HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 02082021 - TWIC Agenda PktTRANSPORTATION,
WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE
February 8, 2021
9:00 A.M.
1025 Escobar Street, Room TBA, Martinez **
**Meeting Remotely Until Further Notice**
To slow the spread of COVID-19, the Health
Officer’s Shelter Order of December 16, 2020,
prevents public gatherings (Health Officer
Order).
In lieu of a public gathering, the Board of
Supervisors meeting will be accessible via
television and live-streaming to all members of
the public as permitted by the Governor’s
Executive Order N29-20.
Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair
Supervisor Diane Burgis, Vice Chair
Agenda
Items:
Items may be taken out of order based on business of the day & preference of the
Committee.
When: Feb 8, 2021 09:00 AM Pacific Time (US and Canada)
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://cccounty-us.zoom.us/j/87999789022
Meeting ID: 879 9978 9022
Or Telephone:
USA 214 765 0478 US Toll or USA 888 278 0254 US Toll-free
Conference code: 198675
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)
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 1 of 132
4.REVIEW record of meeting for December 14, 2020,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). Page 6
5.ACCEPT the recommendation of the Hazardous Materials Commission that the
Board of Supervisors write a letter of support for the Alamo Improvement
Association Technical Assistance grant application to the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration which would assess the need for a pipeline safety
information center website for Contra Costa County. (Michael Kent, Contra Costa
County Health Services) Page 9
6.RECEIVE a report on the preparation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the
East Contra Costa Groundwater Subbasin and take ACTION as appropriate. (Ryan
Hernandez, Department of Conservation and Development/Water Agency) Page 12
7.RECEIVE update, and RECOMMEND that the Board of Supervisors sign a letter
of support for the WCCTAC grant submittal for the Richmond Parkway Regional
Multimodal Mobility Study to the Caltrans Sustainable Communities Grant
Program. (Robert Sarmiento, Department of Conservation and Development) Page 22
8.CONSIDER report on Local, State, Regional, and Federal Transportation
Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham,
Department of Conservation and Development) Page 25
9.RECEIVE update on the Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan, recommend that
the Board of Supervisors consider the item, and DIRECT staff as appropriate. (John
Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development) Page 30
10.REVIEW, REVISE as appropriate, and ADOPT the 2021 Transportation, Water,
and Infrastructure Committee Calendar. (John Cunningham, Department of
Conservation and Development) Page 125
11.RECEIVE Communication, News, Miscellaneous Items of Interest to the
Committee and DIRECT staff as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department of
Conservation and Development) Page 127
12.CONSIDER recommendations on referrals to the Committee for 2021, REVISE as
necessary, and DIRECT staff to bring the list to the full Board of Supervisors for
approval. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development) Page 131
13.The next meeting is currently scheduled for March 8, 2021.
14.Adjourn
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 2 of 132
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
Page 3 of 132
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 3 of 132
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
Page 4 of 132
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 4 of 132
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:02/08/2021
Subject:Administrative Items, if applicable.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
This is an Administrative Item of the Committee.
Referral Update:
Staff will review any items related to the conduct of Committee business.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER Administrative items and Take ACTION as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 5 of 132
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:02/08/2021
Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for December 14, 2020, Transportation,
Water and Infrastructure Meeting.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
County Ordinance (Better Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205, [d]) requires that each
County Body keep a record of its meetings. Though the record need not be verbatim, it must
accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the meeting.
Referral Update:
Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached to this
meeting record. Links to the agenda and minutes will be available at the TWI Committee web
page: http://www.cccounty.us/4327/Transportation-Water-Infrastructure
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the December 14, 2020,
Committee Meeting with any necessary corrections.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
Dec 2020 TWIC Meeting Record
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 6 of 132
D R A F T
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE
RECORD OF ACTION FOR
December 14, 2020
Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff , Vice Chair
Present: Candace Andersen, Chair
Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair
Attendees:Austin Sharp, PG&E; Tom Guarino, PG&E; Vic Baker, PG&E; Liz Biebel, PG&E;
Ellen Dempsey, CCHS; Matt Kaufmann, CCHS; Michael Kent, CCHS; Jerry Fahy,
PWD; Chris Lau, PWD; Steve Kowalewski, PWD; Slava Gospodchikov, PWD; Carl
Roner, PWD; Maureen Toms, DCD; Alicia Nuchols, BOS; Lia Bristol, BOS; Jill Ray,
BOS; Karine Abramians, CCHS; Jim Donnelly; Devra Lewis, CCHS; George Smith;
Deidra Meigargle; Brandon
1.Introductions
2.CONSIDER Administrative items and Take ACTION as appropriate.
No items/action.
3.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on
this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
No public speakers.
4.Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the November
9, 2020, Committee Meeting with any necessary corrections.
The Committee unanimously approved the meeting record.
5.RECEIVE this additional status report on the street light service coordination
effort between PG&E and the County Public Works Department and Cities for
street light maintenance, and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
The Committee RECEIVED the report and directed staff to work with
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 7 of 132
The Committee RECEIVED the report and directed staff to work with
PG&E to identify: 1) outstanding issues with the LOU, 2) options for
addressing the issues, and 3) bring an update back to TWIC at the
February meeting.
6.RECEIVE the 2020 Annual Report from the Integrated Pest Management
Advisory Committee and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
The Committee RECEIVED the IPM Program Update and DIRECTED IPM
Program staff to rephrase references to the online meeting format on
pages 6 and 7 of the annual report. Public Works staff were further
DIRECTED to be cautious while resuming their roadside and Flood
Control herbicide program, considering impacts to pollinators and other
beneficial insects.
7.RECEIVE report, RECOMMEND that the Board of Supervisors accept the
findings of the study which address community risk to flooding and sea level
rise.
The Committee RECEIVED the report and APPROVED the staff
recommendations.
8.CONSIDER report on Local, Regional, State, and Federal Transportation
Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate.
The Committee RECEIVED the report.
9.RECEIVE information and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
The Committee RECEIVED the communication.
10.The next remote meeting is tentatively scheduled for February 8, 2021. More
information forthcoming regarding remote information and exact meeting dates.
11.Adjourn
For Additional Information Contact:
John Cunningham, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250
john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 8 of 132
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:02/08/2021
Subject:ACCEPT recommendation of Hazardous Materials Commission that
Board of Supervisors write letter of support for Alamo Improvement
Association.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 16
Referral Name: Monitor the Iron Horse Corridor Management Program.
Presenter: Michael Kent, CCCHS Contact: Michael Kent
(925)250-3227
Referral History:
The Alamo Improvement Association has applied for two previous grants from the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in 2017 and 2018 to examine pipeline safety issues in
Contra Costa County, and to provide professional response training and public education about
pipeline safety. The grants also commissioned two reports from the Pipeline Safety Trust on
pipeline safety issues in Contra Costa County.
The Hazardous Materials Commission has previously brought forward recommendations from
these reports to TWIC and the Board of Supervisors for consideration.
Referral Update:
The Hazardous Materials Commission voted unanimously at their meeting on January 28, 2021 to
recommend that the Board of Supervisors write a letter of support for a Technical Assistance
grant proposal being submitted to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) by the Alamo Improvement Association concerning pipeline safety information and
education. The Hazardous Materials Commission worked successfully with the Alamo
Improvement Association on implementing two previous grants it received from PHMSA,
primarily by co-sponsoring public workshops on pipeline safety. The Commission also supported
many of the recommendations that were in the two reports the previous grants commissioned
from the Pipeline Safety Trust concerning pipeline safety.
The scope of work that the Alamo Improvement Association is proposing for the grant application
will focus on preparing a survey, a needs assessment and a report:
1) Needs survey based on the Pipeline Information Center website Stakeholders Needs Survey;
2) Assessment and Analysis of the Needs Survey data;
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 9 of 132
3)Development of a website template that would address identified needs;
4)A summary report for presentation, review and determination of follow-up.
For the needs assessment, a County Department staff person(s) will be requested to complete an
on-line survey. Once other stakeholders, including Industry and Community Organizations staff
person(s), have completed the survey as well, the analysis and assessment of the data will be
completed. The survey results, assessment and template would then be presented to the County
Hazardous Materials Commission, TWIC and then the Board of Supervisors for the review.
If there is support, a second grant will be applied for to create a Pipeline Information Center
website or other identified needed public information and education platforms or materials.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECOMMEND that the Board of Supervisors provide a letter of support for the Alamo
Improvement Association Technical Assistance grant application to the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration to assess the need for a pipeline safety information center website
for Contra Costa County.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No financial impact. Required County staff time to support the AIA's grant could be absorbed in
to existing work plans and budgets.
Attachments
HMC TWIC AIA memo 2.8.21
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 10 of 132
February 8, 2021
MEMO
To: Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee
From: Michael Kent, Executive Assistant to the Hazardous Materials Commission
Re: Letter of Support for Alamo Improvement Association Grant Application
The Hazardous Materials Commission voted unanimously at their meeting on January 28, 2021
to recommend that the Board of Supervisors write a letter of support for a Technical Assistance
grant proposal being submitted to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) by the Alamo Improvement Association concerning pipeline safety information and
education. The Hazardous Materials Commission worked successfully with the Alamo
Improvement Association on implementing two previous grants it received from PHMSA,
primarily by co-sponsoring public workshops on pipeline safety. The Commission also supported
many of the recommendations that were in the two reports the previous grants commissioned
from the Pipeline Safety Trust concerning pipeline safety.
The scope of work that the Alamo Improvement Association is proposing for the grant
application will focus on preparing a survey, a needs assessment and a report:
1)Needs survey based on the Pipeline Information Center website Stakeholders Needs
Survey
2)Assessment and Analysis of the Needs Survey data
3)Development of a website template that would address identified needs
4)A summary report for presentation, review and determination of follow-up
For the needs assessment, a County Department staff person(s) will be requested to complete an
on-line survey. Once other stakeholders, including Industry and Community Organizations staff
person(s), have completed the survey as well, the analysis and assessment of the data will be
completed. The survey results, assessment and template would then be presented to the County
Hazardous Materials Commission, TWIC and then the Board of Supervisors for the review. If
there is support, a second grant will be applied for to create a Pipeline Information Center
website or other identified needed public information and education platforms or materials.
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 11 of 132
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS COMMISSION
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:02/08/2021
Subject:Groundwater Sustainability Plan Update - East Contra Costa Subbasin
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 6
Referral Name: Sustainable Groundwater
Presenter: Ryan Hernandez, DCD - Water
Agency
Contact: Ryan Hernandez
(925)674-7824
Referral History:
This report is in fulfillment of the TWIC referral to monitor compliance of the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act.
Contra Costa County is a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) and overlies a portion of the
East Contra Costa Groundwater Subbasin. Together with our partner GSAs, we are preparing a
Groundwater Sustainability Plan to be submitted to the Department of Water Resources by
January 31, 2022.
Referral Update:
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Act) authorizes local agencies to manage
groundwater in a sustainable fashion. The Act requires all high- and medium priority groundwater
basins, as designated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), to be managed by
a GSA. The East Contra Costa Groundwater Subbasin (Subbasin) is designated a medium priority
basin, (DWR Basin 5-22.19, San Joaquin Valley). Including the County, there are seven GSAs
that overly the Subbasin, the Cities of Antioch and Brentwood, Byron Bethany Irrigation District,
Diablo Water District, Discovery Bay Community Services District and East Contra Costa
Irrigation District (together Overlying Agencies). Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) is a
member of the working group and contributes to the development of the GSP.
The County GSA continues to work cooperatively with the Overlying Agencies and CCWD to
develop a singular GSP.
We are:
• attending and participating in monthly planning meetings;
• creating maps;
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 12 of 132
• helping develop a groundwater website https://www.eccc-irwm.org/about-sgma;
• establishing an email account to answer questions about groundwater -
groundwaterinfo@dcd.cccounty.us;
• establishing and maintaining a current list of stakeholders, and
• publishing timely notices in local newspapers of opportunities to participate and/or comment on
the development of the GSP.
We are continuing to seek public comment on draft chapters of the GSP as they become available.
It is our intent to publish a complete draft GSP this summer in anticipation of bringing the draft
GSP to the Board of Supervisors before the end of the year.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE report on the preparation of a draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan. The Board of
Supervisors will consider adopting the draft GSP later this year per the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act, and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
Costs to prepare the groundwater sustainability plan will be divided evenly among the parties to
the MOU, except that the County may elect to satisfy some or all of its cost-share obligation
through in-kind services performed by County staff, which will be funded by the Water Agency.
