HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10202015 - D.6RECOMMENDATION(S):
AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
providing comments on their development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan for a potential sales tax measure in
November 2016.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. The recommendation addresses an outside agency's actions.
BACKGROUND:
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority), on behalf of its member agencies, is currently developing a
Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) for inclusion in a possible 2016 ballot measure for a new transportation sales
tax (see CCTA report on voter research, attached hereto). The proposed sales tax would be for 25 years (expiring in
2042), for ½ cent, running concurrently with Measure J (which expires in 2034) and is forecasted to generate $2.3
billion.
As established in the October 21, 2014 letter to CCTA regarding the TEP and Countywide Transportation
Plan (and reaffirmed in the attached draft letter), the Board of Supervisors (Board) has not yet endorsed the
proposed transportation sales tax. That broader issue will be addressed at a future meeting of the Board.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 10/20/2015 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: October 20, 2015
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
D. 6
To:Board of Supervisors
From:TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Date:October 20, 2015
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Comment Letter on the Transportation Expenditure Plan for a Potential Sales Tax Ballot Measure Under Development
by the CCTA
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
HISTORY
Reports on this issue have been brought to previous Board meetings. Those reports included a substantial amount
of background information and are available at the following links:
September 15, 2015
http://64.166.146.245/docs/2015/BOS/20150915_640/650_09-15-15_826_AGENDApacket.pdf#page128
June 16, 2015
http://64.166.146.155/docs/2015/BOS/20150616_591/601_6-16-15%20BOS%20Packet.pdf#page=1222
October 21, 2014
http://64.166.146.155/docs/2014/BOS/20141021_482/493_10-21-14_1410_AGENDApacket.pdf#page=453
September 23, 2014
http://64.166.146.155/docs/2014/BOS/20140923_476/487_09-23-14_1017_AGENDApacket.pdf#page=28
UPDATE
At the September 15, 2015 Board meeting (document link above), all staff recommendations were approved.
Where appropriate, those recommendations are reflected in the attached draft letter. Staff is seeking input from the
Board on the draft letter. Also attached for the Board’s review is a letter to the Contra Costa County transit
districts reaching out on the recommendations to the Authority related to accessible services.
A summary of the Board recommendations to the Authority are presented below, along with the approach taken in
the letter. Topics that were not explicitly included in the 9/15 staff report but reasonably assumed to be consistent
with Board direction or brought up during discussion are in bold print below.
PROCESS: RELEVANT STATUTES, SCHEDULE, COSTS, ETC:
Per Board direction, a meeting between Authority staff and County staff has been called for October 13, 2015.
County staff will provide a verbal report at the October 20th Board meeting.
MAINTENANCE FUNDING AND THE "LOCAL STREETS MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM
The recommendation to the Authority is to fund maintenance at a level consistent with the Regional
Transportation Planning Committees with consideration for complete streets concepts. Justification for the
increase is included in the letter per the information in the 9/15 staff report and discussion at the September 15th
Board meeting. That information resulted in the assertion that anticipated or optimistic revenues (Measure J,
proposed Measure J augmentation, additional state revenues) will not be sufficient to cover the pavement and
non-pavement maintenance needs in the unincorporated areas.
Per the discussion at the September 15th Board meeting in which Authority staff participated, the letter
indicates that the County is willing to work with the Authority and other member agencies to develop an
approach for additional monitoring and reporting on the use of maintenance funds.
ACCESSIBLE SERVICES/MOBILITY MANAGEMENT/PARATRANSIT
The letter requests:
• Additional funding for accessible transit service operations and the funding of a mobility management center,
• Eligibility for transit funding be contingent upon participation in the countywide mobility management program,
• Participation in a tour of the Santa Clara County mobility management center from policy makers,
• All agencies involved commit to insulating existing accessible service passengers from service degradations or
interruptions with the implementation of the proposed programs.
Justification for the recommendations includes needed cost controls and the unfulfilled recommendations of the
2004 Contra Costa Paratransit Improvement Study. The 2004 study was not discussed in the 9/15 staff
report, however, the 2004 recommendations are generally consistent with the findings in the 2013 Contra
Costa Mobility Management Plan and were referenced to highlight the longstanding nature of the issue.
