HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11032015 - C.05RECOMMENDATION(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 ballot
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. 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: 11/03/2015 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: November 3, 2015
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
C. 5
To:Board of Supervisors
From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department
Date:November 3, 2015
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Comments to CCTA on the Development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan for a Potential Sales Tax Ballot
Measure in November 2016
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 links below:
October 20, 2015
http://64.166.146.245/docs/2015/BOS/20151020_648/658_10-20-15_1705_AGENDApacket.pdf#page=121
September 15, 2015
http://64.166.146.245/docs/2015/BOS/20150915_640/650_09-15-15_826_AGENDApacket.pdf#page=128
June 16, 2015
http://64.166.146.155/docs/2015/BOS/20150616_591/601_6-16-15%20BOS%20Packet.pdf#page=1222
UPDATE
At the September 15, 2015 Board meeting a report was provided with recommendations related to the Authority’s
TEP. All staff recommendations were approved and staff was instructed to return with a draft letter to the
Authority communicating the recommendations.
Staff returned on October 20, 2015 with a draft letter. The Board provided several revisions which are reflected in
the attached draft letter and summarized below:
Local Streets and Roads
Additional emphasis and explicit support for complete streets concepts were added.
Bicycle Transportation Issues
Support for further development or enhancement of Class I/separated bicycle facilities including the
concept of a bicycle expressway was added.
Major Projects
The Marsh Creek Trail concept was added to the “Major Project” section of the letter.
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
ATTACHMENTS
REVISED Draft Letter from BOS to CCTA re: TEP
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
November 3, 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 9
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%. This support includes complete
streets concepts as detailed below. The Board recognizes the importance of improving
and maintaining our local streets and roads for all modes of transportation.
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.
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 Cost a County transit agencies)
Data source: 2004-2013 National Transit Database
Julie Pierce, Chair - CCTA
October 20, 2015
Page 3 of 9
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 obligations 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 Agency3 (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” (for merly, “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 9
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
December.
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 9
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 9
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 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 9
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.
One component of that strategic approach could be to further expand and improve the
County’s network of separated, Class I trails. These facilities often have a substantial
number of users, traveling at varying speeds, on a single path. For example, a “bicycle
expressway” could be a separate project in the Iron Horse corridor that would
accommodate faster cyclists. This would increase usage, safety, and comfort for both
cyclists and pedestrians and merits consideration during development of the TEP.
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 pursuing
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.
13 MTC: Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area – 2009 Update.
Julie Pierce, Chair - CCTA
October 20, 2015
Page 8 of 9
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.
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.
Marsh Creek Trail: The Board also suggests consideration of an emerging
transportation project: a multi-use path in the Marsh Creek corridor that would
connect east and west County on or near Marsh Creek Road. This project is in the
concept stage and discussion among local jurisdictions has begun. The project
would be a significant community asset and may mature enough in the next year
to warrant eligibility for funding.
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
Julie Pierce, Chair - CCTA
October 20, 2015
Page 9 of 9
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