Attachments
ECC Subbasin Map
ECC Subbasin Presentation
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 13 of 132
AlamedaCounty
SolanoCounty SacramentoCounty
ContraCostaCounty
SanJoaquinCounty
ContraCostaCounty
ÄÅ44
ÄÅ160
ÄÅ44
ÄÅ44
BethelIsland
Byron
Knightsen
ShermanIsland
WebbTract
BaconIsland
VictoriaIslandByronTract
HollandTract
JerseyIsland MandevilleIsland
UnionIsland
BouldinIsland
TwitchellIsland
PalmTract
BradfordIsland VeniceIsland
OrwoodTract
Veale Tract
AndrusIsland
WoodwardIsland
ConeyIsland
QuimbyIsland
DeckerIsland
WinterIsland
Oakley
City ofAntiochGSA
City ofBrentwoodGSA
Pittsburg
BixlerTractSanJoaquinRiver Old RiverOld RiverMiddle River
False River
Dutch Slough Conne
c
t
i
o
n
S
l
o
u
g
h
Pi
p
e
r
S
l
o
u
g
h
T
a
y
l
o
r
S
l
o
u
g
h
Rock SloughSand Mound SloughHolland CutFisherman's CutIndian Slou
g
h
Woodward CanalSheep SloughFranksTract
BigBreak
ShermanLake
CliftonCourtForebay
LosVaquerosReservoir
Broad
Slough Little FranksTract
ContraLomaReservoir
AntiochMunicipalReservoir
MarshCreekReservoir Dredgers Cut
Victoria CanalItalian SloughWest
Cana
l
Grant Line Canal
California AqueductDelta Mendota CanalMokelumne
River
Sacramento RiverDiabloWaterDistrictGSA
Discovery BayCommunity Services District GSA
ContraCostaCountyGSA
East ContraCostaIrrigationDistrictGSA
ByronBethanyIrrigation DistrictGSA
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies in the East Contra Costa Subbasin (5-022.19)
0 3 61.5
MilesThis map or dataset was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservationand Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization'stax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility forits accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.®
Diablo Water District GSA
Brentwood GSA
Antioch GSA
Byron-Bethany Irrigation District GSA
East Contra Costa Irrigation District GSA
Discovery Bay Community Services District GSA
Water Providing District
Irrigation District
City
Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County GSA
Map created 08/26/2019by Contra Costa County Department ofConservation and Development, GIS Group30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756W
East Contra Costa Subbasin
City Limit
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 14 of 132
East Contra Costa
Subbasin and SGMA
Ryan Hernandez
1Maintaining a Sustainable East Contra Costa Subbasin02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 15 of 132
•ECC Subbasin-106,600 acres
•7 GSAs
•Byron-Bethany Irrigation District
•City of Antioch
•City of Brentwood
•Contra Costa County
•Diablo Water District
•Discovery Bay
•East Contra Costa Irrigation District
•CCWD
East Contra Costa Subbasin Entities
2
Page 16 of 132
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 16 of 132
East Contra Costa Subbasin Governance
3
Page 17 of 132
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 17 of 132
Groundwater Sustainability Plan Sections
1.Introduction-Agency Information
2.Plan Area-Water Resources Programs, Land Uses Elements
3.Basin Setting-Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model, Groundwater
and Surface Water Conditions
4.Water Supply-Historical, Current and Projected water use
5.Water Budget
6.ECC Sustainability Goal
7.Monitoring Data Management and Reporting
8.Sustainable Groundwater Management
9.Plan Implementation
ECC Groundwater Sustainability Plan TOC
4
Page 18 of 132
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 18 of 132
Paying for ECC GSP
•Grants (Prop 1 and 68) $1,616,905
•Cost Share (ECC Entities) $575,933
•Total = $2,192,838
$108,600 grant funds are contingent upon future
appropriation of Prop 1 funding.
Page 19 of 132
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 19 of 132
Looking Ahead: Draft GSP in 2021
•Draft GSP Sections 1-4 posted on website
•Winter 2021: Defining sustainability
criteria (including undesirable results)
•Spring 2021: Develop concepts for projects
and management actions
•Modeling: anticipate completion of
model calibration and running project-
related and future conditions scenarios in
Spring 2021
•Complete Draft GSP Summer/Early Fall
2021
6
Page 20 of 132
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 20 of 132
Thank you
Questions?
How to contact us:
groundwaterinfo@dcd.cccounty.us
or
Ryan.Hernandez@dcd.cccounty.us
7
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 21 of 132
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:02/08/2021
Subject:Letter of Support for West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee's Grant
Application for the Richmond Pkwy Regional Multimodal Mobility Study
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 15
Referral Name: Freight transportation issues
Presenter: Robert Sarmiento, DCD Contact: Robert Sarmiento (925)674-7822
Referral History:
N/A
Referral Update:
The West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) will be submitting an application for the
Richmond Parkway Regional Multimodal Mobility Study to the Caltrans Sustainable Communities Grant Program.
The County, along with the City of Richmond, is a sub-applicant for the grant application. The proposed study will
seek to:
understand routing patterns of trucks and identify ways to better accommodate them,1.
understand and identify methods to address cut-through traffic in the adjacent residential neighborhoods,2.
review existing and future multimodal mobility needs along Richmond Parkway between I-80 and I-580,
including bicycles, pedestrians, and transit, and
3.
make recommendations that improve health, safety, and overall quality of life along the corridor and in the
adjacent residential neighborhoods.
4.
The study will address a long-standing issue of cut-through traffic, particularly trucks accessing the nearby
industrial uses, in the North Richmond community. It will analyze the overall transportation impacts from new and
potential industrial and residential development nearby to ensure that they will not disproportionally affect North
Richmond. The study will review opportunities to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities (including the San
Francisco Bay Trail) and transit in North Richmond, which were identified as a priority by North Richmond
residents in recent Envision Contra Costa 2040 community meetings.1
These efforts will help remedy conditions that contribute to North Richmond's designation as a Disadvantaged
Community (by CalEPA), Community of Concern (by Metropolitan Transportation Commission [MTC]), and CARE
(Community Air Risk Evaluation) hot spot (by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District [BAAQMD]). The
study proposes significant community outreach in a variety of formats to engage residents of North Richmond.
WCCTAC staff is seeking a letter of support from the County Board of Supervisors for this grant submittal (Exhibit
A).
1 https://envisioncontracosta2040.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/North_Richmond_Draft_11-9-2020.pdf
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE update, and RECOMMEND that the Board of Supervisors sign a letter of support for the WCCTAC02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 22 of 132
RECEIVE update, and RECOMMEND that the Board of Supervisors sign a letter of support for the WCCTAC
grant submittal for the Richmond Parkway Regional Multimodal Mobility Study to the Caltrans Sustainable
Communities Grant Program.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None. The WCCTAC request is limited to a letter of support, no local matching funds. County staff time
participating in the WCCTAC-led study is covered under existing workplans and budgets.
Attachments
Exhibit A - BOS Letter of Support for WCCTAC Study
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 23 of 132
[Insert date here]
Mr. John Nemeth
Executive Director
West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee
6333 Potrero Avenue, Suite 100
El Cerrito, CA 94530
Dear Mr. Nemeth,
I’m writing to express the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors’ support for the West Contra Costa
Transportation Advisory Committee’s (WCCTAC) Sustainable Communities Planning Grant to study the
Richmond Parkway Corridor. I understand these planning efforts will include formulating solutions to reduce
cut-through, truck, and commuter traffic on local streets in North Richmond.
The North Richmond community includes vibrant residential areas that are continually working to improve their
quality of life. Currently, North Richmond experiences a high number of trucks and semi-trucks that drive
through the neighborhood on the same streets where children walk to school and seniors that travel to health and
community services. Addressing the issue of high truck volume on local neighborhood streets would reduce
stress, reduce noise and air pollution, improve the walkability of the community, and support a sense of
community pride.
The study would not only address the deficiencies in the movement of goods, but also optimize the regional
corridor. The comprehensive plan for this corridor will not only facilitate jobs related to adjacent industrial land
uses but can also facilitate access to clean active modes of transportation so residents can take advantage of the
San Francisco Bay Trail, which is adjacent to the Richmond Parkway Corridor. Improvements to the corridor
could result in an incredible resource that would benefit everyone.
The County strongly supports these efforts and is optimistic that this study could be an important step in
investing in the North Richmond community.
Sincerely,
Diane Burgis, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
The Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building 1025 Escobar Street Martinez, California 94553-1293
Monica Nino Clerk of the Board And County Administrator (925) 655-2000
John M. Gioia, 1st District
Candace Andersen, 2nd District
Diane Burgis, 3rd District
Karen Mitchoff, 4th District
Federal D. Glover, 5th District
Contra CostaCounty
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 24 of 132
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 8.
Meeting Date:02/08/2021
Subject:CONSIDER report: Local, Regional, State, and Federal Transportation
Issues: Legislation, Studies, Miscellaneous Updates, take ACTION as
Appropriate
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 1
Referral Name: REVIEW legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7883
Referral History:
This is a standing item on the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee referral list
and meeting agenda.
Referral Update:
In developing transportation related 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.
This report includes four sections, 1: LOCAL, 2: REGIONAL, 3: STATE, and 4: FEDERAL .
1. LOCAL
No report in February.
2. REGIONAL
No report in February.
3. STATE
Mr. Watts will attend the February Committee meeting to provide a verbal supplement to the
attached report.
4. FEDERAL
No report in February.
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 25 of 132
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER report on Local, Regional, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative
Issues and take ACTION as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
There is no fiscal impact.
Attachments
February 2020 TWIC Legislative Report
Page 26 of 132
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 26 of 132
Smith, Watts & Company, LLC.
Consulting and Governmental Relations
February 3, 2021
TO: Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee
FROM: Mark Watts
SUBJECT: Sacramento Report – February TWIC Meeting
This report provides a status update on activities undertaken by the Newsom Admisntration and key
legislative or state budget activities.
LEGISLATURE
Legislative Policy Committee Appointments
Assembly Speaker Rendon and Senate Pro Tem Atkins released their announced changes in committee
membership and leadership in the past couple of days.
On the Assembly side, Speaker Rendon appointed Assembly Member Jim Frazier to the Assembly
Government Organization Committee, replacing Assembly Member Adam Gray, leaving a vacancy on the
Assembly Transportation Committee.
Speaker Rendon’s new Transportation Committee Chair is Assembly Member Laura Friedman (D‐
Glendale) a strong advocate for alternative transportation modes. Previously, Assembly Member
Friedman served as Chair of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee and is looking to accomplish an
environmental agenda through her new position.
On the Senate side, Senator Lena Gonzalez (D‐Long Beach) has been appointed to chair the Senate
Transportation Committee which was vacant with Senator Jim Beall having termed out of office.
Budget Committees
With the budget proposed by the Governor to address state response and recovery through the current
year and next fiscal year having been made in early January, we anticipate some very near‐term budget
activities in the next week or so, related to adjustments to the current year budget, as well as several
items to be considered in the coming months; ultimately the vast majority of the 2021‐22 state budget
will be handled in a timely manner, as much is dependent on work load and revenue adjustments as part
of the May Revision process. It is also important to stay on top of how the budget committees are
formed:
Senate ‐ Senate President pro Tempore Atkins has since appointed Senator Nancy Skinner (D‐Berkeley) to
be the next Chair for the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee and reorganized the Senate Budget
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 27 of 132
Smith, Watts & Company, LLC.
Consulting and Governmental Relations
Subcommittees. Senator Maria Elena Durazo (D‐Los Angeles) is now Chair of Budget Subcommittee
Number Five on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation.
Assembly ‐ Assembly Member Richard Bloom (D‐Santa Monica) will remain Chair of Assembly Budget
Subcommittee Number Three on Resources and Transportation.
Overall Legislative Priorities
During last week’s swearing in, legislative leaders identified their priorities for next year highlighting in
particular the need to move on housing production, broadband access, further policing reforms, and
continued response to the pandemic’s economic toll. The Legislature reportedly will also consider a
fracking ban in the year ahead, although Assembly Speaker Rendon cautioned that environmental policies
must contain labor protections so as to not leave workers behind as the state moves away from fossil
fuels.
STATE BUDGET UPDATE
FY 2021‐22 January Budget
The Newsom Administration is working on 2021‐22 proposed state spending plan which we anticipate will
be released on Friday, January 8.
The FY 2021‐22 January Budget proposal will surely include proposals for how to spend the surprising
influx of one‐time available revenues that could be as high as $26 billion per an assessment by the
Legislative Analyst’s Office. However, despite the one‐time surplus anticipate in 2021, the state does face
an ongoing operating deficit. We also are hearing that the Governor will likely advance a mid‐year budget
package, perhaps laying out recommended early 2021 expenditures as part of his January plan. Possible
elements of a mid‐year package could include small business relief, additional assistance for the COVID
public health response (i.e., testing, vaccinations), direction on any new federal stimulus dollars, and
restorations of 2020‐21 budget cuts.
NEWSOM ADMINISTRATION
Appointments
Governor Gavin Newsom announced the appointment of Liane Randolph last week as the new Chair of
the California Air Resources Board. Below is a brief bio for Ms. Randolph and a notice of the appointment
of Dee Dee Myers as an adviser to the Governor and head of GoBiz.
Liane Randolph, 55, of Oakland, has been appointed Chair of the California Air Resources Board. Randolph
has been a Commissioner at the California Public Utilities Commission since 2105. She was Deputy
Secretary and General Counsel at the California Natural Resources Agency from 2011 to 2014 and an
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 28 of 132
Smith, Watts & Company, LLC.
Consulting and Governmental Relations
Attorney at Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman from 2007 to 2011. She served as Chair of the California
Fair Political Practices Commission from 2003 to 2007, where she also served as a Staff Attorney from
1996 to 1997. Randolph served as San Leandro City Attorney and was a Principal at Meyers Nave from
2000 to 2003, where she was an Associate from 1997 to 2000. She was an Attorney at Remcho, Johansen
and Purcell from 1994 to 1996 and an Associate at Manatt, Phelps and Phillips from 1993 to 1994. She
earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law.