IMPROVED LAND USE COORDINATION
Per the 9/15 recommendations, the request is to work with the Authority and other stakeholders in exploring
options in a TEP funding program to implement this new concept. Not discussed in the 9/15 report (but raised
in the County's October 2014 letter) is the recommendation to revisit the Authority’s Growth Management
Program and Technical Procedures relative to the passage of SB743, and the challenge implementing two
standards (level of service and vehicle miles traveled).
BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
Consistent with the 9/15 staff report, recommendations for a strategic approach to bicycle program investment is
recommended.
MAJOR PROJECTS
Consistent with the 9/15 staff report, project priority recommendations are either re-stated (from the October 21,
2013 Board letter to the Authority), modified (SR239/TriLink, Kirker Pass Truck Climbing Lane), or introduced
(Capitol Corridor Voucher Program).
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
If a comment letter is not transmitted, the Board will forego an opportunity to provide input on the development of
the Transportation Expenditure Plan.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
DIRECTED that staff add additional language to the letter to address the new concepts of a multi-use path in
the Marsh Creek Corridor, a bicycle expressway in the Iron Horse Trail corridor, and an evaluation of Level of
Service standards versus Vehicle Miles Traveled appropriateness in Primary Development Areas; DIRECTED
that staff place the revised letter on the November 3, 2015 consent calendar for approval.
ATTACHMENTS
BOS to CCTA re TEP
BOS to Transit Districts RE: TEP
CCTA 2015 Sales Tax Voter Research
The Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, California 94553
John Gioia, 1st District
Candace Andersen, 2nd District
Mary N. Piepho, 3rd District
Karen Mitchoff, 4th District
Federal D. Glover, 5th District
October 20, 2015
Julie Pierce, Chair
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
2999 Oak Road, Suite 100
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
DRAFT
Subject: Transportation Expenditure Plan & Potential Sales Tax Measure
Dear Chair Pierce:
On October 20, 2015, the Board of Supervisors (Board) approved the following
comments be transmitted to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. This letter
details our position on policies and funding levels for the Transportation Expenditure
Plan (TEP), currently under development by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(Authority). At its September 15, 2015 meeting the Board received a report on TEP
issues and formally recommended the positions detailed below.
This comment letter does not constitute an endorsement by the Board of the concept of
a 2016 transportation sales tax. The Board will consider that broader issue at a future
meeting in the context of the Board’s assessment of the need for new funding for
transportation and other services.
Local Streets and Roads: As you are aware, the demand for increased maintenance
funding is a national, statewide, and local problem. In reviewing data regarding the
County’s maintenance needs, it is clear that a substantial increase in Local Streets
Maintenance and Improvements funding is necessary.
An analysis performed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has
shown that in unincorporated Contra Costa County over a 24 year period, we have a
revenue shortfall of $442 million to address pavement and directly related non-
pavement needs. Expanding on that analysis, assuming 30% revenues from a new TEP,
David Twa
Clerk of the Board
and
County Administrator
(925) 335-1900
Contra
Costa
County
Julie Pierce, Chair - CCTA
October 20, 2015
Page 2 of 8
there would continue to be a $350 million shortfall over the same period. These figures
don’t include the maintenance demand for the 111 bridges in unincorporated County.
In addition to our current maintenance shortfall, we also have a need for more funding
to implement and maintain complete street projects in our unincorporated communities
to serve all of the users of our roads and enhance neighborhoods
Considering the above, the Board supports the funding levels for local streets and roads
(maintenance and improvements) in a new TEP that the Regional Transportation
Planning Committees (RTPCs) have taken. Specifically, SWAT at 25%-30%, TRANSPAC
at 30%, TRANSPLAN at 30% and WCCTAC at 28%.
Recommendations from SWAT, TRANSPAC and WCCTAC include funding for
complete streets and multi-modal projects within the local streets and roads category.
TRANSPLAN recommends 30% for local streets maintenance and improvements and
also recommends additional funding amounts for projects for bike and pedestrian
improvements, safe transportation for schools as well as Transportation for Livable
Communities. The Board supports the direction to include complete streets concepts
recognizing the importance of improving and maintaining our local streets and roads
for all modes of transportation.
During our discussion on maintenance needs, the topic of progress at the state
regarding transportation finance reform was considered. While the Board has hope that
the State will reform transportation financing practices, our data show that even if the
maximum funding increases considered during the recent special session of the State
legislature were enacted, we would continue to have a substantial maintenance backlog.
