HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 05082017 - TWIC Agenda PktTRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE
May 8, 2017
9:00 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III, Chair
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV, Vice Chair
Agenda
Items:
Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference
of the Committee
1.Introductions
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
3.Administrative Items, if applicable. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation
and Development)
4.REVIEW record of meeting for April 10, 2017, Transportation, Water and
infrastructure Committee Meeting. This record was prepared pursuant to the Better
Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205 (d) of the Contra Costa County Ordinance
Code. Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be
attached to this meeting record. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and
Development).
5.ACCEPT the Feasibility Report for the San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
between Rodeo and Crockett and RECOMMEND the Board of Supervisors accept
the Feasibility Report at a future Board meeting. (Study funded by 88.53% Federal
Priority Development Area (PDA) Planning grant funds and 11.47% Local Road
funds) (Angela Villar, Department of Public Works)
The Feasibility Report and Study documents are included in the packet. Study
appendices are available here:
www.cccounty.us/SanPabloCSappendices
6.CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related
Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department
of Conservation and Development)
7.COMMUNICATION/News Clippings. (John Cunningham, Department of
Conservation and Development)
8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for June 12, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 1 of 168
8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for June 12, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
9.Adjourn
The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) will provide reasonable
accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend TWIC meetings. Contact the staff
person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the County to a majority of members of the TWIC less than 96 hours prior to that
meeting are available for public inspection at the County Department of Conservation and
Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day
prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
John Cunningham, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250
john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 2 of 168
Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County
has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in meetings of its
Board of Supervisors and Committees. Following is a list of commonly used abbreviations that may appear in
presentations and written materials at meetings of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee:
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
AOB Area of Benefit
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District
BATA Bay Area Toll Authority
BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission
BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan
BGO Better Government Ordinance (Contra Costa County)
BOS Board of Supervisors
CALTRANS California Department of Transportation
CalWIN California Works Information Network
CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility
to Kids
CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response
CAO County Administrative Officer or Office
CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority
CCWD Contra Costa Water District
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFS Cubic Feet per Second (of water)
CPI Consumer Price Index
CSA County Service Area
CSAC California State Association of Counties
CTC California Transportation Commission
DCC Delta Counties Coalition
DCD Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development
DPC Delta Protection Commission
DSC Delta Stewardship Council
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
EIR Environmental Impact Report (a state requirement)
EIS Environmental Impact Statement (a federal requirement)
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FTE Full Time Equivalent
FY Fiscal Year
GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District
GIS Geographic Information System
HBRR Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation
HOT High-Occupancy/Toll
HOV High-Occupancy-Vehicle
HSD Contra Costa County Health Services Department
HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development
IPM Integrated Pest Management
ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance
JPA/JEPA Joint (Exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement
Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area
LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission
LCC League of California Cities
LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy
MAC Municipal Advisory Council
MAF Million Acre Feet (of water)
MBE Minority Business Enterprise
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOE Maintenance of Effort
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
NACo National Association of Counties
NEPA National Environmental Protection Act
OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency
Operations Center
PDA Priority Development Area
PWD Contra Costa County Public Works Department
RCRC Regional Council of Rural Counties
RDA Redevelopment Agency or Area
RFI Request For Information
RFP Request For Proposals
RFQ Request For Qualifications
SB Senate Bill
SBE Small Business Enterprise
SR2S Safe Routes to Schools
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee
TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central)
TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County)
TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
WBE Women-Owned Business Enterprise
WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory
Committee
WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority
WRDA Water Resources Development Act
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 3 of 168
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:05/08/2017
Subject:Administrative Items, if applicable.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
This is an Administrative Item of the Committee.
Referral Update:
Staff will review any items related to the conduct of Committee business.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER Administrative items and Take ACTION as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 4 of 168
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:05/08/2017
Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for April 10, 2017, Transportation, Water
and Infrastructure Meeting.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
County Ordinance (Better Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205, [d]) requires that each
County Body keep a record of its meetings. Though the record need not be verbatim, it must
accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the meeting.
Referral Update:
Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached to this
meeting record. Links to the agenda and minutes will be available at the TWI Committee web
page: http://www.cccounty.us/4327/Transportation-Water-Infrastructure
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the April 10, 2017, Committee
Meeting with any necessary corrections.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
04-10-17 TWIC Sign-In Sheet
04-10-17 TWIC Meeting Minutes.pdf
SB1 04-06-17 Memo FINAL - TWIC 04-10-17
MRP - TWIC 04-10-17 v2.0
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 5 of 168
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 6 of 168
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
April 10, 2017
9:00 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Diane Burgis, Chair
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair
Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee
Present: Diane Burgis, Chair
Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair
Attendees: Debbie Toth, Choice in Aging
Maureen Toms, DCD Policy Planning
Ryan Hernandez, DCD Water Agency
Jody London, DCD Sustainability Coordinator
Stephen Kowalewski, PWD
Cece Sellgren, PWD
Mike Carlson, PWD
John Steere, PWD
Mark Seedall, CCWD
John Burgh, CCWD
1.Introductions
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be
limited to three minutes).
3.CONSIDER Administrative items and Take ACTION as appropriate.
Administrative Items: Maureen Toms noted that a memo from Mark Watts describing the Final Action of
Senate Bill 1 (Transportation Funding) was provided to the Committee and copies were available for the
audience.
4.Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the February 13, 2017, Committee Meeting
with any necessary corrections.
The committee unanimously approved the meeting record.
5.DISCUSS report on the formation of a Contra Costa County Groundwater Sustainability Agency to undertake
sustainable groundwater management in the portion of the Tracy Subbasin within Contra Costa County and
CONSIDER recommending the Board conduct a public hearing on April 25, 2017 to consider Contra Costa
County's decision to become a Groundwater Sustainability Agency for a portion of the Tracy Subbasin within
Contra Costa County excluding the areas of the Cities of Antioch and Brentwood, Byron Bethany Irrigation
District, Diablo Water District, Discovery Bay Community Services District and East Contra Costa Irrigation
District and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute the
Memorandum of Understanding and enter into an agreement with East Contra Costa County member agencies
that will develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the portion of the Tracy Subbasin within Contra Costa
County.
The Committee unanimously approved the staff recommendation.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 7 of 168
The Committee unanimously approved the staff recommendation.
Discussion included Ryan Hernandez (DCD) providing an overview of the proposed Contra Costa County
Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) including the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between east county entities. Also discussed was the fact that Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) is not
becoming a GSA, but is party to the MOU, as shown on Exhibit B in the staff report. Mr. Hernandez
responded that there might be groundwater recharge opportunities with CCWD. John Burgh, CCWD also
made positive comments about the participation of CCWD.
6.ACCEPT report on implementing the new Municipal Regional Permit 2.0, CONSIDER staff's
recommendations, PROVIDE direction on which budget to pursue, and FORWARD this report to the full Board
for consideration and approval.
The Committee received the report and considered the recommendations. The committee indicated that
there would not be general fund revenue for the program and that staff would need to determine how to
comply with the permit requirements with currently available revenue.
Discussion included Mike Carlson (PWD) and Cece Selgren (PWD) providing an overview of the
requirements of the Regional Permit. There were three budget proposals presented, the baseline budget
includes current revenue only, the second budget includes a proposed increase from the County General
Fund which would fund the program to the level of compliance requiring the removal of all trash from the
waterways, and the third budget showed the cost to remove all trash, plus all Mercury and PCB’s, which is a
requirement of the permit. The third budget was presented to show the shortfall the program faces. (please
see ATTACHMENT)
7.No action is necessary; submitted to the TWI Committee for its information. There was not sufficient time
between the formulation of the project in early January 2017 to submit the draft proposal to the TWI Committee
for its review. Please note that the Coastal Conservancy released the San Francisco Bay Urban Greening Grant
Request for Proposals in late December 2016.
The Committee directed staff to forward the application for the “North Richmond Watershed Connections
Project” (Watershed Connections) grant to the BOS requesting authorization (on consent).
Discussion included Cece Sellgren reporting on the Prop 1 Grant for the North Richmond Watershed
Connections Project to State Coastal Conservancy.
Related Discussion: The Committee had concerns and questions regarding the protocol for the submission
of grants. TWIC staff will research the original grant review referral and any related policies and bring
them to a future TWIC meeting for review.
8.CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Issues and take ACTION as appropriate.
Local Issues:
ACCESSIBLE TRANSIT: County staff has been communicating with CCTA staff regarding the possibility
of a an accessible transit study. There is support at the staff level and with some Board members to conduct
the study in the short term. Additional detail will be provided at future meetings.
State Issues:
Steve Kowalewski provided an update on the the passage of SB1.
Mark Watts was not in attendance, a more comprehensive legislative update will be provided at the next
Committee meeting.
Public Testimony:
Debbie Toth, Executive Director, Choice in Aging: Testified in support of the accessible transit study further
commenting that the study should be comprehensive and review the structure of the agencies and the
arbitrary service area borders which create accessibility issues.
9.RECEIVE communication and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
The Committee received the communication.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 8 of 168
10.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, May 8, 2017, 9:00 am.
11.Adjourn
The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend TWIC meetings. Contact the
staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the TWIC less than 96 hours prior
to that meeting are available for public inspection at the County Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
John Cunningham, Committee Staff
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 9 of 168
MEMO
DATE: APRIL 6, 2017
TO: RUSTY AREIAS
FROM: MARK WATTS
SUBJECT: SB 1 – FINAL ACTION
The State Senate adjourned at 8pm tonight after passing SB 1 (Beall) and the
companion revenue protections act, ACA 5 (Frazier).
The Senate vote on SB 1 was 27-11, with Senator Glazer joining Republicans
voting No and Senator Cannella joining Democrats voting Aye. Senators
Anderson and Berryhill abstained. The Senate vote for ACA 5 was 28-10, with
Senator Glazer voting Aye and the others remaining the same as they voted on
SB 1.
After lengthy debates in the Assembly, they wrapped up two years of hard work
at 10:37 pm by passing SB 1, on a vote of 54-26. Together, the passage of both
measures is a testament to the collaboration of many stakeholders, caring
legislators, and especially, the tireless legislative leaders, Transportation
Committee Chairs, Senator Beall and Assemblymember Frazier, in this
extraordinary effort to address the state’s crumbling roads,
The Governor is expected to sign the bills soon. A special appropriations bill, SB
132, was also amended.
Bill Package Details
Although there has been a wave of ongoing information provided and distributed
on the components of these measures, it is fitting to capture the scope of this
funding and program plan here.
SB 1 enacts a number of new taxes and fees to generate revenue for
transportation projects. SB 1 is the largest infusion of transportation funding for
California since the 2006 Proposition 1B bond act.
ACA 5 places a measure before California voters in November 2018 to
constitutionally protect all revenues from SB 1 from diversion or borrowing for
other purposes.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 10 of 168
SB 1 Revenue Sources –
12 cent gasoline excise tax increase and annual adjustment for inflation
(starting Nov. 2017)
Resets price-based excise tax on gasoline and annual adjustment for
inflation (starting July 2019)
Transportation improvement fee on registered vehicles (ranges from $25 -
$175 depending on vehicle value) (starting Spring 2018)
20 cent diesel excise tax increase and annual adjustment for inflation
(starting November 2017)
4 percent increase on diesel excise tax (starting November 2017)
$100 vehicle registration fee on zero emission vehicles (starting July
2020)
$706 million Transportation Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) loan
repayments
SB 1 Reforms
Creates a Transportation Inspector General within a new Caltrans Office
of Audits and Investigations to provide greater oversight and
accountability.
Provides for $100 million in efficiencies at Caltrans.
Gives the California Transportation Commission (CTC) additional
oversight of the state highway maintenance program.
Creates an Advance Mitigation Program at Caltrans to mitigate the
impacts of transportation projects on habitat and the environment.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 11 of 168
Implementing the Municipal
Regional Permit 2.0
Transportation, Water, and
Infrastructure Committee
April 10, 2017
1
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 12 of 168
Stormwater Permit
Financial History
•MRP 1.0 2009 –2015
•MRP 1.0 cost $3
million in 2014/15
•Reserves depleted in
FY 2015/16
•MRP 2.0 = MRP 1.0
plus 4 additional
provisions
2
$-
$1
$1
$2
$2
$3
$3
$4
$4
$5
09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16Millions MRP 1.0
Compliance Costs
Flood Control
Zones Subsidies
Community
Drainage
Revenue
SUA Balance
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 13 of 168
MRP 2.0 Additional Provisions
Trash reduction
by June 2017
by June 2019
3
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 14 of 168
MRP 2.0 Additional Provisions
Green
Infrastructure:
Building stormwater
treatment
infrastructure
4
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 15 of 168
MRP 2.0 Additional Provisions
PCBs:
Remove molecules
through stormwater
treatment and
source control
5
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 16 of 168
MRP 2.0 Additional Provisions
Mercury:
Remove molecules
through stormwater
treatment and
source control
6
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 17 of 168
•December 7, 2016 •February 7, 2017
October TWIC Financial Report
•Outlined worse case cost scenario
•$200 million five-year total permit cost
•PCBs (and Mercury) requirements were 92%
of total costs
•Staff subsequently met with Regional Board
staff to discuss process, requirements, and
costs:
7
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 18 of 168
Most Likely Scenario
•Based on compliance
•$69 million five-year
total cost
•PCBs 64% total cost
Constrained Scenario
•Based on existing
revenue ($3M SUA)
•$28 million five-year
total cost
•PCBs 10% total cost
Cumulative MRP 2.0 Costs and Revenue
Two Budget Proposals
8
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 19 of 168
FY 2017/18
Constrained Budget
•Sensitive to County budget constraints
•Demonstrates commitment to MRP objectives
•Adds to community value where possible
•May not meet MRP 2.0 permit targets
•Requires funding “realignments”
•Impacts other County Department budgets
•Department of Conservation and Development
•Environmental Health Division
•Hazardous Materials Division
•Impacts County General Fund
9
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 20 of 168
Trash: $2.5 million
•Trash capture
•On-land cleanup
•Homeless camps
Street Sweeping: $325,000
Green Infrastructure: $92,000
PCBs: $690,000
•Green infrastructure
•Source properties
Other: $1.3 million
•18 other control measures
FY 2017/18 Details
10
PCB Controls
$691,000
GI Planning
$92,000
Trash
$2,517,000
Other
$1,276,000
Street
Sweeping
$325,000
Total Budget $4,901,000
PCB Controls
GI Planning
Trash
Other
Street Sweeping
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 21 of 168
MRP 2.0 Constrained Budget
11Table 10.A MRP 2.0 Implementation Budget Overview
Resource Based (Constrainted)
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 22 of 168
FY 2017/18 Budget
Recommendations
•Initiate one Green Infrastructure project
•Integrate GI into County road and building programs
•Install full trash capture devices
•Increase on-land cleanup
•Initiate Adopt-a-Spot program
•Develop ban on polystyrene food containers
•Reduce trash in creeks (homeless camps and illegal
dumping)
12
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 23 of 168
Consequences of Non-Compliance
•Up to $10,000 per day per violation (RWQCB)
•Up to $37,500 per day per violation (EPA)
•Each outfall may be a separate violation
•Local government subject to third party lawsuits
•City of San Jose settles lawsuit with Baykeeper for
$101 million, June 2016
13
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 24 of 168
Next Steps
•Direction on proposed budgets
•Forward to the Board
•Work with other County Departments
•Analyze street sweeping
•Prepare report on Flood Control District
•Work with BIMID
•Develop a Resource Plan
•Report back with a mid-year budget review
•Continue to meet with the Regional Board 14
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 25 of 168
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:05/08/2017
Subject:San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer
Department:Public Works
Referral No.: 12
Referral Name: Monitor the implementation of the County Complete Streets Policy
Presenter: Angela Villar, Public Works Dept.Contact: Angela Villar
(925)313-2016
Referral History:
On April 4, 2013, the TWIC reviewed and approved submittal of grant applications that included
the San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Project as part of the Federal Planning Funds for the
Local Priority Development Area (PDA) Planning and Implementation Grant.
On July 8, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved submittal of a PDA Planning grant
application for the San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Project.
Referral Update:
Study appendices are available at this link:
www.cccounty.us/SanPabloCSappendices
In September 2014, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) approved the
recommended list of projects for the PDA Planning Grant Program along with a list of on-call
consultant teams to perform the work. The San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Project was
awarded $300,000 in grant funds and Contra Costa County selected ARUP as the consultant to
conduct the planning study.
The goal of the planning study is to determine the feasibility of incorporating complete street
improvements along San Pablo Avenue between Rodeo and Crockett. This segment is
approximately 3 miles and could provide connection to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities
on either end of the project, Lone Tree Point on the west end and the Alfred Zampa Bridge on the
east end, and also serve as a segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail alignment.
In July 2016, the County adopted a Complete Streets Policy directing staff to incorporate
Complete Streets infrastructure into existing streets to improve the safety and convenience for all
users and to maximize opportunities for Complete Streets, connectivity, and cooperation. In
accordance with the County’s Complete Streets Policy, this study aims to improve safety along a
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 26 of 168
segment of San Pablo Avenue for all users.
The existing 4-lane roadway has little to no shoulders, no separation between opposing travel
lanes, and approximately 10% of the entire corridor has pedestrian or bicycle facilities. Existing
traffic volumes along the corridor are only approximately 25% of the total capacity and are not
expected to increase significantly in the future. This provides an opportunity to reduce the travel
lanes and reconfigure the roadway to provide space for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and create
an interchangeable middle lane that could be utilized for left turn pockets, center turn lanes,
medians, or truck climbing lanes.
The study is intended to identify a preferred alternative for implementation. Three alternatives
were developed as part of the study: 1) Bike Lanes Alternative, 2) Share Use Path Alternative,
and 3) Widened Shared Use Path Alternative. The alternatives were assessed using a range of
evaluation criteria that included safety and experience for all modes of travel (pedestrians,
bicyclists, vehicles, trucks, transit); traffic impacts; right-of-way impacts; utility impacts,
environmental impacts, and estimated costs.
The study incorporated a series of technical studies, field work, public outreach, and engineering
analysis which provided the basis for the recommended alternative. The recommended alternative
incorporates Alternative 2 – Shared Use Path with some modifications to maintain the existing
on-street bike lanes between Lone Tree Point and California Street and implement a shared
bicycle/pedestrian path on the north side of the roadway for the remainder of the corridor.
The study included a community outreach process consisting of community workshops, online
surveys, project website, stakeholder meetings, and formation of a Technical Advisory
Committee. In March 2017, the Draft Report was made available for public comment. A wide
range of comments has been received about the study and response to these comments can be
found in the appendix of the Feasibility Report.
In summary, the recommended alternative provides the best overall complete streets performance
by incorporating a range of safety benefits for all modes of travel while minimizing project
impacts. The estimated cost for the recommended alternative is $8.2 million.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT the Feasibility Report for the San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study between
Rodeo and Crockett and RECOMMEND the Board of Supervisors approve the Feasibility Report
at a future Board meeting. (District V)
Fiscal Impact (if any):
Study funded by 88.53% Federal Priority Development Area (PDA) Planning grant funds and
11.47% Local Road funds.
Attachments
04-21-17 San Pablo Feasibility Report
05-08-17 San Pablo Ave Study TWIC
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 27 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works
San Pablo Avenue Complete
Streets Study
Feasibility Report
Final | April 21, 2017
This report takes into account the particular
instructions and requirements of our client.
It is not intended for and should not be relied
upon by any third party and no responsibility
is undertaken to any third party.
Job number 243261
Arup North America Ltd
560 Mission Street
Suite 700
San Francisco 94105
United States of America
www.arup.com
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 28 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Contents
Page
1 Executive Summary 1
2 Introduction 7
2.1 Study Objectives 8
2.2 Study Context 9
2.3 What are Complete Streets? 10
2.4 The Bay Trail 13
2.5 Alternative Bay Trail/Study Corridor Alignments 17
2.6 Feasibility Study Approach 18
3 Existing Conditions 19
4 Key Corridor Features 20
5 Outreach 27
5.1 Survey Results 28
6 Traffic and Safety Analysis 30
6.1 Existing Traffic Conditions 30
6.2 Intersection Traffic Analysis 32
6.3 Additional Traffic Considerations 35
6.4 Collision Analysis 40
6.5 Addressing Safety via a Road Diet 41
7 Alternatives Development 43
7.1 Basis of Design 44
7.2 Alternative Complete Streets Concepts 47
8 Alternatives Evaluation 50
8.1 Alternatives Matrix 51
8.2 Evaluation Summary 56
9 Recommendations 57
Appendices:
A. Alternative Concept Plans
B. Truck Turning Movement Diagrams
C. Cost Estimate
D. Traffic Study
E. Environmental Screening
F. Community Outreach Summary
G. Unocal Agreement Letter
H. Responses to Public Comment
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 29 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 1
1 Executive Summary
This report assesses the feasibility of implementing a Complete Street design to improve safety
on a three-mile segment of San Pablo Avenue between the communities of Rodeo and Crockett
in unincorporated Contra Costa County. Complete Streets are a transportation policy and design
approach that strives for streets to be planned, designed, operated, and maintained to enable safe,
convenient, and comfortable travel for all users (including pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and
transit riders). Both the State of California and Contra Costa County have adopted Complete
Streets Policies that require jurisdictions to integrate the needs of all users into street design. In
addition to improving bicycle and pedestrian access and safety, a Complete Street design along
this segment of San Pablo Avenue would fill a gap in the San Francisco Bay Trail network.
Contra Costa County initiated this study through a Priority Development Area (PDA) grant from
the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA). Throughout the development of the
project, the local community has been involved through activities including public meetings,
workshops, and internet surveys.
The study has the three primary objectives:
• Assess alternatives for implementing a “Complete Street” that provides bicycle,
pedestrian and transit facilities and enhances safety for all users along a three-mile
segment of San Pablo Avenue from Lone Tree Point to the Alfred Zampa Bridge.
The Alfred Zampa Bridge is the suspension bridge that carries the westbound I-80 travel
lanes from Vallejo to Crockett over the Carquinez Strait. Currently, this segment of San
Pablo Avenue has very limited sidewalks and bicycle lanes on approximately 10% of the
segment. Three alternatives for improving facilities, in addition to the existing condition,
were evaluated. A Complete Street is a transportation facility that is planned, designed,
operated, and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users, including bicyclists,
pedestrians, transit vehicles, trucks, and motorists.
• Close an existing gap in the Bay Trail. The Bay Trail is a 500-mile regional walking
and cycling trail that is planned around the perimeter of San Francisco and San Pablo
Bays. The three-mile study segment represents the largest gap in the Bay Trail between
Oakland and Vallejo. This segment would link the shared pedestrian/bicycle (“shared-
use”) path on the Alfred Zampa Bridge with a proposed segment in Hercules.
• Identify a preferred alternative and the ultimate set of improvements desired for its
implementation on the roadway. The analysis evaluated the three alternatives and the
existing condition against a range of criteria, including: consistency with Complete Street
design “best practices,” qualification as a Bay Trail segment, enhanced safety and
experience for all users, maintenance of acceptable traffic operations, physical and
environmental impacts, and cost-effectiveness.
This feasibility study incorporated a series of technical studies, field work, public outreach, and
engineering design. The following are some of the primary findings used to develop the
alternatives:
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 30 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 2
• The observed and forecasted traffic volumes on San Pablo Avenue represent
approximately 25% of the roadway capacity for the four lane undivided arterial.
Therefore, there is an opportunity to implement a “road diet,” which is a low-cost way to
enhance safety and mobility for all road users that involves removing a vehicle travel lane
by re-striping the roadway and re-allocating the space saved for bicycle and pedestrian
users. A road diet is typically achieved staying within the existing roadway right-of-way.
In the case of San Pablo Avenue, this would result in one travel lane in each direction
with a center lane for left turns and truck climbing lanes.
• While traffic volumes are generally low, there are a higher than typical percentage of
trucks (approximately 25%) on the road segment between Cummings Skyway and
Refinery Road that serve the Phillips 66 refinery and NuStar Energy. There are several
sections with steep grades and tight curves, which will require solutions to allow for
passing lanes and physical barriers to provide separation between pedestrians and cyclists
and traffic. Separating road users and accommodating passing lanes for slower moving
traffic will improve safety for vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians alike.
• The technical studies indicate that the road diet concept can be implemented without any
adverse effects on existing or future traffic operations.
• Public outreach, which included community meetings and online surveys, indicated a
wide range of existing usage of the roadway and a diversity of opinions toward any
potential changes such as the road diet and the continuous pedestrian and bicycle
facilities.
• There are several significant engineering challenges along the corridor: narrow roadway
shoulders, steep hillsides, steep grades, and refinery infrastructure in close proximity to
the road.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 31 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 3
The figure below presents the typical roadway cross-sections for the existing configuration and
the three study alternatives.