Governor Newsom also recently announced that former Clinton White House Press Secretary Dee Dee
Myers will serve as Senior Adviser to the Governor and Director of the Governor’s Office of Business and
Economic Development (GO‐Biz). In her new role, Myers will focus on economic recovery and advise on
the vaccine roll‐out.
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act
This pandemic relief and recovery act was signed into law on December 27, 2020. Included within the act
is funding to aid the nation’s states transportation programs, from which California will receive
approximately $900 million. The act provides a total of $10 billion through the pre‐existing Surface
Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program. Per H.R. 133, funds can be programmed to STBG eligible
projects as well as for preventative maintenance, routine maintenance, operations, and personnel.
Consistent with comments made at the CTC meeting last week by Caltrans Director Omishakin, there is
general agreement on sharing the federal assistance funds, 60% to state, 40% to regional/locals. CSAC is
closely monitoring the availability to ensure that local agencies receive a proper share.
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 29 of 132
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 9.
Meeting Date:02/08/2021
Subject:UPDATE on the Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 18
Referral Name: REVIEW transportation plans and services for specific populations,
including but not limited to...the Contra Costa County Accessible
Transportation Strategic Plan.
Presenter: John Cuningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
The Committee has received occasional updates on the Accessible Transportation Strategic (ATS)
Plan which was initiated in 2019. The Draft Final Plan is now available and is attached to this
report. This is a joint effort between the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Board
and the County, with CCTA acting as lead agency.
Peter Engel, CCTA Director of Programs and lead agency staff overseeing the ATS Plan, will
attend the February TWIC meeting.
Referral Update:
Accessible Transportation Strategic (ATS) Plan Background
Origin: The ATS Plan was a recommendation in CCTA's 2017 Contra Costa Countywide
Transportation Plan (CTP). The CTP identified a need to address the challenges associated with:
(1) different types of accessible transportation services for older adults and people with
disabilities; (2) multiple transportation providers including cities, transit operators, social services
agencies, and non-profit organizations; and (3) diverse, and sometimes overlapping, service areas.
In order to fund the ATS Plan, CCTA and the County jointly developed a successful Caltrans
Sustainable Communities Transportation Planning Grant which was awarded in 2018.
Purpose : The ATS Plan addresses the unfulfilled recommendations in the three previous
countywide studies which were similar in scope (1990, 2004, 2013) and responds to the
expectations set in the 2016 and 2020 Transportation Expenditure Plans (TEP), which was to
"implement a customer-focused, user-friendly, seamless coordinated system”.
In addition, the ATS Plan helps fulfill a requirement placed on CCTA in 2019 by the Metropolitan
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 30 of 132
Transportation Commission (MTC) in its Resolution 4321, that CTAs/CMAs must meet the
following mobility management requirement: “Each county must establish or enhance mobility
management programs to help provide equitable and effective access to transportation.” Mobility
management in this context refers to a centralized point of contact that facilitates ease of use of a
variety of transportation modes by people with disabilities and older adults.
Scope of Work: The ATS Plan has three primary goals:
• Evaluate the existing services and provide corresponding recommendations for improvements
• Identify alternative models for service delivery, present those alternatives to stakeholders, and
select a final preferred model
• Develop a detailed implementation plan for that model
Oversight: The ATS Plan is overseen by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of
Regional Transportation Planning Committee representatives, transit staff, city staff familiar with
accessible transit, a representative of veterans services, elder/disabled advocates, Contra Costa
Health Services, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Oversight is also provided by the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) which is comprised of
executive leadership from the non-profit/advocacy community and transit agencies, elected
officials representing the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and Board of Supervisors, and
Contra Costa Health Services.
Detailed membership rosters are included on page 1-5 of the attached ATS Plan.
Update
The ATS Plan is currently in draft final form and is attached to this report. Consistent with the
purpose and scope described above, the Plan is comprehensive and covers a range of specific
programs, agencies, policies, and history. At the TWIC meeting staff will limit the presentation to:
1)A summary of the "Task Force/Coordinated Entity" Recommendations of the ATS Plan (Page
5-1), and
2)Discussion of potential Board of Supervisors actions.
Once the item is in front of the full Board of Supervisors staff would like to have the
Nelson/Nygaard consultant team provide a full presentation.
1)Task Force/Coordinated Entity Recommendations of the ATS Plan
The ATS Plan provides a two-step recommendation to address the need for a new entity to oversee
accessible transit issues in the County. First, a Task Force similar to the composition of the ATS PAC would
be formed. Second, that Task Force would "define and establish a dedicated countywide Coordinated Entity".
The rationale for the new entity is described in detail in the ATS Plan, in summary there is general agreement
that without an ongoing entity this plan would remain "on a shelf" similar to the past 3 studies.
In addition to defining the Coordinated Entity the Task Force would also be charged with 1) identifying
funding for implementation, and 2) determining what agency would implement the other ATS
recommendations.
Discussion
The Task Force/Coordinated Entity recommendation generated discussion at the most recent ATS
PAC meeting with comments addressing what type of entity that could/should be.
Significant concerns regarding the need for new funding were raised several times at the January 28th
ATS PAC meeting. The comments were consistent with the ATS Plan which unequivocally states the
need for new revenue, "Additional funding will be necessary to implement any of the
Page 31 of 132
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 31 of 132
need for new revenue, "Additional funding will be necessary to implement any of the
recommendations...a significant need will be ongoing funding to support operations...With the failures
of the 2016 and 2020 transportation sales tax efforts the opportunities for additional public sector
secured revenue are limited."
2)Proposed Board of Supervisors Actions
The ATS Plan describes the broader accessible transit ecosystem as follows: "...responsibilities in this area
are diffused over numerous agencies and differing service areas", and "...accessible transit is somewhat
unique in terms of transportation governance; there is no agency that has the established, sole authority to
assume leadership in this area..."
Given the complex governance nature of accessible transportation and Americans with Disabilities Act
paratransit and the various relevant County Departments that have transportation responsibilities and needs,
staff will propose appropriate BOS action language but would like feedback from the Committee.
Discussion
The County does have some of the "diffused responsibilities" in this service area, staff would like the
Board of Supervisors action to include direction to impacted Departments to cooperate with the Task
Force to identify overlapping service areas and opportunities for collaboration. At a minimum, these
would include Contra Costa Health Services, Employment and Human Services, and Public Works
(General Services).
During the 1/28/21 ATS PAC meeting a number of concerns were raised regarding the Task Force and
the (eventual) Coordinated Entity recommendation. Specifically, concern was expressed that current
Measure J funding allocations should not be compromised due to this effort. The ATS staff team has
discussed addressing these concerns with BOS and/or CCTA Board action.
Schedule/Next Steps:
Monday, February 8: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: Transportation, Water and
Infrastructure Committee
Wednesday, March 3: Contra Costa Transportation Authority: Planning Committee
Tuesday, March 9: Board of Supervisors
Wednesday, March 17: Contra Costa Transportation Authority: Board of Directors
Other Notes
At the outset of the planning process staff from the Department of Conservation and
Development and Contra Costa Health Services (including the Health Plan) had several
exploratory meetings to discuss how the ATS Plan could support CCHS operations and how
they could be more involved in the process. The collaboration was not continued due to the
overwhelming demands of the COVID-19 response.
Outreach to Veterans Affairs generated useful information that was previously unknown to
ATS staff and the consultant team. In summary, issues with transportation services for
veterans are similar to the broader population, there are significant service gaps and
eligibility limitations and it is difficult to navigate transportation benefit administrative
requirements.
The WCCTAC Board discussed the ATS Plan at their 1/22/21 meeting, comments included
Debora Allen (BART Board) noting that there is plenty of analysis, leadership and political
champions are needed, Tom Butt (Mayor, Richmond) questioned why there are so many
agencies running this type of service, his own city has had challenges running a program,
and there is a need for coordination and a model to serve the whole county, Rita Xavier
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 32 of 132
and there is a need for coordination and a model to serve the whole county, Rita Xavier
(Vice-Mayor, San Pablo) commented that there needs to be a countywide solution, and Chris
Kelley (Mayor, Hercules) expressed support for a one-call, one-click system.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Receive the update on the Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan, recommend that the Board of
Supervisors consider the item, and direct staff as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None.
Attachments
DRAFT Final ATS Plan
Page 33 of 132
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 33 of 132
Contra Costa Accessible
Transportation Strategic Plan
January 2021
D R A F T
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 34 of 132
Table of Contents
Page
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1-1
2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 2-1
Demographics .................................................................................................................... 2-1
Equity Considerations ........................................................................................................ 2-4
Access to Medical Facilities .............................................................................................. 2-8
Transit Funding Summary ................................................................................................... 2-9
Transportation Resources in Contra Costa County ..................................................... 2-14
3 Outreach ............................................................................................................................. 3-1
Outreach Plan .................................................................................................................... 3-1
Survey .................................................................................................................................. 3-5
Web Outreach ................................................................................................................. 3-18
Presentations..................................................................................................................... 3-19
Focus Groups .................................................................................................................... 3-19
Telephone Town Hall ........................................................................................................ 3-22
Stakeholder Interviews ..................................................................................................... 3-25
4 Identification of Transportation Needs and Gaps .......................................................... 4-1
5 Recommended Strategies ................................................................................................ 5-1
Establish A Coordinated Structure ................................................................................... 5-1
Mobility Strategies .............................................................................................................. 5-5
Proposed Prioritization of Strategies ............................................................................... 5-10
Transportation Strategy Evaluation Criteria .................................................................. 5-10
Presentation of Final Strategy Recommendations ...................................................... 5-17
6 Implementation Plan ......................................................................................................... 6-1
Table of Figures
Page
Figure 2-1 Population Density .............................................................................................. 2-1
Figure 2-2 Population Density of Older Adults ................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-3 Population Density of People with Disabilities .................................................. 2-2
Figure 2-4 Distribution of Type of Disabilities in Contra Costa County ............................ 2-3
Figure 2-5 Population Density of Veterans with Disabled Veterans ................................ 2-3
Figure 2-6 Median Household Income with Low Income Population ............................. 2-4
Figure 2-7 Distribution of People of Color ........................................................................... 2-5
Figure 2-8 Race and Ethnicity in Contra Costa County ................................................... 2-5
Figure 2-9 Population Density of People with Limited English Proficiency ...................... 2-6
Figure 2-10 Languages spoken by Limited English-speaking Households in Contra
Costa County ....................................................................................................... 2-6
Figure 2-11 Transit Service Area with Potential Transit Need .............................................. 2-7
Figure 2-12 Medical Facilities ................................................................................................. 2-8
Figure 2-13 Program 15 funds allocation by Sub-Region ................................................. 2-12
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 35 of 132
Figure 2-14 Funding Forecast Measure J Program 15 and 20b ...................................... 2-13
Figure 2-15 Definitions of Types of Transportation Resources in Contra Costa County 2-14
Figure 2-16 Providers of Fixed-Route Transit and ADA-Mandated Paratransit in
Contra Costa County ....................................................................................... 2-17
Figure 2-17 Transit and Paratransit Service Areas .............................................................. 2-18
Figure 2-18 Summary of ADA-Mandated Paratransit Programs in Contra Costa
County ................................................................................................................ 2-18
Figure 2-19 Summary of City-Based Paratransit Programs ............................................... 2-21
Figure 2-20 Community-Based Transportation Programs ................................................. 2-23
Figure 2-21 Summary of Community-Based Transportation Programs ........................... 2-24
Figure 2-22 Contra Costa County Volunteer Driver Programs ......................................... 2-29
Figure 3-1 Engagement Tools and Techniques.................................................................. 3-3
Figure 3-2 Revised Flyer ......................................................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3-3 Map showing spatial distribution of Survey Responses ................................... 3-5
Figure 3-4 Public Engagement Collateral .......................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3-5 Respondents’ Age Distribution .......................................................................... 3-7
Figure 3-6 Mode Share Distribution ..................................................................................... 3-8
Figure 3-7 Bus Users’ Distribution .......................................................................................... 3-9
Figure 3-8 Paratransit Users’ Distribution ............................................................................. 3-9
Figure 3-9 Transit and Paratransit Satisfaction Rates ....................................................... 3-10
Figure 3-10 Lyft/Uber Satisfaction Rates ............................................................................. 3-10
Figure 3-11 Mode of Transportation by Regional Transportation Planning Committee
Areas ................................................................................................................... 3-11
Figure 3-12 Where Are Respondents Going? ..................................................................... 3-11
Figure 3-13 Which Trips are Most Difficult to Make? .......................................................... 3-12
Figure 3-14 Most Difficult Trips for Respondents, by Area of County ............................... 3-13
Figure 3-15 Respondent Transportation Challenges ......................................................... 3-14
Figure 3-16 Transportation Challenges, by Area of County ............................................. 3-15
Figure 3-17 Preferred Transportation Services .................................................................... 3-16
Figure 3-18 Preferred Transportation Services, by Area of County ................................. 3-17
Figure 3-19 Project Website Homepage ............................................................................ 3-18
Figure 3-20 Project Website Mailing List Sign-Up Form ...................................................... 3-19
Figure 3-21 Summary of Focus Groups ............................................................................... 3-20
Figure 3-22 Summary of Stakeholder Interviews ................................................................ 3-25
Figure 5-1 Strategy Prioritization ......................................................................................... 5-12
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 36 of 132
1 INTRODUCTION
Study Background
This Accessible Transportation Strategic (ATS) Plan was born from the 2017 Contra Costa
Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP). The CTP identified a need to address the
challenges associated with: (1) different types of accessible transportation services for
older adults and people with disabilities; (2) multiple transportation providers including
cities, transit operators, social services agencies, and non-profit organizations; and (3)
diverse, and sometimes overlapping, service areas.
