HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 07102017 - TWIC Agenda PktTRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE
July 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
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 May 8, 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.CONSIDER and APPROVE recommendations in the Summary Report from the
Public Works Department on implementing Municipal Regional Permit 2.0. (Mike
Carlson and Cece Sellgren, Department of Public Works)
6.REVIEW grant development policies and DIRECT staff as appropriate. (John
Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)
7.RECEIVE Report on the Direct Discharge Plan to reduce trash impacts from
homeless encampments and illegal dumping into streams. (Cece Sellgren,
Department of Public Works).
8.CONSIDER recommending that the Board of Supervisors AUTHORIZE a letter
to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority communicating comments on the
2017 Countywide Transportation Plan update. (John Cunningham, Department of
Conservation and Development)
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.1 of 304
9.CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Support"
on Senate Bill 595 (Beall): Bridge Tolls, a bill that authorizes the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission to put on a the ballot, in the nine Bay Area Counties, a
measure (Regional Measure 3) to increase bridge tolls. (John Cunningham, Department
of Conservation and Development)
10.CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related
Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate including CONSIDERATION
of specific recommendations in the report above. (John Cunningham, Department of
Conservation and Development)
11.COMMUNICATION/News Clippings. (John Cunningham, Department of
Conservation and Development)
12.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, August 14, 2017.
13.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
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.2 of 304
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
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.3 of 304
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:07/10/2017
Subject:Administrative Items, if applicable.
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, Department of
Conservation and Development
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.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.4 of 304
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:07/10/2017
Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for May 8, 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, Department of
Conservation and Development
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 May 8, 2017, Committee
Meeting with any necessary corrections.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
05-08-17 TWIC Mtg Minutes
05-08-17 TWIC Sign In Sheet
sb_1_ten-yr_estimates_-_total_new_revenues
sb_1_transportation_funding_deal - csac
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.5 of 304
D R A F T
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
May 8, 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: Angela Villar, CC County Public Works Department
Nancy Wein, CC County Public Works Department
Jerry Fahy, CC County Public Works Department
Stephen Kowalewski,CC CountyPublicWorksDepartment
Coire Reilly, CC County Health Services
Jody London, Sustainability, DCD
John Cunningham, Transportation, DCD
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.
4.Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the April 10, 2017, Committee Meeting with
any necessary corrections.
The Committee unanimously approved the meeting record.
Staff commented that, in response to the grant protocol discussion at the April TWIC meeting, information
will be brought to a future meeting regarding any adopted policies regarding the processing of grants.
5.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)
The Committee unanimously approved the staff recommendation and directed staff to bring the item to the
full Board of Supervisors on consent.
The Committee had a comment that the street crossings should be well-lit and well-designed with staff
confirming that yes, attention will be paid to those details as more detailed plans are developed.
6.CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as
appropriate.
The Committee RECEIVED the report.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.6 of 304
The Committee RECEIVED the report.
The Committee requested additional information on Senate Bill 1. Attached to these meeting minutes are:
- An explanatory presentation on Senate Bill 1
- Charts detailing new projected revenues
- Detailed draft guidelines on SB1: Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
7.RECEIVE communication and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
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.
John Cunningham, Committee Staff
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.7 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.8 of 304
New County Revenues from SB 1 (Beall, 2017) ‐ Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Revenues ONLY* COUNTY2017‐182018‐192019‐202020‐212021‐222022‐232023‐242024‐252025‐262026‐27Alameda5,980,000$ 16,540,000$ 16,750,000$ 18,600,000$ 19,390,000$ 19,970,000$ 20,510,000$ 21,180,000$ 21,820,000$ 22,510,000$ Alpine 120,000$ 320,000$ 320,000$ 360,000$ 370,000$ 380,000$ 390,000$ 410,000$ 420,000$ 430,000$ Amador 550,000$ 1,520,000$ 1,540,000$ 1,710,000$ 1,780,000$ 1,830,000$ 1,880,000$ 1,940,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,060,000$ Butte 1,960,000$ 5,410,000$ 5,480,000$ 6,090,000$ 6,340,000$ 6,530,000$ 6,710,000$ 6,930,000$ 7,140,000$ 7,360,000$ Calaveras 840,000$ 2,320,000$ 2,350,000$ 2,600,000$ 2,720,000$ 2,800,000$ 2,870,000$ 2,970,000$ 3,060,000$ 3,150,000$ Colusa 660,000$ 1,820,000$ 1,840,000$ 2,040,000$ 2,130,000$ 2,190,000$ 2,250,000$ 2,330,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,470,000$ Contra Costa 4,990,000$ 13,810,000$ 13,990,000$ 15,530,000$ 16,190,000$ 16,680,000$ 17,130,000$ 17,690,000$ 18,220,000$ 18,790,000$ Del Norte 340,000$ 950,000$ 960,000$ 1,060,000$ 1,110,000$ 1,140,000$ 1,170,000$ 1,210,000$ 1,250,000$ 1,290,000$ El Dorado 1,760,000$ 4,880,000$ 4,940,000$ 5,490,000$ 5,720,000$ 5,890,000$ 6,050,000$ 6,250,000$ 6,440,000$ 6,640,000$ Fresno 5,990,000$ 16,580,000$ 16,790,000$ 18,640,000$ 19,440,000$ 20,020,000$ 20,560,000$ 21,230,000$ 21,870,000$ 22,560,000$ Glenn 800,000$ 2,210,000$ 2,230,000$ 2,480,000$ 2,590,000$ 2,660,000$ 2,740,000$ 2,820,000$ 2,910,000$ 3,000,000$ Humboldt 1,560,000$ 4,300,000$ 4,360,000$ 4,840,000$ 5,050,000$ 5,200,000$ 5,340,000$ 5,510,000$ 5,680,000$ 5,860,000$ Imperial 2,710,000$ 7,490,000$ 7,590,000$ 8,420,000$ 8,780,000$ 9,050,000$ 9,290,000$ 9,600,000$ 9,880,000$ 10,200,000$ Inyo 960,000$ 2,660,000$ 2,690,000$ 2,990,000$ 3,120,000$ 3,210,000$ 3,300,000$ 3,400,000$ 3,510,000$ 3,620,000$ Kern 5,640,000$ 15,600,000$ 15,800,000$ 17,540,000$ 18,290,000$ 18,840,000$ 19,350,000$ 19,980,000$ 20,580,000$ 21,230,000$ Kings 1,180,000$ 3,270,000$ 3,310,000$ 3,670,000$ 3,830,000$ 3,950,000$ 4,050,000$ 4,190,000$ 4,310,000$ 4,450,000$ Lake 840,000$ 2,310,000$ 2,340,000$ 2,600,000$ 2,710,000$ 2,790,000$ 2,870,000$ 2,960,000$ 3,050,000$ 3,150,000$ Lassen 810,000$ 2,250,000$ 2,280,000$ 2,530,000$ 2,640,000$ 2,710,000$ 2,790,000$ 2,880,000$ 2,970,000$ 3,060,000$ Los Angeles 36,120,000$ 99,910,000$ 101,200,000$ 112,350,000$ 117,150,000$ 120,650,000$ 123,910,000$ 127,970,000$ 131,830,000$ 135,980,000$ Madera 1,710,000$ 4,740,000$ 4,800,000$ 5,330,000$ 5,550,000$ 5,720,000$ 5,880,000$ 6,070,000$ 6,250,000$ 6,450,000$ Marin 1,360,000$ 3,750,000$ 3,800,000$ 4,220,000$ 4,400,000$ 4,530,000$ 4,660,000$ 4,810,000$ 4,950,000$ 5,110,000$ Mariposa 540,000$ 1,480,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,670,000$ 1,740,000$ 1,790,000$ 1,840,000$ 1,900,000$ 1,960,000$ 2,020,000$ Mendocino 1,250,000$ 3,460,000$ 3,510,000$ 3,890,000$ 4,060,000$ 4,180,000$ 4,300,000$ 4,440,000$ 4,570,000$ 4,710,000$ Merced 2,260,000$ 6,260,000$ 6,340,000$ 7,040,000$ 7,340,000$ 7,560,000$ 7,770,000$ 8,020,000$ 8,260,000$ 8,520,000$ Modoc 790,000$ 2,170,000$ 2,200,000$ 2,440,000$ 2,550,000$ 2,620,000$ 2,690,000$ 2,780,000$ 2,860,000$ 2,960,000$ Mono 580,000$ 1,610,000$ 1,630,000$ 1,810,000$ 1,890,000$ 1,940,000$ 1,990,000$ 2,060,000$ 2,120,000$ 2,190,000$ Monterey 2,470,000$ 6,830,000$ 6,920,000$ 7,680,000$ 8,010,000$ 8,250,000$ 8,470,000$ 8,750,000$ 9,010,000$ 9,300,000$ Napa 960,000$ 2,640,000$ 2,680,000$ 2,970,000$ 3,100,000$ 3,190,000$ 3,280,000$ 3,390,000$ 3,490,000$ 3,600,000$ Nevada 980,000$ 2,710,000$ 2,740,000$ 3,050,000$ 3,180,000$ 3,270,000$ 3,360,000$ 3,470,000$ 3,570,000$ 3,690,000$ Orange 12,330,000$ 34,120,000$ 34,560,000$ 38,360,000$ 40,000,000$ 41,200,000$ 42,310,000$ 43,700,000$ 45,010,000$ 46,430,000$ Placer 2,540,000$ 7,030,000$ 7,120,000$ 7,910,000$ 8,240,000$ 8,490,000$ 8,720,000$ 9,010,000$ 9,280,000$ 9,570,000$ Plumas 650,000$ 1,790,000$ 1,810,000$ 2,010,000$ 2,090,000$ 2,160,000$ 2,220,000$ 2,290,000$ 2,360,000$ 2,430,000$ Riverside 9,920,000$ 27,420,000$ 27,780,000$ 30,840,000$ 32,160,000$ 33,120,000$ 34,010,000$ 35,130,000$ 36,180,000$ 37,320,000$ Sacramento 7,370,000$ 20,390,000$ 20,660,000$ 22,930,000$ 23,910,000$ 24,630,000$ 25,290,000$ 26,120,000$ 26,910,000$ 27,760,000$ San Benito 550,000$ 1,530,000$ 1,550,000$ 1,720,000$ 1,800,000$ 1,850,000$ 1,900,000$ 1,960,000$ 2,020,000$ 2,090,000$ San Bernardino 9,600,000$ 26,550,000$ 26,890,000$ 29,860,000$ 31,130,000$ 32,060,000$ 32,930,000$ 34,010,000$ 35,030,000$ 36,140,000$ San Diego 13,820,000$ 38,220,000$ 38,710,000$ 42,980,000$ 44,810,000$ 46,150,000$ 47,400,000$ 48,950,000$ 50,430,000$ 52,010,000$ San Francisco*2,810,000$ 7,770,000$ 7,870,000$ 8,740,000$ 9,110,000$ 9,390,000$ 9,640,000$ 9,960,000$ 10,260,000$ 10,580,000$ San Joaquin 3,990,000$ 11,030,000$ 11,170,000$ 12,410,000$ 12,930,000$ 13,320,000$ 13,680,000$ 14,130,000$ 14,560,000$ 15,010,000$ CSAC Estimates ‐ May 16, 201707-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.9 of 304
New County Revenues from SB 1 (Beall, 2017) ‐ Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Revenues ONLY* COUNTY2017‐182018‐192019‐202020‐212021‐222022‐232023‐242024‐252025‐262026‐27San Luis Obispo 2,300,000$ 6,350,000$ 6,430,000$ 7,140,000$ 7,450,000$ 7,670,000$ 7,880,000$ 8,140,000$ 8,380,000$ 8,640,000$ San Mateo 3,360,000$ 9,290,000$ 9,410,000$ 10,440,000$ 10,890,000$ 11,210,000$ 11,520,000$ 11,890,000$ 12,250,000$ 12,640,000$ Santa Barbara 2,340,000$ 6,480,000$ 6,560,000$ 7,290,000$ 7,600,000$ 7,820,000$ 8,040,000$ 8,300,000$ 8,550,000$ 8,820,000$ Santa Clara 7,510,000$ 20,770,000$ 21,040,000$ 23,360,000$ 24,360,000$ 25,090,000$ 25,760,000$ 26,610,000$ 27,410,000$ 28,270,000$ Santa Cruz 1,550,000$ 4,280,000$ 4,340,000$ 4,820,000$ 5,020,000$ 5,170,000$ 5,310,000$ 5,490,000$ 5,650,000$ 5,830,000$ Shasta 1,810,000$ 5,000,000$ 5,070,000$ 5,620,000$ 5,860,000$ 6,040,000$ 6,200,000$ 6,410,000$ 6,600,000$ 6,810,000$ Sierra 310,000$ 870,000$ 880,000$ 980,000$ 1,020,000$ 1,050,000$ 1,080,000$ 1,110,000$ 1,140,000$ 1,180,000$ Siskiyou 1,300,000$ 3,580,000$ 3,630,000$ 4,030,000$ 4,200,000$ 4,330,000$ 4,440,000$ 4,590,000$ 4,730,000$ 4,880,000$ Solano 2,170,000$ 6,010,000$ 6,080,000$ 6,750,000$ 7,040,000$ 7,250,000$ 7,450,000$ 7,690,000$ 7,920,000$ 8,170,000$ Sonoma 3,260,000$ 9,020,000$ 9,130,000$ 10,140,000$ 10,570,000$ 10,890,000$ 11,180,000$ 11,550,000$ 11,900,000$ 12,270,000$ Stanislaus 3,200,000$ 8,860,000$ 8,980,000$ 9,970,000$ 10,390,000$ 10,700,000$ 10,990,000$ 11,350,000$ 11,690,000$ 12,060,000$ Sutter 990,000$ 2,730,000$ 2,760,000$ 3,070,000$ 3,200,000$ 3,300,000$ 3,380,000$ 3,500,000$ 3,600,000$ 3,710,000$ Tehama 1,120,000$ 3,110,000$ 3,150,000$ 3,490,000$ 3,640,000$ 3,750,000$ 3,850,000$ 3,980,000$ 4,100,000$ 4,230,000$ Trinity 600,000$ 1,660,000$ 1,690,000$ 1,870,000$ 1,950,000$ 2,010,000$ 2,060,000$ 2,130,000$ 2,200,000$ 2,260,000$ Tulare 3,890,000$ 10,760,000$ 10,890,000$ 12,100,000$ 12,610,000$ 12,990,000$ 13,340,000$ 13,780,000$ 14,190,000$ 14,640,000$ Tuolumne 790,000$ 2,170,000$ 2,200,000$ 2,440,000$ 2,550,000$ 2,620,000$ 2,700,000$ 2,780,000$ 2,870,000$ 2,960,000$ Ventura 3,790,000$ 10,480,000$ 10,610,000$ 11,780,000$ 12,290,000$ 12,650,000$ 12,990,000$ 13,420,000$ 13,820,000$ 14,260,000$ Yolo 1,380,000$ 3,820,000$ 3,870,000$ 4,300,000$ 4,480,000$ 4,620,000$ 4,740,000$ 4,900,000$ 5,050,000$ 5,210,000$ Yuba 790,000$ 2,180,000$ 2,200,000$ 2,450,000$ 2,550,000$ 2,630,000$ 2,700,000$ 2,790,000$ 2,870,000$ 2,960,000$ TOTAL192,750,000$ 533,070,000$ 539,920,000$ 599,440,000$ 625,020,000$ 643,700,000$ 661,110,000$ 682,810,000$ 703,340,000$ 725,500,000$ ** County revenues only* Note: Estimates only include RMRA revenues, which are one of the four separate components of new SB 1 revenues:‐ Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues from new Transportation Improvement Fee, half of new 20‐cent diesel excise tax, new 12‐cent gasoline excise tax, and future inflationary adjustments to these rates.CSAC Estimates ‐ May 16, 2017 07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.10 of 304
New County Revenues from SB 1 (Beall, 2017) ‐ ALL New Revenues* COUNTY2017‐182018‐192019‐202020‐212021‐222022‐232023‐242024‐252025‐262026‐27Alameda7,140,000$ 18,510,000$ 26,130,000$ 29,780,000$ 31,610,000$ 33,070,000$ 34,590,000$ 36,250,000$ 37,860,000$ 39,530,000$ Alpine 140,000$ 350,000$ 500,000$ 570,000$ 600,000$ 630,000$ 660,000$ 700,000$ 730,000$ 750,000$ Amador 660,000$ 1,680,000$ 2,380,000$ 2,670,000$ 2,810,000$ 2,920,000$ 3,050,000$ 3,190,000$ 3,320,000$ 3,450,000$ Butte 2,340,000$ 5,960,000$ 8,480,000$ 9,490,000$ 10,000,000$ 10,430,000$ 10,860,000$ 11,340,000$ 11,810,000$ 12,280,000$ Calaveras 1,000,000$ 2,550,000$ 3,640,000$ 4,050,000$ 4,280,000$ 4,460,000$ 4,650,000$ 4,850,000$ 5,050,000$ 5,250,000$ Colusa 790,000$ 1,990,000$ 2,840,000$ 3,140,000$ 3,310,000$ 3,440,000$ 3,570,000$ 3,730,000$ 3,880,000$ 4,020,000$ Contra Costa 5,960,000$ 15,460,000$ 21,820,000$ 24,870,000$ 26,400,000$ 27,630,000$ 28,900,000$ 30,280,000$ 31,620,000$ 33,010,000$ Del Norte 410,000$ 1,040,000$ 1,490,000$ 1,640,000$ 1,730,000$ 1,800,000$ 1,870,000$ 1,950,000$ 2,040,000$ 2,110,000$ El Dorado 2,100,000$ 5,440,000$ 7,700,000$ 8,760,000$ 9,280,000$ 9,700,000$ 10,150,000$ 10,620,000$ 11,100,000$ 11,570,000$ Fresno 7,160,000$ 18,290,000$ 26,010,000$ 29,120,000$ 30,770,000$ 32,090,000$ 33,440,000$ 34,900,000$ 36,350,000$ 37,850,000$ Glenn 960,000$ 2,420,000$ 3,440,000$ 3,820,000$ 4,030,000$ 4,180,000$ 4,350,000$ 4,520,000$ 4,710,000$ 4,890,000$ Humboldt 1,860,000$ 4,720,000$ 6,740,000$ 7,500,000$ 7,920,000$ 8,250,000$ 8,590,000$ 8,950,000$ 9,310,000$ 9,690,000$ Imperial 3,240,000$ 8,170,000$ 11,700,000$ 12,910,000$ 13,590,000$ 14,150,000$ 14,690,000$ 15,310,000$ 15,890,000$ 16,510,000$ Inyo 1,150,000$ 2,910,000$ 4,150,000$ 4,600,000$ 4,850,000$ 5,050,000$ 5,250,000$ 5,460,000$ 5,690,000$ 5,910,000$ Kern 6,740,000$ 17,250,000$ 24,510,000$ 27,540,000$ 29,120,000$ 30,390,000$ 31,690,000$ 33,110,000$ 34,500,000$ 35,940,000$ Kings 1,410,000$ 3,580,000$ 5,110,000$ 5,670,000$ 5,970,000$ 6,230,000$ 6,470,000$ 6,750,000$ 7,010,000$ 7,290,000$ Lake 1,000,000$ 2,540,000$ 3,630,000$ 4,050,000$ 4,280,000$ 4,450,000$ 4,640,000$ 4,840,000$ 5,040,000$ 5,250,000$ Lassen 970,000$ 2,470,000$ 3,520,000$ 3,920,000$ 4,130,000$ 4,290,000$ 4,470,000$ 4,670,000$ 4,860,000$ 5,050,000$ Los Angeles 43,150,000$ 111,800,000$ 157,870,000$ 179,860,000$ 190,910,000$ 199,780,000$ 208,930,000$ 218,870,000$ 228,610,000$ 238,660,000$ Madera 2,040,000$ 5,180,000$ 7,400,000$ 8,200,000$ 8,630,000$ 8,990,000$ 9,350,000$ 9,740,000$ 10,120,000$ 10,510,000$ Marin 1,620,000$ 4,170,000$ 5,920,000$ 6,700,000$ 7,100,000$ 7,430,000$ 7,760,000$ 8,120,000$ 8,470,000$ 8,840,000$ Mariposa 640,000$ 1,620,000$ 2,320,000$ 2,580,000$ 2,720,000$ 2,830,000$ 2,940,000$ 3,070,000$ 3,190,000$ 3,330,000$ Mendocino 1,490,000$ 3,790,000$ 5,420,000$ 6,030,000$ 6,370,000$ 6,630,000$ 6,910,000$ 7,200,000$ 7,490,000$ 7,780,000$ Merced 2,700,000$ 6,860,000$ 9,800,000$ 10,890,000$ 11,480,000$ 11,960,000$ 12,450,000$ 12,970,000$ 13,490,000$ 14,030,000$ Modoc 940,000$ 2,370,000$ 3,390,000$ 3,770,000$ 3,980,000$ 4,130,000$ 4,300,000$ 4,480,000$ 4,650,000$ 4,850,000$ Mono 690,000$ 1,760,000$ 2,520,000$ 2,810,000$ 2,960,000$ 3,090,000$ 3,210,000$ 3,350,000$ 3,480,000$ 3,620,000$ Monterey 2,950,000$ 7,570,000$ 10,740,000$ 12,090,000$ 12,800,000$ 13,370,000$ 13,940,000$ 14,570,000$ 15,190,000$ 15,830,000$ Napa 1,150,000$ 2,930,000$ 4,160,000$ 4,700,000$ 4,970,000$ 5,190,000$ 5,420,000$ 5,670,000$ 5,910,000$ 6,160,000$ Nevada 1,170,000$ 3,010,000$ 4,260,000$ 4,820,000$ 5,100,000$ 5,330,000$ 5,560,000$ 5,820,000$ 6,070,000$ 6,340,000$ Orange 14,730,000$ 38,240,000$ 53,950,000$ 61,580,000$ 65,390,000$ 68,460,000$ 71,620,000$ 75,060,000$ 78,410,000$ 81,890,000$ Placer 3,030,000$ 7,860,000$ 11,110,000$ 12,650,000$ 13,420,000$ 14,050,000$ 14,690,000$ 15,400,000$ 16,080,000$ 16,780,000$ Plumas 780,000$ 1,990,000$ 2,820,000$ 3,180,000$ 3,360,000$ 3,520,000$ 3,670,000$ 3,840,000$ 4,010,000$ 4,180,000$ Riverside 11,850,000$ 30,570,000$ 43,260,000$ 49,070,000$ 52,020,000$ 54,390,000$ 56,830,000$ 59,490,000$ 62,090,000$ 64,770,000$ Sacramento 8,800,000$ 22,720,000$ 32,160,000$ 36,480,000$ 38,670,000$ 40,440,000$ 42,250,000$ 44,220,000$ 46,150,000$ 48,150,000$ San Benito 660,000$ 1,690,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,680,000$ 2,840,000$ 2,950,000$ 3,070,000$ 3,210,000$ 3,340,000$ 3,480,000$ San Bernardino 11,470,000$ 29,620,000$ 41,890,000$ 47,560,000$ 50,420,000$ 52,730,000$ 55,110,000$ 57,690,000$ 60,210,000$ 62,830,000$ San Diego 16,510,000$ 42,730,000$ 60,360,000$ 68,710,000$ 72,900,000$ 76,270,000$ 79,750,000$ 83,530,000$ 87,230,000$ 91,040,000$ San Francisco**3,360,000$ 8,620,000$ 12,230,000$ 13,780,000$ 14,580,000$ 15,240,000$ 15,890,000$ 16,620,000$ 17,330,000$ 18,050,000$ San Joaquin 4,770,000$ 12,240,000$ 17,350,000$ 19,570,000$ 20,700,000$ 21,620,000$ 22,560,000$ 23,590,000$ 24,600,000$ 25,630,000$ CSAC Estimates ‐ May 16, 201707-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.11 of 304
New County Revenues from SB 1 (Beall, 2017) ‐ ALL New Revenues* COUNTY2017‐182018‐192019‐202020‐212021‐222022‐232023‐242024‐252025‐262026‐27San Luis Obispo 2,750,000$ 7,020,000$ 9,970,000$ 11,180,000$ 11,820,000$ 12,330,000$ 12,860,000$ 13,430,000$ 13,980,000$ 14,560,000$ San Mateo 4,010,000$ 10,390,000$ 14,670,000$ 16,720,000$ 17,750,000$ 18,560,000$ 19,430,000$ 20,350,000$ 21,250,000$ 22,190,000$ Santa Barbara 2,800,000$ 7,220,000$ 10,210,000$ 11,580,000$ 12,270,000$ 12,820,000$ 13,400,000$ 14,010,000$ 14,620,000$ 15,260,000$ Santa Clara 8,970,000$ 23,230,000$ 32,820,000$ 37,360,000$ 39,660,000$ 41,490,000$ 43,390,000$ 45,460,000$ 47,470,000$ 49,550,000$ Santa Cruz 1,850,000$ 4,770,000$ 6,760,000$ 7,660,000$ 8,120,000$ 8,490,000$ 8,870,000$ 9,290,000$ 9,690,000$ 10,110,000$ Shasta 2,160,000$ 5,510,000$ 7,850,000$ 8,780,000$ 9,280,000$ 9,690,000$ 10,090,000$ 10,540,000$ 10,970,000$ 11,430,000$ Sierra 370,000$ 960,000$ 1,360,000$ 1,520,000$ 1,610,000$ 1,670,000$ 1,750,000$ 1,820,000$ 1,880,000$ 1,970,000$ Siskiyou 1,550,000$ 3,930,000$ 5,620,000$ 6,270,000$ 6,610,000$ 6,890,000$ 7,160,000$ 7,480,000$ 7,790,000$ 8,110,000$ Solano 2,590,000$ 6,680,000$ 9,460,000$ 10,710,000$ 11,350,000$ 11,860,000$ 12,390,000$ 12,950,000$ 13,520,000$ 14,090,000$ Sonoma 3,890,000$ 10,010,000$ 14,190,000$ 16,030,000$ 16,960,000$ 17,720,000$ 18,500,000$ 19,350,000$ 20,180,000$ 21,040,000$ Stanislaus 3,820,000$ 9,800,000$ 13,940,000$ 15,670,000$ 16,580,000$ 17,300,000$ 18,040,000$ 18,860,000$ 19,650,000$ 20,480,000$ Sutter 1,180,000$ 2,990,000$ 4,270,000$ 4,750,000$ 5,010,000$ 5,220,000$ 5,420,000$ 5,660,000$ 5,880,000$ 6,110,000$ Tehama 1,340,000$ 3,400,000$ 4,860,000$ 5,370,000$ 5,660,000$ 5,890,000$ 6,120,000$ 6,380,000$ 6,630,000$ 6,890,000$ Trinity 720,000$ 1,830,000$ 2,610,000$ 2,910,000$ 3,070,000$ 3,200,000$ 3,330,000$ 3,480,000$ 3,630,000$ 3,760,000$ Tulare 4,650,000$ 11,790,000$ 16,820,000$ 18,690,000$ 19,680,000$ 20,500,000$ 21,320,000$ 22,230,000$ 23,110,000$ 24,020,000$ Tuolumne 940,000$ 2,400,000$ 3,410,000$ 3,830,000$ 4,060,000$ 4,230,000$ 4,420,000$ 4,600,000$ 4,800,000$ 5,000,000$ Ventura 4,530,000$ 11,730,000$ 16,550,000$ 18,850,000$ 20,010,000$ 20,930,000$ 21,890,000$ 22,940,000$ 23,950,000$ 25,010,000$ Yolo 1,650,000$ 4,210,000$ 6,000,000$ 6,720,000$ 7,090,000$ 7,410,000$ 7,720,000$ 8,060,000$ 8,400,000$ 8,740,000$ Yuba 940,000$ 2,390,000$ 3,400,000$ 3,790,000$ 4,000,000$ 4,170,000$ 4,340,000$ 4,520,000$ 4,700,000$ 4,890,000$ TOTAL230,240,000$ 592,930,000$ 839,890,000$ 950,200,000$ 1,006,590,000$ 1,051,930,000$ 1,098,540,000$ 1,149,340,000$ 1,198,990,000$ 1,250,310,000$ ** County revenues only* Note: Estimates include all four separate components of new SB 1 revenues:1. Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues from new Transportation Improvement Fee, half of new 20‐cent diesel excise tax, new 12‐cent gasoline excise tax, and future inflationary adjustments to these rates;2. Revenue from future inflationary adjustments to existing 18‐cent gasoline excise tax rate, reset to 16‐cents of existing diesel excise tax, and future inflationary adjustments to existing diesel excise tax rate;3. Revenue from reset of price‐based gasoline excise tax to 17.3 cents and future inflationary adjustments to this rate; and4. Revenue from transportation loan funds redirected to local streets and roads purposes (three annual installments of $37.5 million to counties in 2017‐18, 2018‐19 and 2019‐20 fiscal years)CSAC Estimates ‐ May 16, 201707-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.12 of 304
Transportation Funding Deal
Explained
Chris Lee
CSAC Legislative Analyst
May 18, 2017
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.13 of 304
SB 1 (Beall)
•Approximately $5.2 billion/year in new
revenue – no sunset
•Approved by Legislature on April 6
•Governor Brown signed April 28
•Accompanied by ACA 5 (Frazier), which
provides constitutional protections for
revenues
•ACA 5 will go to voters for approval June 2018
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.14 of 304
What taxes were part of the deal?
•12-cent gas excise tax increase
•Reset price-based excise tax at 17.3 cents
•20-cent diesel excise tax increase
•4% diesel sales tax increase
•$25-$175 annual “transportation
improvement fee” based on vehicle value
•$100 annual zero emissions vehicle fee
•CPI adjustments on excise taxes/fees
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.15 of 304
How will revenues be phased-in?
•New fuel taxes begin in November 2017
•The value-based transportation improvement
fee begins in Spring 2018
•The price-based excise tax will be reset July 1,
2019
•New Zero Emissions Vehicles will begin to pay
an additional registration fee for road
maintenance in 2020
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.16 of 304
Where does the funding go?
•$1.5 billion for state highways
•$1.5 billion for local roads
•$750 million for transit operations and capital
•$685 million in loan repayments
•$400 million for state bridges
•$300 million for goods movement/freight projects
•$250 million for the new “Solutions for Congested Corridors” program
•$200 million for state-local partnership
•$100 million for the Active Transportation grants
•$25 million for Freeway Service Patrol
•$25 million for local planning grants
•$7 million for UC and CSU Transportation Research
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.17 of 304
Which revenues flow to counties?
•Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account
–New gas tax, transportation improvement fee, and
part of diesel excise tax
•50% state, 50% local
•Local share split evenly between cities and
counties
•County revenues by SHC Section 2103 formula
–75% by registered vehicles; 25% by road mileage
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.18 of 304
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22Revenues (Millions) Fiscal Year
Formula Funding for County Roads - Before and After SB 1
Loan Repayment
RMRA
Price-Based Rate
Base Rate
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.19 of 304
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27Revenues (Millions) Fiscal Year
Components of New County Revenues from SB 1
Loan Repayment
Base-Rate Indexing
Price-Based Rate Indexing
Price-Based Rate Reset
RMRA
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.20 of 304
Sources of Revenue Uncertainty
•Inflation – fuel tax and reg. fee now indexed
–Affects 100% of SB 1 revenues
•Fuel consumption
–Affects 70% of SB 1 revenues
•Number of registered vehicles and car values
–Affects 30% of SB 1 revenues
•Gasoline prices no longer directly tied to fuel
tax rates for county road revenues under SB 1
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.21 of 304
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
400%
450%
500%
550%
1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011Percentage of 1978 Value Year
Growth in CPI and Gasoline Prices 1978-2011
Standardized Gas Prices (All Grades)
Standardized US CPI (Urban, All Goods)
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.22 of 304
Competitive Funding Opportunities
•Active Transportation Program – existing
program
•State-Local Partnership – new guidelines
•Congested Corridors Program – new program
•Goods Movement Program – new guidelines
•Local Planning – guidelines to be developed
•May CA Transportation Commission meeting
will include guideline discussions
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.23 of 304
What county projects are eligible?
•Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Funding
“shall be prioritized for expenditure on basic
road maintenance and road rehabilitation
projects, and on critical safety projects.”
Streets and Highways Code Section 2030(a)
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.24 of 304
Eligible projects cont.
•Eligible projects include, but are not limited to:
–road maintenance and rehabilitation;
–safety projects;
–railroad grade separations;
–complete street components, including active
transportation, bike/ped, transit facilities, drainage,
and stormwater capture projects;
–traffic control devices;
–match for state/federal funds for eligible projects.
•Streets and Highways Code Section 2030(b)
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.25 of 304
What if my roads are in good shape?
•May spend RMRA funds on other
transportation priorities if average PCI meets
or exceeds 80 (Streets and Highways Code
Section 2037)
•Constitutional limitations apply: “Research,
planning, construction, improvement,
maintenance, and operation of public streets
and highways” and related nonmotrized
facilities for nonmotorized traffic
(Art. XIX, Sec. 2(a))
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.26 of 304
What are the reporting requirements?
•List of projects proposed to be funded each year
to California Transportation Commission
•List must be pursuant to an adopted budget
approved at a public meeting
•List shall not limit flexible use of funds, provided
that projects are eligible
•Must include description and the location of each
proposed project, schedule for completion, and
estimated useful life of improvement
•Streets and Highways Code Section 2034(a)(1)
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.27 of 304
Reporting requirements cont.
•Upon expending RMRA funds, must submit
documentation to the CTC
–Description and location of each completed
project,
–Amount of funds expended on the project
–Completion date and the estimated useful life of
the improvement
•Streets and Highways Code Section 2034(a)(2)
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.28 of 304
Questions?
Chris Lee
CSAC Legislative Analyst
clee@counties.org
916-650-8180
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.29 of 304
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:07/10/2017
Subject:CONSIDER and APPROVE recommendations in the Summary Report from
the Public Works Department on implementing Municipal Regional Permit 2.0
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 5
Referral Name: Review issues associated with the health of the San Francisco Bay and Delta,
including water quality.
Presenter: Mike Carlson, Department of Public
Works
Contact: Cece Sellgren
(925)313-2296
Referral History:
The Regional Water Quality Control Boards issue the County a stormwater permit on a five-year
recurring cycle. The first permit was issued in 1993 and the current permit was issued in
November 2015. The objective of the permit is to reduce pollutants in stormwater to improve
stormwater quality, and increase stormwater infiltration into soils to improve watershed health.
Just before the first permit was issued, the County modified the Flood Control District Act to
allow the District to collect an annual assessment on parcels throughout the County, for the cities
and the County to fund permit compliance costs. The permit compliance cost for each subsequent
permit has increased dramatically over the prior permit. The Transportation, Water, and
Infrastructure Committee and the full Board have been following the policy and financial issues
associated with implementing these stormwater permits for many years.
Board members have testified before the Regional Water Board several times describing the
impacts their stormwater permit has on the County budget.
Referral Update:
The new Stormwater Permit, referred to as the Municipal Regional Permit 2.0, follows the prior
Municipal Regional Permit 1.0 issued at the end of 2009.
In 2010, the beginning of the MRP 1.0 five-year permit, there was a surplus of funds in the
County’s Stormwater Program. In 2015, the last year of the MRP 1.0 permit, compliance costs
exceeded the annual revenue of assessment funds and the surplus was virtually gone.
On June 9, 2016, the Committee accepted a report on the policy implications of the MRP 2.0.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.30 of 304
On June 9, 2016, the Committee accepted a report on the policy implications of the MRP 2.0.
That was the first of three reports to be developed on the topic. The second report, presented at the
October 13, 2016 Committee meeting, outlined the financial implications of implementing the
new Municipal Regional Permit 2.0, and the third report, presented at the April 10, 2017
Committee 18, provided two budget scenarios, one compliance based in the other resource-based,
and included staff recommendations.
The Summary Report outlines direction provided to staff from the Committee at the April 10,
2017 meeting and is presented to the Committee for concurrence and then forward to the full
Board.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER and APPROVE staff's recommendations and FORWARD this Summary Report to
the full Board for consideration and approval.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
Table1.MRP RevisedBudget 7-10-17
Table2.MRP BudgetComparsion 7-10-17
Board Order
Report
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.31 of 304
SUA 17
Road
Fund
Flood Control
District
C2 Municipal Operations $32,000 $25,000 $25,000
C2 Street Sweeping $200,000 $315,000 $315,000
C3 Development/LID $123,000 $5,000 $5,000
C3.j Green Infrastructure Planning $100,000 $100,000
C4
Industrial/ Commercial Site Controls $225,000 $275,000 $275,000
C5 Illicit Discharges $143,000 $85,000 $85,000
C6 Construction Controls $8,000 $5,000 $5,000
C7 Public Outreach $210,000 $196,000 $196,000
C8 Monitoring $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
C9 Pesticide Controls $25,000 $20,000 $20,000
C10 Trash (Note 1)$456,000 $340,000 $340,000
C10 Trash capture devices (Note 2)$50,000 $50,000
C10 Trash seperator facility (Note 3)$50,000 $50,000
C10 On-land clean up $540,000 $645,000 $645,000
C10 Adopt-a-Spot $25,000 $25,000
C10 Plastic bag ban program $25,000 $25,000
C10 Polystyrene ban $75,000 $75,000
Table 1. MRP 2.0 Revised Budget: July 10, 2017
Funding Source for 2017-18 BudgetMRP
Provision Description
MRP 1.0
2017-
2018
MRP 2.0
2017-18
Budget
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.32 of 304
C10 Direct discharge controls (Note 4)$100,000 $300,000 $250,000 $50,000
SUA 17
Road
Fund
Flood Control
District
C10 Creek clean-ups (Note 5)$120,000 $50,000 $30,000 $20,000
C11 Mercury Controls $15,000 $5,000 $5,000
C12 PCB Controls (Note 6)$40,000 $50,000 $50,000
C12 PCB/GI project $50,000 $50,000
C12 Identify development treatment $25,000 $25,000
C12 Local Source Properties $45,000 $45,000
C12 Regional Source Properties $5,000 $5,000
C12 County CIP Project (Note 7)$0
C15 Annual Report $70,000 $70,000 $70,000
RWQCB Fees $45,000 $45,000 $45,000
BIMID Cost Share $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Drainage Inventory $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Marina Program $10,000 $50,000 $50,000
Program Admin. (Note 8)$230,000 $195,000 $195,000
$2,702,000 $3,236,000 $3,116,000 $50,000 $70,000
Notes
1.Trash budget for MRP 1.0 represents projected costs from the past two years; the MRP 2.0 budget amount for MRP 2.0 is reduced
and spread out to other more specific activities.
Totals
MRP
Provision Description
MRP 1.0
2017-
2018
MRP 2.0
2017-18
Budget
Funding Source for 2017-18 Budget
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.33 of 304
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.Program Administration includes such items as supervision, training, budget and contract management, grant writing, and strategic
planning.
The PCB budget for MRP 1.0 is projected costs from the past two years; the budget amount for MRP 2.0 Additional Provisions is
several small scale planning activities such as reports, schedules, and evaluations.
County Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects are divided into two types: one is infrastructure projects like roads and bridges
paid for from the Road Fund, and the other is building projects usually paid from the General Fund. If Green Infrastructure has been
This budget item is for planning and development of a project to construct a hydrodynamic trash separator.
Elements of the Direct Trash Discharge Control Plan will be implemented within the road rights of way funded with Road Funds,
within Flood Control District rights of way funded with Flood Control Funds, and on County owned property funded with General
Funds.
About half of the creek cleanup work will occur in Flood Control District rights of way and funded with Flood Control Funds, and a
small portion are on County creek-front property and funded with General Funds.
This budget item is for planning and development of a project to install full trash capture devices in drainage inlets.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.34 of 304
C2 Municipal Operations $32,000 $25,000 $7,000
C2 Street Sweeping $325,000 $315,000 $10,000
C3 Development/LID $123,000 $5,000 $118,000
C3.j Green Infrastructure Planning $92,000 $100,000 -$8,000
C4 Industrial/Commercial Site Controls $225,000 $275,000 -$50,000
C5 Illicit Discharges $143,000 $85,000 $58,000
C6 Construction Controls $8,000 $5,000 $3,000
C7 Public Outreach $210,000 $196,000 $14,000
C8 Monitoring $30,000 $30,000 $0
C9 Pesticide Controls $25,000 $20,000 $5,000
C10 Trash (Note 1)$525,000 $340,000 $185,000
C10 Trash capture devices (Note 2)$577,000 $50,000 $527,000
C10 Trash separator facility (Note 3)$100,000 $50,000 $50,000
C10 On-land clean up $740,000 $645,000 $95,000
C10 Adopt-a-Spot $25,000 $25,000 $0
C10 Plastic bag ban program $25,000 $25,000 $0
C10 Polystyrene ban $75,000 $75,000 $0
C10 Direct discharge controls (Note 4)$300,000 $300,000 $0
DifferenceMRP
Provision Description Constrained
Budget Revised Budget
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.35 of 304
C10 Creek clean-ups (Note 5)$150,000 $50,000 $100,000
C11 Mercury Controls $15,000 $5,000 $10,000
C12 PCB Controls (Note 6)$51,000 $50,000 $1,000
C12 PCB/GI project $50,000 $50,000 $0
C12 Identify development treatment $60,000 $25,000 $35,000
C12 Local Source Properties $25,000 $45,000 -$20,000
C12 Regional Source Properties $5,000 $5,000 $0
C12 County CIP Project (Note 7)$500,000 $0 $500,000
C15 Annual Report $90,000 $70,000 $20,000
RWQCB Fees $45,000 $45,000 $0
BIMID Cost Share $30,000 $30,000 $0
Drainage Inventory $50,000 $50,000 $0
Knightsen Biofilter $10,000 $0 $10,000
Marina Program $10,000 $50,000 -$40,000Program Admin. (Note 8)$230,000 $195,000 $35,000
$4,901,000 $3,236,000 $1,665,000
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Difference
TOTALS
MRP
Provision Description MRP 1.0
2017-18 Budget
MRP 2.0
2017-18 Budget
The PCB budget for MRP 1.0 is projected costs from the past two years; the budget amount for MRP 2.0 Additional Provisions is several small
scale planning activities such as reports, schedules, and evaluations.
County Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects are divided into two types: one is infrastructure projects like roads and bridges paid for
from the Road Fund, and the other is building projects usually paid from the General Fund. If Green Infrastructure has been incorporated into
the project scope and project budget, then this cost is already included in the project cost and is not an "additional" cost.
Trash budget for MRP 1.0 represents projected costs from the past two years; the MRP 2.0 budget amount for MRP 2.0 is reduced and spread
out to other more specific activities.
This budget item is for planning and development of a project to install full trash capture devices in drainage inlets.
This budget item is for planning and development of a project to construct a hydrodynamic trash separator.
Elements of the Direct Trash Discharge Control Plan will be implemented within the road rights of way funded with Road Funds, within Flood
Control District rights of way funded with Flood Control Funds, and on County owned property funded with General Funds.
About half of the creek cleanup work will occur in Flood Control District rights of way and funded with Flood Control Funds, and a small portion
are on County creek-front property and funded with General Funds.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.36 of 304
8.Program Administration includes such items as supervision, training, budget and contract management, grant writing, and strategic planning.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.37 of 304
Draft Board Order on MRP 2.0
To: Board of Supervisors
From: Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee
Subject: Approve recommendations and Accept the attached Options Report on
implementing the Municipal Regional Permit issued by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board in November 2016.
Recommendations:
- ACKNOWLEDGE continued commitment to the objective of MRP 2.0 and
improving water quality.
- DIRECT staff to incorporate Green Infrastructure into County projects.
- ACKNOWLEDGE that non-compliance is very likely.
- DIRECT staff to work with the Health Services Department on developing
service fees to cover inspection costs.
- DIRECT staff to communicate to the Regional Board the County's fiscal
constraints, request more time to comply, and seek regulatory adjustments.
- DIRECT staff to focus on trash rather than on PCBs.
- CONFIRM that no General Funds are available for County Watershed Program
costs.
- ACKNOWLEDGE that Road Funds can pay some road related costs with the
new gas tax.
- DIRECT staff to explore other revenue ideas and report back to the
Committee.
Background:
On April 10, 2017 the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee
(Committee) considered the attached Options Report which explored and provided
recommendations to the Committee for implementing the Municipal Regional Permit
adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) in November
2015 (MRP 2.0). It was the third and final report on the issues associated with
implementing MRP 2.0. The first report to the Committee on June 9, 2016, the Policy
Report, provided an overall background and history of past stormwater permits that
have led to the current permit, current permit requirements, and policy implications of
implementing MRP 2.0. The new permit requirements also have fiscal implications,
which were reviewed in detail in the second report to the Committee, the Financial
Report, on October 13, 2016, and updated with the Options Report.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.38 of 304
Detailed analysis of permit compliance underscored that PCB costs were far and away
the most expensive provision of MRP 2.0. Trash was the other large cost item. The
Committee was presented with two budget proposals. One budget was "constrained”
to reflect the revenue sources available plus some additional infusion of General Funds,
either directly or from other department services. The proposed Constrained Budget for
Fiscal Year 2017/18 was $4.9 million, and assumed PCB load reductions would be met
by development or other sources, but not directly by the County. The other budget
was based on the most likely scenario of PCB load reductions the County would need to
meet by building Green Infrastructure. The proposed Most Likely Scenario Budget for
Fiscal Year 2017/18 was $17.9 million. The Committee focused on the Constrained
Budget as the only viable one to consider. The Committee further refined the
Constrained Budget by directing staff to eliminate General Funds as a source to pay for
County Watershed Program (Stormwater Program) activities.
Staff subsequently developed a revised budget that had no General Funds paying for
staff stormwater activities, focused resources on meeting trash load reduction goals,
and reduced resources associated with PCBs. The Revised Budget is $1,665,000 less
than the Constrained Budget (34% reduction). At the Committee’s July 10, 2017
meeting, staff summarized the direction provided by the Committee at the April 10,
2017 meeting and presented it for concurrence and approval. This Board Order reflects
the Committee's direction, stated below as the recommended action items with
additional information for background and context.
ACKNOWLEDGE continued commitment to the objective of MRP 2.0 and
improving water quality. The overarching objective of the MRP 2.0 permit is to
improve the quality of stormwater and other runoff, and to increase infiltration of
stormwater into the landscape. The permit includes a myriad of required activities to
meet these objectives. The County agrees with the overall objective, but does not
always agree with the mandated requirements and prioritization of requirements to
achieve the objective.
DIRECT staff to incorporate Green Infrastructure into County projects. The
County has a variety of capital improvement programs that direct investment of
resources in buildings, roads, airports, and other public infrastructure. MRP 2.0
requires the County to include Green Infrastructure in its projects where applicable.
Green Infrastructure is a stormwater treatment facility that also enhances infiltration,
such as grassy swales, bio-retention facilities, and rain gardens. The County agrees to
include Green Infrastructure in all projects required by the permit.
ACKNOWLEDGE that non-compliance is very likely. Staff will attempt to meet
permit requirements with the reduced budget, but cannot guarantee the County will
meet all of the load reduction goals. At the end of FY 2015/16 the County did not meet
the 60% load reduction requirement for trash. The County submitted a plan to meet
the next required target of 70% by July 1, 2017, the end of FY 2016/17. By July 1,
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.39 of 304
2017 the County had not met the 70% trash load reduction requirement nor met the
requirement for public outreach. In the September Annual Report staff will be
submitting a multi-pronged strategy to meet the 70% target for trash reduction over
the next fiscal year. If the Regional Board does not accept this plan (we are beyond
the due date and this would be the second submittal for non-compliance) the permit
then requires installation of full trash capture devices in our drainage inlets, which
would cost about $4 million. With regards to PCBs, the operative assumption going
forward is the County will not have to construct any Green Infrastructure to meet PCB
load reduction targets. If PCB load reduction targets are not met through other means,
such as source properties, then the County will definitely be out of compliance. The
penalty for non-compliance is a potential fine of $37,500 per violation per day through
federal authority, and $10,000 per violation per day through state authority. The
largest exposure from non-compliance, however, is from third-party lawsuits.
DIRECT staff to work with the Health Services Department on developing
service fees to cover inspection costs. While the Committee directed staff not to
use General Funds to pay staff costs, it did support the notion of establishing service
fees to pay for certain staff costs. The Environmental Health Division and Hazmat
Division provide inspection services for the County Watershed Program. This service
has traditionally been funded by the County Watershed Program, but there is now a
shortage of Stormwater Utility Assessment funds available. Initial discussions with
Environmental Health and Hazmat indicate it would be possible to establish a service
fee to pay for inspection costs. It will take at least a year to establish a service fee so
this revenue source would not be available for Fiscal Year 2017/18, but would help in
following fiscal years.
DIRECT staff to communicate to the Regional Board the County's fiscal
constraints, request more time to comply, and seek regulatory adjustments.
County staff has been meeting with staff at the Regional Board on a regular basis to
explain the methodology County staff used to develop permit compliance costs, review
the County’s available revenue sources and budget projections, and point out
implementation issues. Now that the budget has been finalized, staff can more
definitively indicate to the Regional Board what the County will be able to achieve this
next fiscal year. At this point it seems extremely likely the County will need additional
time to meet the permit requirements. And it also makes sense to discuss the
adjustment of certain requirements that would make their achievement more feasible.
DIRECT staff to focus on trash rather than on PCBs. The cost to comply with
PCB requirements represented 73% of the Most Likely Scenario Budget, and a minimal
amount of the Constrained Budget. To reduce the budget further it would be necessary
to continue reducing the budget on PCB related activities and focus on trash load
reduction activities. This strategy was identified in staff’s strategic plan as the most
cost-effective approach given the funds available.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.40 of 304
CONFIRM that no General Funds are available for County Watershed Program
costs. Direction from the Committee was clear that there were no General Funds
available for stormwater activities in Fiscal Year 2017/18. Staff has revised and reduced
the budget accordingly. See attached Table 1. However, each year is a new year and
at some point there may be General Funds available for the County Watershed
Program.
ACKNOWLEDGE that Road Funds can pay some road related costs with the
new gas tax. Statutory language in Senate Bill 1 that authorized the new gas tax
specifically mentioned stormwater projects being eligible for funding. The new gas tax
does not go into effect until November of 2017 so there may be little, if any, funds
available for Fiscal Year 2017/18. However, there should be funding available in
subsequent fiscal years.
DIRECT staff to explore other revenue ideas and report back to the
Committee. Although there were no General Funds available this year to help with
the County Watershed Program budget, the Committee acknowledged the need for
additional funding to support the County Watershed Program. To that end the
Committee supported looking at other potential revenue sources and bringing them
back to the Committee for further discussion and consideration.
Financial Impact:
Approval of the above recommended actions finalizes and approves the Revised Budget
submitted to the Committee with this report. The Revised Budget was prepared
consistent with the recommended actions. The Revised Budget for Fiscal Year 2017/18
to implement MRP 2.0 is $3.24 million. This will be funded with a mix of Stormwater
Utility Assessment 17 Funds (about $3 million), Flood Control District Funds, and Road
Funds. The Revised Budget does not include any General Fund revenue for Watershed
Program activities. However, there is some General Fund impact with regards to
County projects funded with General Fund revenue. These projects must now include
stormwater treatment, which increases project costs. This is similar to the Americans
with Disabilities Act requirements over a decade ago, a requirement that has since
become integrated into the design process for every project.
G:\fldctl\Mitch\MRP\TWIC Board Order. July 2017.docx
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.41 of 304
2015 Municipal Regional Permit
Summary Report to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure
Committee
July 10, 2017
I. Background
On April 10, 2017 the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee
(Committee) considered the Options Report which explored and provided
recommendations to the Committee for implementing the Municipal Regional Permit
adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) in November
2015 (MRP 2.0). It was the third and final report on the issues associated with
implementing MRP 2.0. The first report to the Committee on June 9, 2016, the Policy
Report, provided an overall background and history of past stormwater permits that
have led to the current permit, current permit requirements, and policy implications of
implementing MRP 2.0. The new permit requirements also have fiscal implications,
which were reviewed in detail in the second report to the Committee, the Financial
Report, on October 13, 2016, and updated with the Options Report.
Detailed analysis of permit compliance underscored that PCB costs were far and away
the most expensive provision of MRP 2.0. Trash was the other large cost item. The
Committee was presented with two budget proposals. One budget was "constrained”
to reflect the revenue sources available plus some additional infusion of General Funds,
either directly or from other department services. The proposed Constrained Budget for
Fiscal Year 2017/18 was $4.9 million, and assumed PCB load reductions would be met
by development or other sources, but not directly by the County. The other budget
was based on the most likely scenario of PCB load reductions the County would need to
meet by building Green Infrastructure. The proposed Most Likely Scenario Budget for
Fiscal Year 2017/18 was $17.9 million. The Committee focused on the Constrained
Budget as the only viable one to consider. The Committee further refined the
Constrained Budget by directing staff to eliminate General Funds as a source to pay for
County Watershed Program (Stormwater Program) activities.
