36
$28.25 $28.03 $27.55 $27.48
$26.75 $26.46
$20.00
$22.00
$24.00
$26.00
$28.00
$30.00
$32.00
$34.00
$36.00
$38.00
$40.00
FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12Operationg Expense per Trip
The farebox recovery increased from 8% in FY 03 to 15% in FY 13, also well above the most recently
published Top 50 NTD value. The net operating cost has decreased dramatically by 55% from 2002 to
2012 ($31.9 million to $17.6, respectively).
VTA and OUTREACH staff noted that the increase in productivity was one major factor in reducing the
cost per trip. In addition, though, they noted several cost-saving efforts that also have contributed to the
reduction in the unit cost of the service. These efforts are described in the next section.
Efforts to Manage Service Quality and Costs
VTA and OUTREACH staff noted that they work together each year to improve service availability and
service quality, as well as increase service efficiency and decrease costs. Following are some of the
successful efforts and key changes that have been made in recent years to improve service quality and
reduce costs.
Figure D-9. ADA Paratransit Operating Cost per Trip
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-24
Use of Capital Funding for Paratransit Fleet
Prior to FY07, the dedicated service provider purchased vehicles. Since that time VTA has used available
federal capital funding to purchase vehicles for the ADA paratransit service. OUTREACH has also
applied for and received vehicles under the Section 5310 program for use in the coordinated brokerage.
All vehicles used in dedicated service are now purchased by VTA and OUTREACH and leased to the
dedicated service provider for $1 per year. OUTREACH estimates that using capital funding to buy
paratransit vehicles has reduced the operating cost by several dollars per vehicle-revenue-hour.
More Fuel Efficient Vehicles
VTA and OUTREACH utilize smaller,
more fuel efficient vehicles than most
other paratransit programs. The current
fleet includes 95 ramp-equipped minivans,
110 sedans, 19 modified, raised-roof vans,
and 31 body-on-chassis (cutaway)
minibuses.
In FY2007, VTA and OUTREACH
introduced 20 Toyota Prius hybrid gas-
electric sedans into the paratransit fleet as a
test. This pilot project proved to be
successful as the Prius’ proved to be
reliable, were able to be integrated into the
scheduling process without losing
productivity, and provided savings due to
lower fuel costs. There are now 110 Priuses in the overall paratransit fleet.
In FY2006, prior to the introduction of Prius sedans, the paratransit fleet averaged about 14 miles per
gallon. OUTREACH and VTA continued to add Prius sedans to the mix and now operate over 100 Prius
sedans per day, averaging 47 mpg, reducing the fuel cost over $600,000 per year. In FY 12, the
paratransit fleet averaged 19.5 miles per gallon. In FY 13, VTA and OUTREACH will be introducing plug-
in electric sedans and charging systems to gain further increases on fuel efficiency and emission
reduction.
Improved Routing and Scheduling
VTA and OUTREACH have placed a lot of emphasis on fully understanding and utilizing the capabilities
of their automated paratransit scheduling system (Trapeze). Trip reservations and scheduling parameters
in the system have been fine-tuned over the years to improve the quality of the schedules.
Schedulers at OUTREACH have also developed an innovative approach to creating schedules to allow a
large number of sedans to be efficiently integrated into the fleet. First, they employ “zonal routing”
(assigning vehicles to operating zones) to ensure that an appropriate mix of sedans and accessible
minivans and vans are available throughout the service area. Second, they instruct the software to give
preference to scheduling trips by ambulatory riders on the sedans, which keeps the accessible minivans
and vans available for riders who use wheelchairs. Third, they sequence the batching of trips to runs in
the following way: (1) riders who use mobility devices; (2) longer trips; and (3) ambulatory riders making
shorter trips. This sequencing ensures that the final trips that need to be scheduled are shorter trips by
Figure D-10. OUTREACH Ramp-Equipped Minivans
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-25
riders who are able to use any of the vehicles in the fleet. Taxi providers can then be used to serve
these riders if the dedicated vehicles are fully booked.
Expertise in using the software has been important not only for service efficiency and costs, but for
service quality. OUTREACH is able to set system parameters to provide for responsive scheduling and
service delivery that meets service standards. For example, by creating distance-based travel time
parameters, OUTREACH is able to efficiently schedule “going” trips that have appointment times based
on the desired arrival time, rather than on an estimated pickup time. This helps ensure that riders get to
appointments on-time while at the same time ensuring that travel times are not too long or drop-offs
too early.
OUTREACH creates numerous additional applications available to all call agents, supervisors and
managers via a web-based dashboard and with real-time access and alerts to mobile devices. For
example, call agents may see the current account balance of the caller and if a payment has just been
made as OUTREACH operates a pay as you go debit type fare system; phone queue information about
how many are waiting in each queue and wait time (if wait is more than 60 seconds an email alert goes
out to all supervisors and managers to ensure staffing is shifted as OUTREACH uses hybrid staff trained
across many functional areas); tracking codes on each ride and call that are visible to all call agents and
Customer Services in real time who can sort codes and follow up directly with clients or vendors to
ensure any issue is resolved as needed; route management tools that will send alerts to supervisors and
managers if any policy violations occur such as being on board longer than planned in order to
determine the causes and trends; and hourly information by route on late and early trips with
projections of which routes need pre-emptive actions to ensure on-time performance for the next 1 to
3 hours.
County Maintenance of Dedicated Vehicles
As noted earlier, VTA and OUTREACH negotiated with Santa Clara County to have all dedicated
vehicles in the paratransit fleet maintained through the County’s vehicle maintenance program. Santa
Clara County has a large and high-quality program that maintains public works, emergency response, and
county administrative service vehicles. The scale of this operation provides economies of scale in the
maintenance of the paratransit fleet.
After negotiating with the County for maintenance
services, OUTREACH negotiated with the dedicated
service provider to identify maintenance costs. The
maintenance costs were then removed from the
provider’s rate. Prior to the use of County maintenance
services, OUTREACH estimates that vehicle
maintenance averaged about $1.20 per trip. In FY 2012
and the first half of FY 2013, OUTREACH calculated
that vehicle maintenance was averaging about $1.05 per
trip (about a 12.5% savings in maintenance costs).
VTA and OUTREACH staff noted that they were able
to negotiate a sharing of maintenance services largely
because Santa Clara County is well-run and takes an
entrepreneurial approach to the provision of services.
The County is open to these types of cost-sharing arrangements as a way to not only help other local
organizations, but as a way to generate income and share its own overhead costs.
Figure D-11. County Maintenance Shop
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-26
In-Kind Parking and Operating Facilities
Also as noted earlier, VTA and the County provide space for parking paratransit vehicles and for
housing the dedicated service provider staff. Parts of two of VTA’s operating divisions were not being
used. These areas included parking and modular buildings. The areas were made available to the
dedicated service provider. One county parking lot with unused space was also identified and made
available for parking vehicles. The parking areas are fenced and secure (one is co-located with the
County Sheriff’s office).
As the use of these facilities was being
arranged, OUTREACH negotiated with the
dedicated service provider to identify and
delete facility and parking costs included in
the contractor’s operating rate. This
negotiation reduced about $500,000 per
year in operating costs from the
contractor’s operating budget and rate.
Bulk Purchase of Fuel
To take advantage of bulk purchase pricing,
VTA and OUTREACH have arranged to
purchase fuel from the County of Santa
Clara. Vehicles involved in dedicated service
are fueled at one of the County fueling
stations. Because taxi vehicles are not
dedicated solely to the paratransit service,
taxi contractors still are responsible for
purchasing their own fuel.
VTA and OUTREACH estimate that fuel purchased through the County is about 20 cents less per gallon
than fuel purchased on the open market. In FY2012, a total of 351,965 gallons of fuel were used in
paratransit operations. This translates to savings of about $70,393 per year.
Federal and State Fuel Tax Rebates
The paratransit service also qualifies for Federal and State excise tax rebates. OUTREACH files for
these rebates each year. In FY2012, the Federal excise tax rebate was 6 cents per gallon, or $18,551.
The State excise tax rebate was 18 cents per gallon, or $63,354. In total, OUTREACH and VTA saved
$81,905 in FY2012 by filing for these rebates.
Limited Reliance on Liquidated Damages for Contractor Performance
OUTREACH staff noted that they do not rely solely on liquidated damages in service provider contracts
to ensure service quality and contract compliance. While the contracts do contain performance
standards and associated incentives as well as liquidated damages, the terms of the contracts limit
service provider liability to a maximum of $2,000 per month in liquidated damages. OUTREACH staff
noted that they rely more on identifying the core issues and working with service providers to correct
these issues. If providers are not responsive to addressing and correcting identified problems,
OUTREACH has the option to move business to performing contractors.
Figure D-12. OUTREACH Minivan at County
Fueling Station
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-27
While it was not possible to place a dollar amount on the savings from this approach to contract
oversight, OUTREACH staff felt that it minimizes the inclusion of contingencies in service provider
contracts to cover possible liquidated damages.
Coordinated Procurement of Paratransit Services
To achieve the best prices, OUTREACH bundles all paratransit services and competitively procures
providers for all of the services through a coordinated procurement. RFPs request providers for the
combined ADA paratransit service, senior transportation program, and CalWORKS program.
Use of “Standby” Runs
To help ensure service quality, OUTREACH has “standby” vehicles and drivers. These runs start the day
without any scheduled trips and are therefore fully available to dispatchers to respond to same day
service issues. This allows dispatchers to better manage schedules, do proactive dispatching, and move
trips to standby runs from runs that are behind schedule. It also allows schedulers to be more aggressive
in creating efficient schedules. If unpredicted delays (traffic, weather, rider issues, etc.) occur,
OUTREACH can still stay on schedule even though the schedules are tighter. Depending on the day and
time of day, the run structure includes between 5% and 8% standby runs.
Detailed and Specific Service Provider RFPs
Given OUTREACH’s long-term experience with management of the paratransit services, it has a very
exact understanding of the service provider requirements. It can estimate staffing needs, service
productivities, and other factors very accurately.
OUTREACH uses this experience and knowledge to create very detailed service provider RFPs. This
eliminates any “guesswork” on the part of proposers and minimizes the contingencies that proposers
feel they have to build in to prices to cover “unknowns.” It also allows OUTREACH to have a clear
understanding of exactly what prices are being proposed. This then is useful in determining if prices are
reasonable, appropriate, and realistic. A clear understanding of service provider costs also becomes very
useful if prices need to be re-negotiated for desired contract changes (e.g., changes to permit County
maintenance of vehicles, bulk fuel purchasing, in-kind donation of parking and facilities, etc.).
Dedicated Taxi Runs
While taxis can be effectively used to serve low-productivity trips cost-effectively, and provide overflow
and back-up, ensuring taxi service quality can be a challenge. To address this issue, OUTREACH has
worked with taxi companies to develop “dedicated” taxi runs. The taxi companies dedicate certain
vehicles and drivers to OUTREACH paratransit service and OUTREACH is able to efficiently schedule
to these runs. The OUTREACH RFP required taxi vendors to ensure that those who serve the contact
are earning a livable wage, are covered by Worker’s Compensation Insurance, and have benefits.
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-28
Findings and Conclusions
VTA and OUTREACH have succeeded in building one of the premier paratransit brokerages in the
country. The OUTREACH brokerage provides high-quality and cost-effective paratransit services for
VTA as well as other local and regional agencies and communities. The expertise that has been
developed through the brokerage has also made it possible for the region to be on the cutting edge of
innovative service planning and service delivery. This is evident in the innovative Mobility Management
Program that has been successfully implemented, as well as in the many innovations employed for
managing service quality and cost.
VTA and OUTREACH staff noted several important lessons that have been learned through the years in
development and operation of the transportation brokerage program. They noted that these are
important to the success of the program and would be key to replication of the model in other areas.
xA high level of trust must exist between the broker, VTA, and other participating agencies. It is
vital that this trust be maintained over time, through good times as well as challenging times.
Open communication is important for developing and maintaining this trust. The broker has a
“can-do” attitude such that its social workers and mobility managers will make every effort to
find a mobility solution for agencies and members of the public and often paratransit is only one
of many options.
xHaving a non-profit public benefit agency as the broker helps maintain trust. OUTREACH’s
primary obligations are to riders, funding agencies, and taxpayers.
xAccurate data from the broker is important for maintaining trust with partner agencies. The
broker must have the tools to properly account for and allocate services and costs.
xPartners must be willing to “collaborate” on the development of a coordinated transportation
program, rather than desire unilateral “control” of services. This collaboration is needed to
ensure that various needs and requirements of the partners can be combined into a coordinated
program.
xClarifying and agreeing on the roles and responsibilities of the broker, and the roles and
responsibilities of funding partners are important. Once all parties agree to this model, each
must be willing to collaboratively participate within these defined roles.
xPartners must be willing to take leadership as well as supportive and enabling roles to help
secure and implement grants for technology, energy efficient vehicles, to expand the system in
place to address emerging needs such as Veterans transportation.
xOwning the infrastructure, information technology, and data provides the broker and
participating agencies with a high degree of flexibility in managing service delivery. The mix of
service providers and service delivery can be more easily adjusted to achieve both high quality
and low-cost service.
xHaving a stable broker over the long term allows for the development of important partnerships
at the local and regional level. It also allows the broker to develop expertise and detailed
knowledge of local needs that are important for the effective management of services.
xBuilding local service provider capabilities is important for developing a robust, competitive
service delivery market. “Cooperative” contract management on the part of the broker can help
build this network. Technical assistance from the broker can also help to strengthen local
service providers.
xDetailed RFPs and familiarity with service provider cost structures is important for ensuring that
costs are reasonable and appropriate.
xVery strong controls in place by the Broker makes VTA over-sight of contract, ADA and service
policy compliance routine and measurable.