The ATS Plan is also intended to address the unfulfilled recommendations of three
previous studies which were similar in scope. While the 2016 and 2020 Transportation
Expenditure Plans (TEP) did not succeed in accessing sales tax measure funds, they did
further set expectations for the Plan to ultimately "implement a customer-focused, user-
friendly, seamless coordinated system”.
Finally, the ATS Plan helps fulfill a requirement by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) in its Resolution 4321, that CTAs/CMAs must meet the following
mobility management requirement:
“Each county must establish or enhance mobility management programs to help
provide equitable and effective access to transportation.” Mobility management in this
context refers to a centralized point of contact that facilitates ease of use of a variety of
transportation modes by people with disabilities and older adults.
MTC uses the following to define mobility management activities:
The region’s Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan directs
counties to develop mobility management programs with three key components:
1)Countywide travel training,
2)In-person ADA paratransit certification, and
3)Coordination of information and referrals (I&R) through the provision of a mobility
manager.
Mobility management can be led by CMAs, transit operators or other agencies including
non-governmental organizations.
The following considerations apply when implementing mobility management programs:
Current performance of mobility management functions and relevance of
activities to current coordination objectives.
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 37 of 132
Scale of geography covered within the county.
Extent to which the process involves multiple stakeholder agencies who are
aiming to improve mobility and transportation coordination for transportation-
disadvantaged populations.
The county’s existing and potential capacity for carrying out mobility
management functions.
Institutional relationships and support, both financial and in-kind, including
evidence of coordination efforts with other public and private transportation and
human services providers.
Success of the ATS Plan hinges on several factors:
•Leadership. Due to responsibilities in this area being diffused over numerous
agencies and differing service areas, strong and persistent leadership at the
elected official, staff, and agency levels are necessary for success. A study cited
during the ATS planning process describes a critical barrier to success as, “Politics,
Politics, Politics”. Contra Costa will need strong leadership to combat the effects
of this.
•Funding. Additional funding will be necessary to implement any of the
recommendations. One-time funding through grants and other sources can
typically be found for capital purchases and other discrete expenses. However, a
significant need will be ongoing funding to support operations. With the failures of
2016 and 2020 transportation sales tax efforts the opportunities for additional
public sector secured revenue are limited.
•Collaboration. Given the broad range of mobility needs and the strategies
intended to satisfy those needs, stakeholders will need to ensure a high level of
collaboration in their efforts to prioritize strategies for implementation.
Inclusive and equitable public engagement is a key focus of this study effort. This
includes input from organizations, key stakeholders, and the broader Contra Costa
community. The study process is assisted and overseen by a Technical Advisory
Committee and a Policy Advisory Committee. In March 2020, due to the COVID-19
outbreak, the project team reconfigured the outreach plan to go “virtual” to allow
people to participate safely.
Study Context
Contra Costa County is a relatively large county in terms of population (1,160,000 in 2020
–third most populous in the Bay Area) and area (804 square miles). The County contains
17 cities, two towns, and a number of census-designated places and unincorporated
areas.
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is a local transportation authority
enabled under the California Public Utilities Code for the purpose of administering a
transportation sales tax, Measure J (2004), which continues work begun under Measure C
(1988). CCTA also serves as the Contra Costa County Congestion Management Agency.
CCTA also prepares a Measure J Strategic Plan approximately every two years and
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 38 of 132
coordinates with cities, the County, transit districts, other special districts, and/or Caltrans
to implement transportation projects. For planning purposes, the County is divided into
four distinct CCTA planning sub-regions (west, east, central, southwest) each with its own
Regional Transportation Planning Committee. The four committees and areas are:
•SWAT (Southwest Area Transportation Committee) in Southern Contra Costa
County – cities of Lafayette, Orinda, and San Ramon; the towns of Danville and
Moraga; and the unincorporated area of Southern Contra Costa County
•WCCTAC (West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee) in West Contra
Costa County – cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, San Pablo; and the
unincorporated areas of Western Contra Costa County
•TRANSPAC (Transportation Partnership and Cooperation) in Central Contra Costa
County – six Central Contra Costa jurisdictions including the cities of Clayton,
Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek and the unincorporated area of
Central Contra Costa County
•TRANSPLAN in Eastern Contra Costa County – the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood,
Oakley and Pittsburg, and the unincorporated areas of Eastern Contra Costa
County.
CCTA and the County have integrated the growing challenges facing seniors, people
with disabilities, and eligible veterans in accessing needed transportation in the
recommended strategies of this report. In many jurisdictions services are siloed between
transit agencies, social service agencies, cities, and non-profit organizations. In terms of
fixed-route transit, the County is served by AC Transit, BART, County Connection, Tri Delta
Transit, and WestCAT. Programs offered by other organizations abound, including three
adjacent City operated paratransit programs in West County to the Lamorinda Spirit Van,
to Walnut Creek’s Lyft Pilot Program. Seniors and people with disabilities face significant
challenges navigating a disparate transportation system. In addition, the proportion of
seniors in the population is growing significantly. This will in turn lead to an increase in
persons eligible for ADA paratransit services and a continuing magnification of related
transportation challenges as the population ages and the need for transportation
resources grows.
CCTA and the County have demonstrated a strong commitment to meeting these
challenges. Different partners within the County have completed previous paratransit-
related studies in 1990, 2004, and 2013. Funding for transportation for seniors and
disabilities is allocated in Measure J (and had either Measure X (2016) or Measure J
(2020) passed, more funding would be available).
CCTA and the County applied for the Caltrans Sustainable Communities Transportation
Planning grant and agreed it would be managed by the CCTA with assistance from the
Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development. As part of the
preparation for the project, CCTA and the County: met with each transit agency to
ensure they were supportive of the study, consulted with CCTA’s Bus Transit Coordinating
Committee, and had each transit agency review and comment on the Scope of Work
before the study was initiated.
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 39 of 132
Different partners within the County have completed previous paratransit-related studies.
Three that stand out are the 1990 Contra Costa County Paratransit Plan, the 2004 Contra
Costa County Paratransit Improvement Study, the 2013 Contra Costa County Mobility
Management Plan, and the 2018 West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee
(WCCTAC) Transportation Needs Assessment. While many of the strategies
recommended in those plans are considered to be best practices in other locations, a
significant proportion have not been implemented in the County. There are a variety of
reasons for this failure to implement, such as lack of political support, structural issues
related to the existence of multiple agencies involved in service delivery, and the lack of
funding. A primary factor in CCTA’s design and development of this study was to address
these previously seen barriers in order to ensure that similar recommendations from this
study do not meet the same fate.
As part of this study process, the consultants and County staff identified the reasons for
failure to implement earlier recommendations, and sought to either recommend ways of
avoiding similar problems or documenting the reasons why these should not be
considered for future implementation. It should be noted that the process incorporated
into the present study is far more collaborative and engaging than was the case in
previous studies. It is therefore anticipated that the recommended strategies will have
greater community and agency support than previous efforts, and therefore have a
greater likelihood of implementation.
The study’s three primary goals were to:
•Evaluate the existing services and provide corresponding recommendations for
improvements
•Identify alternative models for service delivery, present those alternatives to
stakeholders, and select a final preferred model
•Develop a detailed implementation plan for that model
Any study related to transportation for seniors and people with disabilities is not complete
without addressing issues of funding and demand. CCTA and the County recognize that
funding for these areas is limited and/or stagnant. Grants for planning (e.g. Caltrans) and
mobility management pilots may be obtained (e.g. FTA 5310) but jurisdictions must still
establish funding for ongoing operations. Significant portions of current funding, such as
for ADA-mandated paratransit programs, are restricted on how and to whom they can
provide service. Regulatory concerns also affect transportation to and from healthcare,
and cross-jurisdictional travel. Although some organizations and jurisdictions have
proposed legislative fixes to these issues, it is challenging to change State or Federal law.
Nationwide, ADA-mandated paratransit costs per trip continue to rise significantly.
Programs viewed as “silver bullets” have proven failures in meeting their cost-cutting
objectives. Numerous instances exist in which suppressed demand has been viewed as
the most effective way of sustaining the financial future of transportation services to
seniors and people with disabilities. While improvements and increases to service
enhance the quality of life for these populations, they generally do not reduce overall
costs.
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 40 of 132
In contrast to the approaches described above, County agencies view this study as an
opportunity to consider systemic changes to transportation service delivery to seniors
and people with disabilities. The County’s objective in this study is to examine how things
have always been done and implement a truly rider-focused and equitable program
that will be sustainable in the long-term. This approach would bring paratransit, and its
growing user base, into a more equitable position relative to other users of the
transportation system which benefit from regular improvements and expansions to
services and infrastructure.
Study Oversight Structure
This Accessible Transportation Strategic (ATS) Plan effort was a partnership between
CCTA and the County, funded by a Caltrans Sustainable Communities Transportation
Planning grant. CCTA issued a Request for Proposals and selected Nelson\Nygaard
Consulting to complete the Plan. The process of developing the plan was originally
intended to involve several oversight committees. The project team eventually defined
and set up a Technical Advisory Committee and a Policy Advisory Committee.
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
The role of the TAC was to provide subject matter expertise and public policy
implications on service concepts under review by the study team (a “reality check”). The
TAC first met in November 2019 and continued meeting approximately monthly
throughout the Study.
Organization Name
AC Transit/BART/East Bay Paratransit Kim Ridgeway
County Connection Rashida Kamara
Tri Delta Transit Deanna Perry
WestCAT Rob Thompson
SWAT/City of San Ramon Rebecca Adams
SWAT/City of Lafayette Mary Bruns
TRANSPAC/City of Walnut Creek Kathryn Reisinger
TRANSPLAN/City of Pittsburg Nat Phan
WCCTAC Joanna Pallock
Contra Costa Health Plan Mendaline (Monica) Singh
(replaced by Suzanne Tsang)
Contra Costa County Health Services Vi Ibarra
Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff Emergency
Operations
Zack Adinoff, Marcelle Indelicato
Veterans Affairs Derrick Shelton
Caltrans Jacob Buffenbarger
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 41 of 132
Organization Name
Metropolitan Transportation Commission Drennen Shelton
NGO/Advocate Choice in Aging Lisa Hammon
NGO/Advocate / Mobility Matters Elaine Welch
NGO/Advocate Marjorie McWee
Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
The role of the PAC was to provide input on addressing policy barriers, communicate
with stakeholders about the Study, liaise with elected or appointed Boards, and to review
and prioritize recommended strategies. The PAC first met in August 2020 and was
originally slated to meet twice more. It quickly became evident that given the online
format and the complicated nature of the County’s transportation challenges, the PAC
should meet more frequently. The PAC has also met approximately monthly since
October 2020.
Appointment Name
BART Debora Allen
AC Transit Mike Hursh
County Connection Rick Ramacier
Tri Delta Transit Jeanne Krieg
WestCAT Charlie Anderson
Contra Costa Board of Supervisors, District 2 Candace Andersen
CCTA Board Teresa Gerringer
CCTA Board Dave Hudson
Contra Costa Health Services Josh Sullivan
NGO/Advocate / Choice in Aging Debbie Toth
NGO/Advocate / CoCo County Ombudsman ED Nicole Howell
NGO/Advocate / Disabilities Council Ian Bremner
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 42 of 132
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
DEMOGRAPHICS
Contra Costa County is the third most populous county in the Bay Area, with a
population of 1,160,000 in 2020. The County contains 17 cities, two towns, and a number
of census-designated places and unincorporated areas. Cities range from those
containing densely populated pockets like Richmond and Concord, to semi rural and
rural communities like Brentwood and Clayton.
Figure 2-1 Population Density
Most subgroups of the population (e.g. older adults) follow this same general pattern, at
least in terms of geographic spread.
Fifteen percent of the population is over 65, and 7.5% is under age 65 with a disability.
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 43 of 132
Figure 2-2 Population Density of Older Adults
The population density map of the County above shows three areas with a higher density
of older adults: Rossmoor (between Moraga and Walnut Creek), Crow Canyon (north of
San Ramon), and the area south of Brentwood.
Figure 2-3 Population Density of People with Disabilities
The density map for people with disabilities shows similar geographic spread to the
general population, except one concentrated area in Rossmoor.
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 44 of 132
Figure 2-4 Distribution of Type of Disabilities in Contra Costa County
Type of Disability Number of People Percentage out of total
population
Independent Living Difficulty 46,761 5.3%
Ambulatory Difficulty 55,816 5.1%
Cognitive Difficulty 48,084 4.4%
Hearing Difficulty 32,975 2.9%
Self-care Difficulty 24,614 2.3%
Vision Difficulty 18,996 1.7%
Note: Respondents could choose more than one category.