Staff subsequently developed a Revised Budget that had no General Funds paying for
staff stormwater activities, focused resources on meeting trash load reduction goals,
and reduced resources associated with PCBs. Attached Table 1 outlines the Revised
Budget. The Revised Budget is $1,665,000 less than the Constrained Budget (34%
reduction). Attached Table 2 shows the difference between the Constrained Budget
and the Revised Budget. This Summary Report summarizes the direction provided by
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.42 of 304
the Committee at the April 10, 2017 meeting and presents it for concurrence and
approval. Each policy direction is stated in the form of a recommended action item,
with additional information provided to describe the recommendation and provide
background context. Once the Committee concurs with the recommendations, then this
report can be forwarded to the full Board for approval. Attached is a draft Board Order
using this report as its base.
II.Summary Report
ACKNOWLEDGE continued commitment to the objective of MRP 2.0 and
improving water quality. The overarching objective of the MRP 2.0 permit is to
improve the quality of stormwater and other runoff, and to increase infiltration of
stormwater into the landscape. The permit includes a myriad of required activities to
meet these objectives. The County agrees with the overall objective, but does not
always agree with the mandated requirements and prioritization of requirements to
achieve the objective.
DIRECT staff to incorporate Green Infrastructure into County projects. The
County has a variety of capital improvement programs that direct investment of
resources in buildings, roads, airports, and other public infrastructure. MRP 2.0
requires the County to include Green Infrastructure in its projects where applicable.
Green Infrastructure is a stormwater treatment facility that also enhances infiltration,
such as grassy swales, bio-retention facilities, and rain gardens. The County agrees to
include Green Infrastructure in all projects required by the permit.
ACKNOWLEDGE that non-compliance is very likely. Staff will attempt to meet
permit requirements with the reduced budget, but cannot guarantee the County will
meet all of the load reduction goals. At the end of FY 2015/16 the County did not meet
the 60% load reduction requirement for trash. The County submitted a plan to meet
the next required target of 70% by July 1, 2017, the end of FY 2016/17. By July 1,
2017 the County had not met the 70% trash load reduction requirement nor met the
requirement for public outreach. In the September Annual Report staff will be
submitting a multi-pronged strategy to meet the 70% target for trash reduction over
the next fiscal year. If the Regional Board does not accept this plan (we are beyond
the due date and this would be the second submittal for non-compliance) the permit
then requires installation of full trash capture devices in our drainage inlets, which
would cost about $4 million. With regards to PCBs, the operative assumption going
forward is the County will not have to construct any Green Infrastructure to meet PCB
load reduction targets. If PCB load reduction targets are not met through other means,
such as source properties, then the County will definitely be out of compliance. The
penalty for non-compliance is a potential fine of $37,500 per violation per day through
federal authority, and $10,000 per violation per day through state authority. The
largest exposure from non-compliance, however, is from third-party lawsuits.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.43 of 304
DIRECT staff to work with the Health Services Department on developing
service fees to cover inspection costs. While the Committee directed staff not to
use General Funds to pay staff costs, it did support the notion of establishing service
fees to pay for certain staff costs. The Environmental Health Division and Hazmat
Division provide inspection services for the County Watershed Program. This service
has traditionally been funded by the County Watershed Program, but there is now a
shortage of Stormwater Utility Assessment funds available. Initial discussions with
Environmental Health and Hazmat indicate it would be possible to establish a service
fee to pay for inspection costs. It will take at least a year to establish a service fee so
this revenue source would not be available for Fiscal Year 2017/18, but would help in
following fiscal years.
DIRECT staff to communicate to the Regional Board the County's fiscal
constraints, request more time to comply, and seek regulatory adjustments.
County staff has been meeting with staff at the Regional Board on a regular basis to
explain the methodology County staff used to develop permit compliance costs, review
the County’s available revenue sources and budget projections, and point out
implementation issues. Now that the budget has been finalized, staff can more
definitively indicate to the Regional Board what the County will be able to achieve this
next fiscal year. At this point it seems extremely likely the County will need additional
time to meet the permit requirements. And it also makes sense to discuss the
adjustment of certain requirements that would make their achievement more feasible.
DIRECT staff to focus on trash rather than on PCBs. The cost to comply with
PCB requirements represented 73% of the Most Likely Scenario Budget, and a minimal
amount of the Constrained Budget. To reduce the budget further it would be necessary
to continue reducing the budget on PCB related activities and focus on trash load
reduction activities. This strategy was identified in staff’s strategic plan as the most
cost-effective approach given the funds available.
CONFIRM that no General Funds are available for County Watershed Program
costs. Direction from the Committee was clear that there were no General Funds
available for stormwater activities in Fiscal Year 2017/18. Staff has revised and reduced
the budget accordingly. See attached Table 1. However, each year is a new year and
at some point there may be General Funds available for the County Watershed
Program.
ACKNOWLEDGE that Road Funds can pay some road related costs with the
new gas tax. Statutory language in Senate Bill 1 that authorized the new gas tax
specifically mentioned stormwater projects being eligible for funding. The new gas tax
does not go into effect until November of 2017 so there may be little, if any, funds
available for Fiscal Year 2017/18. However, there should be funding available in
subsequent fiscal years.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.44 of 304
DIRECT staff to explore other revenue ideas and report back to the
Committee. Although there were no General Funds available this year to help with
the County Watershed Program budget, the Committee acknowledged the need for
additional funding to support the County Watershed Program. To that end the
Committee supported looking at other potential revenue sources and bringing them
back to the Committee for further discussion and consideration.
III. Financial Impact
Approval of the above recommended actions finalizes and approves the Revised Budget
submitted to the Committee with this report. The Revised Budget was prepared
consistent with the recommended actions. The Revised Budget for Fiscal Year 2017/18
to implement MRP 2.0 is $3.24 million. This will be funded with a mix of Stormwater
Utility Assessment 17 Funds (about $3 million), Flood Control District Funds, and Road
Funds. The Revised Budget does not include any General Fund revenue for Watershed
Program activities. However, there is some General Fund impact with regards to
County projects funded with General Fund revenue. These projects must now include
stormwater treatment, which increases project costs. This is similar to the Americans
with Disabilities Act requirements over a decade ago, a requirement that has since
become integrated into the design process for every project.
G:\fldctl\Mitch\MRP\Report to TWIC July 2017.docx
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.45 of 304
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:07/10/2017
Subject:
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: Administrative Item
Presenter: John Cunningham, Department of
Conservation and Development
Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
N/A
Referral Update:
During the April 10, 2017 TWIC meeting discussion arose regarding the protocol to be followed
by staff when applying for grants. This report follows up on that discussion.
Two policies guiding staff on how to submit grant applications are provided below and attached
for the Committees consideration:
1: Administrative Bulletin
#104: Board Authority for New or Expanded Programs and Projects.(Attached)
2: Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Referral #2: Review applications for
transportation, water and infrastructure grants to be prepared by the Public Works and
Conservation and Development Departments.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
REVIEW grant development policies and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
CC County - Admin Bulletin #104
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.46 of 304
Number:
Date:
Section:
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Office of the County Administrator
ADMINISTRATIVE BULLETIN
104.1
December 10, 2009
General
SUBJECT: Board Authority for New or Expanded Programs and Projects
I. APPLICABILITY. This bulletin is applicable to all County departments.
II. AUTHORITY. In accordance with the provisions of County Ordinance Code
Section 24-4.009, and Resolution 867, dated May 15, 1962, the County
Administrator is responsible for reviewing all departmental, agency and district
requests for adjustments and transfers of budgeted funds and making
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.
III. PURPOSE. The Contra Costa County Budget, as adopted by the Board of
Supervisors, makes provision for specific programs, services and projects to be
carried out by County Departments. Occasionally, introduction of new or expanded
programs or services during the year may be warranted, either with or without
reimbursement for expenditures to be made.
IV. POLICY. County policy concerning the establishment or extension of services
during the year, or the initiation of special projects, is as follows:
No action shall be taken to initiate new or expanded programs or projects (such as
the submission of a grant application) unless approved by the Board of Supervisors
in advance. Department must submit requests for the Board of Supervisors
consideration to the Office of the County Administrator.
V. PROCEDURES.
Departments will request approval for implementation of new services or projects
(such as submission of a grant application) in accordance with the following
procedures:
1. The department shall submit a written request on the program or project to the
Office of the County Administrator. The request must include the following:
a. a detailed description of the new program or the expansion of an existing
program,
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.47 of 304
b. an explanation of why the new or expanded program is in the best
interest of the County and its residents,
c. an estimate of any new staffing requirements,
d. the total anticipated cost of the new or expanded program,
e. available revenue to fund the program or project,
f. pros and cons of the request; and
g. negative consequences if the request is not approved.
Except in unusual or emergency situations, any additional expenses to the
County General Fund must be funded from within the Departments authorized
budget. A detailed explanation of how the costs will be absorbed must be
included with the request.
2. The Office of the County Administrator shall review the request and, if
appropriate, forward the request to the Board of Supervisors with a
recommendation.
3. The Board of Supervisors shall consider the program or project, make a
determination as to whether to support the request, and, if approved, authorize
the department to submit an application for the available funds, if necessary.
New and additional services, programs and projects affect administrative planning for
personnel and space utilization and for that reason will be carefully analyzed by the
Office of the County Administrator.
Reference: Resolution Number 867 dated May 15, 1962
David Twa
County Administrator
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.48 of 304
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA COS'rA COUNTY, S'rA TE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of Appli.c .. a_t_l.o_n_s ___ ~ for Program and Project_F~~ds~-1
WHEREAS legislation enacted by the Congress and the
California State JAgislature in recent years has made available
various program and project fund grants to local agencies in
f'ields such as publiC health, social welfare, medical care and
library services; and
;ffiEREAS such programs and projects may provide sign~
f'icant benefits and knowledge in the subject fields; and
l•lHEREAS various county department$ have applied for
and received various program and project funds f'or specific pur-
poses; and
WHEREAS certain county departments have expressed in-
terest in other programs and projects; and
WHEREAS progvam and project grants are usually reim-
bursable as. to salaries and some other costs in whole or part
but not as to capital outlay and bul.lding space; and
WHEREAS the non rel.mbursable cost items are of criti-
cal importance to the county; and
WHEREAS the value of specific programs and projects
warrants careful policy review and evaluation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT BY THIS BOARD RESOLVED that the
following policies and procedures shall apply with respect to
programs and projects of both a limited term and recurring
nature:
1. Departments desiring to make application for pro-
gram or project funds shall notify the Office of
the county Administrator in writing, indicating
the nature and scope of the proposed program or
project.
2. The Office of the County Administrator shall in-
form the Board of Superv;lsors of' the program or
project and the laws under which funds may be
available.
3. The Board of Supervisors sl1all consider the pro-
gram or project from the viev,rpoint of policy and
make a determination as to whether the county will
attempt to obtain approval.
RESOLUTION NO. 8 6 7 'I .,
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.49 of 304
4. The Board of Supervisors, if it endorses the pro-
gram or project, shall issue an order authorizing
the department to make application for the avaik
able funds.
5. If the application for the funds is approved, the
department shall advise the Office of the County
Adminj_stra tor, which t'iill make arrangements for
the processing of necessary documents by the Board
of Supervisors.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that departments and agen-
cies sha.ll refrain from malcing applica: tion tor program and pro-
ject grants except in the manner specified in this resolution_
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of May, 1962, by the
following vote of the Board:
AYES: Supervisors James P. Kenny, Mel F. Nielsen,
Thomas John Co11, Edmund A. ~inscheid.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Supervisor JosephS. Silva.
86(
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.50 of 304
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:07/10/2017
Subject:RECEIVE report on the Direct Discharge Plan to reduce trash impacts from
homeless encampments and illegal dumping into streams.
Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer
Department:Public Works
Referral No.: 5
Referral Name: Review issues associated with the health of the San Francisco Bay and Delta.
Presenter: Cece Sellgren, Public Works Dept. &
Lavonna Martin, Health Services Dept.
Contact: Cece Sellgren
(925)313-2296
Referral History:
The County Watershed Program last gave a presentation on the trash management plan on
October 13, 2016, where the strategy to achieve 70% by July 1, 2017, was presented. One of the
strategies discussed was to implement a Direct Discharge Plan.
Referral Update:
The Direct Discharge Plan addresses trash thrown directly into streams flowing adjacent to or
through County or Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FC District) property or rights
of way. There are two types of sources of trash: homeless encampments and illegal dumping.
This presentation will discuss an interdepartmental approach to reduce litter in homeless
encampments and create barriers to reduce illegal dumping into streams flowing through or
adjacent to County or FC District property and/or rights of way. Successful implementation will
create up to 15% of trash reduction credit.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Receive report and provide direction regarding implementation of this program.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
The Direct Discharge Program is budgeted for $300,000/year paid with Stormwater Utility Fees,
Road Funds, and FC District Zone Funds.
Attachments
Direct Discharge Control Plan
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.51 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.52 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.53 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.54 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.55 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.56 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.57 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.58 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.59 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.60 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.61 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.62 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.63 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.64 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.65 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.66 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.67 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.68 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.69 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.70 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.71 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.72 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.73 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.74 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.75 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.76 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.77 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.78 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.79 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.80 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.81 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.82 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.83 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.84 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.85 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.86 of 304
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.87 of 304
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 8.
Meeting Date:07/10/2017
Subject:County Comments on CCTA 2017 Countywide Transportation Plan Update
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, Department of
Conservation and Development
Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
The Committee and the Board of Supervisors discussed the update to the Countywide
Transportation Plan (CTP) from 2014 through 2016. For a portion of this time the discussion was
in conjunction with the development of the Measure X Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP).
Ultimately, CTP development was temporarily suspended in 2016 and the TEP development
proceeded independently.
While the CTP was under review, the County submitted several comment letters. The Contra
Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) was responsive to County input and the majority of
our revisions were incorporated in to the document. This CTP review is, in part, picking up where
we left off before CTP development was suspended. However, the document has been
reformatted and some content has been changed. In short, our current, proposed comments on the
CTP are minimal given the Authority's prior responsiveness to our input.
Referral Update:
The following chapters from the Countywide Transportation Plan are attached: Executive
Summary, Introduction, Challenges and Opportunities, and Visions, Goals, and Strategies are
attached to this report. The full document is available here:
http://2017ctpupdate.net/
Draft Letter: A draft comment letter on the DRAFT CTP is attached for the Committees review.
The letter focuses on two topics, the Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative, and
Accessible Transit
Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative: As seen in the draft letter, the CTP
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.88 of 304
Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative: As seen in the draft letter, the CTP
supports the County's Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative. The comments in
the letter are meant to include some concrete actions in the CTP. The concept of "Priority
Production Areas" has seen some support at the Association of Bay Area Governments and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Similar to Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and
Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs) staff believes the County would benefit from a formal,
funded program at the regional level to assist with our Northern Waterfront efforts.
Accessible Transit: The language related to paratransit is a departure from the County's past
practice in addressing the issue of accessible transit. During the previous CTP update and
development of the TEP, the County provided detailed, well documented rationale including data,
history, best practices, etc, in support of the need to strategically and proactively address
accessible transit needs. Staff believes the BOS position on this issue is well-known and the
rationale for for our advocacy on this topic is also well-established.
That said our comments on this topic are brief relative to our prior communication. Staff believes
that it is not the lack of supporting information holding back progress on this issue but rather the
lack of a critical mass of interested parties engaging on the issue. Staff is seeking Committee
guidance on how to make progress on this issue.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER recommending that the Board of Supervisors AUTHORIZE a letter (attached) to the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority communicating comments on the 2017 Countywide
Transportation Plan update.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None.
Attachments
2017-CTP-ExecSum, Intro, Challenges, Goals.pdf
DRAFT - BOStoCCTAre2017CTPupdate
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.89 of 304
2017
Countywide
Comprehensive
Transportation Plan
Volume 1
May 24, 2017Publi
c
Review
Draf
t
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.90 of 304
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Board Members
Tom Butt, Chair
City of Richmond
Federal Glover, Vice Chair
Chair for Board of Supervisors
Janet Abelson
City of El Cerrito
Newell Arnerich
Town of Danville
Loella Haskew
City of Walnut Creek
David Hudson
City of San Ramon
Karen Mitchoff
Board of Supervisors
Julie Pierce
City of Clayton
Kevin Romick
City of Oakley
Robert Taylor
City of Brentwood
Dave Trotter
Town of Moraga
Ex-Officio Members
Joel Keller
BART
District 2 Director
Don Tatzin
Public Transit Bus Operators
City of Lafayette
Amy Worth
MTC
City of Orinda
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.91 of 304
2017
Countywide
Comprehensive
Transportation Plan
Volume 1
May 24, 2017
Publi
c
Revraftiew
D
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.92 of 304
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................... ES-1
Innovation is the Key ...................................................................................................... ES-2
Challenges and Opportunities ...................................................................................... ES-2
Public Engagement; Outreach Activities .................................................................... ES-7
Vision, Goals and Strategies .......................................................................................... ES-9
Implementing the Plan .................................................................................................. ES-12
1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 1-1
The Authority’s Role ........................................................................................................ 1 -2
Growth Management Program ...................................................................................... 1-2
Congestion Management Program ................................................................................ 1-5
Partnerships ........................................................................................................................ 1-6
Relationship to Other Plans and Regulations ............................................................. 1-9
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan ................................................................. 1-12
Outreach ........................................................................................................................... 1-15
Preparing and Adopting the CTP ................................................................................ 1-17
2 Challenges and Opportunities .................................................................... 2-1
Challenges ........................................................................................................................... 2-2
Opportunities ................................................................................................................... 2-19
Past Successes and Potential Improvements ............................................................ 2-23
3 Vision, Goals and Strategies ........................................................................ 3-1
Finding the Right Balance ................................................................................................. 3-2
Goals .................................................................................................................................... 3-2
Strategies ............................................................................................................................. 3-3
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.93 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
ii May 24 Public Review Draft
4 Investment Program .................................................................................... 4-1
Funding the Investment Program .................................................................................. 4-2
Setting Priorities ................................................................................................................ 4-9
Investment Program ....................................................................................................... 4-11
What will the Long-Range Transportation Investment Program Accomplish? 4-19
Refining the LRTIP........................................................................................................... 4-25
5 Implementation Program ........................................................................... 5-1
Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................................................... 5-2
Detailed Implementation Tasks ..................................................................................... 5-2
6 Appendices .................................................................................................... 6-1
Appendix A: Routes of Regional Significance ............................................................. 6-3
Appendix B: Glossary ....................................................................................................... 6-9
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.94 of 304
Table of Contents
May 24 Public Review Draft iii
List of Figures
Figure ES-1: Average Weekday VMT and VMT per Capita in Contra Costa
County 1980-2040 ..................................................................................................... ES-4
Figure ES-2: Population Growth and Average Daily Hours of Congestion in
Contra Costa County, 1986-2016 ......................................................................... ES-5
Figure ES-3: Funding Allocations in the LRTIP (excluding 2013 RTP) ................................ ES-12
Figure 1-1: Regional Transportation Planning Committees ...................................................... 1-7
Figure 1-2: PDAs, COCs, and the CARE Communities .......................................................... 1-13
Figure 2-1: Expected Population Growth in Contra Costa County, 2010-2040 ................. 2-3
Figure 2-2: Expected Employment Growth in Contra Costa County, 2010-2040 ............. 2-4
Figure 2-3: Percentage of 2013 Population in Contra Costa Cities Who Commute
Out of the County ....................................................................................................... 2-6
Figure 2-4: Mode Share of Work Commute Trips in Contra Costa County in
1990, 2000, and 2013 .................................................................................................. 2-7
Figure 2-5: Mode Share of All Trips in Contra Costa County in 2013 and 2040 ................ 2-8
Figure 2-6: Percentage of 2013 Population in Contra Costa Cities Who Drive
Alone to Work ............................................................................................................. 2-9
Figure 2-7: Percentage of 2013 Population in Contra Costa Cities Who Commute
to Work by Public Transit ......................................................................................... 2-9
Figure 2-8: Percentage of 2013 Population of Contra Costa Cities Who Use
Active Modes (Bicycling or Walking) or Other Modes of
Transportation to Get to Work ............................................................................ 2-10
Figure 2-9: Average Weekday VMT and VMT per Capita in Contra Costa County
1980-2040 .................................................................................................................... 2-11
Figure 2-10: AM Peak Period VHT and VHT per Capita in Contra Costa County
2013 and 2040 ............................................................................................................ 2-11
Figure 2-11: On Road Light Duty Vehicle Scenario to Reach 2050 Goal ............................ 2-13
Figure 2-12: Governor’s Executive Order B-16-2012: GHG Emissions Target for
Contra Costa’s Transportation Sector, 2013-2050 ........................................... 2-15
Figure 3-1: Bicycle Master Plan ...................................................................................................... 3-17
Figure 4-1: 2013 RTP Roadway and HOV Projects and Programs ......................................... 4-5
Figure 4-2: 2013 RTP Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Projects and Programs ................... 4-7
Figure 4-3: LRTIP Roadway and HOV Projects and Programs .............................................. 4-15
Figure 4-4: LRTIP Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Projects and Programs ........................ 4-17
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.95 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
iv May 24 Public Review Draft
List of Tables
Table ES-1: ABAG Projections 2013 for Contra Costa County 2010 and 2040 ............... ES-3
Table ES-2: Measures C and J Past and Future Project Expenditures (Year of
Expenditure Dollars in Millions) ........................................................................... ES-10
Table ES-3: LRTIP Funding Overview (2017 $ in Millions) ................................................... ES-11
Table 2-1: Population Growth from 2010 to 2040, By Subarea .............................................. 2-3
Table 2-2: Jobs and Employed Residents, 2010 and 2040, By Subarea ................................... 2-4
Table 2-3: Growth in Population Over 65 in Contra Costa County, 2010-2040 ............... 2-5
Table 2-4: Contra Costa In-Commute and Out-Commute in 2003 and 2013 .................... 2-6
Table 2-5: Modes of Transportation in Communities of Concern, 2013 ............................ 2-18
Table 2-6: Measures C and J Past and Future Project Expenditures .................................... 2-25
Table 4-1: 2013 Regional Transportation Plan – Committed and Discretionary
Funding for Contra Costa Projects by Mode ($ 2017 in Millions) ................... 4-4
Table 4-2: LRTIP by Mode ($ 2017 in Millions) ......................................................................... 4-13
Table 4-3: Comparison of Program Costs: 2017 (Constant) Dollars vs. Year of
Expenditure Dollars ($ in Millions) ........................................................................ 4-14
Table 4-4: Allocation of LRTIP Funding by RTPC ($ 2017 in Millions) ................................ 4-19
Table 4-5: How the LRTIP Supports Plan Goals........................................................................ 4-20
Table 4-6: Summary of Performance Assessment of Transportation Investment ............. 4-21
Table 4-7: Summary of Equity Analysis of LRTIP ....................................................................... 4-23
Table 5-1: Implementation Activities Needed to Carry Out the Strategies in the
2017 CTP ....................................................................................................................... 5-3
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.96 of 304
Executive Summary
The Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan, or CTP, is the
blueprint for Contra Costa’s transportation system over the coming decades.
This long‐range vision for transportation identifies the projects, programs,
and policies that the Authority Board hopes to pursue. The CTP identifies
goals for bringing together all modes of travel, networks and operators, to
meet the diverse needs of Contra Costa and to support Plan Bay Area.
By improving the transportation system, we can help to address the
challenges that a growing population, more jobs, and more traffic will bring.
We also see new opportunities—from technological innovation to the
benefits of active transportation—to address the challenges of growth and
change without more roads. The CTP lays out a vision for our
transportation future, the goals and strategies for achieving that vision, and
the future transportation investments needed to promote a growing
economy, advance technological changes, protect the environment, and
improve our quality of life.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.97 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
ES‐2 May 24 Public Review Draft
INNOVATION IS THE KEY
Innovation is the guiding theme for this CTP, with the Authority taking the lead on
introducing and managing new technology, funding and constructing improvements to
the countyʹs transportation infrastructure, and overseeing ongoing transportation
programs. These new initiatives, coupled with current programs and projects and the
Authority’s growth management program, will reduce congestion, improve air quality,
and provide mobility options for all residents without undertaking major expansion
projects. Since 1989 the Authority has been actively and successfully engaged in long‐
range planning for critical transportation infrastructure projects and programs that
connect our communities, foster a strong economy, manage traffic, expand transit
service, and safely and efficiently get people to their destination of choice. Building on
prior CTPs, the 2017 CTP sets forth a viable, transformative framework to continue this
mission, using technology and innovation to make the best use of available resources.
To be effective and responsive, the Authority works closely with the Regional
Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs), local jurisdictions, transit agencies and
paratransit providers and regional and state partners – MTC, ABAG, the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission,
Caltrans, and the California Air Resources Board, among others.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
The population of Contra Costa and the region will continue to grow. Nearly 300,000
new people, 88,000 new households and 122,000 new jobs are expected in Contra Costa
County by 2040, accounting for between 10 and 13 percent of total growth for the region.
Increased population and jobs will place new demands on our transportation system,
but we also have new tools and innovative approaches to help meet those demands.
Challenges
The challenges will be to plan for future needs in areas of growth, facilitate economic
development, and help local jurisdictions respond to and facilitate new technologies,
including electric vehicles, transportation network companies, and
connected/autonomous vehicles, to serve development and respond to changing
demographics and travel patterns. Responding to environmental mandates, particularly
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.98 of 304
Executive Summary
May 24 Public Review Draft ES‐3
air quality, and concerns about rising tides, public health, and equity also will be
important. And finally, maintaining and operating the system we have remains a
pressing challenge.
Projected Growth in Population and Jobs
While the rate of growth in Contra Costa is slowing, the Authority still expects
substantial growth through 2040. A 27 percent increase in our population, a 31 percent
increase in our workforce, and a 36 percent increase in the number of jobs is expected by
2040 in Contra Costa. To accommodate that growth, Contra Costa will need to provide
housing, as well as the schools, stores and other services needed to support the projected
population increase.
Table ES-1: ABAG Projections 2013 for Contra Costa County 2010 and 2040
2010 2040 Change % Change
Population 1,049,000 1,328,000 279,000 27%
Households 375,000 464,000 89,000 24%
Employed Residents 442,000 580,000 138,000 31%
Jobs 345,000 468,000 123,000 36%
Source: ABAG Projections 2013.
While both jobs and population will increase throughout Contra Costa, growth will be
faster in some areas of the county than others. Population growth in West, Central, and
East County is expected to be the highest. Job growth in East and Central County is
expected to outpace other areas, with the lowest rate of growth found in the Lamorinda
subarea.
The demographics of the county will change as well. The median age of the county is
likely to increase as “Baby Boomers” age. Seniors may rely more on transit and
paratransit than the working population because of mobility challenges. For them,
services provided by transportation network companies such as Lyft and Uber and, over
the longer term, shared autonomous vehicles, will be a real benefit. However, these
private operations will need to adapt to senior’s mobility challenges, or the impact on
publicly funded paratransit services will be substantial.
In addition, as more families move to Contra Costa County, especially into the East
County, Central, and Tri‐Valley areas, safe transportation options for school children
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.99 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
ES‐4 May 24 Public Review Draft
will become increasingly important. The “millennials,” as the generation born after 1980
is known, are driving less frequently than older generations, but whether this is a trend
or only a short‐term phenomenon is not yet clear. Partly, they are responding to the high
cost of owning and operating a vehicle, and also many are choosing to live in close‐in,
walkable neighborhoods. If this trend continues, and it may not, it would mean that
forecasts of increased congestion may be excessively dire; however, we also expect more
delay on our roadways, especially those used for the daily commute to work.
How Will Growth Affect Travel and Congestion?
The increase in population will increase travel demand throughout the transportation
system; it also will affect congestion throughout the county. The share of trips taken by
car is expected to remain at about 92 percent of all trips. Therefore, vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) will continue to increase even though the amount individuals drive,
VMT per capita, is expected to level off, as shown in Figure ES‐1. But an increase in total
VMT does not translate into more air pollutants; as more electric and clean‐fuel vehicles
take to the road, tailpipe emissions will become cleaner.
Figure ES-1: Average Weekday VMT and VMT per Capita in Contra Costa County
1980-2040
Source: Year 1980 estimated based on ARB Almanac 2007; Years 1990-2007 from 2005 MTC Travel Forecasts; Year 2013
and 2040 from Fehr and Peers and Dyett & Bhatia, 2015.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.100 of 304
Executive Summary
May 24 Public Review Draft ES‐5
Over the past 30 years, overall traffic congestion has increased at a faster rate than
population growth, as shown in Figure ES‐2. In 1986, for example, drivers in the county
experienced about 8,400 hours of delay on streets and highways; by 2012, this delay had
increased over three‐fold to 27,300 hours. More recently, the past three years show
average vehicle hours of delay increasing by 50 percent over 2012. Downturns in the
growth trend occurred during economic recessions. The County’s population, by
contrast, only grew 43 percent during this same time period. Before the fourth bore of
the Caldecott tunnel opened at the end of 2013, the SR‐24 bottleneck in Orinda was one
of the Bay Area’s top ten list of worst bottlenecks. The SR‐4 widening from four to eight
lanes, which was completed in 2015, lessened congestion on this segment of the
highway, but further east and in the I‐680 corridor, traffic congestion remains an issue.
Figure ES-2: Population Growth and Average Daily Hours of Congestion in Contra
Costa County, 1986-2016
Data Sources: Caltrans District 4, 1986-2008 Hi-Comp Report; 2009-2016 Mobility Performance Report
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.101 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
ES‐6 May 24 Public Review Draft
While these improvements added new capacity to our roadway system, and eliminated
some bottlenecks, latent demand added new traffic, somewhat offsetting the perceived
benefits of these projects. Corridor management techniques, such as the Integrated
Corridor Management approach used on I‐80, can serve to meter new demand and
reduce congestion.
Looking ahead to 2040, congestion is expected to continue to increase with average
vehicle delay more than doubling. New roadway and vehicle technologies, however, can
serve to reduce vehicle delay and mitigate lost time and productivity spent in traffic.
This would be a significant economic benefit.
Environment and Health; the “Vision Zero” Concept
The transportation system affects our environment and public health. It is responsible
for about 40 percent of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California. The system
also is vulnerable to the effects of climate change, most notably rising tides, and more
needs to be done to make the system resilient to these changes. Air pollution from
mobile sources, especially diesel engines, increases the risk of asthma and lung diseases.
Traffic collisions cause fatalities and injuries, and time spent in cars directly relates to
increased rates of obesity. However, more opportunities for active transportation, and
advanced vehicle technology (electric cars and zero emissions vehicles) and better
vehicle connectivity can reduce pollution, improve public health, and reduce accidents.
Vision Zero is an international approach to road safety thinking, which originated in
Sweden in the mid‐1990s and continues to evolve. It can be summarized in one sentence:
No loss of life is acceptable. The Vision Zero approach has proven highly successful as a
guiding principle for many transportation organizations and plans. For example, the
Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITSA) has adopted Vision Zero as a
primary driver towards intelligent transportation technologies that can improve safety.
Indeed, a key part of travel safety is vehicle technology, such as connected/autonomous
vehicles, but safety also is provided by roadway design, traffic controls, connectivity,
education and training. Increased mobility depends on effective road safety, and this
concept is a fundamental component of the CTP.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.102 of 304
Executive Summary
May 24 Public Review Draft ES‐7
Equity
The Authority is committed to the principle of fairness, meaning benefits and burdens
that occur from transportation investments should be equally distributed to all residents.
The Authority also invites all residents to participate in the decision‐making processes
through outreach activities, which are described on the following pages.
The equity implications of the Long‐Range Transportation Investment Program
presented in this CTP were evaluated using MTC’s performance targets. The results of
this analysis are contained in Volume 2. Overall the 2017 CTP supports Plan Bay Area’s
equity targets for the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) by offering equitable
transportation opportunities for all residents, including those living in Communities of
Concern and for minority and low‐income residents.
Opportunities
The CTP supports improvements to the efficiency of existing infrastructure, strategic
investments in new capacity, advanced technology, and new potential funding sources
to provide opportunities to improve the mobility and accessibility in Contra Costa. New
technology, which supports express lanes and integrated corridor management, coupled
with proven technologies for traffic signal coordination and ramp metering, is already
improving the efficiency of existing roads and freeways. Shared‐use mobility services
through transportation network companies that facilitate carpooling are filling unused
seating capacity of the vehicles traveling on the roads. And the technology on the
horizon, such as fully connected and autonomous vehicles, provides huge opportunities
for improved efficiency through potential reduction of accidents and increased roadway
capacity.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT; OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
The CTP has been prepared with substantial public input since work began on the
update in 2014. The Authority’s outreach spanned the gamut from traditional forums,
public meetings and newsletters to new technologies, including social media. This
extensive outreach effort enabled the Authority to learn how residents generally viewed
the Plan’s proposals and transportation needs. An online public engagement
survey/comment tool and a telephone Town Hall, one of the first in the Bay Area,
offered individuals the opportunity to engage with the Authority’s Board members and
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.103 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
ES‐8 May 24 Public Review Draft
senior staff. The Authority also hosted a website portal that enabled residents to express
their priorities by showing how they would allocate funding and prioritize investments
across an array of projects and programs.
Those participating in the outreach activities supported a broad range of projects and
programs; many also expressed concerns about congestion on arterial corridors and
highways across the county; funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects; and climate
change. These comments guided Authority staff in making revisions that have been
incorporated into the 2017 CTP.
Following release of the Draft 2017 CTP, the Authority will initiate a public engagement
process that will allow Contra Costa’s residents to weigh in on the Draft Plan. This effort
will include:
Countywide workshops using an “open house” format to facilitate participation;
Meetings with the Authority’s Citizens Advisory Committee;
Public meetings starting in June to enable the Authority to hear comments from
residents and others on the Draft Plan and the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) on the Plan;
Focus group and stakeholder outreach;
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.104 of 304
Executive Summary
May 24 Public Review Draft ES‐9
Workshops and study sessions with the Regional Transportation Planning
Committees (RTPCs); and
Presentations to City Councils, boards and commissions, upon request; and
An online open house from the end of May through July for residents to learn
more about the Plan and provide feedback.
VISION, GOALS AND STRATEGIES
The following vision encapsulates the role the transportation system will play in
supporting the people, economy, and environment of Contra Costa:
Strive to preserve and enhance the quality of life of local communities by promoting a
healthy environment and strong economy to benefit all people and areas of Contra Costa,
through (1) a balanced, safe, and efficient transportation network, (2) cooperative
planning, and (3) growth management. The transportation network should integrate all
modes of transportation to meet the diverse needs of Contra Costa.
To achieve this vision, the Authority identified five goals for the 2017 CTP.
1.Support the efficient, safe, and reliable movement of people and goods using all
available travel modes;
2.Manage growth to sustain Contra Costa’s economy, preserve its environment
and support its communities;
3.Expand safe, convenient and affordable alternatives to the single‐occupant
vehicle;
4.Maintain the transportation system; and
5.Continue to invest wisely to maximize the benefits of available funding.
For each of these goals, the Authority has identified strategies for achieving them.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.105 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
ES‐10 May 24 Public Review Draft
Investing Wisely
One of the Authority’s goals is to “invest wisely”, because our funding needs far exceed
our funding resources. Creating a “wise” investment package will require using our
funds to attract funds from other sources and evaluating proposed projects to identify
those that best meet the Authority’s vision.
The 2017 CTP outlines the investment priorities proposed by the Authority., It begins
with the priorities expressed in MTC’s 2013 RTP, and uses that as a building block to
establish new priorities through the Action Plans developed by the RTPCs, from public
and stakeholder input, and from recently completed studies that focus on specific
corridor issues. It reflects a “bottoms‐up” approach, drawing together all of the
suggestions for funding that have been submitted since the last CTP was adopted in
2009. Priorities were reviewed with the RTPCs, stakeholders, and the Authority’s
advisory committees, and the results of packages of project and programs were
evaluated and compared using performance measures established by MTC. The
building blocks for the Long‐Range Transportation Investment Program (LRTIP)
included in the CTP reflects the consensus that emerged from these discussions and
Authority direction on a preferred approach.
Measure C and Measure J together have made a substantial dent in funding needed for
projects and programs, not only from the revenues they generated, but also the funding
they attracted from other sources. The following table shows Measure C/J expenditures
by category, including the amount of funds leveraged, for a total of 6.5 billion in Year of
Expenditure (YOE) dollars.
Table ES-2: Measures C and J Past and Future Project Expenditures
(Year of Expenditure Dollars in Millions)
Measure C and Measure J Past Future Total
Roadway (highways, arterials and maintenance) $755 $1,031 $1,785
Transit (rail, bus, ferry, express bus, paratransit, commute alternatives) $434 $738 $1,171
Pedestrian & Bicycle, including Transportation for Livable
Communities, trails, safe transport for children, and subregional needs
$11 $323 $334
Other $144 $373 $517
Subtotal $1,344 $2,464 $3,808
Leveraged funds on Measure C & J projects $1,721 $970 $2,691
TOTAL FUNDS $3,065 $3,434 $6,499
Note: Past expenditures are through FY 2014-15 up to June 30, 2015.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.106 of 304
Executive Summary
May 24 Public Review Draft ES‐11
The Authority maintains a “master” project list that includes all projects – completed,
under construction, and proposed. Called the Comprehensive Transportation Project
List, or CTPL, this financially‐unconstrained project list is used to track all potential
projects and their funding status. All told, over $29 billion in new projects and programs
have been identified to maintain and improve our roads, freeways, transit systems, and
bicycle and pedestrian facilities, meaning there is a significant unfunded need.
Table ES‐3 presents the proposed 2040 funding program that has been developed by the
Authority. It reflects a combination of existing and new potential revenue sources and
leverage of local sources through State and federal grant programs, with priority given
to those programs and projects that will help transform and maintain the transportation
system with technology and innovation.
Table ES-3: LRTIP Funding Overview (2017 $ in Millions)
Total Cost % of Total
Freeway and Roadway Projects $3,742 47%
Transit Projects $2,150 27%
Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects $200 3%
Other Projects $355 4%
Countywide and Subarea Programs $1,555 19%
Subtotal (Additional Revenues) $8,002 100%
2013 RTP Projects Total (Assumed Revenues) $3,672
TOTAL FUNDS $11,674
Note: Numbers may not sum precisely due to rounding.
Figure ES‐3 shows a high‐level summary of the funding allocations in the LRTIP,
including the split between projects and programs and the travel modes supported.
Public feedback on these allocations will help the Authority determine whether any
adjustments should be made in the final plan to be considered for adoption.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.107 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
ES‐12 May 24 Public Review Draft
Figure ES-3: Funding Allocations in the LRTIP (excluding 2013 RTP)
Maintaining our System
One of the Authority’s greatest challenges is to ensure adequate maintenance of the
transportation system, so the capital investments that have been and will be made are
not compromised. The 2017 CTP includes new strategies to establish effective preventive
maintenance and reduce the backlog of transportation rehabilitation and maintenance
needs. Creating a stable funding source for long‐term maintenance costs is a Plan
priority. With this in mind, the Authority intends to expand the Regional Transportation
Mitigation Program to ensure that fees collected cover the costs of ongoing maintenance.
New facilities should not be built if they cannot be maintained. Deferred maintenance of
existing facilities also is addressed, along with the role of external partnerships, such as
the California Transportation Infrastructure Priorities Work Group among others, in
helping secure needed funding.
IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
The 2017 CTP will play an important role in shaping our transportation policy and
investment decisions. But how will the Plan be carried out? The CTP outlines the
strategies, the partnerships and the guidelines essential for a smooth transition from
concept to reality. The Authority will need to work with many agencies to fund and
prioritize the programs and projects in the LRTIP. New revenue sources will be
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.108 of 304
Executive Summary
May 24 Public Review Draft ES‐13
investigated. The potential for public‐private partnership also will be explored as they
have proven particularly effective in the Bay Area and elsewhere.
Detailed implementation tasks to follow through on the goals and strategies listed in the
CTP are grouped into the following eight broad categories:
Implement Measure J funding programs
Plan for Contra Costa’s transportation future
Respond to State and federal legislative mandates
Support Growth Management Program
Design and construct transportation improvements
Improve systems management and maintenance
Build and maintain partnerships
Secure long‐term funding for transportation improvements
The 2017 CTP represents the Authority’s long‐term plan for investment in our
transportation system, cooperative planning, and growth management. Working with
its partner agencies, the Authority will apply the strategies outlined in the 2017 CTP to
achieve this vision.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.109 of 304
1 Introduction
A well‐designed, safe, and efficient network of roads, streets, freeways,
transit services, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities is essential to the
economic and environmental health of Contra Costa. The Authority has a
strong track record of working with its partners to plan, fund, and deliver
the transportation projects and programs necessary to establish and
maintain a strong network of facilities and services.
The 2017 CTP provides the policy framework and steps necessary for the
Authority to achieve its vision. It includes an analysis of challenges and
opportunities; a definition of the vision, goals, and strategies; and defines
how the Plan will be carried out through a Long‐Range Transportation
Investment Program and an Implementation Program, with defined
responsibilities and a schedule of activities.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.110 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
May 24 Public Review Draft 1‐2
THE AUTHORITY’S ROLE
The Authorityʹs role in government is to plan, fund, design, and build transportation
improvements to enhance the quality of life, promote a healthy environment, and build
a strong economy. In fulfilling this role, the Authority works to:
Deliver the voter‐approved projects and programs in Measure C and J;
Implement the Measure J Growth Management Program (GMP);
As the Congestion Management Agency for Contra Costa, participate in MTC’s
programs and oversee implementation of State and federal programs; and
Create innovative solutions to address growing congestion and air quality issues.
The Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, or CTP, is the Authorityʹs
broadest policy and planning document. Besides outlining the Authorityʹs vision and
goals, the CTP outlines the various strategies for addressing transportation and growth
management issues within Contra Costa and presents a Long‐Range Transportation
Investment Program.
Part of the Authorityʹs vision for a balanced, safe, and efficient transportation network
includes the encouragement of bicycling and walking in Contra Costa County. The
Authority adopted its first Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP) in 2009 in
recognition of the benefits of walking and bicycling and to provide support for these
transportation modes. The CBPP underwent a minor update in 2013 and is currently
undergoing a full update.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Authority has been implementing its Growth Management Program (GMP) since
Measure C was enacted. Under both Measure C and presently Measure J, the Authority
has three primary responsibilities to carry out the GMP. First, the Authority must
prepare the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and encourage
cooperative planning among the jurisdictions within Contra Costa. Second, the
Authority is responsible for developing and carrying out a Regional Transportation
Mitigation Program. The Authority’s program is built from the fees and impact
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.111 of 304
Introduction
May 24 Public Review Draft 1‐3
programs adopted by the RTPCs. Third, the Authority also develops and maintains
computer models for analyzing the effects of land use changes and transportation
improvements.
CCTA AWARDS
Since the last CTP was adopted, the Authority has received numerous awards for its
work. Some of the most notable are listed below.
California Engineering Excellence Award from the American Council of
Engineering Companies, 2017
Platinum Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Award
from the Government Finance Officers Association, five consecutive years
Partnering Champion Award from the International Partnering Institute, 2017
Executive Director Randell Iwasaki named in the “Top 10 Public Sector
Transportation Innovator’s List” by the ENO Center for Transportation, 2016
Organization of the Year by the California Transportation Foundation, 2016
Most Innovative Use of Social Media Award from the Center for Digital
Government, 2015
AAA credit rating from Fitch Ratings, 2015
National Project Achievement Award from the Construction Management
Association of America, 2015
Overview and Program Components
Under Measure J, the GMP remains in effect through 2034. Measure J establishes the
overall goal for the Growth Management Program:
…to preserve and enhance the quality of life and promote a healthy, strong economy to
benefit the people and areas of Contra Costa through a cooperative, multi‐jurisdictional
process for managing growth, while maintaining local authority over land use decisions.1
This goal emphasizes both the breadth of the Authority’s objectives and the need for
collaboration in achieving them.
As approved, the Measure J GMP has four objectives:
1 Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Measure J Expenditure Plan, p. 23. July 2004.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.112 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
May 24 Public Review Draft 1‐4
Assure that new residential, business and commercial growth pays for the
facilities required to meet the demands resulting from that growth.
Require cooperative transportation and land use planning among local
jurisdictions.
Support land use patterns within Contra Costa that make more efficient use of
the transportation system, consistent with the General Plans of local jurisdictions.
Support infill and redevelopment in existing urban and brownfield areas.
To receive its share of Local Streets Maintenance and Improvement funds and to be
eligible for Contra Costa Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) funds, each
jurisdiction must:
Adopt a growth management element, as part of its General Plan, that outlines
how the jurisdiction will comply with the other requirements listed below;
Adopt a development mitigation program that ensures that new growth pays for
its share of the costs associated with that growth;
Address housing options by demonstrating reasonable progress in providing
housing options for people of all inc ome levels in a report on the implementation
of actions outlined in the adopted Housing Element;
Participate in an ongoing, cooperative planning process with other jurisdictions
and agencies in Contra Costa to create a balanced, safe, and efficient
transportation system and to manage the impacts of growth;
Adopt an Urban Limit Line (ULL) that complies with the Countywide, voter‐
approved ULL or the local jurisdiction’s voter‐approved ULL;
Develop a five‐year capital improvement program that outlines the capital
projects needed to meet the goals of the local jurisdiction’s General Plan; and
Adopt a transportation systems management (TSM) ordinance or resolution to
promote carpools, vanpools and park and ride lots.
After completing a compliance checklist and receiving approval by the Authority that
the requirements of the GMP have been fulfilled, the Authority allocates to each
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.113 of 304
Introduction
May 24 Public Review Draft 1‐5
jurisdiction its share of Local Streets Maintenance and Improvement funding (and TLC
funding, if applicable and available). Jurisdictions may use funds allocated under this
provision to comply with administrative requirements.
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Since 1990, following passage of Proposition 111, the Authority has served as the
Congestion Management Agency, or CMA, for Contra Costa. As CMA, the Authority is
responsible for preparing, and updating every other year, a Congestion Management
Program (CMP). The CMP identifies, among other things, performance measures for a
network of State highways and principal arterials, a land use evaluation program, and a
seven‐year capital improvement program.
Perhaps of greater significance, serving the CMA for Contra Costa gives the Authority a
voice in discussions of transportation policy and funding at the regional level. In the last
five years, the Authority worked together with other CMAs in the development of Plan
Bay Area. This role also gives the Authority the responsibility for allocating various
federal and State transportation funding to a wide range of transportation projects. The
Authority also allocated funding to projects throughout Contra Costa through the One
Bay Area Grant (OBAG) and Regional Safe Routes to School (SR2S) programs.
New strategies the Authority will pursue as part of its CMA role include:
Supporting development of a Monitoring “Dashboard” application to help local
jurisdictions track development trends in Priority Development Areas and in
Communities of Concern and implement the Sustainable Communities Strategies
in Plan Bay Area.
Investigating opportunities to extend the Regional Development Mitigation
Program to include support for a Transit Mitigation Fund, which could support
service expansion, as needed, and programmatic reductions in vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) to mitigate the impacts of development.
Reporting on transportation projects and any related housing impacts that affect
Communities of Concern as part of support for MTC’s Regional Active
Transportation Program (ATP) and statewide guidelines for ATPs adopted by
the California Transportation Commission.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.114 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
May 24 Public Review Draft 1‐6
PARTNERSHIPS
Local Jurisdictions
The Authority works with local jurisdictions to prioritize and manage the construction
and maintenance of local streets and roads along with investments that support active
transportation, particularly walking and biking, and access to transit. In addition, local
jurisdictions have authority over land use, which is integral to the planning and
efficiency of the transportation system.
Regional Transportation Planning Committees
The Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs) are made up of elected and
appointed representatives from each jurisdiction within that region. Figure 1‐1 shows
these regional boundaries. Officials from transit agencies and planning commissions
also serve on some of the RTPCs, either as voting or ex‐officio non‐voting members.
Each RTPC oversees one Action Plan, except for Southwest Area Transportation
Committee (SWAT), which oversees two. In addition to their responsibilities for
preparing and updating the Action Plans, the RTPCs are involved in various
transportation planning efforts. Central Contra Costa Transportation Committee, also
known as the Transportation Planning and Cooperation Advisory Committee
(TRANSPAC), for example, was involved in the I‐680 High‐Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
Express Bus Study, while West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee
(WCCTAC) worked with Alameda County jurisdictions on the I‐80 Integrated Corridor
Management Project. In East County, TRANSPLAN is participating in the development
of a BART extension, and in SWAT, the City of San Ramon and the Town of Danville
have developed a new school bus program under Measure J.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.115 of 304
Introduction
May 24 Public Review Draft 1‐7
Figure 1-1: Regional Transportation Planning Committees
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area
Governments
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the transportation planning,
coordination, and financing agency for the nine‐county San Francisco Bay Area. MTC
functions as both the regional transportation planning agency (RTPA)—a state
designation—and for federal purposes as the region’s metropolitan planning
organization (MPO). In these roles, MTC is responsible for the Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP), including the Sustainable Communities Strategy to meet regional GHG
reduction targets.
While MTC is responsible for transportation planning in the Bay Area, the Association
of Bay Area Governments, known by its acronym ABAG, is responsible for more general
planning. ABAG also develops population and economic forecasts, which are used for
the Bay Area’s Sustainable Communities Strategy and by the Authority in its computer
modeling.
an
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.116 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
May 24 Public Review Draft 1‐8
In addition, ABAG is responsible for allocating to each local jurisdiction within the Bay
Area a share of the region’s housing needs, as part of the state’s Regional Housing
Needs Assessment. Each jurisdiction uses their allocation to prepare their state‐
mandated housing elements, which are intended to encourage production of housing for
low and moderate income households. Compliance with State Housing Element law is
an important component of the Growth Management Program.
State of California and Caltrans
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) manages more than 50,000 miles
of highway and freeway lanes and provides intercity rail services. The Authority
partners with Caltrans on design and construction of our interstates and highways,
including I‐80, I‐680, and SR‐4 in Contra Costa. In addition, the state provides important
funding for transportation projects. For example, the State Transportation Improvement
Program funds projects that expand capacity; the State Highway Operation and
Protection Program provides funding for maintenance; and the Active Transportation
Program focuses funding on bicycle and pedestrian mobility projects.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District and California Air Resources
Board
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in close consultation with
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has prepared plans designed to achieve and
maintain federal and State standards for air quality within the Bay Area. These plans—
the Air Quality Plan designed to meet federal requirements and the 2010 Bay Area Clean
Air Plan designed to meet the requirements of the California Clean Air Act—include
transportation control measures (TCMs) that affect the Authority and other CMAs
within the region. CARB is responsible for the State implementation plan required by
the federal Clean Air Act; it also has prepared Vision for California: A framework for Air
Quality and Climate Planning, Goods Movement Emissions Reduction Plan, and reports on
transportation strategies and air quality.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.117 of 304
Introduction
May 24 Public Review Draft 1‐9
Transit Providers
Various agencies provide transit services—including rail, bus, ferries, and paratransit—
within Contra Costa. Rail service is provided both by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District
(BART), the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE), which serves the Alameda County
portion of the Tri‐Valley, and Amtrak, which runs the Capitol Corridor train to
Sacramento and beyond. Four bus providers—AC Transit, WestCAT, the County
Connection, and Tri Delta Transit—serve Contra Costa itself and Wheels serves Tri‐
Valley. Ferry service is available from Larkspur and Vallejo in adjoining counties and
service from Richmond to San Francisco will be re‐instated in 2018. Paratransit service is
also available throughout Contra Costa. The Authority works with these transit
providers to achieve its mission through joint committees and other working
relationships and through funding for services and improvements.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS AND REGULATIONS
Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance
In preparing the CTP, the Authority relies on the preparation of “Action Plans” by the
RTPCs. The Action Plans, prepared by the RTPCs for these sub‐areas, set goals,
objectives, and actions to guide sub‐area planning and local activities. The Action Plans
include Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSOs) for designated Routes of
Regional Significance and specific actions to be implemented by each jurisdiction. The
Action Plans also include procedures for reviewing the impacts of proposed local
General Plan amendments that could affect the achievement of MTSOs and a process for
consultation on environmental documents among jurisdictions. Summaries of the Action
Plans are included in Volume 2 as part of the CTP.
Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa’s Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP) of 2009 grew out of the
Authority’s 2000 update to the CTP. The CBPP establishes goals, describes existing
conditions, prioritizes bike corridors and pedestrian improvements, and outlines
implementation tasks. The analysis of and recommendations for pedestrian and bicycle
facilities helped to guide the selection of strategic investments in the 2017 CTP update.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.118 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
May 24 Public Review Draft 1‐10
Express Bus Study
The Draft Contra Costa Express Bus Study Update (currently underway) assesses service
needs and emerging trends in the county. The express bus recommendations are
designed to complement BART service with inter‐community routes along corridors not
served by rail. There is growing support for express bus systems as the public is
resistant to congested highways yet in need of alternative means of transportation.
Ferry Service Study
The 2014 Financial Feasibility of Contra Costa Ferry Service examined the financial
feasibility of four direct ferry service lines from Richmond, Hercules, Martinez, and
Antioch. The study found that under current conditions, only the proposed service route
from Richmond could operate under the existing Water Emergency Transportation
Authority (WETA) farebox recovery threshold for ferry service without further funding
from the State or other sources. The Richmond service is moving forward.
The Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy
State and federal law requires MTC to prepare and update a Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP) and update it every four years. Similar to the CTP, the RTP is a long‐range
plan of at least 20 years into the future that specifies the strategies and investments to
maintain, manage, and improve the region’s transportation network, including bicycle
and pedestrian facilities, local streets and roads, public transit systems, and highways.
With the passage of California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act
(SB 375) in 2008, a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) must be developed as part of
the RTP. It must outline an integrated transportation and land use plan that can be
implemented within the expected financial constraints over the next 25 years,
accommodate projected population growth, and reduce GHG emissions.
CTPs must “consider” the most recently adopted RTP, and the CTPs form the basis for
the next RTP. To obtain funding through many State and federal sources, projects must
be included in the RTP. The most recent RTP, Plan Bay Area, was adopted in 2013. The
2017 RTP Update is currently underway and is scheduled to be adopted by MTC in July
2017.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.119 of 304
Introduction
May 24 Public Review Draft 1‐11
CTP Guidelines
In preparing the CTP, the Authority has followed the CTP Guidelines that MTC updated
in November 2014. MTC’s Guidelines affirm the close relationship between the CTP and
the RTP (discussed above), while they also recognize the need for some local flexibility.
The Guidelines also call for 10‐year and 20‐year lists of projects reflecting funding
priorities; these are in Appendix C of Volume 2.
Priority Development Areas, Communities of Concern, and CARE
Communities
Plan Bay Area focuses investments on maintaining the Bay Area’s transportation system,
and this focus is carried forward into the strategies of the CTP. In addition, the land use
distribution approach utilized by Plan Bay Area uses Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
and transit priority projects (TPPs) to meet the sustainability goals of the State. PDAs are
intended to encourage development near high‐quality transit as a key transportation
investment of Plan Bay Area. Most TPP‐eligible areas are within PDAs or within close
proximity to transit. In addition, as part of Plan Bay Area, Priority Conservation Areas
(PCAs) were identified to strategically protect natural resources.
As part of the 2013 Plan Bay Area planning process, an equity analysis was conducted to
evaluate the transportation and land use planning in relation to environmental justice
and equity policy priorities. It identified Communities of Concern, communities that
have “multiple overlapping potential disadvantage factors” or concentrations of both
low‐income and minority populations, throughout the Bay Area. In planning for the
transportation system in Contra Costa, it is essential to provide equitable transportation
opportunities to the populations in these communities.
In addition, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) initiated the
Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program in 2004, which aimed to evaluate and
reduce health risks associated with exposure to outdoor toxic air contaminants and fine
particulate matter in the Bay Area. The program examines and characterizes potential
risks associated with toxic air contaminants and fine particulate matter from stationary
and mobile sources, and develops and implements mitigation measures to achieve
cleaner air, with a focus on priority communities (CARE Communities). Figure 1‐2
shows PDAs, Communities of Concern, and the CARE Communities in Contra Costa.
Planning for all of these areas is incorporated into the 2017 CTP.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.120 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
May 24 Public Review Draft 1‐12
THE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) is one of the Authority’s
key planning tools. As approved by the voters in 1988, Measure C requires the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority to:
Support efforts to develop and maintain an ongoing planning process with the cities and
the county through the funding and development of a Comprehensive Transportation
Plan.2
The Authority adopted its first CTP in 1995. The first major update occurred in 2000, and
a comprehensive update tied to renewal of the sales tax was adopted in 2004. In 2009, as
Measure J began to go into effect, the 2009 CTP, the third major update, was adopted.
This document — the 2017 CTP — represents the fourth major update.
The CTP provides the overall direction and a coordinated approach for achieving and
maintaining a balanced and functional transportation system within Contra Costa, while
strengthening links between land use decisions and transportation. It outlines the
Authority’s vision for Contra Costa and its transportation system, along with the goals,
strategies, and specific projects and other actions for achieving that vision. The CTP also
outlines the Authority’s short‐ and long‐range priorities for investing expected revenues,
including projects recommended for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan
prepared by MTC.
The CTP is presented in two volumes:
Volume 1: Includes the vision, goals and strategies, the Long‐Range
Transportation Investment Program (LRTIP) and the implementation program.
Volume 2: Includes details on the transportation system, summaries of the
Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance, 10‐year and 20‐year funding
targets, and an evaluation of the performance of major projects in the LRTIP,
measured against MTC performance targets and an equity analysis.
2 Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Measure C Expenditure Plan, Section 5.C.4, 1988, as amended and restated
by Ordinance 06-02 (Measure J), in 2006.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.121 of 304
S WA T-
T R I -VA L L E Y
T R A N S P L A N
T R A N S PA C
W C C T A C
S WA T-
T R I -VA L L E Y
H e r c u l e sPinole
R i c h m o n d
San
Pablo
M a r t i n e z
P l e a s a n t
H i l l
P i t t s b u r g
C l a y t o n
Wa l n u t
C r e e kLafayette
O r i n d a
M o r a g a
D a n v i l l e
S a n
R a m o n
A n t i o c h O a k l e y
B r e n t wo o d
El Cerr ito
Va l l e j o
B e n i c i a
A l b a n y
B e r k e l e y
E m e r y v i l l e
A l a m e d a
S a n F r a n c i s c o O a k l a n d
S a n L e a n d r o
C a s t r o
Va l l e y
D u b l i n
L i ve r m o r e
S O L A N O
C O U N T Y
S A C R A M E N T O
C O U N T Y
C O N T R A
C O S T A
C O U N T Y
S A N
J O A Q U I N
C O U N T Y
A L A M E D A
C O U N T Y
C o n c o r d
Su isun
BaySan Pablo
Bay
San F r anc isco
Bay
S acram entoR iverFr anks
Tract
Gr izzly
Bay
Hon ker
Bay
San Jo
aquinRiver
Clifton
Court
F orebay
Los
Vaqueros
R eserv oir
San
Pablo
Re servoir Br iones
Re serv oir
Mt Diablo
S WA T-
L A M O R I N D A
780
680
80
80
680
680
580
580880
280
980
580
580
80
24
24
13
4
4
242
160
4
4
4
0 2 4 6
MILES
8 10
Regional Transportation
Planning Committee (RTPC)
Priority Development Area (PDA)
Community of Concern (COC)
CARE Communities
City Limits
Priority Conservation
Areas (PCA)
Park/Open Space
Freeway
Major Roadway
BART
eBART
Railroad
Figure 1-2: PDAs, COCs, and CARE Communities
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.122 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1 May 24 Public Review Draft 1‐14This page intentionally left blank.07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.123 of 304
Introduction
May 24 Public Review Draft 1‐15
OUTREACH
In mid‐2014, the Authority undertook an extensive outreach effort to learn how
residents view the Plan’s proposals and transportation needs in general. The feedback
varied throughout the county with positive comments on many of the proposed
projects. The outreach effort continued through 2015 and early 2016, to support the
Authority’s development of a Transportation Expenditure Plan.
Activities and Participation
A variety of techniques were used to reach a broad cross‐section of the community,
including public workshops, an online public engagement survey/comment tool, and a
telephone Town Hall, offering callers the opportunity to engage with the Authority’s
senior staff. All told, 156 people attended the workshops, 1,378 callers participated in the
Town Hall, and over 4,000 unique visitors were recorded as logging in to the website.
This was a significant increase in participation compared with prior CTP updates.
Public Workshop and Online Feedback
Workshops were held across the regions in the county,
and feedback from the public workshops was generally
rather specific to each region:
Those attending the Southwest & Central
workshops were concerned about congestion
on I‐680 and the need for new travel
alternatives, including BART, bus, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities.
In West County, strong support was expressed
for improved transit options, such as bus,
BART, and ferry, to help ease I‐80 congestion,
without a strong preference for a single
solution.
In Eastern Contra Costa, workshop attendees spoke positively about proposals to
improve Vasco Road and other connections to I‐580 like Tri‐Link.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.124 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
May 24 Public Review Draft 1‐16
The online feedback was more project‐specific, with “likes” for many projects in the
CTP.
Following these efforts, the Authority hosted a website portal called Funding our Future,
which enabled residents to express their priorities by showing how they would spend
money and prioritize investments across an array of programs. The feedback received
helped the Authority to develop a Transportation Expenditure Plan for voter
consideration in November 2016. Choices included BART and bus projects,
improvements to local streets and highways, investments in biking and walking
facilities, and investments in programs for seniors and people with disabilities. The
results were compiled in “real time”, so those responding could compare their choices
with how other community members were investing.
Improving Bicycle
And Pedestrian
Safety For K-12
Students
-20 “likes”
Treat The Iron Horse Trail
as a Thoroughfare
-36 “likes”
Build BART
Connect Walnut
Creek to Dublin.
-34 “likes”
When Will You
Start Accepting
CLIPPER?
-27 “likes”
Light Rail Along
Existing Ygnacio
Valley Road
Median?
-21 “likes”
BART & 680 I’d like
to see BART
extended down the
680 corridor.
-19 “likes”
Getting You To San
Francisco And Back Home,
By Ferry
-21 “likes”
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.125 of 304
Introduction
May 24 Public Review Draft 1‐17
This public input guided Authority staff in making revisions that have been
incorporated into the 2017 CTP. In summary, there was strong support for transit
expansion down the I‐680 corridor; BART extensions; expanded parking and transit
access to BART stations; bus service expansion and improvements; ferry service;
improved access to schools; and maintenance improvements on local streets and roads.
Those participating in the outreach activities also expressed concerns about congestion
on arterial corridors and highways across the county; funding for bicycle and pedestrian
projects; and climate change.
PREPARING AND ADOPTING THE CTP
The 2017 CTP was prepared in close collaboration with local jurisdictions in Contra
Costa and with regional partners and State agencies. The CTP builds on the five Action
Plans for Routes of Regional Significance, joining these together to create a unified
network of programs and projects. The Action Plans also provided an important
foundation for the investment program in the CTP. Throughout the process,
stakeholders provided input on interim working products. MTC and ABAG also were
invaluable sources of technical information.
Because the CTP is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
Authority is required to prepare an environmental assessment of the Plan’s impacts
through development of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In addition to covering
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.126 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Volume 1
May 24 Public Review Draft 1‐18
the impacts of the overall plan, the CTP EIR will enable tiering of subsequent
environmental documents for following‐on projects during Plan implementation. Source: Karl Nielsen, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Supporting the efficient and reliable movement of people and goods, one of the strategies of the CTP, has been
accomplished through projects such as the Highway 4 Corridor project.
Following are the key steps for the review and approval process for this Plan Update:
1.Authority releases the Draft 2017 CTP on May 24, 2017.
2.Authority releases the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on June 12,
2017.
3.Public and RTPC review: June and July 2017.
4.Close of comment period: July 28, 2017.
5.Review comments on Draft 2017 CTP and EIR and prepare proposed final 2017
CTP Update: July 2017 –August 2017.
6.Authority certifies Final EIR and adopts the Final 2017 CTP Update: September
20, 2017.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.127 of 304
2 Challenges and
Opportunities
As more people choose to live and work in the Bay Area, every county in the
region is expected to continue to grow. Contra Costa’s future growth – in
the form of new jobs, households, and residents – will strain current
transportation resources and increase travel and commute time within the
transportation network. Concerns about environmental issues and
mandates, public health, and ensuring equitable opportunities for all of
Contra Costa’s residents are likely to grow as residents, households, and jobs
increase in the county.
To minimize these impacts, it is vital that our future transportation network
address the challenges of a growing and changing population; we must be
innovative and respond to the opportunities of new technology, changing
demographics, and emerging travel patterns. The CTP outlines how the
Authority will do this to ensure that the transportation system continues to
meet Contra Costa’s needs through 2040.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.128 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
2‐2 May 24 Public Review Draft
CHALLENGES
Nine key challenges are anticipated through 2040, including expected population,
household, and job growth; an aging population; travel patterns; travel choices;
maintenance of the transportation system; climate change and sea level rise; safety;
environmental impacts on communities; and equity issues associated with meeting the
transportation needs of all of Contra Costa’s residents.
Growth Through 2040
Overall, while the rate of growth is expected to slow from the substantial growth of the
post‐World War II period, Contra Costa is still expected to add 279,000 residents by
2040, a 27 percent increase over 30 years, as the Bay Area overall will grow by 700,000
households over the same time period. Some areas of the county are expected to grow
faster than others. Much of the population and household growth is expected in West,
Central and East County areas. Job growth is expected to speed up, with the addition of
123,000 jobs by 2040, a 36 percent increase in the county. The number of employed
residents is expected to increase as well. Therefore, the ratio of workers to jobs will
remain roughly unchanged, with many workers having to commute outside of Contra
Costa to get to their jobs,
The growth in out‐commuting over the Richmond Bridge, not foreseen a decade ago, is
likely to continue with strong demand for service employment in Marin County.
Tables 2‐1 and 2‐2 show the growth in population, jobs, and employed residents from
2010 to 2040 for each subregion. Figures 2‐1 and 2‐2 show the expected increase in
population and employment growth for the county, by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ).
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.129 of 304
Challenges and Opportunities
May 24 Public Review Draft 2‐3
Figure 2-1: Expected Population Growth in Contra Costa County, 2010-2040
Table 2-1: Population Growth from 2010 to 2040, By Subarea
2013 Population
Projections Change
2010-2040
% Change
2010-2040 RTPC 2010 2040
West 250,419 323,904 73,485 29%
Central 303,490 391,494 88,003 29%
East 293,913 379,989 86,076 29%
Lamorinda 59,118 68,585 9,467 16%
Tri-Valley: Contra Costa 142,085 164,487 22,402 16%
Subtotal 1,049,025 1,328,459 279,433 27%
Tri-Valley: Alameda 202,133 270,375 68,242 34%
Total 1,251,158 1,598,834 347,675 28%
Source: ABAG Projections 2013; Plan Bay Area
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.130 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
2‐4 May 24 Public Review Draft
Figure 2-2: Expected Employment Growth in Contra Costa County, 2010-2040
Table 2-2: Jobs and Employed Residents, 2010 and 2040, By Subarea
2013 Projections Change
2010-2040
% Change
2010-2040 RTPC 2010 2040
Jobs
West 62,571 85,193 22,622 36%
Central 146,331 199,879 53,548 37%
East 51,205 71,473 20,269 40%
Lamorinda 20,707 25,927 5,220 25%
Tri-Valley: Contra Costa 64,087 85,605 21,518 34%
Subtotal 344,901 468,077 123,177 36%
Tri-Valley: Alameda 120,007 169,445 49,438 41%
Total 464,908 637,522 172,615 37%
Employed Residents
West 104,492 139,041 34,549 33%
Central 137,040 192,459 55,419 40%
East 114,718 147,017 32,299 28%
Lamorinda 24,594 31,961 7,368 30%
Tri-Valley: Contra Costa 61,460 69,768 8,307 14%
Subtotal 442,304 580,246 137,942 31%
Tri-Valley: Alameda 88,163 124,838 36,675 42%
Total 530,467 705,084 174,617 33%
Source: ABAG Projections 2013; Plan Bay Area
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.131 of 304
Challenges and Opportunities
May 24 Public Review Draft 2‐5
Changing Demographics – An Aging Population
Table 2‐3 shows the expected growth of the Contra Costa population over 65. The
number of Contra Costans above the age of 65 will nearly triple. As the “Baby Boomers”
grow older, we can expect to see changes in the coming years. Many may choose to “age
in place,” which could increase the median age in the county. The mobility challenges of
a growing senior population need to be considered as they are expected to rely more on
transit and paratransit than the working population. In addition, with more families
moving to Contra Costa County, providing safe transportation options for children,
including bus service and safe routes to walk and bike, will be important. Improving the
transportation system to meet the needs of Contra Costa’s diverse communities is a key
consideration in the 2017 CTP.
Table 2-3: Growth in Population Over 65 in Contra Costa County, 2010-2040
Age Group Estimate 2010 Projected 2040 % Increase
65-74 71,635 158,671 121%
75-84 40,546 140,797 247%
85+ 19,524 73,976 279%
65+ 131,705 373,444 184%
Projections Prepared by Demographic Research Unit, California Department of Finance
Travel Patterns
In 2013, just under 260,000 persons, representing about 60 percent of employed Contra
Costa residents, commuted out of the county for their primary work, as shown in Table
2‐4. This is a higher rate than all counties in the Bay Area except Solano County, and it is
about the same rate as Marin and San Mateo counties. Figure 2‐3 shows the percentage
of residents who commute out of the county for work by jurisdiction. Notably, in many
cities in West County, Lamorinda, and Tri‐Valley, over half of the residents commute to
work outside of Contra Costa. Commuting out of the county, or “out‐commuting,” is
less common in Central and East County cities, where only a quarter to a third of
residents generally commute to work outside the county.
Each day, around 259,000 of Contra Costa’s employed residents commuted out of the
county in 2013, while 159,000 workers living outside the county commuted in. One
decade earlier, in the year 2003, fewer people commuted in and out, and more residents
stayed within the county for their work (166,000 vs. 159,000).
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.132 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
2‐6 May 24 Public Review Draft
Table 2-4: Contra Costa In-Commute and Out-Commute in 2003 and 2013
Reside in Contra Costa
Reside Outside of
Contra Costa
2003 2013 2003 2013
Commute out of Contra Costa 219,177 258,691 N/A N/A
Stay in or Commute into Contra Costa 165,903 159,254 137,846 158,896
Source: Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics.
Figure 2-3: Percentage of 2013 Population in Contra Costa Cities Who Commute
Out of the County
Travel Choices
Contra Costa’s complex transportation system includes facilities for a range of
transportation modes for residents, including highways, streets, transit, bicycle lanes,
sidewalks and trails. With the exception of an increase in the percentage of people
working from home, mode share of work commutes has been relatively constant since
1990, even as the number of commuters in Contra Costa has increased by about 20
percent during this period. Shown in Figure 2‐4, as of 2013, about 70 percent of
commuters drive alone, 12‐14 percent carpool, and 8‐9 percent took transit.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.133 of 304
Challenges and Opportunities
May 24 Public Review Draft 2‐7
Figure 2‐5 shows that the mode share of all trips including shopping, recreational,
school, and other types of travel, is expected to stay about the same through 2040, with
roughly 58‐59 percent of trips made in single‐occupant vehicles, 33‐34 percent in
carpools, and 3 percent on transit. The low transit percentage is not unexpected because,
typically, many non‐work trips are not on transit, which does not run at night or as
frequently on weekends and, if roads are not congested and parking is free, the car is a
more convenient mode of travel.
Figure 2-4: Mode Share of Work Commute Trips in Contra Costa County in 1990,
2000, and 2013
Source: 2004 CCTA CTP EIR; 2009-2013 American Community Survey
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.134 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
2‐8 May 24 Public Review Draft
Figure 2-5: Mode Share of All Trips in Contra Costa County in 2013 and 2040
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015
Figures 2‐6 to 2‐8 show the means of transportation to work in 2013 in Contra Costa. The
highest percentages of solo drivers are in Central, East, and Tri‐Valley cities, where
transit is less accessible. About 9 percent commute by public transit, with higher
percentages in West County and Lamorinda cities. Over 3 percent of residents use active
transportation or other modes to get to work, though percentages are over 5 percent in
El Cerrito and Walnut Creek. Continuing to maintain and improve our roads, freeways,
transit, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities in ways that sustain our economy, our
environment, and our quality of life is a primary concern of the 2017 CTP.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.135 of 304
Challenges and Opportunities
May 24 Public Review Draft 2‐9
Figure 2-6: Percentage of 2013 Population in Contra Costa Cities Who Drive Alone
to Work
Figure 2-7: Percentage of 2013 Population in Contra Costa Cities Who Commute
to Work by Public Transit
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.136 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
2‐10 May 24 Public Review Draft
Figure 2-8: Percentage of 2013 Population of Contra Costa Cities Who Use Active
Modes (Bicycling or Walking) or Other Modes of Transportation to Get to Work
The average amount of weekday driving (measured by vehicle miles traveled or VMT)
has increased over the past couple of decades, and this trend is expected to continue
through 2040, as shown in Figure 2‐9. However, Figure 2‐9 also shows that VMT per
capita is expected to level off in the future, so that VMT growth will be caused by
population growth rather than an increase in the amount individuals drive. Similarly,
Figure 2‐10 shows that vehicle hours of travel (VHT) is expected to increase, yet VHT
per capita is expected to increase by a lesser amount. In addition, total vehicle hours of
delay (VHD) due to congestion is projected to increase between 2013 and 2040 as
population increases. With more delays on roadways, transit use is likely to increase.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.137 of 304
Challenges and Opportunities
May 24 Public Review Draft 2‐11
Figure 2-9: Average Weekday VMT and VMT per Capita in Contra Costa County
1980-2040
Source: Year 1980 estimated based on ARB Almanac 2007; Years 1990-2007 estimated based on total VMT data
from 2005 MTC Travel Forecasts; Year 2013 and 2040 from Fehr and Peers 2015.
Figure 2-10: AM Peak Period VHT and VHT per Capita in Contra Costa County
2013 and 2040
Source: Fehr and Peers 2015 based on 4-Hour AM Peak Period.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.138 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
2‐12 May 24 Public Review Draft
Maintenance of the Transportation System
Over the last century, the Authority, along with the State and federal governments, has
invested billions of dollars to create the transportation system that serves our needs
today. But now that it is mostly constructed, millions of dollars are needed to maintain it
and ensure that it continues to serve us into the future. In particular, the county’s local
streets and roads are aging, but they must accommodate more trucks, more traffic, and
multiple transportation modes. According to the 2014 California Statewide Local Streets
and Roads Needs Assessment report, Contra Costa’s average pavement condition of
local streets and roads has worsened in the past decade and is now considered “at risk”
and could fall into “poor” condition without adequate maintenance and repair.3
Funding improvements to repair and maintain local streets and roads can help ensure
our transportation network functions safely, smoothly, and reliably in the future.
However, the decision to fund maintenance must be balanced with addressing growth
and the need for additional and improved transportation facilities.
Adapting to Rising Tides
The Contra Costa County Adapting to Rising Tides Program, led by the San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission, has been helping local jurisdictions
assess the complex climate change issue, in particular the hazards of sea level rise and
storm surge. This is one of the biggest challenges facing the planet today, and
transportation is one of the largest contributors to climate change through the emission
of GHGs. In California, the transportation sector is responsible for almost 40 percent of
the state’s GHG emissions. There are three main ways to reduce emissions from the
transportation sector:
Increase vehicle efficiency;
Increase fuel efficiency; and
Improve transportation options to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
To achieve greater emission reductions than we have in the past and reduce future
hazards affecting the transportation system, greater penetration of zero emission
3 California Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment, 2014 Update, www.savecaliforniasstreets.org.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.139 of 304
Challenges and Opportunities
May 24 Public Review Draft 2‐13
vehicles will be needed in California’s vehicle fleet. In fact, according to the California
Air Resources Board, zero emissions vehicles will need to comprise 87 percent of the
fleet by 2050 to meet the GHG target established by the Governor’s Executive Order B‐
16‐2012, as shown in Figure 2‐11. This calculation does not make any assumptions about
future changes in travel patterns or VMT per capita.
Figure 2-11: On Road Light Duty Vehicle Scenario to Reach 2050 Goal
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2013.
Figure 2‐12 shows the additional reductions in GHG emissions for the transportation
sector in Contra Costa that may be achieved by 2050 with implementation of State,
regional and local climate action plans. More specifically, these additional reductions in
GHG emissions are anticipated due to increases in the number of zero emissions
vehicles in the fleet and additional reductions from the projected 2040 VMT per capita,
which are both reasonably expected by 2050 with additional State regulations and
incentives to achieve transformation for cars and trucks through deployment of cleaner
technologies. A 60 percent reduction from the 2040 total annual GHG emissions in the
transportation sector, resulting from a combination of 58 percent zero emission vehicle
penetration in the fleet and a 15 percent reduction from projected 2040 VMT per capita
(from 21.0 to 17.1), would allow Contra Costa to achieve the SB 32 (2016) amendments to
the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, mandating a 40 percent reduction
in GHG emissions below the 1990 level by 2030, and the Governor’s Executive Order B‐
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.140 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
2‐14 May 24 Public Review Draft
16‐2012 to reduce transportation sector GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels
by 2050.
As currently conceived, the CTP’s LRTIP, presented in Chapter 4, would provide
funding for investments in transportation innovation in Contra Costa, which could be
used to accelerate the deployment of clean car and clean truck technology into the
vehicle fleet. Accelerated clean vehicle deployment would likely result in faster
achievement of the 2050 target, as represented in the green line in Figure 2‐12. The
California Air Resources Board’s 2030 Target Scoping Plan underscored the importance of
such local actions as critical to achieving federal and State air quality standards and the
State’s climate goals.
Without such initiatives, the impacts of climate change, especially rising tides, wind‐
driven waves, Delta freshwater inflows, and storm surge, would threaten the
transportation system fronting on San Francisco Bay. For example, with a 1.0‐meter rise
in sea level, 1,460 miles of roadways and 140 miles of railways in the Bay Area are at risk
of a 100‐year flood, due to an increase in the frequency and intensity of flooding.4
According to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), climate
change also may affect the frequency and/or intensity of coastal storms, El Nino cycles,
and related weather and processes5. Strategies to make the system more resilient and
adapt to rising tides include realignment of corridors and structural improvements, such
as engineered flood protection, embankments, and increased permeable surfaces.
Plan Bay Area identifies an integrated land use and transportation system that will meet
regional GHG emission reduction targets approved by the State: a 7 percent per capita
reduction by 2020 and 15 percent reduction by 2035 under 2005 levels. Plan Bay Area is
projected to achieve the targets through a variety of strategies, including improving
transit service; providing infrastructure for walking and bicycling; and shifting land use
patterns so that jobs, housing, and other destinations are more accessible by all modes of
transportation and vehicle miles traveled are reduced.
4 Pacific Institute, The Impacts of Sea Level Rise on the San Francisco Bay, 2012.
5 Pg. 2‐3, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Adopting to Rising Tides ‐ Contra
Costa Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, 2016.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.141 of 304
Challenges and Opportunities
May 24 Public Review Draft 2‐15
Figure 2-12: Governor’s Executive Order B-16-2012: GHG Emissions Target for
Contra Costa’s Transportation Sector, 2013-2050
Source: Ramboll Environ, 2016; Dyett & Bhatia, 2016.
In the coming years, Contra Costa County will see increased efforts to stem GHG
emissions and address vulnerabilities to climate change. In parallel, efforts to increase
resiliency of the transportation system in preparation for possible changes in weather
and tide pattern will contribute to the long‐term health and economy of Contra Costa.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.142 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
2‐16 May 24 Public Review Draft
Health and Safety
The transportation system affects public health in several ways. Traffic collisions are the
leading cause of death in the United States for people under the age of 34.6 Fortunately,
studies show that policy, safety education, and improved transportation options that
reduce reliance on automobiles can effectively reduce traffic injuries.7
Dependency on automobiles for mobility is also associated with other health concerns.
According to one study, every hour spent each day in a car increases a person’s risk of
being obese (and thus of developing heart disease and diabetes) by six percent; in
contrast, every hour walked each day decreases a person’s risk of being obese by five
percent.8 For these public health reasons, MTC has adopted a performance target in the
RTP to increase the average time each person spends walking or biking for
transportation daily by 70 percent for an average of 15 minutes per person per day.
Vision Zero
The Vision Zero (zero vehicle and pedestrian fatalities) movement, which started in
Sweden in the mid‐1990s and most recently has been embraced by 15 countries, has been
growing across the US, with significant interest in many California cities and counties. It
can be summarized in one sentence: No loss of life is acceptable. The Vision Zero has
proven highly successful as a guiding principle for many transportation organizations
and plans. For example, the Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITSA) has
adopted Vision Zero as a primary driver towards intelligent transportation technologies
that can improve safety.
The Authority supports Vision Zero, but the challenge is how to implement this concept
in a diverse county. Some communities have seen resistance to traffic calming measures
and lower speed limits, which improve traffic safety but are viewed as constraining
6 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics
System, produced by: Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control, Ten Leading Causes of Death and Injury, 2006.
7 Ewing, Schmid, Killingsworth, Zlot, Raudenbush, Relationship between Urban Sprawl and Physical
Activity, Obesity, and Morbidity, American Journal of Health Promotion 18: 47–57, 2003.
8 Ewing, Frank, Kreutzer, Understanding the Relationship Between Public Health and the Built Environment: A
Report to the LEED‐ND Core Committee, 2006.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.143 of 304
Challenges and Opportunities
May 24 Public Review Draft 2‐17
mobility. Through this CTP, the Authority hopes to become a leader in scaling Vision
Zero, capitalizing on its longstanding role in facilitating coordination and collaboration
between local jurisdictions and our partners and expanding on what has already been
done to promote Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), Transportation for Livable
Communities, and traffic safety. We have the resources and through the LRTIP, the
RTPCs and the Action Plans, the ability to support investments in technology for
improved traffic safety, alternative modes, and active transportation which, together,
will further the Vision Zero effort. Many of these initiatives are beyond the capacity of
local cities to handle on their own due to a lack of necessary funding and limited staff
resources and expertise.
Environmental Impacts on Communities
The construction of transportation facilities and subsequent use of the transportation
system can affect the environment and, in particular, air quality and noise levels. Air
pollutants from mobile sources that are of greatest concern include ozone, fine
particulate matter, and toxic air contaminants. These are largely caused by highway
traffic, and people who live and work near pollution sources often have the greatest
exposure to these harmful pollutants. Large areas of San Pablo, Concord, Antioch, and
other jurisdictions in Contra Costa are impacted communities. The 2017 CTP strives to
reduce and mitigate impacts on these communities with funding for cleaner
transportation technology and reduced emissions and health risks along major trade
corridors.
Equity Concerns
Meeting the diverse transportation needs of all of Contra Costa’s residents, including
those with limited resources and limited choices, is an important priority for the 2017
CTP. The Equity Analysis prepared for the 2017 CTP was informed by Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and environmental justice considerations. It included analysis of
the overall performance of the Long‐Range Transportation Investment Program in
relation to equity policy considerations (see Volume 2 for details). The ultimate goal was
to help policymakers, local partners, and the general public understand the equity
implications of implementing the 2017 CTP for disadvantaged Communities of Concern
(as defined by MTC for the 2014 Plan Bay Area), by examining the distribution of benefits
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.144 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
2‐18 May 24 Public Review Draft
and burdens between Communities of Concern and the rest of the county under the
2017 CTP9. With its Action Plan update process, the Authority created a collaborative
planning process that involves residents in low‐income communities, community‐ and
faith‐based organizations that serve low income communities, transit operators, and
stakeholders.
Focus on Contra Costa’s Communities of Concern
In 2014 MTC identified seven Communities of Concern in the county, and they provide
a home for 17.6 percent of the total population10. Compared to the county as a whole,
residents in these communities are predominantly minority (85 percent) and low‐income
(41 percent). The percentage of households who do not own a car is three to four times
higher than the average in the balance of the County. The data on how residents travel
to work shows a greater use of transit by residents of Communities of Concern than the
average resident. Table 2‐5 summarizes the commute mode for all workers in each of the
Communities of Concern.
Table 2-5: Modes of Transportation in Communities of Concern, 2013
% of Workers by Modes of Transportation
Contra Costa County
Drive Alone/
Carpool
Public Trans-
portation Walk
Bike/Taxi/
Motorcycle/Work at
Home/Other
El Cerrito 56% 32% 2% 10%
Richmond 78% 16% 3% 4%
San Pablo/North Richmond 82% 12% 2% 4%
Martinez 73% 14% 11% 2%
Concord 77% 12% 6% 6%
Bay Point/Pittsburg/Antioch 84% 9% 2% 5%
Overall County 82% 9% 2% 9%
Source: 2009 American Community Survey; 2013 American Community Survey.
9 For the State’s Cap and Trade Program, designations of “disadvantaged communities” are used, which are
derived from the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool developed by the Office
of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to identify communities most burdened by pollution from
multiples sources and most vulnerable to its effects, taking into account socioeconomic characteristics
and underlying health status. How the 2017 CTP would specifically serve these communities was not
separately analyzed.
10 While the CoC boundaries are those used for the 2014 Plan Bay Area, the demographic data used in the
Equity Analysis for the 2017 CTP was updated to reflect the 2013 American Community Survey.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.145 of 304
Challenges and Opportunities
May 24 Public Review Draft 2‐19
OPPORTUNITIES
Environmental Impacts
Currently, the State is updating how transportation‐related environmental impacts are
measured under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to be more
consistent with the State’s goals to reduce GHG emissions. A new metric for
environmental impacts is the amount of vehicle travel resulting from a project (vehicle
miles traveled) instead of the amount of automobile congestion (Level of Service). More
specifically, Senate Bill (SB) 743 (Steinberg, 2013) changed the way that transportation
impacts are analyzed under CEQA. Specifically, SB 743 required the Governor’s Office
of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an
alternative to LOS for evaluating transportation impacts. Particularly within areas
served by transit, those alternative criteria must promote the reduction of GHG
emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of
land uses. Measurements of transportation impacts may include vehicle miles traveled,
vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips
generated. Once the CEQA Guidelines are amended to include those alternative criteria,
auto delay will no longer be considered a significant impact under CEQA.
Transportation impacts related to air quality, noise and safety must still be analyzed
under CEQA where appropriate. SB 743 also amended congestion management law to
allow cities and counties to opt out of LOS standards within certain infill areas. In
response to this legislation, the Authority is reviewing and will update as necessary, its
Technical Procedures and Implementation Guide to conform to the amendments to
CEQA Guidelines.
Technology
Evolving transportation technology is an important consideration in addressing the
needs of Contra Costa’s transportation system and will help the Authority be
“transformative” in response to the challenges we face. Technology helps make vehicles
cleaner by reducing emissions; it also can connect vehicles to each other and to active
traffic management operations, which will help achieve the goal of traffic safety.
Ridesharing is easier with smart phone “apps”. Bus operations can be enhanced with
better communications equipment and scheduling software, particularly those offering
express service. Intercity freight and urban goods movement can also benefit from
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.146 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
2‐20 May 24 Public Review Draft
technology supporting better logistics, scheduling, drop‐offs, and pick‐ups. Harnessing
this potential will be central to successful implementation of the CTP.
Connected Vehicles and Vehicle Automation
Connected Vehicles and Autonomous Vehicles (CV/AV) and shared autonomous
vehicles (SAVs) will have a profound impact on both the safety and efficiency of our
roadways. Already, a certain level of CV/AV technology is incorporated in some new
cars, including collision warning and automatic braking. Future improvements in CVs ,
AVs, and SAVs would allow vehicles to communicate with each other to inform drivers
of roadway conditions, traffic, and accidents well in advance and will enable greater
lane capacity on freeways with “platooning”, meaning vehicles would be more closely
spaced. AV technology promises to deliver cars that can drive themselves without any
human control in the coming decades.
To help transition CV/AVs from a science‐fiction dream to reality, in October 2014, the
Authority helped establish a test facility for self‐driving vehicles, called GoMentum
Station, at the site of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station. Contra Costa’s CV/AV
vehicle testing facility is built on a public/private partnership model, allowing the
private sector space to innovate and test while providing the public sector with access to
new technologies as they are being developed. The work being carried out at
GoMentum Station helps to inform policy, regulation, and planning decisions around
the technology.
Intelligent Transportation Systems
Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) can also benefit Contra Costa’s transportation
network by improving safety and efficiency. ITS encompasses many techniques,
including electronic toll collection (such as FasTrak in the Bay Area), ramp metering,
traffic signal coordination, demand‐responsive transit, real‐time information sharing,
and traveler information systems, for freeways, arterials and transit systems. The I‐80
Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) and the I‐680 Enhanced Transit and Innovative
Transportation Systems Management projects (“Innovate I‐680”), which incorporate
these and other improvements, are expected to improve freeway operations and safety
and express bus operations.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.147 of 304
Challenges and Opportunities
May 24 Public Review Draft 2‐21
Shared-Use Mobility
Technology has also allowed for a burgeoning new industry in shared‐use mobility
services. Transportation network companies facilitate ride services, demand‐responsive
paratransit serves those with limited access to vehicles, and car‐share programs, like
ZipCar® and Getaround®, allow drivers to gain access to cars in their neighborhood on‐
demand, rather than owning their own vehicles.11 Ride services that employ
smartphone‐based applications, or “apps,” such as Uber® and Lyft®, are revolutionizing
the taxi and limousine service industries, and quickly innovating new services, such as
new carpool options. In Contra Costa, pilot programs have made traditional carpooling
easier by helping match drivers and passengers.
As technology advances, it is shifting the ways that people access and use the transportation system.
Fully automated vehicles and shared autonomous vehicles also may have the ability to
provide first‐and‐last‐mile connections for transit users, for example, picking up and
drop off passengers at transit connections. This concept was specifically explored in
Innovate I‐680 (the 2015 Transit Investment and Congestion Relief Options Study).
11 Shaheen Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Carsharing in North America, 2010.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.148 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
2‐22 May 24 Public Review Draft
Easy Mile provides driverless shuttle services at Bishop Ranch in San Ramon.
Hybrid and Electric Vehicles
California has always been a national front‐runner in low‐emissions vehicle technology.
In 2014, the Governor signed the Charge Ahead Initiative to put one million electric
vehicles on the road within ten years, a target that has since been increased to 1.5 million
zero‐emission and plug‐in hybrid vehicles by 2025. More hybrid and electric cars in the
fleet will reduce harmful air pollution and GHG emissions, help achieve the 2050 GHG
reduction targets, and provide fuel savings for households. In Contra Costa, hybrid
buses, such as those in the County Connection fleet, will reduce fuel costs and GHG
emissions by about 20 percent, which will support efforts to meet the Governor’s
Executive Order B‐16‐2012 previously discussed.
The Authority is strongly committed to the accelerated deployment of Zero Emission
Vehicles in Contra Costa to achieve the statewide GHG emission reduction goal. As we
will see in Chapter 4, a separate category for innovation is established to help with this
effort.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.149 of 304
Challenges and Opportunities
May 24 Public Review Draft 2‐23
CCTA‐funded EV charging station at Pleasant Hill City Hall.
PAST SUCCESSES AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS
Delivery Record
Since adoption of the last CTP in 2009, all of Contra Costa has benefitted from the
transportation improvements funded by Measure C and J and federal, State and regional
funding available to the Authority. The Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore; the widening of
State Route 4; a BART extension in East County; new BART parking; high occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lanes; railroad grade separations; and the Hercules, Martinez, and
Pacheco inter‐modal centers have all been funded at least in part using local sales tax
dollars. Measures C and J also support funding of local street maintenance, transit and
paratransit operations, school bus services, commute alternative programs, express
buses, and Transportation for Livable Communities programs.
Other accomplishments include:
Completion of all of the SR 4 East freeway widening out to Antioch
Completion of the SR 4 Bypass
Implementation of ramp metering on SR 4
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.150 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
2‐24 May 24 Public Review Draft
I‐80 Smart Corridor improvements and activation
SR 4/SR 160 connector ramps
HOV – lane extension on southbound I‐680 in Walnut Creek
Completion of the I‐680 auxiliary lanes from Sycamore Valley Road to Crow
Canyon Road
Richmond Intermodal Transit Center and Richmond BART parking structure
Parking expansion at the Martinez Intermodal Station
Tri Delta Transit Dynamic Routing Pilot Program
Support for Safe Routes to Schools and Transportation for Livable Communities
Support for Lifeline Transportation Program
Construction of the Riverside Elementary school overcrossing over I‐80
Deployment of Realtime Ridesharing pilot programs
In addition to projects, the Authority completed a number of studies:
SR 4 Integrated Corridor Analysis
I‐680 Transit Investment and Congestion Relief Study, which fed into the
Innovate I‐680 Initiative
In partnership with the Water Emergency Transit Authority (WETA), completed
the Ferry Study for Contra Costa
Sustainability Study and SR 239 Feasibility Study
Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (October 2009) and Comprehensive
Wayfinding System for West County BART stations
The Authority has also been working closely with ABAG, MTC, and local jurisdictions
on implementation of the Priority Development Area (PDA) Investment and Growth
Management Strategy.
Funding
Funding is critical to meeting the stated goals of the CTP and helping Contra Costa
remain one of the most desirable places to live and work in the Bay Area. Measure C and
Measure J together have made a substantial dent in funding needed for projects and
programs, not only from the revenues they generated, but also the funding they
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.151 of 304
Challenges and Opportunities
May 24 Public Review Draft 2‐25
attracted from other sources. The following table shows that total past and future
expenditures on projects, including the State and federal funds leveraged by the two
measures, total $6.5 billion. Future funding sources are discussed in Chapter 4,
Investment Program.
Table 2-6: Measures C and J Past and Future Project Expenditures
Measure C and Measure J
(Year of Expenditure Dollars in Millions) Past Future Total
Roadways (highways, arterials, and maintenance) $755 $1,031 $1,785
Transit (bus, ferry, express bus, paratransit, commute alternatives) $434 $738 $1,171
Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities (including Transportation for Livable
Communities, trails, safe transportation for children, and
subregional needs)
$11 $323 $334
Other $144 $373 $517
Subtotal $1,344 $2,464 $3,808
Leveraged funds on Measures C & J projects $1,721 $970 $2,691
Percent Leveraged 128% TBD TBD
TOTAL FUNDS $3,065 $3,434 $6,499
Potential Improvements
Making new improvements, while maintaining what we have, is a prominent issue for
the 2017 CTP. Each component of Contra Costa’s transportation system – roads,
freeways, transit, ferries, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, goods movement facilities –
could be improved to help achieve the Authority’s vision and goals.
Each RTPC proposed improvements to the transportation system as part of their Action
Plans. Overall, the updated Action Plans demonstrate an increased concern for intra‐
regional routes and the impact of traffic diverting from inter‐regional routes to local
streets. They also recognize BART and the BART extension from Antioch to Brentwood,
and freeway management as important inter‐regional strategies. The RTPCs’ strategies
and priorities are supported in the 2017 CTP.
Many of Contra Costa’s highways and major arterials face heavy traffic volumes
throughout the day, and making improvements to increase safety and efficiency is a
priority for the Authority. However, resources and right‐of‐way are limited, making
substantial expansion of Contra Costa’s major arterials and highways unlikely beyond
what will be done through the SR 239 (Tri‐Link) project in East County. Evolving
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.152 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
2‐26 May 24 Public Review Draft
transportation technology can play a role in improving and facilitating traffic flow and
providing transit and highway information as well as trip alternatives. The 2017 CTP
considers how evolving transportation technology should be incorporated into our
transportation system and what needs to be done to capitalize on the benefits offered by
technological innovation.
Improvements to transit facilities and operations are another important component of
the 2017 CTP. These include support for BART operations and maintenance, bus service
improvements, and paratransit service. Facilities for active transportation, emphasized
in the 2017 CTP, provide alternative choices for residents to move around the county.
Lastly, funding improvements to repair and maintain local streets and roads will help
ensure Contra Costa’s transportation network functions safely, smoothly, and reliably in
the coming decades. In fact, maintenance of transportation infrastructure is more cost‐
effective and beneficial than allowing the obligations of deferred maintenance to mount
and then having to spend more to completely rebuild system components.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.153 of 304
3 Vision, Goals and
Strategies
Looking ahead to the year 2040, we can begin to identify some of the
difficulties that continued growth in population and employment and
associated increases in traffic will bring, but it is up to us to identify a vision
for where we want to end up. For the Authority, that Vision is:
Strive to preserve and enhance the quality of life of local communities
by promoting a healthy environment and strong economy to benefit
all people and areas of Contra Costa, through (1) a balanced, safe, and
efficient transportation network, (2) cooperative planning, and (3)
growth management. The transportation network should integrate all
modes of transportation to meet the diverse needs of Contra Costa.
The goals and strategies in this Chapter show how the Vision will be
realized.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.154 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐2
FINDING THE RIGHT BALANCE
Achieving the Vision will require the Authority to find the right balance among the
different, and sometimes competing, needs of Contra Costa’s residents and businesses,
including:
Improving the regional system of roads, transit and pathways, while ensuring
that the existing system is well maintained;
Balancing the needs of through traffic with the access needs and quality of life in
adjoining neighborhoods and business areas;
Recognizing the differing needs and situations of Contra Costa’s residents and
subareas, while developing a workable approach to countywide and regional
initiatives;
Where feasible and beneficial, improve the capacity of roadways, while
recognizing that these improvements will not, in the long run, eliminate
congestion; and
Supporting and encouraging the use of transit, carpools, bicycling and walking,
often within limited rights‐of‐way.
All of these needs are important, and the goals and strategies contained in the 2017 CTP
are designed to meet them. Finding the right balance among these needs, however, will
require perseverance, cooperation among the jurisdictions of Contra Costa, and the
support of residents and the business community.
GOALS
The Authority has adopted five goals for the CTP:
1.Support the efficient, safe, and reliable movement of people and goods using all
available travel modes;
2.Manage growth to sustain Contra Costa’s economy, preserve its environment
and support its communities;
3.Expand safe, convenient and affordable alternatives to the single‐occupant
vehicle;
4.Maintain the transportation system; and
5.Continue to invest wisely to maximize the benefits of available funding.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.155 of 304
Visions, Goals, and Strategies
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐3
To achieve these goals, the Authority will pursue the following strategies:
STRATEGIES
GOAL 1. Support the efficient, safe, and reliable movement of people and goods
using all available travel modes
Getting people and goods safely, efficiently and reliably to where they need to go is a
primary goal of every transportation system. The Authority has established the
following strategies to provide this accessibility.
1.1. EFFICIENCY: Increase the efficiency of highways and arterial roads through capital
investments, operational enhancements, and use of technology.
The efficiency of the transportation system is based on how well our system and
investments are used. With funding remaining under Measure J, the Authority
plans to commit $3.67 billion for projects and programs to improve the
transportation system. This will include funding for capital projects that will
increase efficiency on highways and roadways, such as by interchange
improvements to reduce weaving and congestion at the I‐680 and SR‐4
interchange, and operational improvements proposed by the Innovate I‐680
project for transit investment and congestion relief through enhanced bus service
and use of technology to support connected and autonomous vehicles. The I‐80
SMART Corridor (previously known as the I‐80 Integrated Corridor Mobility
(ICM) project) has created a network of electronic signs, ramp meters, and other
state‐of‐the‐art elements between the Carquinez Bridge and the Bay Bridge to
enhance motorist safety, improve travel time reliability, and reduce accidents
and associated congestion. Similar projects for more active traffic management
are in the Innovate I‐680 initiative, which also proposes bus‐on‐shoulder
operations, allowing buses to bypass congestion while staying close to the
freeway entrances and exits.12 Implementation of an ICM project on SR‐4 is also
underway. The Authority recently received a U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) grant to help fund this project.
12 Contra Costa Transportation Authority, I‐680 Transit Investment and Congestion Relief Study, November
2015.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.156 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐4
In addition, the Authority will use technology to improve efficiency. One
example of this is GoMentum Station, recently named one of the ten National
Automated Vehicle Proving Grounds by the U.S. DOT. The idea is to facilitate
testing and information sharing around automated vehicle technologies, foster
innovation that can safely transform personal and commercial mobility, expand
capacity, and open new doors to disadvantaged people and communities. In fact,
GoMentum Station is one of the largest secure proving grounds in the country,
enabling the Authority’s partners to safely push their technologies to its limits
while testing vehicles there.
1.2. PARTNERSHIPS: Engage in partnerships with jurisdictions, stakeholders, and other agencies
to identify and implement strategies for managing congestion and increasing multimodal
mobility.
Users of Contra Costa’s transportation system want a seamless system and do
not overly differentiate among streets or transit facilities they use or jurisdictions
they travel through. They just want to get to their destinations safely and
reliably. Given this, partnering with other agencies at the federal, State, regional
and local level will be essential to achieving the Authority’s goals and meeting
our users’ needs.
For example, partnerships for the I‐80 SMART Corridor project and the Innovate
I‐680 initiative involve Caltrans and local jurisdictions in the corridor as well as
MTC. Similarly, the Authority is working closely with BART on the extension of
rail transit to East County and with the Water Emergency Transportation
Authority on starting ferry service from Richmond. For implementation of the
Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, partners include the East Bay Regional
Park District and the Countywide Bicycle Network among others. Our
partnerships with local jurisdictions have led to increased cooperation among
them and establishment of development mitigation programs to help fund
projects that address the impacts of growth and the needs in PDAs.
In the future, the Authority will continue to engage with our partners and a
diverse group of stakeholders to:
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.157 of 304
Visions, Goals, and Strategies
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐5
Secure support for improvements needed in disadvantaged communities,
and neighborhoods affected by poor air quality due to transportation
emissions;
Expand Express Lanes on I‐680 and elsewhere;
Undertake advance planning for regional mitigation;
Help improve freight mobility and urban goods movement;
Maintain our existing transportation system; and
Improve safety and connectivity.
1.3. SEAMLESS NETWORKS: Eliminate gaps in the existing highway and arterial system,
especially those in the regional high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane and express lane
network.13
Building on MTC’s express lanes plan and the Authority’s own plans for I‐680,
the Authority has been working closely with the RTPCs to identify needed
additions and then determine which of these makes the most sense from a
performance perspective and cost basis. Plans to eliminate I‐680 gaps are well
underway; I‐680 Express Lanes in the northbound direction are about to open,
and engineering for southbound Express Lanes is underway. The Authority also
will fund local bicycle and trails projects that will eliminate gaps and improve
connections in these systems.
1.4. STREET AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. Improve the highway and arterial system to
influence the location and nature of anticipated growth in accordance with the General
Plans of local jurisdictions and consistent with the Authority’s adopted Countywide
Transportation Plan.
Linking land use and transportation is a fundamental concept for the Authority.
It underpins the Growth Management Program, which brings these relationships
together through a cooperative transportation and land use planning effort
among Contra Costaʹs local jurisdictions, transportation agencies, and other
partners. This process involves the RTPCs, relies upon the Action Plans, and
13 Express Lanes (formerly known as High‐occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes) are HOV lanes that have been
modified to allow single occupant vehicles to travel in the HOV lane, provided they pay a toll.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.158 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐6
incorporates the PDAs to support local land use patterns that make more
efficient use of the regional transportation system. Similarly, the requirement for
five‐year local Capital Improvement Programs, coupled with the Authorityʹs
Measure J Regional Transportation Mitigation Program (RTMP), ensures that
needed transportation improvements are supportive of proposed land use
changes.
This strategy has been implemented through projects such as the Caldecott
Tunnel Fourth Bore, the BART extension in East County, the State Route 4
widening and interchange improvements, the I‐80 and I‐680 projects mentioned
earlier, the Marina Bay Parkway grade separation project in Richmond, and the
23rd Street Specific plan improvements in San Pablo, all of which support plan
growth with the urban limit lines (ULLs) and regional connections between
communities. In addition, Authority support for the Measure J Transportation
for Livable Communities program along with funding under MTC’s One Bay
Area Grant program has funded many local transportation improvement projects
needed to serve planned development within local jurisdictions. The 2017 CTP
will continue and expand on these funding commitments, with support for
complete streets, Geary Road improvements, and Contra Costa Boulevard.
1.5. FREIGHT MOVEMENT. Identify new strategies to improve freight movement on freeways
and rail lines to improve air quality and the safety and efficiency of goods movement.
The Authority has been working closely with the California Freight Advisory
Committee on the California Freight Mobility Plan and the Sustainable Freight
Action Plan to develop strategies and funding for freight‐related transportation
improvements. Additional insights are provided through the Authority’s
representation on the National Freight Advisory Committee. These efforts will
support economic growth, minimize congestion, reduce air pollution, improve
the safety, security and resilience of the State’s freight system, and encourage
innovation. The Northern Waterfront Revitalization Study explores strategies
that will help bring green jobs to the area along the Carquinez Straits to make it
competitive in the 21st century global economy. Other Authority‐supported
projects from the improved freight movement include the Marina Bay Parkway
grade separation in Richmond, which has been completed, and truck climbing
lanes on Kirker Pass.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.159 of 304
Visions, Goals, and Strategies
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐7
For freight‐related air quality improvements, the Authority will use funding
from the California Air Resources Board to help local agencies reduce emissions
and health risks along major trade corridors. This program will help owners of
equipment used in freight movement upgrade to cleaner technologies. Looking
ahead, the Authority will evaluate new strategies on goods movement being
developed by MTC, and determine which ones are best for Contra Costa.
GOAL 2. Manage growth to sustain Contra Costa’s economy, preserve its
environment and support its communities
The proponents of Measure C, the precursor of Measure J, realized that a coordinated
approach to growth management involving all jurisdictions in Contra Costa was
essential to realize the full benefits of transportation investments. This goal expresses
multiple facets that need to be considered: economic vitality, environmental protection,
and the quality of life of our communities. Supporting local communities also means
providing equitable opportunities for all residents and avoiding disparate impacts on
low‐income and minority residents. The Authority has established the following
strategies to achieve this goal.