Findings and Conclusions
Appendix D: Case Studies
D-29
xIndependent audits of both VTA and the Broker ensure that the best interest of the public,
transit agency, and persons with disabilities is served by this arrangement.
xA one-stop, one-call/one-click center for coordinated eligibility, funding, paratransit and other
health and human services transportation, travel training and access to fixed route, and other
affordable and flexible mobility options reduces paratransit expense while creating an
environment for enhancements, such as premium services, cost-sharing, vehicle sharing and
mobility management strategies that will increase accessibility for all.
xA pre-paid client fare payment debit account system enhances client fare payments, negates cash
collection, counting and custody costs, and allows fare payment sponsorship by third parties.
Constant $ 2030 Population %25‐year Measure Revenue (x1,000)TRANSPAC 29.37% 686,929$ TRANSPLAN 28.25% 660,756$ SWAT 19.13% 447,366$ WCCTAC 23.26% 544,032$ Total 100.00% 2,339,083$ DRAFT Capital Projects Cost (x1,000) % of Share DRAFT Capital Projects Cost (x1,000) % of Share DRAFT Capital Projects Cost (x1,000) % of Share DRAFT Capital Projects Cost (x1,000) % of ShareI‐680/SR‐4 Interchange 60,000.00$ 8.7% eBART (Antioch to Brentwood) 80,000.00$ 12.1% I‐680 Transit Congestion Relief 80,000.00$ 17.9% I‐80 Interchange Imprvs 59,844.00$ 11.0%SR‐242/Clayton Rd On/Off Ramps 17,700.00$ 2.6% SR‐4 Operational Imprvs 30,000.00$ 4.5% Major Streets 16,000.00$ 3.6% Major Roads, Bridges, Grade Separations 13,600.00$ 2.5%SR‐4 Operational Imprvs 30,000.00$ 4.4% Vasco Rd Imprvs 40,000.00$ 6.1% SR‐24 Interchange Ops Imprvs. 20,000.00$ 4.5% High Capacity Transit Imprvs 54,403.00$ 10.0%Contra Costa Blvd/Concord Ave Interchg 24,000.00$ 3.5%Tri Link (SR‐239 ‐ Brentwood to Tracy Exprswy)120,000.00$ 18.2% PDA Bypass (Lafayette) 25,000.00$ 5.6% Hercules Intermodal Transit Center 10,881.00$ 2.0%I‐680 Operational Imprvs 15,000.00$ 2.2% BART Pkg/Access/Other Imprvs 10,000.00$ 1.5%Expanded BART Service (Option A)128,000.00$ 6.3% BART (Station, Safety, Other Imprvs) 43,523.00$ 8.0%New BART Cars 10,000.00$ 1.5% BART Safety and System Reliability 10,000.00$ 1.5%Expanded BART Service (Option B)250,000.00$ 11.2%Ferry Service 8,000.00$ 1.2% Major Streets in East County 20,000.00$ 3.0%Clayton Rd/Treat Blvd Intersection 1,000.00$ 0.1%Ygnacio Valley Rd Complete Sts 20,000.00$ 2.9%Concord Blvd Complete Sts 8,000.00$ 1.2%Willow Pass Rd Capacity/Complete Sts 5,000.00$ 0.7%Galindo St Corridor Imprvs 4,400.00$ 0.6%Conta Costa Blvd Complete Sts ‐ Ph 5&6 12,800.00$ 1.9%Gregory Lane Complete Sts 17,700.00$ 2.6%Pleasant Hill Rd Complete Sts ‐ Ph 2&3 16,600.00$ 2.4%Olympic Corridor Bike/Trail Connector 11,700.00$ 1.7%West Downtown Public Imprvs 24,000.00$ 3.5%Pacheco Blvd Widening 20,300.00$ 3.0%Alhambra Ave Widening 10,000.00$ 1.5%Subtotal Capital (Option A)1169,000.00$ 37.8%Subtotal Capital 316,200.00$ 46.0% Subtotal Capital 310,000.00$ 46.9%Subtotal Capital (Option B)2191,000.00$ 42.7% Subtotal Capital 182,251.00$ 33.5%DRAFT Programs Cost (x1,000) % of Share DRAFT Programs Cost (x1,000) % of Share DRAFT Programs Cost (x1,000) % of Share DRAFT Programs Cost (x1,000) % of ShareLocal Streets Maint/Multi Modal Imprvs 206,100.00$ 30.0% Local Streets Maint & Imprvs 198,227.00$ 30.0%Local Streets & Roads (Option A)1134,000.00$ 30.0% Local Sts/Sidewalks Maint 152,329.00$ 28.0%Technology Upgrades 20,000.00$ 2.9% TLC 16,519.00$ 2.5%Local Streets & Roads (Option B)2112,000.00$ 25.0% Richmond Pkwy Maint 13,601.00$ 2.5%Transportation for Livable Comms. 24,700.00$ 3.6% Ped/Bike 9,911.00$ 1.5% Expanded Transit Access to BART 60,000.00$ 13.4% Safe Routes to School 5,440.00$ 1.0%Safe Routes to School 10,800.00$ 1.6% Transportation for Seniors & Disabled 46,914.00$ 7.1% Technology Upgrades (signal coord, etc) 5,000.00$ 1.1% Ped, Bike, Trails 27,202.00$ 5.0%Increased Bus to BART 57,900.00$ 8.4% Express Bus 13,876.00$ 2.1% Safe Transportation for Children 25,000.00$ 5.6% Ferry Service in West County 27,202.00$ 5.0%Transportation for Seniors & Disabled 21,300.00$ 3.1% Commute Alternatives 6,608.00$ 1.0% Commute Alternatives 5,000.00$ 1.1% Bus Service Improvements 54,403.00$ 10.0%Bike/Ped/Trail Enhance & Maint. 20,000.00$ 2.9% Safe Transp for Children/"Street Smarts" 8,259.00$ 1.2% Ped/Bike/TLC/Complete Sts 40,000.00$ 8.9% Student Bus Pass Program 27,202.00$ 5.0%Commute Alternatives 10,000.00$ 1.5% Subregional Transportation Needs 10,110.00$ 1.5% Transportation for Seniors 10,000.00$ 2.2% Transportation for Seniors & Disabled 27,202.00$ 5.0%Ferry Service in East County 6,608.00$ 1.0%Clean Transportation 10,881.00$ 2.0%Bus Service 33,038.00$ 5.0%No Displacement from PDA 10,881.00$ 2.0%Subtotal Programs (Option A)1279,000.00$ 62.4% Commute Alternatives (TDM) 2,720.00$ 0.5%Subtotal Programs (Option B)2257,000.00$ 57.4% Subregional Transportation Needs 2,720.00$ 0.5%Subtotal Programs 370,800.00$ 54.0% Subtotal Programs 350,070.00$ 53.0%TOTAL (Option A)1448,000.00$ 100.1%Subtotal Programs 361,783.00$ 66.5%TOTAL 687,000.00$ 100.0% TOTAL 660,070.00$ 99.9%TOTAL (Option B)2448,000.00$ 100.1% TOTAL 544,034.00$ 100.0%TRANSPACTRANSPLANSWAT*WCCTAC*At the 8/3/2015 SWAT Committee meeting,the SWAT Committee was split on whether to allocate 30% to Local Streets and Roads or allocate only 25% to Local Streets and Roads and increase funding to expanded BART service.The SWAT Committee approved the Draft SWAT TEP with a split in vote on the amount to allocate to Local Streets and Roads and expanded BART service.1Option A based on Draft SWAT TEP proposal with 30% dedicated to Local Streets and Roads2Option B based on Draft SWAT TEP proposal with 25% dedicated to Local Streets and Roads and increased funding to expanded BART serviceFunding Tragets Set by Subregion
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
Project Project Name Project Type Description Total Proj11ct Cost Project Status Primary RTPC ID Spons«
COUNTYWIDE PROJECTS
Upgrade curb ramps to current
standards throughout
Unincorporated Contra Costa
County through an annual project
Countywide Curb ADA to eventually provide pedestrian $3,000,000 Ongoing Contra Costa All
Ramp Program access to all users on all County County
roads . This annual project Is In
addition to curb ramp upgrades
Implemented adjacent to capital
improvement projects.
Upgrade metal beam guard ralls to
Countywide Guard Rail meet current Caltrans Standards. Contra Costa Safety The upgrade relates to $5,000,000 Planning All Upgrade replacement of the end County
treatments.
Provide an overlay and/or cold-1n-
4411 Countywide Overlay ArteriaVRoadway place recycling to Vasco Road, $3,423,000 Design and ROW Contra Costa All Project Pleasant Hill Road (NB) and Byron County
Highway.
WCCTAC PRO.IECTS
Add transit stop access and
2767 San Pablo Dam Road Arterial/Roadway amenities, sidewalks and other $7,300,000 Design and ROW Contra Costa WCCTAC Walkabillty Project improvements to pedestrian and County
bicycle facilities, turn lanes.
Extend truck climbing lane on
Cummings Skyway eastbound Cummings Skyway to Contra Costa 322S Truck Oimbing Lane ArteriaVRoadway allow faster moving vehicles to $1,500,000 Not Begun County WCCTAC
Extension safely pass slow moving trucks
dim bing existing 10% grade.
Extend Pittsburg Avenue 0.3 miles
eastward, and extend either
Seventh_ Street or Soto Street 0.1
3350 North Richmond Truck Arterial/Roadway mile northward, to intersect with $19,300,000 Not Begun Contra Costa WCCTAC Route Project each other and create a truck route County
from the North Richmond
industrial area to the Richmond
Parkway.
widen Parr Boulevard to bring it to
Parr Boulevard arterial standard design and Contra Costa 3353 Widening and Overlay ArteriaVRoadway overlay, on a one-mile stretch from $2,772,000 Not Begun County WCCTAC
Richmond Parkway to the Union
Pacific tracks.
Realign either Goodrick Avenue or
Third Street I Goodrick Third Street as it approaches Parr Contra Costa
3435 Avenue Realignment Arterial/Roadway Boulevard to create a direct north-$1,750,000 Not Begun County WCCTAC
Project south route and only one
intersection with Parr Boulevard.
North Richmond Reconstruct York Street and Contra Costa
3436 Overlay I Arterial/Roadway overlay Goodrick Avenue $3S9,000 Not Begun County WCCTAC
Reconstruction
Appian Way and ArteriaVRoadway Install signal at Appian Way and $175,000 Not Begun Contra Costa WCCTAC 3534 Pebble Drive Signal Pebble Drive. County
Remove and combine with 3536
3536 Appian Way Complete Arterial/Roadway Construct Appian Way ultimate $4,300,000 Underway Contra Costa WCCTAC Streets Project improvements. County
3537 Appian Way Widening Arterial/Roadway Modify layout of Appian Way and $4,000,000 Underway Contra Costa WCCTAC at Triangle Valley View. Potential roundabout. County
Brookside Drive Acquire ultimate right of way to Contra Costa
3543 Arterial/Roadway widen Brookside Drive from 3rd $772,000 Not Begun WCCTAC Widening Street to railroad tracks County
3545 Castro Ranch Road ArteriaVRoadway Widen Castro Ranch Road. $1,600,000 Not Begun Contra Costa WCCTAC Widening County
El Portal Drive
Widening: Richmond ArteriaVRoadway Widen El Portal Drive $450,000 Not Begun Contra Costa WCCTAC 3572 Oty limit to San Pablo County
Dam Road
I Project l ID
ProJect Name Project Type Description
North Richmond The project consists of extending
3576 Improvements -Arterial/Roadway Pittsburg Avenue from 3rd Street
Pittsburg Avenue to the proposed 7th Street
Extension extension.
San Pablo Dam Road Construct signal at San Pablo Dam 3587 and Greenrldge Drive Arterial/Roadway
Signal Road and Greenrldge Drive
3S88 San Pablo Dam Road Arterial/Roadway Construct San Pablo Dam Road
Improvements improvements and widening.
3589 San Pablo Dam Road Arterial/Roadway Add a middle lane to San Pablo
Middle Tum Lane Dam Road
Eastward extension of VIllage
Center Drive (Project 230),
El Sobrante Village extending 1,200 feet
3818 Arterial/Roadway east/northeast from Village Center Center Drive East Drive to connect with San Pablo
Dam Road at a point west of the
Las Colinas intersection.
El Sobrante Villase A 60o-foot new street parallel to
3819 Arterial/Roadway San Pablo Dam Road on Its south Center Drive side, with a 76-foot rlsht of way.
San Pablo Dam Road Constnuct sidewalk to fill gaps In
3821 Sidewalks near May Arterial/Roadway the May Road area (Safe Routes to
Road Schools Project).
Replace San Pablo Replace bridse on San Pablo
4051 Avenue Bridse Over Arterial/Roadway Avenue over Rodeo Creek. Bridse
Rodeo Creek has less than SO rating
4334 Appian Way and Arsvle Arterial/Roadway Traffic slsnal at Appian Way and
Road Sisnal Project Argyle Road
Appian Way and Santa
4338 Rita Road Signa l Arterial/Roadway Install traffic signal at lntersectlonl
Project
Fred Jackson Provide travel lanes, bike lanes, Way/Third Street 4350 Complete Street Arterial/Roadway parking lanes and median along
Concepts Plan Fred Jackson Way
Seventh Street Extend Seventh Street, North Extension to Brookside 4351 Drive Improvements Arterial/Roadway Richmond, from Wildcat Creek to
Project Brookside Drive
4587
El Portal Drive
4360 Complete Street Arterial/Roadway Widen to 4 travel lanes
Improvements
Tara Hills Traffic Provide safety Improvements and
4365 Calming/Complete Arterial/Roadway traffic calming measures along Tara
Street Plan Hills Drive
Colusa Avenue Provide median, parking lanes and 4367 Complete Street Arterial/Roadway
Project bike lanes.