Existing Conditions
The existing roadway consists of four 12’
travel lanes with minimal shoulders, no bike
lanes, sidewalks, or truck climbing lanes. The
existing condition represents the “No Build”
alternative.
Alternative 1:
Bike Lanes
Implement a “road diet,” removing one travel
lane and adding two 6’ striped on-street bike
lanes. Convert the center lane to a two-way
left-turn lane, median, or truck climbing lane
as necessary at different points along the
roadway. This alternative does not add new
sidewalks or pedestrian facilities.
Alternative 2:
Shared Use Path
Implement a “road diet,” removing one travel
lane and adding a 10’ two-way shared use
path for pedestrians and cyclists on the north
side of the roadway, separated by vehicle
traffic by a physical barrier. Convert the
center lane to a two-way left-turn lane,
median, or truck climbing lane as necessary at
different points along the roadway.
Alternative 3:
Widened Shared Use Path
Widen the existing roadway to add a 10’ two-
way shared use path for pedestrians and
cyclists on the north side of the roadway,
separated by vehicle traffic by a buffer. The
vehicle lane configuration will remain the
same as the existing roadway (two-lanes in
each direction) from Lone Tree Point to
Cummings Skyway. From Cummings Skyway
to the Alfred Zampa Bridge, implement the
same road diet configuration with shared use
path as presented in Alternative 2.
To Bay Inland
To Bay Inland
To Bay Inland
To Bay Inland
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 32 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 4
When assessed using the study evaluation criteria, the alternatives provide a range of results:
• The Existing (“No Build”) condition does not provide continuous dedicated facilities for
cyclists or pedestrians along the entire segment. It also does not qualify as part of the Bay
Trail.
• The Bike Lanes alternative (Alternative 1) implements bike lanes only, therefore it does
not qualify as a Bay Trail segment and does not meet several key goals of the study. The
bike lanes provide a more comfortable experience compared to the existing condition.
However, only selected portions of the roadway have space to accommodate minimal
barriers to separate the bike lanes from the travel lanes. Therefore, the improvement in
bicycle safety is only moderate. It is the least expensive and the easiest to implement.
• The Shared Use Path alternative (Alternative 2) has the best overall performance as it
provides a way to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists safely along the entire corridor,
provides a range of safety benefits for all other modes, and qualifies as part of the Bay
Trail. Alternative 2 is more expensive than the Bike Lanes alternative, however, it offers
significant additional benefits to users with minimal impacts.
• The Widened Shared Use Path alternative (Alternative 3) provides similar performance
to Alternative 2, but has a very high cost and the potential for significant environmental
and private property impacts as the result of widening the roadway to accommodate the
path.
Recommended Alternative
The technical studies, outreach, and alternatives analysis provided the basis for selecting a
modified Alternative 2 as the recommended set of improvements (see Figure 1). The
Recommended Alternative retains the shared use path design from Alternative 2 east of
California Street. This design removes one travel lane and adds a 10’ two-way shared use path
for pedestrians and cyclists on the north side of the roadway, separated from vehicle traffic by a
physical barrier. The physical barrier included in the design and cost estimates includes a
modular concrete barrier often referred to as “jersey barrier” or “K-rail”. These barriers would
prevent vehicles from crossing over into the shared use path. The type of concrete physical
barrier will need to be evaluated further in the detailed design stage if the project moves forward.
West of California Street, in order to minimize impacts to local business owners, the
Recommended Alternative retains the existing roadway layout, which includes on-street parking,
bicycle lanes, and one travel lane in each direction. However, by providing continuous sidewalks
and bicycle lanes, the alternative would meet the study’s Complete Streets goal.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 33 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 5
Figure 1: San Pablo Complete Streets Study Recommended Improvements
Locating the shared use path on the north side reduces the number of major intersections it
crosses. West of California Street, the Recommended Alternative reflects the design of
Alternative 1, which adds bicycle lanes and sidewalks—where needed—between California
Street and Lone Tree Point where it would connect to the planned Bay Trail segment.
The Recommended Alternative is expected to cost $8.2 million. To phase delivery of the project,
the cost estimate is divided into three segments, as follows:
• Alfred Zampa Bridge to Cummings Skyway ($1.8 million)
• Cummings Skyway to California Street ($4.3 million)
• California Street to Lone Tree Point ($2.1 million)
While the Recommended Alternative proposes a conceptual complete streets solution, detailed
design work must be completed before any alternative is implemented. Key points along the
corridor (keyed to numbered items in Figure 1) include:
1. Study area start. Construct bike lanes plus a sidewalk through Lone Tree Point from
Pacific Avenue to Parker Avenue. Connect this to the proposed Bay Trail segment to
Hercules.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 34 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 6
2. Utilize the existing on-street bike lanes and sidewalk on San Pablo Avenue from Parker
Avenue to California Street.
3. Provide a high visibility crossing for pedestrians and cyclists at California Street.
4. Implement the shared-use path (Alternative 2) concept from California Street to the
Alfred Zampa Bridge. Utilize a physical barrier to separate the path from the travel lanes.
5. Provide a wide painted buffer between the opposing travel lanes at the summit point east
of the refinery to increase the separation between opposing traffic.
6. Provide a truck climbing lane in the westbound direction.
7. Install a HAWK beacon (High-Intensity Activated crossWalK beacon) at the A Street
intersection. A HAWK beacon is a traffic control device used to stop road traffic and
allow pedestrians to cross safely.
8. Provide a truck climbing lane in the eastbound direction.
9. Provide a wide painted buffer between the opposing travel lanes at the summit point east
of Vista Point Road to increase the separation between opposing traffic.
10. Provide a left-turn lane into the Vista Point.
11. Provide a truck climbing lane in the westbound direction.
12. Study area end. Provide pedestrian and bicycle improvements in front of the Dead Fish
restaurant and connect to the path on the Alfred Zampa Bridge.
Implementation and Next Steps
This recommended alternative best satisfies the goals of the study, minimizes project impacts,
and provides a cost-effective solution. County staff will utilize the findings in this feasibility
report to ultimately make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors about next steps and
whether further detailed design should continue.
After public review, if the Board approves a preferred alternative, a number of steps remain to
implement the chosen alternative:
1. Complete final design: Select a consultant to prepare final design documents. Funding for
this study must be identified.
2. Environmental review process: Select a consultant to complete appropriate environmental
review documents to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Funding for this study must be identified.
3. Construction funding: Explore funding options for construction, such as the county’s
capital improvement program, regional grants, state and/or federal funding.
4. Construct project, whole or in phases.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 35 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 7
2 Introduction
Contra Costa County is evaluating the feasibility of implementing a Complete Street design with
improved pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities on a three-mile segment of San Pablo Avenue
between the communities of Rodeo and Crockett in unincorporated Contra Costa County.
Complete Streets are designed to enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians,
bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. Both the State of California and
Contra Costa County have adopted Complete Streets Policies that require jurisdictions to
integrate the needs of all users into street design. This segment of San Pablo Avenue is also
identified as a potential portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail.
The San Pablo Avenue study corridor extends from Pacific Avenue and Lone Tree Point in
Rodeo to the base of the Alfred Zampa Memorial Bridge (previously known as the Carquinez
Bridge) bicycle and pedestrian shared-use path (SUP) in Crockett. Figure 2 presents the San
Pablo Avenue study area, the study intersections included in the traffic analysis, and six key
segments along the corridor.
Table 1 provides a summary of each of the six segments.
Figure 2: San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study Area
Rodeo
Refinery
Central
Cummings
Vista
Del Rio
Crockett
Lone Tree
Point
Vista Point
Source: Arup, 2016
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 36 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 8
Table 1: Description of Corridor Segments
Segment Existing Street Description/Land Use Context
Rodeo
Lone Tree Point to California St
• Bike lanes on Parker Avenue with sidewalks
• Local commercial uses with multiple driveways, on-street
parking
Refinery
California St to the summit east of
Phillips 66
• No bike lanes or sidewalks
• Oil refinery and heavy industrial uses
Steep grades east of Refinery Rd
Central
Summit to east of A St
• No bike lanes or sidewalks
• Petroleum storage at A St; some rural residential
• Some moderate grades
Cummings
A St to Cummings Skwy
• No bike lanes or sidewalks
• Long steep sustained grades with moderate truck volumes
Vista Del Rio
Cummings Skwy to Vista Point
• No bike lanes or sidewalks
• Long steep sustained grades with low truck volumes
Crockett
Vista Point to I-80 Ramps/Merchant St
• No bike lanes or sidewalks
• Major on and off-ramps serving I-80
• A large restaurant traffic generator near the ramps
• Some moderate grades approaching the ramps
Along most of the study corridor, San Pablo Avenue is a four-lane (two lanes each direction)
undivided arterial with a 45 mph speed limit and very limited sidewalks and dedicated bicycle
facilities. All four travel lanes are 12 feet wide for a total traveled way of 48 feet. The roadway
travels parallel to Interstate 80 (I-80) between Oakland and Crockett.
Through the study area, San Pablo Avenue travels through a range of residential, industrial,
unincorporated, and rural areas, and has significant topographic features and steep grades. The
roadway is a public street and the County is responsible for its maintenance within the study
area. The Phillips 66 petroleum refinery and NuStar Energy occupy the largest parcels in the
center of the study area, with the residential and commercial areas of Rodeo and Crockett on the
west and east ends of the corridor. The roadway also passes by Selby Slag, a former smelting site
located on the San Pablo Bay shoreline north of NuStar Energy. The Selby Slag is designated as
a California hazardous waste and substances site, and a remediation plan and environmental
impact report are under development and expected to be issued for public comment in 2017.
The Contra Costa County Public Works Department and Arup have completed a range of
planning and technical studies, conceptual designs, cost estimates, and public outreach as part of
the feasibility study. County staff and Arup have developed and evaluated several alternatives
using a range of criteria related to design, safety, pedestrian and bicycle access, transit, traffic
operations, and cost.
2.1 Study Objectives
The three primary study objectives are:
• Incorporate a “Complete Street” with bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities on
San Pablo Avenue between Rodeo and Crockett. Providing continuous pedestrian and
bicycle facilities where they do not currently exist will promote these transportation
modes through the study area and will provide enhanced safety for all users.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 37 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 9
• Close an existing gap in the Bay Trail. The 3-mile study segment is the longest gap in
the Bay Trail between Vallejo and Oakland.
• Identify a preferred alternative and ultimate set of improvements for the roadway.
County staff will use the findings from the feasibility report to make a recommendation
for a preferred alternative from a range of alternatives. The preferred alternative will be
used to identify a set of improvements for further design and funding.
2.2 Study Context
This study was commissioned by Contra Costa County Public Works through a Priority
Development Area (PDA) Planning Grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) and Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA). The study also made use of
Community-Based Transportation Planning funds from the West Contra Costa Transportation
Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) for the community outreach process. The entire length of San
Pablo Avenue in Contra Costa County is designated as a PDA. Contra Costa County and Arup
began work on the study in May 2015.
The PDA grants are awarded to jurisdictions that:
Increase walking, bicycling, carpooling and car-sharing by effectively managing
parking and driving while promoting multimodal connections for residents,
employees and visitors within the PDA.
This study’s stretch of the San Pablo Avenue corridor has been recognized in numerous previous
planning documents as a key route and targeted for multi-modal improvements. The County’s
General Plan (2005) designates this portion of the corridor as a Scenic Route, given its
surrounding landscape and views of San Pablo Bay, the Carquinez Strait, and the Briones Hills.
The Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2009) proposes a class II bicycle facility on this
portion of San Pablo Avenue, and notes that this facility is part of the county’s larger bicycle and
pedestrian network. Finally, the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee
(WCCTAC) Action Plan (2014) designates the San Pablo Avenue corridor as a Route of
Regional Significance, which means that it has multi-modal transportation service objectives that
must be met. The Action Plan calls for bicycle and pedestrian facilities on the three-mile stretch
from Rodeo to Crockett.
In 1994, Unocal Corporation owned the refinery parcels adjacent to San Pablo Avenue now
owned by Phillips 66. Their land use permit at that time required that they construct a bike trail
and walking path along the property frontage and dedicate a portion of an existing security road
at the northeastern boundary for the same purpose. In lieu of constructing the improvements,
Unocal deposited funds towards the construction of a trail along its property and agreed to work
with the County’s Public Works Department to implement the trail. A copy of the letter from
Unocal is located in Appendix G. The study seeks to implement this trail along San Pablo
Avenue.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 38 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 10
The study is also informed by adopted local policy and statewide legislation mandating the
implementation of Complete Streets. The State of California adopted the Complete Streets Act of
2008 (Assembly Bill No. 1358), which requires the legislative body of each county and city to:
“Accommodate the safe and convenient travel of users of streets, roads, and
highways in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of
the general plan, and in doing so to consider how appropriate accommodation
varies depending on its transportation and land use context.”
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted in 2008 a General Plan Amendment that
incorporated “Complete Streets” principles into the General Plan. In July 2016, the County
adopted a specific Complete Streets policy that identifies a set of principles, implementation
processes, and exceptions. The County’s 2016 policy requires:
“All departments and agencies of Contra Costa County shall work towards
making Complete Streets practices a routine part of everyday operations,
approach every relevant project, program, and practice as an opportunity to
improve streets and the transportation network for all categories of users/modes,
and work in coordination with other departments, agencies, and jurisdictions to
maximize opportunities for Complete Streets, connectivity, and cooperation.
This policy stipulates that a Complete Street design represents the design standard, and
exceptions to providing a Complete Street design require an exemption granted by the Director
of Public Works or Director of Conservation and Development and based on findings. The
County’s policy requires that all plans and projects incorporate complete streets infrastructure,
sensitive to local conditions. Contra Costa County’s General Plan and Complete Streets Policy
establish that streets should be designed to accommodate all users, be sensitive to local context,
and balance multiple demands.
2.3 What are Complete Streets?
Complete streets are streets for everyone. While every complete street has a different design and
features, each aims to balance the needs of all users, recognizing that public infrastructure should
ideally accommodate a diverse range of modes and users. Making room on our streets for
pedestrians and cyclists not only enables healthier active lifestyles, but is also safer for these road
users and can help reduce vehicle trip making and greenhouse gas emissions. Complete Streets
come in various designs and configurations. Figure 3 shows a variety of designs that differ based
on their local context (urban, suburban, rural, and industrial) and user demands.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 39 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 11
Figure 3: Complete Street Examples
These Complete Street examples illustrate the wide variety of options for integrating pedestrian
and cycling facilities into existing roadways. These facilities can be on-street (within the
roadway) or off-street, physically separated by a wide buffer or a physical barrier such as a curb,
pylons or bollards, and can serve pedestrians and cyclists separately in exclusive facilities (e.g., a
sidewalk adjacent to an exclusive bicycle path) or in a shared facility where pedestrians and
cyclists share the space.
Figure 4 presents several types of standard bicycle and shared use facilities. Class I, II, and III
facilities are specified in Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual (HDM).
California has recently endorsed the National Association of Transportation Officials (NACTO)
Urban Street Design Guide and Urban Bikeway Design Guide as resources that Caltrans and
local entities can reference when making planning and design decisions, as long as they are
thoroughly documented. A Class IV facility, which is an on-street protected bike lane or “cycle-
track”, is now a common design implemented across California.
Suburban street with on-street bike lanes
(Location: Raleigh, NC)
Urban street with a separated path,
where pedestrians and cyclists are
separated (Location: Los Angeles, CA)
Urban street with a buffer (plastic
pylon) separated two-way cycle-track
and a separate sidewalk
(Location: Los Angeles, CA)
Industrial street with a buffer (curb) separated path,
where pedestrians and cyclists share the path
(Location: Richmond, CA)
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 40 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 12
Figure 4: Types of Bicycle Facilities
Class I: Off-Street Paths or Trails
These facilities are separate from roadways and are usually
shared by both pedestrians and cyclists.
Class II: On-Street Bike Lanes
These facilities are designated on-street bike lanes with no
physical barrier or protection. The width of the bike lane varies,
but is typically five to six feet in width. If space is available, a
wide painted separation buffer is recommended.
Class III: Bicycle Routes
Bicycle routes are “preferred” routes for cyclists, but do not
provide any dedicated lanes. They are often marked by signs
identifying the route including “sharrows”. Sharrows are shared-
lane markings that are indicated with a double chevron and
bicycle stencil. They are used to designate that vehicles and
bicycles should share roadway space.
Class IV: Protected On-Street Bike Lanes
A protected on-street bike lane or “cycle-track” is a facility that
is physically separated from the vehicle travel lane by a barrier.
Barriers can include flexible pylons, bollards, or permanent
concrete barriers. California State Assembly Bill 1193 created
this new class of bikeway facilities in 2014. Protected bike lanes
provide the most protection and comfort for people on bikes and
do the most to encourage a broad range of users.
Source: Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 41 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 13
2.4 The Bay Trail
The San Francisco Bay Trail is a 500-mile regional walking and cycling path that is planned
around the perimeter of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. California Senate Bill 100 (1989)
mandated the creation of the Bay Trail to provide connections to recreational opportunities and
to serve as a regional transportation link. The Bay Trail is managed and planned by the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The Bay Trail Plan proposes a trail system
consisting of three components:
1. The spine trail is the main alignment, intended as a continuous recreational corridor
encircling the Bay and linking the shoreline of all nine Bay Area counties. In some areas,
constraints force the spine trail inland.
2. Where the spine trail does not follow the shoreline, spur trails provide access from the
spine to points of natural, historic and cultural interest along the waterfront.
3. Connector trails link the Bay Trail to inland recreation sites, residential neighborhoods
and employment centers, or provide restricted access to environmentally sensitive areas.
Some connector trails link the Bay Trail and the Ridge Trail, another regional trail
network, which travels inland, mostly along the ridges of the Bay Area’s hills. The spine
trails, encircling the Bay and creating a continuous recreational corridor which links all
nine Bay Area counties.
Figure 5 shows the entire Bay Trail with existing and planned facilities.
Figure 6 presents the Bay Trail alignment within the vicinity of the study area. This alignment
was included in the original Bay Trail plan of 1989 and in the more recent San Francisco Bay
Trail Project Gap Analysis Study (ABAG, 2005), which provides a detailed inventory of gaps in
the Bay Trail system. ABAG identified the on-street alignment on San Pablo Avenue between
Lone Tree Point and the Alfred Zampa Bridge as the planned Bay Trail segment. The San Pablo
Avenue segment will eventually connect with the planned segment to Shoreline Park in
Hercules.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 42 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 14
Figure 5: San Francisco Bay Trail (Source: ABAG)
Source: ABAG, 2016
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 43 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 15
Figure 6: Bay Trail Segments within the Study Area
Figure 7 shows the location of planned and proposed Bay Trail projects between Oakland and
Vallejo. The 3-mile San Pablo Avenue study corridor represents the longest missing gap in the
Bay Trail between Vallejo and Oakland – a distance of approximately 30 miles. Currently, there
are 14 active projects between Vallejo and Oakland totaling over 15 miles of new Bay Trail
facilities. When completed, there will be over 77 miles of continuous Bay Trail in the East Bay.
Source: ABAG, 2016
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 44 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 16
Figure 7: Planned/Proposed Bay Trail Projects Between Oakland and Vallejo
Source: ABAG, Arup, 2016
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 45 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 17
2.5 Alternative Bay Trail/Study Corridor Alignments
Alternative alignments for this segment of the Bay Trail through the study area have been raised
by the public as part of this study. Figure 8 illustrates the two alternative alignments, which are
described below:
Figure 8: Alternative Bay Trail Alignments
• I-80 Alignment (Cummings Skyway to Willow Avenue): This alignment would route
the Bay Trail along Cummings Skyway to I-80, where it would follow an alignment
along the freeway between Cummings Skyway and Willow Avenue. The I-80 alignment
from Cummings Skyway to Lone Tree Point, where it would connect up with future Bay
Trail segments, is approximately 3.6 miles, which is almost twice as long as the 1.9 miles
along the San Pablo Avenue route.
Source: Arup, 2016
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 46 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 18
This alignment has several constraints, including: the route is considerably longer than
the San Pablo Avenue route; designing a bike and pedestrian path along I-80 would
require widening into hillsides and retaining walls at several locations to maintain the
number of travel lanes and shoulders on the freeway; steep grades on Cummings
Skyway; the ramps at Cummings Skyway and Willow Avenue would need to be widened
to allow pedestrians and cyclists to exit the freeway alignment; and Willow Avenue
under I-80 would need to be widened to accommodate bike lanes and additional
sidewalks between the freeway and Parker Avenue. The I-80 freeway and ramps are
under Caltrans jurisdiction and a freeway alignment would need to be analyzed by
Caltrans to determine feasibility.
• Shoreline Alignment (Lone Tree Point to Alfred Zampa Bridge path): This
alignment would route the Bay Trail along the Shoreline and parallel to the Union Pacific
(UP) railroad tracks, through the Phillips 66 refinery and the Selby site just to the east,
and connect up to the Alfred Zampa path in Crockett. The constraints to this alignment
include: there is very limited right-of-way adjacent to the UP tracks for a path; a
significant safety barrier between the tracks and the path would be required; the path
would travel directly through the Phillips 66 refinery and very close to active refinery
activities; easements and additional security through the refinery and the Selby site would
be required; very steep hillsides east of the Selby site would pose an engineering
challenge; and routing the path up the steep hillsides to connect to the Alfred Zampa
Bridge path would be very challenging and would likely require the path traveling
through Crockett.
The scope of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of Complete Streets pedestrian and bicycle
improvements along San Pablo Avenue, which was the alignment identified in ABAG’s 2005
Gap Analysis Study. Evaluating other alignments is not a part of this study. The Bay Trail’s goal
is to develop a shoreline, multi-use separated trail, but where that is not possible, on-street
alignments are acceptable. Due to the corridor’s shoreline uses and topography, implementing
bicycle and pedestrian facilities on San Pablo Avenue is an opportunity that balances Bay Trail
objectives with surrounding site constraints and that provides easy connections to the Bay Trail
segments at Lone Tree Point and the Alfred Zampa Bridge.
2.6 Feasibility Study Approach
The feasibility study included the following steps:
1. Reviewed previous policies, plans, and technical reports.
2. Analyzed engineering drawings, topographic maps, and aerial photography of the
corridor.
3. Conducted field work, which included numerous site visits as well as a bicycle trip of the
corridor.
4. Collected traffic, truck, accident data and utility information.
5. Conducted a series of technical studies to evaluate traffic conditions and to identify
opportunities and constraints at key locations.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 47 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 19
6. Conducted outreach activities, which included public and stakeholder meetings and
surveys, before and after the alternatives development process.
7. Developed conceptual designs and cost estimates for three “Build” alternatives, which
include a range of pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
8. Performed an alternatives analysis to understand how the three Build alternatives
compare to the Existing Conditions (i.e., “No Build”) alternative.
This report summarizes the findings of the feasibility study and the alternatives analysis.
Additional detail is provided in the appendices.
3 Existing Conditions
San Pablo Avenue today is predominantly a four-lane roadway through a mostly rural area with
significant topography. In most cases, the roadway does not have shoulders, guardrails or other
infrastructure to enhance automobile safety or support walking or cycling. Along the study area,
access to San Pablo Avenue is limited due to a relatively low number of intersections, and street
lighting is limited along much of the corridor.
For automobiles, San Pablo Avenue serves as a parallel route for the I-80 freeway. It has a speed
limit of 45 mph, but with wide 12’ lanes and limited access, speeds along the roadway are
typically much higher than the legal limit. Traffic varies along the corridor, highest in the
southern portion at Parker Avenue with 4,700 average daily traffic (ADT) and lowest east of
Cummings Skyway, with 2,200 ADT. With a four-lane roadway, there is ample room for
automobiles to pass trucks and other slow moving vehicles.
Supporting industrial uses along the corridor, a significant amount of truck traffic travels the
corridor. For the portion west of Cummings Skyway, 23% of vehicles are trucks, while only 12%
are trucks to the east of Cummings Skyway. Truck traffic can make left turns from the center left
travel lane, which provides a sufficient turning radius for large vehicles. Right turns are made
from dedicated right-turn lanes or the right travel lane. However, turning vehicles can block
through-traffic movements on the roadway, as there are no dedicated left-turn lanes.
Conditions for active transportation modes are poor on San Pablo Avenue. Much of the roadway
lacks pedestrian infrastructure; sidewalks and bicycle lanes exist only from Parker Avenue to
California Street, only approximately 10% of the entire corridor. The remainder of the roadway
lacks sidewalks and in many cases the shoulder is insufficient for safe pedestrian use.
Crosswalks do exist at all signalized intersections. Similarly, the remainder of the corridor lacks
dedicated bicycle facilities and the shoulders are similarly too narrow for safe cycling. Given the
high speed limit and the even higher real-world travel speeds on the corridor, the roadway is not
a safe place for even avid cyclists.