2.1. COOPERATIVE PLANNING. Continue to require cooperative transportation and land use
planning among Contra Costa County, cities, towns, and transportation agencies.
Multi‐jurisdictional cooperative planning will continue to be one of the key
principles underlying the Authority’s Growth Management Program (GMP),
which has been in place since Measure C passed in 1988. The drafters of Measure
C, with its requirement for the GMP, recognized that no one jurisdiction by itself
can address countywide or regional problems. It requires jurisdictions working
together to address mutual transportation and planning issues. The SR‐4
Integrated Corridor Analysis and the I‐680 Transit Investment and Congestion
Reduction Study are examples of such cooperative planning.
Cooperative planning has a number of benefits. Jurisdictions come together to
support corridor improvement plans, cooperate on school bus service, coordinate
connections between local street plans and bike and trail systems, and create
regional development mitigation programs. Having growth management
elements in local General Plans facilitates the process by providing a common
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.160 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐8
reference point and shared understanding of actions that further the goals of the
CTP.
The RTPCs play a key role in this process, preparing Action Plans that set multi‐
modal transportation service objectives and include projects and implementation
actions to achieve these objectives, reviewing local General Plan amendments,
and working together on plans and studies.
RTPC study sessions facilitate cooperative planning.
2.2. REGIONAL PLANNING. Participate in a regional cooperative land use planning process with
agencies both within and outside of Contra Costa.
The Authority will continue to work with MTC and ABAG on matters of mutual
concern related to Plan Bay Area ‐ the Regional Transportation Plan and the
Sustainable Communities Strategy. The regional planning process is particularly
helpful in addressing air basin‐wide strategies that are needed to achieve State
emissions reduction targets and coordinate planning for coastal hazards such as
rising tides and storm surge. This cooperative process includes coordination on
submitting projects for funding under State and federal programs and referrals
of General Plan amendments, as required by the Growth Management Program.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.161 of 304
Visions, Goals, and Strategies
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐9
INNOVATE I-680: AN INTERGRATED APPROACH TO IMPROVING
MOBILITY
Along with the economic recovery, commuters have experienced increasing congestion levels on the
I-680 corridor. Through the CTP public outreach effort the community has told the Authority that
improved transit service in the I-680 corridor should be a priority. In response, consistent with
Goals 1 and 2, CCTA conducted a study in 2015 on potential transportation investments in the I-
680 corridor that could relieve congestion and improve transit. The study builds on the I-680
Investment Options Analysis (2003), ongoing Measure J investments, and MTC investments in
express lanes along the I-680 corridor.
The study was conducted in collaboration between CCTA staff and consultants, a Policy Advisory
Committee, and a Technical Advisory Committee. The initial investment options considered five
modes: connected vehicles/autonomous vehicles, bus transit, light rail, ultra-light rail, and BART. The
projected performance of the initial options was assessed using a set of evaluation criteria, and then
the highest-performing options were checked for financial feasibility with potential new funding
sources. The recommended investment strategy focuses on improved transit service and freeway
operations, with technology and infrastructure investments to enhance mobility. The key features of
the recommended strategy are grouped into four categories:
Enhanced Bus Service: Improve and expand transit with investments including new park-
and-ride facilities with shuttle service to BART, addition of auxiliary and shoulder lanes for
exclusive bus use, and expanded school bus services.
Connected and Autonomous Vehicle Support on I-680: Facilitate limited self-driving
automation with enhanced pavement markings, vehicle-to-infrastructure communication
radios and processors, and increased roadway maintenance.
Active Traffic Management: Provide technology to collect data and communicate with
drivers including roadside digital signs, vehicle detection and surveillance, adaptive ramp
metering, and in-vehicle smart-corridor traffic management.
Demand-Responsive Transit Service: Provide demand-responsive service between
park-and-ride locations and other destinations with investments in electric Shared
Autonomous Vehicles (SAVs) and infrastructure.
Coupled with proposed spot improvements at key bottlenecks, these strategies and investments –
collectively known as Innovate I-680, are expected to reduce congestion for single-occupant
vehicles, enable greater use HOV express lanes, and increase travel options for transit users. The
Authority is now working to secure funding and implement these recommendations.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.162 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐10
2.3. LAND USE., Support land use patterns within Contra Costa that make more efficient use of
the transportation system, consistent with the General Plans of local jurisdictions.
The Authority implements this strategy through its Measure J Growth
Management Program and the required ULLs and its participation in Plan Bay
Area and the Priority Development Area (PDA) Growth and Investment
Program. In addition, the Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC)
Program funds projects that enable efficient use of transportation systems
through supportive land use. TLC funding is available for transportation projects
that facilitate, support and/or catalyze the developments of affordable housing
and transit‐oriented or mixed‐use development and that encourage use of
alternatives to the single occupant vehicle, or promote walking, bicycling and/or
transit usage. Typical investments have included pedestrian, bicycle, and
streetscape facilities, traffic calming, and transit access improvements.
2.4. DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS. Require local jurisdictions to (i) evaluate and report on the
impacts of land use decisions on the transportation system, (ii) identify capital and/or
operational improvements needed for development, and (iii) have new growth pay its fair
share of the cost of such improvements.
The Authority’s Implementation Guide and the Model Growth Management Element
provide details on how local jurisdiction can meet the Growth Management
Program (GMP) requirements. Under Measure J, jurisdictions are to “evaluate
changes to local General Plans and the impacts of major development projects for
their effects on the local and regional transportation system and the ability to
achieve the Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives established in the
Action Plans.” The methods for evaluating these changes are spelled out in the
Authority’s Technical Procedures. The GMP also requires jurisdictions to identify
needed projects and programs through their capital improvement programs and
through the Action Plans. Finally, the GMP requires jurisdictions to establish
mitigation programs, both individual programs for local improvements and
subarea programs for each RTPC. These programs require that traffic impacts be
minimized or eliminated by on‐site or off‐site improvements or payment of a fee
in lieu of constructing improvements that can be used to fund local or regional
mitigation. Over more than 25 years, these programs have generated millions of
dollars for transportation projects and hundreds of individual improvements,
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.163 of 304
Visions, Goals, and Strategies
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐11
which overall have substantially reduced the impacts of development on the
transportation system.
2.5. LAND USE-TRANSPORTATION LINKAGES. Link transportation investments to support (i) a
voter-approved urban limit line endorsed by voters in the County and each city and town,
(ii) new developments which enhance transportation efficiency and economic vitality, and
(iii) infill and redevelopment in existing urban and brownfield areas.
Voter‐approved ULLs were put in place after Measure J was approved, and local
General Plans and related transportation improvements must be consistent with
and respect these lines in order to qualify for Local Streets and Maintenance
(“return to source”) funding. Furthermore, through the development mitigation
programs that local jurisdictions established under the GMP, this linkage is now
part of their development approval process. The Authority confirms that these
actions have taken place through the biennial GMP “checklist” process. For the
second and third criteria listed above, the Authority has put in place a number of
funding programs that pay for supportive investments.
2.6. SUSTAINABILITY. Ensure that new transportation projects are environmentally sustainable
and fiscally viable, increase safety, respect community character, promote environmental
justice, and maintain or enhance the quality of life for our communities.
All of these factors are criteria the Authority uses in priority‐setting and project
screening for funding over which the Authority has discretion. These factors also
reflect the performance measures set forth in Plan Bay Area. For the 2017 CTP,
two criteria were added to express explicitly the Authority’s commitment to
meeting its obligations under federal and State law: “increase safety” and
“promote environmental justice”.
GOAL 3. Expand safe, convenient and affordable alternatives to the single-
occupant vehicle
To meet this goal, the CTP sets forth a comprehensive set of strategies to support
alternative modes of travel, including expansion of transit and paratransit services and
funding for “active transportation”, meaning walking and biking. Active transportation
is a CTP priority because it will provide community health benefits as well as help
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.164 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐12
achieve reductions in GHG emissions and realize air quality improvements. The
Authority uses the following strategies to promote alternative modes of travel.
3.1. TRANSIT SERVICE EXPANSION. Help fund the expansion of existing transit services and
regional express lanes, and maintenance of existing operations, including BART, bus transit,
school buses, and paratransit.
Five Measure J‐funded programs support this strategy: BART Parking Access
and Other Improvements, Bus Services, Express Bus, Commute Alternatives, and
Safe Transportation for Children. Additional funding for these programs is
included in the Long‐Range Transportation Investment Program. Details are in
Chapter 4.
3.2. TRANSIT SERVICE COORDINATION. Link transit investments to increased coordination
and integration of public transit services, and improved connections between travel modes.
Measure J explicitly added the concept of “multi‐modal” to the definition of
transportation service objectives, so the idea of this linkage has underpinned
work on the Action Plan updates as well as development of the 2017 CTP.
The Authority is working with local agencies to address specific multi‐modal
transportation issues and identify potential approaches and recommended
actions to address them. This includes studies of potential transit options in West
County and along the I‐680 Corridor in Central and Southwestern Contra Costa
County and system‐wide opportunities for improving express bus services.
The Draft 2016 Express Bus Study Update included development of service
assessment criteria; a review of existing Express Bus service and infrastructure;
an assessment of current funding and opportunities for new funding; and
identification of priority areas that are likely to have high transit use. The study
focused on strategic operational improvements for existing service providers
based in Contra Costa. Information on the regional network, including service
providers from Solano and Alameda Counties, was provided by MTC’s Transit
Consolidation Study. In addition to infrastructure and service adjustments, the
potential for bus on shoulder operations, bus on ramp and in‐line stations, real‐
time information sharing among operators, alternative fuel and electric bus and
autonomous vehicle technologies were examined. Service improvement
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.165 of 304
Visions, Goals, and Strategies
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐13
recommendations were developed and evaluated using performance measures
and equity criteria. After public review, the Authority will support the service
improvements that are cost‐effective, viable from operators’ perspectives, and
best meet residents’ needs.
3.3. COMPLETE STREETS. Require local jurisdictions to incorporate policies and standards for
“complete streets” that support transit, bicycle and pedestrian access in new developments,
infill development areas (“Priority Development Areas”), and transit priority areas.
The GMP Implementation Guide requires that local jurisdictions incorporate
policies and standards into their development approval processes that support
transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access in new developments. The State also has
required that “complete streets” concepts be incorporated into any General Plan
that is updated after 2011, and that General Plan Circulation Elements include a
balanced, multi‐modal transportation network that meets the needs of all users.
The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan is one example of a “complete street” retrofit
within an urban area, while CCTA’s 2012 Appian Way Alternatives Analysis and
Complete Streets Study shows what can be done in a less developed setting. The
focus on Priority Development Areas has been reinforced by adoption of Plan
Bay Area, while planning for transit priority areas was codified by State
legislation in 2011 (see Government Code Section 65470). Whether to require
specific zoning for transit priority areas and incentive programs for transit
priority projects, particularly for BART extension station areas in East Contra
Costa and Bus Rapid Transit Corridors, as part of the GMP or simply provide
guidance on best practices will be determined by the Authority as part of CTP
implementation.
3.4. WALKWAYS AND TRAILS. Support transit-oriented and pedestrian-friendly developments,
and invest in trails, walkways, and pedestrian-oriented improvements.
Measure J specifically provides funding for pedestrian‐friendly development
with the Transportation for Livable Communities Program and funding for
Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trail Facilities. The Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle
and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP) identifies “pedestrian‐priority” locations where the
Authority will give funding priority for projects; it also illustrates what the
countywide bicycle network would look like, with on‐street and off‐street
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.166 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐14
facilities, and describes how the CBPP will improve bicycling opportunities
throughout Contra Costa by improving connections between neighborhoods,
shopping areas, employment centers, transit hubs, schools, parks and
recreational facilities. Finally, the CBPP explains how local jurisdictions can use
the plan to become eligible for funds from the State’s Bicycle Transportation
Account and provides guidance on the application of the Americans with
Disabilities Act to public rights‐of‐way. Figure 3‐1 shows the Bicycle Master Plan
for Contra Costa, including existing and proposed bike facilities.
3.5. ALTERNATE MODES. Promote the formation of more carpools and vanpools, and greater
use of transit, bicycling, and walking.
Support for alternative modes of transportation is a key priority for the CTP. As
part of the GMP, CCTA requires local jurisdictions to adopt and implement a
Transportation Systems Management ordinance or an alternative mitigation
program. CCTA also provides funding for travel demand management efforts
through the Commute Alternatives program and for school bus programs. And,
through “Complete Streets” policies in General Plans, project and programs that
support use of transit, bicycle, and walking are being implemented. Funding for
specific improvements that implement this strategy comes from the
Transportation for Livable Communities and the Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trails
programs.
3.6. ELECTRIC VEHICLES. Help local jurisdictions develop a connected and coordinated network
for electric vehicles.
The Authority has funded installation of 43 charging stations for electric vehicles
with money from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s)
Transportation Fund for Clean Air. Additional funding will be available through
the Authority’s Local Streets and Maintenance Program. Building a connected
and coordinated system of charging stations will help meet the target of 1.5
million zero‐emission vehicles (ZEVs) on the road in California by 2025 and, by
2050, the targeted reductions in GHG emissions statewide.14 Further work on
14 Established by Executive Order B‐16‐2012. The Order also establishes specific targets for ZEVs in new
state vehicle fleet purchases: 10 percent by 2015 and 25 percent by 2020.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.167 of 304
Visions, Goals, and Strategies
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐15
network development will come through the Authority’s support for
technological innovation and GoMentum Station and through local jurisdictions
amendments of their parking regulations to require a minimum number of
charging stations in lots serving non‐residential development.
CCTA has funded 43 electric vehicle‐charging stations with grant money from the Transportation Fund for Clean Air.
3.7. SERVING ALL CONTRA COSTA RESIDENTS. Support the expansion of a coordinated
system of transit and paratransit service to address the mobility needs of low-income,
elderly, young and disabled travelers, households without cars, single-parent households,
and people paying more than 50 percent of their income for rent.
Measure J established funding for several specific programs for this strategy,
including Bus Services, Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities,
and Safe Transportation for Children, including the Low Income Student Bus
Pass Program in West County. The Authority facilitates coordination among
these programs and, through the RTPCs, also supports subregional planning to
ensure that the mobility needs of these groups are considered in the Action Plans
and calls for projects for funding under the Regional Transportation Plan. The
Authority also supports and helps fund transportation services operated by local
non‐profit organizations that help provide mobility to people who, due to frailty
or disability, cannot reasonably access public transit or paratransit. As previously
noted, support for transportation network companies, shared autonomous Source: NRG eVgo at Flickr Creative Commons 07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.168 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐16
vehicles, and micro transit, will help meet the mobility needs of many people.
The 2017 CTP continues and expands on these commitments.
Bike to Work Day in the City of Richmond.
3.8. EXPANDED BICYCLE FACILITIES. Encourage local jurisdictions and other agencies to
develop a connected and coordinated system of bicycle facilities through financial
assistance, technical support, other aid, and encouragement.
Measure J specifically provides funding for these improvements with up to $30
million available. The CBPP describes how local jurisdictions can use the
Authority’s CBPP to become eligible for funds from the State’s Bicycle
Transportation Account. Finally, mapping done for the CBPP helps local
jurisdictions plan connections to the countywide system.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.169 of 304
Pinole
Richmond
San
Pablo
Martinez
Pleasant
Hill
Pittsburg
Clayton
Walnut
Creek
Lafay ette
Orinda
Moraga
Danville
San
Ramon
Antioch
Oakley
Brentwood
El Cerrito
Vallejo
Benicia
Albany
Berkeley
Emeryville
Alameda
San Francisco
Oakland
San Leandro
Castro
Valley
Dublin
Livermore
SOLANO
COUNTY
SACRAMENTO
COUNTY
CONTRA
COSTA
COUNTY
SAN
JOAQ UIN
COUNTY
ALAMEDA
COUNTY
Concord
Suisun
Bay
San Pablo
Bay
San Francisco
Bay
S a cra m en toR iverFranks
Tract
Grizzly
Bay
Honker
Bay
San Jo
aquinRiver
Clifton
Court
Forebay
Los
Vaqueros
Reservoir
San
Pablo
Reservoir
Briones
Reservoir
Mt Diablo
Hercules
780
680
80
80
680
680
580
580880
280
980
580
580
80
24
24
13
4
4
242
160
4
4
0 2 4 6
MILES
810
Existing Class I Bike Path
Proposed Class I Path
Existing Class II Bike Lane
Proposed Class II Bike Lane
Existing Class III Bike Route
Proposed Class III Bike Route
City Limits
Park/Open Space
Freeway
Major Roadway
Railroad
Figure 3-1:
Bicycle Master Plan
Source: Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2013 Update
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.170 of 304
Visions, Goals, and Strategies
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐19
3.9. PRICING PROGRAMS. Support congestion pricing and parking pricing programs,
transportation demand management programs and other innovative strategies that reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
In the GMP Implementation Guide, the Authority has a Model Transportation
System Management Ordinance to help local jurisdictions craft policies and
procedures for transportation demand management that will demonstrate
compliance with Measure J’s GMP requirements. The basic idea is to use
transportation demand management tools to accomplish one or more of the
following outcomes:
Reduce single occupant vehicle use;
Spread peak‐hour trip‐making to off‐peak time periods; and
Shift trips to alternate modes;
Looking ahead, these transportation demand measures, coupled with
technological innovation and vehicle automation, will help improve air quality
and support regional and State efforts to reduce GHG emissions.
Congestion pricing and parking pricing programs have been successful in other
metropolitan areas. With this in mind, the Authority will be considering the
lessons learned from these programs, as well as their costs, as it determines how
it might initiate additional actions, in concert with its partners. A specific
implementation task is included for this effort in Chapter 5.
3.10. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS. Support Safe Routes to Schools projects and programs.
There is sustained and growing interest in Safe Routes to School efforts
throughout Contra Costa. Safe Routes to School (abbreviated as SR2S) activities
can take many forms, but all have the basic objective of improving safety for
pedestrians and cyclists around schools. The benefits of having more children
walk or bike to school include reduced vehicular traffic around schools,
improved public health outcomes through increased physical activity, and an
enhanced sense of community for the neighborhood around the school.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.171 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐20
Authority support for SR2S falls into two categories: (1) capital projects that
enhance the physical infrastructure around schools to allow for safer and more
convenient walking and bicycling; and (2) programs that promote safety and
encourage walking and bicycling activities through student and parent education
and outreach. To assess the overall need for SR2S projects and programs
throughout Contra Costa, the Authority prepared a comprehensive assessment
that estimated the overall costs of improving access to all public schools in
Contra Costa. Examples of current programs include those run by Contra Costa
Health Services, San Ramon Valley Street Smarts, and Street Smarts Diablo
(supported by the Authority). In some instances, SR2S funding supports
programs as an adjunct to a school bus program; in others, there is a separate
program created.
Continued support for SR2S is a priority for the Authority, and additional
funding is listed in the Chapter 4’s LRTIP. The Authority also provides technical
assistance on request to facilitate local planning and programming.
GOAL 4. Maintain the transportation system
Since passage of Measure C, the Authority has collectively invested billions to create the
complex and extensive transportation system that serves Contra Costa’s transportation
needs. However, current levels of funding for public infrastructure are inadequate, and
dealing with deferred maintenance is one of the greatest challenges we face. The
following strategies are intended to help the Authority meet this goal.
4.1. STABLE FUNDING SOURCES. Advocate for stable sources of funds for transit operations
and other programs that support the transportation system.
The Authority actively monitors State and federal legislative programs that have
a bearing on transportation funding and testifies on key measures that have a
direct bearing on our mission. What is most important, from the Authority’s
perspective, is that a dedicated and predictable source of future funding be
created, as has been done with Measure J. In recent years, federal and State
sources have been unstable. To correct this, the Legislature has been considering
bills to address this need with a variety of strategies, including raising the gas tax
and vehicle license fees (just done with SB 1), establishing a “carbon tax”, and
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.172 of 304
Visions, Goals, and Strategies
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐21
using performance measures to administer funding. The Authority will be
closely tracking this effort and advocating for CCTA’s interests, as appropriate.
4.2. MAINTENANCE. Require and fund programs for effective preventive maintenance and
rehabilitation of the transportation system (“deferred maintenance”).
(Commentary below)
4.3. LONG-TERM NEEDS. Secure funding that will maintain the long-term health of all
components of the transportation system.
Finding money for infrastructure maintenance is a top priority for local
governments. While new development projects can be required to cover the
capital costs of facilities needed to serve them, long‐term maintenance costs are
not always fully funded. While SB 1 will provide an estimated $52 billion over a
ten‐year period to help rebuild the State’s infrastructure, it does falls short in the
backlog of repairs needed for the transportation system, which exceed $137
billion15. The 18 percent “return to source” funding for the Measure J Local
Streets Maintenance and Improvement Program has been a welcome revenue
stream, but it does not cover all local needs.16 With this in mind, the Authority
will be looking at ways to expand the current Regional Transportation Mitigation
Program (RTMP) to ensure that fees include the costs of ongoing maintenance for
a stated period of time if assessment districts or other funding arrangements will
not be in place. The basic idea is that local jurisdictions should not build new
transportation facilities if they cannot take care of them. More complicated, as
noted in Strategies 4.2 and 4.3, is funding the backlog for pavement rehabilitation
15 Pg. 4, Next 10, Beyond the Gas Tax, Funding California Transportation in the 21st Century, 2017.
16 Using cost data from the 2013 Caltrans State of the Pavement Report, total cost for pavement
reconstruction of 740 miles of roads in Contra Costa classified as “at risk” and “poor/failed” would be
about $1.9 billion, which far exceeds the 18 percent allowance for the Local Streets and Maintenance
Program under Measure J. If only roads rated as “poor/failed” are reconstructed the cost would be on the
order of $1.2 billion. The ultimate cost could be 50 to 100 percent higher because of the difficulties
involved in local street reconstruction, including accommodations needed for utilities, equipment
staging, traffic re‐routing, maintaining grade, and ADA requirements, which are not as large a cost factor
on the state highway system. For more information, please see the Introduction of Volume 2 of the CTP.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.173 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐22
and related projects. The Authority’s implementation actions for these three
strategies will focus on:
What the Authority can do to ensure long‐term maintenance of all new
improvements. One option is to require commitments to long‐term
maintenance of new improvement as a condition of approval of a
development mitigation program. Modifications of the RTMP program
requirements would be needed to accomplish this.
What the Authority can do to assist with deferred maintenance of
existing facilities. Funding will be available through the Local Streets
Maintenance and Improvements (LSM&I) Program and subregional
programs created to meet the needs of specific areas within Contra Costa.
The Authority also will provide guidance on best practices and may
require commitments to putting in place policies and procedures for
long‐term maintenance as a condition of continuing eligibility for LSM&I
Program funds.
What the Authority can do through external partners. The California
Transportation Infrastructure Priorities Work Group among others has
been investigating how Road User Charges and other mechanisms might
be used to provide a secure source of funding for maintenance,
rehabilitation and reconstruction needs at the local level. At a regional
level, the OBAG program also will help meet these needs.
Each of these actions will be undertaken in close consultation with the RTPCs
and local jurisdictions and with opportunities for public input at key decision
points.
GOAL 5. Continue to invest wisely to maximize the benefits of available funding
The Authority will seek to obtain the greatest benefits for Contra Costa residents from
the funding it has available by using performance measures and calculations of return
on investment in its decision‐making. The benefits of these investments also will need to
be fairly allocated, so there are no disparate impacts on low‐income or minority
residents. The following strategies reflect this commitment.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.174 of 304
Visions, Goals, and Strategies
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐23
5.1. PERFORMANCE MEASURES. Use performance measures to evaluate and compare
transportation investments.
Since Measure J was passed, the Authority has been using multi‐modal
transportation service objectives in the Action Plans. More recently, after
adoption of Plan Bay Area, MTC’s performance measures have been used to
compare projects and programs in the evaluation of transportation investment
options that led to creation of the Investment Program in Chapter 4. Chapter 4
also includes a summary of this analysis, with details related to the 2017 CTP
Update contained in Volume 2. The performance criteria used address not only
traditional system measures of transportation efficiency, as expressed by vehicles
miles travelled per capita, vehicle hours of delay, access and travel modes, and
transit ridership, but also the indirect effects on transportation and housing
affordability, displacement, and support for the Priority Development Areas
Growth and Investment Program. The Authority also uses performance
measures in evaluating projects requesting funding through different programs,
such as OBAG and the Measure J Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Facilities
program. The latter measures are found in the Countywide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan.
5.2. MATCHING FUNDS FOR LEVERAGING. Seek matching funds, whenever possible, to
leverage Measure J funds, and offer incentives and priority funding to projects that provide
greater return on investment.
The Authority has always used its sales tax revenues to attract funding from
other sources. The leveraging that these revenues can provide has helped us
secure the funding necessary to build most of the major projects in the Measure J
expenditure plan. More specifically, leveraging refers to the amount of additional
new funds that can be garnered from State and federal programs using revenues
from the Measure J sales tax. By way of example, the Caldecott Tunnel, which
cost $417 million, was constructed using $119 million in Measure J funds. The
Authority received additional funding in the amount of $194.3 million through
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and $103.7 million from other
sources. Overall, the Measure J funding allocated to the Caldecott Tunnel project
was leveraged 2.5:1. That is, for each Measure J dollar expended, the Authority
received 2.5 additional dollars in funding from other sources.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.175 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐24
Another example of leveraging is the BART extension to Antioch. The cost of this
project is $526.4 million, of which $140.6 million came from Measure J. This
project is leveraged at 2.75, with additional funding from Proposition 1B,
Regional Measures 1 and 2, AB 1171, subregional fees (ECCRFFA), State Transit
Assistance, Traffic Congestion Relief Program, and the Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP).
A third example of leveraging can be seen in the funding received for the
Transportation for Livable Communities and the Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trails
programs. In this instance, the additional funding ($28 million versus $22 million
in Measure J funding allocated to these programs to date) represents a leveraging
ratio of 1.27:1. About 46 percent of the additional funding is federal, 29 percent
local, six percent State, and 19 percent from impact fees, developer contributions,
and the like.
More can be done to offer incentives and prioritize funding, but for this to
happen, the Authority will need to develop a consistent approach and
methodology for measuring returns on investment. A fair and explicit procedure
is essential so all applicants know what the rules are and how they will be
applied. As part of CTP implementation, the Authority will investigate
methodologies used by other transportation agencies and then determine what
specific calculations should be done and what evaluation criteria will be used.
The findings of this work will be incorporated in the Implementation Guide and
the Authority’s procedures for project funding.
5.3. PUBLIC-PRIVATE FUNDING PARTNERSHIP. Develop public-private partnerships and
pursue innovative financing mechanisms to accelerate project delivery.
State law allows regional transportation agencies, such as the Authority, and
Caltrans to enter into public‐private partnerships (P3s) to develop and operate
transportation projects to accelerate goods movement, improve air quality and
facilitate Californiaʹs economic development. The Presidio Parkway is one
example of a successful partnership executed by the San Francisco County
Transportation Authority. P3s have been used for decades with great success in
Europe, Canada and Australia. In Southern California two toll roads (SR91 and
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.176 of 304
Visions, Goals, and Strategies
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐25
SR125) are P3s, and lessons learned from these projects could inform the
Authority’s consideration of how best to approach P3s.
The Tri‐Link Study explored a P3 to fund a $750 million freeway project to
connect Tracy to Brentwood in East County. The Authority continues to oversee
this effort. Since at this time public funding is not available for project
development and construction, the Authority is exploring the feasibility of
private funding sources with revenues through tolling.
In the near to mid‐term, the Authority will investigate the feasibility of initiating
one or more specific projects that could capitalize on the P3 model. These
projects may use either a “user fee” model where the private partner received a
return on investment through fees paid by users of the facility, or an
“availability” model, with payments tied to the public access and use of the
facility and deductions in payments due the private sector partner when
performance standards are not met. Under this latter model, there is no risk
related to an inadequate number of users to generate a reasonable rate of return.
To bolster Measure J sales tax revenues, the Authority will investigate the
feasibility of augmenting its Regional Transportation Mitigation Program
(RTMP), so additional revenues could be used to support transit services as well
as street and highway improvements and also be available to pay for bicycle
facilities and streetscape infrastructure. If, based on public input, this initiative
seems worth pursuing, the Authority could commission a “nexus” study and an
economic feasibility study.
5.4. EQUITY. Consider the needs of all areas and communities in Contra Costa in funding
decisions to ensure fairness in the Authority’s transportation investments.
This strategy is rooted in the basic concept of fairness in terms of the distribution
of benefits and burdens that occur from transportation investments, and seeks to
involve all residents in Contra Costa in the decision‐making processes that affect
them. To accomplish this, the Authority embraces three fundamental equity
principles:
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.177 of 304
2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update: Volume 1
May 24 Public Review Draft 3‐26
To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects, including social and economic
effects, on minority populations and low‐income populations;
To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected
communities in the transportation decision‐making process; and
To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of
benefits by minority and low‐income populations.
The Authority will monitor all of its project funding and collect data to inform
the public and decision‐makers about the presence and extent of any inequities
in transportation funding based on race and income and to describe what actions
could be employed to minimize disproportionate impact.
In all of its planning activities, the Authority uses a collaborative process that
involves residents in low‐income communities, community‐ and faith‐based
organizations that serve them, transit operators, regional agencies, and
stakeholders. Several of the performance measures that the Authority has used in
the 2017 CTP also reflect these equity priorities, including reducing auto‐related
injuries and increasing walkability, preserving and increasing affordable housing
in growth areas, and improving local access to schools. More specifically,
transportation investment scenarios – packages of projects and programs – were
evaluated using these measures, and the results have informed the Authority’s
work on its Long‐Range Transportation Investment Program described in
Chapter 4.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.178 of 304
The Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, California 94553
John Gioia, 1st District
Candace Andersen, 2nd District
Diane Burgis, 3rd District
Karen Mitchoff, 4th District
Federal D. Glover, 5th District
July 18, 2017
Tom Butt, Chair
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
2999 Oak Road, Suite 100
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Subject: 2017 Countywide Transportation Plan Update
Dear Chair Butt:
On July 18, 2017, the Board of Supervisors authorized me to transmit this comment letter on the May 24, 2017 Draft
Final Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP). The Board of Supervisors would like to thank the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) for the substantial time and effort put into the CTP.
Northern Waterfront/Freight Movement
We appreciate the support for the Northern Waterfront Economic Development Initiative found the CTP. This
multijurisdictional effort would be more effective with additional tangible actions. We request that the following
concepts be included in the CTP:
At the regional level, continued Authority advocacy for the expedited development and funding of a Priority
Production Area program would be helpful in project implementation.
At the local level, Authority support for a shortline rail study in the Northern Waterfront area.
Accessible Transit
In our November 2015 letter on the CTP we highlighted the fact that accessible transit costs in in Contra Costa are
increasing while areas with a more coordinated system are seeing decreasing costs. Addressing this longstanding
issue would be consistent with the “invest wisely”, and “new potential funding sources” principles espoused in the
CTP. Given this, we are requesting that the Authority act on the statement in the 2014 Draft Final CTP regarding
accessible transit and mobility management, “…this is an area where the Authority can exhibit leadership” and ask that
the Authority initiate the Accessible Transportation Service Strategic Plan originally proposed in Measure X. This would
be a concrete action which would fulfill the Authority’s commitment found in Goal 3.7 “Serving All Contra Costa
Residents. Support the expansion of a coordinated system of transit and paratransit service…”. If the accessible transit system
is to perform adequately, we will need to take action and cannot rely on the private sector’s ability (or interest) to
adapt to senior’s mobility challenges1.
1 Page ES-3: Volume I, Countywide Transportation Plan, May 24, 2017
David Twa
Clerk of the Board
and
County Administrator
(925) 335-1900
Contra
Costa
County
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.179 of 304
We fully support the Plan and appreciate the Authority’s past responsiveness to comments from the County on the
previous versions of the CTP.
Sincerely,
Federal D. Glover, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District I
C:
, Chair ‐ WCCTAC,
, Chair – SWAT
, Chair, TRANSPLAN
, Chair – TRANSPAC
File: Transportation > Transportation > Committees > CCTA > CCTA Board of Directors File: Transportation > Projects > CCTA > CTP 2014-15
g:\transportation\cunningham\memo-letter\letter\2017\drafts\bostocctarectp.doc
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.180 of 304
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE 9.
Meeting Date:07/10/2017
Subject:Senate Bill 595 (Beall) Regional Measure 3 - Bridge Tolls
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 1
Referral Name: 1: Review legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.
Presenter: John Cunningham, Department of
COnservation and Development
Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
This legislation was referred to the TWI Committee by District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, who
received a request from the Airport Committee for a County "Support" position.
Referral Update:
[Note: SB 595 was revised in the Assembly on July 3rd after this report was
published. Staff will verbally update the Committee on the changes. The
current version of the legislation is attached however.]
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is considering a regional bridge toll
increase on the seven state-owned bridges * in the Bay Area. The proposed Regional Measure 3
(RM3) is expected to raise tolls by $1 to $3. For every $1 in tolls, approximately $127 million per
year is estimated to be generated in revenue. Revenues generated by the toll increase are expected
to fund projects that demonstrate a strong nexus to reducing congestion and increasing efficiency
in the bridge corridors.
The RM3 proposal requires authorizing legislation. Senate Bill 595 (SB595 - Beall) has been
introduced that would authorize MTC to conduct a special election to request that voters in the
nine Bay Area Counties to approve the toll increase. In preparation, The Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (CCTA) submitted a list of Contra Costa projects to MTC for potential
funding by RM3. The list is the last two pages in the attached CCTA staff report on this issue.
Also included with the CCTA staff report is the Regional Measure 2 project list and an MTC staff
report regarding the policy considerations and draft principles for an RM3.
Details on SB595
Summary: The bill would require the City and 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
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.181 of 304
the amount of the toll rate charged on the state-owned toll bridges in that area to be used for
unspecified projects and programs. By requiring this election, the bill would impose a
state-mandated local program. The bill would require the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) to
reimburse from toll revenues, as specified, the counties and the City and County of San Francisco
for the cost of submitting the measure to the voters.
Of Interest to the County: As seen on the second to last page of the attached CCTA staff report,
the County has a project on the proposed list submitted by CCTA to MTC, "Vasco-Byron
Highway Connector".
Status/Location: Assembly: Committee on Transportation
Bill Analysis: The latest analysis is attached (5-27-17 SB595 Senate Floor Analyses) and
indicates the bill is a "work in progress" stating that the following are not yet specified: 1) the
amount of the toll increase, 2) the projects/programs, and 3) which general election the measure
would be placed on the ballot. Other commentary of note: Projects funded by toll revenues must
have a nexus to the bridges in order to remain a fee rather than a tax (which would require 2/3
voter approval).
DRAFT Letter: A draft letter to Assembly Member Jim Frazier is attached for the Committee's
review.
Registered Support/Opposition
Support
City of Emeryville
City of Oakland
City of Palo Alto
City of San Leandro
City of Walnut Creek
East Bay Regional Parks District
International Longshore and Warehouse Union
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Transbay Joint Powers Authority
Oppose
No Opposition at the time this report was published
*Seven Bay Area State-Owned Bridges:
Senator John A. Nejedly Bridge (Antioch Bridge)
Benicia-Martinez
Carquinez
Dumbarton
Richmond – San Rafael
San Francisco – Oakland (Bay Bridge)
San Mateo – Hayward
Attached Related News Articles
East Bay Times - 7/3/17
Poll: Voters support $3 bridge toll hike to ease traffc gridlock
San Francisco Chronicle - 7/2/17
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.182 of 304
Bay Area voters may be asked to OK bridge toll hike of up to $3
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Support" on Senate Bill
595 (Beall): Metropolitan Transportation Commission: Bridge Tolls
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None to the General Fund. The bill would require the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) to
reimburse from toll revenues, as specified, the counties and the City and County of San Francisco
for the cost of submitting the measure to the voters.
Attachments
07-05-17 DRAFT - BOS to AM JFrazier reSB595 RM3 Support
2-15-17 CCTA Staff Report-RM3 (bridge toll increase).pdf
SB595 (Beall-RM3)text (vJuly 3,2017)
5-27-17 SB595 Senate Floor Analyses.pdf
Poll_ Voters support $3 bridge toll hike to ease traffic gridlock – East Bay Times
Bay Area voters may be asked to OK bridge toll hike of up to $3 - SF Chronicle
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.183 of 304
The Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, California 94553
John Gioia, 1st District
Candace Andersen, 2nd District
Diane Burgis, 3rd District
Karen Mitchoff, 4th District
Federal D. Glover, 5th District
July 18, 2017
The Honorable Jim Frazier
Chairman, Assembly Transportation Committee
Legislative Office Building, 1020 N Street, Room 112
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Senate Bill 595 (Beall): Regional Measure 3 – SUPPORT
Dear Chairman Frazier,
On behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, I am writing to express our support for
Senate Bill 595 (Beall) and respectfully request your “aye” vote when the bill comes before you. SB
595 authorizes a vote in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area for a bridge toll increase,
commonly referred to as “Regional Measure 3,” to fund mobility improvements in the Bay Area’s
bridge corridors.
While a specific expenditure plan for new toll revenue is not yet included in the bill, we urge your
support for it so that negotiations can continue. With traffic congestion and transit overcrowding in
bridge corridors reaching record levels, enactment of the bill in 2017 is critical so that voters have the
opportunity to approve funding for mobility improvements in 2018.
The Measure would fund transportation projects critical to addressing traffic congestion. Included in
a draft proposed project list submitted to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is the Vasco-
Byron Highway Connector project which is adjacent to District 11. As you are aware, this project is a
component of the larger TriLink/State Route 239 project which provides critical access improvements
for Eastern Contra Costa County.
If you have any questions regarding Contra Costa County’s support for SB 595, please contact John
Cunningham in Transportation Planning, john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us, (925) 674-7833.
Sincerely,
Federal D. Glover, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District I
cc: The Honorable Jim Beall
David Twa
Clerk of the Board
and
County
Administrator
(925) 335‐1900
Contra
Costa
County
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.184 of 304
Page 2
Members, Assembly Transportation Committee
Contra Costa County Legislative Delegation
Tom Butt, Chair, Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Jake Mackenzie, Chair, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.185 of 304
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 15, 2017
Subject Regional Measure 3 (RM3) – Candidate Projects for Submittal to the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
Summary of Issues MTC is considering a regional bridge toll increase on the seven state-
owned bridges in the Bay Area. RM3 is expected to raise tolls by $1 to
$3. For every $1 in tolls, approximately $127 million per year is
estimated to be generated in revenue. Revenues generated by the toll
increase are expected to fund projects that demonstrate a strong nexus
to reducing congestion and increasing efficiency in the bridge corridors.
It is anticipated that MTC will seek legislative approval in the next few
months to place RM3 on the ballot in 2018. In preparation, Authority
staff has prepared a list of projects in Contra Costa for potential funding
by RM3. The list, included in Attachment C, is proposed to be used for
advocacy at upcoming discussions with MTC.
Recommendations Staff seeks approval of Contra Costa’s proposed RM3 project list for
submittal to MTC.
Financial Implications For every $1 in tolls, approximately $127 million per year is estimated to
be generated in revenue. MTC estimates a range between $1.7 billion
and $5 billion for a $1 to $3 toll increase in Capital Funding that can be
raised based on a 25-year bond.
Options The Authority could add or remove projects from the list.
Attachments A. List of Projects included in Regional Measure 2 (RM2)
B. Policy Considerations and Draft Principles Memo – December 2016
RM3 MTC Commissioners Workshop
C. Proposed RM3 Project List for Submittal to MTC
Changes from
Committee
N/A
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.186 of 304
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
February 15, 2017
Page 2 of 3
Background
MTC is expected to seek authorization from the State Legislation in the next few months to put
a bridge toll increase measure on the ballot in 2018. RM3 is expected to raise bridge tolls by $1
to $3 on the seven state-owned Bay Area bridges. RM3 would be the third time voters are
asked to approve a regional measure that increases bridge tolls to fund transportation
investments. In 1988, voters approved RM1, which established a uniform $1 base toll on the
seven state-owned bridges and funded projects, such as the new Benicia-Martinez Bridge,
Carquinez Bridge Replacement, Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Replacement, and others.
In 2004, voters approved RM2, which raised the toll by $1 to fund capital projects in the bridge
corridors, and to provide operating funds for key transit services. RM2 legislation earmarked
over $300 million in funding to capital projects in Contra Costa (Attachment A). Such projects
include East Contra Costa Bay Area Rapid Transit (eBART), State Route 4 (SR4) East Widening,
Caldecott Tunnel, Interstate 80 (I-80) High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane extension, BART
Central Contra Costa Crossover, Interstate 680 (I-680) Southbound (SB) Carpool Lane
Completion, Richmond Parkway Parking Structure, and new Benicia-Martinez bridge span. In
addition, funding was provided to Express Buses and Safe Routes to Transit projects in Contra
Costa. Approximately 20% of the $1.5 billion RM2 Capital Program was earmarked for projects
in Contra Costa.
In 1998, 2007, and 2010, $1 seismic surcharges were added to the tolls for a total of $3.
Currently, the toll for single-occupant two axle vehicles on six of the seven state-owned bridges
in the Bay Area is $5 at all times. Due to congestion pricing on the Bay Bridge, the toll fluctuates
between $4 and $6 based on hours of operations. According to FastTrak billing data,
approximately 18% of toll revenue is generated by residents of Contra Costa County.
In December, MTC held a workshop to discuss principles and policy considerations for RM3. At
the workshop, MTC staff proposed the following “draft” principles for RM3 (Attachment B):
1.Bridge Nexus: Ensure all projects benefit toll payers in the vicinity of the seven state-
owned bridges.
2.Regional Prosperity: Invest in projects that will sustain the region’s strong economy by
enhancing travel options and improving mobility in bridge corridors.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.187 of 304
Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT
February 15, 2017
Page 3 of 3
3.Sustainability: Ensure all projects are consistent with Plan Bay Area (PBA) 2040’s focused
growth and greenhouse gas reduction strategy.
4.State of Good Repair: Invest in projects that help restore transportation infrastructure in
the bridge corridors.
5.Demand Management: Utilize technology and pricing to optimize roadway capacity.
6.Freight: Improve the mobility, safety and environmental impact of freight.
7.Resiliency: Invest in resilient bridges and approaches, including addressing sea level rise.
Draft Candidate Project List
To identify projects that are consistent with MTC’s “draft” principles , staff reviewed Contra
Costa projects included in the draft PBA 2040 “Final Preferred Scenario” approved by MTC in
November 2016. The “Final Preferred Scenario” and associated project list were presented at
the Authority meeting in December 2016.
Attachment C lists Contra Costa’s proposed RM3 projects for submittal to MTC based on the
review. The list includes project descriptions, costs and available funding, along with a high
level assessment of consistency with MTC’s draft principles. RM3 requests, which total $1.34
billion, are based on the amount needed to fully fund the projects.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.188 of 304
ATTACHMENT A
Appendix A-1
Regional Measure 2 -Capital Program Project List
RM2 Dellv.
Capital Funding Segment
Project No. ($1 ,000) No. Project Description Sponsor/Implementing Age ncy
$ 3,000 BART/SF MUNI Direct Connection at Embarcadero & Civic Center Stations BART
2 $ 30,000 2 SF MUNI Metro 3rd Street LRT Extension SF MUNI
3.t SF MUNI E-Line-Acquire 11 Historic Streetcars SF MUNI 3 $ 10,000
3.2 SF MUNI E-Embarcadero Line Rehab 5 Double ended Vehicles SF MUNI
4 s 44.000 4.1 Dumbarton Commuter Rail Service San Mateo TA, ACCMA. ACTIA
4.2 Union City lntennodal Station Environmental Impact Report Union City
5 $ 28,000 5 Vallejo Ferry lntermodal Station City of Vallejo
6.1 Solano County Express Bus lntermodal Facilities-Vallejo Curtola Transit Center ST N City of Vallejo
6.2 Solano Co. Express Bus lntermodal Facilities-Benicia lntermodal Facility ST N City of Benicia 6 $ 20,000
6.3 Solano Co. Express Bus lntermodal Facilities-Fairfield Transporation Center STN Fairfield/Suisun Transit
6.4 Solano Co. Express Bus lntermodal Facilities-Vacaville lntermodal Station STN City of Vacaville
7.1 Solano North Connector (Abernathy to Green Valley Road) STA
7.2 Solano 1-80/1-680 Interchange Complex (HOV Lanes from SR12 W to Airbase Parkway) STA
7 $ 100,000 7.3 1-80/1-680/SR-12 Interchange in Solano County STA
7.4 1-80 Eastbound Cordelia Truck Scales Relocation STA
7.5 1-80 High Occupancy I Express Lanes STA
$ 50,000 1-80 EB HOV Lane Extension from Route 4 to Carquinez Bridge Caltrans
$ 16;000 9 Richmond Parkway Park & Ride AC Transit
10.1 Cal Park Hill Tunnel Rehabilitation and Bikeway SMART 10 $ 36,500
10.2 SMART Extension to Larkspur or San Quentin SMART
11.1 U.S. 101 Greenbrae 1/C Corridor Imps.-Sir Francis Drake To Tamalpais Transportation Authority of Marin
11.2 Sir Fancis Drake Blvd Widening Transportation Authority of Marin 11 $ 63,500
11.3 Cal Park Hill Tunnel Rehabilitation and Bikeway Transportation Authority of Marin
11.4 Central Marin Ferry Acces Imps. Phase A-Wornum to Corte Madera Transportation Authority of Marin
12.1 Direct HOV lane connector from 1-680 to the Pleasant Hill BART -Study CCCTA
12 $ 15,000
12.2 Direct HOV lane connector from 1-680 to the Pleasant Hill BART CCTA
13.1 E-BART I Rail Extension to East Contra Costa BART, CCTA
13 $ 96,000 13.2 Loveridge Road Flyover BART. CCTA
13.3 SR4 (e) Widening Project: ROW for future transit in median BART. CCTA
14.1 Benicia Sidin~ Extension Capital Corridor JPA 14 $ 25,000
14.2 FairfieldNacaville lntermodal Rail Station and Track Improvements Fairfield/Suisun Transit
15 $ 25,000 15 Central Contra Costa BART Crossover BART
16 $ 50,000 16 Benicia-Martinez Bridge: New Span BATA
17.1 Express Bus North-Curtola Transportation Center City of Vallejo
17.2 Express Bus North-Fairfield Transportation Center City of Fairfield
17.3 Express Bus North-Vacaville lntermodal Facility City of Vacaville
17.4 Express Bus North-Benicia Park/Industrial 1/C Improvements and Park and Ride City of Benicia
17.5 Express Bus North-Martinez Transit Center CCCTA 17 $ 20,000
17.6 Express Bus North-Diablo Valley College Tranist Center CCCTA
17.7 Express Bus North-Napa Buses and PNR Napa VINE
17.8 Express Bus North-Macdonald Ave. Bus stop amenities GGT/Richmond
17.9 Express Bus North-Napa VINE Napa VINE
17.10 ExpreSS' Bus North-Golden Gale GGBH&TD
18.1 Translink®: Ticket Vending Machine Integration BART
18.2 TransLink®: Golden Gate Ferry Terminal Fare Gates Golden Gate Transit
18.3 TransLink®: Ticket Vending Machine Integration MTC
18 $ 22,000 18.4 TransLink®: VT NCaltrain Ticket Vending Machine Integration SCVTA
18.5 Translink®: Consortium Information Management System (CIMS) SCVTA
18.6 Transllnk®. MUNI SFMTA
18.7 Translink® Reconcilliation & Settlement Support MTC
19.1 Real-Time Transit: Emery Go Round Slgnage at MacArthur BART MTC/City of Emeryville
19.2 Real-Time Transit: Automatic Vehicle Locator MTCI Muni
19.3 Real-Time Transit: Hastus Scheduling and Signage at Berkeley BART MTC/ AC Transit
19.4 Real-Time Transit: Technology Implementation and Signage MTCI Westcat
19 $ 20,000 19.5 Real-Time Transit: AVL and Signage MTCI Sam Trans
19.6 Real-Time Transit: Signage at Dublin BART MTCI LAVTA
19.7 Real-Time Transit Completion of Technology and Signage MTC/VTA
J: I Project/ _RM2/ RM2 Projecl Tracking I Project List Short xis [Summary] Printed 3/13/2012 2:04PM Page 1 of 3
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.189 of 304
Regional Measure 2 -Capital Program Project List
RM2 Deliv.
Segment
No. Projocl Dosc rlpllon Sponsor/1m
33.1 High Speed Rail Ridership Forecast Study MTC
33 $ 6,500 33.2 Transit Co~necti vity Plan MTC
33.3 Regional Rail Plan MTC, Caltrain, BART, CHSRA
34 $ 34.1 Integrated Fare Structure Program TransLink® Consortium
1,500
34.2 Clipper Period Pass Accumulator SFMTA
35 $ 5,000 35 Transit Commute Benefits Promotion MTC
36.1 Caldecott Tunnel Improvements -Fourth Bore CCTA 36 $ 50,500
36.2 Caldecott Tunnel Improvements-Transit Study CCTA
37 $ 24,000 37 Transit Capitol Rehabilitation BART
$ 1,515,000
J: I Projeci/_RM2/ RM2 Project Tracking I Project List Short xis [Summary] Printed 311312012 2:04PM Page3of3
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.191 of 304
ATTACHMENT B
Memorandum
TO: Commission
FR: Executive Director
RE: Regional Measure 3
Background
1\l F.TRO POUT AN
TRANSL'ORl'ATION
COMMlSSION
! 7 j o~:ok s,·cer
S:m rr IlK;_,.,.,, ( . .-\ •J~ I Oi
rT-L -H i 77H.Il700
\\.'~II WI\\\ .llltC.l".I.((IJI'
DATE: December 8, 2016
Included in the Commission's Draft Advocacy Program for 2017 is a recommendation that the
Commission sponsor legislation authorizing MTC to place on the ballot a measure asking Bay
Area voters to approve a bridge toll increase to fund congestion relief projects for improved
mobility in the bridge corrLdors. This memo and the attachments include information for your
discussion and policy direction as we seek to pass legislation in 2017 to achieve this goal.
Attached to this memo are the following documents.
A map showing the major investments included in Regional Measures J and 2-RM1 and
RM2 (Attachment A)
Key Policy Considerations (Attachment B)
Charts that include data on the county of origin of the toll payers, the relative size of the
toll collections at each of the toll bridges and registered voter information (Attachment C)
Proqss
Unlike local sales tax measures where the Legislature has provided a general grant of authority
to a county to create an expenditure plan to be placed on the ballot, RMl and RM2 included an
expenditure plan written and adopted by the Legislature as part of its oormal bill passage process.
The toH program is afso unique in that it is regional in nature and the tolls are pooled together to
fund projects throughout the btidge system. The toll revenue provides a benefit to those paying
the fees (i.e. toll bridge users) or mitigates for the activity associated with the fees. As fees, toll
increases are subject to a simple majority vote, rather than two-thirds. ln the case of RMl and
RM2, and MTC's regional gas tax authorization statute, the vote is tallied region-wide, rather
than county-by-county.
In 2003, when RM 2 was under consideration by the Legislature, then Senate Pro Tern Don
Perata created a special Select Committee that held a number of public hearings to solicit public
input on the expenditure plan. Concurrently, MTC hosted a Technical Advisory Committee that
met monthly to provide interested parties-transit operators, CMA's and other stakeholders-
an opportunity to propose projects and discuss the attributes of proposals as they emerged in an
open public forum.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.192 of 304
Regional Measure 3
December 7, 2016
Page 2 of2
We expect a similar process to begin in earnest when the Legislature convenes in January 2017,
with a goal of passing a bill in 2017 so that a measure can be placed on the ballot in 2018.
Workshop Focus
At your December workshop, staff hopes to solicit your guidance on the key policy
considerations and draft principles outlined in Attachment B as well as any other related issues
of concern to the Commission. We would expect to return to the Legislation Committee at
regular intervals in 2017 to review further details about the Regional Measure 3 bill as it
develops, including specific projects proposed for potential funding.
SH:RR
Attachments
J :\COMMITTE\Commissinn\20 16 Commission Workshop\Conunis11ion Workshop December 2016\2 _ RMJ Worshop M~m~o .!.locx
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.193 of 304
Year after year, in good economic times and bad,
Bay Area residents rank transportation as one of
their highest priorities. Voters have proved this
time and again at the ballot box, including through
the passage of Regional Measure 1 in 1988 and
Regional Measure 2 in 2004. These measures
raised tolls on the Bay Area’s seven state-owned
toll bridges — and delivered dozens of the most
important transportation investments of the past
generation.
With these projects now completed or under
construction, it’s time for voters to consider a third
regional measure for the Bay Area’s next generation
of improvements.
Voter Approved Toll Bridge Measures
Deliver Big Returns
0
0
10 20 30
10 20 30 40
Miles
Kilometers
Legend
Regional Measure 1
Capital Project
Regional Measure 2
Capital Project
Regional Measure 2
Operational Project
RM1 & RM 2 projects.ai | 2.3.15
San Mateo Bridge
Widening
The late Congressman Tom
Lantos was on hand in
2003 to cut the ribbon for
the newly widened San Ma-
teo-Hayward Bridge.