4368 Kensington Curb Arterial/Roadway Install ADA compliant a various
Ramps Project location along Kensington Avenue
Arlington Avenue Provide intersection Improvements 4370 Intersection Arterial/Roadway and traffic signals at intersections Improvements
Olinda Road Sidewalk Fill in sidewalk gaps along Olinda
2795 Gap Closures Bicycle/Pedestrian Road Including the Installation of
pedestrian bridge over a creek.
Total Project Cost l'roject Status
$1,700,000 Not Begun
$250,000 Not Begun
$6,500,000 Not Begun
$5,000,000 No Longer
Supported
$1,960,000 Not Begun
$2,220,000 Not Begun
$651,000 Not Begun
Under $3,614,000 Construction
$420,000 Not Begun
$400,000 Not Begun
$2,600,000 Not Begun
$6,325,000 Not Begun
Delete-same
as3589
Delete: Same as
3587
No Longer $400,000 Supported
$1,500,000 Underway
$500,000 Not Begun
$400,000 Underway
$350,000 Not Begun
$522,000 Not Begun
Primary
Sponsor RTPC
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
J
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
1 Project j ID 1..-----------
Project Name ProjiiCt Type Description = TObl Projed~ ~-.sutus ____ ::v_· ----RTPC-------1
Franklin Canyon Sobrante Ridge to Carquinez Strait
3187 Undercrosslng. Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail: construct Franklin Canyon $300,000 Not Begun Contra Costa WCCTAC Sobrante Ridge to undercrossing for regional trail County
Carqulnez Strait Trail access
3188 SR 4 West Bikeway: Bicycle/Pedestrian SR 4 West Bikeway: Construct $2,000,000 Not Begun Contra Costa WCCTAC Construct bikeway parallel to SR 4 west County
The purpose of this project Is to
create a pedestrian friendly
business district for the
Community of El Sobrante by
upgrading the existing aged path of
travel to a new ADA standard
accessible pathway with new
landscaping along San Pablo Dam
Road between Appian Way and
Hillcrest Road. San Pablo Dam
Road is a major arterial through
downtown El Sobrante providing
access to 1-80. It also provides
connection between 180 and SR-24
In Orinda, making it a commuter
San Pablo Dam Rd route carrying approximately
3231 Pedestrian Bicycle/Pedestrian 30,000 vehicles per day. The $3,91S,OOO Under Contra Costa WCCTAC project, in compliance with ADA. Construction County Improvements will include reconstruction of
existing sidewalk, curb and gutter,
and driveway conforms along both
sides of San Pablo Dam Road
between Appian Way and 100 feet
west of Hillcrest Drive; an
approximate project lenllfl of
1,100 feet. The project will also
include limited drainage
modifications, utility adjustments,
street tree removal and
replacement, sign relocation, bus
stop relocation, new potted
landscaping, and removal or
relocation of existing sidewalk
features (street furniture).
Widen sidewalks, calm traffic and
Third Street Pedestrian add streetlights and street trees to Contra Costa 3497 Project, Phase 2 Bicycle/Pedestrian Third Street between Grove $2,300,000 Not Begun County WCCTAC
Avenue and Wildcat Creek In North
Richmond.
Delete: Same as
3231
Upgrade the pedestrian facilities
3789 Crockett Downtown Bicycle/Pedestrian along Pomona Avenue between $351,000 Design and ROW Contra Costa WCCTAC Upgrade Project 2nd Avenue and 1st Avenue In the County
downtown Crockett Area .
Castro Ranch Road AC Build Sidewalk on Castro Ranch contra Costa 3795 Path Bicycle/Pedestrian Road from San Pablo Dam Road to $242,000 Not Begun County WCCTAC
Hillside Drive (east side)
Bridge for pedestrians and bicycles
San Pablo Creek over San Pablo Creek, from Via Contra Costa 3817 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bicycle/Pedestrian Verde Into downtown El Sobrante. $350,000 Not Begun County WCCTAC
Bridge Will connect to walkway along San
Pablo Creek
Cummings Skyway Bike Construct Class II bike lanes on Contra Costa 4079 Bicycle/Pedestrian Cummings Skyway from Crockett $3,500,000 Not Begun WCCTAC Lanes Blvd. to Franklin Canyon Rd. County
Install 3,000 ft of sidewalk,
drainage,
Montalvin Manor installation/improvements, Contra Costa 4178 Sidewalk and Transit Bicycle/Pedestrian installation of two new bus $1,810,000 Complete County WCCTAC
Access Improvements shelters, and installation of ADA
accessible curb ramps along San
Pablo Avenue and Kay Road.
Railroad crossing pedestraln
4184 Chesley Ave Railroad Bicycle/Pedestrian facilities, 5 foot wide sidewalk, $140,000 Complete Contra Costa WCCTAC Pedestrian Crossing curb gutter, railroad warning County
devices.
Project
ID
4188
4189
4352
4353
4354
4363
4364
4366
4369
4444
4445
4446
4447
4S21
PrOJect Name
Market Avenu e
Railroad Pedestrian
Crossing
Market Avenue
Sidewalk
Improvements
N. Richmond
Pedestrian and
Community
Enhancement
Hillside Drive Sidewalk
GapOosure
Valley View Road Bike
Lanes Project
San Pablo Avenue
Complete Street
Project
Tara Hills Drive
Complete Street
Pedestrian
Improvements
Dolan Way Pedestrian
Improvements Project
Rincon Road Widening
and Pedestrian
Improvements Project
Rodeo Downtown &
Waterfront
Infrastructure Program
6th Street Rodeo
Sidewalk Project
7th Street Rodeo
Sidewalk Project
Pomona Ave Sidewalk
Project
West County Safe
Routes to School
Expansion Project
TRANSPAC PROJECTS
Contra Costa Centre
ADD Treat
Blvd/1680 Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Project Type Description
Improves the pedestrian facilities
along the north side of Market
Bicycle/Pedestrian Avenue between 7th Street and
Soto Street, west of the Union
Pacific Railroad crossing
Improve the pedestrian facilities
along the north side of Market
Avenue by constructing 6.5-foot
Bicycle/Pedestrian wide concrete sidewalk, curb,
gutter, and curb ramps between
7th Street and Soto Street, west of
the Union Pacific Railroad crossing.
Installation of sidewalk, curb and
gutter, curb ramps, and bulb outs
within the North Richmond PDA.
The location Is the area north of
Bicycle/Pedestrian Market Avenue, south of Wildcat
Creek, east of Fred Jackson Way
and west of the railroad tracks In
the vicinity of Verde Elementary
School.
Provide a 5 feet wide sidewalk on
Bicycle/Pedestrian the north side of Hillside Drive, El
Sobrante.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide class II bike lanes on both
sides of Valley View Road .
Provide pedestrian and bicycle
Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements from Rodeo to
Crockett
Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide a pathway to Montara Bay
Park
Close a 70 feet long sidewalk gap,
Bicycle/Pedestrian provide curb ramps along Dolan
Way, bulb-outs at Flannery Road.
Provide minimum 12' travel lanes
and 5' wide sidewalk along one
Bicycle/Pedestrian side of Rincon Road. Grading,
retaining walls and right of way
acquisition would be required.
Install curb, sidewalks, gutters,
Bicycle/Pedestrian ADA compliant ramps in downtown
area
Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide sidewalk on one side of 6th
Street
Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide sidewalk on one side
Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide sidewalk of south side of
Pomona St, ret. Wall.
Expand the West Contra Costa
SR25 program to add 2 additional
elementary schools to each
Safe Routes to School jurisdiction within West Contra
Costa: Richmond, San Pablo, El
Cerrito, Pinole, Hercules, and the
unincorporated area.
Ped/Bike improvements along
Bicycle/Pedestrian Treat Boulevard between the Iron
Horse Trail, through the (1-680)
over-crossing to Geary
Total Project Cost Projed Status
$227,000 Complete
$280,000 Complete
$4,200,000 Not Begun
Under $200,000 Construction
$250,000 Not Begun
11,200,000 Not Begun
$600,000 Under
Construction
Desian and $650,000 ROW
$2,500,000 Not Begun
$1,116,000 Not Begun
$375,000 Not Begun
$480,000 Not Begun
$450,000 Not Begun
$801,800 Under
Construction
TBD Planning
Primary
Soonsor RTPC
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
WCCTAC
TRANSPAC
Project
ID
3579
3586
3765
3768
3770
4179
4180
4336
4337
4340
--
4373
4375
4378
I
Proje.:tName
Pacifica Avenue Left
Turn Pocket at Rio
VIsta School
Rudgear Road/San
Miguel Drive/Walnut
Boulevard/Mountain
VIew Boulevard Safety
Improvements
Deer Valley Road
Safety Improvements
Treat Boulevard
Reconstruction
Alhambra Valley Road
Shoulder Widening.
East of Castro Ranch
Alhambra Valley Road
Improvements-
Ferndale Rd to Rancho
La Boca Rd
Alhambra Valley Road
Improvements -
Alhambra Creek Road
and Quail Lane
Olympic Boulevard and
Brldgeflefd Road Signal
Project
N. Buchanan ar and
Pacheco Blvd Signal
Project
Bailey Road and Mary
Anne Lane Signal
Project
Livorna Road and
Intersection
Improvements at
Wilson Rd
Stone Valley Road at
Roundhill Road
Improvements
Livorna Road
Improvements
Project Type Description
Construct left tum pocket at Rio Arterial/Roadway Vista Elementary School.
Safety improvements for Rudgear
Arterial/Roadway Road, San Miguel Drive, Walnut
Boulevard, and Mountain View
Boulevard.
Develop shoulder projects, curve
Arterial/Roadway alignments, etc. along Deer Valley
Road.
Remove and relplace asphalt
overlay and bring curb ramps Into
ADA compliance. The project will
Arterial/Roadway remove and replace the existing
rubberized asphalt overlay that
covers Treat Boulevard from
Buskirk Avenue to the bridge
structure at Walnut Creek Channel
Shoulder widemng ~long Alhambra
Valley Road. This project improves
a section of Alhambra Valley Road,
beginning from approximately
4, 700 feet east of Castro Ranch
Road, going east 1,650 feet. This
project consists of; road widening
Arterial/Roadway for shoulders, slope cutting and
retaining wall construction on the
north side of the road to
accommodate the road widening,
place guardrail, striping, relocate I
remove I add new signage, etc. The
proposed shoulder widening will
also serve as a aass Ill bicycle
facility.
Realignment, widening, pavement
reflector markers repair, traffic
Arterial/Roadway warning sign and striping on
Alhambra Valley Road between
Ferndale Road and Rancho La Boca
Road .
Arterial/Roadway
Provide traffic signal at Olympic Arterial/Roadway Boulevard and Bridgefield Road
Arterial/Roadway Install traffic signal at intersection
Install signal at Bailey Rd/Mary Ann ArteriaVRoadway Ln
Install signal, tum pockets, bicycle
Arterial/Roadway and pedestrian safety
improvements at the intersection.
Remove, no longer supported.
Road diet/crosswalk improvements Arterial/Roadway at Roundhill Road Intersection
Arterial/Roadway Provide Standard pavement width
along Livorna Road
Total Project Cost ProJect Status
$375,000 Not Begun
$350,000 Design/Const
$1,400,000 Not Begun
$2,241,000 Not Begun
$2,000,000 Not Begun
$890,000 Design and
ROW
$490,000 Not Begun
$415,000 Not Begun
$585,000 Not Begun
Under $585,000 Construction
Design and $2,000,000 ROW
$500,000 Not Begun
Delete Project
$85,000 Not Begun
Primary
Sponsor RTPC
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
completed
Contra Costa
County
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANS PAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANS PAC
TRANS PAC
------
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANS PAC
Project
ID
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4451
4455
4456
4457
4458
4460
4474
3215
3584
Project Name
Whyte Park Avenue
Sidewalk Project
Ped Bridge at Dewing
Lane across Las Trampas
Creek
Pedestrian facilities for
San Miguel Drive
Newell Avenue Pedestrian
Path Project
Boulevard Way Sidewalk
Project
Monterey Street Safety
Improvements
Bay Area Ridge Trail
Connection at Benicia
Bridge
Pacheco Boulevard
Sidewalk Gap Closure
Phase II
Pacheco Blvd Complete
Street Concept Plan
Aspen Drive Pedestrian
Improvements
Pacheco Blvd Pedestrian
Path under AT&SF Bridge
Gloria Terrace Sidewalk
Project
Olympic Corridor Trail
Connector Study
Pomona Street I Winslow
Avenue I Carquinez
Scenic Drive Safety
Alignment Study
Project Type Description
Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide sidewalk
Construct a pedestrian bridge to Bicycle/Pedestrian cross creek
Provide a 4' wide walkable
Bicycle/Pedestrian shoulder one side, ret. walls,
grading, r/w acquisition required.
AC Pedestrian path along Newell
Bicycle/Pedestrian Avenue from Parkmead
Elementary to Las Lomas High.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide sidewalk
Pipe existing 100ft. long ditch,
Bicycle/Pedestrian drainage Improvements, provide
walkable shoulders
Pedestrian and Bicycle upgrades at
Bicycle/Pedestrian Benicia Bridge to provide
connection for the Bay Area Ridge
Trail.
Provide sidewalk, parking lane and
Bicycle/Pedestrian bike lane
Provide medians, sidewalk, parking
Bicycle/Pedestrian lane, and bike lanes along Pacheco
Blvd
Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide a 12 foot wide AC path
along park
Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide Pedestrian Path under
AT&SFBrldge
Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide a sidewalk or walkable
shoulders.