Finally, limited transit service is offered along the corridor. WestCAT has four bus stops along
the study corridor, at the following locations: California Street, Road Number 4 at the Phillips 66
refinery, A Street, and the Merchant Street Park and Ride lot. Only one stop includes
improvements such as a shelter and bench, while the remainder are simply signed roadside areas.
Buses either stop in the right travel lane and block traffic or pull into unpaved shoulders.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 48 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 20
Additionally, the John Swett Unified School District busses students along San Pablo Avenue
between schools in Rodeo and Crockett. One school bus stop is located along the study corridor
at A Street/NuStar Energy.
4 Key Corridor Features
The initial field work and review of existing documents yielded various findings at key locations
along the corridor. These were documented and assessed to help understand the key features that
the Complete Streets designs would need to respond to. Figure 9 identifies the key locations,
which are followed by Google Earth Streetview images detailing the specific opportunities and
constraints.
Figure 9: Opportunities and Constraints at Key Locations
Source: Arup, 2016
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 49 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 21
San Pablo Avenue and Parker Avenue (looking east)
- Opportunity to tie into existing bicycle lanes; sidewalks are incomplete in many areas
- Bridge constrains the right-of-way and was replaced in 2014
San Pablo Avenue and California (looking west)
- The roadway cross-section on San Pablo Avenue west of California Street provides on-
street bike lanes and dedicated left-turn lanes with on-street parking on both sides
1
2
On-Street parking
Bus stop Bus stop
Bridge
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 50 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 22
San Pablo Avenue and Refinery Road (looking east)
- Minimize impacts to signal equipment and Phillips 66 property
- Maintain large radius turn lanes for trucks
San Pablo Avenue east of Refinery Road (looking east)
- Utility poles, pipelines, and other infrastructure present right-of-way constraints
- Narrow cross-section with no shoulder and pipelines crossing under the road
3
4
Minimize impact to
signal equipment
Maintain large radius
for trucks
Utilities, pipes, with
narrow to no shoulder
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 51 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 23
San Pablo Avenue at Main Driveway (looking east)
- Driveways and a major truck access point for Phillips 66
San Pablo Avenue at east of driveway (looking east)
- No shoulders
- Adjacent refinery infrastructure
5
6
No shoulders
Refinery infrastructure
is close to the road
Phillips 66 driveways
Narrow shoulder
Bus stop
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 52 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 24
San Pablo Avenue at the refinery summit (looking west)
- Narrow section with no shoulder and adjacent hillside
- Overhead utility/pipeline structure
San Pablo Avenue approaching Cummings Skyway (looking east)
- Adjacent steep hillside, guardrail with steep drop, no shoulders
7
8
Guardrail and
steep drop
Steep hillsides
Hillsides, narrow shoulders,
Phillips 66 infrastructure
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 53 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 25
San Pablo Avenue at A Street (looking west)
- Maintain truck access into NuStar and improve access to bus stops and Old County Road
San Pablo Avenue at Cummings Skyway (looking east)
- Avoid impacts to signal poles
- Maintain the large turning radius for trucks heading to/from Cummings Skyway
- Adjacent hillside with narrow shoulders
9
10
Bus stop
Main NuStar
entrance
Maintain large turn radius for trucks
heading to Cummings Skyway
Old County
Road
A Street
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 54 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 26
San Pablo Avenue east of Cummings Skyway at second summit (looking west)
- Guardrail with a steep drop and narrow shoulders
San Pablo Avenue at Merchant Street (looking west)
- Angled parking for the Dead Fish Restaurant just to the outside of the travel lanes
- Narrow shoulders and limited sidewalks
11
12
Angled parking
Guardrail and steep drop
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 55 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 27
5 Outreach
The County and Arup developed a range of outreach efforts to obtain strategic direction,
technical guidance, and feedback from the public and stakeholders at multiple points during the
study. The project team strived to collect a broad range of comments and opinions from the
public and key stakeholders using a variety of methods, including comments made at public
meetings, email correspondence, and web-based surveys. The following summarizes the
outreach process:
• Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): A TAC was formed to provide strategic
guidance to the study. The TAC has met several times throughout the study. The
committee consisted of 19 members from a cross-section of stakeholders, including
County staff, representatives from staff of the Contra Costa County District V Supervisor
Federal Glover, Contra Costa Health Services, Contra Costa County Employment and
Human Services, Western Contra Costa Transit Authority (WestCAT), Caltrans, the West
Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC), the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC), Caltrans, the East Bay Regional Parks District,
ABAG, Phillips 66, NuStar, Bike East Bay, and local residents from Rodeo and Crockett.
• Community Workshops: Two public meetings were held to inform residents and
stakeholders on the study. The first was held on February 8, 2016 at the Rodeo Senior
Center. The project team presented an overview of the project, presented initial concepts
for two alternatives (bike lanes and shared-use path), presented the traffic study findings,
received public comments, and responded to questions from the public. At the second
meeting, on September 29, 2016 at the Crockett Community Center, the project team
presented the alternatives and received input and feedback on the preliminary layouts.
• Stakeholder Meetings: Stakeholder meetings were conducted with representatives from
Phillips 66, NuStar Energy, and the office of Federal Glover, Supervisor for Contra Costa
County. The study team also conducted additional stakeholder outreach to obtain
information and feedback from the Crockett-Carquinez Fire Department, Rodeo-Hercules
Fire District, John Swett Unified School District, WestCAT, and the Dead Fish
restaurant.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 56 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 28
• Website: County staff established a website for the project at the following URL:
http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/6006/San-Pablo-Avenue-Complete-Streets-Project. All
documents, presentations, meeting information, and surveys (more details below) are
being posted to this website for the public.
• Collaborative Map: Arup also set up a “Collaborative Map” for the corridor that allows
users to drop pins on problem areas and provide comments. The Collaborative Map URL
is https://www.collaborativemap.com/SanPabloAve/.
• Web surveys: Arup developed a web survey for the study that was launched at the
February 8th public meeting.. The County has a link to the website at this URL:
http://arup.polldaddy.com/s/san-pablo-avenue-complete-streets-project-survey.
• Comment cards: County staff developed comment cards for each public meeting. The
cards were printed on postcards and distributed at the public meetings to obtain feedback
and allow attendees to provide written comments.
5.1 Survey Results
The web surveys are meant to capture the general public sentiment regarding the project and are
included in the design process as one of the key inputs alongside the policy priorities, technical
findings, and cost estimates. The survey results indicate a broad range of sentiment and usage
along the study corridor. The web survey received 143 valid responses from a range of local
residents and businesses, regional stakeholders, as well as regular and occasional users. The full
survey detail and results are available in the Appendix.
Figure 10 presents the results to the question: “How do you travel on San Pablo Avenue?”
Just over half of the respondents use “Car Only”. However, 44% use non-auto modes or a
combination of modes to travel along the corridor. Figure 11 presents the results to the question:
“Which pedestrian/bicycling facilities would you use along San Pablo Avenue if they were
available?”
These results indicate a broad range of sentiment related to what type of pedestrian and/or
cycling facilities the public and stakeholders would like to see along the corridor. One quarter
stated “None”, while almost equal percentages were interested in “On-Street Bike Lanes” or a
“Shared Bicycle/Pedestrian Path”. There was greater support for a cycle track alone than for
sidewalks alone.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 57 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 29
Figure 10: Travel Along San Pablo Avenue
Figure 11: Question Regarding Sentiment on New Pedestrian/Bicycling Facilities
Source: Arup, 2016
Source: Arup, 2016
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 58 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 30
6 Traffic and Safety Analysis
This section provides a summary of the traffic and safety analysis conducted for the study. The
detailed traffic study is available in the Appendix. The analysis methodologies presented in this
report are consistent with best practices and are consistent with relevant analysis guidelines
published in Technical Procedures (Contra Costa Transportation Authority, 2013).
The initial traffic assessment of the study corridor indicated the following:
• San Pablo Avenue is a four-lane undivided arterial street with very few left-turn lanes, no
dedicated bicycle facilities, and sidewalks along approximately 10% of the corridor
• Low traffic volumes, but with higher than normal truck volumes
• A low level of congestion on most days
• Observed speeds higher than the posted 45 mph speed limit
6.1 Existing Traffic Conditions
To identify existing traffic conditions, traffic counts were collected at multiple locations during
the week of May 12, 2015. Machine “tube” counts, which record hourly volumes in each
direction over a 24-hour period, were collected at three locations in the study corridor:
• Parker Avenue, South of 1st Street (this is outside of the study area, but included as for
comparison purposes)
• San Pablo Avenue, West of Cummings Skyway
• San Pablo Avenue, East of Cummings Skyway
Table 2 summarizes the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the three count locations.
Table 2: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) at Three Locations Along the Corridor
Location Average Daily Traffic
(vehicles)
Parker Ave, South of 1st Ave (one-lane each
direction, center left-turn lanes) 4,700
San Pablo Ave., West of Cummings Skyway (two-
lanes each direction, no dedicated left-turn lanes) 3,900
San Pablo Ave., East of Cummings Skyway (two-
lanes each direction, no dedicated left-turn lanes) 2,200
San Pablo Ave., North of John Muir Parkway (two-
lanes each direction, one left-turn lane in each
direction)
32,000
Source: Arup, 2016
Parker Avenue at 1st Avenue has the highest observed daily traffic volumes, although this
location is outside of the study corridor. San Pablo Avenue west of Cummings Skyway carries
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 59 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 31
approximately 75% more traffic and trucks than the segment east of Cummings Skyway. Most
trucks use Cummings Skyway to travel between Phillips 66 and NuStar and I-80. The segment
east of San Pablo Avenue has significantly lower observed traffic volumes compared to the other
two locations. However, the overall observed traffic volumes on all three of these segments are
low for a four-lane road, even after accounting for higher truck activity (trucks are approximately
25% of the observed traffic volumes). As a comparison, San Pablo Avenue in Hercules, which is
also a four-lane roadway, carries approximately 32,000 vehicles a day.
One high-level measure of traffic capacity is to compare the observed hourly volumes to
standard lane capacities. Engineering studies typically utilize lane capacities of 800 vehicles per
hour per lane for arterial roadways with the characteristics of San Pablo Avenue. Figure 12
compares the observed hourly volumes in each direction (eastbound and westbound) on San
Pablo Avenue to the estimated capacity of the existing roadway (two lanes each direction) and a
roadway with a road diet (one travel lane in each direction with left-turn lanes).
Figure 12: Observed Hourly Traffic Volumes and Capacity on San Pablo Avenue West of
Cummings Skyway
Source: Arup, 2016
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 60 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 32
This graph shows how westbound traffic volumes peak at 400 vehicles per hour between 6 and 7
AM, while the eastbound traffic volumes peak at approximately the same hourly volume
between 3 and 4 PM. These peaks occur one hour before the typical morning and evening peak
hours for the Bay Area, which reflects earlier shift times at the refinery. The capacity for two
travel lanes in each direction is approximately 1,600 vehicles per hour and 800 vehicles per hour
for one travel in each direction. This graph indicates that approximately 25% of San Pablo
Avenue’s capacity is used today. Implementing the road diet would still leave approximately
50% available capacity.
6.2 Intersection Traffic Analysis
A Synchro traffic operations model was developed to analyze the ten study area intersections in
greater detail and to assess the feasibility of removing a travel lane to provide space for
pedestrian and bicycle improvements. To address the various peak periods along the corridor,
intersection turning movement counts were collected for eight hours on a typical weekday to
capture the “regional” Bay Area peak and the localized “refinery” peak.
For the regional peak, intersection turning movement counts were collected at ten locations in
the AM (7 AM – 9 AM) and PM (4 PM – 6 PM) periods during a mid-week day in May 2015.
Most locations in the Bay Area experience peak activity during these times. The study
intersections in Rodeo and east of Cummings Skyway experience this typical regional peak and
the intersection LOS analysis reflects this “worst case” condition.
The refinery peak occurs earlier than the typical Bay Area peak, which reflects when their work
shifts change. The refinery peak counts were collected for the “early AM” and “early PM”
periods (5 AM – 7 AM and 2 PM – 4 PM, respectively) to coincide with this peak refinery
activity. The remainder of the study intersections peak during the refinery period and the
intersection LOS analysis reflects this “worst case” condition.
The analysis uses methodologies published in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual
(Transportation Research Board, 2000) to determine the intersection level-of-service (LOS). The
LOS methodologies estimate delay at the intersection and then assign a qualitative LOS rating
that characterizes overall traffic operations. Table 3 summarizes the HCM intersection LOS
criteria.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 61 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 33
Table 3: Intersection LOS Criteria
LOS Signalized Intersections
A Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all.
B Delay of 10 to 20 seconds. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, but many drivers still do
not have to stop.
C Delay of 20 to 35 seconds. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many still
pass through without stopping.
D Delay of 35 to 55 seconds. The influence of congestion is noticeable, and most vehicles
have to stop.
E Delay of 55 to 80 seconds. Most, if not all, vehicles must stop and drivers consider the delay
excessive.
F Delay of more than 80 seconds. Vehicles may wait through more than one cycle to clear
the intersection.
Source: Transportation Research Board
Three traffic scenarios were analyzed for the “regional” peak hour and the “refinery” peak hours:
• Existing (2015) Conditions: observed traffic volumes with existing lane configurations
• Cumulative No Project (2040): future traffic volumes with existing lane configurations
• Cumulative + Reduced Lanes (2040): future traffic volumes with a “road diet” reduce
from two to one travel lane in each direction at each intersection; provide dedicated left-
turn lanes at intersections
The CCTA Countywide Travel Model (2010) was used to determine forecasted traffic growth in
the study corridor. The CCTA model takes into account changes to future land use and the
transportation network.
Figure 13 presents the intersection traffic LOS results for the 10 study intersections. The detailed
LOS tables and the technical calculations are provided in the Appendix. The figure shows the
LOS rating for AM and PM peak hour (regional or refinery, whichever is higher) under existing
and the two future Cumulative scenarios (No Project and Reduced Lanes). The County’s
standard for rural roads is a “high” LOS D.
The major findings of the intersection traffic analysis are:
• All intersections operate at LOS A or B under Existing and Cumulative No Project
conditions.
• Under the Cumulative + Reduced Lanes scenario only one intersection, San Pablo
Avenue / Refinery Road, goes to LOS C and this would occur in the PM peak hour only.
LOS C is well within acceptable operating thresholds.
• The reduction of one travel lane in each direction does not negatively impact traffic
operations at any location under any peak hour scenario.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 62 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets StudyFeasibility Report | Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd Page 34 Figure 13: Intersection Traffic LOS Results Source: Arup, 2016 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 63 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 35
6.3 Additional Traffic Considerations
San Pablo Avenue as a Bypass Route for I-80
Additional concerns regarding the usage of San Pablo Avenue as a bypass route to avoid
congestion on I-80 between the Alfred Zampa Bridge and Willow Avenue have been raised by
the public. Several sources of traffic data have been utilized to understand the level of congestion
on both routes and the likelihood of traffic diversion. These sources include Google Maps Traffic
service, which can summarize data in real-time or for a “typical” day based on historic data
collected from cell phones and other navigation system devices. Also, Caltrans Freeway
Performance Management System (PeMS) also provides data collected from in-pavement road
sensors. Figure 14 shows typical AM conditions on a Wednesday morning at 8 AM from Google
Maps Traffic and typical PM conditions for a Wednesday afternoon at 4 PM.
The figure shows that I-80 operates reasonably well on the segment between Willow Avenue and
the Alfred Zampa Bridge during both the AM and PM commutes. Most of the congestion is
located south of the State Route 4 (SR 4) interchange in Hercules. The section of I-80 from
Willow Avenue to the Alfred Zampa Bridge was recently widened in 2011 from three to four
lanes to accommodate a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in both directions.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 64 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 36
Figure 14: Typical AM Conditions (8 AM) from Google Maps Traffic Application
Figure 15 shows the travel distance and typical AM travel times from Google Maps Traffic
between the Alfred Zampa Bridge and Willow Avenue using I-80 and San Pablo Avenue. This
figure shows that I-80 is the shortest and typically the fastest route.
Google Maps “Typical Traffic”
(Wednesday at 8 AM)
I-80 westbound traffic does not
get congested until after the
Highway 4 interchange
I-80 Westbound is typically
clear in the morning between
Willow Avenue and the Bridge
Google Maps “Typical Traffic”
(Wednesday at 4 PM)
I-80 eastbound traffic is typically
congested before the Highway 4
interchange, but not after
I-80 eastbound traffic is typically
clear after Highway 4 to the Bridge
1
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 65 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 37
Figure 15: Travel Times on I-80 and San Pablo Avenue (AM Morning Commute)
These data indicate the following:
• I-80 between the Bridge and Willow Avenue operates reasonably well during the AM
and PM commute periods.
• The addition of the fourth travel lane (HOV) on I-80 has increased capacity and improved
travel time reliability.
• The travel times on I-80 between the Bridge and Willow Avenue are typically two to
three times faster than San Pablo Avenue.
I-80 Route:
3.5 miles
Typical Time = 4 min
San Pablo Avenue Route:
4.9 miles
Typical Time = 8-12 min
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 66 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 38
• This segment of San Pablo Avenue is used very infrequently as a bypass route.
Refinery Operations and Turnarounds
The Phillips 66 refinery employs approximately 650 to 700 people for normal day-to-day
operations. In addition to normal operations, the refinery schedules “turnarounds” for major plant
upgrades and maintenance several times per year. A typical turnaround occurs four to eight times
per year and involves 100 to 400 additional employees per day. The smaller events last two to
three weeks, with larger events lasting six weeks or more. Depending on the number of
contractors working during the turnaround, the event may have staggered day and night work
shifts. The increased traffic window occurs from 5:00 AM to 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM.
The refinery operates three larger turnarounds every three to five years that involve 800 to 1,700
additional employees working on staggered shifts. The increased traffic window occurs from
5:00 AM to 9:30 AM and 5:00 PM to 9:30 PM. The larger traffic window better spreads the
number of peak period auto trips on the study area roadways. For the larger turnarounds, workers
may be transported via bus from the refinery’s Selby parking lot to the site.
A traffic analysis of the San Pablo Avenue / Refinery Road intersection under the Cumulative +
Reduced Lanes (2040) Refinery Peak scenario (assumes the road diet concept) was performed to
assess the potential impacts of a typical turnaround with 400 employees driving to the refinery.
This analysis assumed the following:
• Arrival/departure rates: 50% of the employees arrive during the AM and PM peak hour.
This is a conservative assumption given the staggered shifts.
• Average vehicle occupancy: 1.2 persons per vehicle. This is the average Bay Area
vehicle occupancy and reflects some carpooling activity.
• The number of additional peak direction vehicle trips (inbound AM or outbound PM) is
170 vehicle trips (400 employees * 1.2 persons per vehicle = 170 vehicle trips). In
addition, 20 off-peak direction trips (approximately 10%) were also added into the
analysis. These trips were added to the San Pablo Avenue / Refinery Road intersection
and analyzed under 2040 conditions with the Refinery Peak.
The additional vehicles associated with a 400 person turnaround would result in LOS C
operations with 24.7 seconds of delay for the PM Refinery peak hour under the Cumulative +
Reduced Lanes scenario. The turnaround trips do not negatively impact LOS and cause only a
small increase in delay compared to the traffic analysis results presented in section 6.2 above.
Without the additional turnaround trips, the intersection LOS at San Pablo Avenue / Refinery
Road is LOS C with 21.5 seconds of delay.
The larger turnarounds were not analyzed because they are so infrequent.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 67 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 39
Truck Routes
Caltrans has determined that large STAA trucks will not be permitted to use the eastbound I-80
on-ramp from Pomona Street because of the ramp’s design. The other I-80 ramps at Pomona
Street are unaffected. Therefore, STAA trucks from the C&H refinery heading east on I-80 will
need to use San Pablo Avenue and the eastbound on-ramp at Cummings Skyway to access I-80.
Trucks traveling to C&H from the west can still use the eastbound off-ramp to Pomona Street.
Based on conversations with C&H, the number of eastbound STAA trucks that would need to
use San Pablo Avenue and southbound Cummings Skyway to access eastbound I-80 is
approximately 100 trucks per day. This equates to a peak hour truck volume of approximately 10
trucks, or one truck every six minutes and would not have a significant impact to traffic along
San Pablo Avenue under any of the traffic scenarios analyzed.
Emergency Response and Evacuation
Concerns have also been raised regarding emergency response and evacuation plans. For
emergency response, the road diets will not have a negative impact on the response time for
police and fire. While the road diet will result in slower speeds for automobiles, the difference in
drive times as a result of speeds slowing from 45 to 35 mph is only one minute over the entire 3
mile segment. The analysis indicates that there is sufficient excess capacity, so access to key
locations along the corridor would still be maintained even with an unusually severe traffic
event.
I-80 Integrated Corridor Management Project
San Pablo Avenue is slated to receive improvements as part of the I-80 Integrated Corridor
Management (ICM) Project, which will make improvements to both the freeway and local
arterials. On I-80, the project includes ramp metering, incident management, and other
improvements from the Alfred Zampa Bridge to the Bay Bridge in Oakland. On San Pablo
Avenue, the project includes upgraded traffic signal hardware, software and interconnect
enhancements, and installation of arterial management components such as closed-circuit
television (CCTV) cameras, trailblazer signs, changeable message signs (CMS) and
communication and detection equipment from MacArthur Boulevard in Oakland to Cummings
Skyway in Contra Costa County. These signal improvements on San Pablo Avenue will help
manage queuing and traffic flow when incidents cause a partial or full shutdown of I-80 through
Crockett, Rodeo, and Hercules. These systems will help maintain safe traffic operations and
ensure that emergency response or evacuation plans are not affected.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 68 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 40
6.4 Collision Analysis
To assess the safety of the study corridor, the frequency of injury and fatality collisions along
San Pablo Avenue were assessed. Incident data was obtained from County staff and the
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). Collisions include incidents involving
vehicles with other vehicles or with pedestrians and cyclists. The incident results were mapped
and collision rates were generated using methodologies published by Caltrans. Collision rates are
normalized for traffic volumes and are reported as “incidents per million vehicle-miles”. These
rates were compared to other roadways with similar characteristics (e.g., lanes, grade, curvature,
etc.). Figure 16 plots the injury and fatal collisions in the vicinity of the study area from 2003
through 2015 using the SWITRS data. The total number of injury and fatal collisions in this
period totaled 23.
Figure 16: Study Corridor Injury and Fatality Collisions, 2003-2015
Over two-thirds of the collisions did not involve other vehicles. These collisions included
vehicles hitting objects or they overturned. Only three of the incidents involved head-on
collisions. Over half of the collisions involved unsafe turning movements and unsafe speed and
one-quarter of the collisions involved driving under the influence (DUI). The majority of the
collisions involve unsafe driver behavior and most involve hitting other objects along the road
(e.g., utility poles, trees, etc.).
Source: Arup, 2016
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 69 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 41
Table 4 provides the calculated accident rates for fatal accidents and fatality and injury accidents
for San Pablo Avenue, comparable roadways in the region, and California overall. The analysis
indicates that the accident rates for the San Pablo Avenue study corridor are higher than the
California average for a rural, 4-lane undivided road. Improving the safety for road users is
another factor in considering the implementation of a road diet along the study corridor.
Table 4: Collision Analysis (2003-2015)
Collision Rate (collisions per million vehicle-miles)
Corridor Fatality Fatality + Injury
San Pablo Avenue (Rodeo to Crockett) 0.020 0.56
SR 12 in Solano County (4-lane, divided) 0.004 0.50
Richmond Parkway (Castro St to Giant Rd) 0.006 0.19
California Average (rural, 4-lane undivided roads) 0.018 0.35
I-80 Freeway (SR 4 to Alfred Zampa Bridge) 0.005 0.24
Source: CHP SWITRS, Caltrans, Arup, 2016
Due to the nature of the collisions along the study corridor, road diets and enhanced safety and
design measures that slow travel speed should help reduce the number and severity of traffic
accidents. Improving safety for all users (motorists, trucks, pedestrians, and cyclists) is a key
objective of the study.
6.5 Addressing Safety via a Road Diet
One way to incorporate pedestrian and bicycle facilities along existing roadways is to remove
one of the travel lanes and reconfigure the roadway to accommodate the sidewalks, bike lanes, or
shared use facilities. This process of removing a travel lane and reconfiguring the roadway to
stay within the same is known as a “road diet”. Figure 17 presents one type of road diet
conversion. This figure shows how a four-lane undivided street with two travel lanes in each
direction and no left-turn lanes or bicycle facilities (San Pablo Avenue’s configuration) can be
converted to a three-lane roadway with one travel lane in each direction, a center two-way left-
turn lane, plus bike lanes.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 70 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 42
Figure 17: Typical Before and After for a Road Diet
The following summarizes the benefits of road diets:
• Four-lane undivided arterials typically have higher crash rates than other roadway
configurations because of higher speeds.