We understand there is an interest in establishing a reporting mechanism to provide
additional accountability and tracking of maintenance funding. The Board is supportive
of this and is willing to work with the Authority and other member agencies to develop
a mechanism to ensure that maintenance expenditure practices are transparent.
Accessible Services/Mobility Management/Paratransit: As we indicated in our
October 21, 2014 comment letter on the Countywide Transportation Plan, the issue of
improvements to transit for the elderly and people with disabilities (accessible services)
is a priority for the Board. This issue is longstanding; the Board made similar comments
in 2002 during the effort to reauthorize Measure C. The Board is making these
comments due to the forecasted growth of the target population1 and increasing costs2.
1 65+ Bay Area population is forecasted to grow 137% by 2040. Data sources: 2010 Census, California Department
of Finance, ABAG
260% increase in paratransit cost per trip from 2004 to 2013 (average of all Contra Costa County transit agencies)
Data source: 2004-2013 National Transit Database
Julie Pierce, Chair - CCTA
October 20, 2015
Page 3 of 8
The Board believes this issue requires substantial, deliberate attention given that
accessible transit responsibilities are diffused in Contra Costa County, making progress
challenging. Accessible transit in the County consists of four different public Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit providers, program specific transit providers,
city-based providers and the County itself has certain transportation obligatio ns related
to health care and the Older Americans Act. This structure grew organically over time
and as such, no single organization falls naturally into a leadership role. With the
recommendations below, we want to provide a countywide direction and improve
services to our shared constituency while providing much needed cost controls.
In our October 2014 comment letter we indicated that accessible service would need, in
addition to additional funding, fundamental administrative changes if we are to
respond adequately in a cost-effective manner to the projected demand for service. The
recommendations below build on those earlier comments and are consistent with the
2013 Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan (CCMMP), as well as the unfulfilled
recommendations in the 2004 Contra Costa Paratransit Improvement Study. The
recommendations in this letter and found in the CCMMP are also consistent with MTC’s
Coordinated Public Transit –Human Services Transportation Plan Update for the Bay Area. The
MTC Plan has the recommendation of “strengthening mobility management” which
includes the designation of a Consolidated Transportation Services Agency 3 (CTSA).
The designation of a CTSA is also a recommendation in the 2013 CCMMP.
The Board supports the following relative to accessible services in a new TEP:
1) The TEP should, in addition to providing additional operations funding, fund a
countywide mobility management4 program as recommended in the CCMMP5. The
CCMMP includes preliminary cost figures for implementation which may need to be
refined as we move ahead. As implementation progresses, the Board strongly
3 CTSA: Adapted from several public sources: Created under AB 210 (1979 – “Social Services Transportation
Improvement Act”). The purpose of the Act was to improve the quality of transportation services to low mobility
groups while achieving cost savings, lowered insurance premiums and more efficient use of vehicles and funding
resources. The legislation took the middle course between absolutely mandating and simply facilitating the
coordination of transportation services. Designation of CTSAs and implementation of other aspects of the Act were
seen as a flexible mechanism to deal with the problem of inefficient or duplicative transportation services.
4 Mobility Management Defined: Mobility management (MM) is a strategic approach to the coordination of
transportation service, revenue streams, technology implementation, and customer service. MM directs passengers
to the most appropriate and cost-effective transportation option using information, incentives, and other voluntary
measures. Best implemented on a larger scale, a mobility-managed service area provides a full range of well
synchronized mobility services in a cost effective manner.
5 A small non-profit, “Mobility Matters” (formerly, “Senior Helpline Services”) has begun providing some mobility
management in Contra Costa County. However, that organization has limited funding thorough grants expiring in
2016. TRANSPAC provides Mobility Matters some Measure J funds (20a – Sr/Disabled Transportation) for a
volunteer driver program. No Measure J funds are used for mobility management functions.
Julie Pierce, Chair - CCTA
October 20, 2015
Page 4 of 8
recommends consideration of a transition to the mobility management/brokerage6
model used in Santa Clara County.