Third Street Light Rail
San Francisco’s T-Third light-
rail project provided faster
and more reliable connec-
tions between downtown
and the city’s southeastern
neighborhoods.
I-880/SR 92
Interchange
State Route 92 fell from the
list of most congested Bay
Area freeways following
completion of a Regional
Measure 1 project to replace
its interchange with
Interstate 880.
New Benicia Bridge
Long backups on northbound
Interstate 680 in Contra
Costa County vanished after
the 2007 opening of the new
Benicia-Martinez Bridge.
BART-OAK Connector
The 2014 completion of the
BART connection to Oakland
International Airport was
made possible by more than
$140 million of Regional
Measure 2 funding.
Cordelia Truck Scales
The 2014 relocation of the
Cordelia Truck Scales is a
key piece in the $100 million
package of Regional Measure
2 projects to speed up traffic
through Solano County.
BART Warm Springs
Extension
BART’s Warm Springs
extension project, the first
part of the ongoing extension
to San Jose, will be com-
pleted in the fall of 2015.
Caldecott Fourth Bore
Regional Measure 2
delivered $45 million for
the long-needed Caldecott
Tunnel Fourth Bore project.
New Carquinez Bridge
Thousands of people turned
out in late 2003 to celebrate
the opening of the Al Zampa
Bridge linking Solano and
Contra Costa counties.
Amount
REGIONAL MEASURE 1 ($ millions)
New Benicia-Martinez Bridge $1,200
Carquinez Bridge Replacement $518
Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Rehabilitation $117
San Mateo-Hayward Bridge Widening $210
I-880/SR 92 Interchange Replacement $235
Bayfront Expressway Widening $36
Richmond Parkway $6
US 101/University Avenue Interchange Improvements $4
Amount
REGIONAL MEASURE 2 ($ millions)
Transbay Transit Center1 $353
e-BART/Hwy 4 Widening2 $269
BART to Warm Springs1,2 $304
BART Oakland Airport Connector1 $146
Solano Co. I-80 HOV Lanes & Cordelia Truck Scales1 $123
SMART Rail $82
AC Transit Bus Rapid Transit2 $78
Transit Center Upgrades and New Buses (Regionwide) $65
I-580 HOV Lanes $53
Ferry Vessels2 $46
Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore $45
Transit Technology (Clipper®, 511®, Signals) $42
Contra Costa I-80 HOV Lanes $37
BART Tube Seismic Retrofit2 $34
San Francisco Third Street Light Rail $30
BART Central Contra Costa Crossover $25
Safe Routes to Transit Projects $23
Other Regional Projects $356
Transit Operations Support (Annual) $41
1 Amount shown includes other toll revenue in addition to RM2
2 Under construction
REGIONAL MEASURE 3 — KEY POLICY CONSIDERATIONS METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WORKSHOP
Attachment A
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.194 of 304
Regional Measure 3 —
Key Policy Considerations
When should the vote take place?
We recommend either the primary or general election
in 2018. This will require the Legislature to pass the en-
abling legislation no later than the end of August 2017.
How large of a toll hike should we seek?
A comparison of the revenue yield from a $1–$3 toll
surcharge as well as a comparison of toll rates on other
bridges are shown in the tables below. A multi-dollar toll
surcharge could be phased in over a period of years.
Continued on back page
Toll
Surcharge
Amount
Annual
Revenue
Capital Funding
Available
(25-year bond)
$1 $127 million $1.7 billion
$2 $254 million $3.3 billion
$3 $381 million $5.0 billion
Draft Principles for
Regional Measure 3
Bridge Nexus
Ensure all projects benefit toll payers
in the vicinity of the San Francisco
Bay Area’s seven state-owned toll
bridges
Regional Prosperity
Invest in projects that will sustain the
region’s strong economy by enhanc-
ing travel options and improving
mobility in bridge corridors
Sustainability
Ensure all projects are consistent
with Plan Bay Area 2040’s focused
growth and greenhouse gas reduction
strategy
State of Good Repair
Invest in projects that help restore
bridges and transportation
infrastructure in the bridge corridors
Demand Management
Utilize technology and pricing to
optimize roadway capacity
Freight
Improve the mobility, safety and
environmental impact of freight
Resiliency
Invest in resilient bridges and
approaches, including addressing
sea level rise
1 Results from EZ-Pass discount rate
2 Average rate, based on 24 trips
Facility
Standard
Auto Toll
Carpool
Toll
BATA Bridges $5.00 $2.50
Golden Gate Bridge $7.50/$6.50
Plate/FasTrak $4.50
MTA Verrazano
Narrows Bridge
$11.081/$16.00
EZ-Pass/Cash $3.081,2
Port Authority of New
York/New Jersey
(Bridges and Tunnels)
$10.50/$12.50/$15.00
Off-Peak/Peak/Cash $6.50
Toll Rate Comparisons
Attachment B
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.195 of 304
Which counties should vote on the toll
increase?
Regional Measure 1 (1988) and Regional Measure 2
(2004) were placed on the ballot in only seven of the
nine Bay Area counties; Napa and Sonoma were ex-
cluded. We propose that all nine counties be included
in Regional Measure 3.
Should toll revenue be used for operating
purposes?
If a portion of toll revenue is reserved for operating
funding (such as to subsidize transit service), the
capital funding shown in the table on the prior page
would be reduced. For example, for every 10% of total
revenue reserved for operating purposes under a $2
toll scenario, the capital yield from toll revenue bonds
would be reduced by approximately $300 million. Ac-
cordingly, we recommend restricting operating funding
to the smallest possible amount. If an operating pro-
gram is created, we recommend establishing perfor-
mance standards similar to those in Regional Measure
2 as a condition of funding eligibility.
Should congestion pricing be expanded?
The $6 peak/$4 off-peak weekday toll on the San
Francisco-Bay Bridge has successfully reduced
congestion on that span by encouraging some
commuters to change their time or mode of travel.
The $6/$4 differential toll also raises about the same
amount of revenue as would a flat $5 toll on that span.
To further reduce congestion, we suggest consider-
ation of a greater discount between the peak and off-
peak rate for the Bay Bridge in Regional Measure 3.
Should a FasTrak® discount be authorized?
The Golden Gate Bridge district offers FasTrak
Discounts to incentivize more drivers to sign up for
FasTrak, since electronic toll collection significantly
speeds up traffic throughput on the bridge. RM 3 is
an opportunity to remove a statutory restriction that
currently prohibits BATA from offering similar FasTrak
discounts. We recommend pursuing this change to
help reduce delays and associated emissions.
Should trucks pay an additional toll?
The last toll hike approved by the Bay Area Toll
Authority (BATA) in 2010 included a substantial
increase in the axle-based rate paid by commercial
vehicles and trucks. As a result, we recommend that
Regional Measure 3 be a flat surcharge added to all
vehicles crossing the seven state-owned bridges.
What kind of projects should be
considered for funding?
Since bridge tolls are fees and not taxes, the use
of toll revenue should benefit the payers of the fee. In
other words, the projects funded by Regional Mea-
sure 3 should provide safety, mobility, access, or other
related benefits in the toll bridge corridors. Regional
Measure 1 funded primarily a small set of bridge re-
placement and expansion projects. By contrast, Re-
gional Measure 2 funded a much larger set of both
bridge, highway, and transit projects in the bridge
corridors. Given the region’s significant needs on all
modes, we expect that Regional Measure 3 will re-
semble its immediate predecessor in the breadth and
modal mix of projects.
REGIONAL MEASURE 3 — KEY POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
Attachment B
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.196 of 304
32%
16%17%
8%
11%
14%
2%
Share of Bridge Toll Revenue by Bridge
SF - Oakland Bay Bridge, 32%
Benicia-Martinez, 16%
Carquinez, 17%
Dumbarton, 8%
Richmond-San Rafael, 11%
San Mateo - Hayward, 14%
Antioch, 2%
Source: FY16 Toll Revenues Collected by Bridge, MTC Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2016
31%
18%
4%
2%
10%
8%
2%
14%
2%9%
Share of Toll Revenue by County of Residence
Alameda, 31%
Contra Costa, 18%
Marin, 4%
Napa, 2%
San Francisco, 10%
San Mateo, 8%
Santa Clara, 2%
Solano, 14%
Sonoma, 2%
Out of Region, 9%
Source: 2015 MTC FasTrak Data -Average Typical Weekday Transactions by County of Billing Address
County
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.197 of 304
22%
15%
4%
2%
12%
10%
22%
6%
7%
Share of Voters by County
Alameda, 22%
Contra Costa, 15%
Marin, 4%
Napa, 2%
San Francisco, 12%
San Mateo, 10%
Santa Clara, 22%
Solano, 6%
Sonoma, 7%
Source: 2016 California Secretary of State Report of Registration (registered voters by county as of 10/24/2016)
County
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.198 of 304
Attachment C: Proposed RM3 Project List for Submittal to MTC
No Project Name Description Cost in
PBA2040
(millions)
Funding
Available
(millions)
Funding
Needed
[RM3 Request]
(millions)
Bridge
Nexus
Regional
Prosperity
Sustain-
ability
State of
Good
Repair
Demand
Management
Freight Resilency Sources of
Available
Funds
(millions)
1 I-680/State Route 4 Interchange
Improvements – Phases 1, 2, and 3
Project will improve interchange in phases as follows:
Phase 1: Freeway to Freeway connectors for NB I-680 to WB SR-4
Phase 2: EB SR-4 to SB I-680 connector and improvements to the SR-4
interchange at Pacheco Boulevard.
Phase 3: Widen SR-4 between Morello Avenue in Martinez and SR-242
in Concord, and replace Grayson Creek Bridge
$292 $57 $235 x x x x STIP: 5.1
Measure C:
17.3, Measure
J: 35.0
2 I-80/San Pablo Dam Road (SPDR) Interchange
Improvements – Phase 2
Replace SPDR Interchange at I-80 and modify McBryde Avenue and
SPDR ramps. Includes provisions for bicyclists and pedestrians on San
Pablo Dam Road.
$80 $16 $64 x x x x STMP: 6.4,
STIP: 9.2
3 SR-4 Integrated Corridor Management (ICM)SR-4 from I-80 to SR-160: project includes adaptive ramp metering,
advanced traveler information, arterial management system, freeway
management system, and connected vehicle applications
$15 $0 $15 x x x
4 SR-4 Operational Improvements - Initial
Phase
Various operational improvements along SR-4 between I-680 and
Bailey Road, including additions of mixed flow lanes, High Occupancy
Vehicles (HOV) lanes and auxiliary lanes.
$144 $5 $139 x x Measure J
5 I-680 Forward*Implementation of seven strategies for I-680 including improving
efficiency of bus service (e.g. increased service, bus on shoulders,
expanded park and ride lots), providing first/last mile connections,
innovative operational strategies (e.g. ramp metering, decision
support system, integrated corridor management), cooling hot spots
(e.g. addition of auxiliary lanes), completing carpool/express lanes, and
preparing corridor for Connected Vehicles/Automated Vehicles.
$233 $23 $210 x x x x x Measure J I-
680 Reserve
6 Vasco-Byron Highway Connector Replace/upgrade existing Armstrong Road. Add new road segments
west of Armstrong Road to Vasco Road and east of Armstrong Road to
Byron Highway. ($40
million was included in PBA 2040)
$87 $0 $87 x x x
7 West Contra Costa High Capacity Transit Study is underway to evaluate options for major transit investments
along I-80 corridor in Contra Costa. Conceptual alternatives currently
being evaluated include express bus on I-80, arterial-based bus rapid
transit (BRT) on San Pablo Avenue and 23rd Street, short- and mid-
term improvements on UPRR commuter rail, and a BART extension
from Richmond. Funding request is for project development. Cost
estimates being developed but initial review shows a range from $179
million to $4.1 billion. Cost shown is for least expensive alternative.
($15 million was included in PBA 2040 for project development)
$179 $0 $179 x x x
MTC Draft Principles
ATTACHMENT C
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.199 of 304
No Project Name Description Cost in
PBA2040
(millions)
Funding
Available
(millions)
Funding
Needed
[RM3 Request]
(millions)
Bridge
Nexus
Regional
Prosperity
Sustain-
ability
State of
Good
Repair
Demand
Management
Freight Resilency Sources of
Available
Funds
(millions)
MTC Draft Principles
8 Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Remaining phases includes track and signal work, fuel and optic lines
relocations, transit loop, promenade and civil plaza, landside
improvements, bay trail segments.
$97 $21 $76 x x x x Measure J
(various): 8.8,
Local: 5.1, STIP:
3.9, OBAG: 2.6,
Earmark: 0.7
9 Brentwood Transit Center Develop a transit center in the City of Brentwood.
($12 million included in draft PBA 2040)
$52 $0 $52 x x x
10 Ferry Operations and Landside
Improvements
Provide funding for ferry operations and landside improvements in
Contra Costa.
$123 $53 $70 x x x x Measure J
11 Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects Various pedestrian and bicycle improvements aimed to provide access
to transit and improve regional trails along bridge corridors as well as
improvements to facilitate transit oriented developments
$162 $0 $162 x x x
12 Innovative Transportation Technologies Deploy new technologies to improve traffic conditions along bridge
corridors and prepare for Autonomous Vehicle/Connected Vehicles
$53 $0 $53 x x x x
$1,517 $175 $1,342
*Combines following projects in PBA: I-680 Northbound Managed Lane Completion through 680/24 and Operational Improvements between N. Main and Treat Blvd, I-680 Transit Improvements including Express Bus Service, ITS components, and Park & Ride Lots, and I-680 Northbound HOV lane extension between N. Main and SR-242.
Subtotal
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.200 of 304
SB-595 Metropolitan Transportation Commission: toll bridge reve nues.(2017-2018)
Current Version: 07/03/17 - Amended Assembly Compared to Version: 05/26/17 - Amended Senate Compare Versions
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The San Francisco Bay area’s strong economy and growing population are placing a tremendous burden on
its aging transportation infrastructure. Between 2010 and 2040, the population is forecasted to grow by 2.3
million, while the number of jobs are projected to grow by 1.3 million.
(b) Traffic congestion on the region’s seven state-owned toll bridges degrades the bay area’s quality of life,
impairs its economy, and shows no signs of abating. Between 2010 and 2015, combined volumes on the region’s
seven state-owned toll bridges grew by 11 percent, while volumes on just the Dumbarton Bridge, the Richmond-
San Rafael Bridge, and the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge grew by 20 percent.
(c) In 2015, five of the region’s top 10 worst congested roadways were in the South Bay (San Mateo or Santa
Clara Counties).
(d) In the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge corridor from Hercules to San Francisco, weekday traffic speeds
average less than 35 mph from 5:35 a.m. until 7:50 p.m.
(e) Weekday congestion on the west approach to the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in the eastbound
direction typically begins before 1 p.m. and continues until 9:30 p.m.
(f) Weekday northbound traffic congestion on State Highway Route 101 from Novato to Petaluma begins by 3
p.m. and typically lasts over three hours.
(g) Daily peak-hour traffic on State Highway Route 37 between Marin and Solano Counties jumped over 40
percent from 2010 to 2015.
(h) The region’s only rail link across San Francisco Bay, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), is 44 years
old and faces multibillion-dollar capital funding shortfalls to accommodate growing ridership and achieve a state
of good repair. Meanwhile, BART ridership is at record levels, exceeding 128 million in fiscal year 2016, a 27-
percent increase from fiscal year 2010.
(i) Annual ridership on ferries from Alameda, Oakland, and Vallejo to San Francisco and South San Francisco
more than doubled between 2010 and 2016, from 1.1 million to 2.5 million.
(j) Ridership on the weekday transbay bus service provided by the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District rose 33
percent between 2012 and 2016.
(k) Truck traffic in and out of the Port of Oakland grew by 33 percent since 2000 and contributes to worsening
congestion on the region’s bridges and roadways. An estimated 99 percent of the containerized goods moving
through northern California are loaded or discharged at the port.
(l) The last time bay area voters had the opportunity to approve new funding for improvements in the bridge
corridors was in 2004, when voters approved Regional Measure 2, a $1 toll increase.
(m) To improve the quality of life and sustain the economy of the San Francisco Bay area, it is the intent of the
Legislature to require the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to place on the ballot a measure authorizing
the voters to approve an expenditure plan to improve mobility and enhance travel options on the bridges and
bridge corridors to be paid for by an increase in the toll rate on the seven state-owned bridges within its
jurisdiction.
Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.201 of 304
SEC. 3. 2. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7
(commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. It is the intent of the
Legislature to authorize or create a transportation inspector general to conduct audits and investigations of
activities involving any toll revenues generated pursuant to the regional measure described in Section 30923 of
the Streets and Highways Code, if the voters approve that measure.
SEC. 3. Section 30102.5 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:
30102.5. Consistent with Section 30918, the Bay Area Toll Authority shall fix the rates of the toll charge, except
as provided in Sections 30921 and 30923, and may grant reduced-rate and toll-free passage on the state-owned
toll bridges within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
SEC. 4. Section 30891 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:
30891. The commission may retain, for its cost in administering this article, an amount not to exceed one-quarter
of 1 percent of the revenues allocated by it pursuant to Section 30892 and of the revenues allocated by it
pursuant to Sections 30913, 30914, and 30914.7.
SEC. 5. Section 30911 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:
30911. (a) The authority shall control and maintain the Bay Area Toll Account and other subaccounts it deems
necessary and appropriate to document toll revenue and operating expenditures in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles.
(b) (1) After the requirements of any bond resolution or indenture of the authority for any outstanding revenue
bonds have been met, the authority shall transfer on a regularly scheduled basis as set forth in the authority’s
annual budget resolution, the revenues defined in subdivision (b) of Sections 30913, 30914, and 30914.7 to the
commission. The funds transferred are continuously appropriated to the commission to expend for the purposes
specified in subdivision (b) of Sections 30913, 30914, and 30914.7.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the revenues defined in subdivision (b) of Section 30913 and subdivision
(a) of Section 30914 include all revenues accruing since January 1, 1989.
SEC. 6. Section 30914.7 is added to the Streets and Highways Code, to read:
30914.7. (a) If the voters approve a toll increase pursuant to Section 30923, the authority shall, consistent with
the provisions of subdivisions (b) and (c), fund the projects and programs described in this subdivision that shall
collectively be known as the Regional Measure 3 expenditure plan by bonding or transfers to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission. These projects and programs have been determined to reduce congestion or to
make improvements to travel in the toll bridge corridors, from toll revenues of all bridges:
(b) (1) Not more than ____ percent of the revenues generated from the toll increase shall be made available
annually for the purpose of providing operating assistance for transit services as set forth in the authority’s
annual budget resolution. The funds shall be made available to the provider of the transit services subject to the
performance measures described in paragraph (2). If the funds cannot be obligated for operating assistance
consistent with the performance measures, these funds shall be obligated for other operations consistent with
this chapter.
(2) Prior to the allocation of revenue for transit operating assistance under paragraph (1), the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission shall:
(A) Adopt performance measures related to fare-box recovery, ridership, or other indicators, as appropriate. The
performance measures shall be developed in consultation with the affected project sponsors.
(B) Execute an operating agreement with the sponsor of the project. This agreement shall include, but is not
limited to, an operating plan that is consistent with the adopted performance measures. The agreement shall
include a schedule of projected fare revenues and any other operating funding that will be dedicated to the
service. For any individual project sponsor, this operating agreement may include additional requirements, as
determined by the commission.
(C) In an operating agreement executed pursuant to subparagraph (B), the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission shall grant a project sponsor at least five years to establish new or enhanced service. The
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.202 of 304
Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall use a ridership forecast as the basis for performance measures
adopted pursuant to subparagraph (A) and to establish performance measures in following years. If transit
service does not achieve the performance targets within the timeframe granted to the project sponsor, the
project sponsor shall notify the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, agree to a new timeframe determined
by the commission to achieve the performance targets, and take needed steps to remedy the transit service to
meet the performance standards. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission may take action to redirect
funding to alternative project sponsors if the performance targets are not met within the new timeframe.
(c) (1) For all projects authorized under subdivision (a), the project sponsor shall submit an initial project report
to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission before July 1, ____. This report shall include all information
required to describe the project in detail, including the status of any environmental documents relevant to the
project, additional funds required to fully fund the project, the amount, if any, of funds expended to date, and a
summary of any impediments to the completion of the project. This report, or an updated report, shall include a
detailed financial plan and shall notify the commission if the project sponsor will request toll revenue within the
subsequent 12 months. The project sponsor shall update this report as needed or requested by the commission.
No funds shall be allocated by the commission for any project authorized by subdivision (a) until the project
sponsor submits the initial project report, and the report is reviewed and approved by the commission.
(2) If multiple project sponsors are listed for projects listed in subdivision (a), the commission shall identify a
lead sponsor in coordination with all identified sponsors, for purposes of allocating funds. For any projects
authorized under subdivision (a), the commission shall have the option of requiring a memorandum of
understanding between itself and the project sponsor or sponsors that shall include any specific requirements
that must be met prior to the allocation of funds provided under subdivision (a).
(d) If the voters approve a toll increase pursuant to Section 30923, the authority shall within 24 months of the
election date include the projects in a long-range plan. The authority shall update its long-range plan as required
to maintain its viability as a strategic plan for funding projects authorized by this section. The authority shall, by
January 1, 2020, submit its updated long-range plan to the transportation policy committee of each house of the
Legislature for review.
SEC. 7. Section 30915 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:
30915. With respect to all construction and improvement projects specified in Sections 30913, 30914, and
30914.7, project sponsors and the department shall seek funding from all other potential sources, including, but
not limited to, the State Highway Account and federal matching funds. The project sponsors and department
shall report to the authority concerning the funds obtained under this section.
SEC. 8. Section 30916 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:
30916. (a) The base toll rate for vehicles crossing the state-owned toll bridges within the geographic jurisdiction
of the commission as of January 1, 2003, is as follows:
Number of Axles Toll
Two axles $ 1.00
Three axles 3.00
Four axles 5.25
Five axles 8.25
Six axles 9.00
Seven axles & more 10.50
(b) If the voters approve a toll increase, pursuant to Section 30921, commencing July 1, 2004, the base toll rate
for vehicles crossing the bridges described in subdivision (a) is as follows:
Number of axles Toll
Two axles $ 2.00
Three axles 4.00
Four axles 6.25
Five axles 9.25
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.203 of 304
Six axles 10.00
Seven axles & more 11.50
(c) If the voters approve a toll increase, pursuant to Section 30923, the authority shall increase the base toll rate
for vehicles crossing the bridges described in subdivision (a) by the amount approved by the voters pursuant to
Section 30923. The authority may, beginning January 1, 2019, phase in the toll increase over a period of time
and may adjust the toll increase for inflation based on the California Consumer Price Index after the toll increase
has been phased in completely.
(d) The authority shall increase the amount of the toll only if required to meet its obligations on any bonds or to
satisfy its covenants under any bond resolution or indenture. The authority shall hold a public hearing before
adopting a toll schedule reflecting the increased toll charge.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the adoption of either a discounted commute rate for
two-axle vehicles or of special provisions for high-occupancy vehicles under terms and conditions prescribed by
the authority in consultation with the department.
SEC. 9. Section 30918 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:
30918. (a) It is the intention of the Legislature to maintain tolls on all of the bridges specified in Section 30910 at
rates sufficient to meet any obligation to the holders of bonds secured by the bridge toll revenues. The authority
shall retain authority to set the toll schedule as may be necessary to meet those bond obligations. The authority
shall provide at least 30 days’ notice to the transportation policy committee of each house of the Legislature and
shall hold a public hearing before adopting a toll schedule reflecting the increased toll rate.
(b) The authority shall increase the toll rates specified in the adopted toll schedule in order to meet its
obligations and covenants under any bond resolution or indenture of the authority for any outstanding toll bridge
revenue bonds issued by the authority and the requirements of any constituent instruments defining the rights of
holders of related obligations of the authority entered into pursuant to Section 5922 of the Government Code
and, notwithstanding Section 30887 or subdivision (d) of Section 30916 of this code, or any other law, may
increase the toll rates specified in the adopted toll schedule to provide funds for the planning, design,
construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, and seismic retrofit of the state-owned
toll bridges specified in Section 30910 of this code, to provide funding to meet the requirements of Sections
30884 and 30911 of this code, and to provide funding to meet the requirements of voter-approved regional
measures pursuant to Sections 30914 and 30921 of this code.
(c) The authority’s toll structure for the state-owned toll bridges specified in Section 30910 may vary from bridge
to bridge and may include discounts for vehicles classified by the authority as high-occupancy vehicles,
notwithstanding any other law.
(d) If the authority establishes high-occupancy vehicle lane fee discounts or access for vehicles classified by the
authority as high-occupancy vehicles for any bridge, the authority shall collaborate with the department to reach
agreement on how the occupancy requirements shall apply on each segment of highway that connects with that
bridge.
(e) All tolls referred to in this section and Sections 30916, 31010, and 31011 may be treated by the authority as
a single revenue source for accounting and administrative purposes and for the purposes of any bond indenture
or resolution and any agreement entered into pursuant to Section 5922 of the Government Code.
(f) It is the intent of the Legislature that the authority should consider the needs and requirements of both its
electronic and cash-paying customers when it designates toll payment options at the toll plazas for the toll
bridges under its jurisdiction.
SEC. 10. Section 30920 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:
30920. The authority may issue toll bridge revenue bonds to finance any or all of the projects, including those
specified in Sections 30913, 30914, and 30914.7, if the issuance of the bonds does not adversely affect the
minimum amount of toll revenue proceeds designated in Section 30913 and in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a)
of, and subdivision (b) of, Section 30914 for rail extension and improvement projects and transit projects to
reduce vehicular traffic. A determination of the authority that a specific project or projects shall have no adverse
effect will be binding and conclusive in all respects.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.204 of 304
SEC. 11. Section 30922 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:
30922. Any action or proceeding to contest, question, or deny the validity of a toll increase provided for in this
chapter, the financing of the transportation program contemplated by this chapter, the issuance of any bonds
secured by those tolls, or any of the proceedings in relation thereto, shall be commenced within 60 days from
the date of the election at which the toll increase is approved. After that date, the financing of the program, the
issuance of the bonds, and all proceedings in relation thereto, including the adoption, approval, and collection of
the toll increase, shall be held valid and incontestable in every respect.
SEC. 2. 12. Section 30923 is added to the Streets and Highways Code, to read:
30923. (a) For purposes of the special election to be conducted pursuant to this section, the authority shall select
an amount of the proposed increase in the toll rate, not to exceed three dollars ($3), for vehicles crossing the
bridges described in Section 30910 to be placed on the ballot for approval by the voters.
(a) (b) The toll rate for vehicles crossing the bridges described in Section 30910 shall not be increased to the
____ rate rate described in subdivision (c) of Section 30916 prior to the availability of the results of a special
election to be held in the City and County of San Francisco and the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin,
Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma to determine whether the residents of those counties and of
the City and County of San Francisco approve the toll increase.
(b) (c) The revenue derived from the toll increase shall be used to meet all funding obligations associated with
____ projects and programs. programs described in Section 30914.7. To the extent additional toll funds are
available from the toll increase, the authority may use them for bridge rehabilitation and for projects and
programs aimed at reducing congestion and improving travel options in the bridge corridors.
(c) (d) (1) Notwithstanding any provision of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the City and
County of San Francisco and of each of the counties described in subdivision (a) (b) shall call a special election
to be conducted in the City and County of San Francisco and in each of the counties that shall be consolidated
with the November ____, 6, 2018, general election.
(2) The following question shall be submitted to the voters as Regional Measure 3 and stated separately in the
ballot from state and local measures: “Shall voters authorize the Regional Measure 3 expenditure plan that does
the following:
(A) Directs revenues generated through the collection of bridge tolls to provide the following projects:
(B) Approves a ____ toll increase and authorizes the Bay Area Toll Authority, beginning January 1, 2019, to
phase in the toll increase and to adjust that amount for inflation after the toll increase has been phased in
completely, on all toll bridges in the bay area, except the Golden Gate Bridge?”
(3) The blank provision in the portion of the ballot question described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) shall
be filled in with the amount of the toll increase selected pursuant to subdivision (a).
(d) (e) The ballot pamphlet for the special election shall include a detailed description summary of the Regional
Measure 3 expenditure plan detailing regarding the eligible projects to be funded. and programs to be funded
pursuant to Section 30914.7. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission shall prepare a summary of the
Regional Measure 3 expenditure plan.
(e) (f) The county clerks shall report the results of the special election to the authority. If a majority of all voters
voting on the question at the special election vote affirmatively, the authority shall adopt may phase in the
increased toll schedule to be effective ____. beginning January 1, 2019, consistent with subdivision (c) of
Section 30916.
(g) If a majority of all the voters voting on the question at the special election do not approve the toll increase,
the authority may by resolution resubmit the measure to the voters at a subsequent general election. If a
majority of all of the voters vote affirmatively on the measure, the authority may adopt the toll increase and
establish its effective date and establish the completion dates for all reports and studies required by Sections
30914.7 and 30950.3.
(h) (1) Each county and city and county shall share translation services for the ballot pamphlet and shall provide
the authority a certified invoice that details the incremental cost of including the measure on the ballot, as well
as the total costs associated with the election.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.205 of 304
(f) (2) The authority shall reimburse each county and city and county participating in the election for the
incremental cost of submitting the measure to the voters. These costs shall be reimbursed from revenues
derived from the tolls if the measure is approved by the voters, or, if the measure is not approved, from any
bridge toll revenues administered by the authority.
(i) If the voters approve a toll increase pursuant to this section, the authority shall establish an independent
oversight committee no later than January 1, 2020, to ensure that any toll revenues generated pursuant to this
section are expended consistent with the applicable requirements set forth in Section 30914.7. The oversight
committee shall include two representatives from each county within the jurisdiction of the commission. Each
representative shall be appointed by the applicable county board of supervisors and serve a four-year term and
shall be limited to two terms. The oversight committee shall annually review the expenditure of funds by the
authority for the projects and programs specified in Section 30914.7 and prepare a report summarizing its
findings. The oversight committee may request any documents from the authority to assist the committee in
performing its functions.
(j) If voters approve a toll increase pursuant to this section, the authority shall annually prepare a report to the
Legislature, in conformance with Section 9795 of the Government Code, on the status of the projects and
programs funded pursuant to Section 30914.7.
(k) Except as provided in subdivision (c) of Section 30916 and Section 30918, the toll rates contained in a toll
schedule adopted by the authority pursuant to this section shall not be changed without statutory authorization
by the Legislature.
SEC. 13. Section 30950.3 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read:
30950.3. (a) The authority shall prepare, adopt, and from time to time revise, a long-range plan for the
completion of all projects within its jurisdiction, including those of the Regional Traffic Relief Plan described in
subdivision (c) of Section 30914 and the Regional Measure 3 expenditure plan described in subdivision (a) of
Section 30914.7.
(b) The authority shall give first priority to projects and expenditures that are deemed necessary by the
department to preserve and protect the bridge structures.
SEC. 14. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7
(commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.206 of 304
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
SB 595
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 595
Author: Beall (D)
Amended: 5/26/17
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 9-3, 4/25/17
AYES: Beall, Allen, Atkins, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Skinner, Wieckowski,
Wiener
NOES: Bates, Gaines, Morrell
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cannella
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/25/17
AYES: Lara, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Wiener
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
SUBJECT: Metropolitan Transportation Commission: toll bridge revenues
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill requires the City and County of San Francisco and the other
eight Bay Area counties to conduct a special election to increase the toll rate
charged on state-owned bridges within the region, as specified.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Creates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as a regional
agency in the nine county Bay Area with comprehensive regional transportation
planning and other related responsibilities.
2)Creates the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) as a separate entity governed by
the same governing board as the MTC and makes BATA responsible for the
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.207 of 304
SB 595
Page 2
programming, administration, and allocation of toll revenues from the state-
owned toll bridges in the Bay Area.
3)Authorizes BATA to increase the toll rates for certain purposes, including to
meet its bond obligations, provide funding for certain costs associated with the
Bay Area state-owned toll bridges, including for the seismic retrofit of those
bridges, and provide funding to meet the requirements of certain voter-approved
regional measures.
4)Provided for submission of two regional measures to the voters of seven Bay
Area counties in 1988 and 2004 relative to specified increases in bridge auto
tolls on the bay area state-owned toll bridges, subject to approval by a majority
of the voters.
5)Identifies the seven state-owned bridges within MTC’s geographic jurisdiction
as:
a)Antioch Bridge.
b)Benicia-Martinez Bridge.
c)Carquinez Bridge.
d)Dumbarton Bridge.
e)Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.
f)San Mateo-Hayward Bridge.
g)San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.
This bill:
1)Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding Bay Area traffic
congestion and the associated economic and quality of life impacts.
2)Provides that an unspecified toll rate shall not be increased on the seven Bay
Area state owned bridges until the rate increase is voter-approved via a special
election that is held by the nine Bay Area counties.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.208 of 304
SB 595
Page 3
3)Provides that the revenues derived from the voter-approved toll increase are to
be used to meet the funding obligations associated with an unspecified number
of projects and transportation programs.
4)Provides, further, that any toll revenue from the voter-approved toll increase
available after meeting the abovementioned funding obligations may be used
for bridge rehabilitation and projects targeted at reducing vehicle congestion
and improving mobility options for bridge corridors.
5)Requires the nine Bay Area counties to call a special election for the proposed
toll increase to occur during an unspecified general election.
6)Requires BATA to reimburse each county and city and county participating in
the special election, as specified.
Comments
1)Author’s statement. According to the author, “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.”
2)SB 1. Recently passed by the Legislature, SB 1 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of
2017) is a transportation funding package projected to bring in $5.2 billion
annually for road rehabilitation, transit improvement, and trade corridor
enhancement projects. The historic passage of this transportation funding
package was in response to the clear message that the state’s roads and
highways and transit systems are in dire need of significant improvements and
rehabilitation. This past winter season’s storms exacerbated this need by
requiring the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to issue over $800
million in emergency contracts for road repair.
Despite this new wave of transportation funding, the need is great. The last
time transportation revenues were increased statewide was in 1994 and the last
time Bay Area bridge tolls increased for specific improvement projects was in
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.209 of 304
SB 595
Page 4
2004. At the same time, over the last decade. The Bay Area has experienced
significant increases in traffic volumes and population growth due to the
economic boom associated with the tech industry. As a result the author notes,
while “SB 1 will address the state’s aging pains, SB 595 will address the Bay
Area’s growing pains.”
3)RM1 and RM 2. Regional Measures 1 and 2 (RM 1 and RM 2) received voter
approval in 1988 and 2004 respectively. The most recent measure, enacted in
2003, RM 2 (SB 916, Perata, Chapter 715, Statutes of 2003) proposed to levy a
$1 toll increase to fund transit and roadway improvements in the bridge
corridors. Specifically, RM 2 established a regional traffic relief plan to help
finance highway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects in the bridge corridors
and to provide operating funds for key transit services. RM 2 toll revenues
have been allocated to a variety of bridge corridor projects including the
construction of Interstate 580 high-occupancy vehicle lanes (HOV), Interstate
80 HOV lane construction in Contra Costa County, and also to support Bay
Area transit. Both RM 1 and 2 toll charges are levied in perpetuity.
RM 3 proponents assert that with RM 1 and 2 projects either completed or
under construction, it’s time for voters to consider a third regional measure for
the Bay Area’s next generation of improvements.
4)What are toll rates today? Under the existing tolling structure, a motorist
traveling over one of the seven Bay Area bridges typically pays $5. The Bay
Bridge’s tolling structure slightly varies due to a congestion pricing where a
motorist will pay between $4-$6 depending on peak/non-peak travel times.
Below is a breakdown of how each dollar is used:
a)First Dollar — bridge operations and maintenance, RM 1 projects, transit
capital and transit operations
b)Second Dollar — original toll bridge seismic retrofit program
c)Third Dollar — RM 2 investments
d)Fourth Dollar — toll bridge seismic retrofit program
e)Fifth Dollar — addition of Antioch and Dumbarton bridges to toll bridge
seismic retrofit program
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.210 of 304
SB 595
Page 5
5)Work in progress. This bill sets up the statutory framework for RM 3 in a
similar manner as was established in RM 2. However, this proposal remains a
work in progress. This bill does not identify the proposed toll increase or the
number of projects and/or programs that will qualify for funding with the new
toll revenue if approved. Additionally, this bill does not specify which general
election the RM 3 proposal would be placed on the ballot. As Bay Area
stakeholders continue to work with the author to craft a toll levy and
expenditure plan that sufficiently meets the Bay Area’s transportation needs, the
author notes these provisions will ultimately be included into the bill.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
1)Unknown one-time local costs, likely in excess of $1 million, for the nine Bay
Area counties to hold a special election for the toll increase that will be
consolidated with an unspecified November general election. These costs must
be reimbursed by the Bay Area Toll Authority and are not state-reimbursable
because the costs must be covered from existing or proposed toll revenues.
(Bay Area Toll Account)
2)Unknown revenue gains as a result of the toll increase, to the extent the
proposal is approved by Bay Area voters. Staff notes that the amount of the
proposed toll increase is currently unspecified, but each dollar of tolls raises an
estimated $127 million in annual revenues. (Bay Area Toll Account)
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/25/17)
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/25/17)
None received
Prepared by: Manny Leon / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121
5/27/17 16:39:16
**** END ****
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.211 of 304
With constant gridlock turning freeways into parking lots, BART trains packed
to the gills and mounting concerns about how to accommodate continued
growth in the region, more than half of prospective voters said they’d be willing
to pay up to $3 more in bridge tolls to ease congestion, according to a new poll.
Commissioned by the region’s two largest business boosters, the Bay Area
NewsTransportation
Poll: Voters support $3 bridge toll
hike to ease trafác gridlock
22
Trafác moves slowly along Southbound Highway 101 at theMarinwood exit during the morning commute in San Rafael, Calif. (IJarchive photo/Alan Dep)
By ERIN BALDASSARI | ebaldassari@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News
Group
PUBLISHED: July 3, 2017 at 3:08 pm | UPDATED: July 3, 2017 at 3:13 pm
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.212 of 304
Money from the increased tolls could be used on a wide range of projects, such
as expanded ferry service, buying 300 more BART cars to allow the agency to
run longer trains, increasing the number of freeway carpool and express lanes,
beeäng up express bus services, extending BART to San Jose and other
improvements. Lawmakers are expected to draft a list of proposed projects
before the measure goes out to voters.
Commissioned by the region’s two largest business boosters, the Bay Area
Council and Silicon Valley Leadership Group, along with the transportation
policy think-tank, SPUR, the poll surveyed more than 9,000 residents, 85
percent of whom said they felt trafäc is worse this year than it was last year.
Roughly three quarters, of 74 percent, said they’d be willing to pay more to
cross the Bay Area’s seven state-owned bridges if that money is invested in “big
regional projects” that ease trafäc and improve mass transit.
But it’s unclear just how much people would actually be willing to pay.
ADVERTISING
More than half of the poll’s respondents, or 56 percent, said they would
“probably” or “deänitely” be willing to pay for gradually increasing tolls that
rise to $3 in 2022. That would raise about $5 billion over 25 years, if the ärst
hike went into effect on July 1 next year. Just three percent more people, or 59
percent total, said they’d support a smaller toll hike of $2, according to the poll
results.
It costs $5 to cross every bridge in the Bay Area, except the Golden Gate Bridge,
which is not part of this proposal, and the Bay Bridge, which costs between
$4-$6 depending on the time and day.
The proposed funding would be in addition to several taxes voters approved last07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.213 of 304
The proposed funding would be in addition to several taxes voters approved last
November, including BART’s $3.5 billion bond measure, the AC Transit parcel
tax and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s transportation sales tax.
It also comes on the heels of the recently-passed SB1, a gas tax and
transportation funding bill lawmakers approved earlier this year.
Those measures, with the exception of the Santa Clara sales tax, were focused
on repairing and maintaining an aging system, said Randy Rentschler, a
spokesman for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which oversees
the distribution of bridge toll monies. Money from the proposed toll increase
would primarily be focused on new construction or projects to increase capacity
along bridge corridors.
He likened the difference to “aging pains” and “growing pains.”
“A lot of people are deeply, deeply frustrated by having to be in trafäc all the
time,” Rentschler said. “The focus here is on congestion relief along the bridge
corridors. It’s not trying to rehab every local street.”
And big transportation projects are expensive, often requiring multiple funding
sources, said Carl Guardino, president and CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership
Group. It doesn’t help that for the past four decades, the federal and state
governments have not adequately funded transportation improvements, he
said.
“When you starve something for decades, it takes more than one meal or more
than one bite to make it healthy again,” Guardino said. “It’s the same with
people, and it’s the same with transportation infrastructure.”
In the past, bridge toll funds have gone to support myriad projects. Regional
Measure 2, which voters approved in 2004, helped fund the fourth bore of the
Caldecott Tunnel; BART’s extension to Warm Springs, Antioch and the Oakland
airport connector; light rail in San Francisco; high-occupancy vehicle lanes on
Interstate 580 and Interstate 80; improvements to Clipper cards and much
more. That was the ärst time tolls had been raised since 1988, when voters
approved Regional Measure 1.
“It seems like every 12 to 14 years, we take a crack at this,” Rentschler said. “It’s
not an everyday thing.”
The proposed measure is slated to go before voters in June or November next
year. It needs a simple majority across the nine-county Bay Area to be approved.
Tags: BART,Bay Bridge,Caltrain,Interstate 580,Interstate 680,Interstate 880,Regional,Trafãc,Transit,Transportation
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.214 of 304
By Matier & Ross |July 2, 2017
20
Bay Area voters may be asked to OK
bridge toll hike of up to $3
Local
IMAGE 1 OF 2
Traffic streams through the Bay Bridge toll plaza, where an increase could peg the toll at $9.
Photo: Noah Berger, Special To The Chronicle
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.215 of 304
Lawmakers, business leaders and staffers at the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission have been
quietly meeting at the state Capitol in an effort to
draw up a proposal for a toll increase of $2 to $3 on
the Bay Area’s seven state-run bridges.
The goal is to have the measure in front of voters
either in next year’s June primary election or on the
November general election ballot.
Money from the toll increase — an estimated $125
million a year — would pay for a number of projects
intended to ease traffic congestion. Those could
include funding for 300 new BART cars, something that would allow the transit agency to run
more trains; construction of more high-occupancy vehicle lanes on Interstates 80, 680 and 880,
plus Highway 101; expanded ferry systems and more express buses; BART service to San Jose;
and the growing cost of the new Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco.
“We want to make sure that the projects will have a positive impact on traffic,” said Carl
Guardino , president of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which is among those talking in
Sacramento about a possible toll increase.
The increase could bring tolls on state-run spans to as much as $9 on the Bay Bridge, which has
congestion pricing, and $8 on other bridges. The exact proposal hasn’t been set, but one idea
under discussion is to raise tolls by $2 and set an automatic increase in future years that would
be tied to inflation.
The only bridge exempt from the increase would be the Golden Gate, which is run by its own
transit district. Tolls there top out at $7.75.
Two of the biggest players pushing for the toll increase are the Silicon Valley Leadership Group
— whose members include such tech titans as Genentech, Facebook and Google —and the Bay
Area Council, which represents some of the region’s biggest employers, including Kaiser
Foundation Hospitals, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and UCSF.
A poll of Bay Area voters that the two business groups commissioned showed that 59 percent of
those surveyed would support a $2 toll increase that paid for transit improvements, and 56
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.216 of 304
percent would back a $3 increase. The online poll was conducted by the firm Fairbank, Maslin,
Maullin, Metz and Associates, and had a margin of error of 2.2 percentage points.
“When you consider the huge amount of time that commuters waste in traffic every day, adding
a couple extra dollars to bridge tolls will help cut congestion and expand critical regional mass
transit that benefits the entire Bay Area,” Jim W underman , an executive with the Bay Area
Council, said in a statement.
The urban planning group SPUR has also been in on the talks.
“Right now much of the discussions are centering around where the money will go,” said state
Sen. Jerry Hill , D-San Mateo, one of the lawmakers in on the negotiations.
And with good reason.
Any toll increase would need a simple-majority approval in a cumulative vote of the nine Bay
Area counties — San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, San
Mateo and Santa Clara. But voters in some of those counties drive the bridges a lot more than
others.
For example, Alameda County accounts for 31 percent of drivers paying bridge tolls, but its
share of the nine-county electorate amounts to just 22 percent, according to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission.
Santa Clara County, on the other hand, has 22 percent of the Bay Area vote, but it accounts for
just 3 percent of bridge toll payers.
“So a balance has to be worked out,” Hill said.
And so does the sales pitch to voters.
Election tip: Daniel Lurie , head of the Tipping Point Community charity, was spotted having
lunch the other day at AT&T Park’s Gotham Club with Giants President Larry Baer and a
mutual friend, Hyatt Hotel heir John Pritzker — where they were overheard discussing Lurie’s
prospects for a 2019 mayoral run in San Francisco.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.217 of 304
From what we hear, this was very much a case of Lurie testing the waters for possible political
support.
Lurie wasn’t taking our call about the lunch, but he told us earlier that he had “too much on my
plate right now” and that “I don’t view myself as a politician.”
Lurie did, however, put himself into the thick of one of the city’s most contentious issues when
he recently announced his group would contribute $100 million to try to cut the chronically
homeless population in half over the next five years.
Talk of a Lurie run was also the hot table topic at Tipping Point’s annual gala at the Bill Graham
Civic Auditorium a couple of months back — an event that drew 1,200 guests and raised more
than $16 million for the 12-year-old poverty-fighting organization.
“It’s no secret that people do frequently ask Daniel if he will get involved in politics, because he
is so committed to alleviating poverty and he is a charismatic public speaker,” said Lurie adviser
and political consultant Nathan Ballard , who was press secretary to former Mayor Gavin
Newsom.
Lurie may be best known as chairman of the San Francisco host committee for Super Bowl 50,
which helped raise $12 million that was plowed into putting on the big party last year and
supporting dozens of local charities.
Even before that, he was well connected.
Lurie’s dad, Rabbi Brian Lurie , headed the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, the
Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma counties for 17 years. His mother, Mimi Haas , married
philanthropist Peter Haas , the late CEO of Levi’s.
And he has a long contact list of local string pullers.
San Francisco Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross appear Sundays, Mondays
and Wednesdays. Matier can be seen on the KPIX TV morning and evening news. He can also be
heard on KCBS radio Monday through Friday at 7:50 a.m. and 5:50 p.m. Got a tip? Call (415)
777-8815, or email matierandross@sfchronicle.com. Twitter: @matierandross
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.218 of 304
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 10.
Meeting Date:07/10/2017
Subject:CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related
Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate.
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 1
Referral Name: REVIEW legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.
Presenter: John Cunningham, Department of
Conservation and Development
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 to discuss broad issues that may be of interest to the Committee. Issues that
require specific attention and action will be on the agenda as standalone items.
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
Iron Horse Corridor Update: Mark Watts, the County's legislative advocate will provide an update on
efforts related to the County's obligations to the State relative to the Iron Horse Corridor.
Countywide Transportation Plan: This issue is addressed separately as Agenda Item #.
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any local issues of note and take ACTION as appropriate.
2)STATE
Legislative Report
A report from the County's legislative advocate, Mark Watts, is attached (July TWIC Report). Mr.
Watts will be present at the July meeting to discuss issues of interest to the Committee.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.219 of 304
Included in the report will be the status of efforts to implement Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and
Accountability Act of 2017, related materials are attached.
Legislation of Interest to the County
Attached are the bills being tracked by TWIC, "TWIC Legislation of Interest - July 2017". Staff
comments on specific bills are below.
Assembly Bill 1069 (Low): Local Government: Taxicab Transportation Service (AB1069 is
being handled by Lara Delaney in the County Administrators Office )
The bill is of possible interest to the County given 1) the County's outstanding obligation to
regulate taxi service and 2) the matter is on the TWIC 2017 referral list: "18. Monitor issues of
interest in the provision and enhancement of general transportation services, including but not
limited to public transportation, taxicab/transportation network companies, and navigation apps."
Related, at their June 21st Board meeting the Contra Costa Transportation Authority took an
"oppose" position. The bill was subsequently revised, the marked up bill is attached to this report,
AB 1069 Taxi Reg- May26 to June28 Markup.pdf.
AB 1069 Description: This bill would authorize each of 10 specified counties to regulate taxi
service within the respective county by means of a countywide transportation agency, as defined
for each of those counties. The bill would, after January 1, 2019, prohibit an authorized county
that does not regulate taxi service by means of a countywide transportation agency, and the cities
within that county, from regulating taxi service. The bill would require the sheriff in a county that
does not regulate taxi service pursuant to these provisions to administer criminal background
checks and drug testing for taxicab drivers within that county. By increasing the duties of sheriffs,
this bill would impose a state-mandated local program .
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS state issues of note and take ACTION as appropriate.
3)FEDERAL
No written report in May.
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any federal issues of note and take ACTION as appropriate.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and
take ACTION as appropriate including CONSIDERATION of any specific recommendations in
the report above.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
There is no fiscal impact.
Attachments
Draft SB1 Guidelines
sb_1_ten-yr_estimates_-_total_new_revenues
sb_1_transportation_funding_deal - csac
TWIC Legislation of Interest - July 2017
CC CountyTaxiReso 5-24-16.pdf
July TWIC Leg Report
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.220 of 304
NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form,
and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the
Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines.
2017
LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS
PROGRAM
DRAFT GUIDELINES
June 8, 2017
California Transportation Commission
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.221 of 304
i
CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
2017
LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM GUIDELINES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.Background and Purpose of Guidelines ..................................................................... 1
2.Program Objectives and Statutory Requirements ...................................................... 1
3.Program Roles and Responsibilities ........................................................................... 3
4.Program Schedule ......................................................................................................... 3
II.Funding ................................................................................................................................ 4
5.Source ............................................................................................................................. 4
6.Estimation of Funds ...................................................................................................... 4
7.Disbursement of Funds ................................................................................................. 4
III. Eligibility and Program Priorities ...................................................................................... 5
8.Eligible Recipients ......................................................................................................... 5
9.Program Priorities and Example Projects ................................................................... 5
IV.Project List Submittal ......................................................................................................... 6
10.Content and Format of Project List .............................................................................. 6
11.Process and Schedule for Project List Submittal ....................................................... 9
12.Commission Submittal of Eligible Entities to the State Controller’s Office ............. 9
V. Project Expenditure Reporting and Auditing ................................................................. 10
13.Scope of Completed Project Expenditure Report .................................................... 10
14.Process and Schedule for Project Report Submittal ............................................... 12
15.Commission Reporting of Project Information Received ........................................ 12
16.Additional Project Reporting and Signage Requirements ....................................... 13
17.Project Auditing and Maintenance of Effort Requirement ....................................... 13
Appendix A – Local Streets and Roads Project List Form .................................................... 15
Appendix B - Local Streets and Roads Completed Project Expenditure Report Form ...... 16
Appendix C – Local Streets and Roads Program Schedule ................................................. 17
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.222 of 304
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Program
DRAFT Guidelines Version 1 June 8, 2017
NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form,
and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the
Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines.
1
I. Introduction
1. Background and Purpose of Guidelines
On April 28, 2017 the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 1 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017),
which is known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. To address basic road
maintenance, rehabilitation and critical safety needs on both the state highway and local streets
and road system, SB 1: increases per gallon fuel excise taxes; increases diesel fuel sales taxes
and vehicle registration fees; and provides for inflationary adjustments to tax rates in future years.
Beginning November 1, 2017, various portions of the funding collected from these increased taxes
and fees will be deposited into the newly created Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account
(RMRA), resulting in more than double the total amount of state local streets and roads funding
apportioned annually to cities and counties by the State Controller’s Office for road maintenance
and rehabilitation (for a detailed breakdown of RMRA funding sources and the disbursement of
funding, please see Section 5 of these guidelines).
SB 1 also emphasizes the importance of accountability and transparency in the delivery of
California’s transportation programs and therefore requires cities and counties to provide basic
project reporting to the California Transportation Commission (Commission) regarding the use of
RMRA funding.
The reporting of RMRA project information to the Commission pursuant to the requirements
outlined in SB 1 will be known as the Local Streets and Roads Program (program) which will be
administered by the Commission in partnership with the State Controller’s Office (Controller).
These guidelines describe the general policies and procedures for carrying out the program’s
statutory objectives as outlined in Chapter I Section 2 below.
The guidelines were developed in consultation with stakeholders representing state, regional, and
local government entities. The Commission may amend these guidelines after first giving notice
of the proposed amendments. In order to provide clear and timely guidance, it is the
Commission’s policy that a reasonable effort be made to amend the guidelines prior to a call for
project lists or the Commission may extend the deadline for project list submission in order to
facilitate compliance with the amended guidelines.
2. Program Objectives and Statutory Requirements
Pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Section 2030(a), the objective of the
Local Streets and Roads Program is to address deferred maintenance on the local streets and
roads system through the prioritization and delivery of basic road maintenance and rehabilitation
projects as well as critical safety projects.