• Road diets help to slow speeds, which reduce collision severity.
• The separation with a two-way left-turn lane, center medians, and/or other physical
barriers keeps opposing through traffic further apart.
• The two-way left-turn lane or dedicated left-turn pockets at intersections provide a safer
place for left turning vehicles to queue that is separated from the predominant traffic
stream.
• The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has identified road diets as a proven
safety measure and shown them to be more effective on rural than urban roads1.
• The FHWA studies indicate that crashes are reduced by 29% and vehicles traveling over
the speed limit are reduced by 30%¹.
A road diet would provide a number of opportunities to reconfigure the roadway to
accommodate pedestrian and bicycle improvements without widening the roadway.
1 Evaluation of Lane Reduction “Road Diet” Measures on Crashes (FHWA, 2010)
Source: FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 71 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 43
In 2006, the County implemented a road diet along Parker Avenue in Rodeo, transforming it
from a four-lane undivided arterial to a two-lane roadway with median islands, bike lanes, and
sidewalks. Construction began in 2006 and was completed in 2008. With implementation of the
Parker Avenue Reconstruction Project, this segment of Parker Avenue experienced a 20% to
40% decrease in traffic volumes and a 56% decrease in the total number of collisions (see Table
5). The project study area lies just north of Parker Avenue and has lower existing average daily
traffic volumes compared to Parker Avenue.
Table 5: Parker Avenue Reconstruction Project Traffic and Injury Results
Parker Avenue Average Daily
Traffic
(vehicles)
Total Collisions
over 3-year period
Total # Injured Total # Killed
Before Road Diet 6,500 – 12,000 34 (2003-2005) 16 0
After Road Diet 5,000 – 9,500 15 (2009-2011) 3 0
7 Alternatives Development
Based on the policy analysis, field work, and technical studies, a series of design principles were
created to guide the development of alternatives for providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities
along the San Pablo Avenue study corridor.
The principles include:
1. Implement a Complete Street design to balance the needs of all users
2. Qualify for the Bay Trail to fill a key gap between Oakland and Vallejo
3. Enhance pedestrian safety and experience
4. Enhance bicycle safety and experience
5. Enhance automobile safety and experience
6. Enhance truck safety and experience
7. Enhance transit safety and experience
8. Maintain acceptable traffic operations
9. Minimize physical and environmental impacts
10. Provide a cost effective solution
The objective was to develop alternative concepts that satisfy as many of these design principles
as possible. The alternatives analysis section uses these principles as a way to evaluate the
designs.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 72 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 44
7.1 Basis of Design
A number of guidelines and standards were used to develop the preliminary design of the
alternatives and to insure that best practices were applied. The following documents are the basis
of the design criteria used in this study:
• Bay Trail Guidelines, 2016
• Caltrans Class IV Bikeway guidance, 2015
• Caltrans Highway Design Manual, 2015
• Caltrans Traffic Manual, Chapter 7 Traffic Safety Systems, 2012
• Contra Costa County Standard Plans
• AASHTO Geometrics Design of Highways and Streets, 2011
• FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, 2015
• FHWA Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, 1999
• NACTO Urban Bikeways Design Guide, 2013
• NACTO Transit Street Design Guide, 2016
Shared Use Path Width
Both the NACTO Urban Bikeways Design Guide and the FHWA Designing Sidewalks and
Trails for Access recommends a desired minimum of 12 feet for shared use paths and two way
cycle tracks, with an 8 foot width used in constrained situations.
Roadway Separation Width
Both the NACTO Urban Bikeways Design Guide and the Caltrans Class IV Bikeway Guidance
recommends a minimum of 3 feet of separation between moving vehicles and the shared use
paths and two way cycle tracks. The Caltrans Class IV Bikeways guidance also recognizes that 2
feet of separation can be used in constrained situations.
Median Improvements
The Caltrans Traffic Manual provides guidance on design standards for the implementation of
physical median barriers and other devices and treatments to minimize the likelihood of cross-
median collisions by vehicles traveling in opposite directions. Physical barriers include an array
of solutions from rigid concrete barriers to flexible cable barriers. Section 7-04.4 provides a list
of improvements other than barriers that should be considered due to environmental
considerations, right-of-way purchases, and impacts to adjacent properties. These include painted
median buffer zones, rumble strips, and surface mounted channelizers (see Figure 18).
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 73 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 45
Figure 18: Wide Striped Median Buffer Zone with Rumble Strips
Path-Roadway Separations
Caltrans Class IV Bikeway Guidance specifies that separated bike facilities are required to have
at least one of the following treatments: grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical
barriers such as jersey barriers of K-rail, on-street parking, or raised islands. The use of on-street
parking as a roadway separation is not appropriate for this design.
Figure 19 presents a range of separation options that could be deployed between the travel lanes
and the shared use path. Jersey barriers have been included in the design alternatives and cost
estimates. These concrete barriers would prevent vehicles from crossing over into the shared use
path. The physical barrier will be evaluated further in the detailed design if the project moves
forward.
Source: FHWA
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 74 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 46
Figure 19: Examples of Path-Roadway Separation Options
Clockwise from top left: flexible pylons and striping; curb and gutter island; Jersey barrier (“K-
Rail”); and inflexible bollards
Bike Lane Width
Caltrans Class II Bikeways (bike lanes) design standards were obtained from the Caltrans
Highway Design Manual. Caltrans standards specify that the width of a bike lane on a roadway
where posted speeds are greater than 40 mph shall be 6 feet. The minimum legal minimum width
for a bicycle lane is 4 feet.
Bus Stop Design
The FHWA and the NACTO Transit street design guidelines both recommend routing bicycles
behind the bus platform. This type of design avoids conflicts with transit vehicles but doesn’t
create conflicts with pedestrians who must cross the bike lane/shared use path to access the
transit stop. 8 feet is the recommended minimum for a bus boarding islands, but in constrained
circumstances 5 feet wide by 8 feet long of clear space may be used to accommodate deployment
of an accessible ramp from equipped buses.
Vehicle Lane Width
Contra Costa County Standard Plans requires vehicle lane widths on rural roads with an ADT
greater than 400 to be 12’ wide.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 75 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 47
Turning Truck Movements
The San Pablo Avenue corridor has a high percentage of truck traffic that require large turning
radii at intersections and driveways. A swept path analysis was conducted along the corridor
with special consideration taken at the major intersections to ensure that trucks, as well as large
emergency response vehicles, could be accommodated in the design. The swept path analysis
utilized AASHTO 2011vehicle standards and was conducted with the design vehicle: WB-67,
which has a width of 8.5 feet, a length of 73.5 feet, a minimum turning radius of 45 feet and a
centerline turning radius of 41 feet. See Appendix B for more information.
7.2 Alternative Complete Streets Concepts
Three alternative concepts were developed to provide a Complete Street with enhanced
pedestrian and bicycle facilities for the San Pablo Avenue study corridor.
Figure 20 presents a comparison of street cross-sections and a description for the three
alternatives, along with the existing or “No Build” alternative. Detailed drawing sets for the three
alternatives are provided in Appendix A.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 76 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 48
Figure 20: Complete Street Alternatives for San Pablo Avenue
Existing Conditions
The existing roadway consists of four 12’
travel lanes with minimal shoulders, no bike
lanes, sidewalks, or truck climbing lanes. The
existing condition represents the “No Build”
alternative.
Alternative 1:
Bike Lanes
Implement a “road diet,” removing one travel
lane and adding two 6’ striped on-street bike
lanes. Convert the center lane to a two-way
left-turn lane, median, or truck climbing lane
as necessary at different points along the
roadway. This alternative does not add new
sidewalks or pedestrian facilities.
Alternative 2:
Shared Use Path
Implement a “road diet,” removing one travel
lane and adding a 10’ two-way shared use path
for pedestrians and cyclists on the north side of
the roadway, separated by vehicle traffic by a
physical barrier. Convert the center lane to a
two-way left-turn lane, median, or truck
climbing lane as necessary at different points
along the roadway.
Alternative 3:
Widened Shared Use Path
Widen the existing roadway to add a 10’ two-
way shared use path for pedestrians and
cyclists on the north side of the roadway,
separated by vehicle traffic by a buffer. The
vehicle lane configuration will remain the same
as the existing roadway (two-lanes in each
direction) from Lone Tree Point to Cummings
Skyway. From Cummings Skyway to the
Alfred Zampa Bridge, implement the same
road diet configuration with shared use path as
presented in Alternative 2.
To Bay Inland
To Bay Inland
To Bay Inland
To Bay Inland
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 77 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 49
A summary of the alternatives is presented below.
No Build Alternative
The No Build alternative would make no changes to the existing roadway.
Alternative 1 – Bike Lanes
Alternative 1 provides continuous bike lanes by implementing the road diet and removing one
travel lane to make space for the bike lanes. However, it does not provide any additional
sidewalks, therefore it would not qualify as a Bay Trail segment. It takes advantage of existing
on-street (Class II) bike lanes along San Pablo Avenue in Rodeo. The bike lanes improve bicycle
safety by creating a dedicated space for cyclists to ride, separating them from vehicle traffic.
This design also provides truck climbing lanes on three of the steepest sections, a two-way center
left-turn lane and left-turn pockets. The addition of the two-way left turn lane provides increased
separation between opposing traffic and provides a safe place for left turning vehicles to queue
that is separate from the main travel lane. At several locations a wide striped median is possible,
which would further separate oncoming traffic and provide additional safety for drivers. This
alternative requires the least amount of construction as it consists of mostly restriping the
roadway.
Alternative 2 – Shared Use Path
Alternative 2 also implements the road diet, which provides a continuous 10 foot shared use path
for pedestrians and cyclists along the entire corridor with a three foot buffer. The path is planned
for the north side of San Pablo Avenue. Both sides were considered. However, the north side
provides the best connections to the Alfred Zampa Bridge, Vista Point, and Lone Tree Point; has
the best views of the Carquinez Strait; and would provide easier crossings at Cummings Skyway
and A Street. Alternative 2 would qualify for the Bay Trail, as it provides for both pedestrians and
cyclists. The path is separated from the outside travel lane by a three foot striped buffer and will
require a significant physical barrier to protect cyclists and pedestrians from oncoming traffic.
This alternative also incorporates enhanced bus stops and improved pedestrian facilities to access
the bus stops. Truck climbing lanes are also incorporated along three of the steepest uphill
sections of roadway to allow passenger vehicles to pass trucks. A two-way left-turn lane is also
included in this alternative, along with left-turn pockets at intersections. Typical barriers used for
cycle tracks are being considered along with other forms of more permanent barriers. At several
locations a wide striped median between the opposing travel lanes is possible, which would
further separate oncoming traffic and provide additional safety for drivers. Physical barriers
between the travel lanes at key locations are also under consideration.
Alternative 3 – Widened Shared Use Path
Alternative 3 does not incorporate a road diet, but would include the same path described in
Alternative 2 and maintain a four-lane undivided roadway by widening San Pablo Avenue 10 to
11 feet from Refinery Road to Cummings Skyway. East of Cummings Skyway, this alternative
will implement a three-lane road diet configuration. The shared use path would provide the same
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 78 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 50
pedestrian and bicycling amenities and bus stop improvements as Alternative 2. This alternative
would require acquiring additional right-of-way from the refinery and private property owners,
relocating utilities and refinery equipment, rebuilding bridges, and constructing new retaining
walls along sections with steep hillsides. This alternative requires a significant amount of
construction due to the widening of the roadway and will have significant impacts.
8 Alternatives Evaluation
The three alternative concepts were evaluated for how well they achieve the study’s goals and
the design principles described in the previous section. The alternatives evaluation uses a series
of quantitative and qualitative measures to evaluate the design principles.
Table 6 describes the criteria and the scoring ranges used to evaluate each of the alternatives.
Table 6: Alternative Evaluation Criteria
Metric Description Score Range
Overall Complete
Streets assessment
To what degree does the
alternative accommodate
all road users?
POOR
Does not accommodate all
users
MODERATE
Accommodates some
users
GOOD
Accommodates all
road users
Bay Trail
qualification
Does the alternative meet
the criteria to be part of
the Bay Trail?
NO
Does not provide both pedestrian and
bicycle facilities
YES
Provides both pedestrian and bicycle
facilities
Safety and
experience for
major road users
(pedestrian, cyclist,
auto, truck, transit)
To what degree does the
alternative provide safe
and comfortable facilities
for a given road user?
POOR
Lacks adequate safety
provisions and does not
improve the user experience
MODERATE
Provides adequate
safety features and
creates an improved
user experience
GOOD
Provides substantial
safety features and
creates an excellent
user experience
Traffic Level of
Service (LOS)
What is the expected
future traffic level of
service?
POOR
Level of service exceeding
County standards (LOS D)
at many intersections
MODERATE
Level of service at or
above County standard
(LOS D) at most
intersections
GOOD
LOS A, B, or C at
most intersections
Property and right-
of-way impacts
To what degree will the
alternative impact
adjacent property and/or
require additional
roadway right-of-way?
SIGNIFICANT
Significant roadway
widening and property
rights required
MODERATE
Moderate amount of
roadway widening
required
MINIMAL
Little or no roadway
widening required
Utilities
Infrastructure
impacts
To what extent will the
alternative impact
existing utilities
infrastructure?
SIGNIFICANT
Substantial impact on utility
and signal poles, adjacent
pipeline,
stormwater/drainage
MODERATE
Limited impacts to
utility and signal poles,
stormwater/drainage
MINIMAL
Little or no impact on
existing utilities,
stormwater/drainage
Environmental
impacts
To what extent will the
alternative lead to
significant environmental
impacts (e.g. biological,
cultural, and other
impacts)?
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACTS LIKELY
Numerous significant
impacts requiring additional
study and/or mitigation
measures expected
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACTS
POSSIBLE
Few significant
impacts expected
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACTS
UNLIKELY
No significant impacts
expected.
Estimated Cost Includes capital costs,
construction costs, and
soft costs.
$ Millions (2016)
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 79 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets StudyFeasibility Report | Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd Page 51 8.1 Alternatives Matrix Figure 21: Alternatives Matrix San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study: Alternatives Matrix Metric Existing Condition / No Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Existing (4 vehicle lanes) Bike Lanes (3 vehicle lanes with bike lanes) Shared Use Path (3 vehicle lanes with path) Widened Shared Use Path (4 vehicle lanes with path) Project Components • 48’ existing pavement • Four 12’ travel lanes • Minimal shoulders • No bike lanes and very limited sidewalks • No truck climbing lane • 48’ existing pavement • Two 12’ travel lanes (one each direction) • Center lane for left turns, median, or truck climbing lane • Two 6’ bike lanes • Barrier or curb separating bike lanes from vehicles along much of the corridor • Road diet, reducing the number of vehicle lanes from four to two with a center turn/climbing lane • 48’ existing pavement • Two 12’ travel lanes (one each direction) • Center lane for left turns, median, or truck climbing lane • 10’ (minimum) shared use path (north or south side) • 3’ barrier or curb separating shared use path from vehicles • Road diet, reducing the number of vehicle lanes from four to two with a center turn/climbing lane • Four 12’ travel lanes (two each direction) • 10’ (minimum) shared use path (north or south side) • 3’ barrier or curb separating shared use path from vehicles • Road diet (partial): reduce to three lanes east of Cummings Skyway (same as Shared Use Path alternative) Overall Complete Streets Assessment POOR MODERATE GOOD GOOD Bay Trail qualification NO No existing bicycle facilities and very limited pedestrian facilities. NO Does not provide continuous pedestrian facilities along the entire corridor. YES Provides bicycle and pedestrian facilities along the entire corridor. • This design is coordinated with the proposed East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) off-street shared use path at Lone Tree Point (from Pacific Avenue to Parker Avenue) • The path was designed for a seamless transition to the Alfred Zampa Bridge Trail YES Provides bicycle and pedestrian facilities along the entire corridor. • This design is coordinated with the proposed East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) off-street shared use path at Lone Tree Point (from Pacific Avenue to Parker Avenue) • The path was designed for a seamless transition to the Alfred Zampa Bridge Trail Pedestrian safety and experience POOR • Sidewalks exist from Parker Avenue to California Street only (approximately 0.3 miles of the entire 3.0 mile corridor) • Crosswalks exist at all signalized intersections on San Pablo Avenue POOR • Pedestrian improvements limited to selected portions of the north side of the street between Pacific Avenue and California Street. • Significant portions of the roadway will continue to lack pedestrian facilities. GOOD • Provides continuous sidewalks on the north side of the street between Pacific Avenue and California Street. • Provides a two-way shared use path on the north side of the street, separated from vehicle traffic. • Separated, buffered path provides the greatest safety benefit for cyclists and pedestrians. • By separating cyclists and pedestrians from vehicular traffic and implementing a barrier, there will be fewer chances for conflicts and collisions. • Path is shared with bicycle traffic. • Path would connect to the proposed EBRPD off-street shared use path at Lone Tree Point and the Alfred Zampa Bridge path. GOOD • Provides continuous sidewalks on the north side of the street between Pacific Avenue and California Street. • Provides a two-way shared use path on the north side of the street, separated from vehicle traffic. • Separated, buffered path provides the greatest safety benefit for cyclists and pedestrians. • By separating cyclists and pedestrians from vehicular traffic and implementing a barrier, there will be fewer chances for conflicts and collisions. • Path is shared with bicycle traffic. • Path would connect to the proposed EBRPD off-street shared use path at Lone Tree Point and the Alfred Zampa Bridge path. 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 80 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets StudyFeasibility Report | Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd Page 52 San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study: Alternatives Matrix Metric Existing Condition / No Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Existing (4 vehicle lanes) Bike Lanes (3 vehicle lanes with bike lanes) Shared Use Path (3 vehicle lanes with path) Widened Shared Use Path (4 vehicle lanes with path) Bicycle safety and experience POOR • Predominantly lacking exclusive bicycle facilities; On-street bike lanes exist on San Pablo Avenue from Parker Avenue to California Street (0.3 miles of the 3.0 mile corridor). • Cyclists share the travel lanes with autos and trucks • San Pablo Avenue has very narrow shoulders that provide limited riding space for cyclists MODERATE • Provides bicycle lanes on both sides of the street, offering dedicated space for cyclists apart from vehicle traffic within existing pavement. • Retains eastbound bicycle lane from Parker Avenue to California Street. • Areas with steep uphill grades and fast-moving adjacent vehicles present a safety concern for cyclists. The dedicated roadway space will enhance safety. • Pavement markings across intersections with side roads helps raise drivers’ awareness of the bicycle lanes. GOOD • Provides a two-way shared use path on the north side of the street, separated from vehicle traffic. • A separated, buffered path will reduce the chances for conflicts and collisions. • Locating the path on the north side rather than the south side provides better access to Lone Tree Point and the Alfred Zampa Bridge as well as better views of the bay. • Path is shared with pedestrian traffic • Path would connect to the proposed EBRPD off-street shared use path at Lone Tree Point and the Alfred Zampa Bridge path. • Retains eastbound bicycle lane from Parker Avenue to California Street. • Pavement markings across intersections with side roads helps raise drivers’ awareness of the shared use path. GOOD • Provides a two-way shared use path on the north side of the street, separated from vehicle traffic. • A separated, buffered path will reduce the chances for conflicts and collisions. • Locating the path on the north side rather than the south side provides better access to Lone Tree Point and the Alfred Zampa Bridge as well as better views of the bay. • Path is shared with pedestrian traffic • Path would connect to the proposed EBRPD off-street shared use path at Lone Tree Point and the Alfred Zampa Bridge path. • Retains eastbound bicycle lane from Parker Avenue to California Street. • Pavement markings across intersections with side roads helps raise drivers’ awareness of the shared use path. Automobile safety and experience MODERATE • Two travel lanes in each direction provides ample room for autos to pass trucks and other slow moving vehicles • Minimal shoulders and guardrails • A collision analysis presented in the Traffic Impact Analysis indicates that this study segment experiences incidents at a rate slightly higher than the California average for four-lane undivided roads. GOOD • Truck climbing lanes are provided on two of the three steepest incline segments between Summit 1/Phillips 66 and Cummings Skyway. These lanes provide ample room for autos to pass slower moving trucks. • Reducing the number of travel lanes from two to one with the road diet eliminates a passing lane for motorists to pass slower moving trucks on uphill and downhill segments. This could tempt drivers to change lanes into oncoming traffic to pass trucks. • This alternative adds turn pockets and acceleration or deceleration lanes for key side streets and driveways. • The center turn lane provides vehicles a safe place outside of the traffic stream to wait before making left-turns. • Wide striped medians in segments with sharp curves provide increased separation and safety from head-on collisions. GOOD • Truck climbing lanes are provided on two of the three steepest incline segments between Summit 1/Phillips 66 and Cummings Skyway. These lanes provide ample room for autos to pass slower moving trucks. • Reducing the number of travel lanes from two to one with the road diet eliminates a passing lane for motorists to pass slower moving trucks on uphill and downhill segments. This could tempt drivers to change lanes into oncoming traffic to pass trucks. • A physically separated shared use path will reduce the number of interactions between motorists and cyclists/pedestrians. • This alternative adds turn pockets, acceleration or deceleration lanes for key side streets and driveways. • The center turn lane provides vehicles a safe place outside of the traffic stream to wait before making left-turns. • Wide striped medians in segments with sharp curves provide increased separation and safety from head-on collisions. MODERATE • The lane configuration between Refinery Road and Cummings Skyway is largely the same as existing (two travel lanes in each direction) but includes the path. Therefore, safety for motorists should remain largely unchanged. • Lane arrangement east of Cummings Skyway are reduced to two travel lanes with a center turn lane for left turns and climbing lanes. • A physically separated shared use path will reduce the number of interactions between motorists and cyclists/pedestrians. 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 81 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets StudyFeasibility Report | Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd Page 53 San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study: Alternatives Matrix Metric Existing Condition / No Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Existing (4 vehicle lanes) Bike Lanes (3 vehicle lanes with bike lanes) Shared Use Path (3 vehicle lanes with path) Widened Shared Use Path (4 vehicle lanes with path) Truck safety and experience MODERATE • Two travel lanes in each direction provides ample room for autos to pass trucks and other slow moving vehicles • Minimal shoulders and guardrails • Trucks make left turns from the left travel lane, which provides adequate turning radius for large vehicles. Right turns are made from dedicated right-turn lanes or from the right travel lane. • Vehicles turning from travel lanes can block through traffic movements on San Pablo Avenue. GOOD • The project includes climbing lanes on two of the three steepest incline sections, which will provide safe passing distance for vehicles. Downhill sections are less of a concern because the speed differential between autos and trucks is less pronounced. • Turn pockets and acceleration/deceleration lanes are provided for key side streets and driveways to provide enhanced access. • Increased shoulder width for the bike lanes provides area for trucks to stop in case of emergency. • The road diet will tighten the turning radius for left turning trucks GOOD • The project includes climbing lanes on two of the three steepest incline sections, which will provide safe passing distance for vehicles. Downhill sections are less of a concern because the speed differential between autos and trucks is less pronounced. • Turn pockets and acceleration/deceleration lanes are provided for key side streets and driveways to provide enhanced access. • Bicycle and pedestrians are separated from truck traffic • The road diet will tighten the turning radius for left turning trucks MODERATE • No turn pockets, refuges, acceleration or deceleration lanes for left turn movements. Autos and trucks will need to make left turns from the left travel lane, which could block vehicles traveling through on San Pablo Avenue. • Bicycle and pedestrians are separated from truck traffic Transit safety and experience MODERATE • There are four transit stops serving WestCAT bus service within the study area: o California Street o Road Number 4 at the Phillips 66 refinery o A Street o Merchant St Park and Ride lot in Crockett • There is one school bus stop at A Street/NuStar Energy (Tormey/Selby) • The bus stop in the eastbound direction at California Street includes a shelter and bench, while the other stops do not. • Buses either stop in the right travel lane and block traffic or pull into the unpaved and narrow shoulder. MODERATE • Improves bus stops at four locations: o California St: extend sidewalk on north side o Road Number 4: Add bus stop platforms (both sides) o A St: Add bus stop platforms (both sides) o Merchant St: No change • No physical barriers near bus stops, allowing bus vehicles to pull aside for passengers to board and disembark. • Stopped transit vehicles may temporarily block the bicycle lanes if they pull out of the travel lane. GOOD • Improves bus stops at four locations: o California St: extend sidewalk and add floating bus island on north side o Road Number 4: Add floating bus islands (both sides) o A St: Add floating bus islands (both sides) o Merchant St: No change • Floating bus islands allow transit passengers to board and disembark without bus vehicles blocking the shared use path of travel. GOOD • Improves bus stops at four locations: o California St: extend sidewalk add floating bus island on north side o Road Number 4: Add bus islands (both sides) o A St: Add floating bus islands (both sides) o Merchant St: No change • Floating bus islands allow transit passengers to board and disembark without bus vehicles blocking the shared use path. 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 82 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets StudyFeasibility Report | Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd Page 54 San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study: Alternatives Matrix Metric Existing Condition / No Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Existing (4 vehicle lanes) Bike Lanes (3 vehicle lanes with bike lanes) Shared Use Path (3 vehicle lanes with path) Widened Shared Use Path (4 vehicle lanes with path) Traffic Level of Service (LOS) under future conditions GOOD • LOS A/B at all study intersections. This level of service equates to generally free flow traffic conditions. • Traffic volumes are not expected to increase significantly in the future. GOOD • LOS B/C at all study intersections with the road diet and the removal of one travel lane. LOS C is better than the county’s rural roadway standard. This level of service equates to stable or reasonably free flow traffic conditions. • San Pablo Avenue at Refinery Road will be reduced from LOS B to LOS C during the “refinery” PM peak only. • San Pablo Avenue at Cummings Skyway will be reduced from LOS A to LOS B in the future, both with and without the project. GOOD • LOS B/C at all study intersections with the road diet and the removal of one travel lane. LOS C is better than the county’s rural roadway standard. This level of service equates to stable or reasonably free flow traffic conditions. • San Pablo Avenue at Refinery Road will be reduced from LOS B to LOS C during the “refinery” PM peak only. • San Pablo Avenue at Cummings Skyway will be reduced from LOS A to LOS B in the future, both with and without the project. GOOD • LOS A/B at all study intersections. No lane reductions are included in this alternative. This is above the county’s rural roadway standard, and matches today’s conditions. This level of service equates to reasonably or fully free flow traffic conditions. Property and Right-of-Way impacts N/A • Existing right-of-way: 69’ to 82’ MINIMAL • This alternative will not require widening outside of the existing right-of-way. MINIMAL • This alternative will require approximately 7,000 square feet of additional right-of-way at the intersection with Refinery Road to widen the roadway and construct the shared use path • A modest amount of roadway widening is necessary in order to retain the existing left and right turn pockets. • Adjacent to Lone Tree Point, this alternative includes 15,000-20,000 square feet of new sidewalk and 7,000-12,000 square feet of new pavement. • Angle parking in front of The Dead Fish restaurant will be converted to parallel parking because the shared use path will block direct pull-in vehicle access from the roadway; this results in a net loss of approximately seven parking spaces. The restaurant will still have more than sufficient parking per county code. SIGNIFICANT • This alternative will require approximately 56,000 square feet of additional right-of-way to widen the roadway between Refinery Road and Cummings Skyway to accommodate the shared use path and maintain the existing travel lanes. • Approximately 30,000 square feet of additional right-of-way are needed near Refinery Road • The alternative includes 15,000-20,000 square feet of new sidewalk and 60,000-65,000 square feet of new pavement for the widening as well as the section through Lone Tree Point. This can be accommodated within the existing right-of-way • This alternative will also require 4,000 linear feet of new retaining walls in several locations. • Angle parking in front of The Dead Fish restaurant will be converted to parallel parking because the shared use path will block direct pull-in vehicle access from the roadway; this results in a net loss of approximately seven parking spaces. The restaurant will still have more than sufficient parking per county code. 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 83 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets StudyFeasibility Report | Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd Page 55 San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study: Alternatives Matrix Metric Existing Condition / No Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Existing (4 vehicle lanes) Bike Lanes (3 vehicle lanes with bike lanes) Shared Use Path (3 vehicle lanes with path) Widened Shared Use Path (4 vehicle lanes with path) Utilities Infrastructure impacts N/A • Utility poles run along much of the portion of the roadway east of Cummings Skyway, and the area east of Vista Point • Limited portions of the roadway in Rodeo have street lights • Pipelines run along portions of the roadway, including near the Phillips 66 refinery • Only limited stormwater infrastructure exists along the roadway today, particularly east of California Street MINIMAL • This alternative will not impact existing utilities. MINIMAL • This alternative is expected to have minimal impact on existing utilities, as only very limited sections will have changes to the roadway pavement. SIGNIFICANT • This alternative will impact approximately 18 to 20 existing utility poles, which will have to be relocated due to roadway widening. • Impacted utility poles are concentrated near the refinery, between California Street and the pipeline overcrossing northeast of the refinery. • The traffic signals at Refinery Road and Cummings Skyway might also have to be reconfigured. This could require relocating signal poles, mast arms, cabinets, and other elements. • Pipelines along approximately 500 feet of roadway will have to be relocated in order to accommodate roadway widening and the shared use path. Environmental impact likelihood N/A • The environmental assessment will include all potentially affected environmental factors, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This analysis is ongoing. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS UNLIKELY • Significant environmental impacts are not anticipated, since improvements would be within the existing roadway and many impacts would be considered beneficial. • This alternative would likely qualify for a Categorical Exemption under 15304(h), creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way and a Statutory Exemption under 15282(j), restriping streets. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS UNLIKELY • Significant environmental impacts are not anticipated, since improvements would be largely within the existing roadway and many impacts would be considered beneficial. • An Initial Study could be completed to assess environmental impacts and determine if significant impacts would occur as a result of this alternative. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS POSSIBLE • Significant environmental impacts could result from the project due to extensive grading work and retaining wall construction required to widen the roadway, including grading in natural, vegetated areas. Additionally, the project would add new impervious surface. • An EIR could be prepared to determine if significant impacts would occur as a result of the project. An EIR would provide a better standard of review than an Initial Study, lowering risk. Estimated construction costs n/a $3.3 million $8.8 million $23.2 million 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 84 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 56
8.2 Evaluation Summary
Table 7 summarizes the conclusions of the evaluation. The detailed Alternative Analysis table is
provided in the Appendix, along with technical detail on traffic, utilities, and environmental
(e.g., biological, air, noise, etc.) impacts.