2) Currently, Measure J has eligibility requirements placed on local jurisdictions in order
to receive Local Streets & Maintenance funding. As mentioned in the Local Streets and
Roads section above, additional requirements are being considered for supplementary
maintenance funding. Similar to those requirements, the Board is proposing that
eligibility for transit funding under a new TEP be contingent upon participation in the
implementation of the mobility management program and other identified
improvements to accessible services.
3) Implementing the service model proposed in #1 above is a substantial investment. We
believe that the County and Authority Board members would benefit from a tour of the
Santa Clara County accessible services operation, OUTREACH. The OUTREACH
operation is non-profit based and is a national model for cost-effective procurement,
contracting and operations7. During a time where our own transit operations show a
trend of increasing costs, the OUTREACH model has shown reduced costs8. The Board
is requesting attendance from Authority members on this tour tentatively scheduled for
mid-November.
4) One barrier to progress on this issue is the understandable resistance to any changes
in service to a sensitive population. As we move ahead with this effort, an explicit
commitment should be made by all agencies involved to insulate current accessible
transit customers from service degradations or interruptions.
The Authority should be aware that the Board is fully committed to pursuing
improvements to accessible transit. The Santa Clara County mobility
management/brokerage model includes County support by way of competitive pricing
on vehicle maintenance, vehicle parking and bulk fuel purchases. The Board is currently
exploring the possibility of duplicating that service in Contra Costa.
Improved Land Use Coordination: In our October 2014 letter and at our September 15th
discussion, the Board discussed the need for economic development and balancing jobs
6 A mobility management operation can, over time, transition to a “brokerage” model. A brokerage model splits
functions related to ADA paratransit/accessible service with a transit agency. Those functions span a continuum
starting with administrative responsibilities (contracting with service providers, monitoring performance, customer
service) all the way up to a full service brokerage (central call center/dispatch, management of a coordinated system,
etc). Adapted from FTA Report #0081, “Accessible Services for All”:
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Report_No._0081.pdf#page=39
7 Federal Transit Administration, “Accessible Transit Services for All” December 2014
www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Report_No._0081.pdf#page=246
8 19% decrease in cost per trip from 2004 to 2013 Data source: 2004-2013 National Transit Database
Julie Pierce, Chair - CCTA
October 20, 2015
Page 5 of 8
and housing to make more efficient use of our transportation infrastructure. The
following statistics underscore the structural problems that challenge our transportation
network as well the potential benefits of addressing these problems:
1) The five cities in the Bay Area with the longest commute times are all in Contra Costa
County9;
2) Contra Costa is second only to Solano for having the lowest number of jobs relative to
housing10 and is forecast to be the only County in the Bay Area with fewer jobs than
housing units in 204011; and
3) Travel patterns are imbalanced resulting in substantially underutilized infrastructure.
For example, State Route 4 in East Contra Costa County carries approximately 2.3 times
as many vehicles in the commute direction as in the non-commute direction12.
Long and congested commute patterns cause residents to spend more of their time
commuting than in other, more valuable activities and contribute substantially to
unhealthful and climate-altering emissions. A primary cause of this unbalanced,
inefficient and resource-intensive transportation pattern is that it can be difficult to find
jobs and housing in close proximity, or to find jobs and housing connected by transit.
The potential sales tax measure now under consideration may present an opportunity
to better address a root cause of the transportation challenges we face.
The Board would like to discuss with the Authority and other stakeholders the
possibility of developing policies in the TEP for promoting development that reduces
congestion and makes better use of transit and other existing infrastructure. We propose
that conversation include two types of approaches: a) funding allocations; and b) new
policy incentives. To stimulate discussion, we have included some initial ideas below
on each of these two approaches. We would welcome a discussion on these and other
ideas that others may have.