This study will identify options for
improving the non-motorized
connection between the Lafayette-
Moraga Trail (LMn and the Iron
Horse Trail (IHT). Study elements
include public outreach, alternative
identification, selection of
preferred alignment, preliminary
design, cost, phasing. This study Is
needed to Improve the current
connection (an inconsistent variety
of on and off-street facilities) with
a lower stress (e.g. off-street)
connection similar to that of the
LMT & IHT in the Olympic
Study Boulevard Corridor. The LMT and
the IHT are popular multi-use paths
providing a low-stress (off-street)
option for pedestrians and cyclists.
This study will examine options for
connecting these two facilities with
a similar off-street connection in
the Olympic Boulevard corridor.
This connection, in addition to the
existing IHT connection to the
Contra Costa Canal Trail, would
create a continuous connection
joining Concord, Danville,
Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga,
Pleasant Hill, San Ramon, and
Walnut Creek.
Alignment Studies for Pomona
Study Street, Winslow Avenue, and
Carquinez Scenic Drive.
Total Project Cost Project Statu!
$80,000 Not Begun
$1,500,000 Not Begun
$1,500,000 Not Begun
$1,200,000 Not Begun
$980,000 Not Begun
$550,000 Not Begun
$300,000 Not Begun
Under $1,148,000 Construction
$1,500,000 Not Begun
$250,000 Not Begun
$200,000 Not Begun
$1,800,000 Not Begun
$195,000 Not Begun
$50,000
Primary
Sponsor RTPC
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
_ _j
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANS PAC
TRANSPAC
Project
ID
4424
4430
4431
4448
4449
4450
4452
4454
4459
2609
3580
3782
3799
PfOiectName Project Type
Taylor Boulevard Safety Arterial/Roadway Improvement Project
Center Avenue Widening
(Marsh Drive I Pacheco Arterial/Roadway
Boulevard)
Center Avenue Widening
(Pacheco Boulevard to Arterial/Roadway
Blackwood Drive)
Peach Street Closure Arterial/Roadway Project
Alhambra Valley Rd guard Arterial/Roadway rail/realignment Project
Bear Creek Road Safety Arterial/Roadway Improvements
McNabney Marsh Open
Space Connection to Arterial/Roadway
Waterfront Road Project
Alhambra Valley Road
Safety Improvements Arterial/Roadway
Project
Pacheco Boulevard Arterial/Roadway Realignment
Pleasant Hill BART Station
Bicycle and Pedestrian Bicycle/Pedestrian
Access
Pacifica Avenue Phase II:
Improvements Bicycle/Pedestrian
Pleasant Hill BART
Shortcut Pedestrian Path Bicycle/Pedestrian
Pacheco Blvd Bike and Bicycle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Project
Description
Safety and capacity Improvement
project
Widen to 4 lanes, and provide
sidewalks on both sides
Widen to 4 lanes, and provide
sidewalks on both sides
Close Peach Street and provide a
cul-de-sac.
Guard rail upgrade to current
standards
Safety Improvement along Bear
Creek Rd
Provide entrance and connecting
road to McNabney Marsh Open
Space from Waterfront Rd
Realign horiz.and vert. curves;
widen travel; install paved
shoulders and shoulder backing;
relocate roadside obstacles
Realign grade crossing with AT&SF
Improve access for pedestrian and
bicyclists
Widen both sides of roadway
between Driftwood Drive and Rio
Vista Elementary School and Install
bike lane striping. driveway
conforms, concrete curbs, and
minor drainage. Construct sidewalk
both sides and drainage facilities.
Plan, Design, and Construct a
shortcut path at the Pleasant Hill
BART Station.
The purpose of this project Is to
help create a walkable, pedestrian-
friendly neighborhood and
business district. Pacheco
Boulevard Is a minor arterial road,
with daily average trips (ADTl of
18,519. Installation of a
continuous sidewalk and bike
infrastructure will eliminate safety
concerns and encourage residents
to choose alternative modes of
transportation. This project will
close the last gap of sidewalk and
bike lanes on the north side of
Pacheco Boulevard. This project
will construct approximately 1,200
linear feet of 6.5' wide concrete
sidewalk with curb and gutter and
a 5' wide class II bike lane from
Wind hover Way to 230' south of
Morello Avenue. Driveway
conforms will be installed as
required. The project will Include
ADA compliant curb ramps to be
installed at the comers of
Windhover Way and Goree Court,
retaining walls, removal of two
earthen mounds, relocating utility
poles, installation of a storm drain
inlet, some pavement and striping.
Total Project Cost Project Status
$670,000 Not Begun
$416,000 Not Begun
Delete: Same as $416,000 3546
$350,000 Not Begun
$450,000 Not Begun
$850,000 Not Begun
$350,000 Not Begun
$2,764,000 Under
Construction
$17,000,000 Not Begun
$2,444,000 Design and ROW
Under $675,000 Construction
$2,800,000 Not Begun
$1,150,000 Under
Construction
Prim'lllry
Sponsor RTPC
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
TRANSPAC
TRANS PAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANS PAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANS PAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
i Project
I ID
Project Nam1o Project Type Description
~ ------------------------------------------
Design and ce>nstruct Class I trail
3800 Carquinez Scenic Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian along closed Carquniez Scenic
Drive between Port Costa and
Martin
Construct a class 2 bicycle lane on
3rd Street between Grove Ave and
3801 North Richmond Bikeway Bicycle/Pedestrian a class 1 on Wildcat Trail and a
Project class 3 bicycle route on Market
Ave. between 3rd Stand the
County limits.
Pe>rt Costa -Martinez Repair and recontstruct trail into a
3807 Bike/Ped Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Class I multi-use bicycle/pedestrian
trail.
San Pablo Avenue I Connecting a gap in the sidewalk.
3834 Parker Avenue Sidewalk Bicycle/Pedestrian Pre>ject in conjunctie>n with City of
Hercules.
4371 Hemme Avenue Sidewalk Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide 5 feet wide sidewalk, curb
Improvements and gutter
4372 LIVC>rna Road Bikeway Bicycle/Pedestrian Pre>vide a class I bikeway
Tice Valley Blvd Safety Provide a class II bike lane from
4384 Bicycle/Pedestrian Tice Valley Ln at Walnut Creek Improvement border to Iron Horse Trail
4422 Pleasant Hill Road Bicycle Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide class II bike lanes Project
4423 Pleasant Hill Road Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide sidewalk on west side Sidewalk Project
Closure of sidewalk gaps, repair of
Contra Costa Centre cracked and uplifted surfaces in
4425 Infrastructure Bicycle/Pedestrian sidewalks, crosswalks, and tree
wells, and upgrade of pedestrian Improvements Project facilities to current Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.
4432 Jones Rd Bike Route Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide a class Ill bike route Project
4433 Marshall Drive Sidewalk Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide sidewalk on both sides
4434 Mayhew Way Sidewalk Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide sidewalk Project
Pleasant Hill BART area
Bike Route-Las Juntas
4435 Wy, Oak Rd, Wayne Dr Bicycle/Pedestrian Class Ill bike route
(from Jones Rd to
Various)
4436 Springbrook Road Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide sidewalk Sidewalk Project
Walnut Boulevard Bicycle Provide Pedestrian Path and Bike
4437 Bicycle/Pedestrian Route along north side of Walnut and Pedestrian Project Blvd
Total Pre>jeor:t Cost Project Status
$3,800,000 Complete
$73,000 Not Begun
$1,179,000 Not Begun
Completed
$397,000 Not Begun
$250,000 Ne>t Begun
$344,000 Not Begun
Delete: Study=
3215,New
Project ADDED
$3,000,000 Not Begun
Delete: same as
3215
$270,000 Not Begun
$150,000 Not Begun
$1,105,000 Complete
$100,000 Not Begun
$380,000 Not Begun
$80,000 Not Begun
$100,000 Not Begun
$350,000 Not Begun
Under $1,016,000 Construction
Primary
Spe>nsor ~RTPC
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
Ce>unty
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
l
TRANSPAC
WCCTAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANS PAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANS PAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANSPAC
TRANS PAC
TRANSPAC
Project
ID
3597
37S5
3761
3767
3786
3823
4046
4049
4054
4187
4333
4339
4341
4342
4343
4387
4388
Project Name
State Route 4/ Newport
Drive Traffic Signal
Byron Highway Shoulder
Widening
Marsh Creek Road I
Morgan Territory Road
Intersection
Improvements
Marsh Creek Road
Intersection
Improvements, Round
Valley Park to Lydia Lane
Marsh Creek Detention
Facility Bridge
Briones Valley Road
Bridge
Deer Valley Road Safety
Improvements Project
Marsh Creek Safety
Improvements Project
Willow Pass Road Safety
Improvements Project
Driftwood Drive
Landscape Improvement
Project
Byron Highway Bridge
Replacement over
California Acqueduct
Marsh Creek Road and
Deer Valley Road Signal
Project
Marsh Creek Road Bridge
Replacement over Marsh
Creek#141
Marsh Creek Road Bridge
Replacement over Marsh
Creek#143
Marsh Creek Road Bridge
Replacement over Marsh
Creek#145
Interim safety
improvements on Marsh
Creek Road Project
Safety Improvement at
Marsh Creek Rd. at
Clayton Mobile Home
Park Entrance
Project Type
Arterial/Roadway
Arterial/Roadway
ArteriaVRoadway
Arterial/Roadway
ArteriaVRoadway
ArteriaVRoadway
Arterial/Roadway
Arterial/Roadway
ArteriaVRoadway
Arterial/Roadway
Arterial/Roadway
ArteriaVRoadway
Arterial/Roadway
Arterial/Roadway
Arterial/Roadway
ArteriaVRoadway
Arterial/Roadway
Description Total Project Cost Project Status
Install a traffic signal at the
intersection of State Route 4 and $427,000 Not Begun
Newport Drive.
Construct 6' wide paved shoulders
and 2' of shoulder backing along $2,176,000 Not begun
Byron Highway.
This project will widen the travel
lanes to have 12 feet of pavement,
widen the shoulders to a minimum $1,000,000 Not Begun
4 feet of pavement, place a minium
3 feet sholder backing, etc.
The project involves widening the
traveled way, shoulders, and
shoulder backing and making
several roadside improvements $2,492,000 Complete
along a 2,900 ft segment of Marsh
Creek Road from west of Round
Valley Park up to Lydia Lane.
Significant erosion 2005/2006 at
the bridge across from the Marsh Under Creek Detention Facility. $1,644,000 Construction Replacement of the structure is
necessary
Remove the existing wood deck and
superstructure, and construct new bridge $150,000 Not Begun footings, superstructure, and bridge deck
Provide safety improvements along Deer $2,623,000 Not Begun Valley Road
Provide safety improvements along Marsh $1,400,000 Not Begun Creek Road (to be defined).
Construct safety improvements along Willow $1,000,000 Complete Pass Road
repair the existing streetscape along
Driftwood Drive between Evora Road and Jill $750,000 Complete
Avenue in the community of Bay Point.
Replace existing timber bridge with new Design concrete bridge, reconstruct approach and $11,000,000
drainage improvements and ROW
Install traffic signal at intersection and
pavement widening necessary for a tum $1,080,000 Not Begun
pocket
Replace existing timber bridge with new Design concrete bridge in stages, reconstruct $3,800,000
approach and drainage improvements. and ROW
Replace existing timber bridge with new
concrete bridge in stages, reconstruct $4,500,000 Design
approach, drainage improvements and and ROW
retaining walls.
Replace existing timber bridge with new Design concrete bridge in stages, reconstruct $3,000,000 and ROW approach, drainage improvements.
delete:
same as
3786
Install low cost Traffic Calming measures, $350,000 Not Begun slowing/striping enhancements.
Safety Improvements. $150,000 Not Begun
Drimary
Sponior RTPC
Contra Costa TRANS PLAN County
Contra Costa
County TRANSPLAN
Contra Costa
County TRANSPLAN
Contra Costa
County TRANS PLAN
Contra Costa
County TRANSPLAN
Contra Costa TRANSPLAN County
Contra Costa TRANSPLAN County
Contra Costa TRANS PLAN County
Contra Costa TRANSPLAN County
Contra Costa
County TRANS PLAN
Contra Costa TRANSPLAN County
Contra Costa
County TRANSPLAN
Contra Costa TRANSPLAN County
Contra Costa TRANS PLAN County
Contra Costa
County TRANS PLAN
Contra Costa TRANSPLAN County
Contra Costa TRANSPLAN County
Project
ID
4392
4395
4396
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4406
4409
4410
4464
4467
3082
3083
3084
3581
Prvject Name Prvject Typ•
Byron Highway at Byron ArterlaVRoadway Elementary School
Morgan Territory Road Arterial/Roadway Safety Improvements
Kit fox crossing near
Marsh Creek Rd. and Arterial/Roadway
Morgan Territory Rd.
Route 84/Vasco Road Arterial/Roadway Widening to County line
Evora Road Widening Arterial/Roadway
Wilbur Avenue Safety ArteriaVRoadway Improvement Project
Deer Valley Road ArterlaVRoaclway Widening Project
Walnut Boulevard Road Arterial/Roadway Widening Project
Byron Highway Safety Arterial/Roadway Enhancement Project
Marsh Creek Rd Safety
Improvements-camino Arterial/Roadway
Diablo Intersection
Marsh Creek Road Safety
Improvements at Arterial/Roadway
Russelman Road
Marsh Creek Road Safety
Improvements west of ArterlaVRoadway
Deer Valley Road
Port Chicago Highway ArterlaVRoadway Safety Improvements
WHiow Pass Road Arterial/Roadway Widening Project
Delta Road: Add Bicycle Bicycle/Pedestrian Lane
Delta-De Anza Trail, Evora Bicycle/Pedestrian Road to Port Chicago Hwy
Delta-De Anza Trail, Port
Chicago Hwy to Iron Blcyde/Pedestrlan
Horse Trail
Pacifica Avenue Phase Ill : Bicycle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Facilities
Description Total Prvject Cost ProjiiCt Status
Provide a left turn lane at school $217,000 Not Begun
Safety Improvements along Morgan Territory $1,000,000 Not Begun Rd.