Table 7: Alternative Evaluation Matrix Summary
Metric
Existing /
No Build
(4 vehicle lanes)
Alternative 1:
Bike Lanes
(3 lanes+bike
lanes)
Alternative 2:
Shared Use Path
(3 lanes+path)
Alternative 3:
Widened Shared
Use Path
(4 lanes+path)
Overall Complete Streets Assessment POOR MODERATE GOOD GOOD
Bay Trail Qualification NO NO YES YES
Pedestrian Safety and Experience POOR POOR GOOD GOOD
Bicycle Safety and Experience POOR MODERATE GOOD GOOD
Automobile Safety and Experience MODERATE GOOD GOOD MODERATE
Truck Safety and Experience MODERATE GOOD GOOD MODERATE
Transit Safety and Experience MODERATE MODERATE GOOD GOOD
Traffic Level-of-Service (Future Conditions) GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Right-of-Way Impacts NONE MINIMAL MINIMAL SIGNIFICANT
Utilities Infrastructure Impacts NONE MINIMAL MINIMAL SIGNIFICANT
Environmental Impact* Likelihood NONE UNLIKELY UNLIKELY POSSIBLE
Cost $0 $3.3 million $8.8 million $23.2 million
Source: Arup, 2016
The three alternatives provide a range of results:
• The Existing (“No Build”) condition does not represent a “Complete Streets” design, as
it does not provide continuous dedicated facilities for cyclists or pedestrians along the
entire segment. It also does not qualify as part of the Bay Trail.
• The Bike Lanes alternative (Alternative 1) implements bike lanes only, therefore it does
not qualify as a Bay Trail segment and does not meet several key goals of the study. The
bike lanes provide a more comfortable experience compared to the existing condition.
However, only selected portions of the roadway have space to accommodate minimal
barriers to separate the bike lanes from the travel lanes. Therefore, the improvement in
bicycle safety is only moderate. It is the least expensive and the easiest to implement.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 85 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 57
• The Shared Use Path alternative (Alternative 2) has the best overall performance as it
provides a way to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists safely along the entire corridor,
provides a range of safety benefits for all other modes, and it qualifies as part of the Bay
Trail. Alternative 2 is more expensive than the Bike Lanes alternative, however, it offers
significant additional benefits to users with minimal impacts.
• The Widened Shared Use Path alternative (Alternative 3) provides similar performance
to Alternative 2, but has a very high cost and has the potential for significant
environmental and private property impacts as the result of widening the roadway to
accommodate the path.
9 Recommendations
The technical studies, outreach, and alternatives analysis provided the basis for selecting a
modified Alternative 2 as the recommended set of improvements (see Figure 22). The
recommended alternative best satisfies the goals of the study, minimizes project impacts, and
provides a cost-effective solution. County staff will utilize the findings in the feasibility report to
ultimately make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors about next steps and whether
further detailed design should continue.
The recommended alternative:
• Implements the Shared Use Path concept (based on Alternative 2) from California Street
to the Alfred Zampa Bridge by converting one of the existing four travel lanes to a ten-
foot shared-use path on the north side of San Pablo Avenue, separated from vehicle
traffic by a concrete physical barrier. This would result in one lane in each direction with
the center lane use for left turns, truck climbing lanes, or painted median buffer zones.
• Incorporates a truck climbing lane on two steep segments between the Phillips 66
refinery and Cummings Skyway.
• Uses wide painted median buffer zones to improve safety in the two “summit” sections,
which feature tight curves and steep grades.
• Implements the Bike Lanes concept (based on Alternative 1) from Lone Tree Point to
California Street. In order to minimize impacts to local business owners, the on-street
parking will be maintained between Parker Avenue and California Street. Given the
existing constraints, no change in the street cross-section is proposed and the existing
roadway layout will be retained. The only changes would include the construction of a
sidewalk through Lone Tree Point and on-street bike lanes from Pacific Avenue to San
Pablo Avenue. This section would provide continuous sidewalks and bike lanes and meet
the Complete Streets study goal.
• Provides a high visibility crossing at California Street to allow pedestrians and cyclists to
cross San Pablo Avenue and to access the shared-use path.
• Jersey barriers have been included in the design and cost estimates. These concrete
barriers would prevent vehicles from crossing over into the shared use path.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 86 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 58
Figure 22: Recommended Alternative
West of California Street: Bike Lanes
Implement the bike lanes concept from
Alternative 1 from Lone Tree Point to
California Street. Add bicycle lanes and
sidewalks to close gaps in existing
facilities where necessary.
East of California Street: Shared Use
Path
Implement the “road diet” concept from
Alternative 2. Remove one travel lane
and add a 10’ two-way shared use path
for pedestrians and cyclists on the north
side of the roadway, separated by vehicle
traffic by a physical barrier. Convert the
center lane to a two-way left-turn lane,
median, or truck climbing lane as
necessary at different points along the
roadway.
Figure 23 illustrates the different segments as proposed along the San Pablo Avenue corridor,
and is followed by a description of key points along the corridor.
To Bay Inland
To Bay Inland
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 87 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 59
Figure 23: San Pablo Complete Streets Study Recommended Improvements
1. Study area start. Construct bike lanes plus a sidewalk through Lone Tree Point from
Pacific Avenue to Parker Avenue. Connect this to the proposed Bay Trail segment to
Hercules.
2. Utilize the existing on-street bike lanes and sidewalk on San Pablo Avenue from Parker
Avenue to California Street.
3. Provide a high visibility crossing for pedestrians and cyclists at California Street.
4. Implement the shared-use path (Alternative 2) concept on the north side of San Pablo
Avenue from California Street to the Alfred Zampa Bridge. Utilize a physical barrier to
separate the path from the travel lanes.
5. Provide a wide painted buffer between the opposing travel lanes at the summit point east
of the refinery to increase the separation between opposing traffic.
6. Provide a truck climbing lane in the westbound direction.
7. Install a HAWK beacon (High-Intensity Activated crossWalK beacon) at the A Street
intersection. A HAWK beacon is a traffic control device used to stop road traffic and
allow pedestrians to cross safely.
8. Provide a truck climbing lane in the eastbound direction.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 88 of 168
Contra Costa County Public Works San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Study
Feasibility Report
| Final | April 21, 2017 | Arup North America Ltd
Page 60
9. Provide a wide painted buffer between the opposing travel lanes at the summit point east
of Vista Point Road to increase the separation between opposing traffic.
10. Provide a left-turn lane into the Vista Point.
11. Provide a truck climbing lane in the westbound direction.
12. Study area end. Provide pedestrian and bicycle improvements in front of the Dead Fish
restaurant and connect to the path on the Alfred Zampa Bridge.
Cost and Phasing
The Recommended Alternative is expected to cost $8.2 million (see Appendix C for more
detail). To phase delivery of the project, the cost estimate is divided into three segments, as
follows:
- Alfred Zampa Bridge to Cummings Skyway ($1.8 million)
- Cummings Skyway to California Street ($4.3 million)
- California Street to Lone Tree Point ($2.1 million)
Implementation and Next Steps
The Recommended Alternative best satisfies the goals of the study, minimizes project impacts,
and provides a cost-effective solution. County staff will utilize the findings in this feasibility
report to ultimately make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors about next steps and
whether further detailed design should continue.
After public review, if the Board approves a preferred alternative, a number of steps remain to
implement the chosen alternative:
1. Complete final design: Select a consultant to prepare final design documents. Funding
for this study must be identified.
2. Environmental review process: Select a consultant to complete appropriate
environmental review documents to comply with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). Funding for this study must be identified.
3. Construction funding: Explore funding options for construction, such as the county’s
capital improvement program, regional grants, state and/or federal funding.
4. Construct project, whole or in phases.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 89 of 168
TWIC Meeting
May 8, 2017
San Pablo
Avenue
Complete
Streets Study
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 90 of 168
Agenda
1.Study Overview
2.Developing Alternatives
3.Alternatives Overview
•Alternative 1: On-Street Bike Path
•Alternative 2: Shared Use Path
•Alternative 3: Widened Shared
Use Path
4.Alternatives Evaluation
5.Recommended Alternative
6.Next Steps
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 91 of 168
Study Overview
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 92 of 168
Study Objectives
•Incorporate a “Complete Street” with bicycle, pedestrian, and
transit facilities on San Pablo Avenue between Rodeo and Crockett.
•Close an existing gap in the Bay Trail.
•Identify a preferred alternative and ultimate set of improvements
for the roadway.
Source: Google MapsSan Pablo Ave: looking south towards Refinery Rd
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 93 of 168
San Pablo Avenue Project Study Area
A truck and auto-
oriented street
connecting residential,
industrial, and rural areas
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 94 of 168
Study Schedule
May –September 2015 Data Research/Traffic Analysis
October 2015 –Ongoing Public Outreach
February 8, 2016 Community Workshop #1
Spring 2016 Develop Alternatives
Summer 2016 Alternative Analysis
September 29, 2016 Community Workshop #2
October 2016 –February 2017 Prepare Feasibility Report
March 2017 –April 4, 2017 Draft Feasibility Report
available for review/comments
May 8, 2017 TWIC
TBD Present Final Report to
Board of Supervisors
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 95 of 168
Developing Alternatives
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 96 of 168
Work Contributing to Alternatives
•Existing conditions analysis
•Traffic and safety analysis
•Public outreach and community workshops
•Goals for alternatives
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 97 of 168
Goals for Alternatives
1.Implement a Complete Street design
2.Qualify for the Bay Trail
3.Enhance pedestrian safety and experience
4.Enhance bicycle safety and experience
5.Enhance automobile safety and experience
6.Enhance truck safety and experience
7.Enhance transit safety and experience
8.Maintain acceptable traffic operations
9.Minimize physical and environmental impacts
10.Provide a cost effective solution
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 98 of 168
Goal #1. Implement a Complete Street Design
Provide continuous bicycling and pedestrian facilities
•Widen or convert road space by implementing a “road diet”
•Provide separation between vehicular traffic and cyclists/pedestrians
Improve access to transit facilities
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 99 of 168
Goal #2. Qualify for the Bay Trail
To qualify as a Bay Trail segment, the corridor must accommodate
both pedestrians and cyclists
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 100 of 168
Goal #3. Enhance pedestrian safety and experience
Sidewalks only exist along 10% of the corridor
•Continuous pedestrian facilities provide safe walking paths for all users
•Promotes recreation between Lone Tree Point and the Carquinez Bridge
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 101 of 168
Goal #4. Enhance bicycle safety and experience
Bike lanes only exist along 10% of the corridor
•Important for enhancing the safety and comfort of cyclists
•Narrow shoulders on existing roadway do not provide a sufficient buffer
between cyclists and vehicles
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 102 of 168
Goal #5. Enhance auto safety and experience
“Road Diets” provide safety benefits for all users
•Four-lane undivided arterials have higher crash rates because of higher
speeds
•Road diets help to slow speeds, which reduce collision severity
•Providing separated facilities reduces conflicts between autos and
pedestrians/cyclists
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 103 of 168
Goal #6. Enhance truck safety and experience
Provide safe access for trucks driving to and from the refineries
•Two -way left-turn lanes and dedicated left-turn pockets provide safe
places for trucks to maneuver
•Truck climbing lanes are provided on two of the three key segments to
allow safe passing of slow moving vehicles
1 2
3
4
Cummings SkywayA StRefinery RdCalifornia AveParker AveVista Del Rio StSections 1, 2, and 3 have a higher proportion of trucks
Section 4 has very low truck volumes
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 104 of 168
Goal #7. Enhance transit safety and experience
Provide safe and accessible bus stops
•Provide safe places for buses to stop and passengers to access the stop
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 105 of 168
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
0:00 4:00 8:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 0:00Hourly Traffic Volume (vehicles / hour)Westbound
Eastbound
Capacity of two lanes in each direction (existing condition) = 1,600 veh/hr each direction
Goal #8. Minimize traffic impacts
There is sufficient traffic capacity in the
corridor to reconfigure the roadway
•Very low volumes for a four lane road (two-lanes each
direction)
•During the peak hour, only 25% of the road capacity is
being used
•Diversion from I-80 and emergency access should not
be an issue
Unused
Capacity in
Busiest Hour
(existing
condition)
Hourly Traffic on San Pablo Ave West of Cummings Skyway
Segment Average Daily Traffic
(vehicles)
San Pablo Ave,
West of Cummings Skyway 3,900
San Pablo Ave,
East of Cummings Skyway 2,200
San Pablo Ave, Hercules 32,000
Corridor Average Daily Traffic
Capacity of one lane in each direction (proposed condition) = 800 veh/hr each direction
Unused
Capacity in
Busiest Hour
(with lane reduction)
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 106 of 168
Goal #9. Minimize physical and environmental impacts
Minimize the impact of the design on property owners and utilities, as
well as environmental factors such as air, water, noise, biological, etc.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 107 of 168
Goal #10. Provide a cost effective solution
Implement a Complete Street concept that is cost effective and
consistent with County and State standards
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 108 of 168
Alternatives and Evaluation
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 109 of 168
Alternatives
Develop three
alternatives that meet
as many of the goals
as possible
Develop conceptual
designs and cost
estimates
Evaluate against a
broad range of criteria
Existing
Alternative 1: Bike Lanes
Alternative 2: Shared Use Path
Alternative 3: Widened Shared Use Path
Existing
•No bicycle or pedestrian facilities
•No left-turn lanes
Alternative 1: Bike Lanes
•Build on-street bike lanes
•No sidewalks
•Remove one travel lane in each
direction with center left-turn lanes and
truck climbing lanes
•Minimal right-of-way / cost impact
Alternative 2: Shared Use Path
•Build a two-way shared use path on the
north side
•Remove one travel lane in each
direction with center left-turn lanes and
truck climbing lanes
•Minimal right-of-way / cost impact
Alternative 3: Widened Shared
Use Path
•Build a two-way shared use
path on the north side
•No removal of travel lanes
•Significant right-of-way / cost
impact
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 110 of 168
Alternative Evaluation Matrix
Metric
Existing
(4 vehicle
lanes)
Alternative 1:
Bike Lanes
(3 lanes+bike lanes)
Alternative 2:
Shared Use Path
(3 lanes+path)
Alternative 3:
Widened Shared
Use Path
(4 lanes+path)
Overall Complete Streets Assessment POOR MODERATE GOOD GOOD
Bay Trail Qualification NO NO YES YES
Pedestrian Safety and Experience POOR POOR GOOD GOOD
Bicycle Safety and Experience POOR MODERATE GOOD GOOD
Automobile Safety and Experience MODERATE GOOD GOOD MODERATE
Truck Safety and Experience MODERATE GOOD GOOD MODERATE
Transit Safety and Experience MODERATE MODERATE GOOD GOOD
Traffic Level-of-Service (Future Conditions)GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD
Right-of-Way Impacts NONE MINIMAL MINIMAL SIGNIFICANT
Utilities Impacts NONE MINIMAL MINIMAL SIGNIFICANT
Environmental Impact Likelihood NONE UNLIKELY UNLIKELY POSSIBLE
Cost $0 $3.3 million $8.8 million $23.2 million
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 111 of 168
Recommended Alternative
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 112 of 168
Recommended Alternative: Hybrid Existing
West of California Street:
Bike Lanes
• Bike lanes (Alternative 1)
through Lone Tree Point
•Add sidewalks to close gaps
•No change to the roadway or
parking on San Pablo Avenue
East of California Street:
Shared Use Path
•“Shared Use Path”
(Alternative 2)
•Remove one travel lane
•Add a 10’ two-way shared use
path on north side
•Center lane:two-way left-turn
lane, median, truck climbing lane
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 113 of 168
Recommended Alternative: Hybrid Existing
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 114 of 168
Recommended Alternative: Hybrid
•Creates continuous bicycle and pedestrian facilities
•Upgrades existing facilities west of California St by adding sidewalks,
closing bicycle facility gaps, and preserving on-street parking
•Significantly improves safety for all users
•Provides truck climbing lanes, center turn lanes, and turn pockets for
much of the corridor
•Minimal right-of-way, utilities, and environmental impacts expected
•$8.2 million cost
West of California St: Bicycle Lanes East of California St: Shared Use Path
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 115 of 168
Conclusions/Questions
Conclusions
•Recommend the Hybrid alternative
•Satisfies the majority of study objectives
•Meets the County’s adopted Complete Streets policy
Questions?
Existing
Alternative 2: Shared Use Path
Alternative 3: Widened Shared Use Path
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 116 of 168
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:05/08/2017
Subject:CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related
Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 1
Referral Name: REVIEW legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7883
Referral History:
This is a standing item on the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee referral list
and meeting agenda.
Referral Update:
In developing transportation related legislative issues and proposals to bring forward for
consideration by TWIC, staff receives input from the Board of Supervisors (BOS), references the
County's adopted Legislative Platforms, coordinates with our legislative advocates, partner
agencies and organizations, and consults with the Committee itself.
Recommendations are summarized in the Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s) section at the end of
this report. Specific recommendations, if provided, are underlined in the report below. This report
includes three sections, 1) LOCAL, 2) STATE, and 3) FEDERAL .
1) LOCAL
Accessible Transit Update
Staff will update the Committee on the status of the countywide accessible transit study original proposed in
the 2016 Measure X effort. Staff from multiple agencies and organizations continue to discuss how to
proceed with the study in the absence of the Measure X revenues.
2) STATE
Legislative Report
The legislative report from the County's legislative advocate, Mark Watts, is attached (May TWIC State
Legislative Report). Mr. Watts will be present at the May meeting to discuss issues of interest to the Committee.
Attached is the following information which may be referenced by staff or Mr. Watts during the Committee
discussion:
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 117 of 168
Senate Bill 1 (Beall) Transportation Funding: A variety of documents from the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC), the California State Association of Counties, and Mark
Watts describing how SB1 will function and the revenue estimates (SB 1 Docs.pdf).
A report from Mark Watts on Autonomous Vehicle Legislation (Mark
Watts_AutonomousVeh Legislation.pdf)
SB 595 Fact Sheet (RM 3 Fact Sheet 2017_April14.pdf): As referred to in Mark Watts
legislative report and the TWIC Legislative Tracking List, SB 595 proposes a new increase
in bridge tolls to fund improvements in the bridge corridors. Ultimately, the MTC would
have to place a measure on the ballot in all nine Bay Area Counties.
TWIC Legislative Tracking List (TWIC Legislation Tracking.pdf): A comprehensive list of
legislation being tracked by staff.
3) FEDERAL
No staff report in May.
Attached is a broad update on federal issues (CSAC FedUpdateApr2017.pdf) provided by the California State
Association of Counties.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and
take ACTION as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
There is no fiscal impact.
Attachments
CSAC FedUpdateApr2017.pdf
May TWIC State Legislative Report.pdf
Auto_Veh_Leg
SB 1 Docs.pdf
RM 3 Fact Sheet 2017_April14.pdf
TWIC Legislation Tracking
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 118 of 168
1
John Cunningham
From:Lara DeLaney
Sent:Thursday, April 27, 2017 5:45 PM
Subject:Federal Issues Update
Federal Issues Update
Joe Krahn
April 27, 2017
Omnibus Budget Bill
With a little over 24 hours remaining before the expiration of federal spending authority, congressional
appropriators had not yet released the text of a massive omnibus budget bill that will be needed to keep the
federal government operating through the end of the federal fiscal year. The package – which will contain line-
by-line spending for 11 of the 12 unfinished fiscal-year 2017 appropriations measures – also is expected to
include supplemental funding for defense programs and various border security measures.