Initial Ideas on the Funding Allocation Approach: The TEP could allocate a portion of
the future funds to a congestion reduction program related to stimulating certain types
of new development. Funds for such a program could be used to stimulate certain infill
and other development that demonstrates positive impacts on the transportation
system, such as reduced demand on the most congested freeways and roads, better
9 MTC's "Vital Signs": Oakley, Brentwood, Antioch, Hercules, Pittsburg
10 ABAG: San Francisco Bay Area: State of the Region: Economy/Population/Housing – 2015 (Figure 4.27 (Jobs to
Housing Ratio, Bay Area Counties))
11 ABAG: Draft Plan Bay Area: Forecast of Jobs, Population, & Housing, March 2013 (Table 14 (SF Bay Area
County Housing and Job Growth, 2010-2040))
12 MTC’s Vital Signs
Julie Pierce, Chair - CCTA
October 20, 2015
Page 6 of 8
utilization of transit, greater off-peak utilization, reduced average commute times, and
reduction of out-of-county commute trips. This could take the form of development in
Priority Development Areas (PDAs) near transit or other types of development that
achieve the demand reduction goal. For Contra Costa County, jobs/housing balance is a
key concern. A focus on developing employment centers that would offer well-paying
jobs proximate to housing (i.e. priority industrial areas or priority employment areas)
could have merit. Stimulating development that establishes well-paying jobs in East
County, for example, could reduce strain on Highway 4, offer a far easier commute for
East County residents and make better use of prior transportation investments by
stimulating the counter commute.
Subject to feasibility studies, demonstration of congestion reduction, and Authority
approval, local jurisdictions could request funding for projects that would stimulate
development that would reduce congestion. Such investments could include
transportation infrastructure (e.g. improvements to transit and roadways in areas
targeted for job growth). However, to realize the congestion reduction benefit of the
desired development, a broader range of investments could be considered, such as
advanced telecommunication/broadband infrastructure, water, sewer, power, impact fee
offsets, land assembly, or other investments. The analysis should consider not only the
direct growth in jobs (and housing) likely to result from the investment, but also the net
growth in jobs (certain jobs such as advanced manufacturing can have relatively high
job multipliers).
Initial Ideas on the Policy Incentives Approach: The TEP might include additional
policy incentives to promote infill and other development that reduces congestion. For
example, the TEP could include incentives for local agencies to adopt and implement
certain land-use policies such as PDAs, priority industrial areas or priority employment
areas, greater density along transit or employment targets. Alternatively, incentives
could be linked to certain TEP funding categories. For instance, economic
development/jobs-housing balance/congestion reduction goals could be a criteria for
allocating funding to any competitively awarded pots of funds.
Finally, the Board hopes there can be a discussion regarding if and how the potential
measure can address the fundamental shifts in the statewide transportation planning
and funding landscape resulting from recent landmark greenhouse gas reduction
legislation, for instance the State’s replacement of the Level of Service (LOS) metric with
a Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) metric). At this time, it may be appropriate to consider
revisions to the Authority’s Growth Management Program and Technical Procedures that
would incrementally and strategically adapt to the new VMT standard while
maintaining the local benefits of the current LOS standard.
Julie Pierce, Chair - CCTA
October 20, 2015
Page 7 of 8
The Board would welcome discussion on these and other ideas related to these
challenging land use and transportation issues.
Bicycle Transportation Issues: Contra Costa County currently has the lowest rate of
trips-by-bike rate in the Bay Area according to the MTC13. Please consider a strategic
approach to developing and prioritizing bicycle project and program activities to
reverse this rate to improve the County’s ranking.
Major Projects: The following is an update to the Board’s priority project list
transmitted in our October 2014 comment letter. The Board also intends on pursing
these priorities at the appropriate Regional Transportation Planning Committees.
The TriLink/State Route 239: This project continues to be a priority. In the
interest of advancing a project within a shorter time frame, the Board is
requesting that the Vasco-Byron Highway connector phase be prioritized in the
TriLink program of projects.
The Kirker Pass Road Truck Climbing Lanes: This project addresses congestion
and safety along in this critical TRANSPAC and TRANSPLAN connector road.
The northbound project, estimated to cost $18 million, is scheduled for
construction in 2018 and will provide a northbound truck climbing lane and
paved shoulders for future Class II bike lanes between Clearbrook Drive in the
City of Concord and the easternmost Hess Road intersection in the
unincorporated area. The project is needed to improve safety for motorists and
bicyclists along this stretch of road that experiences high truck traffic and is a
major commute corridor between Central and East County. With sustained
grades steeper than eight percent, trucks are unable to match the speed of other
vehicles on the roadway, causing significant congestion and creating a safety
hazard. The southbound project will add a truck climbing lane in the opposite
direction and is estimated to cost over $20 million. There is no date yet for
construction, but project development activities are expected to be started within
the next few years.