Install appropriate sized culverts under road $800,000 Not Begun for Kit fox crossing
Remove-covered by 4046 and 4049
Provide 4 lane widening $200,000,000 Not Begun
Widen to 4 travel lanes $5,800,000 Not Begun
Widen to four travel lanes $5,000,000 Not Begun
Widen to 4 travel lanes $9,000,000 Not Begun
Widen to 4 travel lanes $12,000,000 Not Begun
Safety Enhancement Project $3,600,000 Not Begun
Remove-same as 4049
Delete:
same as
3541
Provide traffic signal and tum lanes $600,000 Not Begun
Widen roadway along Marsh Creek Road east Under
of Russelmann Park Road $2,851,000 Construct!
on
Curve Realignment and road widening project Design $2,390,000 from 2.0 to 2.25 mi west of Deer Valley Road and ROW
Reconstruct, restrlpe, Intersection $600,000 Not
Improvements Begun
Widen to 4 travel lanes $3,450,000 Not
Begun
Delta Road: add dass 2 bike lane. $530,000 Not
Begun
Delta-De Anza Trail: construct aass I bikeway $500,000 Not
from Evora Road to Port Chicago Hwy Begun
Delta-De Anza Trail: construct Class I bikeway Not $1,500,000 from Port Chicago Hwy to Iron Horse Trail Begun
Provide sidewalks, curb ramps, and drainage
improvements along Pacifica Avenue $1,160,000 Not
between Driftwood Drive and Port Chicago Applicable
Highway
Primary
Sponsor
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
RTPC
TRANS PLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANS PLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANS PLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANS PLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANS PLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANS PLAN
TRANS PLAN
TRANSPLAN
I Project
~ ID
Project Name
Knightsen Pedestrian 3796 Project
3835 Delta Road Sidewalk and
Bike Lanes
Bailey Road Transit Access 3897 Improvement
Willow Lake Road 4053 Sidewalk Project
4055 Delta De Anza Trail Gap
Closure Bay Point
Driftwood Drive Bike 4186 Lanes
VIera Avenue Bike Lanes 4190 Project
Bailey Rd./SR 4
4280 Interchange Pedestrian &
Bicycle Improvement
Project
Lone Tree Way (Anderson
4389 Lane) bike lane gap
closure
4390 Main Street Sidewalk
4391 Holway Drive Safety
Improvements
4407 Gateway Road Sidewalk
Project
Project Type Description Total Project Cost Project Status
The purpose of this project is to replace the
sidewalk on Knightsen Avenue from the
Intersection with A Street to approximately
Bicycle/Pedestrian 200' south-east along Knightsen Avenue. $570,000 Complete
This project will construct approximately 220
linear feet of 8' wide sidewalk on Knightsen
Avenue and A Street.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Construct sidewalk and bike lanes on Delta $580,000 Not
Road Begun
Pedestrian crossing improvements to BART Not Bicycle/Pedestrian station including sidewalk widening and $2,197,506 Begun security lighting.
Construct sidewalk along the south side of
Willow Lake Road from Discovery Bay
Boulevard to Discovery Bay Elementary
Bicycle/Pedestrian School. Currently there is no sidewalk or path $232,000 complete
along the south side of Willow Lake Road
connecting the residents south of the road
with their school.
Install a 12-foot wide asphalt concrete bike
trail along the east side of Willow Pass Road
Bicycle/Pedestrian atthe location stated above. Stripe a bike $100,973 Complete lane on the west side of the road opposite
the AC path. Install bike lane signage and a
pedestrian barricade.
Install 4,300-foot long 5-foot bike lanes in
Bicycle/Pedestrian each direction of traffic, and improve $50,000 Complete
drainage inlet grates.
Widen Viera Avenue between East
Eighteenth Street and Wilbur Avenue to a 32
Bicycle/Pedestrian foot road width. This will provide 12 foot $746,000 Complete
travel lanes and 4 foot shoulders for Class II
bike lanes.
Interchange modifications to provide bicycle
Bicycle/Pedestrian and pedestrian improvements along Bailey $5,200,000 Design
Road.
Not Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide 4ft. wide class II bike lanes $1,300,000 Begun
Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide sidewalk, curb and gutter on the $200,000 Design
west side of Main Street, Byron and ROW
Bicycle/Pedestrian Connects sidewalks, curb ramps, and $390,000 Not
crosswalks. Begun
Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide sidewalk, curb and gutter on one $500,000 Not
side. Begun
Primary
Sponsor
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
RTPC
TRANS PLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANS PLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANS PLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANS PLAN
TRANSPLAN
Project
10
4420
4421
4426
4462
446S
4468
4470
4471
4520
4183
3502
ADD
ADD
ADD
Project Name
Knightsen Ave. onto Delta
Rd Pedestrian Project
Delta Road Sidewalk
Project
Kirker Pass Road Bicycle
Project
Trail improvements In Bay
Point
Pacifica Avenue Sidewalk
Project
Bella Vista Neighborhood
Infrastructure
Improvements Project
Delta DeAnza Trail
Connection
Canal Road Bicycle and
Pedestrian Improvement
Program
Port Chicago
Highway/Willow Pass
Road Pedestrian & Bicycle
Improvement Project
Byron Vasco Connector
Project
Willow Pass
Beautification Project
Northern Waterfront
Good Movement
lnfr3structure
Willow Pass Rd at West
interchange at SR 4
wmow Pass Rd at Evora
at Willow Pass Ct
Project Type Description Total Project Cost Project Status
Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide sidewalk along Knightsen Avenue $450,000 Complete
Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide sidewalk $400,000 Not
Begun
Bicycle/Pedestrian Provide class II bike lanes $S,OOO,OOO Not
Begun
Provide sidewalk along Driftwood Drive,
Steffa Street, and Tradewinds Court. Provide
trail from Beaulieu ct along the north into
parcel 098021030 to Beaulieu Court to Not Bicycle/Pedestrian Rapallo Lane to Waterview Place. Provide $2,600,000 Begun trail along the water canal from Mota Drive
to Willow Pass Road. Provide trail along the
creek from Pacifica Avenue to Riverside
Drive.
Provide sidewalk along north side of Pacifica Under
Bicycle/Pedestrian Avenue $1,200,000 Construct!
on
Not Bicycle/Pedestrian Neighborhood Infrastructure Improvements $18,300,000 Begun
Bicycle/Pedestrian Upgrade trail connections in intersecting $150,000 Not
streets Begun
Provide sidewalk and bike lanes along Design Bicycle/Pedestrian segment of Canal Road $1,690,000 and ROW
The installation of bike lane, sidewalk, curb
and gutter, curb ramps, and a pedestrian Safe Routes to actuated flasher to increase safety for an $1,784,000 Design
School improved route to school, trail and transit in and ROW
a Community of Concern.
Study feasibility of alternatives for Not Study connectors between Byron and Vasco Road $14,0S2,000
as part of COD General Plan Amendment Begun
Install street trees along both sides of Willow Not nc Pass Road and within a landscaped median, $2,400,000
and add special pedestrian-scale lighting. Begun
TBD/ Not
Arteriai/Roadway/R TBD Study Phases TBD Bugun
(Study ail/Water Phase)
Arterial/Roadway Signalize EB and WB off·ramps $1,088,000 Not
Begun
Arterial/Roadway Add turn lanes $803,000 Not
Begun
Primary
Sponsor
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Redevelopmen
tAgency
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
RTPC
TRANSPLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANS PLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANS PLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANS PLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANS PLAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANS PLAN
TRANSPLAN
~P-~-~~-ea----P-~-~_ea __ N_a_m __ e ____________ ~-~-j-ed __ T_yp __ e~--DeM7i~io~----------~---Total Project Cost ~jed Status
ADD Willow Pass Rd at Bailey Artenai/Roadway Restripe to four ldnes $214,000 Not
Rd to Pittsburg City Limits Begun
ADD Willow Pass Rd at ArterialfRnadway Arirt tum lan~• $1 ,058,000 Not
Intersection at Bailey Rd Begun
Port Chicago Highway-Not ADD Driftwood to West of Bicyde/Pedestrian Add shoulders and sidewalks $2,830,000 Begun McAvoy Rd
Port Chicago Highway-Not ADD -..•lc-;t c~ M:Avcr Rd tc Bic;de/Pede;;trian Re a!iin to :itandard:s with :iide·n·afU $1,404,000 Begun Pacifica Ave
Driftwood Dr -Port Not ADD Chicago Hwy to Pacifica Bicycle/Pedestrian Complete street with sidewalks $2,457,000 Begun Ave
Pacifica Ave -Port Not ADD Chicago Hwy to Alves Arterial/Roadway Extend roadway $4,773,000 Begun Lane Ext
ADD Alves Lane Extension Arterial/Roadway Extend roadway Willow Pass Rd to Pacifica $4,516,000 Not
Ave Ext Begun
ADD Bailey Rd · Canal Rd to $7,140,000 Not
BART Begu'l
ADD Loftus Rd · Canal Rd to Bicycle/Pedestrian Complete street with sidewalk $1.873,000 Not
Willow Pass Rd Begun
ADD Bethel Island Rd Wells Arterial/Roadway Add Shoulders $512,000 Not
Rd to Sandmound Blvd Begun
l'rimary
Sponsor
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
RTPC
TRANSPLAN
TRANS PIAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANS PIAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANS PIAN
TRANSPLAN
TRANS PLAN
TRANS PLAN
TRANSPLAN
I
Proj ect
ID Project Name Project Type Description Total Project Cost Project Status Primary
Spans« RTPC
'-----------------------------·----·--------------------'
ADD Sandmound Blvd -Oakley Arterial/Roadway Add Shoulders $799,000 Not Contra Costa TRANSPLAN City tim it> to MJroner Rd Begun County
ADD Sandmound Blvd-1\rterl af/Ro~dway Add Shoulders $2 ,62'1,000 Not Contra Costa TRANSPLAN
Mariner Rd to Cypress Rd Segun Lounty
ADD Gateway Rd -Bethel Ar:eriai/Roadway Add Shoulders $1.690,000 Not Contra Costa TRANS PLAN Island Rd to Piper Rd Begun County
ADD Piper Ra -Gateway Rd to Arterial/Roadway Add Shoulders $1,293,000 Not Contra Costa TRANS PLAN
WillowRd Begun County
ADD Discovery Bay Blvd Arterial/Roadway Modify signal timing $60.000 Not Contra Costa TRANSPLAN Intersection with SR-4 Begun County
Discovery Bay Blvd Convert Intersection to all-way stop-Not Contra Costa ADD Intersection with Clipper Arterial/Roadway control!ed $90,000 Begun County TRANSPLAN
Drive
ADD SR-4 between Newport Dr Bicycle/Pedestrian Widen roadway and improve bicycle facilities $450,000 Not Contra Costa TRANSPLAN
and Discovery Bay Blvd Begun County
ADD SR-4 Intersection with Arterial/Roadway Add traffic signal $500,000 Not Contra Costa TRANS PLAN Newport Or Begun County
East Contra
Widen to 6 lanes, Laurel Road to Sand Creek Not Costa Regional
ADD SR4 Bypass, Segment 2 Freeway Road $38.000,000 Begun Fee and TRANSPLAN
Financins
Authority
East Contra
Widen to 41anes: Balfour Road to Marsh Not Costa Regional
ADD SR4 Bypass, Segment 3 Freeway Creek Road $38,000,000 Begun Fee and TRANSPLAN
Financing
Authority
Buchanan Road olr New 4-lane arterial (perhaps Z-lanes Buchal'lan Road Bypass Not ADD Arterial depending on studies) and Railroad Avenue $40,000,000 Pittsburg TRANSPLAN (currently known as to Sommersville Road, widen to 4-lanes Begun
James Donlan Extension I
ADD Neroly Road Arterial Oakley Road to Laurel Road, widen to 4-lanes $5,000,000 Not Contra Costa TRANS PLAN Begun County
I Project Project Name
~---
ADD Balfour Road Widening
SWAT·LAMORINDA PROJECTS
Repair Boulevard Way
3833 Bridge at Las Trampas
Creek
4386 Fish Ranch Road Safety
Improvements
2904 SR 24 Bikeway
SWAT· TRIVALLEY PROJECTS
2591 East Branch Road
Extension
Dougherty Rd.: Widen,
2606 Red Willow to Alameda
County
2991 Vasco Road Safety
Improvements, Phase 1
2992 Vasco Road Safety
Improvements, Phase 2
3206 Camino Tassajara Curve
Realignment
Camino Tassajara Road
3207 Widening: Windermere to
County Une
Stone Valley Road
3432 Improvements: High Eagle
to Roundhill Road
Stone Valley Road
3433 Improvements: Roundhill
Road to Glenwood Court
Miranda Avenue
3575 Widening and Curb
Project
4379 Miranda Avenue
Improvements
4380 Camino Tassajara
Improvements
4381 Nonris Canyon Road
Safety Improvements
Project Type Description Total Project Cost Project ltatus
Arterial W iden to 4 lanes: Deer Valley Road to $6.800.000 Not
Brentwood City Umits Begun
Repair of degraded Creek invert and armor Not Arterial/Roadway $444,000 the banks. Begun
Arterial/Roadway Safety Improvement, traffic calming $100,000 Not
measures Begun
SR 24 Bikeway: Unincorporated portions of
Bicycle/Pedestrian bikeway from Camino Pablo to Walnut Creek: $128,000 Not
Install destination, warning and traffic control Begun
signage; new bike lanes on Olympic Blvd.