As of this writing, appropriators were reportedly still negotiating the final details of the budget bill, though it
was unclear when a finished product would be made public. In the meantime, congressional leaders have filed a
seven-day stopgap spending measure to ensure that there is no lapse in federal spending, which is slated to
terminate at midnight on Friday.
It should be noted that there had been much speculation this spring about a potential government shutdown due
in large part to ongoing disagreements over funding for the administration’s proposed border wall. Faced with
the seemingly inevitable prospect of a Senate filibuster if the fiscal year 2017 spending package included
funding for the wall, President Trump ultimately relented on his demands that Congress address the issue as part
of the current-year budget, thus likely quelling the possibility of a federal shutdown.
House Republicans Attempt to Revive ACA Repeal Effort
The conservative House Freedom Caucus, which helped derail the GOP’s effort to repeal the Affordable Care
Act (ACA), has formally endorsed a revised health measure, reviving efforts to overhaul the current system. The
proposed new language would give states wide latitude in allowing health insurers to sell plans that do not
contain all of the essential health benefits required of ACA plans. Those benefits include maternity care, as well
as mental health and prescription drug benefits.
A second amendment would allow states to approve insurance plans that charge higher premiums for those with
chronic and costly conditions, such as cancer. The plan also proposes to create a high-risk pool to help pay for
sicker individuals. However, it should be noted that high-risk pools have been woefully underfunded in the past,
and there are significant concerns that these changes will negatively impact access to care for individuals with
preexisting conditions.
Aside from the new language endorsed by the Freedom Caucus, the underlying bill would remain in place,
including the proposed elimination of the Medi-Cal expansion in 2020. In addition, the GOP health care bill
would place a per-capita cap on federal Medicaid spending and institute a number of other changes that would
make it harder to enroll and maintain individuals on Medi-Cal. Consequently, if enacted, the legislation would
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 119 of 168
2
shift tens of billions of dollars in costs to counties in California. Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office
has not yet had the opportunity to analyze the potential effect of the new language on the federal budget, nor
have they had the time to study the impact these changes will have on the uninsured rate.
Earlier today, CSAC – along with the California Welfare Directors Association and other California county
interests – sent a joint letter of opposition to members of the California congressional delegation.
As of this writing, it remains unclear whether the revised bill has enough support within the Republican
conference to successfully pass the House. Democrats are still very much opposed to the legislation, and the
moderate wing of the GOP party is largely undecided, although weakening protections for those with pre-
existing conditions could move some moderates even further away from the bill. If GOP leaders are confident
they have the requisite support, a vote could be scheduled in the House as early as Friday.
Trump Releases Tax Reform Plan
President Trump released this week the broad parameters of what would amount to a dramatic overhaul of the
U.S. tax code. Among other things, the reform plan – which is embodied in a single page outline – would
whittle the current seven income-tax brackets down to three, reduce the 35 percent corporate income tax to 15
percent, and eliminate a number of major taxes currently on the books. The goal of the plan, according to
administration officials, is to implement a series of large, accelerated tax cuts in an effort to create economic
growth and jobs.
Of particular interest to states and local governments, the Trump plan would eliminate the federal deduction for
state and local income taxes (SALT). The proposed abolishment of the SALT deduction would
disproportionately impact states with higher tax rates, particularly California, New York, and several other
states. According to estimates, eliminating the SALT deduction would result in an additional $1.3 trillion in
federal revenue over the 10-year period from 2017 to 2026, which would help offset, in part, some of the
proposed tax cuts in the Trump proposal.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen how tax reform efforts will proceed on Capitol Hill, where key authorizing
committees will be responsible for drafting a tax overhaul bill. While the Trump plan was generally warmly
received by congressional Republicans, many key Democrats were immediately dismissive of the proposal,
vowing to fight the plan throughout the legislative process. Hearings on the Trump proposal are expected to
take place in both the House and Senate in the coming weeks.
Sanctuary Jurisdictions
Earlier this week, a U.S. District Court Judge in San Francisco handed down a ruling that temporarily blocks the
Trump administration’s efforts to cut off federal funding to so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions.” The preliminary
injunction was issued in response to two lawsuits – one brought by the City and County of San Francisco and
the other by Santa Clara County – challenging a particular section of the president’s executive order entitled
“Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” Embodied in the order are instructions to the
Departments of Justice and Homeland Security (DOJ & DHS) to withhold federal funding from jurisdictions
that are not in compliance with provisions of federal law that prohibit government officials from restricting the
maintenance or intergovernmental exchange of information regarding an individual’s immigration status (8
U.S.C. § 1373).
It should be noted that while the Court’s injunction halts the threat of the administration withholding wholesale
federal funding from noncompliant jurisdictions, it appears that agencies would be allowed to restrict certain
grant dollars, namely those that bear a meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement. For its part, DOJ
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 120 of 168
3
responded to the ruling by indicating that it will continue to move forward with its planned enforcement actions,
which the Department believes is within the scope of current law.
Prior to the District Court ruling, DOJ sent correspondence to nine jurisdictions that were identified in a May
2016 Inspector General report as having laws that potentially violate Section 1373. The letter instructs the
jurisdictions – one of which is the California Board of State and Community Corrections – to furnish
documentation validating that they are in compliance with the aforementioned statute. According to DOJ,
failure to comply with the statutory condition could result in withholding of federal grant funding, specifically
fiscal year 2016 Byrne/JAG funds, but also potentially “future OJP grants or subgrants.”
Trump Directs Interior Secretary to Review National Monuments
On Wednesday, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing the Interior Department to evaluate
recent national monument designations. Specifically, the Order requires Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to review
all monument designations of at least 100,000 acres dating back to January 1, 1996. Among other
considerations, the secretary will analyze the level of public and official opposition to the current designations.
Zinke will have 120 days to complete the review and provide recommendations to the president on whether the
monuments should be modified, or possibly rescinded altogether.
At least two dozen monuments nationwide would fall within the criteria identified in the Order, including eight
monuments in California: Berryessa Snow Mountain, Giant Sequoia, Cascade-Siskiyou, Carrizo Plain, San
Gabriel Mountains, Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains, Sand to Snow, and Mojave Trails.
It should be noted that the Trump administration would face an uphill battle if they do seek to roll back existing
designations. For starters, no president has ever revoked a predecessor’s action to create a monument under the
Antiquities Act. Moreover, while the Act grants authority to a president to create monuments, it does not provide
explicit authority to abolish them. Therefore, if the administration does attempt to modify an existing
monument, it will no doubt be challenged in court. However, congressional Republicans could look to use the
legislative process to overturn the designations.
============
Lara DeLaney
Senior Deputy County Administrator
Director, Office of Reentry & Justice
1122 Escobar St.
Martinez, CA 94553
(925) 335-1097 (ph)
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 121 of 168
Smith, Watts &Hartmann, LLC.
Consulting and Governmental Relations
925 L Street, Suite 220 Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 446-5508 Fax: (916) 266-4580
MEMORANDUM
TO: Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee
FROM: Mark Watts
DATE: May 1, 2017
SUBJECT: May Report
Legislature
Senate Bill 1 (Beall): approved by the Governor:
Following the approval of SB 1 on April 6, two companion bills to SB 1 passed the Senate
and Assembly On April 24. SB 132 by the Senate Finance Committee includes the
appropriation of $427 million for a number of important road projects in Riverside County,
$400 million for the extension of the ACE train from Stockton to Ceres and Merced, and $100
million for the construction of UC Merced Campus Parkway Project. SB 496 by Senators
Cannella and de Leon includes liability protection for design professionals. This cleared the
way for the 3 bills to move to the governor and he approved all three of the measures on April
28th.
In addition, ACA 5, the companion constitutional amendment to protect the new revenues
was approved by the Legislature and is set to go on the November, 2018 ballot.
The April TWIC report provided a summary of the anticipated funding available within the
region and for the County and local cities over the first ten years of the new funding program.
New Bills of Interest
Regional Measure 3 - SB 595 (Beall)
Legislation to establish Regional Measure 3 (RM 3) was heard and approved by the Senate
Transportation committee on April 25. The bill requires the nine Bay Area counties to conduct
a special election to increase the toll rate (unspecified amount) charged on state-owned
bridges within the region to be used to meet the funding obligations associated with an
unspecified number of projects and transportation programs.
Working with MTC, local agencies having already begun adopting RM 3 priority project lists,
including BART and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 122 of 168
2
SB 775 (Wieckowski)
The bill is the Senate proposal to deal with the extension of Cap and Trade beyond 2020. It
was just amended on May 1. A quick overview of the new bill indicates that the measure
would allow the state to charge a fee for carbon emissions that would apply to all industries,
with a price floor and ceiling that rises over time to limit volatility in prices while steadily
raising the cost of pollution.
The existing cap-and-trade program includes only a price floor and gives pollution permits for
free to some industries while others must pay.
Finally, the measure intends to limit the impact of potentially higher gas and energy prices by
refunding as much as 90 percent of the revenue to consumers. The rest would be used to
pay for infrastructure and research on climate and clean energy.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 123 of 168
1
John Cunningham
From:Mark Watts <mwatts@swmconsult.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 27, 2017 9:54 AM
To:Audra Hartmann; DJ Smith
Subject:Autonomous Vehicle Regulations - Update
Importance:High
Good morning,
With autonomous vehicles (AV) claiming a high degree of legislative interest in this session, I thought it may be
useful to bring you up-to-date on the effort by DMV to adopt their second generation of regulations. These new
regulations are intended to take the state beyond manufacturer testing into the realm of real-world use of these
vehicles.
Yesterday, California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) ended its public comment period on the proposed
regulations for the testing and deployment of self-driving cars. Thank you to all of the coalition members who
weighed in during the DMV comment period. Nineteen of our coalition members submitted written comments to
the DMV. We'd also like to give special thanks to Society for the Blind and the Cal Asian Chamber for testifying
in person at the hearing
The next step in the rulemaking process will be the DMV reviewing and responding to feedback received in
written and oral comments over the past 45 days. If the DMV decides to make substantive changes to the
regulations based on the feedback, the DMV will open a 15-day comment period on the revisions.
At the completion of that comment period, the DMV will issue a "Final Statement of Reason" to summarize any
changes made to the regulations due to public comments, or why reasons why changes were not made. The
final step in the process is sending the rulemaking file to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for approval.
Once the rules are approved, there will be a 120-day waiting period before the regulations go into effect.
Mark Watts
916‐446‐5508
Mwatts@swmconsult.com
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 124 of 168
COUNTY HUTA 2103 HUTA 2104 HUTA 2105 HUTA 2106 Loan Repayment RMRATOTALALAMEDA$4,070,514 $13,678,745 $6,326,644 $329,479 $1,163,261 $5,862,836 $31,431,477ALPINE$78,317 $229,860 $113,847 $22,216 $22,381 $112,801 $579,422AMADOR$373,460 $661,419 $499,104 $157,798 $106,726 $537,901 $2,336,409BUTTE$1,332,051 $2,516,405 $1,780,195 $348,568 $380,670 $1,918,578 $8,276,467CALAVERAS$570,086 $946,434 $761,881 $256,141 $162,918 $821,106 $3,518,566COLUSA$447,283 $608,668 $597,762 $94,250 $127,823 $644,229 $2,520,015CONTRA COSTA$3,399,208 $10,980,268 $5,296,466 $746,973 $971,417 $4,895,942 $26,290,275DEL NORTE$232,690 $319,754 $310,975 $91,064 $66,498 $335,148 $1,356,128EL DORADO$1,200,852 $3,247,052 $1,760,464 $650,904 $343,176 $1,729,609 $8,932,057FRESNO$4,080,730 $8,447,557 $5,453,616 $862,327 $1,166,181 $5,877,551 $25,887,961GLENN$542,869 $738,269 $725,507 $109,226 $155,140 $781,904 $3,052,914HUMBOLDT$1,059,389 $1,714,560 $1,415,801 $329,515 $302,749 $1,525,857 $6,347,872IMPERIAL$1,844,092 $2,307,982 $2,464,502 $316,245 $527,000 $2,656,079 $10,115,899INYO$654,259 $963,611 $874,372 $97,684 $186,972 $942,341 $3,719,241KERN$3,840,448 $7,898,473 $5,132,494 $1,728,421 $1,097,513 $5,531,467 $25,228,816KINGS$804,444 $1,199,250 $1,075,084 $167,885 $229,892 $1,158,655 $4,635,211LAKE$569,126 $950,770 $760,597 $263,456 $162,643 $819,722 $3,526,314LASSEN$553,345 $931,133 $739,507 $104,896 $158,133 $796,993 $3,284,007LOS ANGELES$24,594,585 $82,269,792 $38,080,812 $2,047,354 $7,028,577 $35,424,029 $189,445,150MADERA$1,166,217 $1,493,603 $1,558,568 $359,663 $333,278 $1,679,723 $6,591,052MARIN$924,205 $2,578,978 $1,275,654 $245,529 $264,117 $1,331,149 $6,619,631MARIPOSA$364,993 $549,052 $487,789 $109,322 $104,307 $525,707 $2,141,170MENDOCINO$852,578 $1,301,069 $1,139,412 $325,074 $243,648 $1,227,984 $5,089,765MERCED$1,541,713 $2,373,931 $2,060,394 $431,508 $440,587 $2,220,558 $9,068,690MODOC$534,496 $846,905 $714,317 $51,684 $152,747 $769,844 $3,069,993MONO$395,834 $754,188 $529,005 $26,477 $113,120 $570,127 $2,388,751MONTEREY$1,681,718 $3,818,587 $2,247,500 $644,628 $480,597 $2,422,209 $11,295,238NAPA$650,906 $1,549,121 $869,890 $262,708 $186,014 $937,511 $4,456,150NEVADA$666,594 $1,654,149 $890,857 $257,856 $190,498 $960,107 $4,620,061ORANGE$8,398,147 $29,335,719 $13,479,052 $509,106 $2,400,001 $12,096,005 $66,218,029PLACER$1,730,979 $5,258,593 $2,658,248 $627,202 $494,675 $2,493,161 $13,262,858PLUMAS$439,711 $1,147,294 $587,643 $123,262 $125,659 $633,324 $3,056,894RIVERSIDE$6,750,822 $20,164,152 $9,567,513 $1,019,887 $1,929,232 $9,723,332 $49,154,937New Revenues ‐ SB 1Estimated County Highway User Tax Account Revenues ‐ FY 2017‐18CSAC Budget Year Estimates ‐ Based on January budget revenue estimates and SB 1 passage ‐ 4/13/17 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 125 of 168
COUNTY HUTA 2103 HUTA 2104 HUTA 2105 HUTA 2106 Loan Repayment RMRATOTALSACRAMENTO$5,020,475 $13,957,953 $7,086,322 $1,732,324 $1,434,738 $7,231,081 $36,462,893SAN BENITO$377,374 $683,384 $504,335 $124,917 $107,845 $543,539 $2,341,395SAN BERNARDINO$6,535,738 $19,801,451 $9,401,028 $1,013,961 $1,867,766 $9,413,542 $48,033,487SAN DIEGO$9,407,835 $30,141,692 $14,272,588 $1,460,153 $2,688,547 $13,550,277 $71,521,093SAN FRANCISCO$1,913,589 $5,172,978 $2,557,380$9,600 $546,861 $2,756,177 $12,956,585SF (City Portion)*$3,428,805$0 $4,977,556 $1,682,340 $979,875 $4,938,570 $16,007,146SAN JOAQUIN$2,715,601 $6,737,278 $3,629,214 $643,366 $776,057 $3,911,330 $18,412,846SAN LUIS OBISPO$1,563,585 $3,222,861 $2,089,624 $515,050 $446,837 $2,252,060 $10,090,019SAN MATEO$2,285,792 $7,590,134 $3,548,928 $267,772 $653,228 $3,292,268 $17,638,121SANTA BARBARA$1,594,862 $4,174,538 $2,202,196 $701,483 $455,776 $2,297,109 $11,425,964SANTA CLARA$5,113,806 $17,101,142 $7,830,577 $237,036 $1,461,410 $7,365,507 $39,109,480SANTA CRUZ$1,054,437 $2,765,782 $1,488,304 $529,566 $301,334 $1,518,726 $7,658,149SHASTA$1,231,014 $2,504,775 $1,645,165 $325,199 $351,796 $1,773,052 $7,831,002SIERRA$213,574 $428,053 $285,428 $29,038 $61,035 $307,615 $1,324,743SISKIYOU$881,988 $1,636,044 $1,178,717 $165,676 $252,052 $1,270,344 $5,384,822SOLANO$1,478,380 $4,251,512 $1,992,297 $159,759 $422,488 $2,129,337 $10,433,772SONOMA$2,219,485 $5,505,715 $2,966,190 $760,143 $634,279 $3,196,765 $15,282,577STANISLAUS$2,181,844 $5,087,178 $2,915,884 $532,023 $623,522 $3,142,549 $14,482,999SUTTER$671,734 $1,075,446 $897,726 $152,968 $191,966 $967,510 $3,957,350TEHAMA$764,730 $1,002,726 $1,022,009 $204,025 $218,543 $1,101,454 $4,313,486TRINITY$409,514 $767,518 $547,287 $83,577 $117,030 $589,831 $2,514,758TULARE$2,647,627 $4,085,378 $3,538,372 $534,596 $756,632 $3,813,426 $15,376,031TUOLUMNE$534,987 $1,053,050 $714,973 $259,187 $152,887 $770,551 $3,485,635VENTURA$2,579,195 $8,274,607 $3,967,845 $510,852 $737,076 $3,714,862 $19,784,437YOLO$941,570 $2,020,410 $1,258,343 $133,958 $269,079 $1,356,160 $5,979,520YUBA$535,603 $795,053 $715,797 $216,542 $153,063 $771,439 $3,187,497TOTALS $134,649,805 $363,272,000 $195,469,556 $26,703,422 $38,479,875 $193,938,570 $952,513,227* Add'l City RevenueHUTA 2107 HUTA 2107.5San Francisco City$6,506,811 $20,000New Revenues ‐ SB 1Estimated County Highway User Tax Account Revenues ‐ FY 2017‐18CSAC Budget Year Estimates ‐ Based on January budget revenue estimates and SB 1 passage ‐ 4/13/17 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 126 of 168
How SB 1 WorksOverview of New Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program Gas Tax Diesel TaxZEV TaxTransportation Improvement FeeDiesel Sales TaxCompanion Bills: SB 132 and SB 496ACA 5 (Frazier and Newman) Mark WattsSmith, Watts & HartmannApril 17, 2017 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 127 of 168
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program (Est. in SB 1)Receives $3.24 billion Annually (first ten year estimated annual average).Sources:Gas Taxes: $1.82 billionDiesel Tax $.365 billionZEV Tax: $.020 billionReg. Fee:* $1.03 billion“Off the Top” Allocations:•$400 Million ‐Caltrans Bridges and Culverts•$200 Million‐Local Partnership to Self‐Help Counties•$100 Million‐Active Transportation Program (ATP)•$25 Million‐Freeway Service Patrols (FSP)•$25 Million‐Local Planning Grants•$5 Million‐UC Research•$5 Million‐Workforce Development•$2 Million‐CSU Research 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 128 of 168
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program (Est. in SB 1)$3.24 billion annually is continuously appropriated as follows:•50% for allocation to Caltrans for maintenance of the State Highway System or for purposes of the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP);•50% to Cities and Counties with allocation by the Controller pursuant to the customary Local Streets and Roads (LSR) formula.Eligible projects include, but are not limited to, the following:•Road maintenance and rehabilitation;•Safety projects;•Railroad grade separations;•Complete street components, including active transportation purposes, pedestrian and bicycle safety projects, transit facilities, and drainage and storm water capture projects in conjunction with any other allowable project;•Traffic control devices. 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 129 of 168
Gas Tax IncreaseSummary:•Increase in base gas tax of 12 CPG, effective 11/1/2017;•Plus, reset of Tax Swap tax rate after BOE adjustment for 2017‐18 and 2018‐19 to 17.3 CPG, effective 1/1/2020;•Total estimated gas tax of 19.5 CPG at final implementation.Where The Funds Flow:Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program (RMRP) receives estimated $1.182 billion from gas tax;This, plus other new tax sources then provide $1.24 billion to each of Local Streets and Roads (LSR) and Caltrans maintenance and rehabilitation;$207 million from “setting” PBET at new rate is earmarked for LSR and $110 million for STIP;An additional $223 million flows to State highway maintenance and rehabilitation.Cons. Protection: Art. XIX, Prop 22 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 130 of 168
Diesel Tax Summary:•Increases base diesel fuel tax rate by 20 CPG, starting 11/1/2017;•Generates $730 million, annually (avg. over first 10 years).Where the Funds Flow:$365 million to Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program;$365 million to Trade Corridors Enhancement Account.Constitutional Protection: Art. XIX, Prop 22 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 131 of 168
Zero Emission Vehicle FeeSummary:•Imposes new ZEV Fee of $100 per vehicle, starting in 2020;•Requires UC Davis ITS to study and make recommendations on how to make ZEVs contribute their fair share to road maintenance going forward;•Generates $20 million, annually (avg. over first 10 years);•Transfers revenues to Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program.•Does not apply to Plug‐In Hybrids; pure EVs onlyConstitutional Protection: Art. XIX, Prop 22. 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 132 of 168
Transportation Improvement Fee(Value‐scaled Road User Vehicle Fee)Summary:•Generates $1.63 billion, annually (avg. over first 10 years);•Fee charged varies from $25 per vehicle to $175 per vehicle;•Indexed;•$1.03 billion flows to Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program;•$250 million flows to Congested Corridor Program;•$350 million flows to Transit for capital purposes.Constitutional Protection: ACA 5 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 133 of 168
Diesel Sales TaxSummary:•Imposes a 4.0% increase in sales tax on diesel fuel, starting 11/1/2017.•Generates $350 million, annually (avg. over first 10 years).•Of the 4% sales tax rate, 0.5% flows to passenger rail, and amounts to $35‐50 million annually. •The balance of funds generated, estimated to be approximately $300 million, annually, flows to the to STA program.Constitutional Protection: New increment protected under ACA 5; base increment under Art. XIX (A). 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 134 of 168
Repay Outstanding General Fund LoansRequires the outstanding loans made to the General Fund from various transportation special funds, a total of $706 million, to be repaid over three years; allocated as follows: $236 million for the TIRCP (transit capital); Up to $20 million for Planning; $225 million for SHOPP;$225 million for Local Agencies. 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 135 of 168
Reform Components•Directs the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to generate up to $100 million in department efficiencies. The revenue generated through the efficiencies will be allocated to the RMRA. •Creates a Transportation Inspector General, subject to Senate confirmation, within the newly created Caltrans Office of Audits and Investigations. •Requires additional CTC oversight of the development and management of the SHOPP program, including allocating staffing support and project review and approval. CTC will also conduct public hearings on the SHOPP. 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 136 of 168
Reform Components, Cont.•Creates and funds an Advance Mitigation Program, administered by Caltrans, to protect natural resources through project mitigation and to accelerate project delivery. •Creates a "useful life" period where truckers subject to future, undefined regulations can get a return on their investment before being asked to replace or modify the vehicle. 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 137 of 168
Companion BillsSB 132 (Budgets), SB 496 (Cannella/de Leon)SB 132 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) As introduced, adjusted 2016 Budget by adding $5 million for compensation for Employee Unit # 16 (Physicians and Dentists);Amended April 6thto add $977 million in one‐time special funds for transportation projects.Projects/Programs Funded:$50 million from the Trade Corridor Enhancement Account to the Air Resources Board’s Zero/Near‐Zero Emission Warehouse Program;$100 million from the State Highway Account for the University of California, Merced Campus Parkway Project;$400 million from the Public Transportation Account for the extension of the Altamont Corridor Express to Ceres and Merced. 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 138 of 168
Companion BillsSB 132 (Budgets), SB 496 (Cannella/de Leon)SB 132, Projects/Programs (continued):$427 million from the State Highway Account to the Riverside County Transportation Efficiency Corridorfor five projects:o$180 million for the 91 Toll Connector to Interstate 15 North project;o$108.4 million for the Jurupa Grade Separation project;o$84.45 million for the McKinley Grade Separation project; o$48 million for the Interstate 15 / Limonite Interchange project; o$6.3 million is for the Hamner Bridge Widening.Requires the Secretary of Transportation to convene a task force of state, local, and private sector experts to accelerate the schedule of delivery for these and other projects in the region;The bill is contingent on Senate Bill 496 being enacted and operative. 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 139 of 168
Companion BillsSB 132 (Budgets), SB 496 (Cannella/de Leon)SB 496 (Cannella): Design Professionals Indemnity This bill is intended to preserve the design professional’s uninsurable first‐dollar defense indemnity obligation while no longer exposing them to unlimited liability. They would still responsible for their own defense costs The bill limits a design professional duty to defend an indemnitee for claims that arise out of the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the design professional. A contractual “Duty to Defend” provides that an engineering or architecture firm will pay for attorney’s fees and costs incurred by a client when sued. Professional liability insurance is available to architects and engineers, but only for damages that result from their own negligence. SB 132 is contingent on this bill being enacted and operative. 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 140 of 168
Constitutional ProtectionACA 5 (Frazier and Newman)Would prohibit the Legislature from borrowing revenues from fees and taxes established in SB 1 that are imposed on vehicles or their use or operation. •Protects new increment of diesel sales tax in SB 1 from diverting the funds for use other than mass transportation.•Requires revenues derived from new Transportation Improvement Fee (TIF) in SB 1 to be used solely for transportation purposes.•Exempts appropriations of revenues generated as part of the SB 1 from counting towards the state appropriation limit (Gann Limit). 05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 141 of 168
1
John Cunningham
From:Mark Watts <mwatts@swmconsult.com>
Sent:Friday, April 28, 2017 12:28 PM
To:DJ Smith; Audra Hartmann
Subject:Governor to Approve SB 1 (Beall) today!!!