Capitol Corridor Voucher Program: This is a new proposed program that the
Board is requesting WCCTAC and CCTA explore. WCCTAC is currently
involved in a high capacity transit study that would explicitly or effectively
extend BART service in West Contra Costa County. Given that a service
expansion of this type is typically a long-term process; a more immediate
solution should be considered.
13 MTC: Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area – 2009 Update.
Julie Pierce, Chair - CCTA
October 20, 2015
Page 8 of 8
The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) currently operates the
Capitol Corridor service through Contra Costa County. In order to provide some
service increase to West Contra Cost residents in the short term, a TEP-funded,
Capitol Corridor voucher program for Contra Costa residents should be
considered. The CCJPA is currently involved in a Capitol Corridor Vision
Planning process, which calls for coordination with WCCTAC and CCTA relative
to the high capacity transit study. Either the CCJPA planning process or the
WCCTAC High Capacity Transit Study may be an appropriate mechanism by
which to explore this concept.
The following projects continue to be a priority: North Richmond Truck Route,
I-680 HOV Gap Closure, Iron Horse/Lafayette-Moraga Trail Connector, Vasco
Road Safety Improvements, and Northern Waterfront Goods Movement
Infrastructure.
The Board of Supervisors greatly appreciates staff and consultant assistance during our
deliberations on TEP development. We look forward to your response and additional
engagement on this critical issue.
Sincerely,
John Gioia, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District I
C:
David Twa, County Administrator
Sharon Anderson, County Counsel
Julie Bueren, Director – Public Works Department
John Kopchik, Director - Conservation and Development
Patricia Tanquary, CEO – Contra Costa Health Plan
Sherry McCoy, Chair - WCCTAC
Don Tatzin, Chair – SWAT
Robert Taylor, Chair, TRANSPLAN
Loella Haskew, Chair – TRANSPAC
The Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, California 94553
John Gioia, 1st District
Candace Andersen, 2nd District
Mary N. Piepho, 3rd District
Karen Mitchoff, 4th District
Federal D. Glover, 5th District
October 20, 2015
, Chair
…Transit District
address
city, CA #####
DRAFT
Subject: Accessible Transit Service in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s
Transportation Expenditure Plan
Dear Chair…:
On October 20, 2015, the Board of Supervisors (Board) sent recommendations to the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) regarding our position on policies
and funding levels in the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP). As you are aware, the
TEP is being prepared for a potential sales tax measure in November 2016. Included in
the Board’s recommendations are concepts intended to advance how we address
accessible transit in the future.
I am writing to communicate the Board’s objective which is that our agencies can
collaborate with the TEP development and implementation of the 2013 Contra Costa
Mobility Management Plan recommendations to achieve adequate funding levels and
appropriate policies to improve accessible transit countywide. Details on this topic are
in the attached letter to the Authority and in a report to the Board also attached. In
summary we are recommending the following relative to accessible services in a new
TEP:
Additional funding for accessible transit service operations and the funding of a
mobility management center,
David Twa
Clerk of the Board
and
County Administrator
(925) 335-1900
Contra
Costa
County
, Chair - *** Transit District
October 20, 2015
Page 2 of 2
Eligibility for transit funding under a new TEP be contingent upon participation
in the countywide mobility management program,
Participation from policy makers in a tour of the Santa Clara County operation to
observe the mobility management center/brokerage model, and
That all agencies involved with accessible transit services and the
implementation of the mobility management program commit to insulating
existing accessible service passengers from service degradations or interruptions.
We thank you for your consideration of this letter and look forward to your response on
this important issue.
Sincerely,
John Gioia, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District I
C:
David Twa, County Administrator
Julie Bueren, Director – Public Works Department
John Kopchik, Director - Conservation and Development
Patricia Tanquary, CEO – Contra Costa Health Plan
Sherry McCoy, Chair - WCCTAC
Don Tatzin, Chair – SWAT
Robert Taylor, Chair, TRANSPLAN
Loella Haskew, Chair – TRANSPAC
Attachments:
October 20, 2015 Letter From the Board to the Authority re: TEP Priorities
Accessible Transit Service Excerpts from September 15, 2015 Staff Report to the Board of
Supervisors re: TEP Priorities
File: > Measure J Augm > 2015
g:\transportation\bos - board order attachments\2015\10-20-15 (tep)\bostotransitdistrictsretepv3.doc