Arterial/Roadway Construct 4lane arterial from Bollinger $14,000,000 Not
Canyon Road to Windemere Parkway Begun
Widen Dougherty road from 2 to 6lanes from Not Arterial/Roadway Red Willow Road to Alameda/Contra Costa $47,800,000 Begun border
Phase 1· Widen and construct a median
barrier approx two miles north of Contra
Costa/ Alameda County line to a pointthree
miles north of the County line (Approx. one
Arterial/Roadway mile In the Brushy Creek Area), with $43,300,000 Complete necessary striping, signing. left turn pockets
and barrier-end treatments. Also construct
along this stretch a southbound passing lane
with necessary widening of Brushy Creek
bridge.
Vasco Road Safety Improvements: realign
Arterial/Roadway roadway to improve sight distance, construct $15,000,000 Design
mead ian barrier, and add shoulders for 1.5 and ROW
mile segment.
Realign S-curve located halfway between
Arterial/Roadway Highland Road and the Alameda county line; $2,748,000 Design
includes widening to rural road, 55-mph and ROW
design standard.
Widen to 4lanes including 8-foot paved Not Arterial/Roadway shoulders and Class II bike lanes in both $12,500,000 Begun directions.
Widen the roadway on Stone Valley Road to Not Arterial/Roadway provide two 12-foot travel lanes and asphalt $127,000 Begun concrete shoulders.
Widen the roadway to provide two 12-foot Not Arterial/Roadway $1,023,000 travel lanes and two 5-foot Class II bike lanes. Begun
Construct pavement widening and curbs on Not Arterial/Roadway $392,000 each side. Begun
Remove-same as 4413
Arterial/Roadway Provide 32' Pavement sections and curb and $392,000 Not
gutter. Begun
Arterial/Roadway Provide 6 lane highway standard. $1,170,000 Not
Begun
Arterial/Roadway Safety and capacity improvements $4,500,000 Not
Begun
Primary
Sponsor
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa
County
RTPC
TRANSPlAN
SWAT/Lamorinda
SWAT/Lamorinda
SWAT/Lamorinda
SWAT/TVTC
SWAT/TVTC
SWAT/TVTC
SWAT/TVTC
SWAT/TVTC
SWAT/TVTC
SWAT/TVTC
SWAT/TVTC
SWAT/TVTC
SWAT/TVTC
SWAT/TVTC
SWAT/TVTC
._P-ro_l~-ect--P-ro-ject--N-am_e----~-=-=~ect~Ty_p_e __ Des~·-·pt-io_n __ _
Total Project Cost Project Status Pnm~ Sponsor RTPC
Signal & Traffic Management
Walkabillty audits and other non-
Infrastructure type of education and parent-
student surveys and then installed
improvements such as painting bike lanes
Countywide Safe Routes green or switching out ped crossings to Not Contra Costa Countywide
ADD Bicycle/Pedestrian include a countdown rather than a flashing $700,000 to School Program hand OR proposed sidewalk gap closure Begun County
primarily at one school site but coupled it
with education efforts at all city schools and
then included all pedestrian collisions
throughout the City In their B/C ratio
ADD Coutywide Mobility Bicycle/Pedestrian Evaluation of current pedestrian facilities for $400,000 Not Countra Costa Countywide
Improvement Program ADA accessibility Begun County
Annual Polymer Modified Maintenance-Apply polymer modified asphalt emulsion Arterial, Collector Not Countra Costa Countywide
ADD Asphalt Emulsion Double and Residential double chip seal to various unincorporated $54,000,000 Begun County Chip Seal Project Roads County roads
Annual Polymer Modified Maintenance-Apply polymer modified asphalt emulsion
ADD Asphalt Emulsion Single Arterial, Collector single chip seal to various unincorporated $30,000,000 Not Countra Costa Countywide
Chip Seal Project and Residential County roads Begun County
Roads
Maintenance-
ADD Annual Slurry Seal Project Arterial, Collector Apply slurry seal to various unincorporated $42,000,000 Not Countra Costa Countywide
and Residential County roads Begun County
Roads
Maintenance-
ADD Annual Micro-Surfacing Arterial, Collector Apply micro-surfacing to various $20,000,000 Not Countra Costa Countywide
Project and Residential unincorporated County roads Begun County
Roads
Maintenance-
ADD Annual Asphalt Rubber Arterial, Collector Apply asphalt rubber cape seal to various $140,000,000 Not Countra Costa Countywide
Cape Seal Project and Residential unincorporated County roads Begun County
Roads
ADD Annual Asphalt Overlay Maintenance-Overlay selected unicorporated County $14,000,000 Not Countra Costa Countywide
Project Arterial Roads arterial roads Begun County
ADD Annual Asphalt Overlay Maintenance-Overlay selected unicorporated County $46,000,000 Not Countra Costa Countywide
Project Collector Roads collector roads Begun County
ADD Annual Asphalt Overlay Maintenance-Overlay selected unlcorporated County $80,000,000 Not Countra Costa Countywide
Project Residential Roads residential roads Begun County
ADD Annual Reconstruction Maintenance-Reconstruction of selected unlcorporated $14,000,000 Not Countra Costa Countywide
Project Arterial Roads County arterial roads Begun County
ADD Annual Reconstruction Maintenance-Reconstruction of selected unicorporated $30,000,000 Not Countra Costa Countywide
Project Collector Roads County collector roads Begun County
ADD Annual Reconstruction Maintenance-Reconstruction of selected unlcorporated $40,000,000 Not Countra Costa Countywide
Project Residential Roads County residential roads Begun County
TRANSPAC PROGRAMS
Iron Horse Trail Signage: install signage for
bicyclists and pedestrians along the entire Under Contra Costa 2624 Iron Horse Trail Signage Bicycle/Pedestrian length of the Iron Horse Trail that is within $300,000 Construct! County TRANS PAC
the County-owned former railroad right-of-on
way
g:\transportatlon\2014ctpupdate\draft ctp comments due sept 27 2014\cptl_comments_draft_final.docx
Transportation Related Taxes In CaliforniaCounty/TaxPercentage Inception Sunset Use/DescriptionFunding MechanismAlameda CountyAlameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTI) 0.50% 4/1/2002 2022 Diverse Transportation/Transit Sales TaxAlameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTC) 0.50% 4/1/2015 2045 Diverse Transportation/Transit Sales TaxBay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) 0.50% 4/1/1970 Continuous Transit Sales TaxTotal 1.50%Possible 2016 Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Tax TBD Transit UnknownPossible Future Total 1.50%Contra Costa County*Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) 0.50% 4/1/1989 2034 Diverse Transportation/Transit Sales TaxBay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) 0.50% 4/1/1970 Continuous Transit Sales TaxTotal 1.00%Proposed 2016 Sales Tax 0.50% Diverse Transportation/Transit Sales TaxPossible 2016 Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Tax TBD Transit UnknownPossible Future Total 1.50%Fresno CountyFresno County Transportation Authority (FCTA) 0.50% 7/1/1987 2027 Diverse Transportation/Transit Sales TaxImperial County Imperial County Local Transportation Authority (IMTA) 0.50% 4/1/1990 2050 Diverse Transportation/Transit Sales TaxLos Angeles County Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LATC) 0.50% 4/1/1991 ContinuousLocal = 25%, Transit = 35%, Roads = 0, Discretionary = 40%, Ped/Bike = 0%Sales TaxLos Angeles County Transportation Commission (LATC) 0.50% 7/1/1982 ContinuousLocal = 20%, Transit = 55%, Roads = 25% (transit specific projects only), Discretionary = 40%, Ped/Bike = 0%Sales TaxLos Angeles County Metro Transportation Authority (LAMT) 0.50% 7/1/2009 2039Local = 15%, Transit = 65%, Roads = 20%, Discretionary = 0%, Ped/Bike = 0%Sales TaxTotal 1.50%Notes:This list primarily contains sales and use taxes for transportation purposes. Potential BART taxes are also listed. Jurisdictions may have other funding directed to transit or transportation which are not reflected in this table.Information below is from the State Board of Equalization. Staff has attempted to to be as inclusive as possible in identifying relevant taxes. There may be local general fund or other revenue dedications to transportation that are not listed in the BOE resource. The source document is available here:https://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/boe105.pdf
Transportation Related Taxes In CaliforniaCounty/TaxPercentage Inception Sunset Use/DescriptionFunding MechanismMadera County Madera County 2006 Transportation Authority (MCTC) 0.50% 4/1/2007 2027 Diverse Transportation/Transit Sales TaxMarin CountyTransportation Authority Marin County (TAMC) 0.50% 4/1/2005 2025 Diverse Transportation/Transit Sales TaxSonoma‐Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMRT) 0.25% 4/1/2009 2019 Transit Sales TaxMendocino County*Monterey CountyMonterey‐Salinas MST Special Transit District (MSTD) 0.13% 4/1/2015 2030Transit Services for Seniors, Veterans, and People with DisabilitiesSales TaxNevada County*Orange CountyOrange County Local Transportation Authority (OCTA) 0.50% 4/1/1991 2041 Diverse Transportation/Transit Sales TaxRiverside CountyRiverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) 0.50% 7/1/1989 2039 Diverse Transportation/Transit Sales TaxSacramento CountySacramento Transportation Authority (STAT) 0.50% 4/1/1989 2039 Diverse Transportation/Transit Sales TaxSan Bernadino CountySan Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBER) 0.50% 4/1/1990 2040 Diverse Transportation/Transit Sales TaxSan Diego CountySan Diego County Regional Transportation Commission (SDTC) 0.50% 4/1/1988 2044 Diverse Transportation/Transit Sales TaxSan Francisco City/CountySan Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFTA) 0.50% 4/1/1990 2034 Diverse Transportation/Transit Sales TaxBay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) 0.50% 4/1/1970 Continuous Transit Sales TaxTotal 1.00%Possible 2016 Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Property Tax TBD Transit UnknownPossible Future Total 1.00%San Joaquin County
Transportation Related Taxes In CaliforniaCounty/TaxPercentage Inception Sunset Use/DescriptionFunding MechanismSan Joaquin Transportation Authority (SJTA) 0.50% 4/1/1991 2041 Diverse Transportation/Transit Sales TaxSan Mateo CountySan Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMTA) 0.50% 1/1/1989 2033 Diverse Transportation/Transit Sales TaxSan Mateo County Transit District (SMCT) 0.50% 7/1/1982 Continuous Transit Sales TaxSanta Barbara CountySanta Barbara County Local Transportation Authority (SBAB) 0.50% 4/1/1990 2040 Diverse Transportation/Transit Sales TaxSanta Clara CountySanta Clara County Transit District (SCCT) 0.50% 10/1/1976 Continuous Transit Sales TaxSanta Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (SCVT) 0.50% 4/1/2006 2036 Diverse Transportation/Transit Sales TaxSanta Clara VTA BART Operating and Maintenance Transactions and 0.13% 7/1/2012 2042 Transit (BART) Sales TaxTotal 1.13%Proposed 2016 Sales Tax 0.50% Diverse Transportation/Transit Sales TaxPossible Future Total 1.63%Santa Cruz CountySanta Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (SCMT) 0.50% 1/1/1979 Continuous Transit Sales TaxSonoma County Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SNTA) 0.25% 4/1/2005 2025 Diverse Transportation/Transit Sales TaxSonoma‐Marin Area Rail Transportation Authority (SMRT) 0.25% 4/1/2009 2019 Transit Sales TaxTulare CountyTulare County Transportation Authority (TCTA) 0.50% 4/1/2007 2037 Diverse Transp;ortation/Transit Sales Tax*Cities with Transportation Sales TaxesCity of El Cerrito (Contra Costa County) ‐0.50% (2008‐Continuous)City of Fort Bragg (Mendocino County) ‐0.50% (2005‐2023)
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: July 15, 2015
S:\03-Authority Packets\2015 ccta\071515\TEP Ad Hoc\3.2 EPAC Minutes Staff Report_JIC-rac.docx
Subject Development of a Transportation Sales Tax Transportation
Expenditure Plan (TEP) – Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC)
June 3, 2015 Meeting Minutes
Summary of Issues The Authority has approved the formation of the Expenditure Plan
Advisory Committee (EPAC), one component of a comprehensive
stakeholder outreach program necessary to gain consensus on a
Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) for a potential 2016 sales tax
ballot measure. The EPAC is scheduled to meet through December 2015
to discuss a wide range of issues associated with the creation of a TEP.
The committee membership represents a balance of stakeholders that
reflect the broad range of issues and interests in Contra Costa. Staff will
provide the Authority with the Meeting Minutes after they are reviewed
and approved by the EPAC.
Recommendations N/A – Information Only
Financial Implications N/A
Options N/A
Attachments A. June 3, 2015 EPAC Meeting (#1) Summary/Minutes
B. EPAC Meeting Calendar
C. Agenda Topics for EPAC – Draft Schedule
Changes from
Committee
N/A
3.2.2-1
Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee
Meeting Date: July 1, 2015
Subject Approval of Meeting Summary / Minutes of June 3, 2015 Expenditure
Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC) Meeting #1
(1345 Treat Boulevard, Walnut Creek)
Acting as facilitator in place of David Early, Andrew Hill of PlaceWorks opened the first meeting
of the EPAC and invited Committee members to introduce themselves and their organizations.
Bill Gray of Gray-Bowen-Scott introduced the project team, including Authority staff and
consultants. Then Authority Chair Julie Pierce welcomed the group and made opening remarks,
explaining that the EPAC’s role is to consider options and advise the CCTA. She emphasized that
no decision has been made yet to put a countywide transportation sales tax measure on the
ballot, and the EPAC’s role is to develop a balanced plan and to help the CCTA make that
decision.
Following the welcome remarks and introductions, there was a brief discussion of EPAC general
business items, then the CCTA project team made a series of three presentations to provide
background for the EPAC. Presentations were followed by time for questions and answers, and
the remainder of the meeting was given over to EPAC discussion. EPAC members were invited
to comment on the key issues they hope to see addressed in the Transportation Expenditure
Plan (TEP) process, and they were asked to comment on the TEP Principles for a New
Transportation Expenditure Plan, adopted by the CCTA on May 20, 2015.