SHC 2032.5(a) articulates the general intent of the legislature that recipients of RMRA funding be
held accountable for the efficient investment of public funds to maintain local streets and roads,
and are accountable to the people through performance goals that are tracked and reported.
The main requirements for the program are codified in SHC Sections 2034, 2036, 2037, and 2038
and include the following:
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.223 of 304
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Program
DRAFT Guidelines Version 1 June 8, 2017
NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form,
and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the
Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines.
2
Prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds from the State Controller in a fiscal
year, a city or county must submit to the Commission a list of projects proposed to be
funded with these funds. All projects proposed to receive funding must be included in
a city or county budget that is adopted by the applicable city council or county board
of supervisors at a regular public meeting [SHC 2034(a)(1)].
The list of projects must include a description and the location of each proposed
project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life
of the improvement [SHC 2034(a)(1)]. Further guidance regarding the scope, content,
and submittal process for project lists prepared by cities and counties is provided in
Sections 9-10.
The project list does not limit the flexibility of an eligible city or county to fund projects
in accordance with local needs and priorities so long as the projects are consistent
with RMRA priorities as outlined in SHC 2030(b) [SHC 2034(a)(1)].
The Commission will report to the Controller the cities and counties that have
submitted a list of projects as described in SHC 2034(a)(1) and that are therefore
eligible to receive an apportionment of RMRA funds for the applicable fiscal year [SHC
2034(a)(2)].
The Controller, upon receipt of the report from the Commission, shall apportion RMRA
funds to eligible cities and counties [SHC 2034(a)(2)].
For each fiscal year in which RMRA funds are received and expended, counties must
submit documentation to the Commission that includes a description and location of
each completed project, the amount of funds expended on the project, the completion
date, and the estimated useful life of the improvement [SHC 2034(b)]. Further
guidance regarding the scope, content, and submittal process for project reports is
provided in Sections 12-13.
Cities and counties receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds are required to sustain
a maintenance of effort by spending at least the same amount as previous fiscal years
on transportation purposes from the city or county’s general fund [SHC 2036].
Monitoring and enforcement of the maintenance of effort requirement for RMRA funds
will be carried out by the Controller and is addressed in more detail in Section 16.
A city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA funds on transportation
priorities other than basic road maintenance and RMRA priorities as outlined in SHC
2030(b) if the city or county’s average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or
exceeds 80 [SHC 2037].
By July 1, 2023, cities and counties receiving RMRA funds must follow guidelines
developed by the California Workforce Development Board (Board) that address
participation & investment in, or partnership with, new or existing pre-apprenticeship
training programs [SHC 2038]. Further information regarding the Board Guidelines and
future Board-sponsored grant opportunities is available in Section 15.
Cities and counties receiving RMRA funds must comply with all relevant federal and state laws,
regulations, policies, and procedures.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.224 of 304
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Program
DRAFT Guidelines Version 1 June 8, 2017
NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form,
and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the
Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines.
3
3. Program Roles and Responsibilities
Below is a general outline of the roles and responsibilities of recipient cities/counties, the
Commission, and the Controller in carrying out the program’s statutory requirements:
Recipient Cities/Counties:
Develop and submit a list of projects to the Commission each fiscal year.
Develop and submit a project expenditure report to the Commission each fiscal year.
Comply with all auditing requirements as well as any additional reporting requirements for
RMRA funding imposed by the Controller.
Commission:
Provide technical assistance to cities and counties in the preparation of project lists and
reports.
Receive project lists from cities and counties each fiscal year.
Provide a list to the Controller each fiscal year of cities and counties eligible to receive
RMRA apportionments.
Receive project expenditure reports from cities and counties each fiscal year and provide
aggregated statewide information regarding use of RMRA funds to the Legislature and the
public (e.g. the Commission’s Annual Report to the Legislature and a SB 1 Accountability
Website).
Controller:
Receive list of cities and counties eligible for RMRA apportionments each fiscal year from
the Commission.
Apportion RMRA funds to cities and counties.
Oversee MOE and other auditing requirements for RMRA funds as well as reporting
required pursuant to SHC 2151.
4. Program Schedule
The following schedule lists the major milestones for the development of the 2017 Local Streets
and Roads Program Guidelines, initial submittal of project lists, and transmittal of eligibility list to
the Controller. See Appendix C for a more detailed program schedule.
Draft Guidelines Circulated for Public Review June 19 – July 10, 2017
Commission Adoption of Guidelines August 16-17, 2017
Call for Project Lists August 18, 2017
Project Lists due to Commission September 15, 2017
Commission Adopts List of Eligible Cities and Counties October 18-19, 2017
Commission Submits List to Controller November 1, 2017
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.225 of 304
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Program
DRAFT Guidelines Version 1 June 8, 2017
NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form,
and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the
Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines.
4
II. Funding
5. Source
The State of California imposes per-gallon excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, sales taxes
on diesel fuel, and registration taxes on motor vehicles with allocation dedicated to transportation
purposes. These allocations flow to cities and counties through the Highway Users Tax Account
(HUTA) and the newly established RMRA created by SB 1.
The Local Streets and Roads Program administered by the Commission in partnership with the
Controller is supported by RMRA funding which includes portions of revenues pursuant to SHC
2031 from the following sources1:
An additional 12 cent per gallon increase to the gasoline excise tax effective November 1,
2017.
An additional 20 cent per gallon increase to the diesel fuel excise tax effective November
1, 2017.
An additional vehicle registration tax called the “Transportation Improvement Fee” with
rates based on the value of the motor vehicle effective January 1, 2018.
An additional $100 vehicle registration tax on zero emissions (ZEV) vehicles of model year
2020 or later effective July 1, 2020.
Annual rate increases to these taxes beginning on July 1, 2020 (July 1, 2021 for the ZEV
fee) and every July 1st thereafter equal to the change in the California Consumer Price
Index (CPI).
SHC 2032(h)(2) specifies that 50 percent of the balance of revenues deposited into the RMRA,
after certain funding is set aside for various programs, will be continuously appropriated for
apportionment to cities and counties by the Controller pursuant to the formula in SHC Section
2103(a)(3)(C)(i) and (ii). The other 50 percent of RMRA revenues are allocated to the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for purposes of the State Highway Operation and
Protection Program (SHOPP).
6. Estimation of Funds
[Placeholder for language regarding how estimates of available RMRA funds will be developed
and communicated to cities and counties.]
7. Disbursement of Funds
Upon receipt of a list of cities and counties that are eligible to receive an apportionment of RMRA
funds pursuant to SHC 2032(h)(2) from the Commission, the Controller is required to apportion
RMRA funds to eligible cities and counties consistent with the formula outlined in SHC Section
2103(a)(3)(C)(i) and (ii).
It is expected that the Controller will apportion RMRA funds on a monthly basis to eligible cities
and counties using a process and system similar to that of Highway User Tax Account HUTA
apportionments.
1 The California Local Government Finance Almanac. Updated May 11, 2017. Page 7. Accessed at:
http://www.californiacityfinance.com/LSR1704.pdf
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.226 of 304
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Program
DRAFT Guidelines Version 1 June 8, 2017
NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form,
and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the
Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines.
5
III. Eligibility and Program Priorities
8. Eligible Recipients
Eligible recipients of RMRA funding apportionments include cities and counties that have
prepared and submitted a project list to the Commission pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(1) and
that have been included in a list of eligible entities submitted by the Commission to the Controller
pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(2).
Recipients of RMRA apportionments must comply with all relevant federal and state laws,
regulations, policies, and procedures.
9. Program Priorities and Example Projects
Pursuant to SHC Section 2030(a), RMRA funds made available for the Local Streets and Roads
Program shall be prioritized for expenditure on basic road maintenance and rehabilitation projects,
and on critical safety projects.
SHC Section 2030(b) provides a number of example projects and uses for RMRA funding that
include but are not limited to the following:
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Safety Projects
Railroad Grade Separations
Complete Streets 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) [Note: need to clarify/better
understand what the complete streets component language in parenthesis means]
Traffic Control Devices
Satisfying Match Requirement for State or Federal Funds (for an RMRA eligible
project)
SHC Section 2030(c)-(f) specifies desired aspirational uses of RMRA funds by cities and counties
to the extent possible and cost effective, and where feasible (as deemed by cities and counties)
on the following:
Technologies and material recycling techniques that lower greenhouse gas emissions
and reduce the cost of maintaining local streets and roads through material choice
and construction method.
Systems and components in transportation infrastructure that recognize and
accommodate technologies including but not limited to ZEV fueling or charging and
infrastructure-vehicles communications for transitional or fully autonomous vehicles.
Project features to better adapt the transportation asset to withstand the negative
effects of climate change and promote resiliency to impacts such as fires, floods, and
sea level rise (where appropriate given a project’s scope and risk level for asset
damage due to climate change).
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.227 of 304
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Program
DRAFT Guidelines Version 1 June 8, 2017
NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form,
and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the
Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines.
6
Complete Streets Elements (such as project features that improve the quality of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities and that improve safety for all users of transportation
facilities) are expected to be incorporated into RMRA funded projects to the extent
(as deemed by cities and counties) beneficial, cost-effective, and practicable in the
context of facility type, right-of-way, project scope, and quality of nearby facilities.
Pursuant to SHC Section 2037, a city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA funds on
transportation priorities other than basic road maintenance outlined in SHC Section 2030 if the
city or county’s average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or exceeds 80.
IV. Project List Submittal
10. Content and Format of Project List
Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(1), prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds from the
State Controller in a fiscal year, a city or county must submit to the Commission a list of projects
proposed to be funded with these funds pursuant to an adopted city or county budget.
Listed below are the specific statutory criteria for the content of the project list along with additional
guidance provided to help ensure a consistent statewide format and to facilitate accountability
and transparency within the Local Streets and Roads Program.
a.) Included in an Adopted Budget
All proposed projects must be included in a city or county budget that is adopted by the
applicable city council or county board of supervisors at a regular public meeting.
To ensure transparency and to meet the intent of SHC Section 2034(a)(1) “included in a
city or county budget” can mean either of the following:
a.) A specific list of projects proposed for RMRA funding adopted as part of the
city/county’s regular operating budget, at a regular public meeting; or
b.) A specific list of projects proposed for RMRA funding amended into the
city/county’s regular operating budget, at a regular public meeting.
Documentation of Inclusion in an Adopted Budget
A city or county must provide with a project list a public record that projects proposed for
RMRA funding through the Local Streets and Roads Program have been included in an
adopted city or county operating budget. This public record can be either of the following:
a.) A copy of the city/county’s regular operating budget (or amendment) including the
adopting resolution;
b.) A copy of the city/county’s regular operating budget (or amendment) including meeting
minutes documenting approval at a regular public meeting.
Submittal of electronic copies of the operating budget (or amendment) and support
documentation (i.e. resolution or minutes) is encouraged. Support documentation
requirements are further explained in Appendix A.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.228 of 304
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Program
DRAFT Guidelines Version 1 June 8, 2017
NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form,
and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the
Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines.
7
b.) List of Projects – Content
Pursuant to SHC 2034(a)(1), the project list must include a description and the location of
each proposed project, a proposed schedule for each project’s completion, and the
estimated useful life of the improvement.
Development and Content
The Commission recognizes the inherent diversity of road maintenance and rehabilitation
needs among the approximately 540 jurisdictions across the state that may utilize Local
Streets and Roads Program funding.
Given the emphasis SB 1 places on accountability and transparency in delivering
California’s transportation programs, cities and counties are encouraged to prioritize
RMRA funding for the most critical road maintenance, rehabilitation, and safety needs. It
is also vitally important that cities and counties clearly articulate how these funds are being
utilized through the development of a robust project list.
To promote statewide consistency in the content and format of project information
received and to facilitate transparency within the Local Streets and Roads Program, the
following guidance is provided regarding the key components of the project list.
Additionally, Appendix A has been developed to provide an example of project list content
and format.
Project Description
The list must include a project description for each proposed project. The city/county is
encouraged to provide a brief non-technical description (3-5 sentences) written so that the
main objectives of the project can be clearly and easily understood by the public.
The level of detail provided will vary depending upon the nature of the project; however, it
is highly encouraged that the project description contain a minimum level of detail needed
for the public to understand what is being done and why it is a critical or high-priority need.
Looking to resources such as the most recently adopted Capital Improvement Program
may be helpful in understanding the appropriate level of project detail.
Project Location
The list must include a project location for each proposed project. The city/county is
encouraged to provide project location information that, at a minimum, would allow the
public to clearly understand where within the community the project is being undertaken.
For example, providing specific street names where improvements are being undertaken
and specifying project termini when possible are preferable to more general information
such as “south-west side of city/county”. If project-specific geolocation data is available, it
is highly encouraged to be included.
Proposed Schedule for Completion
The list must include a completion schedule for each proposed project. The city/county is
encouraged to provide a high-level timeline that provides a clear picture to the public of
when a project can reasonably expected to be completed.
Estimated Useful Life
The list must include an estimate useful life for each proposed project. The city/county is
encouraged to provide information regarding the estimated useful life of the project that is
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.229 of 304
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Program
DRAFT Guidelines Version 1 June 8, 2017
NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form,
and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the
Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines.
8
clear, understandable, and based on industry-standards for the project materials and
design.
Technology, Climate Change, and Complete Streets Considerations
SHC Section 2030(c)-(f) specifies desired uses of RMRA funds by cities and counties to
the extent possible and cost effective, and where feasible for the following:
Technologies and material recycling techniques that lower greenhouse gas emissions
and reduce the cost of maintaining local streets and roads through material choice
and construction method.
Systems and components in transportation infrastructure that recognize and
accommodate technologies including but not limited to ZEV fueling or charging and
infrastructure-vehicles communications for transitional or fully autonomous vehicles.
Project features to better adapt the transportation asset to withstand the negative
effects of climate change and promote resiliency to impacts such as fires, floods, and
sea level rise (where appropriate given a project’s scope and risk level for asset
damage due to climate change).
Complete Streets Elements (such as project features that improve the quality of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities and that improve safety for all users of transportation
facilities) are expected to be incorporated into RMRA funded projects to the extent
(as deemed by cities and counties) beneficial, cost-effective, and practicable in the
context of facility type, right-of-way, project scope, and quality of nearby facilities.
Cities and counties are encouraged to consider all of the above for implementation, to the
extent possible, cost-effective, and feasible, in the design and development of projects for
RMRA funding.
To meet the intent of SHC 2032.5(a) as outlined in Section 2 of these Guidelines, in
addition to the statutory requirements outlined in Section 10, the Commission may also
ask cities and counties to consider and provide additional information in the proposed
project list in order to better communicate that RMRA funding recipients are meeting state
performance goals.
The Commission intends to develop a reporting platform that will enable cities and
counties to report on each project that meets these additional goals.
Other Statutory Considerations for Project Lists
Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(a)(1), the project list shall not limit the flexibility of an
eligible city or county to fund projects in accordance with local needs and priorities, so
long as the projects are consistent with SHC Section 2030(b).
Pursuant to SHC Section 2037, a city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA
funds on transportation priorities other than those outlined in SHC 2030(b) if the city or
county’s average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or exceeds 80.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.230 of 304
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Program
DRAFT Guidelines Version 1 June 8, 2017
NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form,
and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the
Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines.
9
c.) List of Projects – Standard Format
To promote statewide consistency of project information received, a standard project list
format using Microsoft Excel has been developed and is further explained in Appendix A.
For the initial submittal of project lists in 2017, cities and counties are required to use the
standard form available here [hyperlink to excel form].
In future fiscal years, the Commission intends to make available an online platform so that
cities and counties can quickly and easily enter project list information and upload support
documentation online.
11. Process and Schedule for Project List Submittal
A city or county must submit a Project List and support documentation by September 15, 2017
to the Commission. All materials should be provided electronically. Project lists, support
documentation, and any questions can be remitted to:
Laura Pennebaker, Associate Deputy Director
Program Manager
California Transportation Commission
Laura.Pennebaker@dot.ca.gov
(916) 653-7121
12. Commission Submittal of Eligible Entities to the State Controller’s Office
Upon receipt of Project Lists and support documentation, Commission staff will review submittals
to ensure they are complete. Once a project list submittal has been received and deemed
complete by staff, the city or county will be added to a list of jurisdictions eligible to receive RMRA
funding as required by SHC Section 2034(a)(2). All project lists and support documentation
submitted by cities and counties will be posted to the Commission’s website.
The list of eligible cities and counties will be brought forward for Commission consideration at a
regularly scheduled meeting where staff will request Commission direction to transmit the list to
the Controller. Upon direction of the Commission, staff will transmit the list to the Controller and
the cities and counties included will be deemed eligible to receive RMRA apportionments pursuant
to SHC Section (a)(1). Upon receipt of the list from the Commission, the Controller is expected to
apportion funds to the cities and counties included on the list pursuant to SHC Sections 2034(a)(2)
and 2032(h).
In the event a city or county does not provide a complete project list and support documentation
in a timely manner for Commission consideration and eligibility designation as outlined in these
guidelines, cities and counties are expected to work cooperatively with Commission staff to
provide any missing information. Once completed information is provided, Commission action to
establish eligibility will be taken at the next earliest opportunity or within 60 days.
The Controller will hold RMRA funding apportionments for cities and counties that have not
been deemed eligible until eligibility is established by the Commission and communicated to the
Controller at which point apportionments (including any outstanding balances accrued) will
begin/resume.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.231 of 304
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Program
DRAFT Guidelines Version 1 June 8, 2017
NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form,
and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the
Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines.
10
V. Project Expenditure Reporting and Auditing
13. Scope of Completed Project Expenditure Report
Pursuant to SHC Section 2034(b), for each fiscal year in which an apportionment of RMRA funds
is received and upon expenditure of funds, cities and counties shall submit documentation to the
Commission that includes: a description and location of each completed project, the amount of
funds expended on the project, the completion date, and the estimated useful life of the
improvement.
Listed below are the specific statutory criteria for the content of the completed project expenditure
report along with additional guidance provided to help ensure a consistent statewide format and
to facilitate accountability and transparency within the Local Streets and Roads Program.
a.) Completed Project Expenditure Report – Content
Development and Content
Given the emphasis SB 1 places on accountability and transparency in delivering
California’s transportation programs, it is vitally important that cities and counties clearly
articulate the public benefit of these funds through the development of a robust Completed
Project Report.
To promote statewide consistency in the content and format of completed project
expenditure information submitted and to facilitate transparency and robust reporting
within the Local Streets and Roads Program, the following guidance is provided regarding
the key components of the completed projects expenditure report. Additionally, Appendix
B has been developed to provide an example of completed project expenditure report
content and format.
The completed project expenditure report must cover the full fiscal year and should include
projects that have completed construction and are fully operational.
Completed Project Description
The report must include a project description for each completed project. The city/county
is encouraged to provide a brief non-technical description (3-5 sentences) written so that
the main objectives of the project can be clearly and easily understood by the public.
The level of detail provided will vary depending upon the nature of the project; however, it
is highly encouraged that the project description contain a minimum level of detail needed
for the public to understand exactly what work was completed.
Completed Project Location
The report must include a project location for each completed project. The city/county is
encouraged to provide completed project location information that, at a minimum, would
allow the public to clearly understand where within the community the project was
constructed. For example, providing specific street names where improvements were
undertaken and specifying project termini when possible are preferable to more general
information such as “south-west side of city/county”. If project-specific geolocation data is
available, it is highly encouraged to be included.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.232 of 304
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Program
DRAFT Guidelines Version 1 June 8, 2017
NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form,
and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the
Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines.
11
The Amount of Funds Expended and the Project Completion Date
The report must include the amount of RMRA funds expended on the project and its date
of completion.
Estimated Useful Life
The report must include an estimated useful life for each completed project. The
city/county is encouraged to provide information regarding the estimated useful life of the
completed project that is clear, understandable, and based on industry-standards for the
project materials and design.
Technology, Climate Change, and Complete Streets Considerations
SHC Section 2030(c)-(f) specifies desired uses of RMRA funds by cities and counties to
the extent possible and cost effective, and where feasible for the following:
Technologies and material recycling techniques that lower greenhouse gas emissions
and reduce the cost of maintaining local streets and roads through material choice
and construction method.
Systems and components in transportation infrastructure that recognize and
accommodate technologies including but not limited to ZEV fueling or charging and
infrastructure-vehicles communications for transitional or fully autonomous vehicles.
Project features to better adapt the transportation asset to withstand the negative
effects of climate change and promote resiliency to impacts such as fires, floods, and
sea level rise (where appropriate given a project’s scope and risk level for asset
damage due to climate change).
Complete Streets Elements (such as project features that improve the quality of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities and that improve safety for all users of transportation
facilities) are expected to be incorporated into RMRA funded projects to the extent
(as deemed by cities and counties) beneficial, cost-effective, and practicable in the
context of facility type, right-of-way, project scope, and quality of nearby facilities.
Cities and counties are encouraged to consider all of the above for implementation, to the
extent possible, cost-effective and feasible, in the design and development of projects for
RMRA funding. In the event that completed projects contain technology, climate change,
and complete streets considerations pursuant to SHC 2030(c)-(f), cities and counties must
include this information in the completed project expenditure report so that the
Commission may report on the implementation of these practices at a statewide level.
To meet the intent of SHC 2032.5(a) as outlined in Section 2 of these Guidelines, in
addition to the statutory requirements outlined in Section 13, the Commission may also
ask cities and counties to consider and provide additional information in the completed
project expenditure report in order to better communicate that RMRA funding recipients
are meeting state performance goals.
The Commission intends to develop a reporting platform that will enable cities and
counties to report on each project that meets these additional goals.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.233 of 304
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Program
DRAFT Guidelines Version 1 June 8, 2017
NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form,
and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the
Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines.
12
Other Statutory Considerations for Completed Project Reports
Pursuant to SHC Section 2037, a city or county may spend its apportionment of RMRA
funds on transportation priorities other than basic maintenance outlined in SHC Section
2030(b) if the city or county’s average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) meets or exceeds
80. This provision however, does not eliminate the requirement for cities and counties to
prepare and submit a completed project expenditure report or the requirement to consider
technology, climate change, and complete streets elements to the extent possible, cost-
effective and feasible, in the design and development of projects for RMRA funding.
b.) Completed Project Expenditure Report – Standard Format
To promote statewide consistency of project information submitted, a standard completed
project expenditure report format using Microsoft Excel has been developed and is further
explained in Appendix B.
For the initial submittal of project expenditure reports in 2017, cities and counties are
required to use the standard form available here [hyperlink to excel form].
In the future, an online platform will be available so that cities and counties can quickly
and easily enter completed project information online.
14. Process and Schedule for Project Report Submittal
Completed Project Reports must be developed and submitted to the Commission according to
the statutory requirements of SHC Section 2034(b) as outlined above in Section 12.
A city or county must submit a Completed Project Report by October 1, 2018 to the Commission.
All materials should be provided electronically. Reports and any questions can be remitted to:
Laura Pennebaker, Associate Deputy Director
Program Manager
California Transportation Commission
Laura.Pennebaker@dot.ca.gov
(916) 653-7121
15. Commission Reporting of Project Information Received
In order to meet the requirements of SB 1 which include accountability and transparency in the
delivery of California’s transportation programs, it is vitally important that the Commission clearly
communicate the public benefits achieved by RMRA funds. The Commission intends to articulate
these benefits through the development of an SB 1 accountability website and through other
reporting mechanisms such as the Commission’s Annual Report to the Legislature.
Upon receipt of Completed Project Reports, Commission staff will review submittals to ensure
they are complete. If any critical project information is missing (i.e. SHC 2034(b) requirements
such as project description, location, etc.) Commission staff will work with city/county staff to
complete.
All Completed Project Reports submitted by cities and counties will be posted to the Commission’s
SB 1 Accountability website. The Commission will also analyze the Completed Project Reports
provided by cities and counties and aggregate the project information to provide both statewide
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.234 of 304
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Program
DRAFT Guidelines Version 1 June 8, 2017
NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form,
and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the
Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines.
13
and city/county level summary information such as the number, type, and location of RMRA
funded projects. This information will also be provided on the Commission’s SB 1 Accountability
website by December 1st each year, and included in the Commission’s Annual Report to the
Legislature which is delivered to the Legislature by December 15th each year.
In the event a city or county does not provide a Completed Project List by the deadline
requested (October 1st each year) to allow for for Commission analysis and inclusion on the SB
1 accountability website and in the Annual Report to the Legislature, absence of the report will
be noted on the website, in the Annual Report, and will be reported to the State Controller.
16. Additional Project Reporting and Signage Requirements
In addition to the RMRA completed project reporting requirements outlined in SHC Section
2034(b), SHC Section 2151 requires each city and county to file an annual report of expenditures
for street or road purposes with the State Controller’s Office. SHC Section 2153 imposes a
mandatory duty on the State Controller’s Office to ensure that the annual streets and roads
expenditure reports are adequate and accurate. Additional information regarding the preparation
of the annual streets and roads expenditure report is available online in the Guidelines Relating
to Gas Tax Expenditures for Cities and Counties prepared and maintained by the State
Controller’s Office. These Guidelines were last updated in August 2015 and are anticipated to be
updated again to address new accountability provisions of SB 1.
Pursuant to SHC Section 2038, by July 1, 2023, cities and counties receiving RMRA funds must
follow guidelines developed by the California Workforce Development Board that address
participation & investment in, or partnership with, new or existing pre-apprenticeship training
programs. Upon California Workforce Development Board adoption of guidelines and grant
funding opportunities in this area, the Commission will update the Local Streets and Roads
Program Guidelines to incorporate this information by reference. [Placeholder for standardized
language].
In order to ensure the delivery of RMRA funded projects is visible to the public, projects utilizing
RMRA funds must post Project Funding Information signage illustrating that the project was made
possible by SB 1 – The Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Act of 2017. [Placeholder for SB 1
Funding Signage language, need to insert PFI signage standards, similar to Proposition 1B]
17. Project Auditing and Maintenance of Effort Requirement
Expenditure authority for RMRA funding is governed by Article XIX of the California Constitution
as well as Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2030) of Division 3 of the California Streets and
Highways Code. RMRA funds are subject to audit by the State Controller’s Office pursuant to
SHC Section 2036.
[Note: this is placeholder language]
SHC Section 2036
(a) cities and counties shall maintain their existing commitment of local funds for street, road, and
highway purposes in order to remain eligible for RMRA funding apportionment.
(b) In order to receive an allocation or apportionment pursuant to Section 2032, the city or
county shall annually expend from its general fund for street, road, and highway purposes an
amount not less than the annual average of its expenditures from its general fund during the
2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 fiscal years, as reported to the Controller pursuant to Section
2151. For purposes of this subdivision, in calculating a city’s or county’s annual general fund
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.235 of 304
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Program
DRAFT Guidelines Version 1 June 8, 2017
NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form,
and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the
Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines.
14
expenditures and its average general fund expenditures for the 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–
12 fiscal years, any unrestricted funds that the city or county may expend at its discretion,
including vehicle in-lieu tax revenues and revenues from fines and forfeitures, expended for
street, road, and highway purposes shall be considered expenditures from the general fund.
One-time allocations that have been expended for street and highway purposes, but which may
not be available on an ongoing basis, including revenue provided under the Teeter Plan Bond
Law of 1994 (Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 54773) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of
the Government Code), may not be considered when calculating a city’s or county’s annual
general fund expenditures.
(c) For any city incorporated after July 1, 2009, the Controller shall calculate an annual average
expenditure for the period between July 1, 2009, and December 31, 2015, inclusive, that the city
was incorporated.
(d) For purposes of subdivision (b), the Controller may request fiscal data from cities and
counties in addition to data provided pursuant to Section 2151, for the 2009–10, 2010–11, and
2011–12 fiscal years. Each city and county shall furnish the data to the Controller not later than
120 days after receiving the request. The Controller may withhold payment to cities and
counties that do not comply with the request for information or that provide incomplete data.
(e) The Controller may perform audits to ensure compliance with subdivision (b) when deemed
necessary. Any city or county that has not complied with subdivision (b) shall reimburse the
state for the funds it received during that fiscal year. Any funds withheld or returned as a result
of a failure to comply with subdivision (b) shall be reapportioned to the other counties and cities
whose expenditures are in compliance.
(f) If a city or county fails to comply with the requirements of subdivision (b) in a particular fiscal
year, the city or county may expend during that fiscal year and the following fiscal year a total
amount that is not less than the total amount required to be expended for those fiscal years for
purposes of complying with subdivision (b).
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.236 of 304
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Program
DRAFT Guidelines Version 1 June 8, 2017
NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form,
and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the
Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines.
15
Appendix A – Local Streets and Roads Project List Form
[Placeholder for Project List form and examples] This will be a Microsoft Excel form with drop
down menus for certain fields to ensure accuracy of information provided. Eventually we hope to
have an online platform and underlying data base through which cities and counties can enter
project information online. For discussion purposes, examples of the nature/type of information
that would be asked for is compiled below:
General Info:
City/County Name
Point of Contact
Legislative Districts
Average City/County PCI
Fiscal Year
Proposed Project A
Description:
3-5 sentences, written in a non-technical way that is understandable the public
Have city/county check a box specifying the type of project it is based on RMRA priorities
or “other” and the inclusion of any aspirational elements (SHC 2034)
Ask for specific measureable changes to the built environment resulting from the project
(i.e. feet/miles of pavement, presence of complete streets components)
Location:
Should be as specific as possible (i.e. street names and project termini) and geolocation
information should be provided if available (to make mapping projects possible and also
to potentially determine the location of projects within Disadvantaged Communities)
Proposed Schedule for Completion:
Could be as simple as a drop down menu to select the date that the project will be
complete/operational etc.
Estimated Useful Life:
Should be clear, understandable, and based on industry-standards
Other:
Describe process used to identify the project as a priority to meet Performance Goals
Support Documentation
Electronic Copy of the City/County’s Adopted Budget or Budget Amendment and
reference to where within the budget the proposed project is included
Adopting resolution or meeting minutes to document budget/amendment approval
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.237 of 304
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Program
DRAFT Guidelines Version 1 June 8, 2017
NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form,
and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the
Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines.
16
Appendix B - Local Streets and Roads Completed Project Expenditure
Report Form
[Placeholder for Completed Project Expenditure Report form and examples] This will be a
Microsoft Excel form with drop down menus for certain fields to ensure accuracy of information
provided. Eventually we hope to have an online platform and underlying data base through which
cities and counties can enter project information online. For discussion purposes, examples of
the nature/type of information that would be asked for is compiled below:
General Info:
City/County Name
Point of Contact
Legislative Districts
Average City/County PCI
Completed Project A
Description:
3-5 sentences, written in a non-technical way that is understandable the public
Have city/county check a box specifying the type of project it is based on RMRA priorities
or “other” and the inclusion of any aspirational elements (SHC 2034)
Ask for specific measureable changes to the built environment resulting from the project
(i.e. feet/miles of pavement, presence of complete streets components
Location:
Should be as specific as possible (i.e. street names and project termini) and geolocation
information should be provided if available (to make mapping projects possible and also
to potentially determine the location of projects within Disadvantaged Communities)
Amount of Funds Expended:
Enter the amount of RMRA funds expended on the project and the total project cost
Enter the amount and type of other funds expended on the project
Completion Date:
Drop down menu to select the date that the project is complete/operational etc.
Estimated Useful Life:
Should be clear, understandable, and based on industry-standards
Other:
Certify that California Workforce Development Board Guidelines were followed (effective
July 1, 2023)
Reporting on meeting Performance Goals
Project Signage Requirements are met
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.238 of 304
California Transportation Commission
2017 Local Streets and Roads Program
DRAFT Guidelines Version 1 June 8, 2017
NOTE: These Draft Local Streets and Roads Guidelines are currently under development. This information is provided in draft form,
and is subject to further modification and refinement. This draft information does not represent any final determination by the
Commission on any of the issues addressed in these draft guidelines.
17
Appendix C – Local Streets and Roads Program Schedule
[Placeholder, for discussion]
FY 17-18
Adoption of Final Guidelines Call for Project Lists August 18, 2017
Technical Assistance and Outreach to Cities/Counties August 18 – September 15, 2017
Project Lists due to Commission September 15, 2017
Commission Adopts List of Eligible Cities and Counties October 18-19, 2017
Commission Submits List to Controller November 1, 2017
Controller FY 17-18 Apportionments Begin TBD
Completed Project Report Submitted to Commission
for 2017 - 2018 Fiscal Year
October 1, 2018
Commission Posts Statewide LSR Program
Accountability Information Online
December 1, 2018
FY 18-19
Guidelines Update Needed?
Call for Project Lists
March, April, May 2018?
Commission Review, Approval & Adoption of List of
Eligible Cities and Counties
March, April, May 2018?
Commission Submits List to Controller No later than mid-June 2018
Controller FY 18-19 Apportionments Begin July 1, 2018
Completed Project Report Submitted to Commission
for 2018 - 2019 Fiscal Year
October 1, 2019
Commission Posts Statewide LSR Program
Accountability Information Online
December 1, 2019
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.239 of 304
New County Revenues from SB 1 (Beall, 2017) ‐ Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Revenues ONLY* COUNTY2017‐182018‐192019‐202020‐212021‐222022‐232023‐242024‐252025‐262026‐27Alameda5,980,000$ 16,540,000$ 16,750,000$ 18,600,000$ 19,390,000$ 19,970,000$ 20,510,000$ 21,180,000$ 21,820,000$ 22,510,000$ Alpine 120,000$ 320,000$ 320,000$ 360,000$ 370,000$ 380,000$ 390,000$ 410,000$ 420,000$ 430,000$ Amador 550,000$ 1,520,000$ 1,540,000$ 1,710,000$ 1,780,000$ 1,830,000$ 1,880,000$ 1,940,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,060,000$ Butte 1,960,000$ 5,410,000$ 5,480,000$ 6,090,000$ 6,340,000$ 6,530,000$ 6,710,000$ 6,930,000$ 7,140,000$ 7,360,000$ Calaveras 840,000$ 2,320,000$ 2,350,000$ 2,600,000$ 2,720,000$ 2,800,000$ 2,870,000$ 2,970,000$ 3,060,000$ 3,150,000$ Colusa 660,000$ 1,820,000$ 1,840,000$ 2,040,000$ 2,130,000$ 2,190,000$ 2,250,000$ 2,330,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,470,000$ Contra Costa 4,990,000$ 13,810,000$ 13,990,000$ 15,530,000$ 16,190,000$ 16,680,000$ 17,130,000$ 17,690,000$ 18,220,000$ 18,790,000$ Del Norte 340,000$ 950,000$ 960,000$ 1,060,000$ 1,110,000$ 1,140,000$ 1,170,000$ 1,210,000$ 1,250,000$ 1,290,000$ El Dorado 1,760,000$ 4,880,000$ 4,940,000$ 5,490,000$ 5,720,000$ 5,890,000$ 6,050,000$ 6,250,000$ 6,440,000$ 6,640,000$ Fresno 5,990,000$ 16,580,000$ 16,790,000$ 18,640,000$ 19,440,000$ 20,020,000$ 20,560,000$ 21,230,000$ 21,870,000$ 22,560,000$ Glenn 800,000$ 2,210,000$ 2,230,000$ 2,480,000$ 2,590,000$ 2,660,000$ 2,740,000$ 2,820,000$ 2,910,000$ 3,000,000$ Humboldt 1,560,000$ 4,300,000$ 4,360,000$ 4,840,000$ 5,050,000$ 5,200,000$ 5,340,000$ 5,510,000$ 5,680,000$ 5,860,000$ Imperial 2,710,000$ 7,490,000$ 7,590,000$ 8,420,000$ 8,780,000$ 9,050,000$ 9,290,000$ 9,600,000$ 9,880,000$ 10,200,000$ Inyo 960,000$ 2,660,000$ 2,690,000$ 2,990,000$ 3,120,000$ 3,210,000$ 3,300,000$ 3,400,000$ 3,510,000$ 3,620,000$ Kern 5,640,000$ 15,600,000$ 15,800,000$ 17,540,000$ 18,290,000$ 18,840,000$ 19,350,000$ 19,980,000$ 20,580,000$ 21,230,000$ Kings 1,180,000$ 3,270,000$ 3,310,000$ 3,670,000$ 3,830,000$ 3,950,000$ 4,050,000$ 4,190,000$ 4,310,000$ 4,450,000$ Lake 840,000$ 2,310,000$ 2,340,000$ 2,600,000$ 2,710,000$ 2,790,000$ 2,870,000$ 2,960,000$ 3,050,000$ 3,150,000$ Lassen 810,000$ 2,250,000$ 2,280,000$ 2,530,000$ 2,640,000$ 2,710,000$ 2,790,000$ 2,880,000$ 2,970,000$ 3,060,000$ Los Angeles 36,120,000$ 99,910,000$ 101,200,000$ 112,350,000$ 117,150,000$ 120,650,000$ 123,910,000$ 127,970,000$ 131,830,000$ 135,980,000$ Madera 1,710,000$ 4,740,000$ 4,800,000$ 5,330,000$ 5,550,000$ 5,720,000$ 5,880,000$ 6,070,000$ 6,250,000$ 6,450,000$ Marin 1,360,000$ 3,750,000$ 3,800,000$ 4,220,000$ 4,400,000$ 4,530,000$ 4,660,000$ 4,810,000$ 4,950,000$ 5,110,000$ Mariposa 540,000$ 1,480,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,670,000$ 1,740,000$ 1,790,000$ 1,840,000$ 1,900,000$ 1,960,000$ 2,020,000$ Mendocino 1,250,000$ 3,460,000$ 3,510,000$ 3,890,000$ 4,060,000$ 4,180,000$ 4,300,000$ 4,440,000$ 4,570,000$ 4,710,000$ Merced 2,260,000$ 6,260,000$ 6,340,000$ 7,040,000$ 7,340,000$ 7,560,000$ 7,770,000$ 8,020,000$ 8,260,000$ 8,520,000$ Modoc 790,000$ 2,170,000$ 2,200,000$ 2,440,000$ 2,550,000$ 2,620,000$ 2,690,000$ 2,780,000$ 2,860,000$ 2,960,000$ Mono 580,000$ 1,610,000$ 1,630,000$ 1,810,000$ 1,890,000$ 1,940,000$ 1,990,000$ 2,060,000$ 2,120,000$ 2,190,000$ Monterey 2,470,000$ 6,830,000$ 6,920,000$ 7,680,000$ 8,010,000$ 8,250,000$ 8,470,000$ 8,750,000$ 9,010,000$ 9,300,000$ Napa 960,000$ 2,640,000$ 2,680,000$ 2,970,000$ 3,100,000$ 3,190,000$ 3,280,000$ 3,390,000$ 3,490,000$ 3,600,000$ Nevada 980,000$ 2,710,000$ 2,740,000$ 3,050,000$ 3,180,000$ 3,270,000$ 3,360,000$ 3,470,000$ 3,570,000$ 3,690,000$ Orange 12,330,000$ 34,120,000$ 34,560,000$ 38,360,000$ 40,000,000$ 41,200,000$ 42,310,000$ 43,700,000$ 45,010,000$ 46,430,000$ Placer 2,540,000$ 7,030,000$ 7,120,000$ 7,910,000$ 8,240,000$ 8,490,000$ 8,720,000$ 9,010,000$ 9,280,000$ 9,570,000$ Plumas 650,000$ 1,790,000$ 1,810,000$ 2,010,000$ 2,090,000$ 2,160,000$ 2,220,000$ 2,290,000$ 2,360,000$ 2,430,000$ Riverside 9,920,000$ 27,420,000$ 27,780,000$ 30,840,000$ 32,160,000$ 33,120,000$ 34,010,000$ 35,130,000$ 36,180,000$ 37,320,000$ Sacramento 7,370,000$ 20,390,000$ 20,660,000$ 22,930,000$ 23,910,000$ 24,630,000$ 25,290,000$ 26,120,000$ 26,910,000$ 27,760,000$ San Benito 550,000$ 1,530,000$ 1,550,000$ 1,720,000$ 1,800,000$ 1,850,000$ 1,900,000$ 1,960,000$ 2,020,000$ 2,090,000$ San Bernardino 9,600,000$ 26,550,000$ 26,890,000$ 29,860,000$ 31,130,000$ 32,060,000$ 32,930,000$ 34,010,000$ 35,030,000$ 36,140,000$ San Diego 13,820,000$ 38,220,000$ 38,710,000$ 42,980,000$ 44,810,000$ 46,150,000$ 47,400,000$ 48,950,000$ 50,430,000$ 52,010,000$ San Francisco*2,810,000$ 7,770,000$ 7,870,000$ 8,740,000$ 9,110,000$ 9,390,000$ 9,640,000$ 9,960,000$ 10,260,000$ 10,580,000$ San Joaquin 3,990,000$ 11,030,000$ 11,170,000$ 12,410,000$ 12,930,000$ 13,320,000$ 13,680,000$ 14,130,000$ 14,560,000$ 15,010,000$ CSAC Estimates ‐ May 16, 2017 07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.240 of 304
New County Revenues from SB 1 (Beall, 2017) ‐ Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Revenues ONLY* COUNTY2017‐182018‐192019‐202020‐212021‐222022‐232023‐242024‐252025‐262026‐27San Luis Obispo 2,300,000$ 6,350,000$ 6,430,000$ 7,140,000$ 7,450,000$ 7,670,000$ 7,880,000$ 8,140,000$ 8,380,000$ 8,640,000$ San Mateo 3,360,000$ 9,290,000$ 9,410,000$ 10,440,000$ 10,890,000$ 11,210,000$ 11,520,000$ 11,890,000$ 12,250,000$ 12,640,000$ Santa Barbara 2,340,000$ 6,480,000$ 6,560,000$ 7,290,000$ 7,600,000$ 7,820,000$ 8,040,000$ 8,300,000$ 8,550,000$ 8,820,000$ Santa Clara 7,510,000$ 20,770,000$ 21,040,000$ 23,360,000$ 24,360,000$ 25,090,000$ 25,760,000$ 26,610,000$ 27,410,000$ 28,270,000$ Santa Cruz 1,550,000$ 4,280,000$ 4,340,000$ 4,820,000$ 5,020,000$ 5,170,000$ 5,310,000$ 5,490,000$ 5,650,000$ 5,830,000$ Shasta 1,810,000$ 5,000,000$ 5,070,000$ 5,620,000$ 5,860,000$ 6,040,000$ 6,200,000$ 6,410,000$ 6,600,000$ 6,810,000$ Sierra 310,000$ 870,000$ 880,000$ 980,000$ 1,020,000$ 1,050,000$ 1,080,000$ 1,110,000$ 1,140,000$ 1,180,000$ Siskiyou 1,300,000$ 3,580,000$ 3,630,000$ 4,030,000$ 4,200,000$ 4,330,000$ 4,440,000$ 4,590,000$ 4,730,000$ 4,880,000$ Solano 2,170,000$ 6,010,000$ 6,080,000$ 6,750,000$ 7,040,000$ 7,250,000$ 7,450,000$ 7,690,000$ 7,920,000$ 8,170,000$ Sonoma 3,260,000$ 9,020,000$ 9,130,000$ 10,140,000$ 10,570,000$ 10,890,000$ 11,180,000$ 11,550,000$ 11,900,000$ 12,270,000$ Stanislaus 3,200,000$ 8,860,000$ 8,980,000$ 9,970,000$ 10,390,000$ 10,700,000$ 10,990,000$ 11,350,000$ 11,690,000$ 12,060,000$ Sutter 990,000$ 2,730,000$ 2,760,000$ 3,070,000$ 3,200,000$ 3,300,000$ 3,380,000$ 3,500,000$ 3,600,000$ 3,710,000$ Tehama 1,120,000$ 3,110,000$ 3,150,000$ 3,490,000$ 3,640,000$ 3,750,000$ 3,850,000$ 3,980,000$ 4,100,000$ 4,230,000$ Trinity 600,000$ 1,660,000$ 1,690,000$ 1,870,000$ 1,950,000$ 2,010,000$ 2,060,000$ 2,130,000$ 2,200,000$ 2,260,000$ Tulare 3,890,000$ 10,760,000$ 10,890,000$ 12,100,000$ 12,610,000$ 12,990,000$ 13,340,000$ 13,780,000$ 14,190,000$ 14,640,000$ Tuolumne 790,000$ 2,170,000$ 2,200,000$ 2,440,000$ 2,550,000$ 2,620,000$ 2,700,000$ 2,780,000$ 2,870,000$ 2,960,000$ Ventura 3,790,000$ 10,480,000$ 10,610,000$ 11,780,000$ 12,290,000$ 12,650,000$ 12,990,000$ 13,420,000$ 13,820,000$ 14,260,000$ Yolo 1,380,000$ 3,820,000$ 3,870,000$ 4,300,000$ 4,480,000$ 4,620,000$ 4,740,000$ 4,900,000$ 5,050,000$ 5,210,000$ Yuba 790,000$ 2,180,000$ 2,200,000$ 2,450,000$ 2,550,000$ 2,630,000$ 2,700,000$ 2,790,000$ 2,870,000$ 2,960,000$ TOTAL192,750,000$ 533,070,000$ 539,920,000$ 599,440,000$ 625,020,000$ 643,700,000$ 661,110,000$ 682,810,000$ 703,340,000$ 725,500,000$ ** County revenues only* Note: Estimates only include RMRA revenues, which are one of the four separate components of new SB 1 revenues:‐ Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues from new Transportation Improvement Fee, half of new 20‐cent diesel excise tax, new 12‐cent gasoline excise tax, and future inflationary adjustments to these rates.CSAC Estimates ‐ May 16, 2017 07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.241 of 304
New County Revenues from SB 1 (Beall, 2017) ‐ ALL New Revenues* COUNTY2017‐182018‐192019‐202020‐212021‐222022‐232023‐242024‐252025‐262026‐27Alameda7,140,000$ 18,510,000$ 26,130,000$ 29,780,000$ 31,610,000$ 33,070,000$ 34,590,000$ 36,250,000$ 37,860,000$ 39,530,000$ Alpine 140,000$ 350,000$ 500,000$ 570,000$ 600,000$ 630,000$ 660,000$ 700,000$ 730,000$ 750,000$ Amador 660,000$ 1,680,000$ 2,380,000$ 2,670,000$ 2,810,000$ 2,920,000$ 3,050,000$ 3,190,000$ 3,320,000$ 3,450,000$ Butte 2,340,000$ 5,960,000$ 8,480,000$ 9,490,000$ 10,000,000$ 10,430,000$ 10,860,000$ 11,340,000$ 11,810,000$ 12,280,000$ Calaveras 1,000,000$ 2,550,000$ 3,640,000$ 4,050,000$ 4,280,000$ 4,460,000$ 4,650,000$ 4,850,000$ 5,050,000$ 5,250,000$ Colusa 790,000$ 1,990,000$ 2,840,000$ 3,140,000$ 3,310,000$ 3,440,000$ 3,570,000$ 3,730,000$ 3,880,000$ 4,020,000$ Contra Costa 5,960,000$ 15,460,000$ 21,820,000$ 24,870,000$ 26,400,000$ 27,630,000$ 28,900,000$ 30,280,000$ 31,620,000$ 33,010,000$ Del Norte 410,000$ 1,040,000$ 1,490,000$ 1,640,000$ 1,730,000$ 1,800,000$ 1,870,000$ 1,950,000$ 2,040,000$ 2,110,000$ El Dorado 2,100,000$ 5,440,000$ 7,700,000$ 8,760,000$ 9,280,000$ 9,700,000$ 10,150,000$ 10,620,000$ 11,100,000$ 11,570,000$ Fresno 7,160,000$ 18,290,000$ 26,010,000$ 29,120,000$ 30,770,000$ 32,090,000$ 33,440,000$ 34,900,000$ 36,350,000$ 37,850,000$ Glenn 960,000$ 2,420,000$ 3,440,000$ 3,820,000$ 4,030,000$ 4,180,000$ 4,350,000$ 4,520,000$ 4,710,000$ 4,890,000$ Humboldt 1,860,000$ 4,720,000$ 6,740,000$ 7,500,000$ 7,920,000$ 8,250,000$ 8,590,000$ 8,950,000$ 9,310,000$ 9,690,000$ Imperial 3,240,000$ 8,170,000$ 11,700,000$ 12,910,000$ 13,590,000$ 14,150,000$ 14,690,000$ 15,310,000$ 15,890,000$ 16,510,000$ Inyo 1,150,000$ 2,910,000$ 4,150,000$ 4,600,000$ 4,850,000$ 5,050,000$ 5,250,000$ 5,460,000$ 5,690,000$ 5,910,000$ Kern 6,740,000$ 17,250,000$ 24,510,000$ 27,540,000$ 29,120,000$ 30,390,000$ 31,690,000$ 33,110,000$ 34,500,000$ 35,940,000$ Kings 1,410,000$ 3,580,000$ 5,110,000$ 5,670,000$ 5,970,000$ 6,230,000$ 6,470,000$ 6,750,000$ 7,010,000$ 7,290,000$ Lake 1,000,000$ 2,540,000$ 3,630,000$ 4,050,000$ 4,280,000$ 4,450,000$ 4,640,000$ 4,840,000$ 5,040,000$ 5,250,000$ Lassen 970,000$ 2,470,000$ 3,520,000$ 3,920,000$ 4,130,000$ 4,290,000$ 4,470,000$ 4,670,000$ 4,860,000$ 5,050,000$ Los Angeles 43,150,000$ 111,800,000$ 157,870,000$ 179,860,000$ 190,910,000$ 199,780,000$ 208,930,000$ 218,870,000$ 228,610,000$ 238,660,000$ Madera 2,040,000$ 5,180,000$ 7,400,000$ 8,200,000$ 8,630,000$ 8,990,000$ 9,350,000$ 9,740,000$ 10,120,000$ 10,510,000$ Marin 1,620,000$ 4,170,000$ 5,920,000$ 6,700,000$ 7,100,000$ 7,430,000$ 7,760,000$ 8,120,000$ 8,470,000$ 8,840,000$ Mariposa 640,000$ 1,620,000$ 2,320,000$ 2,580,000$ 2,720,000$ 2,830,000$ 2,940,000$ 3,070,000$ 3,190,000$ 3,330,000$ Mendocino 1,490,000$ 3,790,000$ 5,420,000$ 6,030,000$ 6,370,000$ 6,630,000$ 6,910,000$ 7,200,000$ 7,490,000$ 7,780,000$ Merced 2,700,000$ 6,860,000$ 9,800,000$ 10,890,000$ 11,480,000$ 11,960,000$ 12,450,000$ 12,970,000$ 13,490,000$ 14,030,000$ Modoc 940,000$ 2,370,000$ 3,390,000$ 3,770,000$ 3,980,000$ 4,130,000$ 4,300,000$ 4,480,000$ 4,650,000$ 4,850,000$ Mono 690,000$ 1,760,000$ 2,520,000$ 2,810,000$ 2,960,000$ 3,090,000$ 3,210,000$ 3,350,000$ 3,480,000$ 3,620,000$ Monterey 2,950,000$ 7,570,000$ 10,740,000$ 12,090,000$ 12,800,000$ 13,370,000$ 13,940,000$ 14,570,000$ 15,190,000$ 15,830,000$ Napa 1,150,000$ 2,930,000$ 4,160,000$ 4,700,000$ 4,970,000$ 5,190,000$ 5,420,000$ 5,670,000$ 5,910,000$ 6,160,000$ Nevada 1,170,000$ 3,010,000$ 4,260,000$ 4,820,000$ 5,100,000$ 5,330,000$ 5,560,000$ 5,820,000$ 6,070,000$ 6,340,000$ Orange 14,730,000$ 38,240,000$ 53,950,000$ 61,580,000$ 65,390,000$ 68,460,000$ 71,620,000$ 75,060,000$ 78,410,000$ 81,890,000$ Placer 3,030,000$ 7,860,000$ 11,110,000$ 12,650,000$ 13,420,000$ 14,050,000$ 14,690,000$ 15,400,000$ 16,080,000$ 16,780,000$ Plumas 780,000$ 1,990,000$ 2,820,000$ 3,180,000$ 3,360,000$ 3,520,000$ 3,670,000$ 3,840,000$ 4,010,000$ 4,180,000$ Riverside 11,850,000$ 30,570,000$ 43,260,000$ 49,070,000$ 52,020,000$ 54,390,000$ 56,830,000$ 59,490,000$ 62,090,000$ 64,770,000$ Sacramento 8,800,000$ 22,720,000$ 32,160,000$ 36,480,000$ 38,670,000$ 40,440,000$ 42,250,000$ 44,220,000$ 46,150,000$ 48,150,000$ San Benito 660,000$ 1,690,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,680,000$ 2,840,000$ 2,950,000$ 3,070,000$ 3,210,000$ 3,340,000$ 3,480,000$ San Bernardino 11,470,000$ 29,620,000$ 41,890,000$ 47,560,000$ 50,420,000$ 52,730,000$ 55,110,000$ 57,690,000$ 60,210,000$ 62,830,000$ San Diego 16,510,000$ 42,730,000$ 60,360,000$ 68,710,000$ 72,900,000$ 76,270,000$ 79,750,000$ 83,530,000$ 87,230,000$ 91,040,000$ San Francisco**3,360,000$ 8,620,000$ 12,230,000$ 13,780,000$ 14,580,000$ 15,240,000$ 15,890,000$ 16,620,000$ 17,330,000$ 18,050,000$ San Joaquin 4,770,000$ 12,240,000$ 17,350,000$ 19,570,000$ 20,700,000$ 21,620,000$ 22,560,000$ 23,590,000$ 24,600,000$ 25,630,000$ CSAC Estimates ‐ May 16, 2017 07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.242 of 304
New County Revenues from SB 1 (Beall, 2017) ‐ ALL New Revenues* COUNTY2017‐182018‐192019‐202020‐212021‐222022‐232023‐242024‐252025‐262026‐27San Luis Obispo 2,750,000$ 7,020,000$ 9,970,000$ 11,180,000$ 11,820,000$ 12,330,000$ 12,860,000$ 13,430,000$ 13,980,000$ 14,560,000$ San Mateo 4,010,000$ 10,390,000$ 14,670,000$ 16,720,000$ 17,750,000$ 18,560,000$ 19,430,000$ 20,350,000$ 21,250,000$ 22,190,000$ Santa Barbara 2,800,000$ 7,220,000$ 10,210,000$ 11,580,000$ 12,270,000$ 12,820,000$ 13,400,000$ 14,010,000$ 14,620,000$ 15,260,000$ Santa Clara 8,970,000$ 23,230,000$ 32,820,000$ 37,360,000$ 39,660,000$ 41,490,000$ 43,390,000$ 45,460,000$ 47,470,000$ 49,550,000$ Santa Cruz 1,850,000$ 4,770,000$ 6,760,000$ 7,660,000$ 8,120,000$ 8,490,000$ 8,870,000$ 9,290,000$ 9,690,000$ 10,110,000$ Shasta 2,160,000$ 5,510,000$ 7,850,000$ 8,780,000$ 9,280,000$ 9,690,000$ 10,090,000$ 10,540,000$ 10,970,000$ 11,430,000$ Sierra 370,000$ 960,000$ 1,360,000$ 1,520,000$ 1,610,000$ 1,670,000$ 1,750,000$ 1,820,000$ 1,880,000$ 1,970,000$ Siskiyou 1,550,000$ 3,930,000$ 5,620,000$ 6,270,000$ 6,610,000$ 6,890,000$ 7,160,000$ 7,480,000$ 7,790,000$ 8,110,000$ Solano 2,590,000$ 6,680,000$ 9,460,000$ 10,710,000$ 11,350,000$ 11,860,000$ 12,390,000$ 12,950,000$ 13,520,000$ 14,090,000$ Sonoma 3,890,000$ 10,010,000$ 14,190,000$ 16,030,000$ 16,960,000$ 17,720,000$ 18,500,000$ 19,350,000$ 20,180,000$ 21,040,000$ Stanislaus 3,820,000$ 9,800,000$ 13,940,000$ 15,670,000$ 16,580,000$ 17,300,000$ 18,040,000$ 18,860,000$ 19,650,000$ 20,480,000$ Sutter 1,180,000$ 2,990,000$ 4,270,000$ 4,750,000$ 5,010,000$ 5,220,000$ 5,420,000$ 5,660,000$ 5,880,000$ 6,110,000$ Tehama 1,340,000$ 3,400,000$ 4,860,000$ 5,370,000$ 5,660,000$ 5,890,000$ 6,120,000$ 6,380,000$ 6,630,000$ 6,890,000$ Trinity 720,000$ 1,830,000$ 2,610,000$ 2,910,000$ 3,070,000$ 3,200,000$ 3,330,000$ 3,480,000$ 3,630,000$ 3,760,000$ Tulare 4,650,000$ 11,790,000$ 16,820,000$ 18,690,000$ 19,680,000$ 20,500,000$ 21,320,000$ 22,230,000$ 23,110,000$ 24,020,000$ Tuolumne 940,000$ 2,400,000$ 3,410,000$ 3,830,000$ 4,060,000$ 4,230,000$ 4,420,000$ 4,600,000$ 4,800,000$ 5,000,000$ Ventura 4,530,000$ 11,730,000$ 16,550,000$ 18,850,000$ 20,010,000$ 20,930,000$ 21,890,000$ 22,940,000$ 23,950,000$ 25,010,000$ Yolo 1,650,000$ 4,210,000$ 6,000,000$ 6,720,000$ 7,090,000$ 7,410,000$ 7,720,000$ 8,060,000$ 8,400,000$ 8,740,000$ Yuba 940,000$ 2,390,000$ 3,400,000$ 3,790,000$ 4,000,000$ 4,170,000$ 4,340,000$ 4,520,000$ 4,700,000$ 4,890,000$ TOTAL230,240,000$ 592,930,000$ 839,890,000$ 950,200,000$ 1,006,590,000$ 1,051,930,000$ 1,098,540,000$ 1,149,340,000$ 1,198,990,000$ 1,250,310,000$ ** County revenues only* Note: Estimates include all four separate components of new SB 1 revenues:1. Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues from new Transportation Improvement Fee, half of new 20‐cent diesel excise tax, new 12‐cent gasoline excise tax, and future inflationary adjustments to these rates;2. Revenue from future inflationary adjustments to existing 18‐cent gasoline excise tax rate, reset to 16‐cents of existing diesel excise tax, and future inflationary adjustments to existing diesel excise tax rate;3. Revenue from reset of price‐based gasoline excise tax to 17.3 cents and future inflationary adjustments to this rate; and4. Revenue from transportation loan funds redirected to local streets and roads purposes (three annual installments of $37.5 million to counties in 2017‐18, 2018‐19 and 2019‐20 fiscal years)CSAC Estimates ‐ May 16, 2017 07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.243 of 304
Transportation Funding Deal
Explained
Chris Lee
CSAC Legislative Analyst
May 18, 2017
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.244 of 304
SB 1 (Beall)
•Approximately $5.2 billion/year in new
revenue – no sunset
•Approved by Legislature on April 6
•Governor Brown signed April 28
•Accompanied by ACA 5 (Frazier), which
provides constitutional protections for
revenues
•ACA 5 will go to voters for approval June 2018
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.245 of 304
What taxes were part of the deal?