These patterns are consistent with findings in similar studies.
Figure 2-5 Population Density of Veterans with Disabled Veterans
This study is also examining veterans with transportation challenges due to disabling
conditions. A population density map of veterans generally aligns with the general
population. However, overlaying disabled veterans shows a concerning number of
individuals in very rural or remote parts of the County, who likely have difficulty accessing
services if they need assistance with transportation. Specific areas of concern include
south of Moraga, the area near Port Chicago, and most of East County.
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 45 of 132
EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS
Although this study is focused on older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans with
mobility issues, it would be unwise to ignore the acutely intersectional nature of these
issues with income and race/ethnicity.
Median household income in the County is $88,000 but 9.1% of the population lives in
poverty. People with low income are less likely to own or have access to a personal
vehicle, they also have less resources to utilize new potentially convenient services such
as Lyft/Uber. Persons with disabilities are also much more likely to be living in poverty.
Figure 2-6 Median Household Income with Low Income Population
Figure 2-6 shows concentrations of people with low income in West County, Concord,
and North County near Pittsburg and Antioch.
The county is diverse. According to the US Census Bureau, over 25% of the population is
Hispanic or Latino, 9.5% African American, and 18% Asian or Pacific Islander.
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 46 of 132
Figure 2-7 Distribution of People of Color
This map shows high proportions of people of color in West County, Concord, and near
Pittsburg, similar to the distribution of low income persons. People of color sometimes do
not access public services at the same rate as white individuals and may need more
culturally relevant engagement efforts.
Figure 2-8 Race and Ethnicity in Contra Costa County
Race Population Percentage out of total
population
White 600,481 52.1%
Asian 205,366 17.8%
Some other race 162,355 14.1%
Black or African American 101,590 8.8%
Two or more races 73,246 6.3%
American Indian and Alaska Native 5,863 0.5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 4,625 0.4%
Ethnicity Population Percentage out of total
population
Hispanic or Latino 300,420 26.0%
Note: The selection of Hispanic or Latino is in addition to a selected Race.
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 47 of 132
Contra Costa Health Services reports that 32% of residents speak a language other than
English at home. Fifty-two percent (52%) of those speak Spanish and 26% speak an Asian
or Pacific Islander language. Similar to people of color, people with limited English
proficiency may need more culturally relevant engagement and in the appropriate
language.
Figure 2-9 Population Density of People with Limited English Proficiency
Figure 2-10 Languages spoken by Limited English-speaking Households in Contra Costa County
Households speaking
Limited English-
speaking
Households
Percentage out of all limited
English-speaking Households
Spanish 9,758 46.3%
Asian and Pacific Island
languages 7,822 37.1%
Other Indo-European
languages 3,320 15.8%
Other languages 173 0.8%
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 48 of 132
Potential transit need can be estimated by looking at population density, the location of
jobs, and where older adults, people with disabilities and lower income persons live. An
overlay of these factors with existing transit service shows potential gaps. There appears
to be a patchwork of gaps of medium to high need in West County and in Central
County in the areas of Concord and Pleasant Hill. There are lower need but larger areas
of gap in North County, East County, and South County.
Figure 2-11 Transit Service Area with Potential Transit Need
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 49 of 132
ACCESS TO MEDICAL FACILITIES
Access to medical facilities is a critical issue in Contra Costa County. Previous studies,
discussions with stakeholders, and all of the outreach activities emphasized the
importance of getting to medical appointments.
A prior study in West County discussed the closure (in 2015) of Doctors Medical Center,
the emergency room used most in West County. At this time the only major medical
facility in West County is a Kaiser Hospital in Richmond. This is a concern as West County is
one of the most densely populated areas of the County. Most medical facilities appear
to be clustered in the center of the County between Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek. Two
facilities that are needed by residents throughout the County are the Contra Costa
County Medical Center and the VA Medical Center, both in Martinez.
Figure 2-12 Medical Facilities
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 50 of 132
TRANSIT FUNDING SUMMARY
Transportation services are almost always funded with a variety of funding sources and
most include some public funds, including programs available through the federal
government and funding available from local and regional municipalities or regional
authorities. In Contra Costa County, there are five major categories of funding for public
and human service transportation:
1.U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S.DOT) funding administered through the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). This includes (among others) the Urban Transit
Formula Funds (Section 5307), Rural Transit Formula Funds (Section 5311) and
programs targeted for Older Adults and People with Disabilities (Section 5310).
2.Federal funding programs outside of the U.S. DOT that can be used for
transportation. The largest and most relevant of the non-DOT funding programs
are available from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). DHHS
includes the Centers for Medicaid Services, and the Administration on Aging,
both of which are involved in the funding of transportation services. The
Department of Veterans Affairs also funds transportation services and programs.
3.California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) The California Transportation
Development Act which includes revenues collected from a portion of the state
diesel fuel tax, and sales tax. These funds are distributed to local and regional
transportation authorities. These funds are available to support public
transportation services, including services for older adults and people with
disabilities. It should be noted that a number of State funding sources are geared
towards reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, for which transportation for
seniors and people with disabilities do not usually score well due to large vehicle
miles travelled per passenger.
4.Local tax revenues that are dedicated to support transit services. County
Measure J and other regional funding such as regional funding measures and
tolls.
5.Private grants and donations (typically not available to public agencies)
Funding options will be addressed in more detail in Chapter 6: Implementation.
Federal Funding
There are several FTA programs used to fund public transportation services in Contra
Costa County. For purposes of this Report, three funding programs are among the most
relevant:
Section 5310: Enhanced Mobility of Seniors &
Individuals with Disabilities
This program (49 U.S.C. 5310) provides formula funding to states for the purpose of
assisting private nonprofit groups in meeting the transportation needs of older adults and
people with disabilities. Formula funds are apportioned to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) for distribution to local government authorities, private
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 51 of 132
non-profit organizations, and/or operators of public transportation. MTC uses a
competitive selection process to allocate funding.
The FTA Section 5310 (Transportation for Elderly Persons & Persons with Disabilities) funding
program is of relevance to the ATS Study due to the funding’s focus on the study’s target
population groups.
The following Contra Costa organizations were selected for funding in the most recent
Cycle:
Choice in Aging
City of Lafayette: Lamorinda Spirit Van
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Tri Delta Transit
Golden Rain Foundation Walnut Creek
Mobility Matters
The Respite Inn
Section 5311: Formula Grants for Rural Areas
The Formula Grants for Rural Areas program provides capital, planning, and operating
assistance to states to support public transportation in rural areas with populations of less
than 50,000, where many residents often rely on public transit to reach their
destinations. In Contra Costa County, County Connection receives approximately
$50,000 in Rural Transit funding for service in Rural Contra Costa County.
Section 5307: Urbanized Area Formula Grants
This program distributes funds to regions based on an urbanized area formula. In Contra
Costa County, all transit operators are 5307 Recipients. Eligible activities include: planning
for 5307 funds, engineering, design and evaluation of transit projects and other technical
transportation-related studies; capital investments in bus and bus-related activities. In
addition, associated transit improvements and certain expenses associated with mobility
management programs are eligible under the program. All preventive maintenance and
some Americans with Disabilities Act complementary paratransit service costs are
considered capital costs and are therefore eligible under this program.
Other Federal Transportation Funding
Several other federal programs fund transportation, the largest of which reside within the
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). DHHS programs support
transportation for non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) for Medicaid recipients,
and transportation programs for older adults managed under the Administration on
Aging.1
1 Administration for Community Living. Available at: https://acl.gov/about-acl/administration-aging
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 52 of 132
The Department of Veterans Affairs, for example, funds transportation services and
programs for eligible veterans. These programs tend to fund services directly oriented
around veteran customers / veteran-specific needs and are typically administered as
block grants to local and regional agencies.2
State Funding
Transit programs in California are funded by the Transportation Development Act (TDA)
which includes revenues collected from a portion of the state diesel fuel tax and sales
taxes. These funds are distributed to local and regional transportation authorities. These
funds are available to support public transportation services, including services for older
adults and people with disabilities.
CCTA is the designated regional transportation planning agency (RTPA) for Contra Costa
County. The Act provides two major sources for funding of public transportation in
California, the county Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and the State Transit Assistance
(STA).
Local Transportation Fund (LTF)
The LTF is derived from a ¼ cent of the general sales tax collected statewide and can
fund:
Transit operations
Bus and rail projects
Special transit services for disabled riders
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities
Transportation planning
State Transit Assistance (STA)
The State divides the STA program into two components:
Population-based funds: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
receives STA funding based on the region’s share of the population. The use of
these funds is governed by MTC Resolution 4321 which established a STA County
Block Grant Program whereby the nine Bay Area Congestion Management
Agencies determine how to invest the funds in public transit services/projects.
Revenue-based funds: The State allocates funds to transit operators based on
their revenue as defined by state law.
Senate Bill 1 (2017)
Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, provides about $250
million annually for the State Transit Assistance (STA) Program to help transit agencies
fund their capital infrastructure and operational costs. Despite the large number of
2 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Available at: https://www.va.gov/healthbenefits/vtp/
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 53 of 132
specific programs earmarked for funding in the legislation (active transportation,
university research, parks and agricultural, freight movements, etc.) there were no
programs specific to transportation for seniors and persons with disability identified in the
bill.
Local Funding
In addition to federal, and state sources, some communities use general revenue funding
to support transportation services. Communities like the City of Richmond use general
revenue funds to support their Senior and Disabled Transportation programs. The largest
source of public transportation funding in Contra Costa County is Measure J, which
provided $5,328,755 in FY 19/20 to fund transportation for seniors and people with
disabilities.
Measure J
In November 2004, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure J with a 71% vote.
The measure provided for the continuation of the county's half-cent transportation sales
tax for 25 years beyond the original expiration date of 2009. As with Measure C (the
original 1988 transportation sales tax measure), the tax revenues are used to fund a
voter-approved Expenditure Plan of transportation programs and projects. Measure J
provides approximately $2.7 billion (escalated) countywide for local transportation
projects and programs through the year 2034.
The Measure J Expenditure Plan allocated 3.5% of Measure J to Transportation for Seniors
and People with Disabilities countywide through Program 15. The Expenditure plan allows
for an annual increase of 0.10% from the 3.5% level to 5.9% by 2034.
35% of Program 15 is allocated to West
County, 17% to Southwest County, 23%
to East County and 25% to Central
County. Additionally, the 20b
Subregional Program allocates 0.65%
to West County and 0.5% to Central
County for additional Transportation
for Seniors and People with Disabilities.
Program 20b funds are approved by
WCCTAC and TRANSPAC and is used
for such non-ADA services as shuttles,
sedan/taxi service, fare subsidies,
and/or other supplemental services
beyond the ADA service. However,
ADA service does qualify, and 20b
can be used to expand the same “base” program expenditures that Program 15 is used
for.
Program 15 funds are allocated by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) to
the Measure J- approved transportation providers based on percentage allocations
Figure 2-13 Program 15 funds allocation by Sub-Region
West35%
Central25%
East23%
Southwest17%
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 54 of 132
determined in the previous Measure C. Measure J Program 15 and 20b revenues are
forecast to grow 26% in the next 5 years from $5,328,755 to $6,721,704.
Figure 2-14 Funding Forecast Measure J Program 15 and 20b 3
3 2019 Measure J STRATEGIC PLAN (2019) https://www.ccta.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-
Measure-J-Strategic-Plan.pdf $2,094,432$2,196,292$2,330,326$2,472,418$2,623,104$1,529,121$1,602,958$1,700,238$1,803,350$1,912,680$980,491$1,034,506$1,104,155$1,178,188$1,256,904$724,711$764,635$816,114$870,835$929,016$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25
West Central East Southwest
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 55 of 132
TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES IN
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Contra Costa County contains a wide range of transportation options for older adults
and people with disabilities. To meet travel needs, Contra Costa residents and visitors
might use fixed-route transit, ADA-mandated paratransit, city-based programs,
community shuttle services, non-profit transportation services, private providers like taxis
and Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), and other options. Additional
transportation options that are available to these groups as members of the general
public include walking, biking (for limited portions of the population), and driving or
being driven by family and friends. This chapter is focused on those options that
specifically cater to older adults and people with disabilities; it provides a snapshot of
resources available at the time of the report (it must be noted that resources change
rapidly over time).
The types of transportation resources available to older adults and people with disabilities
in Contra Costa County are defined in Figure 2-12 below and subsequently described in
more detail.
Figure 2-15 Definitions of Types of Transportation Resources in Contra Costa County
Resource Short Definition
Fixed-Route Transit / ADA-
mandated paratransit
Buses, trains, and ferries operated by public transit
agencies that run on regular, pre-determined, pre-
scheduled routes, usually with no variation. The Regional
Transit Connection (RTC) Clipper card is a photo
identification card that verifies a rider’s eligibility to
receive an ADA reduced fare on fixed route transit.
Transit agencies provide ADA-mandated paratransit
services to complement fixed route transit, in compliance
with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Community-Based
Transportation Programs
Community-based transportation services may be
provided by public sector services (e.g. a city’s senior
center) or non-profit organizations. They are sometimes
dedicated for a specific clientele (i.e. Medicaid eligible
persons, older adults attending meal programs, etc.).
Riders are often referred to these programs by an agency
they are receiving services from, such as a senior center,
County Human Service agency, or Regional Center.