A summary of key points from the EPAC discussion is provided below, together with a list of
action items.
General Business
Facilitator Andrew Hill reviewed the schedule of future EPAC meetings and the EPAC
membership roster with the group. EPAC members suggested additional appointments be
made to represent agriculture and goods movement on the Committee.
Bill Gray then outlined how the EPAC fits into the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP)
process and how input from the EPAC will contribute to development of the TEP. Bill attributed
Attachment A
3.2.2-2
Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee Minutes
July 1, 2015
Page 2 of 4
the success of a 2003 sales tax ballot measure in part to the consensus achieved by an EPAC,
which acts as a single committee forum for multiple points of view.
Project Team Presentations
The CCTA project team gave a series of three presentations to provide background for the
EPAC. A synopsis of the presentations and the questions that followed is provided below.
Impetus for the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP). Randell Iwasaki, CCTA Executive
Director, gave a PowerPoint presentation focused on the history of ballot measures in
Contra Costa County, CCTA’s success in delivering projects and why Contra Costa County is
thinking about a new ballot measure.
One EPAC member requested additional information on past investment in
transportation programs, including any improvements in transit service or benefits to
underserved or disadvantaged segments of the population.
In response to a question it was clarified that CCTA has been successful in increasing
funding from local sources for two reasons: first, CCTA has been able to identify funding
opportunities not only for new construction but also for maintenance and rehabilitation;
additionally, CCTA has effectively managed the construction contracting process to
reduce risk for contractors, which results in lower bids and allows the available dollars
to fund more projects.
Overview of Comprehensive Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP). Martin Engelmann,
CCTA Deputy Executive Director, Planning, gave a PowerPoint presentation that provided
information on the CTP.
In response to questions, staff explained that the $4.7 billion in identified funding
referenced in his presentation looks out to 2040 and assumes that all current funding
sources remain in place.
Staff also clarified that the CTP will be updated every 4-5 years to address new
circumstances and incorporate new ideas. Additionally, there is a mechanism in
Measure J that allows for course correction mid-stream, especially if new funding
sources become available.
In response to a question about how the CTP addresses regional GHG reductions
targets, staff explained the CTP incorporates the land use strategy from the Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS) for consistency with the MTC’s reductions efforts and that
3.2.2-3
Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee Minutes
July 1, 2015
Page 3 of 4
the CTP will seek to go beyond this by evaluating GHG emissions and vehicle miles
travelled that would result from the CTP to make sure that the plan supports a further
reduction in GHG emissions.
Public Opinion Research and Other Potential Ballot Measures. Sara Labatt, of EMC Research,
presented an overview of the public opinion research that has been done to date and also
discussed other potential upcoming ballot measures.
In response to several questions, Sara clarified that the public has been polled on
numerous questions over and above those reported in her presentation, and agreed to
share additional details of polling done to date.
Brad Beck, Senior Transportation Planner with CCTA, answered some overall questions from
EPAC members.
In response to a question about evaluating performance of the transportation systems, Brad
Beck clarified that the CTP will look at options for expenditure and that it will include an
analysis of alternatives overall as well as of major projects in the CTP individually.
Performance evaluation will be done using the current, adopted MTC performance goals
established for Plan Bay Area 1.0, as the revision that MTC is currently working on will not
be released until after the TEP process is complete.
Brad further clarified that EPAC discussions will help frame the alternatives for analysis in
the CTP and EIR. Results of the performance evaluation of CTP alternatives and major
projects will be presented to the EPAC and to the Regional Transportation Planning
Committees. Additionally, there will a scoping meeting on the CTP EIR and input received
via all those channels will inform the alternatives that move forward.
EPAC Discussion
EPAC members each spoke to introduce themselves, the organizations they represent, and the
key issues they hope will be addressed in the process. Overall, EPAC members expressed a
willingness to work collaboratively to develop a TEP that benefits all Contra Costans.
Common themes included:
Interest in developing a balanced plan that voters will support.
Using the Urban Limit Line to encourage density and development in the right places,
expressed by both environmental and business advocates.
3.2.2-4
Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee Minutes
July 1, 2015
Page 4 of 4
Continuing to use funding from a potential ballot measure to leverage additional moneys,
co-invest with other public agencies and fill gaps resulting from State cutbacks
Identifying performance standards for the transportation system that facilitate comparison
of options.
TEP Principles. Facilitator Andrew Hill introduced the TEP Principles adopted by the Authority to
guide the process and asked EPAC members for comment with a view to refining. EPAC
members agreed the TEP Principles provide solid framework for the process, and offered the
following comments:
Under 1. Vision and Goals, add that TEP investments should not only support but achieve
the vision and goals.
Under 4. Consensus-Based Planning, recognize that there are legal requirements that must
be met - such as legal requirements for GHG reduction - irrespective of consensus among
EPAC members.
Under 5. Balanced Approach, substitute "intentional" or "holistic" for "balanced."
Under 6. Public Health and Safety, clarify that the TEP should promote a policy that results
in the reduction of negative transportation impacts.
Under 7. Maintenance of the Existing System, clarify to say "through maintenance and other
measures, ensure" the existing local roads, bicycle, pedestrian and transit systems are in a
safe and operable condition.
Under 9. Commitment to Growth Management and Cooperative Planning, clarify that new
development should carry its fair share of the cost of infrastructure improvement needs.
Consider even incentivizing housing development in the right places, in view of its social,
economic and environmental benefits.
Add a new Principle that helps direct thinking about cumulative environmental impacts and
a comprehensive strategy for mitigation that will improve Contra Costa's long term
economic development and quality of life.
Establish “strong economy”, referenced under 5. Balanced Approach, as its own bullet in
recognition of the importance of economic development to Contra Costans.
Adjournment
EPAC members agreed to continue a discussion of EPAC Ground Rules and Future Meeting
topics to their next meeting, scheduled for July 1, 2015. Additionally, EPAC members agreed to
electronic packets in advance of future EPAC meetings to reduce the need for printed paper.
The meeting was then adjourned.
3.2.2-5
Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee Minutes July 1, 2015 Meeting Attendance Mtg 1 Mtg 2 Mtg 3 Mtg 4 Mtg 5 Mtg 6 Mtg 7 Mtg 8 Mtg 9Jun 3Jul-1Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) David SharplesNBay Area CouncilMike CunninghamYBike East BayDave CampbellYBuilding and Construction Trades Council Bob LilleyYBusiness Industry Association Lisa VordebreuggenYCalifornia Alliance for JobsAndy FieldsYCentral Labor CouncilMargaret Hanlon-GradieY*Community College DistrictTim LeongYContra Costa County Conservation & Development Rich SeithelYContra Costa County Taxpayers Association Jack WeirYCounty Office of EducationBruce BurnsY*East Bay Economic Development Alliance Dennis FreemanYEast Bay Leadership Council Kristin ConnellyYEast Bay Regional Park District Sean DouganYGenesisRev. Hubert IveryY*Greenbelt AllianceJoel DevalcourtYParatransit Coordinating Council Rita XavierYRehabilitation Services of Northern California Debbie TothYSave Mount DiabloRon BrownYSierra ClubPatrisha PirasYTRANSDEFPeter LydonYTRANSFORMJoel RamosYUnited ContractorsEmily CohenYUrban HabitatBob AllenY* Alternate attendedOrganizationOrganizationOrganizationOrganizationRepresentativeRepresentativeRepresentativeRepresentative3.2.2-6
Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee
Meeting Date: July 1, 2015
Subject EPAC Meeting Calendar
Date Time Location
June 3, 2015 10:00 am
Alameda Ballroom
Embassy Suites Walnut Creek
1345 Treat Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA 94597
July 1, 2015 10:00 am
Contra Costa Ballroom
Embassy Suites Walnut Creek
1345 Treat Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA 94597
August 10, 2015 1:30 pm
Contra Costa Ballroom
Embassy Suites Walnut Creek
1345 Treat Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA 94597
September 14, 2015 1:30 pm
Contra Costa Ballroom
Embassy Suites Walnut Creek
1345 Treat Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA 94597
September 28, 2015 1:30pm
Contra Costa Ballroom
Embassy Suites Walnut Creek
1345 Treat Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA 94597
October 12, 2015 1:30 pm
Contra Costa Ballroom
Embassy Suites Walnut Creek
1345 Treat Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA 94597
October 26, 2015 1:30 pm
Contra Costa Ballroom
Embassy Suites Walnut Creek
1345 Treat Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA 94597
December 7, 2015 1:30 pm
Contra Costa Ballroom
Embassy Suites Walnut Creek
1345 Treat Blvd, Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Attachment B
3.2.2-7
Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee
Meeting Date: July 1, 2015
Subject Agenda Topics for EPAC – DRAFT SCHEDULE
June 3, 2015 (Meeting #1) - Foundation:
· EPAC Meeting Calendar. (Attachment - Information)
· EPAC Roster. EPAC members will introduce themselves. (Attachment - Information)
· Purpose of Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC).
· Impetus for the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP).
· Overview of Comprehensive Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP).
· Public Opinion Research and Other Potential Ballot Measures.
· Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) Principles for a New Transportation Expenditure
Plan -
· Self-Introductions by All Members. - Introduce themselves, the organizations that they
represent, and the key issues they hope to see addressed in the process.
July 1, 2015 (Meeting #2) – Housekeeping:
· EPAC Scope and Function
· Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC) Ground Rules
· EPAC agendas/materials and communications protocol
· Presentation on Project Performance Results (Qualitative Evaluation)
o Presentation by CCTA staff
o EPAC comment- EPAC members will be given the opportunity to comment or ask
questions on the presentation.
· Schedule of Future Meetings/Topics
o EPAC discussion - Facilitator will lead a discussion, inviting EPAC members to
comment on items to add and order in which to address the topics
August 10, 2015 (Meeting #3) – Presentations
· Problem Statement (available funding vs. “project wishlist”)
· Presentation on eligible uses of transportation use tax revenue
· Presentation by RTPC’s/Transit Operators/Cities
Attachment C
3.2.2-8
Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee
July 1, 2015
Page 2 of 2
· EPAC Discussion
September 14, 2015 (Meeting #4) - Discuss TEP Issues and Make Recommendations
September 28, 2015 (Meeting #5) - Discuss TEP Issues and Make Recommendations
October 12, 2015 (Meeting #6) - Discuss TEP Issues and Make Recommendations
Over a series of three meetings in September and October, it is anticipated that the EPAC will
review and discuss topics as they develop a TEP Proposal for consideration by the Authority. At
their July 1 meeting, the EPAC will be asked for feedback regarding future agenda topics and
the order in which to address them. The proposed agenda topics will be further detailed at that
time. This agenda planning document will continue to be updated to reflect the future
anticipated agenda items in response to issues and ideas raised at future EPAC meetings.
October 26, 2015 (Meeting #7) - Discuss TEP Issues and Make Recommendations
· Review / Confirm Consensus for TEP Proposal
November
· No Meeting - Public Release of Discussion Draft
December 7, 2015 (Meeting #8) – Review Discussion Draft TEP
· Public Outreach and Polling Results
· Review Discussion Draft TEP
3.2.2-9
TThhiiss PPaaggee IInntteennttiioonnaallllyy BBllaannkk
3.2.2-10
Problem: California lacks adequate funding to fix
crumbling roads, highways, bridges and transportation
infrastructure.
California’s network of roads and highways are critical to our quality of life and
economy. Yet the condition of our deteriorating network of roads is staggering:
Our crumbling roads cost motorists $762 a year per driver for vehicle
maintenance.
California has the second highest share of roads in “poor condition” in the nation.
58% of state roads need rehabilitation or pavement maintenance.
California has 4 of 5 cities with the worst road conditions in the nation.
55% of local bridges require rehabilitation or replacement.
Nearly 70% of California’s urban roads and highways are congested.
Without additional funding, 1/4 of local streets and roads will be in failed condition by 2024.
Our state lacks adequate funding to address these critical deficiencies:
Local streets and roads face an estimated shortfall of $78 billion in deferred maintenance and
an annual shortfall of $7.8 billion.
CalTrans faces a $59 billion backlog in deferred maintenance and an annual shortfall in the
State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) of $5.7 billion.
Solution: A responsible, accountable solution to fix our roads.
A broad coalition of cities, counties, labor, business, public safety and transportation advocates has
formed to meet the Governor’s call to address California’s chronic transportation infrastructure
funding shortfall. During the 2015 special session on transportation, we support the following
priorities:
1. Make a significant investment in transportation infrastructure.
If we are to make a meaningful dent that demonstrates tangible benefits to taxpayers and
drivers, any package should seek to raise at least $6 billion annually and should remain in place
for at least 10 years or until an alternative method of funding our transportation system is
agreed upon.
2. Focus on maintaining and rehabilitating the current system.
Repairing California’s streets and highways involves much more than fixing potholes. It
requires major road pavement overlays, fixing unsafe bridges, providing safe access for
bicyclists and pedestrians, replacing storm water culverts, as well as operational improvements
that necessitate, among other things, the construction of auxiliary lanes to relieve traffic
congestion choke points and fixing design deficiencies that have created unsafe merging and
other traffic hazards.
Efforts to supply funding for transit in addition to funding for roads should also focus on fixing
the system first.
3. Invest a portion of diesel tax and/or cap & trade revenue to high-priority goods
movement projects.