•12-cent gas excise tax increase
•Reset price-based excise tax at 17.3 cents
•20-cent diesel excise tax increase
•4% diesel sales tax increase
•$25-$175 annual “transportation
improvement fee” based on vehicle value
•$100 annual zero emissions vehicle fee
•CPI adjustments on excise taxes/fees
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.246 of 304
How will revenues be phased-in?
•New fuel taxes begin in November 2017
•The value-based transportation improvement
fee begins in Spring 2018
•The price-based excise tax will be reset July 1,
2019
•New Zero Emissions Vehicles will begin to pay
an additional registration fee for road
maintenance in 2020
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.247 of 304
Where does the funding go?
•$1.5 billion for state highways
•$1.5 billion for local roads
•$750 million for transit operations and capital
•$685 million in loan repayments
•$400 million for state bridges
•$300 million for goods movement/freight projects
•$250 million for the new “Solutions for Congested Corridors” program
•$200 million for state-local partnership
•$100 million for the Active Transportation grants
•$25 million for Freeway Service Patrol
•$25 million for local planning grants
•$7 million for UC and CSU Transportation Research
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.248 of 304
Which revenues flow to counties?
•Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account
–New gas tax, transportation improvement fee, and
part of diesel excise tax
•50% state, 50% local
•Local share split evenly between cities and
counties
•County revenues by SHC Section 2103 formula
–75% by registered vehicles; 25% by road mileage
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.249 of 304
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22Revenues (Millions) Fiscal Year
Formula Funding for County Roads - Before and After SB 1
Loan Repayment
RMRA
Price-Based Rate
Base Rate
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.250 of 304
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27Revenues (Millions) Fiscal Year
Components of New County Revenues from SB 1
Loan Repayment
Base-Rate Indexing
Price-Based Rate Indexing
Price-Based Rate Reset
RMRA
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.251 of 304
Sources of Revenue Uncertainty
•Inflation – fuel tax and reg. fee now indexed
–Affects 100% of SB 1 revenues
•Fuel consumption
–Affects 70% of SB 1 revenues
•Number of registered vehicles and car values
–Affects 30% of SB 1 revenues
•Gasoline prices no longer directly tied to fuel
tax rates for county road revenues under SB 1
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.252 of 304
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
400%
450%
500%
550%
1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011Percentage of 1978 Value Year
Growth in CPI and Gasoline Prices 1978-2011
Standardized Gas Prices (All Grades)
Standardized US CPI (Urban, All Goods)
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.253 of 304
Competitive Funding Opportunities
•Active Transportation Program – existing
program
•State-Local Partnership – new guidelines
•Congested Corridors Program – new program
•Goods Movement Program – new guidelines
•Local Planning – guidelines to be developed
•May CA Transportation Commission meeting
will include guideline discussions
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.254 of 304
What county projects are eligible?
•Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Funding
“shall be prioritized for expenditure on basic
road maintenance and road rehabilitation
projects, and on critical safety projects.”
Streets and Highways Code Section 2030(a)
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.255 of 304
Eligible projects cont.
•Eligible projects include, but are not limited to:
–road maintenance and rehabilitation;
–safety projects;
–railroad grade separations;
–complete street components, including active
transportation, bike/ped, transit facilities, drainage,
and stormwater capture projects;
–traffic control devices;
–match for state/federal funds for eligible projects.
•Streets and Highways Code Section 2030(b)
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.256 of 304
What if my roads are in good shape?
•May spend RMRA funds on other
transportation priorities if average PCI meets
or exceeds 80 (Streets and Highways Code
Section 2037)
•Constitutional limitations apply: “Research,
planning, construction, improvement,
maintenance, and operation of public streets
and highways” and related nonmotrized
facilities for nonmotorized traffic
(Art. XIX, Sec. 2(a))
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.257 of 304
What are the reporting requirements?
•List of projects proposed to be funded each year
to California Transportation Commission
•List must be pursuant to an adopted budget
approved at a public meeting
•List shall not limit flexible use of funds, provided
that projects are eligible
•Must include description and the location of each
proposed project, schedule for completion, and
estimated useful life of improvement
•Streets and Highways Code Section 2034(a)(1)
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.258 of 304
Reporting requirements cont.
•Upon expending RMRA funds, must submit
documentation to the CTC
–Description and location of each completed
project,
–Amount of funds expended on the project
–Completion date and the estimated useful life of
the improvement
•Streets and Highways Code Section 2034(a)(2)
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.259 of 304
Questions?
Chris Lee
CSAC Legislative Analyst
clee@counties.org
916-650-8180
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.260 of 304
California
Status actions entered today are listed in bold.
File name: TWIC-TransLeg
Author: Susan Eggman (D-013)
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.
Author: Chris R. Holden (D-041)
Title:Transit Pass Program: Free or Reduced-Fare Passes
Introduced: 12/05/2016
Last
Amend:05/30/2017
Disposition: Pending
Committee: Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
Hearing:07/11/2017 1:30 pm, John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203)
Summary:Creates the Transit Pass Pilot Program to provide free or reduced-fare transit passes to specified
pupils and students by supporting new, or expanding existing, transit pass programs. Requires
the Department of Transportation to develop guidelines that describe the application process and
selection criteria for awarding the moneys made available for the program. Requires certain
reports.
Status: 06/14/2017 To SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING.
CSAC:Watch
LCC:Watch
1.CA AB 13 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
2.CA AB 17 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
3.CA AB 28
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.261 of 304
Author:Jim Frazier (D-011)
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:2017-4
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. 2017-4
CCTA:Support
CSAC:Support
LCC:Support
MTC:Support
Author: Jim Patterson (R-023)
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 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
SESSION ADJOURNMENT
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.262 of 304
Author: Autumn R. Burke (D-062)
Title:California Global Warming Solutions Act
Introduced: 01/11/2017
Last
Amend:05/02/2017
Disposition: Pending
File:27
Location:Assembly Third Reading File
Summary:Amends the Global Warming Solutions Act. Requires the Air Resources Board to prepare and
approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and to update the scoping plan. Requires the state board
to report to the Legislature on the need for increased education, career technical education, job
training, and workforce development in ensuring that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are
reduced by a specified level.
Status: 05/30/2017 In ASSEMBLY. Read second time. To third reading.
CSAC:Watch
LCC:Watch
Author: Frank E. Bigelow (R-005)
Title:California Transportation Commission: Membership
Introduced: 01/17/2017
Disposition: Pending
Committee: Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
Hearing:07/11/2017 1:30 pm, John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203)
Summary:Requires that at least one voting member of the California Transportation Commission reside in a
rural county with a population of less than a certain number of individuals.
Status: 05/24/2017 To SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING.
CSAC:Watch
LCC:Watch
5.CA AB 151 September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
6.CA AB 174 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
7.CA AB 179 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.263 of 304
Author: Sabrina Cervantes (D-060)
Title:California Transportation Commission
Introduced: 01/18/2017
Last
Amend:06/08/2017
Disposition: Pending
Committee: Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
Hearing:07/11/2017 1:30 pm, John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203)
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 low-income 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:06/08/2017 From SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING with author's
amendments.
06/08/2017 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on
TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING.
CSAC:Watch
LCC:Watch
Author: Marc Steinorth (R-040)
Title:California Environmental Quality Act: Transportation
Introduced: 02/02/2017
Disposition: Pending
Location: Assembly Natural Resources Committee
Summary:Exempts from the CEQA provisions a project, or the issuance of a permit for a project, that
consists of the inspection, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, replacement, or removal of, or the
addition of an auxiliary lane or bikeway to, existing transportation infrastructure and that meets
certain requirements.
Status:03/20/2017 In ASSEMBLY Committee on NATURAL RESOURCES: Failed passage.
03/20/2017 In ASSEMBLY Committee on NATURAL RESOURCES: Reconsideration granted.
CSAC:Pending
LCC:Watch
8.CA AB 278 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
9.CA AB 342 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.264 of 304
Author: David Chiu (D-017)
Title:Vehicles: Automated Speed Enforcement: Five-Year 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
MTC:Support
Author: Cristina Garcia (D-058)
Title:Greenhouse Gases and Criteria Air Pollutants
Introduced: 02/09/2017
Last
Amend:05/30/2017
Disposition: Pending
File:23
Location:Assembly Unfinished Business - Reconsideration
Summary:Requires the State Air Resources Board when adopting rules and regulations to achieve certain
greenhouse gas emissions reductions to follow specified requirements and prioritize specified
emission reduction rules and regulations. Requires the Board to adopt air pollutant emissions
standards for emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants at industrial facilities.
Status:06/01/2017 In ASSEMBLY. Read third time. Failed to pass ASSEMBLY. (35-39)
06/01/2017 In ASSEMBLY. Motion to reconsider.
BAAQMD: OpposeUnlessAmended
CSAC:Pending
LCC:Watch
10.CA AB 378 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
11.CA AB 399 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.265 of 304
Author: Timothy S. Grayson (D-014)
Title:Autonomous Vehicles: Contra Costa: Pilot Project
Introduced: 02/09/2017
Last
Amend:03/23/2017
Disposition: Pending
Location: Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee
Summary:Relates to an autonomous vehicles pilot project in Contra Costa County. Extends the
authorization for the pilot project to after the operative date of regulations promulgated by the
department.
Status:03/23/2017 To ASSEMBLY Committees on TRANSPORTATION and COMMUNICATIONS AND
CONVEYANCE.
03/23/2017 From ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION with author's amendments.
03/23/2017 In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
CSAC:Watch
LCC:Watch
Author: Kevin Mullin (D-022)
Title:Local Transportation Authorities: Transactions and Tax
Introduced: 02/13/2017
Last
Amend:05/16/2017
Disposition: Pending
Committee: Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee
Hearing:07/12/2017 1:30 pm, Room 3191
Summary:Exempts, upon the request of an authority, a county elections official from including the entire
adopted transportation expenditure plan in the voter information guide, if the authority posts the
plan on its Internet Web site, and the sample ballot and the voter information guide sent to
voters include information on viewing an electronic version of the plan and obtaining a printed
copy at no cost.
Status:06/20/2017 From SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING: Do pass to
Committee on ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. (10-2)
CSAC:Sponsor, Watch
LCC:Watch
12.CA AB 467 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
13.CA AB 1069 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.266 of 304
Author: Evan Low (D-028)
Title:Local Government: Taxicab Transportation Services
Introduced: 02/16/2017
Last
Amend:06/28/2017
Disposition: Pending
Committee: Senate Governance and Finance Committee
Hearing:07/05/2017 9:30 am, Room 112
Summary:authorizes specified counties to regulate taxi service within the respective county by means of a
countywide transportation agency. Prohibits an authorized county that does not regulate taxi
service by means of a countywide transportation agency, and the cities within that county, from
regulating taxi service. Requires the sheriff in a county that does not regulate taxi service
pursuant to these provisions to administer criminal background checks and drug testing for
taxicab drivers within that county.
Status:06/28/2017 From SENATE Committee on GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE with author's
amendments.
06/28/2017 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on
GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE.
CCTA:Oppose
CSAC:Concerns
LCC:Watch
Author: Marc Levine (D-010)
Title:County Highways
Introduced: 02/17/2017
Last
Amend:03/28/2017
Disposition: Pending
Location: Senate Second Reading File
Summary:Authorizes the board of supervisors of a county to adopt a resolution relating to specified
activities relating to streets by a certain number of votes. Makes nonsubstantive changes to
existing law.
Status: 06/28/2017 In SENATE Committee on GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE: Not heard.
CSAC:Watch
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
14.CA AB 1436 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
15.CA AB 1444 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.267 of 304
Author: Catharine B. Baker (R-016)
Title:Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority
Introduced: 02/17/2017
Last
Amend:06/20/2017
Disposition: Pending
Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee
Hearing:07/10/2017 10:00 am, John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203)
Summary:Authorizes the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority to conduct a shared autonomous
vehicle demonstration project for the testing of autonomous vehicles that do not have a driver
seat in the driver's seat and are not equipped with a steering wheel, a brake pedal, or an
accelerator.
Status:06/27/2017 From SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING: Do pass to
Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. (12-0)
LCC:Support
MTC:Support
Author: Rob Bonta (D-018)
Title:Public Records: Supervisor of Records: Fines
Introduced: 02/17/2017
Last
Amend:06/19/2017
Disposition: Pending
Committee: Senate Judiciary Committee
Hearing:07/11/2017 1:30 pm, Room 112
Summary:Amends the Public Records Act. Requires public agencies to designate a person or office to act as
the agency's custodian of records who is responsible for responding to any request made under
the Act and any inquiry from the public about a decision by the agency to deny a request for
records. Authorizes a court that finds that an agency failed to respond to a request for records or
improperly withheld public records from a member of the public to assess a civil penalty.
Status:06/19/2017 From SENATE Committee on JUDICIARY with author's amendments.
06/19/2017 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on
JUDICIARY.
CCTA:Oppose
September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
16.CA AB 1479 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
17.CA AB 1640 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.268 of 304
Author: Eduardo Garcia (D-056)
Title:Transportation Funding: Low Income Communities
Introduced: 02/17/2017
Disposition: Pending
Location: Assembly Transportation Committee
Summary:Requires each regional transportation improvement program to allocate a certain percentage of
available funds to projects or programs that provide direct, meaningful, and assured benefits to
low-income individuals who live in certain identified communities or to riders of transit service
that connects low-income residents to critical amenities and services.
Status: 03/16/2017 To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION.
CSAC:Watch
LCC:Watch
Author:Jim Beall (D-015)
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
CSAC:Support
LCC:Support
MTC:Support
77 Days Remaining
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
18.CA SB 1
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
19.CA SB 80 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.269 of 304
Author: Bob Wieckowski (D-010)
Title:California Environmental Quality Act: Notices
Introduced: 01/11/2017
Last
Amend:06/21/2017
Disposition: Pending
Location: Assembly Appropriations Committee
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 e-mail. 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:06/21/2017 In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on
APPROPRIATIONS.
CSAC:Concerns
LCC:Watch
Author: Steve Glazer (D-007)
Title:Highways: Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone
Introduced: 02/17/2017
Last
Amend:04/17/2017
Disposition: Pending
Location: Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
Summary:Designates the segment of county highway known as Vasco Road, between the State Highway
Route 580 junction in Alameda County and the Marsh Creek Road intersection in Contra Costa
County, as a Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone upon the approval of the boards of
supervisors of Alameda County and Contra Costa County.
Status:04/17/2017 From SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING with author's
amendments.
04/17/2017 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on
TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING.
CSAC:Watch
LCC:Watch
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
20.CA SB 578 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
21.CA SB 595 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.270 of 304
Author: Jim Beall (D-015)
Title:Metropolitan Transportation Commission: Toll Bridge
Introduced: 02/17/2017
Last
Amend:05/26/2017
Disposition: Pending
Committee: Assembly Transportation Committee
Hearing:07/10/2017 2:30 pm, State Capitol, Room 4202
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 state-owed 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 state-owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay area.
Status: 06/12/2017 To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION.
CSAC:Watch
LCC:Watch
MTC:Support
Author: Bob Wieckowski (D-010)
Title:Global Warming: Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms
Introduced: 02/17/2017
Last
Amend:05/01/2017
Disposition: Pending
Location: Senate Environmental Quality Committee
Summary:Amends the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 which designates the State Air
Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emission
of greenhouse gases. Requires the Board to adopt a regulation establishing as a market-based
compliance mechanism a market-based program of emission limits for covered entities. Relates
to funds.
Status:05/01/2017 From SENATE Committee on ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY with author's
amendments.
05/01/2017 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
CSAC:Pending
LCC:Watch
Introduced 1st Committee 1st Chamber 2nd Committee 2nd Chamber Enacted
22.CA SB 775 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.271 of 304
Author: Josh Newman (D-029)
Title:Motor Vehicle Fees and Tax: Restriction on Expenditures
Introduced: 01/18/2017
Last
Amend:03/30/2017
Disposition: Pending
File:A-7
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, Watch
LCC:Watch
Author: Scott Wiener (D-011)
Title:Local Transportation Measure: Special Taxes: Voter
Introduced: 02/13/2017
Last
Amend:05/01/2017
Disposition: Pending
Location: Senate Appropriations Committee
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: 05/25/2017 In SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: Held in committee.
CSAC:Support
LCC:Watch
MTC:Support
23.CA SCA 2 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
24.CA SCA 6 SESSION ADJOURNMENT
September 15, 2017
77 Days Remaining
Introduced
Passed
1st Committee
Passed
1st Chamber
Passed
2nd Committee
Passed
2nd Chamber Enacted
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.272 of 304
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board
Adopted this Resolution on 05/24/2016 by the following vote:
AYE:
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSE:
Resolution No. 2016/382
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AUTHORIZING THE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO PURSUE EITHER THE POTENTIAL FORMATION OF A JOINT POWERS
AUTHORITY (JPA) OR THE NEGOTIATION OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) FOR THE
REGIONAL REGULATION OF TAXICAB SERVICES WITHIN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 53075.5 states that every city or county shall protect the public health, safety,
and welfare by adopting an ordinance or resolution regarding the provision of taxicab services within its jurisdiction;
WHEREAS, each individual jurisdiction within the County of Contra Costa is currently responsible for the regulation of taxicab
services within its own boundaries, including but not limited to the licensing/permitting of vehicles and drivers, the conduct of
driver background checks and testing for controlled substances, vehicle inspections, approval of taxicab rates, and the
establishment and enforcement of other operating rules and procedures;
WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa anticipates that the formation of a single regional taxicab authority, or the negotiation
of a regional MOU, would provide a benefit to the residents, visitors, and businesses of the unincorporated area, and those of
other participating jurisdictions, through the promotion and establishment of consistent rules and standards for the regulation of
taxicab services across the County;
WHEREAS, it is also anticipated that the formation of a single regional taxicab authority, or the negotiation of a regional MOU,
would allow taxicab drivers to obtain a single license/permit covering all participating jurisdictions, instead of having to obtain
multiple licenses/permits throughout the County; and
WHEREAS, it is also anticipated that the regulation of taxicab services through a single regional authority, or the negotiation of
a regional MOU, would create efficiencies that could reduce overall staff time currently dedicated to the administration and
regulation of taxicab services, both within the County, and in other participating jurisdictions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County as follows:
1. The County Administrator, in partnership with other participating jurisdictions, is hereby authorized to investigate the
feasibility of either forming a joint powers authority (“JPA”) or negotiating a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) for the
regional regulation of taxicab services within Contra Costa County.
2. The County Administrator shall designate a staff representative to work with the representatives of other participating
jurisdictions in an effort to determine the feasibility of either creating a regional JPA or negotiating a regional MOU and, if
feasible, to draft agreements and documents necessary to implement such regional JPA or MOU, including but not limited to:
(i) a proposed JPA among participating jurisdictions,
(ii) proposed bylaws and uniform taxicab regulations to be adopted by a JPA,
(iii) an MOU among participating agencies, or
(iv) any other local resolutions or ordinances necessary to implement the JPA or MOU, all subject to final review and
approval by the Board of Supervisors.
3. The County Administrator, or designee, is further authorized and encouraged to participate in regional outreach efforts, along
with other jurisdictions, with community stakeholders.
4. The County Administrator, or designee, will continue to provide periodic updates to the Board of Supervisors’ Transportation,
Water and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) regarding the work authorized by this Resolution.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.273 of 304
Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925) 335-1036
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: May 24, 2016
David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: , Deputy
cc:
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.274 of 304
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: July 5, 2017
SUBJECT: TWIC Report
State Budget Approved by Legislature and Governor - Transportation
With the Legislature having met the June 15 deadline to approve the annual budget act, on
June 27, the Governor approved the budget bill and several key trailer bills making policy
changes that make the budget work for the Governor.
For transportation programs the budget act contains new spending of the SB 1 revenues that
will materialize from the bill’s new taxes that will become effective later in the fiscal year. The
amount of $1,497,370,000, from a variety of new funds, is provided for local and capital
funding for projects in multiple transportation programs set forth in SB 1. This includes
$592.8 million for capital projects and $904.6 million for local assistance (largely local streets
and roads maintenance).
Affected programs include:
Local Partnership Program,
Trade Corridor Enhancement Program,
Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program,
Active Transportation Program,
Congested Corridor Program, and
State Highway Operations Protection Program (SHOPP).
The new budget also includes $477.8 million in support costs for Caltrans, from a variety of
funds, with a net zero change in staff, to pave highways, fill potholes, rehabilitate bridges,
and disseminate local assistance funds from new revenue created by SB 1 as well as
approval of provisional budget language to provide funding flexibility.
To enhance accountability for SB 1 programs, the budget also includes $9.5 million in State
Highway Account funds for 58 positions, including ten new positions and the redirection of
48 existing positions, for the new Office of Inspector General created by SB 1.
Finally, the transportation programs in the budget are subject to the policy clarifications and
language contained in two Budget Trailer bills in line with SB 1.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.275 of 304
2
The two trailer bills are as follows:
AB 115: Cleanup for SB 1, combined with Project Acceleration language.
Among the provisions of this bill are the following:
(1) CM/GC (Construction Management/General Contractor) authority for CalTrans
projects will be doubled from 12 projects to 24 projects, and two of the projects can be
delegated to the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC);
(2) Current CM/GC authority, which can be used by regional transportation agencies for
expressway and new bridge projects not on the state highway system, will be expanded to
include bridge repair and rehabilitation projects and railroad grade separations in
Riverside County;
(3) Design-build will be permitted for up to 6 local projects approved by CalTrans for
bridge replacements or railroad grade separations, with three of the projects in Riverside
County.
(4) Clarification that ensures the SB 1 Local Partnership funding will be available to
regional transportation agencies, as well as cities and counties.
SB 103: Freight Trade Corridor and Advance Mitigation Authority.
This measure contains detailed programmatic direction for both the freight and advance
mitigation elements funded by SB 1. This bill is pending final action by the Senate.
SB 1 Guidelines
CalSTA is accelerating production of updated guidelines for TIRCP that will also follow
current law that authorizes the state to program 5 years of projects. Additionally, CalSTA will
also speed the development of the Commuter and Passenger Rail guidelines in order to
move those funds to recipient agencies.
As for the CTC, they have begun their guideline development for Trade Corridors, Local
Partnership, Active Transportation and the Congested Corridors programs, beginning at their
regular meeting in May. Their target is to prepare guidelines and conduct completive
assessment processes in timely manner to allow award of project funding within the 2017-18
budget year.
Regional Measure 3 - SB 595 (Beall)
Legislation to establish Regional Measure 3 (RM 3) was approved by the Senate on May 31;
it has been assigned to the Assembly Transportation committee for hearing on July 10.
The bill requires the nine Bay Area counties to conduct a special election to increase the toll
rate 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.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.276 of 304
3
Working with MTC, local transportation agencies have adopted RM 3 priority project lists.
The bill was amended on July 3 to specify that the regional toll can be raised up to $3 and to
provide election law specifications to how the regional vote would be conducted.
Autonomous Vehicles
The Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) has worked with Assemblymember
Baker to introduce AB 1444, which authorizes LAVTA to undertake a pilot within the City of
Dublin for shared Autonomous Vehicles (SAV). The intent is to better connect parking
facilities with BART.
The bill is pending approval on the Senate Floor.
Cap and Trade
With the approval of the transportation-funding package, the focus of attention now turns to
the possible extension of the Cap and trade program. The governor still intends to seek
authorization the extension of the cap and trade program through the legislature. In the
meantime, the legislature has introduced their own versions for consideration.
Cap and Trade Auction Mechanism Reauthorization
AB 378 (Garcia) – Reauthorization vehicle for auction mechanism.
Status: Failed to pass the Assembly
AB 151 (Burke) – Reauthorization vehicle for auction mechanism
Status: Not taken up in the Assembly
SB 775 (Wieckowski) – Introduced with great fanfare last week, this measure may well be
interpreted as a carbon tax.
Status: Never heard
There are substantial negotiations underway between the leadership and the Governor’s
Administration and the ultimate vehicle is uncertain at present. There is an emerging “deal”
concept that would restrict the use “free credits” and to let the present continuous
appropriations authority expire in 2020 that dedicates 60% of auction revenues to
sustainable communities, transit and High speed Rail.
The concept would lead to three (3) types of expenditures after 2020: (1) Rebates to offset
the impact of cap and trade on the public, (2) Infrastructure, and (3) research.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.277 of 304
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 11.
Meeting Date:07/10/2017
Subject:COMMUNICATION/News Clippings
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, Department of
Conservation and Development
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:
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE communication and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
A Generational Failure_ As the U.S Fantasizes
Update on Express (HOT) Lanes
Roseville, Rocklin eye split from rural Placer voters in plan to raise taxes for roads _ The Sacramento Bee.pdf
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.278 of 304
A generational failure: As the U.S. fantasizes, the rest of the world builds a new
transport system
Yonah Freemark
July 1st, 2017 | 60 Comments
Tomorrow, two high-speed rail lines open in France, providing new corridors for trains to slice through the countryside
at 200 mph (320 km/h). One is a 302-kilometer link that will connect Paris to Bordeaux in the southwest part of the
country. The other is a 182-kilometer line connecting Paris to western France. They’ll provide riders the equivalent of
linking Washington, D.C. to Charlotte in just over two hours (versus an eight-hour Amtrak trip today), or Dallas to San
Marcos in less than an hour and a half (versus a seven-and-a-half-hour Amtrak trip).
What’s remarkable about the completion of these projects is not so much their scale (though at €7.8 billion and €3.4
billion, respectively, they’re hardly a drop in the bucket), nor the improvements in connectivity they’ll provide (though
they’ll slash travel times in western France for millions of riders every year). What’s remarkable about them is, frankly,
just how unremarkable they are; for people in most of the world’s wealthy countries, high-speed rail services of this sort
have become commonplace.
The U.S., of course, is the world’s notable exception. Over the past thirty years, almost two dozen countries have built
up networks of collectively thousands of miles for trains traveling at least 150 mph. Since 1976, for example, France,
Germany, Italy, and Spain slowly but steadily built up large networks, under varying political and economic
environments (Japan had started opening such lines in 1964; see the bottom of the post for a similar graph including
China). Americans upgraded a route between Boston and New York and created 34 miles of track capable of such
speeds.
In face of the dif culties inherent in investing in large infrastructure projects that have the potential to transform the
travel experience, the U.S. has been unable to advance. Over the course of an entire generation, American society has
proven itself incapable of pooling either the sustained motivation or the resources to complete a single major high-
speed intercity rail project. Not that the country has committed itself to other forms of transportation, either; an
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.279 of 304
automobile-centric place we may be, but our road network has hardly grown since 1980 in the face of massive
population growth, congestion has worsened, and our airports are notoriously awful.
In this failure, high-speed rail encapsulates the American experience in general: A nation now fundamentally
unprepared to change, whether in terms of transport, climate change, or healthcare.
My indictment of the U.S. is not founded on a claim that Americans are bereft of “ideas,” or that other countries’
populations are smarter, or wealthier, or more risk-taking than them. It’s just that our society suffers from a malaise
resulting from its dysfunctional, irascible political system that is woefully unprepared to commit to anything
particularly signi cant.
In early 2009, the U.S. and China were, in an odd sort of way, in a similar place when it came to transport investment.
Propelled into of ce by a wave of voters who suggested they wanted change, President Obama’s administration released
a visionary proposal for high-speed rail that suggested the potential for major new fast train corridors criss-crossing
the country. He convinced Congress to pass a stimulus bill with very signi cant new funds to pay for such lines. He
seemed to be promoting a way forward. At the same time, China had just begun developing its rail network; in terms of
truly fast trains, it had little more than a short link between Beijing and Tianjin open. But the Chinese government also
had big proposals to expand its network into a nationwide system.
What happened in the intervening years suggests the difference between the two countries. In the U.S., President
Obama’s initiative was met by Republican governors elected in 2010 who, for reasons that had little to do with sanity,
resisted free federal money to fund the completion of intercity rail projects their (Democratic) predecessors had
developed. Lines in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin were scuttled. Republican members of the House of Representatives
fought new appropriations for rail and instead pointed to what have been so far unful lled hopes for the private sector’s
magic touch to bring fast trains to America.
The federal government, hand-in-hand with willing state governments, invested in dead-end studies of maglev projects.
Commentators suggested that high-speed rail was “pointless” in the face of slower self-driving cars, a technology that,
by the way, remains to be genuinely proven. Now, we’re being told by the president and the mayor of Chicago that the
Hyperloop, another underdeveloped technology, is the transport of the future.
When it comes to intercity transportation, the attention span of the American mind, it seems, is little different than that
of a child suffering from ADHD. Perhaps it is no surprise we have elected a president more interested in Twitter than
policy.
Meanwhile, the Chinese government, committed to a long-term project, built the world’s largest high-speed rail
network. It now carries more than a billion and a half passengers each year. It has recon gured the nation’s geography
such that high-speed rail is the most cost- and time-effective way to get around between most cities.
In the face of signi cant economic growth and mass migration to its urban centers, the Chinese government
constructed a new transportation system. Yes, its roadway network and air travel systems have grown dramatically over
the past ten years. But the largest growth in intercity travel has occurred on the high-speed rail network, which
accounted for just a third of the passenger numbers of China’s airlines in 2007 but now is carrying almost two times as
many riders, and many more than the U.S. air system as a whole.
Amtrak, whose government support has hardly changed over the past decade, still carries about 1/26th of the daily
passengers of the nation’s airlines. Its negligible role in the nation’s intercity transport system—outside of the Boston-
to-Washington corridor—remains entrenched, even as other countries have dramatically expanded the railroad’s role in
their societies. The problem isn’t that trains aren’t popular to Americans. The problem is that American rail service is
terrible, and we’ve done nothing to improve it.
It is true, of course, that the Chinese government is autocratic and that its ability to invest in rail does not face the same
bureaucratic or democratic resistance as the U.S. does.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.280 of 304
Trump’ s budget hits transit hard »
But such concerns didn’t prevent the French, Italian, and Spanish government from completing more than 2,000
kilometers of high-speed rail lines since 2009. Moreover, American claims from early in the Chinese development
period that “the Railway Ministry still can’t get anyone to ride its trains” now seem irrelevant given that millions of
people ride the system each day. And though it is certainly true that the rail system was, in part, built on corner-cutting,
over the six years since 40 people died in the terrible 2011 Wenzhou train crash, more than 160,000 Americans died on
their precious roadways.
It turns out that it’s actually not that complicated to conduct transport policy in a manner that adapts to change. You
don’t need competitions to gather the input of “geniuses.” You don’t need magical new technologies when we have
systems that work today. You don’t need to encourage speculation from the private sector, whose primary interest is in
making high returns on their investment, not the public interest. You need a (reasonably) long-term commitment to
individual projects, across political lines and among multiple political jurisdictions. You need to amass the public
resources to pay for them. And then you need a competent workforce to design, construct, and operate the lines.
American society has not shown itself capable of any of those things.
President Trump’s claims over the past year have suggested signi cant interest in supporting improved infrastructure
for the U.S. Democrats were willing to compromise, for better or worse, to make such projects happen. But then the
administration revealed its budget, which cut a gaping hole in existing infrastructure programs. And the president has
failed to even propose an appointment for the head of the Federal Railroad Administration, among many other
positions.
The U.S. lost an entire generation of potential investment in high-speed rail to half-hearted proposals and political
back-and-forths over whether to fund better services. There’s no evidence we’re any better off because of it; while
other countries have developed new transportation systems that truly improve the ability to get between their cities,
we’ve just become further mired in traf c, whether at the airport or on the highway. The current president gives us
little reason to believe the coming years offer anything different.
There are, thankfully, still reasons for hope. Florida’s Brightline project, a private initiative that would be dif cult to
replicate elsewhere because it is being completed by a private company that already owns the right-of-way,
nonetheless suggests that it is possible to develop what appears to be a competent, well-run new railroad in the U.S.,
though it is not truly high-speed rail. And California’s high-speed rail line, though years from completion and under
continuous barrage from congressional Republicans, is actually under construction and it retains signi cant political
support. Change could yet be on its way.
Sources for graphs: Wikipedia, U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, World Bank, Amtrak. Photo at top: TGV near
Bordeaux, from Flickr user Adrien Sifre (cc).
By Yonah Freemark on July 1st, 2017 | Listed: Amtrak, High-Speed Rail, Intercity Rail, President | 60 Comments
60 Comments | Leave a Reply »
Marc Brenman
1 July 2017 at 11:17 · Reply
Start Download - View PDF
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.281 of 304
11 Billion Euro in capital costs alone is not “a drop in a bucket.” Spain is a bad example of successful HSR projects,
since the costs helped bankrupt the country, and the adverse effects are still being felt. It is incorrect to say that
ARRA contained signi cant funds for HSR in the US. ARRA actually contained a lot of money for bogus “shovel ready”
pothole lling road projects. HSR in the US competes with regional jet, which is a relatively ef cient system. There
are only two HSR segments in the world that pay for themselves at the farebox; all others require huge tax subsidies
and very high fares, as well as openness to terrorism. When airport type security is added to HSR, as it inevitably
will, then the speed of through-put will decrease to be about the same as regional jet, portal to portal. Political
support for California HSR is dropping, in part because, like all other megaprojects, it is hundreds of percent over
budget and schedule, and takes away money from what is really needed in California.
Alvaro Castro
1 July 2017 at 18:32 · Reply
Saying that Spain is a bad example “because it helped bankrupt the country” seems to me an unfounded claim.
Considering the low population density of the country (by Europe’s standards), infrastructure like this is key
to connecting the less industrialized areas and providing better connectivity with a radial structure. In my
opinion, is a good investment for the country, and many Spaniards bene t from it. It’s also one of the best
experiences I’ve had when using it, compared to many European countries too.
flierfy
1 July 2017 at 19:01 · Reply
High-speed lines are more to Spain than just the roadway to fast passenger services. These lines are
Spains access to the standard gauge network of Europe. The development of this network allows the
country to reduce its dependence on the prevailing road transport. Neither did its construction cripple
Spains economy. For all those reason did the country continue to expand this network in the last decade
despite the economic dif culties.
Rob
1 July 2017 at 23:15 · Reply
“When airport type security is added to HSR, as it inevitably will”. My answer to that is: why is that so
inevitable? And if it is, where does it stop? Will we have “airport-type security” on regional trains next?
Subways? At the end we’ll just agree it’s better not to leave the house at all anymore, which, if we look at the
positive side, is at least good for the environment…
Mike
2 July 2017 at 03:59 · Reply
Complete bullshit. ALL infrastructure is heavily subsidized. While you are whining about money being used to
fund rails, $165 billion per year is being poured into our aging highway system. Roads are far more expensive,
and unsustainable.
Thomas Dorsey
1 July 2017 at 12:39 · Reply
Well stated, but new/infrequent visitors to TheTransportPolitic should be reminded of two caveats.
1. Brightline private ownership is to be commended for making a positive impact on intercity passenger rail. But,
Brightline is not true HSR because over 80% of the line will be 79 mph and service can not run as frequent as grade-
separated 125+ mph HSR.
There was opportunity for up to 15% private investor participation in the 185 mph Florida HSR-only project whose
frequent service would have tripled/quadrupled Brightline’s projected ridership. Politics prevented Florida from
having 185 mph HSR-only tracks in Orlando-Tampa corridor by 2015. Connecting with the rst HSR line at Orlando
International Airport, the 185 mph HSR-only Orlando-Fort Lauderdale-Miami corridor would have been under
construction today.
2. Ohio Republican Governor Kasich rejected the Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati passenger rail project because
average speed would have been under 60 mph. Some time after rejecting funds for that project, he requested that
the same funds upgrade existing the Amtrak Youngstown-Cleveland-Toledo corridor to 79 mph and more frequent
service.
Though Kasich botched the politics and timing, many, like myself, argue that he was right. Kasich believes that
existing Amtrak service must rst improve to win more patronage. The ridership boost is needed to build voter
support in a “Purple” state. With backing from more voters, he/next Ohio governor could approve a follow-up
project to further upgrade speed and frequency. Pennsylvania governors took that approach upgrading to 110 mph in
the Amtrak Philadelphia-Harrisburg corridor, now planning a 125 mph upgrade. More recently, that measured-but-
rm approach helped the Michigan Republican governor get support for the 110 mph Amtrak Chicago-Detroit
upgrade.
Kasich’s approach could have accelerated the day when frequent 125 mph service runs in the Amtrak Philadelphia-
Harrisburg-Pittsburgh-Youngstown-Cleveland-Toledo corridor. Combined with growing patronage in the 110 mph
Amtrak Chicago-Detroit corridor, the project would trigger demand for a 110-125 mph Amtrak Toledo-Detroit HSR
route — its only a 58 mile gap.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.282 of 304
barry
1 July 2017 at 13:16 · Reply
America is disfunctional on this issue for several reasons. One is that a lot of the upper class that once agreed to tax
themselves for US investment (e.g. in no-cost or low cost public higher education, road building and other
infrastructure) has apparently lost interest in helping the US, now they only want to help themselves, and don’t care
where they invest, make products, or escape taxation. Highest marginal tax rates have dropped from about 91% for
the very rich to 39% or so and even that is too much for the poor dears who want to lower it further and even
eliminate estate taxes so their wealth will never be taxed. To help them, they have an army of rightwing radio and TV
hosts, bloggers, and commenters to serve as their lackeys and have convinced most Americans that they shouldn’t
pay taxes. So all our infrastructure suffers, but as roadway and aviation costs are hidden in many externalities, rail
travel has a hard time competing. In addition, much of the right-wing hates rail travel as they know it is relatively
energy ef cient, its workforce is highly unionized. Now that they are in control of everything, there is little hope for
more civilized travel in the US.
John Brave
2 July 2017 at 14:20 · Reply
Somebody needs help understanding the repercussions of heavy taxation:
The Tax System Explained in Beer
Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill
the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…
The First Four Men (The Poorest) Would Pay Nothing.
The Fifth Would Pay £1.
The Sixth Would Pay £3.
The Seventh Would Pay £7.
The Eighth Would Pay £12.
The Ninth Would Pay £18
And The Tenth Man (The Richest) Would Pay £59.
So, That’s What They Decided To Do.
The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the
owner caused them a little problem.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.”
Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the rst four men were unaffected. They
would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the
£20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only
would the rst four men still be drinking for free but the fth and sixth man would each end up being paid to
drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage. They
decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the
amounts he suggested that each should now pay. And so,
The fth man, like the rst four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).
Each of the last six was better off than before with the rst four continuing to drink for free.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10.”
“Yes, that’s right,” exclaimed the fth man. “I only saved £1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more bene t
than me.”
“That’s true” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all
the breaks.”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the rst four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits
the poor.”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him.
But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money
between all of them to pay for even half of the bill.
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who
already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most bene t from a tax reduction. Tax them too much,
attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.283 of 304
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is
possible
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. – Professor of Economics.
Larry Roth
2 July 2017 at 23:13 · Reply
This comment is too cute by half, For one thing, you’re repeating an internet meme of dubious
provenance. You might want to see what Snopes has to say about it.
http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp
More to the point, this is hardly ‘proof’ of anything – it’s a story, nothing more. There’s little to no hard
evidence the rich ee high taxation. Why ee when they can afford to nd so many loopholes or get new
ones enacted into law?
My understanding is that the top rate in the U.S. is currently 39%. In the 1950’s it used to be 91%. That
just happens to be around the time we really got rolling on building the interstate highway system, a
massive infrastructure investment. By all accounts the 1950’s saw serious growth across the whole
economy for everyone. For that matter, we built some pretty amazing stuff at the height of the
depression.
At the present time we have inequality at record levels in the U.S. and the rest of the world as well. The
rich are hardly suffering – not so the rest of us. Hard evidence is that tax cuts do NOT pay for
themselves, do NOT create jobs, OR grow the economy – but they do make the rich even richer.
Now if you’re a billionaire, I can see why you’d want that story to be spread around. It’s in your interest
after all. If you’re not a billionaire and you think that story applies to you, you’ve been played. You need to
spend less time thinking about beer and more time studying economics and history.
John Brave
3 July 2017 at 00:42 · Reply
The US federal tax law reached its highest during WWII at 94%. 50s-70s about 70%.
That’s not even relevant. So what if it was very high in the past. That doesn’t make it any fairer. How
would you feel if you worked hard and only kept 6% of what you’ve made?
Each person have their own view on what’s fair depending on where in the income bracket they fall.
The poor want everybody else to pay as much as possible, even 110% of their income as taxes in
order to allow the government to relieve them of their own burden. Everybody wants everybody
who’s in the income bracket above them to pay more and for themselves to pay less. Everybody.
When you’re in the top bracket, then there is nobody above.
How do you really de ne what’s fair? Really. I’m asking you. How do YOU de ne fair?
I posted the story as it very clearly illustrates what the tax system actually means. Was it fair that
the story’s richest dude paid $59 for his beer? How would you feel if you went to a store and
grabbed a gum stick and the clerk charged you for it according to your income? so you paid
something like $20 per stick of gum instead of the normal price $0.25, would that be fair?
Yes, you’re right, I am in the high income brackets and where I am, after all the taxes are added up I
end up paying over 70% of my income as taxes. I don’t think it’s fair. What do I get for this giant
contribution? I only get people asking that I pay even more; it’s never enough.
I get the same government-provided services as the person who pays no taxes. On my house I pay
more than a middle class man’s yearly salary as property tax. What do I get for it? the exact same
garbage collection service as the poor neighborhoods. Nothing more. I pay thousands of dollars
weekly to get a couple of garbage bags taken away by a garbage man that leaves me a condescending
note when my bins are too heavy for him to carry (anything over the limit of 30 lbs per bin). I get a
persistent police escort that protects me with a ticket from when my foot slips off the brakes and
my car goes 4 KM over the speed limit while overlooking somebody in a cheap car going over 15 KM
over the speed limit. And when I point it out I’m clearly told it’s ok, I can afford the damn ticket.
What is fair? Personally, I’m ne with splitting my income 50/50 with the people. I make a dollar, I’m
ne with equal share with the government. When you take from my effort more than what I get to
keep, then in my view it’s not fair anymore. And yes, I am seriously contemplating moving my
business elsewhere.
Krzystoff
3 July 2017 at 08:52 · Reply
John, you ought to know, Property Taxes are not merely collected to pay for garbage removal
service (in fact, you can pay a private contractor to do that if you so wish);
Property Tax payments (also referred to as Rates), go to a number of important programs.
Education is the biggest one in most jurisdictions, road construction & maintenance, and local
government staff salaries within the community. Any municipal employees, such as police, re
ghters, and the local public works department is also paid through your property taxes.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.284 of 304
Your property taxes help to pay for much of the organized recreation in your area, including
parks & recreation areas that are constructed and maintained within your community. Any of
the public lands in your community that aren’t owned or funded by the state are generally paid
for by the property taxes in your area as well. Traf c and street lights, sidewalks, recreational
trails and local public transportation are all paid for through local property tax percentages
that your local government collects each year.
John Brave
3 July 2017 at 11:58 · Reply
Thank you for the civics lesson.
Of course me being a clueless rich man I don’t know what the wonderful people at city hall
pretend to do with the money they take from me.
My point is about the unfairness of the system that those who don’t pay huge amount
don’t appreciate.
Being a hard working business man, I don’t have the time to be in the local government to
have a say in things despite having over ve hundred people relying on my business skills
and hard work for their livelihoods.
So those who get jobs in city hall, that are paid by myself and the likes of me, get to decide
when they want more money and they make the decision to simply raise my taxes and if I
complain I only face hostility and get generally lectured how everybody contributes in
their own capacity and since I’m rich I can afford just a little bit more (it’s only 1% or only
2% more, come on, I can’t complain about such a minor and fair increase).
It’s just a little bit more out of my pocket every time one of the government changes and
now it’s up to 70% of my income that goes into the various governments pockets despite
all those retched ‘loopholes’ that allow my to funnel my money away from the needy and
the poor.
Larry Roth
3 July 2017 at 20:51 · Reply
You know what? I’d be happy to pay 94 dollars, pounds, what have you out of every hundred if
my country was in the middle of a world-wide war with everything on the line – and I wouldn’t
begrudge it knowing that some people were giving 100%, up to and including their lives.
After that, 70% would look like a bargain – especially if my country was rebuilding itself and the
rest of the world to try and ensure that kind of global con ict wouldn’t happen again. Between
the G.I. Bill and the Marshall plan, we did damned well – including the rich.
“The poor want everybody else to pay as much as possible, even 110% of their income as taxes
in order to allow the government to relieve them of their own burden. Everybody wants
everybody who’s in the income bracket above them to pay more and for themselves to pay less.
Everybody. When you’re in the top bracket, then there is nobody above.”
Actually the poor don’t want everyone to pay for them – they want decent jobs at decent wages
so they don’t have to be looked down on by anyone. They want access to a decent education
and a chance for their kids to do better than they did. They want to work, they want to be
rewarded for that work with a living wage, they want respect. And maybe, if they work really
hard AND get lucky, they could be in a position to whine about how much of their money goes
for taxes.
Stuff happens to good people as well as bad. In the U.S. the leading cause of bankruptcy before
Obamacare was for medical reasons. Others include losing a job for whatever reason, divorce,
etc. One bad car accident, one bad diagnosis, and the choices become pretty stark. You
complain about having to pay for the safety net, never thinking it could be you it might have to
catch someday. (And meanwhile, we now have a government bought by the rich who are
planning to leave millions of their fellow citizens without healthcare so they can give tax cuts
to the rich. They’re okay with them starving too.)
You think you’re getting ripped off because you are being deprived of some of your money. You
see it going to others, and you get nothing in return. Nothing?
That garbage collector you help pay for is one reason you don’t have plagues sweeping through
your community. Those police who give you tickets? They’re also there if you get robbed, get in
an accident, need help in an emergency – and they’re there for anyone else who might need
them. Those property taxes? Don’t you like being able to drive down roads anywhere – not just
in front of your house – without having your car destroyed by potholes? You like streetlights?
Water and sewer? Parks? Clean air and water? The rule of law?
It’s called civilization. Don’t think of it as an expense – think of it as an investment and an
insurance policy against the worst that can happen. Don’t like it? I hear there are plenty of
opportunities in Somalia without burdensome government.
If you got to keep 50% of your money, or even 60% or 90% – would it make you 50, 60, or 90%
happier and more satis ed with your life? Would it do a damn bit of good for anyone else? How
hard have you worked to make your high taxes unnecessary, by doing things to give others a
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.285 of 304
leg up? Have you fought for a living wage, secure retirements for everyone, healthcare? How
good are the schools in your community, the housing, the job opportunities? Are there any
decent public libraries near you?
Okay, maybe you don’t have time for any of that. Did it ever occur to you that is one reason why
we have government – “to promote the general welfare” among other things, as well as see to
“the common defense”. You don’t say what your business is – who exactly are your customers,
and how hard would it be for the rest of us to get along without you?
I’m afraid you’ve come to the wrong place if you want sympathy for how terrible it is to be
cursed with too much money. You’re certainly working the “rich victim of the unfairness of it
all” card pretty hard. Well, we’ve tried letting rich people keep more and more of their money.