Subsidized Fare Programs/
Voucher Programs
Programs typically administered through a social service
agency, that enable qualified people to purchase
fares/vouchers for transportation services at a reduced
rate from providers such as taxis, public transit, or
volunteer driver programs. Recipients are usually low-
income.
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 56 of 132
Resource Short Definition
Volunteer Driver Programs
Programs that provide one-way, round-trip, and multi-
stop rides. Trips are often door-through-door, in contrast
to other transportation options which stop at the curb or
door. These programs are provided free of charge, on a
donation basis, through membership dues, or at a
minimal cost, and typically have an eligibility process and
advance reservation requirements.
Mobility Management
Services
Mobility management services cover a wide range of
services, such as travel training, coordinating different
services, trip planning, brokerage, and information and
referral. In addition to information and referral and travel
training detailed below, mobility management refers to
the provision of individual transportation information and
assistance, and service linkage related to information
and referral.
Information & Referral
Programs that provide transportation information and
direct referral, connecting people to mobility resources
that can help them. Agencies may be independent non-
profit organizations, libraries, faith-based organizations, or
government agencies.
Travel Training Programs designed to teach people with disabilities, older
adults, youth, veterans, and/or low-income populations
to travel safely and independently on fixed-route public
transportation in their community.
Private Transportation Transportation provided by a private for-profit entity in the
business of transporting people. These services are often
demand-response and initiated and paid for by the rider.
Examples are taxis, motor coach services, App-based
ride-hailing services (Uber, Lyft, etc.), and vanpools.
Fixed-Route Transit and
ADA -Mandated Paratransit
Fixed-route transit is operated by public transit agencies who provide services that run on
regular, pre-determined, pre-schedule routes, usually with no variation. Aside from driving
and walking, fixed-route transit is the most widely available transportation option
available in Contra Costa County.
Accessibility features on fixed-route transit include:
Buses and trains equipped with wheelchair lifts or low floor ramps to allow easy
access for people with wheelchairs, walkers, and other mobility aids.
Priority seating for older adults, people with disabilities, pregnant women, and
other populations who need it.
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 57 of 132
Bus drivers trained to understand the needs of all populations who ride the bus,
provide assistance in securing wheelchairs in designated spaces, and allow
passengers sufficient time to be seated, and get on and off the vehicle.
Announcement of stops at major intersections, stations, transfer points and, at the
request of passengers, specific destinations.
Stations with elevators to boarding platforms, for ease of access.
Route and schedule information provided by transit agencies, including the best
way to reach a desired destination. This information is available in accessible
formats, if needed.
For people who, due to their disability, are unable to ride fixed-route buses and trains,
some or all of the time, ADA-mandated paratransit is required. All fixed-route transit
providers are legally required to provide complementary paratransit. Per the Federal
Transportation Administration (FTA) regulations “each public entity operating a fixed
route system shall provide paratransit or other special service to individuals with
disabilities that is comparable to the level of service provided to individuals without
disabilities who use the fixed route system.”4 Some certified paratransit riders can ride
fixed-route transit depending on the trip and/or their current ability.
ADA-mandated paratransit is meant to provide an equivalent level of service as fixed-
route transit. This means paratransit services operate in the same area, on the same days
and during the same hours as public transit operates. Paratransit service may be
provided on small buses, vans, taxis, or in sedans. It is generally a shared-ride, door-to-
door, or curb-to-curb service that must be reserved no later than close of business the
day before the trip.
All Contra Costa public transit agencies contract with private transportation providers to
provide ADA-mandated paratransit.
4 Department of Transportation Americans with Disabilities Act regulations at 49 CFR Section 37/121(a).
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 58 of 132
Figure 2-16 Providers of Fixed-Route Transit and ADA-Mandated Paratransit in Contra Costa County
Fixed-Route
Transit Agency Service Area
ADA-Mandated Paratransit
Provider
Regional Transit
Amtrak San
Joaquin
Rail service between Oakland
and Bakersfield
The ADA does not require that
commuter rail and commuter
bus services provide
complementary paratransit
service
BART Rapid rail transit in Alameda,
Contra Costa, San Francisco,
San Mateo, and Santa Clara
counties
East Bay Paratransit (in
coordination with AC Transit);
LINK Paratransit (in coordination
with County Connection) and
other applicable paratransit
providers within ¾ mile of
stations in other counties
Capitol Corridor Rail service between
Sacramento and San Jose
The ADA does not require that
commuter rail and commuter
bus services provide
complementary paratransit
service
San Francisco
Bay Ferry
(Water
Emergency
Transportation
Authority)
Ferry service between
Richmond/San Francisco
Complementary paratransit
requirement not defined for
ferries
Local Transit
AC Transit Western Contra Costa County
(Richmond and El Cerrito) and
West, Central, and South
Alameda County (Fremont to
Albany)
East Bay Paratransit (in
coordination with BART) within
the transit service area
WestCAT The area of western Contra
Costa County not covered by
AC Transit
WestCAT Dial-A-Ride Paratransit
within the transit service area
County
Connection
Central Contra Costa County
from San Ramon to Martinez and
Orinda to Concord/Clayton
County Connection LINK
Paratransit operates in the
same area as and is overseen
by County Connection
Tri Delta Transit Eastern Contra Costa County Tri Delta Transit Paratransit within
the transit service area
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 59 of 132
Figure 2-17 Transit and Paratransit Service Areas
Figure 2-18 Summary of ADA-Mandated Paratransit Programs in Contra Costa County
Agency Service Area
Hours of
Operation Fares 5
Eligibility /
Certification Process 6
County
Connection
LINK
Within ¾ mile of
any BART
station or fixed-
route bus
service. Mon-Fri
service is
provided within
1 ½ mile of
regular fixed-
route bus
service.
Operates
during the
same days
and hours as
County
Connection
and BART’s
regular fixed
route services.
$5 per trip;
County
Connection
offers an
Advance Fare
Payment
System with a
minimum
deposit of $50
All people with
disabilities throughout
County Connection
service area; must
complete a written
application and may
receive a phone call
for more information
and/or be asked to
attend an interview
at County
Connection offices
5 Fare collection was suspended during COVID and is being reinstated in early 2021.
6 Certification processes are not being conducted in person during COVID shelter-in-place.
Page 60 of 132
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 60 of 132
Agency Service Area
Hours of
Operation Fares 5
Eligibility /
Certification Process 6
East Bay
Paratransit
(EBP)
Within ¾ mile of
any BART
station or AC
Transit bus stop
(excluding
BART stations
east of Orinda
on the
Pittsburg/Bay
Point line)
Operates
during the
same days
and hours as
AC Transit and
BART’s regular
fixed route
services.
$4.00 for trips
between 0-12
miles; $6 for
trips between
12-20 miles; $7
for trips over 20
miles
All people with
disabilities throughout
BART and AC Transit
service areas; must
complete a written
application and
arrange for an in-
person assessment
(IPA) at EBP offices or
a satellite location
Tri Delta
Transit
Paratransit
Within ¾ mile of
fixed-route bus
service.
Operates
during the
same days
and hours as
Tri Delta
Transit’s
regular fixed
route services.
$2.75 for trips in
ADA service
area; $5.50 for
trips
starting/ending
outside of ADA
area, trips to
Concord or
Martinez, and
transfers to
LINK
All people with
disabilities throughout
Tri Delta Transit
service area; must
complete a written
application and may
receive a phone call
for more information
and/or be asked to
attend an interview
or functional
evaluation; Seniors
65+ are eligible for
the Senior Service
which is limited to the
local fixed route
service area and is
subject to availability,
rides are not
guaranteed.
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 61 of 132
Agency Service Area
Hours of
Operation Fares 5
Eligibility /
Certification Process 6
WestCAT
Dial-A-Ride
Coverage for
all eligible riders
within service
area; extended
beyond service
area (for
special needs
trips) for an
additional fee.
Service also
provided into
Martinez and
Richmond.
ADA service is
provided to
Hercules, Pinole
and the
unincorporated
areas of
Rodeo,
Crockett and
Port Costa.7
Monday-
Friday, 6:00am
to 8:00pm;
Saturday, 9am
to 7:00pm
(early morning,
late night, and
Sunday service
coordinated
with East Bay
Paratransit
within ¾ mile
of a fixed
route bus
route 8);
extended
service area
available
Monday-
Friday, 9:00am
to 3:00pm
$1.25 single trip
fare; $10 for
ten pre-
purchase
tickets; $3 for
cash fare
outside of
WestCAT
service area;
$25 for ten pre-
purchased
tickets outside
of service area
All seniors (age 65+)
and people with
disabilities throughout
WestCAT service
area, as well as the
general public in Port
Costa, Crockett, and
Rodeo; must
complete a written
application;
applicant is notified
by mail of eligibility
status within 21 days
7 In addition to ADA, seniors (age 65+) and people with disabilities throughout the WestCAT service area
may use Dial-A-Ride between any two points within WestCAT’s service boundaries and will not be
required to transfer.
8 Service is provided within the timeframe that WestCAT fixed route operates, and ADA paratransit
service is provided past midnight M-F.
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 62 of 132
City-Based Paratransit Services
Three cities in West County offer city-based paratransit services funded by CCTA. The
funding for the city-based paratransit comes from the transportation sales tax measure,
originally Measure C and now measure J, requested by the Western Contra Costa
Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC). The rest of the county does not have
city-based services because the subregional transportation agencies opted to not
dedicate funding to specific city operators. Some programs provide services to adjacent
cities and unincorporated areas. Programs are meant to complement ADA-mandated
paratransit and are often directed more towards seniors than people with disabilities.
Figure 2-19 Summary of City-Based Paratransit Programs
Service
City /
Service
Area
Description of
Service
Hours of
Operation Fares
Eligibility /
Certification
Process
Easy Ride
Paratransit
Service
(ERPS)9
El Cerrito Easy Ride
(door-to-
door), day
trips and
excursions,
limited
service
beyond El
Cerrito,
nutrition rides,
and on-
demand
service
Monday-
Thursday,
9:00am to
4:30pm;
Friday,
9:00am to
3:30pm
Note:
during
COVID
hours are
Mon and
Tue
10:00am to
1:30pm
$2 single trip
fare
Must be a resident
of El Cerrito and
65+ years old or
18+ years old with
a disability; Must
complete a
written application
R-Transit 10 Richmond,
El Cerrito,
San Pablo,
North
Richmond,
El Sobrante,
Kensington,
and Pinole
Lyft
partnership,
demand
response,
group trips,
senior
nutrition
program
transportation
service, and
standing
orders
Monday-
Friday,
8:30am to
5:00pm; Lyft
partnership
(RAPID)
24/7
$4 single trip
fare (pre-
scheduled);
$5 single trip
fare (same-
day);
Lyft/RAPID
first $3 then
any cost
over $20
per trip
Must be a resident
of Richmond,
North Richmond,
El Sobrante, or
Kensington and
55+ years old or
18+ years old with
a disability; Must
complete an
online/written
application with
proof of
age/disability
9 http://www.el-cerrito.org/index.aspx?NID=285
10 http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2880/R-Transit-Paratransit
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 63 of 132
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
Service
City /
Service
Area
Description of
Service
Hours of
Operation Fares
Eligibility /
Certification
Process
San Pablo
Senior &
Disabled
Transportation
San Pablo,
parts of
Richmond,
Pinole and
El Sobrante
Door-to-door,
group trips,
nutrition
program
(brown bag),
EBP ticket
subsidy, travel
training
program, and
standing
orders
Monday-
Friday,
9:00am to
4:15pm
$2 single trip
fare
Must be a resident
of San Pablo and
50+ years old or
18+ years old with
a disability; Must
complete a
written application
Community-Based Transportation Programs
Community-based transportation services may be provided by public sector services
(e.g. a city’s senior center) or non-profit organizations. They are sometimes dedicated for
a specific clientele (i.e. Medicaid eligible persons, older adults attending meal programs,
etc.). Riders are often referred to these programs by an agency they are receiving
services from, such as a senior center, County Human Service agency, or Regional
Center.
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 64 of 132
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
Figure 2-20 Community-Based Transportation Programs
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 63 of 132
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 63 of 13202-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 64 of 132
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 65 of 132
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 66 of 132
Figure 2-21 Summary of Community-Based Transportation Programs
Service
City / Service
Area Description of Service
Arc Contra Costa (now
Vistability)
Martinez Provides on-demand transportation
service to adults and children with
intellectual and developmental
disabilities.
Choice in Aging Pleasant Hill Provides scheduled transportation to
people with disabilities and special needs,
in coordination with paratransit agencies.
Center for Elders’
Independence
El Sobrante Provides live-at-home services to people
age 55 and older. This includes
transportation to CEI center, clinics,
outside medical appointments, and field
trips. They also deliver medications to
members’ home.
El Cerrito Easy Ride* El Cerrito Easy Ride (door-to-door), day trips and
excursions, limited service beyond El
Cerrito, nutrition rides, and on-demand
service.
Get Around Taxi Program Concord Program is available to Concord residents
65 years and older. Provides s door to
door service, allows seniors to get taxi
service at a subsidized rate.
Go San Ramon! San Ramon A pilot program by County Connection
that provides discounted (up to $5) Uber
and Lyft shared trips (due to COVID-19
pandemic, this is now all trips) within the
designated San Ramon service area.