While the focus of a transportation funding package should be on maintaining and
rehabilitating the existing system, California has a critical need to upgrade the goods movement
infrastructure that is essential to our economic well-being. Establishing a framework to make
appropriate investments in major goods movement arteries can lay the groundwork for greater
investments in the future that will also improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
4. Raise revenues across a broad range of options.
Research by the California Alliance for Jobs and Transportation California shows that voters
strongly support increased funding for transportation improvements. They are much more
open to a package that spreads potential tax or fee increases across a broad range of options
rather than just one source. Additionally, any package should move California toward an all-
users pay structure in which everyone who benefits from the system contributes to maintaining
it - from traditional gasoline-fueled vehicles, to hybrids, alternative fuel and electric vehicles, to
commercial vehicles. Our coalition supports:
Reasonable increases in:
o Gasoline and diesel excise taxes.
o Vehicle registration and vehicle license fees.
Dedicating a portion of the cap and trade revenue paid by motorists at the pump to
transportation projects that reduce greenhouse emissions.
Ensuring existing transportation revenues are invested in transportation-related
purposes (i.e. truck weight fees and fuel taxes for off-road vehicles that are currently
being diverted into the general fund).
User charge for electric and other non-fossil fuel powered vehicles that currently do not
contribute to road upkeep.
5. Equal split between state and local projects.
We support sharing revenue for roadway maintenance equally (50/50) between the state and
cities and counties. Funding to local governments should be provided directly (no
intermediaries) to accelerate projects and ensure maximum accountability.
6. Strong accountability requirements to protect the taxpayers’ investment.
Voters and taxpayers must be assured that all transportation revenues are spent responsibly.
Authorizing legislation should:
Constitutionally protect transportation revenues for transportation infrastructure only.
Time and again (Prop 42, 2002; Prop 1A, 2006; Prop 22, 2010), voters have
overwhelmingly supported dedicating and constitutionally protecting transportation
dollars for those purposes. We strongly support protections that prohibit using
transportation dollars for other purposes.
Repay existing transportation loans and end ongoing diversions of transportation
revenues, including approximately $850 million in loans to the general fund and the
annual loss of approximately $140 million in off-highway vehicle fuel taxes.
Strong accountability requirements to protect the taxpayers’ investment
(Continued).
Establish performance and accountability criteria to ensure efficient and effective use
of all funding. All tax dollars should be spent properly, and recipients of new revenues
should be held accountable to the taxpayers, whether at the state or local level.
Counties and cities should adopt project lists at public hearings and report annually to
the State Controller’s Office regarding all transportation revenues and expenditures.
Local governments should also commit to ensuring any new revenues supplement
revenues currently invested in transportation projects. Both Caltrans and local
governments can demonstrate and publicize the benefits associated with new
transportation investments.
Caltrans reform and oversight. To increase Caltrans effectiveness, provide stronger
oversight by the state transportation commission of the programs funded by new
revenues and establish an Inspector General office to provide accountability. Reduce
Caltrans administrative budgets through efficiency reviews with all savings to be spent
on road improvements.
Expedite project delivery. More should be done to streamline project delivery,
including but not limited to:
o Establishing timelines for actions required by state agencies and eliminating
other permit delays.
o Increased implementation of alternative delivery systems that encourage more
investment from the private sector.
o Reforms to speed project completion.
7. Provide Consistent Annual Funding Levels.
Under current statute, the annual gas tax adjustment by the Board of Equalization is creating
extreme fluctuations in funding levels -- a $900 million drop in this budget year alone. A
transportation funding package should contain legislation that will create more consistent
revenue projections and allow Caltrans and transportation agencies the certainty they need for
longer term planning. While this change would not provide any new revenue to transportation,
it would provide greater certainty for planning and project delivery purposes.
Contra Costa County
(In $2015 Dollars)
24-Year Pavement Needs--Maintain Current PCI
DRAFT
2014 PCI
Antioch 66
Brentwood 85
Clayton 82
Concord 62
Contra Costa County 73
Danville 74
El Cerrito 84
Hercules 73
Lafaye t te 76
Martinez 50
Moraga 65
Oakley 75
Orinda 48
Pinole 65
Pittsburg 71
Pleasant Hill 66
Richmond 62
San Pablo 76
San Ramon 79
Walnut Creek 72
Total/ Average 69
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Maintain PCI Non-Pavement Needs*
148,209,747 $ 210,204,175
58,088,967 $ 173,882,652
15,092,361 $ 31,873,721
189,544,150 $ 253,735,708
278,147,774 $ 409,285,339
66,753 ,867 $ 122,024,480
15,358,625 $ 65,414,911
22,149,574 $ 53,203,451
27,081,327 $ 65,589,118
51,107,080 -$ 51,717,202
27,202,713 $ 35,202,124
58,438,419 $ 98,631,258
26,862,937 $ 30,874,696
27,948,278 $ 37,243,325
78 ,277,753 $ . 146,837,578
49,562,719 $ 68,411,534
131,270,334 $ 182,350,090
21,699,545 $ 72,341,250
96,151,444 $ 220,264,333
158,081,965 $ 161,121,651
1,547,029,579 $ 2,490,208,596
64,459,566 $ 103,758,691
*Assumes state of repair approximates general pavement conditions
Assumptions:
Approx . 38.32 % revenue to pavement
Approx . 61.68 % revenue to non-pavement
Total revenue
Pavement projected revenue $465,192,745
38.32% 61.68%
Annual revenue Annual needs
$19,383,031 $64,500,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Remaining Pavement Remaining Non-Pavement
Total SGR Needs Total SGR Revenue Remaining SGR Needs Needs Needs
358,413,922 $ 127,000,000 $ 231,413,922 $ 95,693,266 $ 135,720,656
231,971,619 $ 46,000,000 $ 185,971,619 $ 46,569,918 $ 139,401,701
46,966,082 $ 7,000,000 $ 39,966,082 $ 12,842,939 $ 27,123,143
443,279,858 $ 100,000,000 $ 343,279,858 $ 146,784,673 $ 196,495,186
687,433,113 $ 245,000,000 $ 442,433,113 $ 179,016,377 $ 263,416,735
188,778,347 $ 56,000,000 $ 132,778,347 $ 46,951,720 $ 85,826,627
80,773,536 $ 24,000,000 $ 56,773,536 $ 10,795,163 $ 45,978,373
75,353,025 $ 10,000,000 $ 65,353,025 $ 19,210,133 $ 46,142,891
92,670,445 $ 28,000,000 $ 64,670,445 $ 18,898,814 $ 45,771,632
102,824,282 $ 42,000,000 $ 60,824,282 $ 30,231,686 $ 30,592,596
62,404,837 $ 17,000,000 $ 45,404,837 $ 19,792,292 $ 25,612,545
157,069,677 $ 17,000,000 $ 140,069,677 $ 52,113,499 $ 87,956,178
57 ,737,633 $ 15,000,000 $ 42,737,633 $ 19,884,056 $ 22,853,577
65,191,603 $ 14,000,000 $ 51,191,603 $ 21,946,341 $ 29,245,262
225,115,331 $ 72,000,000 $ 153,115,331 $ 53,241,705 $ 99,873,626
117,974,253 $ 76,000,000 $ 41,974,253 $ 17,634,001 $ 24,340,252
313,620,424 $ 124,000,000 $ 189,620,424 $ 79,368,353 $ 110,252,072
94,040,795 $ 18,000,000 $ 76,040,795 $ 17,546,116 $ 58,494,679
316,415,777 $ 150,000,000 $ 166,415,777 $ 50,569,910 $ 115,845,867
319,203,616 $ 26,000,000 $ 293,203,616 $ 145,205,760 $ 147,997,856
4,037,238,175 $ 1,214,000,000 $ 2,823,238,175 $ 1,084,296,722 $ 1,738,941,453
$465,192,745
$748,807,255
Annual Shortfall TEP revenues % ofTEP
-$45,116,969 $93,600,000 -48.2%
The Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room 1 06
Martinez, California 94553-1293
John Gioia, 1st District
Gayle B. Ullkema, 2nd District
Millie Greenberg, 3rd District
Mark DeSaulnier, 4th District
Federal D. Glover, 5th District
March 16,2004
The Honorable Amy Worth, Chair
CC Transportation Authority
3478 Buskirk Ave #100
Pleasant Hill CA 94523
Dear Chair Worth,
Contra
Costa
County
John Sweeten
Clerk of the Board
and
County Administrator
(925) 335-1900
On March 16, 2004, the Board of Supervisors discussed the Draft Final Paratransit Improvement Study and how
the recommendations in the study could be addressed in the reauthorization of Measure C. The Board
authorized me to forward our comments to the Authority. This letter summarizes our comments.
The Board finds a nmnber of the recmmnendations in the draft study encouraging, but believes that steps should
be taken to ensure implementation. It is our opinion that Measure C represents an excellent opportunity to make
some positive changes in the provision of paratransit, and a promising start in positioning the county to respond
to the impending increase .in demand for services directed to seniors and persons with disabilities.
The Board embraces the findings in the study and proposes that the recommendations be ilnplemented in a
reauthorized Measure C as a part of a "Paratransit Improvement Program". The funding of these specific
recommendations would be in addition to funding for paratransit operations. Funding of this
recon1mendation would be minimal and would ensure the Measure C funds provided for operations will be
spent cost effectively.
The following are the recommendations that the Board finds most promising along with con1ments that are
intended to ensure that the recommendations are hnplemented and effective:
1. Develop a Comprehensive Technology Plan (Recommendation 7.3): Funding for implementation and
ongoing staffing, support and tnaintenance of this program needs to be provided. We are aware that the
consultant highlighted this need during discussions with the Technical Advisory Com1nittee but neglected to
include it in the Draft Final Report and Action Plan.
2. Integrating Sedans into the Fleet Mix (Recommendation 7.1.1): Funding could be made available in a
reauthorized Measure C to subsidize the purchase of sedans by transportation providers.
3. Establish a Coordination/Mobility Manager Function (Recommendation 7.6): This recommendation is
prmnising in that it represents the begi1mings of increased expansion of coopdination activities. As the senior
and disabled populations grow, these types of activities will be necessary if not compulsory. Given the
likely demands placed on this function during the life of a reauthorized Measure C, the Board believes that
the funding burden listed in the study is an underestimate.
4. Establish an Advisory Committee on Accessible Transportation (ACAT) (Recommendation 7.7): This
committee is an excellent candidate to oversee the implementation and long-te1m responsibility for the
plan's recommendations. Considering the changes that are to occur in the paratransit landscape during the
life of the Measure, this Comn1ittee will need a budget for plmming activities. The composition of this
cmnmittee should be structured to include, at a minimum, representatives from the operators, and appointees
from the regional transportation plmming con1mittees.
Honorable Amy Worth Letter
March 16, 2004
Page 2
Other considerations to take into account to ensure effectiveness and implementation of the aforementioned
recommendations:
5. Cost Survey: A cost survey should be done to verify· and provide greater detail on the amount of funding
needed to implement the recommendations found in the study and discussed above.
6. Long-Term Relevance: The recommendations of the study must be relevant during the life of a reauthorized
Measure C. It is the Board's suggestion that the study and the recommendations be amended and/or updated as
appropriate by the ACA T or its functional equivalent.
In regards to the amount of paratransit operations funds that should be allocated in a reauthorized Measure C, it is
the Board's opinion that paratransit operations should be funded at a level greater than what is currently being
provided. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) may also wish to consider making paratransit
operations funding available to transportation providers' subject to their participation on ACAT and in the
implementatation of the recommendations in the Paratransit Study.
It is the Board's hope that our suggestions can generate some discussion on tlus n1atter so that a well-planned,
effective approach to address paratransit issues may be developed for inclusion in a reauthorized Measure C.
The Board of Supervisors commends the CCT A for their proactive role in addressing paratransit issues by
sponsoring and conducting the paratransit study. It is precisely because of this effort that we, as a county, can now
begin to take a strategic approach to addressing transportation issues for seniors and persons with disabilities in the
reauthorization of Measure C.
Sincerely,
~if£Chrur
. ~Costa County
Board of Supervisors
FDG\JC
c: Members, PCC
Advisory Council on Aging
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PARA TRANSIT COORDINATING COUNCIL
March 23, 2004
Amy Worth, Chair
Hookston Square
3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 100
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
(925) 939-9PCC
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
3478 Buskirk Avenue, #100
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
RE: Paratransit Improvement Study Recommendations
Dear Chairwoman Worth:
At its meeting of March 22, 2004, the Paratransit Coordinating Council reviewed and
discussed the recommendations of the subject study. The following summarizes the
Council's conclusions.
The Council supports the following study recommendations:
7 .1.1 Use of sedans for paratransit.
7.2.1 Use of a 30 minute "window".
7.3 Technology Plan.
7.5.2 Fare Incentives.
7.6 Mobility Manager
7.7 Advisory Committee on Accessible Transportation (ACAT).
The Council gave conditional support to the following recommendations:
7.4 Lifeline Transit, but pointed out that needs exist for paratransit service
outside ADA service limits.
7.5.1 Travel Training, without additional funding as this is already done by the
operators.
The Council was opposed to the following recommendations:
7.1.2 Use of taxis, because of very poor experience with taxi operators and
drivers (who do not have requisite drug and other clearances), and with the
lack of taxi companies in many parts of the County.
7 .2.2 Overbooking, because of the many service denials generated by this
practice.
Amy Worth
March 23, 2004
Page Two
In addition to the above, the Council approved the following motion:
Regarding the telephone survey component of the Paratransit Study, the PCC is pleased
to note that the 57% of the respondents who were identified as regular paratransit users
had a high level of satisfaction with the services. However we find that there should be
greater follow-up research and analysis on those 43% of the respondents who either don't
use paratransit or use it Jess than 10 days per year, as to the reasons for their non-use or
infrequent use of paratransit.
Other discussion included concerns that paratransit services be significantly funded using
current and future Measure C funds, and that transfer trips were not adequately addressed
in the study.
We hope this information will be useful as the CCT A Board considers the
recommendations of this study. Please contact me if you desire additional information.
Sincerely,
1 anet Abelson
PCC Chair