Importance:High
Good Afternoon,
The Governor is now set today to approve the 2017 Transportation Funding Package and pending companion
bills.
Earlier this week, the Assembly took final action on SB 132 and SB 496, clearing the way for the bills to go to
the Governor for signature. SB 132 contains funding for the projects in Riverside County as well as funding for
extending the ACE train from Stockton to Ceres and Merced and the access to U.C. Merced. In addition,
another SB 1 companion measure, SB 496 by Senators Cannella and de Leon, provides indemnity relief to
design professionals. These bills have cleared their technical legal review and have moved along with SB 1 to
the Govnerors Desk. An additional companion measure, ACA 5, the constitutional amendment to supplement
the constitutional protections for the new revenue sources in SB 1, had previously passed by the Legislature
and is set to go on the November, 2018 ballot.
Mark Watts
Smith, Watts & Hartmann, LLC
925 L Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone:
916-446-5508
Mobile:
916-813-1107
Email:
mwatts@swmconsult.com
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 142 of 168
Estimate of Bay Area Local Street and Road Funding from SB 1 (Beall/Frazier)
(Dollars in millions)
COUNTY TOTALS (includes
city and county portions)
Estimate of Current FY 2017
State Funding from Gas Tax
Subventions
Estimated Increase from
SB 1 (FY 2018-19)
Alameda 52 48$
Contra Costa 37 36$
Marin 8 8$
Napa 5 5$
San Francisco 25 24$
San Mateo 26 25$
Santa Clara 64 60$
Solano 15 14$
Sonoma 17 17$
Regional Total 250$ 238$
STATE TOTAL 1,276 1,240$
Note: Totals do not sum due to rounding
Assumes $1.2 billion available from SB 1 for local streets and roads in FY 2018-19, actual amount
will depend on revenue collected from various sources deposited in the Road Maintenance & Rehabilitation
Account and amount deducted for administrative purposes.
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commissions. Contact: Rebecca Long at rlong@mtc.ca.gov
April 11, 2017
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 143 of 168
Estimate of Bay Area City and County Funding for Local Streets and Roads from SB 1 (Beall/Frazie
County/City
Estimate of FY 2016-
17 Baseline Gas Tax
Subvention Funding
Estimated
Funding
Increase in FY
2018-19*Combined Total
ALAMEDA
ALAMEDA 1,504,098$ 1,455,822$ 2,959,920.05$
ALBANY 369,740$ 352,080$ 721,819.72$
BERKELEY 2,325,880$ 2,198,758$ 4,524,637.62$
DUBLIN 1,098,619$ 1,056,119$ 2,154,738.02$
EMERYVILLE 213,183$ 220,474$ 433,656.55$
FREMONT 4,423,329$ 4,193,066$ 8,616,394.74$
HAYWARD 2,989,712$ 2,910,926$ 5,900,638.42$
LIVERMORE 1,685,324$ 1,617,340$ 3,302,663.31$
NEWARK 870,643$ 824,842$ 1,695,485.17$
OAKLAND 8,005,367$ 7,720,766$ 15,726,133.46$
PIEDMONT 223,751$ 211,324$ 435,074.18$
PLEASANTON 1,468,516$ 1,377,533$ 2,846,048.74$
SAN LEANDRO 1,733,025$ 1,609,357$ 3,342,381.79$
UNION CITY 1,427,528$ 1,340,530$ 2,768,058.31$
City Total 28,337,930$ 27,088,935$ 55,426,865$
County Total 23,655,413$ 21,374,916$ 45,030,328$
Grand Total 51,993,343$ 48,463,851$ 100,457,194$
CONTRA COSTA
ANTIOCH 2,121,877$ 2,072,128$ 4,194,005.64$
BRENTWOOD 1,111,250$ 1,082,276$ 2,193,525.33$
CLAYTON 227,156$ 211,142$ 438,298.04$
CONCORD 2,467,739$ 2,377,247$ 4,844,985.82$
DANVILLE 860,659$ 790,792$ 1,651,451.29$
EL CERRITO 482,079$ 452,936$ 935,015.52$
HERCULES 491,557$ 460,464$ 952,020.26$
LAFAYETTE 498,933$ 462,888$ 961,821.11$
MARTINEZ 737,912$ 684,924$ 1,422,835.31$
MORAGA 328,889$ 308,698$ 637,586.64$
OAKLEY 765,256$ 741,138$ 1,506,394.52$
ORINDA 370,655$ 349,456$ 720,110.47$
PINOLE 377,155$ 349,274$ 726,428.96$
PITTSBURG 1,327,961$ 1,246,929$ 2,574,889.91$
PLEASANT HILL 675,205$ 630,604$ 1,305,809.56$
RICHMOND 2,103,350$ 2,024,918$ 4,128,268.15$
SAN PABLO 588,950$ 571,399$ 1,160,348.89$
SAN RAMON 1,540,739$ 1,439,162$ 2,979,900.64$
WALNUT CREEK 1,313,169$ 1,287,049$ 2,600,218.35$
City Total 18,390,491$ 17,543,424$ 35,933,914$
County Total 18,122,496$ 17,992,374$ 36,114,870$
Grand Total 36,512,987$ 35,535,797$ 72,048,785$
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 144 of 168
MARIN
BELVEDERE 46,832$ 44,483$ 91,315.17$
CORTE MADERA 191,226$ 176,272$ 367,498.06$
FAIRFAX 155,084$ 141,584$ 296,668.45$
LARKSPUR 247,767$ 233,671$ 481,438.90$
MILL VALLEY 288,481$ 278,056$ 566,537.65$
NOVATO 1,054,459$ 1,008,725$ 2,063,184.53$
ROSS 54,073$ 51,136$ 105,209.19$
SAN ANSELMO 254,053$ 241,363$ 495,416.76$
SAN RAFAEL 1,164,206$ 1,115,049$ 2,279,255.38$
SAUSALITO 148,584$ 137,500$ 286,084.08$
TIBURON 185,563$ 179,169$ 364,732.03$
City Total 3,790,330$ 3,607,010$ 7,397,340$
County Total 4,689,540$ 4,438,862$ 9,128,402$
Grand Total 8,479,870$ 8,045,872$ 16,525,742$
NAPA
AMERICAN CANYON 401,526$ 379,951$ 781,477$
CALISTOGA 108,901$ 100,370$ 209,271$
NAPA 1,548,719$ 1,479,500$ 3,028,219$
ST HELENA 124,549$ 115,390$ 239,939$
YOUNTVILLE 64,270$ 59,521$ 123,791$
City Total 2,247,965$ 2,134,732$ 4,382,697$
County Total 3,068,597$ 2,956,624$ 6,025,221$
Grand Total 5,316,562$ 5,091,356$ 10,407,918$
SAN FRANCISCO
City Total 16,480,936$ 15,817,770$ 32,298,706$
County Total 8,989,540$ 8,450,789$ 17,440,330$
Grand Total 25,470,477$ 24,268,559$ 49,739,036$
SAN MATEO
ATHERTON 141,480$ 136,280$ 277,760$
BELMONT 530,914$ 516,806$ 1,047,720$
BRISBANE 93,931$ 90,728$ 184,659$
BURLINGAME 592,063$ 551,258$ 1,143,321$
COLMA 40,429$ 32,580$ 73,010$
DALY CITY 2,073,456$ 2,002,333$ 4,075,789$
EAST PALO ALTO 577,408$ 566,223$ 1,143,631$
FOSTER CITY 640,719$ 614,636$ 1,255,355$
HALF MOON BAY 241,049$ 234,309$ 475,358$
HILLSBOROUGH 229,725$ 219,855$ 449,580$
MENLO PARK 657,903$ 626,703$ 1,284,606$
MILLBRAE 455,027$ 430,296$ 885,323$
PACIFICA 760,625$ 698,576$ 1,459,201$
PORTOLA VALLEY 93,659$ 91,675$ 185,334$
REDWOOD CITY 1,604,516$ 1,578,222$ 3,182,739$
SAN BRUNO 874,633$ 836,270$ 1,710,904$
SAN CARLOS 583,480$ 538,207$ 1,121,687$
SAN MATEO 1,988,192$ 1,884,216$ 3,872,408$
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 1,300,032$ 1,188,016$ 2,488,049$
WOODSIDE 114,311$ 109,193$ 223,504$
City Total 13,593,553$ 12,946,384$ 26,539,937$
County Total 12,852,053$ 12,010,056$ 24,862,109$
Grand Total 26,445,606$ 24,956,440$ 51,402,046$
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 145 of 168
SANTA CLARA
CAMPBELL 824,966$ 785,670$ 1,610,635$
CUPERTINO 1,174,755$ 1,073,489$ 2,248,244$
GILROY 1,043,268$ 1,016,400$ 2,059,668$
LOS ALTOS 594,904$ 580,951$ 1,175,855$
LOS ALTOS HILLS 168,845$ 163,767$ 332,612$
LOS GATOS 604,032$ 581,370$ 1,185,402$
MILPITAS 1,424,842$ 1,387,358$ 2,812,200$
MONTE SERENO 72,717$ 68,417$ 141,134$
MORGAN HILL 823,448$ 805,009$ 1,628,458$
MOUNTAIN VIEW 1,528,147$ 1,431,177$ 2,959,324$
PALO ALTO 1,314,415$ 1,254,038$ 2,568,452$
SAN JOSE 19,806,562$ 19,016,984$ 38,823,546$
SANTA CLARA 2,368,559$ 2,268,699$ 4,637,258$
SARATOGA 609,754$ 560,281$ 1,170,035$
SUNNYVALE 2,895,107$ 2,717,473$ 5,612,579$
City Total 35,254,321$ 33,711,082$ 68,965,403$
County Total 28,353,947$ 26,484,424$ 54,838,371$
Grand Total 63,608,268$ 60,195,506$ 123,803,774$
SOLANO
BENICIA 549,227$ 510,736$ 1,059,963$
DIXON 381,281$ 354,359$ 735,640$
FAIRFIELD 2,191,805$ 2,066,095$ 4,257,900$
RIO VISTA 165,964$ 162,728$ 328,692$
SUISUN CITY 572,562$ 539,719$ 1,112,281$
VACAVILLE 1,854,877$ 1,791,035$ 3,645,912$
VALLEJO 2,343,453$ 2,151,493$ 4,494,947$
City Total 8,059,169$ 7,576,166$ 15,635,336$
County Total 7,226,249$ 6,914,137$ 14,140,386$
Grand Total 15,285,418$ 14,490,304$ 29,775,722$
SONOMA
CLOVERDALE 175,987$ 166,811$ 342,798$
COTATI 149,479$ 138,376$ 287,855$
HEALDSBURG 234,922$ 220,073$ 454,995$
PETALUMA 1,170,550$ 1,111,276$ 2,281,826$
ROHNERT PARK 809,786$ 775,079$ 1,584,865$
SANTA ROSA 3,382,496$ 3,215,005$ 6,597,502$
SEBASTOPOL 152,613$ 143,151$ 295,764$
SONOMA 220,248$ 204,871$ 425,119$
WINDSOR 542,338$ 502,170$ 1,044,507$
City Total 6,838,418$ 6,476,813$ 13,315,231$
County Total 10,522,307$ 10,140,996$ 20,663,304$
Grand Total 17,360,725$ 16,617,809$ 33,978,535$
REGION
City Total 132,993,112$ 126,902,317$ 259,895,430$
County Total 117,480,143$ 110,763,179$ 228,243,321$
Grand Total 250,473,255$ 237,665,496$ 488,138,751$
Note: Cities and counties will see an increase in funding in FY 2017-18, but much larger increases in
FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20 due to phasing in of new taxes, including new vehicle charge which takes effect
January 1, 2018 and adjustment to variable rate excise tax, which is adjusted to 17.3 cents/gallon July 1, 2019
and indexed annually thereafter.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 146 of 168
Bay Area Transit Operators Estimates
Baseline Current STA
Funding (FY 2016-17
Estimate)
Estimate of Net Increase
in FY 2017-18*
Estimate of Net
Increase in FY 2018-19
Estimate*
Statewide STA Funding 266,873,000$ 166,666,500$ 250,000,000$
Alameda CTC - Corresponding to ACE 186,347$ 116,275$ 174,413$
Caltrain 3,877,168$ 2,419,246$ 3,628,873$
County Connection 438,211$ 273,431$ 410,147$
City of Dixon 3,400$ 2,121$ 3,182$
ECCTA (Tri Delta Transit)202,949$ 126,635$ 189,952$
City of Fairfield 85,636$ 53,434$ 80,151$
Golden Gate Transit 3,432,072$ 2,141,518$ 3,212,280$
City of Healdsburg (744)$ 224$ 336$
Livermore Amador Transit Authority 177,130$ 110,524$ 165,786$
Marin Transit 639,229$ 398,861$ 598,293$
Napa Valley Transit Authority 44,265$ 27,620$ 41,430$
City of Petaluma 9,942$ 6,204$ 9,306$
City of Rio Vista 530$ 488$ 732$
SamTrans 2,384,429$ 1,487,818$ 2,231,729$
City of Santa Rosa 97,323$ 60,727$ 91,090$
Solano County Transit 199,935$ 124,754$ 187,131$
Sonoma County Transit 105,377$ 65,752$ 98,628$
City of Union City 29,967$ 18,698$ 28,048$
Valley Transportation Authority 9,173,929$ 5,724,279$ 8,586,427$
VTA - Corresponding to ACE 199,485$ 124,473$ 186,710$
WCCTA (Western Contra Costa Transit Authority)229,652$ 143,296$ 214,945$
WETA 943,358$ 588,629$ 882,945$
SUBTOTAL 22,459,586$ 14,015,008$ 21,022,533$
AC Transit 6,938,750$ 4,329,588$ 6,494,389$
BART 15,941,572$ 9,947,101$ 14,920,667$
SFMTA 29,034,278$ 18,116,589$ 27,174,911$
SUBTOTAL 51,914,600$ 32,393,279$ 48,589,967$
Total Revenue Based Funds 74,374,186$ 46,408,287$ 69,612,500$
Population Based Funds 26,001,993$ 16,249,984$ 24,375,000$
Bay Area Grand Total 100,376,179$ 62,658,271$ 93,987,500$
* $250 million assumed statewide. FY 2017-18 amount is estimated at 66 percent of revenue forecast since diesel sales tax increase takes effect
November 1, 2017. Also note transit operator shares are based on FY 2014-15 revenue-based STA factors. Actual funding amounts
should be expected to change and will not be known until State Controller issues fund estimate in August 2017.
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commissions. Contact: Rebecca Long at rlong@mtc.ca.gov
Estimate of State Transit Assistance Funding in Senate Bill 1 (Beall/Frazier)
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 147 of 168
Estimate of Annual Transit Capital Funding Distributed via STA Formula in SB 1 (Beall/Frazier)
Bay Area Transit Operators Estimates FY 2017-18
Statewide Funding for STA Capital 105,000,000$
Alameda CTC - Corresponding to ACE 73,254$
Caltrain 1,524,127$
County Connection 172,262$
City of Dixon 1,336$
ECCTA (Tri Delta Transit)79,780$
City of Fairfield 33,664$
Golden Gate Transit 1,349,158$
City of Healdsburg 141$
Livermore Amador Transit Authority 69,630$
Marin Transit 251,283$
Napa Valley Transit Authority 17,401$
City of Petaluma 3,908$
City of Rio Vista 307$
SamTrans 937,326$
City of Santa Rosa 38,258$
Solano County Transit 78,595$
Sonoma County Transit 41,424$
City of Union City 11,780$
Valley Transportation Authority 3,606,299$
VTA - Corresponding to ACE 78,418$
WCCTA (Western Contra Costa Transit Authority)90,277$
WETA 370,837$
SUBTOTAL 8,829,464$
AC Transit 2,727,643$
BART 6,266,680$
SFMTA 11,413,463$
SUBTOTAL 20,407,786$
Total Revenue Based Funds 29,237,250$
Population Based Funds 10,237,500$
Bay Area Grand Total 39,474,750$
Note: Shares are based on FY 2014-15 operator shares. Actual amount will vary based
on each transit operator's share of statewide qualifying revenue.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 148 of 168
Estimate of Bay Area STIP Funding Over 10 Years from SB 1 (Beall/Frazier)
(Dollars in millions)
County
Alameda 28.56$
Contra Costa 19.54$
Marin 5.34$
Napa 3.51$
San Francisco 14.49$
San Mateo 14.76$
Santa Clara 33.93$
Solano 8.85$
Sonoma 10.88$
Region 139.86$
Statewide 825.00$
Note: Amount shown depicts a forecast of change from current law with
price-based excise tax, not a forecast of STIP funding levels. They can be expected to be
substantially higher than today, given gas tax is currently only 9.8 cents/gallon but under
SB 1 will be set at 17.3 cents/gallon on July 1, 2019 and indexed for inflation annually thereafter.
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commissions. Contact: Rebecca Long at rlong@mtc.ca.gov
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 149 of 168
MTC OVERVIEW OF SB 1 (BEALL AND FRAZIER)
NEW & AUGMENTED FUNDING PROGRAMS
Below is a summary of the funding provided by program and the new revenue sources
authorized in Senate Bill 1 (Beall and Frazier).
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program
SB 1 establishes the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program (RMRP) to address deferred
maintenance on the state highway and local street and road systems. The California
Transportation Commission (CTC) will allocate the funds and is required to develop guidelines
by January 1, 2018. The bill provides that funds shall be used for projects that include, but aren’t
limited to, the following:
• Road maintenance and rehabilitation
• Safety projects
• Railroad grade separations
• Complete street components, including active transportation purposes, pedestrian and
bicycle safety projects, transit facilities, and drainage and stormwater capture projects in
conjunction with any other allowable project
• Traffic control devices
The RMRP, which would receive approximately $3.7 billion annually once all new revenue
streams take effect, is funded by the newly established Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Account (RMRA), which receives four sources of new revenue:
• A new 12-cent/gallon gasoline excise tax, effective November 1, 2017.
• Monies remaining from a new vehicle registration surcharge (called a Transportation
Improvement Fee) after $600 million annually is set aside for public transit,
intercity/commuter rail and a new Congested Corridors program. These programs are
described in more detail on pages 2-5. The vehicle surcharge takes effect on January 1,
2018.
• A new $100/year zero-emission vehicle registration surcharge, which takes effect on July
1, 2020.
• 50 percent of the 20-cent/gallon diesel excise tax increase, effective November 1, 2017.
RMRP Takedowns
Before program funds are distributed to cities, counties and Caltrans, there are several annual
takedowns, which are bulleted below:
• Cost of administration – unspecified
• $200 million for a self-help counties partnership program limited to counties that have
voter-approved dedicated transportation taxes or uniform developer fees dedicated to
transportation. Funds would be continuously appropriated to a county and each city
within the county for road maintenance and rehabilitation purposes.
• $100 million for the Active Transportation Program
• $400 million to Caltrans for bridge and culvert maintenance and rehabilitation
• $25 million for Freeway Service Patrol
• $25 million for local planning grants to be administered by Caltrans
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 150 of 168
• $5 million for the California Workforce Development Board to assist local agencies to
implement policies that promote pre-apprenticeship training programs from FY 2017-18
through FY 2021-22.
• $7 million for transportation research and workforce training including $5 million for the
University of California and $2 million for the California State University.
Local Street & Road Funding
SB 1 continuously appropriates 50 percent of the RMRA revenues remaining after the takedowns
described above to cities and counties using the same formula that applies to the existing base
18-cent per gallon gasoline excise tax. The bill includes a “maintenance of effort” requirement
for local funds contributed to street and road repairs to help ensure that the new funding
augments existing budgets for road repairs. Specifically, it requires each city and county to spend
no less than the annual average from its general fund during 2009-10 through 2011-12. It also
requires that a local jurisdiction submit a detailed list of proposed projects to be funded to the
CTC prior to receiving an allocation, but authorizes cities and counties to fund projects outside
of that list in accordance with local needs and priorities, so long as they are consistent with the
program’s project eligibility provisions. If a city or county can demonstrate that it has attained a
pavement condition index of 80 or higher, it may spend the funds on other transportation
priorities.
State Highway Maintenance & Rehabilitation
The remaining 50 percent of RMRA revenues are provided to Caltrans for maintenance of the
state highway system or for purposes of the State Highway Operations and Protection Program
(SHOPP). The bill requires Caltrans to report annually to the CTC on its use of these funds,
including detailed project descriptions, and its progress to achieving the performance goals listed
in the accompanying memo. In addition, the CTC is required to report annually on the
department’s progress and may withhold funds if it determines funding is not being spent
appropriately.
Requirements and Policies Applicable to RMRP Funding
SB 1 provides that, to the extent possible and cost effective, Caltrans and local agencies:
• Use materials that reduce the life cycle cost and minimize greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.
• Accommodate advance automotive technologies, such as charging or fueling for zero-
emission vehicles.
• Include features in the project that make it more resilient to climate change risks, such as
fire, flood and sea level rise.
• Incorporate complete streets elements that improve the quality of bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, where feasible and practicable.
There is also a requirement that by July 1, 2023, Caltrans and local agencies that receive RMRA
funds through follow new workforce training guidelines developed by the California Workforce
Development Board, pursuant to SB 1.
PUBLIC TRANSIT FUNDING
Public Transit Formula Funding
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 151 of 168
SB 1 provides a significant infusion of funding for public transit, including formula-based and
competitive funding. The State Transit Assistance (STA) program, the state’s flexible transit
funding program which may be used for capital or operating purposes, would be boosted by
approximately $250 million per year from an increase in the diesel sales tax rate of 3.5 percent.
These funds would augment the existing STA program and would not be subject to additional
requirements or conditions. MTC estimates the Bay Area would receive approximately $70
million more per year in revenue-based STA funds and $24 million more per year in population-
based funds.
Another $105 million per year derived from a new Transportation Improvement Fee (TIF) would
also be distributed using the STA formula but would be limited largely to capital improvements
focused on modernizing transit vehicles and facilities. The Bay Area would receive
approximately $39 million per year total from this capital-only component, including $29 million
in revenue-based STA funds and $10 million more per year in population-based funds. Finally,
the bill provides a substantial one-time infusion and an annual supplement to the competitive
Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), as well as new funding for intercity and
commuter rail, as described below.
Transit and Intercity Rail Capital
SB 1 provides additional one-time and ongoing funding to the TIRCP, a heavily oversubscribed
program that is currently reliant upon somewhat unpredictable Cap-and-Trade funds and
administered by the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA). The TIRCP would
receive a one-time infusion of at least $236 million as a result of a General Fund loan repayment
as well as an additional $245 million annually from the TIF starting in FY 2018-19. This amount
is set forth in the statute and will not escalate even though the TIF rate is indexed to inflation. In
FY 2017-18, the TIRCP should receive approximately half the annual amount ($123 million)
from the TIF since the new fee is not effective until January 1, 2018.
Intercity and Commuter Rail Funding
The bill boosts funding for intercity rail and commuter rail by dedicating a new 0.5 percent
diesel sales tax to this purpose. Similar to the TIRCP, projects would be selected by CalSTA. Of
the approximately $37.5 million available each year, funds would be distributed as follows:
• 50 percent to CalSTA for "state-supported intercity rail services." Of that amount, at
least 25 percent shall be allocated to each of the state's three intercity rail corridors that
provide regularly scheduled intercity rail service (the Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin,
Pacific Surfliner routes).
• 50 percent to CalSTA to be allocated to public agencies responsible for commuter rail
service. For FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20, each of the state’s five commuter rail agencies
(including ACE, Caltrain and SMART) would receive 20 percent. Subsequent to that,
CalSTA would allocate funds pursuant to guidelines to be adopted by July 1, 2019.