Mobility Matters* Countywide Provides two programs, one for seniors
over 60 and one for veterans. The senior
program requires riders to need door
through door escort to qualify. The
veteran program requires riders to not
have access to safe transportation to
qualify and trips cover medical, dental,
and basic necessities (e.g., grocery
shopping).
Lamorinda Spirit Van* Lamorinda Provides rides to older Lamorinda
residents (age 60 and up) to errands,
shopping, medical and personal
appointments Monday through Friday,
and to the C.C. Café at the Walnut Creek
Senior Center for lunch Tuesday through
Friday. Drivers are primarily volunteers.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
Service
City / Service
Area Description of Service
Pleasant Hill Senior Van
Service
Pleasant Hill Provides rides to destinations in pleasant
Hill Monday through Friday, and to
Concord, Martinez, and Walnut Creek for
medical and dental appointments
Mondays, Tuesdays, and/or Thursdays.
Pleasant Hill residents aged 55 and over
can register. Rides are $1.50 each way
per passenger and must be scheduled
one business day before the ride.
R-Transit* Richmond Lyft partnership, demand response, group
trips, senior nutrition program
transportation service, and standing
orders.
Rossmoor Dial-a-Bus Rossmoor Dial-A-Bus service areas include
destinations in the Rossmoor Community,
Rossmoor Shopping Center, medical
centers, and scheduled trips to the
downtown service area at specific times.
Picks riders up at their curbside entry.
Operates seven days per week, and rides
must be requested at least one hour in
advance.
San Pablo Senior
Transportation*
San Pablo Door-to-door, group trips, nutrition
program (brown bag), EBP ticket subsidy,
travel training program, and standing
orders
Senior Express Van San Ramon Provides rides for San Ramon residents
between the Alcosta Senior and
Community Center and the San Ramon
Transit Center. Rides must be scheduled
one business day in advance and riders
must be at the Transit Center no later than
9:00am (return times from the Senior and
Community Center vary by day). Rides
are $3 each way, or $2 for Encore
members.
Seniors Around Town* Orinda Provides an alternative transportation
option to riders that live in Orinda and are
65 or older or have a medical condition
that limits driving.
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 67 of 132
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 68 of 132
Service
City / Service
Area Description of Service
Walnut Creek Senior’s Club
Mini-Bus
Walnut Creek Provides rides to Walnut Creek Seniors
Club Members that are 60 years of age or
older for any purpose during service hours
for $1 each way. Service hours are 8:45am
to 3:40pm, Monday through Friday. Rides
must be schedules between 9:00am and
10:00am the day before, or up to two
days before for medical visits. Uses
volunteer drivers and dispatchers to
schedule rides
*Note that these services are also described elsewhere in the report.
Veterans Administration (VA)
Transportation Programs
The VA programs, based in the VA Medical Center in Martinez, provide a range of
services to Contra Costa veterans, as described below.
The VA travel pay reimbursement through the Beneficiary Travel program pays veterans
back for mileage and other travel expenses to and from approved health care
appointments. The VA also offers travel pay reimbursement for eligible caregivers.
The VA offers two types of travel pay reimbursement for eligible veterans:
Reimbursement Type 1: General Health Care travel
This benefit covers regular transportation, like car, plane, train, bus, taxi, or light rail.
veterans may be eligible for this reimbursement if they are traveling for care at a VA
health facility or for VA-approved care at a facility in their community. They must also
have one of the following:
Have a VA disability rating of 30% or higher, or
Be traveling for treatment of a service-connected condition, even if their VA
disability rating is less than 30%, or
Receive a VA pension, or
Have an income that’s below the maximum annual VA pension rate, or
Be traveling for a scheduled VA claim exam (also called a compensation and
pension, or C&P, exam), or
Be traveling to get a service dog, or
Can’t afford to pay for their travel, as defined by VA guidelines
If the veteran is traveling to get treatment at special disability rehabilitation centers, such
as clinics providing care for spinal cord injuries, vision loss or blindness, or prosthetics
rehabilitation, they may also be eligible if they need in-patient care.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 69 of 132
Reimbursement Type 2: Special Mode Transportation
This benefit includes special types of transportation, like an ambulance, ambulette, or
wheelchair van. The veteran may be eligible for this benefit if they meet a variety of
requirements.
As indicated above, there are some limitations that impact veterans’ mobility needs, as
follows:
Some veterans do not qualify for VA care if they received an “other than
honorable discharge, or dishonorable discharge, or weren’t injured or sick while
on active duty”. For those veterans, the agency uses an income threshold, which
also varies based on zip code.
A key need is non-authorized non-medical trips. The VA has been informed of
neighbors financially exploiting veterans who have no other means of
transportation other than paying their neighbors excessive amounts for a ride.
There are many veterans in the county who are not actively enrolled in the VA
system whose transportation needs may be met through other programs.
Same day trip needs are a big challenge for veterans. Even though the VA’s
social workers do provide information for alternative services, they basically can’t
meet veteran’s same day needs unless the trip is easily accessible via public
transport.
A hospital discharge program would be particularly beneficial to those who do
not qualify for the VA’s programs or those who are discharged during non-
operational hours.
A GRH program would be useful for working veterans.
Since the VA’s transportation services are provided during working hours, there
are many after hour mobility needs that are not served.
Contra Costa Health Plan
The Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) provides health services to low-income
communities in Contra Costa County. CCHP also provides non-emergency medical
transportation (NEMT) to clients in order to access medical services. Services have been
provided to Medi-Cal beneficiaries (95%) since 2015. These transportation benefits are
not widely advertised due to concerns about costs. Provision of an NEMT trip needs to be
prescribed by a doctor or provider. Transportation is not provided if the service is not
covered by Medi-Cal. The CCHP call center includes four full-time staff who respond to
phone inquiries and conduct “audits” of the services provided. Some of the main
mobility gaps experienced by members include ride times (used to be 90 minutes one-
way and two hours round trip, but the organization is working on reducing this to 40
minutes one-way). Other limitations include service to dialysis is only provided for the
return trip, which is a challenge for some members; members are often directed to
paratransit rather than TNCs or taxis because of accessibility issues, and the different
policies at different paratransit programs means that the call takers need to be familiar
with each of the paratransit program policies.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 70 of 132
Contra Costa County also hosts a number of Non-Emergency Medical Transportation
(NEMT) services. Non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) is an important benefit
for Medicaid beneficiaries who need to get to and from medical services but have no
means of transportation. The Code of Federal Regulations requires States to ensure that
eligible, qualified Medicaid beneficiaries have access to NEMT to take them to and from
providers. Many NEMT trips are taking people to and from dialysis clinics.
Subsidized Fare Programs/Voucher Programs
The demographic profile of Contra Costa County noted significant concentrations of
poverty for older adults and people with disabilities. Cost can be a barrier to accessing
transportation for these populations. Fixed-route transit providers offer reduced fares to
older adults 65 and above and to people with disabilities. Senior Clipper Cards can be
obtained via mail, online, and at participating transit agencies’ customer service offices.
The RTC card is a photo identification card that verifies a rider’s eligibility to receive a
reduced fare on fixed route transit. With the advent of Clipper, the RTC card now serves
as an individual’s Clipper Card which automatically applies the discount fare. RTC
Clipper cards must be obtained from a fixed route transit provider and require a
physician’s verification or proof of a DMV Disabled Parking Placard. The initial application
must be made in person and there are two locations in Contra Costa County – County
Connection Customer Service in Concord and Tri Delta Transit Customer Service in
Antioch.
Other transit agencies serving Contra Costa County that process RTC Clipper cards are
located in Alameda County. AC Transit Customer Service is located in Downtown
Oakland and BART Customer Service in Lake Merritt station. For some consumers,
obtaining a ride to one of these specific locations to apply for a card represents a
barrier. No Contra Costa County transit providers currently have means-based discount
programs for the general population.
Subsidized fare and/or voucher programs also exist that are administered through social
service agencies. Many transit agencies sell fare products at bulk discounts to social
service agencies that serve low-income populations. These organizations determine
eligibility and issue the fare products to their clients at their own discretion, free of
charge, or at significant discounts. Some programs also include fares/vouchers for
volunteer-based transportation programs and/or taxis. These programs are designed
primarily to address immediate needs and depend on the discounts offered by transit
agencies and available funds to purchase fare products.
Taxi subsidy programs allow eligible participants to use taxis at a reduced fare by
reimbursing a percentage of the fare, or by providing a low-cost fare medium, e.g. scrip
or vouchers, which can be used to cover a portion of the fare. As noted earlier, several
Contra Costa County cities offer subsidized taxis for older adults and people with
disabilities.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 71 of 132
Volunteer Driver Programs
Volunteer driver programs connect riders to a network of volunteers that provide one-
way, round-trip, and multi-stop rides. Cost of participation in these programs can be
provided free of charge, on a donation basis, through membership dues, or at a minimal
cost, and typically have an eligibility process and advance reservation requirements.
Programs are sponsored by non-profit organizations, transit agencies, or cities and
counties. Some volunteer driver programs may also have an escort component where
volunteers accompany riders with mobility devices on paratransit services, when they are
unable to travel in a private vehicle. Some programs may use staff to provide initial rides
or to fill gaps when volunteers are unavailable.
Volunteer driver programs are generally designed for older adults and can fill key needs
that are not met by other transportation services such as ADA-mandated paratransit. A
key gap these programs usually address is offering door-through-door service. These
services are therefore ideal for more frail individuals who cannot wait outside, may need
a stabilizing arm, help with a jacket or carrying groceries, etc. These programs are also
well-suited for certain medical trips, for example when someone needs to stop and pick
up a new prescription before going home, or go to a facility in another county for
specialized treatment. Volunteer driver programs usually have to closely monitor their
capacity and face ongoing challenges with funding and finding quality volunteers.
Figure 2-22 Contra Costa County Volunteer Driver Programs
Program Description 11
John Muir Health:
Caring Hands
Provides volunteer trips for medical appointments and
shopping in central, southern, and eastern Contra Costa
County
Note: At time of publication, program was discontinued and
service transferred to Mobility Matters
Lamorinda Spirit Van Provides rides to older Lamorinda residents (age 60 and up)
to errands, shopping, medical and personal appointments
Monday through Friday, and to the C.C. Café at the Walnut
Creek Senior Center for lunch Tuesday through Friday. Drivers
are primarily volunteers.
Mobility Matters Provides two programs, one for seniors over 60 and one for
veterans. The senior program requires riders to need door
through door escort to qualify. The veteran program requires
riders to not have access to safe transportation to qualify and
trips cover medical, dental, and basic necessities (e.g.,
grocery shopping)
Seniors around Orinda Riders must live in Orinda and be 65 or older or have a
medical condition that limits driving.
11 Services have been altered during COVID.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 72 of 132
Mobility Management
Mobility management services cover a wide, such as travel training, coordinated
services, trip planning, brokerage, and information and referral. For the purposes of this
resource list, mobility management services refer to the provision of individual
transportation information and assistance, and service linkage. Mobility management
services are closely related to information and referral, but go further by providing more
individually tailored information and providing service linkage. Where available, mobility
management is an ideal “entry point” for low-income populations, seniors, people with
disabilities, and veterans to the range of transportation resources available.
Mobility Matters
In Contra Costa County mobility management is provided by Mobility Matters through a
transportation information and referral helpline that utilizes a case management model
based on individual transportation needs. Callers are assisted to determine their needs
and resources that are available to them. Mobility Matters also publishes a transportation
guide “Way To Go Contra Costa,” provides individualized emergency disaster plans, and
coordinates with emergency services to assist and notify Mobility Matter’s clients in the
event of a disaster.
Private Transportation
Private transportation providers have always been an integral partner in the provision of
transportation resources for older adults and people with disabilities. Private
transportation providers are for-profit entities in the business of transporting people. As
noted earlier, most fixed-route transit agencies contract with private transportation
providers to provide ADA-mandated paratransit. This is also true of many of the
Community-Based Shuttles described earlier. In these instances, riders do not request or
access the transportation directly from the private company, but through the agency
sponsoring the service.
Other options are more likely to be requested directly by the rider. Taxis have filled gaps
in transit and paratransit service for decades. In the last decade smart phone app-based
ride-hailing companies, also called transportation network companies (TNCs), like Uber
and Lyft, have begun to fill some of the same gaps. However, smart-phone, software-
driven transportation options are difficult to track because the data is privately
controlled, and the services are volatile, with providers rapidly going into and leaving
markets or falling out of business. Other examples of private transportation are school bus
services (where available), motor coach services, shuttles, vanpools, and limousine and
sedan services.
Although private transportation providers are subject to the ADA in terms of access,
service, fares and training – the requirement to provide wheelchair accessible vehicles is
still being debated. A number of Bay Area cities and counties including Alameda, Marin,
San Francisco, and Santa Clara Counties have attempted to increase accessible taxi
options with limited success. TNC/ride-hail companies (e.g. Lyft, Uber) have attempted to
increase accessible services with limited success in different locations around the U.S.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 73 of 132
through options such as uberACCESS, uberWAV, and Lyft Access. In 2018 California
passed the TNC Access for All Act 12, a surcharge on TNC rides, which is currently
undergoing a rule-making process. The Act could result in services and/or funding to
augment transportation options for older adults and people with disabilities.