All it ends up with is them becoming even richer, and the rest of us poorer as they leave us to
pick up the bill for keeping things running.
You know a little bit about economics. May I suggest you broaden your mental horizons a bit?
Try these for a start:
The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger
https://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies-Stronger/dp/1608193411
Prosperity without Growth: Foundations for the Economy of Tomorrow
https://www.amazon.com/Prosperity-without-Growth-Foundations-
Tomorrow/dp/1138935417/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1499129313&sr=1-
1&keywords=prosperity+without+growth
John Brave
3 July 2017 at 21:55 · Reply
Great job on the expected lecture and the awesome virtue signaling. That’s exactly what I
said I would receive. Good job on proving my point.
Few points in answer as this is getting boringly predictable and repetitive.
1 – I have served in the military and I was ready to lay my life just like all the heroes before
me.
2 – I didn’t start my life rich. I worked hard. Nobody gave me a leg up and nobody helped
me. I did it myself and I’m very damn proud of that.
3 – I didn’t say I didn’t want to pay my fair share. I said exactly that I wanted to pay my
FAIR share, re-read my post. I de ned my fair share as 50% of what I make. I make 2
dollars I give one and keep one. To me that’s what’s fair. You didn’t answer my question to
you: what is my fair share? Will you ever consider anything less than what only leaves me
with the kind of money you get to keep fair? Can you give a straight rm answer or can
you only do vacuous moral grandstanding? Think hard: if you were the tax man, what
would you set my fair share at?
4 – My house did get burgled while I slept with my kids in it. The police told me that I’m
lucky I didn’t get hurt during the incident and good thing that I had good insurance. The
very well fed of cer shrugged and told that it’s unlikely they’ll ever get my things back or
catch who did it. Yay to the police for effectively using my money. Now I pay thousands
per year for private security and it’s not even claimable.
5 – I’m very satis ed with my life providing work for over ve hundred people with good
working conditions and good wages. What have you done other than moral grandstanding
and berating the likes of me for having more?
6 – I know about life and economics way more than you ever will. People like me build
countries and make them work. My knowledge, skill and hard work create a lot of
economic bene t to a lot of people, including you. What do self-righteous, virtue signaling
whiners like yourself create? You seem to think that you’re better than me, why haven’t
you done as much as I have?
Larry Roth
4 July 2017 at 10:57
You don’t like the lecture? Too bad, since you started with one.
Thank you for your service. I can appreciate that because both my father and my
father in law served – members of the greatest generation. I never served – but I
didn’t burn my draft card either. I currently have two of my children in the service;
one has been deployed several times to both the middle east and Afghanistan.
You made it all the way up from nothing, and nobody helped you? I suspect the
teachers you had in school would have something to say about that. Did you grow up
in a church? Ever see a doctor? Ever make use of roads or sidewalks? Unless you grew
up on a desert island, you had a lot of help – even in the military.
Yes, you put your life on the line. But in exchange for that you got food, housing,
clothing, transportation, medical care, education, and you got paid for it. All of that
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.286 of 304
was supported by taxes – you were living the socialist dream. ;-) It wasn’t cheap, but
you were apparently okay with it.
You make a big deal about your “fair share” the way YOU have de ned fair. You don’t
say where you live or what the tax structure is. See, the way it works is you don’t get
to decide what your fair share is all by yourself – no more than you get to join a club
and tell them what dues you’re willing to pay. You want to be in the club, you have to
abide by their rules. Don’t like the rules? Persuade the rest of the club to change them
– or get out and nd another club. Go shrug somewhere else, Atlas. No one is
stopping you.
You’re angry because all your money didn’t buy you police protection that would have
kept you and your family safe from being burgled? I’m sorry to hear that – nobody
should have to deal with that kind of thing. At least the police came when you called.
Try living in the wrong kind of neighborhood and see how that works. The odds are
even worse there. (That crack about a well-fed cop is a tell. You want someone who
puts his life on the line every day to be working for starvation wages? Maybe he
couldn’t do anything for you – but he could have gone on to his next call and ended
up lying gut-shot in a pool of blood.)
You’re very proud that you employ over 500 people at good wages, and you should be.
More businesses fail than succeed, so you must be doing something right. That makes
you a good business man. (Although I also bet you’re the kind of boss who reminds his
workers every day how grateful they should be to be for working for him.)
Being successful in business doesn’t make you an expert on everything though – and
don’t try to tell me you know more about life and economics than I ever will. Instead
you should be asking what I know that you don’t – unless you believe you have
nothing left to learn from anyone, and nothing matters except how much money
someone makes.
I’ve held a variety of jobs over the years, everything from factory to retail, full and
part-time, as well as trying running my own business. I’ve helped raise three kids, all
of whom have made it out of the house and into lives of their own. I’ve done my share
of community service – and still do.
As it happens, I’ve spent almost 40 years of my life working in public health. Yeah, a
civil service job working for the government. Depending on when and where your
kids were born, I might have been one of the people who did the tests to see if they
were born with a serious medical condition that needed immediate treatment. Last
summer I was one of the people who helped with testing the thousands of Zika
specimens that came in, because we were one of the few labs in the country that
could do the tests when the outbreak hit. I work every day with some pretty nasty
blood borne diseases; there’s an element of personal risk and potentially bad
consequences for the patients if we don’t get the tests right.
So while you’ve been busy building up your business and racking up the dough all by
yourself with no help from anyone, I’ve been doing my part to make it just a little bit
better world for you to do that in. You have 500+ lives in your hands? I’ve touched
thousands of lives in my time. Does that make me better than you – or just different?
I will say for someone who has been as successful as you claim to be, why are you the
one doing all the whining?
p.s. You really should check out those two books I suggested above. There are some
big problems out there that can’t be solved with just business skills. You may know
more than I do about certain things – I’m not arguing that – the question is, what do
you not know that you really need to know?
Yonah Freemark
4 July 2017 at 11:06
Folks: Let’s tone it down a bit. Comments on this website aren’t meant for
interpersonal insults or questioning of individual service/knowledge. Keep to the
subject at hand, or I’ll cut off commenting on this article. Thanks.
Jimm Roberts
4 July 2017 at 14:52
The nation desperately needs more wealth makers like John Brave so dedicated civil
servants like Larry Roth have funds to provide their various services to the public.
If I had to add a criticism, it’s Mr. Brave is generous to a fault. The governments that
tax him (local, state, Federal) shouldn’t take more than 1/3 his earnings.
The more he keeps, the higher the probability he’ll use the surplus to create more
wealth. The Federal government, unable to live within its means and deep in the hole
because of this failing, needs more wealth-makers.
Among other revenues they provide for government use, they are responsible for the
great majority of tax-paying jobs. Since governments don’t create wealth; they
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.287 of 304
consume it, we urgently need more John Brave’s.
David P Lubic
4 July 2017 at 16:02
“The more he keeps, the higher the probability he’ll use the surplus to create more
wealth. The Federal government, unable to live within its means and deep in the hole
because of this failing, needs more wealth-makers.”–Jimmy Roberts
Maybe, maybe not. The big problem from a business owner’s standpoint is he also
needs customers. If pay has stagnated since the 1970s (and it has), then eventually
there are no customers to buy his products or services. If he wants more pro ts, he
has to get them somewhere else.
Today that means cost cutting. It’s gotten to the point where I think everyone has
what I call Wal Mart disease. That’s when you go to the Wal Mart, and it has 30 cash
registers, but only two are open, and there are 50 people in line at each one. It’s
trying to do too much with too little for too long.
It’s a silly story, but it helps illustrate what I’m speaking of.
Back in the 1920s, a farmer somehow became acquainted with what were then called
“ef ciency experts.” The two were friends, trusted each other, and one day the farmer
admitted to the expert he was hurting nancially, partially due to a downturn in the
price of his commodity.
The ef ciency expert said, “Well, in your position, you essentially have two choices.
One would be to be able to charge more for what you raise, but sometimes a market
won’t allow that. The other option is to cut your expenses somehow.”
The ef ciency expert said he had an appointment to make that would take him out of
town for a couple of weeks, but he wanted to get back to his farmer friend to help him
out.
After the trip, the ef ciency man came back and asked the farmer how he was doing.
Farmer: “I tried what you said, but it didn’t turn out well.”
Ef ciency Man: “What happened?”
Farmer: “Well, I tried to cut expenses. I quit feeding my horse. It helped out for about
a week, but about the time he got used to not eating, he up and died.”
Well, I did say it was silly!
I think we may have to nd if there is an ideal ratio between executive pay, employee
pay, and other things that so far haven’t been addressed.
Jimm Roberts
4 July 2017 at 17:49
David,
You missed the point. Here’s some background: the Federal government went into
debt by a trillion dollars in the last ten years! It did so to jump-start the economy.
As interest rates rise, so does the cost to service that debt. This means, all else equal,
there will be less money for services of the kind Larry Roth provided.
To acquire additional tax revenue without having to increase marginal tax rates above
50%, the point where John Brave will be discouraged to take further risks to grow his
business, more wealth creation by private sector risk takers and job makers is
required.
More wealth and more jobs means more revenue for the government to tax. Stagnant
wealth creation means more status quo, an unsustainable state of the government
making ever deeper spending cuts; slapping on ever increasing taxes, and taking on
evermore debt, or a combination of all three.
If the status quo endures, you can forget massive public works projects like HSR
David P Lubic
5 July 2017 at 00:56 · Reply
But are these tax rates the big problem?
I honestly think we argue too much about the wrong things.
Let’s consider some examples.
We can recall Mitt Romney’s unfortunate remarks in when he was running for the
presidency in 2012, in which he said 47% of the population didn’t pay income tax, and he
wasn’t worried about them.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.288 of 304
The implication was that the 47% was a bunch of welfare cheats and lazy bums.
Well, I guess those guys are in there, but the 47% includes:
People on retirement.
People on disability.
Kids who are too young to work yet.
People who work but whose pay is too low to pay income taxes.
(I was a state payroll auditor for 36 years; I saw a lot of W-2s like that.)
Businesses with pro ts too low to pay income tax.
(I saw the business income tax statements as part of what I did, too.)
Part of the rich 1% who have really good accountants and lawyers.
(This includes the current president.)
That statement got me interested in the corollary. If 47% of the people don’t pay income
taxes, that means 53% do.
That got me curious about the ratio of taxpayers to the population back when “America
was great,” like the 1950s. What I found was information from 1960 (which would be end of
the 1950s data).
In 1960, only 49% of the population paid income tax, vs. 53% today.
I think that makes sense. In 1960, most women didn’t work. In 1960, the Baby Boomers
were still babies (and a bunch of them hadn’t been born yet; the Census Bureau classes the
Baby Boom as running to 1964).
So much for that.
At about the same time, there was a proposal to raise the marginal tax rate from 35% to
37% on income over $450,000 per year. That of course got certain people pretty mad, such
as Rush Limbaugh.
The top marginal rate in 1960 was over 90% on income over $300,000 per year.
Now a couple of things need to be kept in perspective. I think that $300,000 might have
been comparable to $1.5 million today. That top rate was also the last of something like two
dozen rates then, vs. the six or so we now have. And you could deduct the interest on your
car and credit cards then as well.
The point I’m getting at is that based on these talking points from 2012, and their implied
remedies or criticisms of the time, we should have had an economy in the tank in 1960 and
we didn’t, and the economy should be good for everybody today and it isn’t.
This tells me we spend a lot of time arguing about the wrong things–and a lot of our
troubles are from things we don’t talk about at all.
I’ll have something to say on that later.
David P Lubic
5 July 2017 at 01:01
One of the things some people say that hurts the business climate might be excessive
regulation. That might be true–and it might also not be.
A friend of mine used to work for the National Park Service in Harpers Ferry, W.Va. He
was one of the rangers there who dressed in Civil War era clothes and told stories
about Harpers Ferry for the tourists.
One of them was about the business climate in Harpers Ferry.
Harpers Ferry was the home of the Harpers Ferry Armory (of cially the United States
Armory and Arsenal at Harpers Ferry), a large Federal armaments plant that rivalled
the famous Spring eld Ri e Works. This armory was the objective of John Brown in
his famous raid that was to be the precursor of a slave rebellion in 1859.
That armory provided a lot of money to Harpers Ferry in 1859. The average pay for an
armory employee was $30 per month, or $360 per year, which was pretty good at a
time when the average American farmer had a cash income of only $125 per year (this
also says much about in ation since 1859).
This meant Harpers Ferry was much like a town outside a large military installation
today. . .all that government money coming in, and the people earning it need to
spend it. . .everybody wants a part of it.
The result was that Harpers Ferry was a boom town. . .dry goods stores,
haberdasheries, boot shops, pharmacies, and lots and lots of saloons. The business
climate was quite competitive. . .my friend said the average life expectancy of a new
business was only about six months.
Jump ahead 150 years or so. At least until relatively recently, the Small Business
Administration would tell you that, on average, the failure rate for new small
businesses would be about 50% in the rst year. That sounds an awful lot like a six
month life expectancy.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.289 of 304
And it’s interesting that the business life expectancy wasn’t any better when there
was no minimum wage, no unemployment insurance, no workers compensation
insurance, no income tax, no sales tax, no Social Security, no Medicare, no
Obamacare, in short, “no nothin’ .”
What this tells me is that, at least in this case, regulations don’t make much difference
when it comes to success or failure in business.
That actually depends on two things.
One is you–your drive, your vision, your discipline, your work–everything that makes
you a business owner, an entrepreneur.
The other is a bit of luck at being in the right place at the right time.
I retired last November after being an auditor for 36 years. I can say, as can any
accountant or bookkeeper, that you can have good people, smart business people,
who do everything right, have a good plan, work hard. . .and the business blows up
anyway and they lose everything, while some other guys, as dumb as rocks, can wind
up millionaires.
Nothing else but luck can explain that.
David P Lubic
5 July 2017 at 01:36
If my comments about regulation and taxation aren’t the real sources of our problems
are legitimate, then what might our problems really be?
I would argue that opportunity is running out.
This might best be illustrated by some examples.
Back a century ago, there were dozens, even hundreds of automobile companies. As
late as 1920 there were over a hundred, some names that were well known, such as
Graham, Franklin, A-C-D (Auburn-Cord-Duesenberg), and Studebaker, and others
forgotten, such as Marmon, Erskine, and Cartercar.
Almost all but the biggest—GM (Chevrolet, Buick, Pontiac [former Overland],
Oldsmobile, LaSalle, Cadillac), Ford (at the time, Ford and Lincoln only), and a then
new Chrysler (Chrysler, Plymouth, and the former Dodge Brothers), along with a
number of independents—Studebaker, Hudson, Nash, Packard, and Willys—would
survive the Depression. They would be joined by a number of attempted startups in
the postwar era, among them Tucker and Kaiser-Frazier. Weak market positions over
time would result in only GM, Ford, Chrysler, and American Motors (the product of a
merger between Nash and Hudson, and later the Jeep line purchased from Willys)
surviving after about 1963.
What this means, is between the collapse of a lot of companies and mergers, is that
there is less opportunity in building cars. We’ve gone from over a hundred presidents,
a hundred president’s secretaries, a hundred chief designers, a hundred chief
engineers, and the staf ng that went with them, to three.
There is also the matter of technical maturity. In 1908, Henry Ford’s Model T had 22
hp and a top speed of maybe 35 mph, if you could nd a road that good then. Today
you can buy a Corvette with over 600 hp, top speed probably well over 150 mph.
Yet, sadly, that marvel of engineering (its aluminum frame looks like a work of modern
art) won’t get you to work faster than a 1955 Volkswagen “Bug.”
How would you improve on that today? Could you design a car better enough, or at
least different enough, to go into the automobile business, and take on GM, Ford,
Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Honda, and the rest?
And what about just plain market saturation? Does anybody in this country who
needs a car not own one?
What about porcelain xtures. . .bathtubs, toilets, sinks, and so on? The founders of
American Standard and Kohler, to name two, made huge fortunes when people were
able to get indoor plumbing. But almost all houses now have that feature. How would
you improve on what is available, and could you take on American Standard, Kohler,
Delta (faucets), and others?
I remember computers and calculators getting crazy small some years back. Sure,
they had more power and more functions. . .but the real limit of how you could use
them was how fast you could type. That’s not going to change very much!
And I remember some that had buttons so blooming small, you had to use a stylus or
pen or something to press them, because ngers were too large! How is that an
improvement?
This and other things are telling me are are hitting, if not limits, at least diminishing
returns in technology.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.290 of 304
In some cases we have hit limits. Jet airliners y essentially in the same narrow high
subsonic range as the rst commercial jets of the 1950s. To go faster means going
supersonic, and if you’re going supersonic, it can’t be just marginally faster, it must be
a good deal faster. That brings up problems of hugely increased power demands
(meaning increased fuel consumption), problems with heat, complexities in engines
(such as variable inlet con gurations to keep shock waves out of the compressor),
more stresses with cabin pressurization due to higher altitudes needed in supersonic
ight, not to mention the nuisance of booming shock waves at ground level. . .there
are reasons the Concord was retired, and indeed never really entered series
production.
All of these things and more—electricity, telephones (both landline and wireless), the
distribution networks for oil and other products, for merchandise, for things that go
with a lot of this, such as tires and batteries for cars, batteries for small devices,
kitchen appliances, other appliances, parts for all of these things—weren’t just once in
a lifetime opportunities.
They were once in forever.
If this is the situation we face—if we live in an America that is, as one now forgotten
person said on the internet, “built out,” then that could well explain a lot of the things
we see.
Put yourself in charge of a large retailing operation, perhaps the biggest in the
country, maybe the biggest in the world. This large retailer actually started out
working in places that were abandoned by other such rms as being in markets—
towns—that were “too small” to justify a storefront presence. Your rm has built from
that small, marginal, dif cult beginning to become the powerhouse it now is.
But it has also gone to public ownership, and now the investors, the institutions, are
looking for more growth, more growth, always more growth, always more pro ts.
But you are already in a huge number of markets. You are now facing the problems
your predecessors faced, as growth per store slackens, revealing you may be hitting a
saturation point. You also still have competition, even though it isn’t anywhere near
as dominant as you are. In short, it’s hard to grow pro ts by growing the business.
What might you do?
Well, Ben Franklin was quoted as saying “A penny saved is a penny earned.” Pro ts are
pro ts, after all. Well, how can you save on expenses?
There are several options. You can nd lower cost suppliers in other countries, where
wages aren’t as high. You can invest in ef ciency of your infrastructure, though that’s
mostly going to be in any new stores you open; it’s not always easy to retro t an
existing structure. You can work to keep your labor costs down; that means keeping
the pay rates as low as you can get away with, and it also means not using any more
labor than you really need.
The latter can be a real problem eventually. You don’t have enough people to give
adequate customer service or maintain the store. It eventually drives customers away.
It’s called doing too much with too little for too long. Readers undoubtedly recognize
the retailer, and the condition I call Wal Mart disease—a store with 30 cash registers
but only two open, and 50 people in line at each one.
I personally think this also explains a lot of the shenanigans on Wall Street and with
banks in recent years.
Put yourself in the shoes of an investment banker. Any new product is risky. . .more so
if the improvement over something else is perhaps marginal. In such a world,
something like currency or even stock manipulation will be both more pro table and
less risky. Be part of a bank that’s “too big to fail,” or possibly be desperate enough to
show some sort of growth, and outright fraud may well be, in perception and in
reality, less risky.
Not all of this is necessarily evil or conspiratorial. In many ways it’s natural and
logical.
But think of the squeeze all this can put on smaller business owners.
How many mom and pop grocery stores do you see today? How many have been
replaced by chain convenience stores, or by the grocery section of Wal Mart or
Target?
How many mom and pop restaurants do you see today, vs. the McDonald’s, the Burger
Kings, the KFCs?
I understand there is a street intersection in New York City with four coffee shops,
one on each corner. All of them are Starbucks.
Where is the room for the independent business owner in these elds?
What if the only way to get ahead in the future is to wait for the manager of the local
Dairy Queen to retire–and hope you are his successor?
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.291 of 304
None of this is necessarily bad, as I noted, at least not in intention. . .but it still leaves
a lot of us out in the cold.
Krzystoff
5 July 2017 at 08:23
David, that was an excellent commentary, I have a few responses to your (rhetorical)
questions:
“Could you design a car better enough, or at least different enough, to go into the
automobile business, and take on GM, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Honda, and the
rest?” Elon Musk can answer this one, perhaps taking on Tesla is the biggest challenge
for new automotive companies.
“…Does anybody in this country who needs a car not own one?”
Probably not, but Tesla has carved out a new niché — electric, self-driving vehicles,
which have indisputably upset the car-ownership model of the past, and inevitably
means that there are now 100’s of millions of potential new customers in this market
now that GM/Ford/etc are desperately scrabbling to get a piece of.
“…How would you improve on what is available, and could you take on American
Standard, Kohler, Delta (faucets), and others?” Kohler now offers a range of Japanese-
style ‘intelligent’ automated cleaning toilets with a range of functions most Americans
would not have imagined a few decades ago, at $7-10,000 they are unlikely to be a big
seller just yet, but it’s certainly a new market for the USA.
“computers … buttons so blooming small, you had to use a stylus or pen or something
to press them, because ngers were too large! How is that an improvement?”
Convergence means that the performance and capacity of a 1960s mainframe server
room now ts in the palm of your hand and costs relatively little. The applications of
that growing power are still being realised, but the next leap (10-20yrs away) of
mobile computing with do away with much of the tactile input and screen space,
instead using gestures for control and optical implants/lenses for the image, at that
point the size will be reduced much further, perhaps to a Star Trek sized lapel pin.
The opportunities for new business are not vanishing just yet, until robots are
available to replace all human labor, generations from now — at which point humans
will merely manage the automatons that work for us — in the interim, robotics and
related elds will become a massive yet untapped industry in America and around the
world.
John Brave
5 July 2017 at 08:31 · Reply
Can’t reply to the other message. So I’m replying here.
So, no number for fair share. That means it’s never enough. Thanks for proving my point.
Goodbye.
LG
2 July 2017 at 23:19 · Reply
Ah, yes. The magical napkin-doodle of the Laffer Curve strikes again, this time as a nonsensical story that
makes no sense even in context. It has no bearing on the situation. But that doesn’t stop folk from
bringing it up. So let’s look at some facts instead of fantasy:
1. We’re nowhere near the point where taxes decrease economic activity. The consensus among
economists is that the optimum revenue-maximizing effective income tax rate is somewhere around
70%. NOT the marginal rate, but the average rate. The mean effective income tax rate for the top 1% in
the US is about 20%; raised to 30% if we include various other mostly-regressive taxes that
disproportionately affect lower-income taxpayers. We would have to almost triple the income tax rate
before we have to worry about decreasing economic activity.
2. The US had much higher marginal tax rates in the past, and its economy was both more stable AND
distributed the bene ts to workers rather than siphoning them off to hedge fund managers and overpaid
CEOs. The top marginal tax rate was:
81% in 1940
88% in 1942
91% in 1951
77% in 1954
70% in 1971
50% in 1982
and is 39% today
Amusingly, 1971 is also when median household income detached from economic growth. Since 1971,
median household income has been stagnant when adjusted for in ation, despite a doubling of worker
productivity. So cutting taxes for the super-rich doesn’t apparently lead to more growth as the Captains
of Industry strive to Improve the Economy for everyone. Turns out cutting taxes for the super-rich just
allows them to pocket more of other peoples’ labor.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.292 of 304
Eric
1 July 2017 at 15:35 · Reply
You should add a “kilometers of HSR per capita” graph.
John Rockefeller
1 July 2017 at 16:26 · Reply
Would you mind including Taiwan and Japan in your graphs? Both have high speed rail and it would be interesting to
see how they stack up.
Tom
1 July 2017 at 17:50 · Reply
I’ve heard that in the US public transport (a sign of a progressive nation IMHO) is almost non-existent and everyone
needs to have their own vehicle, which I nd quite surprising in this day and age. I feel like the US is still very much a
developing country (especially when compared to Europe) and this is becoming increasingly apparent to other
nations around the globe with the unfolding of recent events. Based on all of that I nd this news rather
unsurprising.
Ryan
2 July 2017 at 03:33 · Reply
Tom I completely agree on the comment about the US being a developing country in many ways. For a long
time the economic and world political power kind of masked this, but now that europe has completely dug
out of the second world war, it’s more and more obvious that the US is not the wonderland of development
that it appeared to be for so many decades. Socially and culturally the US is way behind Europe, and honestly
even a lot of asia. There is no sense of society in people’s minds, and no feeling that there is some larger fabric
that individuals are a part of that is worthy of investment and development.
Eric
2 July 2017 at 06:21 · Reply
The thing is, the US is extremely unequal. The US is the best place in the world to be very rich or talented
(Silicon Valley, top universities, etc). However it’s a pretty bad place for the masses to live in.
Eric
2 July 2017 at 06:42 · Reply
Dense parts of the US, like NYC, have plenty of public transportation. (Though it tends to be badly run)
However, most Americans live in low-density suburbs. The public transportation there is very slow and
infrequent, this is inevitable for geometric reasons, even though often the community is supportive of public
transportation. Pretty much the only riders are poor people who can’t afford cars there.
Rob Anderson
1 July 2017 at 18:07 · Reply
Right! The California HSR project was poorly conceived and funding was a fantasy, including the notion that there
would be enough money from the federal government and private sources.
“In the U.S., President Obama’s initiative was met by Republican governors elected in 2010 who, for reasons that had
little to do with sanity, resisted free federal money to fund the completion of intercity rail projects their
(Democratic) predecessors had developed. Lines in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin were scuttled.”
Wrong! Those governors understood that, in spite of seed money for those projects from the feds, their states would
be solely responsible for construction cost overruns and for operation expenses if/when the projects were built.
The best analysis of the dumb California project has been done by these folks:
http://www.cc-hsr.org/ nancialReports.html
Larry Roth
4 July 2017 at 11:03 · Reply
“Those governors understood that, in spite of seed money for those projects from the feds, their states would
be solely responsible for construction cost overruns and for operation expenses if/when the projects were
built.”
Um, isn’t that what normally happens when you build something? Somebody has to pay – but they didn’t want
to be the ones. This is why we can’t have nice things.
Garl Boyd Latham
1 July 2017 at 22:12 · Reply
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.293 of 304
Thank you, Yonah, for your thoughtful and timely remarks.
I respectfully disagree that Obama’s rail-based proposals were “visionary”; in fact, when it came to passenger train
services, his own administration proved time and again that it hadn’t a clue! Moreover, of the three speci c lines you
mentioned, only one – Florida – would have met your own 150 m.p.h. standard for excellence.
Not that those other two proposals (Wisconsin and Ohio) weren’t needful. They simply wouldn’t have met the criteria
necessary for de nition as a true high-speed operation – even considering improved services along existing
infrastructure (125 m.p.h.).
The most poignant reminder of reality was your view of what these United States have become. Despite our
veneration of technology and general self-satisfaction regarding our presumed greatness, we’ve become a people
“fundamentally unprepared to change.”
Of course, preparation requires planning and planning requires direction. Twitter notwithstanding, it’s dif cult to
deal with change on a large scale when basic policies have never been established. As of now, we’re but three days
short of our 241st anniversary; yet, in that time, we’ve never ONCE developed – much less set into motion – a
uniform, comprehensive transportation policy! That in itself is a failure beyond comprehension, unconscionable in
scope.
Without a national transport/energy/environmental policy in place, we cannot realistically hope to see the change
we – and our progeny – so desperately need. Instead, we’ll continue blindly waving the ag and regurgitating
platitudes, while becoming “further mired in traf c” and choking on our own waste.
The single most depressing thought is also the one which keeps me going, even in the worst of times:
IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY!
My sincere best wishes.
Lamont Cranston
2 July 2017 at 04:01 · Reply
Before you can build high speed rail to connect cities and regions you rst need to build rail inside those cities and
regions. Otherwise how do people get to the HSR and how do they get around when they arrive?
Whole cities, their suburbs, and surrounding region in America totally lack, metro and commuter trains,
streetcars/trams/lightrail, regional and interurban trains. Think of LA, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Atlanta, and plenty
more.
Often a city and its burbs is disenguously broken up into several isolated municipalities, each with their own little
transit efdom. Maybe a single token lightrail 3 miles long in the gentri ed downtown here, a brt there, some
greyhound coaches over there, and perhaps an Amtrak locomotive twice a day.
Fixing this and building the infrastructure and manufacturing the rolling stock would go a big way towards
recovering Americas economy and putting people back to work. All those rust belt auto plants being closed could be
retooled to manufacture the rolling stock and their towns that depend on them revived.
Thomas Dorsey
2 July 2017 at 05:24 · Reply
By the time California HSR opens between downtown SF and LA in 2029, both metro areas will have
comprehensive Memorial systems similar to Washington Metro.
"
2 July 2017 at 05:25 · Reply
Memorial should have been Metrorail
Ken Duble
2 July 2017 at 19:04 · Reply
“Whole cities, their suburbs, and surrounding region in America totally lack, metro and commuter trains,
streetcars/trams/lightrail, regional and interurban trains. Think of LA, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Atlanta, and
plenty more.”
This isn’t true. Houston and Phoenix have light rail, Atlanta has heavy rail and streetcars, and Dallas and LA
have all three — heavy rail, light rail and streetcars.
David P Lubic
5 July 2017 at 01:55 · Reply
“Fixing this and building the infrastructure and manufacturing the rolling stock would go a big way towards
recovering Americas economy and putting people back to work. All those rust belt auto plants being closed
could be retooled to manufacture the rolling stock and their towns that depend on them revived.”–Lamont
Cranston
Indeed. This may well be one of the few new opportunities left in America today, after having built as much or
more road system as we can use, with the saturation in many products we have, with the diminishing returns
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.294 of 304
we are getting in technology today, at least on the consumer level, without also having to reengineer the
consumer (such as wiring brains for direct internet access–an idea I don’t like at all!)
Of course, though, that means taking on the oil interests, the car business, the road building and paving lobby,
the airline industry, etc. . .not an easy job when you have some very wealthy and powerful interests that like
things just as they are.
P.S–I see someone else here likes classic radio! Who knows what is in the minds of men? You know, Mr.
Cranston, heh, heh, heh, heh!!
Seb
2 July 2017 at 04:46 · Reply
You’ve missed Germany. There was also a new rail connection opened between Berlin and Munich. I think it’ll start to
be used by the public before the end of the year.
Krzystoff
2 July 2017 at 08:58 · Reply
When it boils down to it, it’s hard for progressive transport policy to compete with the idea of a US automotive
manufacturing recovery, so subsidies and funding are owing to that sector and the roads they utilize. Of course,
what the wealthy don’t consider is that by getting the poor/middle class off their highways and onto rail, the roads
will be faster, safer and vastly less congested, and they won’t have to share their aircraft with them either; improved
rail transport all enables people to live on or beyond the suburban fringes in more affordable housing, thus reducing
urbanization and the growth of homelessness, a tragic feature of most American cities today. Better rail = improved
lifestyle, vibrant livable cities, more ef cient road networks and cleaner air = better for all!
Larry Roth
2 July 2017 at 09:52 · Reply
Follow the money. What the countries have in common that have expanded their rail networks is an acceptance of
the role of government in making things happen. That is not the case in America.
What happened in the U.S. in the 1980s was the rise of Ronald Reagan who declared war on the very idea of
government. Republicans have been doing their best ever since to cripple the ability of government to do anything.
They are obsessed with cutting taxes and cutting spending, while they have blind faith in the power of “free markets
and competition” to solve any problem. Funded by the super rich, they’ve pursued this vision right into the ground –
as per example, what happened to Kansas. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/25/kansas-failed-
tax-experiment-editorials-debates/102889398/
Railroads are just one symptom of what is wrong with America these days. It is in the hands of a cult of fanatics who
control all three branches of government. It will not end well.
James Matthews
3 July 2017 at 18:01 · Reply
Back in the ’70s, Arthur Laffer came up with the Laffer curve, which imagined tax revenue at each tax level. If
you charge 0%, you’ll of course get zero revenue, but if you charge 100% you’ll still get zero revenue because
all the production will go underground. He then assumed that somewhere between 0% and 100%, there’d be a
tax level that produced a maximum revenue level. So far, so sensible.
Laffer’s leap was to assume that the US tax right was to the right of the peak and that reductions would bring
revenue closer to the maximum possible. The problem is that all the hard evidence (e.g. comparison with
other developed economies) strongly suggests that the US rate is well to the LEFT of the peak! But most
Americans want to believe that they’re overtaxed, and are willing to ignore inconvenient evidence…
The William Sa re types have pointed to the increase in revenue after Reagan’s tax cut (or after JFK’s tax cut
in the early ’60s) as proof that Laffer’s theory worked, but that’s an example of the “post hoc ergo propter hoc
fallacy.” The mistake is to assume that the economy wouldn’t have grown at all without the tax cuts. In reality
the economic growth of the ’80s was due mostly to lower oil prices, and without the tax cuts revenue would
have increased even more!
MARVIN KENNEBECK
2 July 2017 at 14:03 · Reply
I can only paraphrase Mr. Charlton Heston who famously said (not an exact quote) “I’ll give up my gun when they pry
it out of my cold, dead hands.” Americans would sooner sacri ce one of their children than give up their cars.
Mr. Freemark, keep up the good work reporting on what other countries are doing. Maybe my great-grandchildren
will see a real transportation system.
David P Lubic
4 July 2017 at 16:09 · Reply
This is stupid. Who has ever said anything about taking away anybody’s car?
I know that attitude is out there, but it’s silly nonetheless.
Max Wyss
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.295 of 304
2 July 2017 at 14:13 · Reply
Quatsch mit Sauce! (forgive my French…). I could not nd one single statement in this comment which is even
close to reality.
Several HSL have already paid off all construction cost, and run at good pro ts. Others, mainly pushed by regio-
political reasons do a bit less well, agreed. In many cases, it is not really possible to determine the pro tability of a
HSL, because services either use it only partially, or use it only as part of the service. So, such “pro tabilty”
calculations are never exact, and can be made up and/or interpreted in any way the “upmaker”/”interpreter” wants
it.
Regional jet operation is about the least pro t-making part of an airline, and there are airlines who would be happy
to get rid of those services, also in order to free up slots at the major airports. There are certain destination pairs in
Germany, where all Lufthansa ights are actually operated by Deutsche Bahn, in form of reserved seats in ICE trains
(Stuttgart – Frankfurt and Köln – Frankfurt).
“Airport type security” is something which seems to have to do with English language, because it is essentially the
USAns and the Brits talking about and/or requiring that theater. OK, with the Brits (aka Channel Tunnel), it also has
to do with the lack of ability and willingness of the border police to do immigration checks on a moving train
(something which has been common for at least half a decade in Europe, but no longer done because of the
Schengen area).
Ah, yeah, and if someone wanted to do something funny with the Channel tunnel, he would not use a passenger
train, but simply put some load in a truck going through the tunnel…
And one more thing… they say that back in its era, the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge was a similar “failure”
as California HSR…
"
3 July 2017 at 03:51 · Reply
Larry Roth, Milton Friedman economists don’t sooner call the Kansas experiment Fake News than except empirical
evidence.
Thomas Dorsey
3 July 2017 at 03:52 · Reply
Larry Roth, Milton Friedman economists would sooner call the Kansas tax experiment Fake News than except
empirical evidence of failure.
Eric
3 July 2017 at 04:48 · Reply
“Fake News”
It’s funny how many “intellectual” conservatives get all of their rhetorical devices from the retard in the White
House…
Eclipse
3 July 2017 at 06:07 · Reply
But how much spending? This video claims it is a matter of urban densities not being high enough to justify the
expense. It also goes on and on about how much real estate would cost on the surface, but does not analyse any of
Elon Musk’s plans to make TBM’s cheaper and dig tunnels for fast rail under cities to save real estate on the surface.
Why Trains Suck in America
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.296 of 304
C.
3 July 2017 at 12:43 · Reply
The U.S. is run from the top down by psychopaths. These diseased individuals, by de nition, are unable to care
genuinely about anyone except for themselves.
Within the psychopathic mindset, Life is simply a winner-takes-all, zero-sum game. According to this delusion, any
material gains enjoyed by one party are only possible through the taking from a separate party.
For our self-appointed psychopathic ‘leaders’, any genuine attempt at improving life broadly for the general public
(i.e., high quality public transportation) is the greatest form of evil, and must be fought continuously. The American
‘elite’ believe falsely that by hoarding and misallocating resources that they are only clawing their way to the top of
the pyramid, when in fact America is racing to a bottom of disfunction and failure.
Allan
3 July 2017 at 15:04 · Reply
I am sorry but trains are past technology watch any Star Wars episode and its all about the ying car. Why waste
even one more dollar on a public transportation system unless you are some liberal trying to control the general
public. However you add it up a train never takes you where you want to go rather it takes you where its going. The
cost alone prohibits the construction let alone the maintenance such a structure requires year after year, its just a
big waste like everything that is government.
Further more the government lies about the real cost, just as in Portland, Oregon nothing is ever said about the
complete lack of police protection on the trains, never factored in it adds another 1/3rd to the cost of operation. The
local police jurisdictions say that 85% of the crime through out the area is within 1/4mile of the train.
How ef cient is a train? I would have to drive over 40 miles just to get to it at the cost of 1+ hour of time, then the
dollars to park, make my way to the train, ride the hour plus to Orlando from Tampa. Then the cost of transport at
the other end, so go rent a car and drive the other 40+ miles to my destination for an investment of 3-1/2 to 4 hours,
I could have drove to Orlando in less than half that time. So in essence the train serves no one except maybe 3% of
the population, what a waste, then when they become available ying cars one could be to Orlando in less than an
hour.
krzystof
4 July 2017 at 23:47 · Reply
@Allan, actually if you are going to wax about the science ction universe of Star Wars, you should know that
there was a train in Episode I and Episode II, an elevated maglev train was a maglev train used on the planet
Coruscant, (Imperial Center during the reign of Emperor Sheev Palpatine) — so perhaps HSR should be
considered future technology?
James Matthews
3 July 2017 at 18:06 · Reply
One simple way to boost passenger rail in the US would be to change the protocol and give passenger trains the
right of way over freight trains. (As things stand now, passenger trains have to move aside to let freight trains pass,
causing long delays.) But the railroad companies have lots of clout in Washington (like the airlines), while Amtrak is
an orphan like PBS.
David P Lubic
3 July 2017 at 23:38 · Reply
“One simple way to boost passenger rail in the US would be to change the protocol and give passenger trains the
right of way over freight trains. (As things stand now, passenger trains have to move aside to let freight trains pass,
causing long delays.) But the railroad companies have lots of clout in Washington (like the airlines), while Amtrak is
an orphan like PBS.”–James Matthews
Better still, make sure the motorist pays his way. This is something the driver has never done.
Today, the driver pays maybe 60% of the cost of the road system. The remaining 40%, which works out to about 60
cents per gallon, comes out of property, income, and sales taxes.
In contrast, a railroad is supposed to pay all its bills, generate a pro t, pay income tax on the pro t, and pay property
tax on its right of way. None of that is required of the highway system, and indeed, the publicly owned highway
property is actually removed from the tax rolls.
By the way, the numbers I’m describing are essentially cash ow accounting. If you used full cost accounting, which
would include depreciation and the deferred maintenance we have, the picture would look even worse. . .maybe we
would have to tax gasoline an additional dollar or more per gallon.
And we haven’t even begun to talk about external costs, like oil wars.
But never mind that. Let’s just make the road system truly self supporting, no subsidy.
How much would that change things?
Highway Revenue and Expenditure, Cost Flow Accounting
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2014/hf10.cfm
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.297 of 304
Ron Stuart
4 July 2017 at 09:07 · Reply
I am not an economist or a transportation specialist. However, our transportation maladies are just a small example
of challenges we face as a country. It’s a good thing our federal government does not have the mandate of running
itself as a business or a household – i.e. you cannot continue to spend more than you take in. In my humble opinion,
the single biggest answer to our multiple challenges is education, and we aren’t doing the job that needs to be done.
Our dear president thinks the way to have more jobs is to bully companies into having them here. The reality is that
people buy the products and services that have the best value. If you want your citizenry to have the best jobs and be
able to compete globally, then educate them. Admittedly, it’s a long term project, but critical if we are to have a
country that helps ALL its citizens take care of themselves, if they are able, and to take care of those that are not
able. However you decide to split up who pays for it……well,
Ron Stuart
4 July 2017 at 09:19 · Reply
Sorry…submitted before nished. Who pays? Important but not as important as stif ng the business who supplied
the beer. The whole story about the cost of the beer going down is fantasyland. You cannot continue to have tax cuts
and spend more. Getting out of this multi trillion dollar debt is not going to happen without a lot of pain, which the
vast majority of our citizens won’t stand for. Most politicians want to run on a “reduce taxes” campaign, because
that’s what gets them elected – and re-elected. Reality is they don’t care about the de cit because they don’t have a
de cit. They are too busy taking lobby and campaign money from anyone who will give it (thanks, SCOTUS).
Personally, I don’t care what form of transportation there is as long as it works – be that rail, bus, plane, whatever. It’s
all a balance between time, cost and aggravation. Living in Dallas has taught me that the people here want their cars
– period. The number of people using the light rail system is so small it’s minimal impact. Now they want high speed
rail between here and Houston. We’ll see how that works. In closing, we need a mix of opinions from the people that
are going to make the decisions on transportation, and run some test things in different markets. In the meantime,
we better wake up to the fact that education is the key to our children’s and grandchildren’s success.
Larry Roth
4 July 2017 at 11:10 · Reply
There’s a great piece by Tom Sullivan that gets into the whole problem of why America can’t do big infrastructure any
more. It’s from 4 years ago, but it’s truer than ever.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/07/we-rugged-individuals-by-bloggersrus.html
“…Or the U.S. Constitution, one supposes. Anyway, it reminded me of this post I wrote at Crooks and Liars four years
ago after my last visit to the Golden State. (I had to x one dead link.)
An America In Retreat?
Has America – and the American Dream itself – gone into retreat? Once the largest, most prosperous in the world,
the American middle class is faltering, crumbling like our nation’s schools and bridges.
Flag-pin-wearing American exceptionalists tell crowds this is the greatest nation on Earth, and then repeat “we’re
broke.” They hope to dismantle safety net programs, telling Americans working harder than ever – at jobs and
looking for jobs – that they don’t have enough “skin in the game.” Wake up and smell the austerity. America can no
longer afford Americans.
Some of us remember a time when America’s dreams were boundless.”
Read the whole thing, then ask WTF happened?!?!!
Larry Roth
4 July 2017 at 11:29 · Reply
Here’s another reason why America can’t build anything: population versus representation in Congress, the Senate in
Particular:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/07/what-kind-of-democracy-is-this-anyway.html
“According to the 2010 census, it is now the case that half of the United States’ population lives in just nine states,
with the other half of America living in the other 41 states. While the voters in these top nine states have equal
representation in the House with 223 Representatives (the other half has 212), in the Senate it is a different story.
Because of this population distribution, the half of the U.S. living in the largest nine states is represented by 18
Senators. The other half of the country living in the other 41 states has 82 Senators, more than four times as many.
You don’t have to be good at math to see how much less representation in Congress those living in the big states
have today.
Let’s take a closer look at this dynamic by examining California. With a population of about 37 million, California has
more than 66 times the population of the smallest state, Wyoming, which has 563,626 people. California has 53
Representatives, and two Senators; Wyoming, one Representative and two Senators. So despite having 66 times the
population of Wyoming, California has only 53 times the number of Representatives and an equal number in the
Senate.
Furthermore, the four smallest states combined have eight Senators, giving California only a quarter as many
Senators as Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming, even though California has 14 times the population of
these states combined.”
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.298 of 304
China is investigating that weird, traffic-straddling bus, whic h in retrospect was totally a scam « Diarra Eg
Diarra
4 July 2017 at 17:21 · Reply
[…] its notorious traf c congestion and pollution. Here in the US we’re too addicted to our cars to put any real
thought into ways to expand and innovate on public […]
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.299 of 304
1
John Cunningham
From:MTC Express Lanes <info@bayareaexpresslanes.org>
Sent:Friday, June 16, 2017 4:02 PM
To:John Cunningham
Subject:I-680 Express Lanes Customer Update-June 2017
Customer Update: I-680 Contra Costa Express Lanes
June 16, 2017
The I-680 Contra Costa Express Lane
opening is getting closer with an
expected opening in September 2017!
The lanes will operate Monday
through Friday from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m.
During times when traffic is light, tolls
will automatically adjust lower so that
traffic in the corridor flows across all
the lanes and additional congestion is
not created. The Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC),
which operates and manages the I-680 Contra Costa Express Lane, will continuously
monitor lane operations to ensure that traffic flows the best it can.
All-day operating hours encourage and reward carpooling whenever there is
congestion, which often happens outside the peak commute hours. The goal of
express lanes is to get more people, not just cars, where they need to go. The hours
are also consistent with neighboring lanes on I-680 and I-580 in Alameda County to
limit driver confusion.
All drivers must have FasTrak® to use the lanes between 5 a.m. and 8 p.m. Carpools
must have a FasTrak Flex® toll tag to use the lanes toll-free. With all-day hours of
operation, be sure to consider all of your travel when selecting your FasTrak toll tag.
Solo drivers need a standard FasTrak or FasTrak Flex toll tag to pay to use the lanes
between 5 a.m. and 8 p.m.
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.300 of 304
2
Visit expresslanes.511.org for more information about express lanes or
bayareafastrak.org to order a toll tag.
Construction Highlights
Testing of the electronic toll signs and the toll system
continues through opening. Motorists can expect to see dots,
test toll amounts, and notification that testing is underway on the
electronic signs. All toll system signs are affixed with static
"Under Construction" stickers.While motorists will see prices on
the signs, cars will not be tolled during the tests. Nighttime lane closures on I-680
continue throughout the next month.
Contact Us:
info@bayareaexpresslanes.org
expresslanes.511.org
415-778-6757
Metropolitan Transportation Commission | 415-778-6700 | www.mtc.ca.gov
STAY CONNECTED:
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, MTC/BATA Public Information,
Bay Area Metro Center, 375 Beale Street, Suite 800, San Francisco, CA 94105
SafeUnsubscribe™ john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us
Forward this email | Update Profile | About our service provider
Sent by info@bayareaexpresslanes.org
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.301 of 304
6/21/2017 Roseville, Rocklin eye split from rural Placer voter s in plan to raise taxes for roads | The Sacramento Bee
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article157268014.html 1/5
JUNE 20, 2017 5:28 PMTRANSPORTATION
Placer voters rejected a tax hike for roads last fall. Can we try again, officials ask
BY TONY BIZJAK
tbizjak@sacbee.com
hen Placer County tried to raise sales taxes last fall for freeway expansions in the booming suburbs of Roseville and Rocklin, voters in the more rural
parts of the county defeated the measure.
Now, some Placer officials say they want to try a transportation tax again, this time with a more focused battle plan.
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency officials propose dividing the county into three taxing districts, then moving forward with a vote in a
south county district that likely would cover Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln and unincorporated west Placer County. The spending focus would be on
reducing congestion on Highway 65 and building a new Interstate 80 interchange.
Planning agency executive director Celia McAdam said the idea stems from the fact that Measure M last November won heavy support in urban areas
of south Placer, where drivers are confronted with daily bottlenecks. The half-cent sales tax measure got 72 percent support in Lincoln and 69
percent in both Roseville and Rocklin.
ADVERTISING
Replay
Learn more
MY BOOKMARKS BOOKMARK FOR LATER
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.302 of 304
6/21/2017 Roseville, Rocklin eye split from rural Placer voter s in plan to raise taxes for roads | The Sacramento Bee
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article157268014.html 2/5
Never miss a local story.
Sign up today for a 30 day free trial of unlimited digital access.
SUBSCRIBE NOW
reprints
Voters in Auburn, Foresthill, Colfax, Tahoe City and other mountain areas also generally supported the measure, which would have given each
community some funding for projects. But support in the foothills and mountains was typically under 60 percent, pulling the “yes” vote below the
necessary two-thirds threshold for passage. Overall, the countywide vote was 64 percent yes.
“If you’re in Foresthill, what do you care about widening Highway 65?” McAdam said. “But if you are in south Placer, Highway 65 is your lifeblood.”
That corridor has become so crowded that some drivers are diverting to surface streets to avoid it. Meanwhile, several major housing developments
are in the planning stages in the vast area west of Roseville and south of Highway 65, adding to the future vehicle load in the area. Developers of
those projects will have to pay substantial transportation impact fees, but Placer officials say that isn’t nearly enough for the upgrades they feel their
system needs.
The effort is in its early stages. Placer officials would need state legislation to create new taxing districts. No state lawmaker has yet signed on to
sponsor a bill, however, leaving PCTPA officials shopping statewide for legislative help this summer.
A second district would cover the foothills and western mountain slope. The third district already exists, having been formed in the 1990s on the
eastern side of the Sierra crest. Nine areas around California have made a similar move, mostly in the 1990s, according to a consultant’s analysis.
The idea has divided the PCTPA board. Roseville Mayor Susan Rohan supports it. But at least one member has come out in opposition, county
Supervisor Kirk Uhler, who represents parts of Roseville, including a selection of the Highway 65 corridor at the Galleria shopping mall.
Uhler, who supported Measure M last fall, pointed out that the state recently voted to increase vehicle fees and raise the gas tax to create more
transportation funding statewide.
“I don’t believe we can justify to the voters that they need to yet again increase the tax after having the state do it for them,” Uhler said. He said the
time may come in a half-dozen or so years to go back to voters, when, as he suspects, the state does not provide adequate funding.
But McAdam said the state funds will be nowhere near adequate for the work she says is already overdue. And Rohan said she wants to give south
county residents another shot at a thumbs up or down on a funding stream they voted for last fall.
“We have a very desirable part of the region that doesn’t have the transportation that it needs,” Rohan said. “We need to keep looking for viable
options ... to give people options to decide how they want to live in their communities.”
The county hopes to do a $450 million remake of the 80/65 interchange, and to expand Highway 65 from the Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch
Road area to Lincoln Boulevard, McAdam said. Funds also could go toward increasing Capitol Corridor train service to and from Sacramento.
Tony Bizjak: 916-321-1059, @TonyBizjak
SUGGESTED FOR YOU
SIGN UP
Get the Daily Morning Bulletin with the top stories of the day. Sign up here.
FOLLOW THESE TOPICS Click or tap to customize MY FEED
NEWS TRANSPORTATION LOCAL
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.303 of 304
6/21/2017 Roseville, Rocklin eye split from rural Placer voter s in plan to raise taxes for roads | The Sacramento Bee
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article157268014.html 5/5
7 Comments Subscribe RSS
18 minutes ago
Reply Share 0
43 minutes ago
Reply Share 1
2 hours ago
Reply Share 1
3 hours ago
Reply Share 1
10 hours ago
Reply Share 1
12 hours ago
Reply Share 0
14 hours ago
Reply Share 2
We thank you for respecting the community's complete guidelines.
Jon Bromenschenkel
Isn't 80 a federal hwy and 65 a state hwy? Why is placer on the hook?
Brian Fletcher
Sorry Placer County, Moonbeam robbed us first. Go ask him and De leon for some money to build new roads for suburbia. We can't even get a single
pothole fixed on the Foresthill road!
Rick Pappas
I'm just thinking out loud here... Perhaps so much reliance on the one main artery, Hwy 65 in this case is more of a problem than a solution. Perhaps
looking at what could be done with all of the asphalt resources surrounding Hwy. 65 could provide a less costly and longer lasting solution. Think
"system".
Looking ahead one of two things is likely to happen. The first would be that we make improvements to our existing arteries which are then outgrown
as our metro area expands. The second may be that pilotless vehicles become something that is a service rather than something that sits in your
garage. If that service picks up you and a couple of others for the morning and afternoon commutes...well, problem solved. If you call your service
and ask it to pick up your groceries and laundry just before it picks your kids up from school, trips and traffic congestion during rush hour are avoided.
What I'm suggesting is that we be careful about taxing ourselves into a major redo of what could prove to be a temporary solution when a
technological solution which will allow us to make personal choices that will provide a remedy is on the near horizon.
Shubear Gund
how about extending light rail and adding more public transportation?
Richard Hartley
Potentially controversial suggestion here, snowflakes turn away....why not use the tax money already in the system for it's intended purpose? Like,
instead of diverting it to help ill eagles and stuff. There's enough money in the bank for core govt responsibilities, fact.
Gregory Jones
Give people options about how they want to live? I would think that people chose their options when establishing their homes.
Somehow, Growth became the mantra and those who complained about losing their chosen options were ridiculed, mocked, belittled, and
ignored under the vile label of nimby's.
Tony Lafferty
I have always looked at HWY65 as poor planning and modeling of traffic congestion by Caltrans and then allowing developer fees to build too much to
meet the initial design. Shame on the state, charge those that live there and move there and the developers not the rest of the county. Don't make
everyone else pay for your mistake.
SPONSORED CONTENT
FAQs: Could IBM Power Systems Solve Your Server Issues?
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
07-10-17 TWIC Mtg. Packet - Pg.304 of 304