• Funds may be spent for operations or capital.
• Similar to the STA program, the actual amount of revenue each year will depend on
diesel prices and sales.
OTHER PROGRAMS
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Funding
While the bill doesn’t include any specific provisions applicable to the STIP, effective July 1,
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 152 of 168
2019, it boosts funding for the STIP by virtue of eliminating the annual adjustment pegged to the
price of fuel for what is known as the “price-based excise tax.” Instead, SB 1 sets the rate at 17.3
cents/gallon on July 1, 2019, plus an annual adjustment to keep pace with inflation that will be
begin in July 1, 2020.1 This tax is a major source of STIP funding, receiving 44 percent of its
revenue after backfilling the SHOPP for the loss of weight fees. Since the existing rate of 9.8
cents/gallon already offsets weight fees, any increase above that is distributed directly according
to a 44/44/12 percent formula where the other 44 percent goes to cities and counties for local
streets and roads, and the 12 percent goes to Caltrans for highway maintenance and
rehabilitation.
While it’s impossible to predict exactly how this will affect STIP funding in the future relative to
what would have occurred if the rate were pegged to the price of fuel, the Department of Finance
estimates a net benefit to the STIP over 10 years of $1.1 billion, or $825 million for the Regional
Transportation Improvement Program. For the Bay Area, this amounts to approximately $140
million over 10 years. This estimate may be on the conservative side. If we assume the price-
based excise tax would not go above the 11.7 cents/gallon rate in effect on July 1, 2017 then the
17.3 cents/gallon rate amounts to a 5.6 cents/gallon increase – equating to $840 million more per
year statewide, including approximately $370 million per year in new STIP funding statewide.
Note that this increase will not begin until the FY 2019-20 year.
State-Local Partnership Program for “Self-Help” Counties
As noted above, SB 1 authorizes $200 million per year to be continuously appropriated for a new
program for counties that have dedicated transportation funding from uniform developer fees or
voter-approved taxes. The program is similar to the State-Local Partnership Program established
by Proposition 1B except it is limited to counties, so unfortunately transit agencies with voter-
approved taxes are not eligible. Another important difference is that funds are to be distributed to
counties and each city within the county and are limited to local road maintenance purposes as
set forth in the RMRP program (which does include complete streets elements). The bill requires
the CTC to adopt guidelines for the program on or before January 1, 2018.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Improvements
In addition to augmenting the Active Transportation Program by $100 million per year, SB 1
requires that Caltrans update the Highway Design Manual to incorporate the “complete streets”
design concept. No other limitations or conditions on the use of funds are included in the bill.
Local Planning Grants
As noted above, the bill provides $25 million from the RMRA to be available to Caltrans for
local planning grants on an annual basis, subject to appropriation. The bill states that the purpose
of the grants is to “encourage local and regional planning that furthers state goals as provided in
the regional transportation guidelines” adopted by the CTC. The bill requires Caltrans to develop
a grant guide in consultation with the Air Resources Board, the Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research and the Department of Housing and Community Development. In addition, up to
$20 million is available on a one-time basis from FY 2018 through FY 2020 for local and
1 17.3 cents/gallon is the rate that was set when the price-based excise tax was established as part of the Gas Tax
Swap, replacing the state portion of the sales tax on gasoline (see AB x8-6 (2010), SB 70 (2010) and AB 105
(2011). It was set at this rate so as to be revenue neutral to the sales tax on fuel. The legislation required an annual
adjustment to maintain this revenue neutrality and it has caused a steep cut in the rate, currently set at 9.8
cents/gallon but scheduled to rise to 11.7 cents/gallon on July 1, 2017.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 153 of 168
regional agencies for climate change adaptation planning. This is funded from the Public
Transportation Account as a result of a General Fund loan repayment.
Congested Corridors Program
The bill establishes a new “Solutions for Congested Corridors Program” and authorizes $250
million per year for annual appropriation in the budget act from revenue generated by the TIF.
The program, to be administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC), focuses
on multi-modal solutions to the most congested corridors in the state and takes a performance-
based approach. To qualify for funding a project must be included in a “comprehensive corridor
plan designed to reduce congestion in highly traveled corridors by providing more transportation
choices for residents, commuters and visitors to the area of the corridor while preserving the
character of the local community and creating opportunities for neighborhood enhancement
projects.”
Eligible projects for this new program include improvements to state highways, public transit
facilities, local streets and roads, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and restoration or preservation
work that protects critical local habitat or open space. Highway capacity expansion projects are
not eligible, with the exception of high-occupancy vehicle lanes (HOV) and high-occupancy toll
(HOT) lanes or non-general purpose lane improvements designed primarily to improve safety for
all modes of travel, such as auxiliary lanes, truck-climbing lanes or dedicated bicycle lanes.
The bill requires the CTC to score each project on the following criteria:
• Safety
• Congestion
• Accessibility
• Economic development and job creation and retention
• Furtherance of state and federal air quality and GHG reduction
• Efficient land use
• Matching funds
• Project deliverability
Either Caltrans or agencies responsible for developing the Regional Transportation Improvement
Program (RTIP) (MTC in the Bay Area) can nominate projects, but a maximum of 50 percent
can be awarded to projects nominated only by Caltrans. With respect to how projects will be
scored, the bill emphasizes that preference will be given to projects that are developed as a result
of collaboration between Caltrans and regional or local agencies “that reflect a comprehensive
approach to addressing congestion and quality-of-life issues within the affected corridor through
investment in transportation and related environmental solutions.”
As for the mechanics of the program, the CTC is required to develop guidelines for the program
in consultation with the Air Resources Board and after conducting at least one hearing in
northern California and one hearing in southern California. CTC is also required to provide draft
guidelines to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and the transportation policy committees in
each house and adopt the guidelines no sooner than 30 days after that submission to the
Legislature. The bill requires the CTC to adopt an initial program based on the first appropriation
of funds, but such program may cover a multiyear programming period. Subsequently, the
program shall be adopted on a biennial basis. Beginning in March 2019, the CTC is required to
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 154 of 168
provide project updates in its annual report to the Legislature, including an assessment of how
each project is performing relative to the quantitative and qualitative measurements outlined in
its application.
Trade Corridors
SB 1 creates a new Trade Corridor Enhancement Account, and allocates to this account 50
percent of the diesel excise tax increase, or approximately $300 million annually. In an unusual
move, the bill provides the Legislature with full discretion over project selection for this program
specifying only that funds shall be available for “corridor-based freight projects nominated by
local agencies and the state.”
Advance Mitigation
SB 1 requires $30 million to be set aside annually from FY 2017 through FY 2020 from funding
appropriated for the STIP and the SHOPP for an Advance Mitigation Program to protect natural
resources through project mitigation, accelerate project delivery and to fully mitigate
environmental impacts of transportation projects. The bill provides that the annual budget act or
subsequent legislation may provide additional provisions for the program.
Job Training/Contracting Provisions
SB 1 requires that Caltrans develop a plan by January 1, 2020 to increase by up to 100 percent
the dollar value of contracts and procurements awarded to small business, disadvantaged
business enterprises, and disabled veteran business enterprises. In addition, the bill requires the
Legislature appropriate $5 million per year for five years starting in FY 2017-18 to the California
Workforce Development Board to assist local agencies with promoting pre-apprenticeship
programs. As noted above, SB 1 also requires Caltrans and cities and counties receiving funding
from the RMRA follow guidelines to be developed by the California Workforce Development
Board regarding pre-apprenticeship training programs no later than January 1, 2023.
EFFICIENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY & OTHER RELATED PROVISIONS
New Caltrans Audit Office Established
The bill requires the creation of an Independent Office of Audits and Investigations within
Caltrans. The director of the office, whose title would be inspector general, would be appointed
for a six-year term by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate, with significant restrictions
and transparency required for his/her removal from office. The office would be responsible for
ensuring compliance by Caltrans and all entities receiving state and federal transportation funds
with state and federal requirements and ensuring Caltrans follows accounting standards and
practices and manages its programs in a financially responsible manner. The inspector general
shall be required to report annually on any audit or investigation findings and recommendations.
Capital Outlay Support and SHOPP Oversight Strengthened
The bill adds additional transparency requirements with respect to Caltrans support funding for
projects in the State Highway Operation & Protection Program (SHOPP), requiring that such
costs be identified up front for every SHOPP project by project phase and a delivery date for
each project phase, including “project approval,” be provided. In addition, starting July 1, 2017,
the bill requires that the CTC allocate the department’s capital outlay support (COS) resources
by project phase to provide greater transparency in the development of the Caltrans budget.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 155 of 168
Caltrans is Required to Implement Efficiency Measures
The bill requires Caltrans to implement efficiency measures with goal of saving $100
million/year in savings to invest in maintenance and rehabilitation of the state highway system.
No specific efficiency measures are suggested in the bill.
OVERVIEW OF REVENUE INCREASES
Funding Source Estimate of
10-Year Revenue
(in 1,000s)
12-cent per gallon gas tax $24,400,000
Vehicle Registration Surcharge
(Transportation Improvement Fee)
$16,300,000
20-cent/gallon diesel excise tax $7,300,000
4% increase in diesel sales tax $3,500,000
$100 zero emission vehicle fee $200,000
General Fund loan repayments $706,000
Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Tax Increases
SB 1 increases the fuel tax on gasoline by 12-cents per gallon and the diesel excise tax by 20-
cents per gallon effective November 1, 2017. In addition, the bill eliminates the variable portion
of the gasoline excise tax, which is currently set at 9.8-cents per gallon, but is scheduled to rise
to 11.7-cents per gallon on July 1, 2017 due to the statutorily required adjustments that the Board
of Equalization makes each year based on the price of fuel. On July 1, 2019, the bill restores the
portion of the gas tax to 17.3-cent per gallon rate that was in effect when the gasoline tax swap
was enacted in 2010. Given the Board of Equalization forecasts an increase in gasoline prices
over the next several years, establishing a rate of 17.3-cent per gallon on July 1, 2019 may in fact
not constitute an increase at all. Effective July 1, 2020, all fuel taxes will be indexed annually
each July by the Department of Finance based on the California Consumer Price Index.
New Annual Vehicle Registration Surcharge
Section 31 of the bill creates a new annual Transportation Improvement Fee (TIF), based on the
value of the vehicle, as shown below, which would go into effect on January 1, 2018.
Commercial vehicles weighing more than 10,000 pounds would be exempt from the tax.
Effective January 1, 2020 and annually thereafter, the fee would be indexed annually by the
Department of Finance based on the Consumer Price Index. The new fee is estimated to generate
$16.3 billion over ten years, with $350 million annually dedicated to public transit and TIRCP,
$250 million set-aside for the new Congested Corridor Program and the remaining revenues
allocated to the new RMRA account.
Vehicle’s Value Amount of Fee
$0-$4,999 $25
$5,000-$24,999 $50
$25,000-$34,999 $100
$35,000-$59,999 $150
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 156 of 168
$60,000 + $175
Diesel Sales Tax
SB 1 increases the diesel sales tax rate by an additional 4 percent, bringing it to a total of 13
percent. The new funds would be deposited in the Public Transportation Account. Of this 4
percent rate, 3.5 percent is for the State Transit Assistance (STA) program, while 0.5 percent is
for the new Intercity and Commuter Rail program.
OTHER PROVISIONS AND RELATED LEGISLATION
Zero-Emission Vehicle Registration Surcharge
SB 1 includes a $100 vehicle registration surcharge applicable to zero-emission motor vehicles
model year 2020 and later vehicle that takes effect on July 1, 2020. The charge is indexed to
inflation with the first adjustment scheduled for January 1, 2021 and subsequent adjustments to
be made every January 1 thereafter. The charge is estimated to generate about $20 million per
year.
Truck Emissions
SB 1 includes a provision that limits the State Air Resources Board (ARB) from requiring truck
owners to retire or retrofit trucks that meet existing ARB emissions standards (by 2023, all trucks
must have 2010 model year engines or equivalent) before they are 13 years old or reach 800,000
miles. According to the California Trucking Association, this will ensure truck owners have time
to recoup their investment in more efficient technology before being faced with a newer, stricter
mandate. Environmental and health advocates raised concerns that the provision was overly
broad and would prevent regulators from developing other air quality rules, such as capping
emissions at warehouses and ports. In response, SB 1 was amended to clarify that the provision
is not intended to undermine regional efforts. Though ARB expressed support for the deal, it was
not sufficient to alleviate the aforementioned concerns and a number of groups opposed the bill.
Related Legislation
In parallel to the negotiations on SB 1 to secure two-thirds support, several other bills were
amended including, SB 132, a budget trailer bill and SB 496, a companion bill that must pass for
the trailer bill to take effect. The April 6th version of SB 132 includes several very large
earmarks, notably:
• 427 million for the Riverside County Transportation Efficiency Corridor for five specific
projects, including grade separation projects, bridge widening, an interchange and the 91
Toll Connector to Interstate 15 North.
• $400 million for the extension of the Altamont Commuter Express to Ceres and Merced
from the TIRCP
• $100 million for the University of California, Merced Campus Parkway Project from the
State Highway Account
SB 496 (Canella), whose provisions were recently amended into a bill originally authored by
Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin DeLéon (who remains as a coauthor) now pertains to
indemnity agreements with design professionals. SB 496 provides that with respect to all
contracts for design services entered into after January 1, 2018, indemnity agreements are
unenforceable, except under certain circumstances. The bill is similar – though not identical – to
SB 885 (Wolk, 2016), which MTC opposed last year and which did not ultimately reach the
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 157 of 168
Governor’s desk. MTC staff will review the bill in detail and with confer with our public agency
partners and the Self-Help Counties Coalition, which actively opposed SB 885.
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 158 of 168
SB 595 (Beall)
Regional Measure to Improve Mobility in Bay Area Bridge Corridors
Fact Sheet
ISSUE
Transportation infrastructure is key to supporting the San
Francisco Bay Area’s strong economy and maintaining
California’s leadership in high-tech and high-paying jobs.
Traffic congestion on the region’s freeways, overcrowding
on BART, Caltrain, ferries and buses in the toll bridge
corridors is eroding the Bay Area’s quality of life, access
to jobs, cultural and educational opportunities, and
undermining job creation and retention. The traffic
chokepoints are especially acute in the corridors of the
seven state-owned toll bridges that are critical east-west
and north-south arteries that bind the Bay Area together.
BACKGROUND
Bay Area voters have led California’s “self-help”
movement in supporting new local revenue for congestion
relief, including strong voter support for toll increases in
1988 and 2004. In 1988, the Legislature enacted SB 45
(Lockyer), placing on the ballot Regional Measure 1,
which standardized all bridge tolls at $1 to help build the
new Benicia-Martinez Bridge and the Carquinez Bridge
replacement, among other projects. The measure was
approved by 70 percent.
In 2003, Senate Bill 916 (Perata) authorized Regional
Measure 2, a $1 toll increase to fund transit and roadway
improvements in the bridge corridors. The measure helped
build numerous transportation improvements, including
the Caldecott Tunnel’s 4th Bore, BART to Warm Springs
Extension (the first phase of BART to Silicon Valley),
BART seismic retrofit and HOV lanes on Interstate 80,
among other major projects. The measure was approved
by 57 percent. In 2005, the Legislature delegated
administration of all bridge toll revenue to the Bay Area
Toll Authority, the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC)’s affiliate agency which shares the
same governing board.
THIS BILL
SB 595 would provide voters in the nine Bay Area
counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San
Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma)
the opportunity to jumpstart the next generation of critical
transportation improvements in the bridge corridors
funded by an increase in bridge tolls. The bill would
require the MTC to place a measure on the ballot in all
nine counties. The expenditure plan, the toll level and the
timing of the vote are not yet specified in the bill and are
subject to discussion with members of the Legislature and
key stakeholders. SB 595 will include strong
accountability provisions to ensure that funds are invested
according to the voter-approved plan.
While SB 1 (Beall) provided a substantial increase in state
funds focused primarily on repairing local roads and the
state highway system – the state’s aging pains – SB 595
will address the Bay Area’s growing pains, by improving
mobility and enhancing travel options in the region’s
bridge corridors.
STATUS/VOTES
SUPPORT
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OPPOSITION
None on file
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Lynne Jensen Andres
Lynne.Andres@sen.ca.gov (916) 651-4015
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 159 of 168
California
Status actions entered today are listed in bold.
File name: TWICTransLeg
Author:Eggman (D)
Title:580 Marine Highway
Introduced:12/05/2016
Disposition:Pending
Location:Assembly Transportation Committee
Summary:Requires the Department of Transportation to implement and oversee the 580 Marine Highway
corridor project to reduce traffic by facilitating a permanent shift in container traffic away from
truck transport to marine transport between the Port of Oakland and the Port of Stockton.
Requires that the project be funded by an appropriation in the Budget Act of 2017.
Status:01/19/2017 To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION.
CSAC:Watch
LCC:Watch
Author:Holden (D)
Title:Transit Pass Program: Free or ReducedFare Passes
Introduced:12/05/2016
Disposition:Pending
Committee:Assembly Appropriations Committee
Hearing:05/03/2017 9:00 am, State Capitol, Room 4202
Summary:Creates the Transit Pass Program. Requires the Controller of the state to allocate moneys made
available for the program to support transit pass programs that provide free or reducedfare transit
passes to specified pupils and students.
Status:04/24/2017 From ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION: Do pass to Committee on
APPROPRIATIONS. (113)
CSAC:Watch
LCC:Watch
1.CA AB 13
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
2.CA AB 17
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
3.CA AB 28
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 160 of 168
Author:Frazier (D)
Title:Department of Transportation: Review: Federal Program
Introduced:12/05/2016
Enacted:03/29/2017
Disposition:Enacted
Effective Date:03/29/2017 [code impact]
Location:Chaptered
Chapter:20174
Summary:Reinstates the operation of existing law which provided that the state consents to the
jurisdiction of the federal courts with regard to the compliance, discharge, or enforcement of
responsibilities it assumed as a participant in an interstate surface transportation project
delivery pilot program for environmental review. Makes a repeal of that provision on a specified
date.
Status:03/29/2017 Enrolled.
03/29/2017 Signed by GOVERNOR.
03/29/2017 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter No. 20174
MTC:Support
Author:Patterson (R)
Title:Transportation Bond Debt Service
Introduced:12/13/2016
Disposition:Pending
Location:Assembly Transportation Committee
Summary:Amends an existing law which provides for transfer of certain vehicle weight fee revenues to the
Transportation Debt Service Fund to reimburse the General Fund for payment of current year debt
service on certain general obligation bonds. Excludes from payment the debt service for Proposition
1A bonds.
Status:01/19/2017 To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION.
CSAC:Watch
LCC:Watch
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
4.CA AB 65
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
5.CA AB 179
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 161 of 168
Author:Cervantes (D)
Title:California Transportation Commission
Introduced:01/18/2017
Last
Amend:04/20/2017
Disposition:Pending
Committee:Assembly Appropriations Committee
Hearing:05/03/2017 9:00 am, State Capitol, Room 4202
Summary:Requires a voting member of the California Transportation Commission to have worked directly
with those communities in the state that are most significantly burdened by, and vulnerable to,
high levels of pollution, including, but not limited to, those communities with racially and ethnically
diverse populations or with lowincome populations. Requires the commission and the Air
Resources Board to hold a specified number of meetings per year to coordinate implementation of
transportation policies.
Status:04/24/2017 From ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION: Do pass to Committee on
APPROPRIATIONS. (95)
CSAC:Watch
LCC:Watch
Author:Chiu (D)
Title:Vehicles: Automated Speed Enforcement: FiveYear Pilot
Introduced:02/07/2017
Last
Amend:04/06/2017
Disposition:Pending
Location:Assembly Transportation Committee
Summary:Authorizes the City of San Jose and the City and County of San Francisco to implement a pilot
program utilizing an automated speed enforcement system for speed limit enforcement on certain
streets. Provides that a speed violation that is recorded by an ASE system is subject to a specified
civil penalty.
Status:04/24/2017 In ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION: Heard, remains in Committee.
CSAC:Watch
LCC:Watch
6.CA AB 342
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
7.CA AB 467
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 162 of 168
Author:Mullin (D)
Title:Local Transportation Authorities: Transactions and Tax
Introduced:02/13/2017
Last
Amend:04/17/2017
Disposition:Pending
Committee:Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee
Hearing:05/10/2017 9:00 am, State Capitol, Room 444
Summary:Exempts, upon the request of an authority, a county elections official from including the entire
adopted transportation expenditure plan in the voter information handbook, if the authority posts
the plan on its Internet Web site, and the sample ballot and the voter information handbook sent
to voters include information on viewing an electronic version of the plan and obtaining a printed
copy at no cost.
Status:04/17/2017 In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. Rereferred to Committee on
ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING.
CSAC:Support
LCC:Watch
Author:Beall (D)
Title:Transportation Funding
Introduced:12/05/2016
Enacted:04/28/2017
Disposition:Enacted
Effective Date:04/28/2017 [code impact]
Location:Chaptered
Chapter:5
Summary:Creates the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program to address deferred maintenance on
the state highway and local street and road systems. Provides for certain funds, creation of the
Office of the Transportation Inspector General, certain loan repayments, diesel fuel excise tax
revenues, the appropriations to the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, gasoline excise
taxes, a certain CEQA exemption, an Advance Mitigation Program, and a certain surface
transportation project delivery program.
Status:04/28/2017 Signed by GOVERNOR.
04/28/2017 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter No. 5
8.CA SB 1
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
9.CA SB 80
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 163 of 168
Author:Wieckowski (D)
Title:California Environmental Quality Act: Notices
Introduced:01/11/2017
Last
Amend:02/14/2017
Disposition:Pending
Location:ASSEMBLY
Summary:Amends the California Environmental Quality Act. Requires a lead agency to post certain notices on
the agency's Internet Web site and to offer to provide those notices by email. Requires a county
clerk to post notices regarding an environmental impact report or a negative declaration on the
county's Internet Web site. Requires the filing of a notice in certain cases.
Status:04/24/2017 In SENATE. Read third time. Passed SENATE. *****To ASSEMBLY. (277)
CSAC:Watch
LCC:Watch
Author:Beall (D)
Title:Metropolitan Transportation Commission: Toll Bridge
Introduced:02/17/2017
Last
Amend:04/18/2017
Disposition:Pending
Location:Senate Appropriations Committee
Summary:Requires the City of County of San Francisco and the other 8 counties in the San Francisco Bay
area to conduct a special election on a proposed unspecified increase in the amount of the toll rate
charged on the stateowed toll bridges in that area to be used for unspecified projects and
programs. Makes the Bay Area Toll Authority responsible for the programming, administration, and
allocation of toll revenues from the stateowned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay area.
Status:04/25/2017 From SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING: Do pass to
Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. (93)
CSAC:Watch
LCC:Watch
Author:Newman (D)
Title:Motor Vehicle Fees and Tax: Restriction on Expenditures
10.CA SB 595
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
11.CA SCA 2
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 164 of 168
Introduced:01/18/2017
Last
Amend:03/30/2017
Disposition:Pending
File:A10
Location:Senate Inactive File
Summary:Requires revenues derived from vehicle fees imposed under a specified chapter of the Vehicle
License Fee Law to be used solely for transportation purposes. Prohibits these revenues from being
used for the payment of principal and interest on state transportation general obligation bonds.
Restricts portions of the sales and use tax on diesel fuel to expenditure on certain transportation
planning or mass transportation purposes. Requires those revenues to be deposited in the Public
Transportation Account.
Status:04/17/2017 In SENATE. From third reading. To Inactive File.
CSAC:Support
LCC:Watch
Author:Wiener (D)
Title:Local Transportation Measure: Special Taxes: Voter
Introduced:02/13/2017
Last
Amend:05/01/2017
Disposition:Pending
Committee:Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
Hearing:05/09/2017 1:30 pm, John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203)
Summary:Requires that the imposition, extension, or increase by a local government of a special tax as may
otherwise by authorized by law, whether a sales or transactions and use tax, parcel tax, or other
tax for the purpose of providing funding for transportation purposes be submitted to the electorate
by ordinance and approved by a certain percentage of the voters voting on the proposition.
Status:05/01/2017 From SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING with author's
amendments.
05/01/2017 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Rereferred to Committee on
TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING.
CSAC:Support
LCC:Watch
12.CA SCA 6
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 165 of 168
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:05/08/2017
Subject:COMMUNICATION/News Clippings
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
Communication items are added to the TWIC agenda on an as-needed basis.
Referral Update:
Communication Received:
4/24/17 Memo: Randy Iwasaki to the Regional Transportation Planning Committees
(RTPCs): This is a monthly memo from CCTA to the RTPCs reporting major actions of the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE communication and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
April 19 2017 RTPC Memo
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 166 of 168
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 167 of 168
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 168 of 168