Private transportation providers can be helpful in making first and last mile connections to
transit. However, riders can face barriers when trying to use private providers directly for
an entire travel trip, including affordability, accessibility for riders with mobility devices,
and access to smartphones.
12 SB 1376 – https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/tncaccess/
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 74 of 132
3 OUTREACH
This chapter summarizes the study’s public engagement strategy and findings in the
following sections:
1.Outreach Plan
2.Virtual Outreach Toolkit
3.Survey
4.Implementation Survey
5.Web Outreachs
6.Presentations
7.Focus Groups
8.Telephone Town Hall
9. Stakeholder Interviews
10.Outreach Results from Related Reports
OUTREACH PLAN
At the outset of this effort, Nelson\Nygaard developed a framework for public outreach
and engagement that would solicit input from key individuals and organizations as well
as a broad cross-section of Contra Costa County’s communities and stakeholder groups,
particularly seniors and persons with disabilities. The outreach plan included five key
goals to support a successful Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan:
1.Educate community members about the Study and different transportation
options in the County.
2.Engage with community members and learn about current transportation usage.
3.Identify strengths and challenges of existing services and unmet needs.
4.Gather and incorporate feedback on alternative models.
5.Create support within the community for new models and identify potential
barriers to implementation.
Oversight Committees & Partnerships
The plan called for the establishment of two oversight committees - a Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) and a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) – as well as input from riders
and partnerships with Community-Based Organizations (CBOs). Oversight committee
members are listed in Chapter 1.
Technical Advisory Committee: The TAC’s purpose was to provide subject matter
expertise about technical and financial implications of service concepts under study,
and review recommendations. Its members included staff with direct operational,
management, or policy development experience with accessible transportation type
issues.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 75 of 132
Policy Advisory Committee: The PAC’s purpose was to provide Study oversight, gather
information on the subject matter, provide direction on public policy implications, and
serve as liaisons to transit districts, Regional Transportation Planning Committees, the
CCTA Board, and the Board of Supervisors. Its members included executive staff, board
members and their appointees, and subject matter experts.
Rider Input: The project team solicited input from riders through regular updates to the
County Paratransit Coordination Council (PCC), surveys, and through targeted focus
groups.
Community-Based Organization Partnerships: The project team partnered with CBOs that
support senior populations, people with disabilities, and diverse ethnicities and incomes in
each of the four planning areas of the County. Since the CBOs have already established
good contacts and legitimacy with their stakeholders, the project team communicated
through these groups and connected with community members directly through their
trusted networks.
Engagement Tools & Techniques
The plan included a set of engagement tools and techniques that the project team
originally planned pre-COVID to communicate information and solicit input from target
populations in Contra Cost County. Figure 3-1 presents the planned engagement tools
and techniques, which were to be conducted within two overall phases:
Phase 1 (January - February 2020): Receive input on transportation experiences,
challenges, and unmet needs.
Phase 2 (July-August 2020): Receive feedback on alternative service models and
identify potential barriers to implementation.
However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic that began late February 2020 leading to Bay
Areawide Public Health Department recommendations to shelter-in-place, the outreach
tools and techniques were adjusted to facilitate remote engagement. Figure 3-1
describes if/how each of the tools and techniques were updated in the wake of COVID-
19.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 76 of 132
Figure 3-1 Engagement Tools and Techniques
Engagement
Tool/Technique Updates due to COVID-19
Interviews with targeted
stakeholders
Timeline was extended to capture different perspectives throughout
COVID
Simple survey Became primary outreach tool, over 1,000 completed online, paper,
and on phone.
Public meetings (PCC) Presented by CCTA staff on Zoom meetings
Presentations as part of
other ongoing projects
Presented to Developmental Disabilities Council of Contra Costa
County and Pleasant Hill Commission on Aging. Opportunities sought
for online but not found.
Countywide Telephone
Townhall
Conducted in November
Tabling as part of other
ongoing projects
Not available
Focus groups Timeline extended as groups became accustomed to online
meetings. Five held via Zoom.
Up-to-date project
website
Reflected changes to outreach due to COVID
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 77 of 132
Virtual Outreach Toolkit
As the first shelter-in-place began in March 2020 and the scope of the pandemic
became apparent, Nelson\Nygaard pivoted the outreach strategy to an online and
virtual meeting model. Accordingly, the team developed a Toolkit for members of the
TAC and PAC, and CBO partners. The Toolkit included the following items:
A new flyer reflecting at-home participation
Flyer text for emails
Script for check-in calls
Survey
Sample Twitter text
Most materials were translated into Spanish and the surveys were also translated into
Mandarin.
Figure 3-2 Revised Flyer
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 78 of 132
SURVEY
The survey was one of the most important outreach tools used for this project.
Nelson\Nygaard conducted a mix of paper surveys and an online survey hosted on
SurveyMonkey. The survey was available in three languages: English, Spanish, and
Mandarin. We received 996 responses in English, 7 in Spanish, and 60 in Mandarin. Using
this combination, a total of 1,063 responses were collected. The map below shows the
spatial distribution of survey respondents within the County.
Figure 3-3 Map showing spatial distribution of Survey Responses
Due to the onset of COVID-19 pandemic, distribution of survey and engagement was
limited. In this case, other means to reach the public were sought. Both the printable
paper version and online SurveyMonkey survey was published on the project website in
all three languages. It was also distributed to key stakeholder groups, such as local and
regional news outlets, senior centers and programs, transit agencies for seniors and
disabled, etc. within the region in order to reach out their readers or users. These
agencies forwarded the survey to their user groups and, if applicable, posted it on their
social media to market it further.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 79 of 132
Figure 3-4 Public Engagement Collateral
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 80 of 132
There was also an additional option provided to call in and respond to the survey by
phone. Nelson\Nygaard had a dedicated team member to respond to calls and answer
questions, along with filling out the survey over the phone. There were also community
partners, such as Choice in Aging and Mobility Matters, that provided this option to their
constituents, sometimes during regular check-in wellness calls. This service led to 244
people calling in to respond to the survey who either did not have the technology or the
ability to do so themselves. About 46% of the people who filled out the survey completed
it without assistance. The remainder had somebody filling out the survey on their behalf
or they had called in to respond to questions.
The survey consisted of a total of 22 questions, 8 of which were optional depending on
the respondents’ mode of transportation. Amongst the rest, three questions were based
on their demographic information (age, place of residence, contact details), and one
was on the riders’ travel accommodations (cane, walker, etc.) In addition, the survey
asked if respondents were willing to provide contact information in order to be included
in a list for further outreach.
Survey Results
Age
Out of 809 respondents who answered
the question regarding their age, 77%
were older adults (55 years or older).
Amongst the respondents, only 16%
reported that they are certified as
eligible for service based on disability
with East Bay Paratransit, WestCAT Dial
a Ride, County Connection LINK, Tri
Delta Paratransit, or under the Regional
Transportation Connection (RTC
Clipper) program. Forty-seven percent
of this group were older adults, 49%
between the age of 18 and 54 and 2%
younger than 18.
Figure 3-5 Respondents’ Age Distribution
Less
than 18
2%
18-54
20%
55-64
9%
65-74
28%
75-84
27%
85 or
older
13%
Prefer
not to
answer
1%
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 81 of 132
Mode Share
Regarding transportation modes used, over 40% of the respondents said that they drive
themselves, followed by 38% who are driven by family, neighbor, or a paid helper. BART
was chosen by 32% of the respondents, and bus was chosen by 24%. Amongst other
modes of transportation, walking (23%) had the highest share, followed by Lyft/Uber
(15.5%), ADA Paratransit (10%), bicycle (5%), and taxi (4.5%). 29% of respondents also rely
on other forms of getting around, including Mobility Matters volunteer driver program
and Lamorinda Spirit Van.
Figure 3-6 Mode Share Distribution
Note: Respondents could choose as many modes as they used. Hence, the percentage is out of
1,063 for individual categories and not as a whole.
Amongst the 24.2% respondents who listed bus as their chosen mode of transportation,
42% were County Connection users, followed by users of AC Transit (22%), Tri Delta (20%)
and WestCAT(5%). Finally, 11% mentioned using another bus system to those already
mentioned.
The distribution for ADA paratransit was similar to the bus system. 44% of paratransit riders
use County Connection LINK and 22% use Tri Delta Paratransit, closely followed by East
Bay Paratransit (19%) making these the most popular bus services. WestCAT Dial-a-Ride
only had 6% of paratransit users. These patterns are consistent with findings in similar
studies.
33.0%
4.5%
5.4%
10.3%
15.5%
23.3%
24.2%
31.8%
38.2%
40.6%
Other
Taxi
Bicycle
ADA Paratransit
Lyft/Uber
Walking
Bus
BART
Family, neighbor, or paid helper
Drive myself
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 82 of 132
Figure 3-7 Bus Users’ Distribution
Figure 3-8 Paratransit Users’ Distribution
11%
5%
20%
22%
42%
Other
WestCAT
Tri Delta
AC Transit
County Connection
9%
6%
19%
22%
44%
Other
WestCAT Dial-a-Ride
East Bay Paratransit
Tri Delta Paratransit
County Connection…
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 83 of 132
Rider Satisfaction
Eighty-eight percent (88%) of bus users report having satisfactory or excellent bus riding
experiences and interactions with drivers, while this rate was 60% amongst ADA
paratransit users. Amongst the different bus services in the region, AC Transit had a
dissatisfaction rate of 16%, followed by Tri Delta Transit with 15%, WestCAT with 11% and
lastly, County Connection with 9%. As for the different ADA Paratransit services, the
dissatisfaction rate was highest amongst East Bay Paratransit users (64%), followed by
County Connection LINK (49%), and Tri Delta Paratransit (14%). WestCAT Dial-a-Ride had
no users who marked the level of service as poor, which could be explained by the small
sample size.
Figure 3-9 Transit and Paratransit Satisfaction Rates
As for Lyft and Uber users, out of the 15.5% of respondents who usually use Lyft or Uber to
get around, 92% report having satisfactory or excellent Lyft/Uber riding experiences and
interactions with drivers. This satisfaction rate is much higher than bus and paratransit
users.
Figure 3-10 Lyft/Uber Satisfaction Rates
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
WestCAT Dial-a-Ride
Tri Delta Paratransit
East Bay Paratransit
County Connection LINK
WestCAT
Tri Delta
AC Transit
County Connection
Excellent Satisfactory Poor
8%
48%
44%
Poor
Satisfactory
Excellent
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 84 of 132
Trip Distribution
Looking deeper into the distribution of different modes of transportation spatially, it can
be seen that for all County regions, the car is the primary mode of transportation,
whether it is people driving themselves or someone giving them a ride. Dependency on
Uber/Lyft/Taxi is the highest, after car, in Southwest - Lamorinda and East regions
amongst different modes. Dependency on riding the bus is highest in the Southwest –
Lamorinda area, followed by the West area and the Central area. Lastly, ADA Paratransit
dependency is the lowest amongst all modes for all five regions, with the lowest in
Southwest – Lamorinda area.
Figure 3-11 Mode of Transportation by Regional Transportation Planning Committee Areas
Note: Respondents could choose as many modes as they used. Hence, the percentage is out of
total respondents for each region.
Trip Purpose
Medical appointments and grocery stores/ drugstores are riders’ most common
destinations as illustrated in the graph below.
Figure 3-12 Where Are Respondents Going?
*Respondents could choose up to three trips that they take most often. Hence, the percentage is
out of total respondents (1,063) individually for each trip type.
95%
64%69%76%86%
30%
15%15%22%23%
6%
52%
22%19%25%
5%10%10%9%16%
Southwest -
Lamorinda
Southwest - San
Ramon Valley
Central East West
By Car Tax/Uber/Lyft Bus ADA Paratransit
11.3%
6.7%
7.5%
7.8%
8.2%
11.4%
17.0%
46.4%
56.3%
Other
Church
Non-medical appointment
The Senior Center
Attend a class
Work or Volunteer position
See friends or family
Grocery shopping/drugstore
Medical appointment
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 85 of 132
Transportation Challenges
Thirty-five percent (35%) of respondents also reported that medical appointments are the
most difficult to get to, followed by the grocery or drugstore (20%) and visiting friends and
family (19%). 38% of respondents also said that there are additional places they would
like to go to but are unable to get to due to lack of convenient transportation. Most of
these were recreational places such as parks, museums, tourist destinations. Improved
connectivity to BART stations emerged as a pressing need.
Figure 3-13 Which Trips are Most Difficult to Make?
Note: Respondents could choose up to three trips that they take most often. Hence, the
percentage is out of total respondents (1,063) individually for each trip type
For the different areas of the County, taking trips to medical appointments are the most
difficult for respondents. For Southwest – Lamorinda’s respondents, taking trips to grocery
shopping/drugstore and to see family and friends are most difficult after medical trips.
Within East region, there are no significant differences in the difficulties reported reaching
different destinations. Responses from residents of Southwest – San Ramon Valley and
Central region follow the same trend as the overall chart for trip difficulty.
7.0%
5.7%
6.6%
7.4%
8.5%
10.7%
18.6%
19.8%
35.1%
Other
Work or Volunteer position
Attend a class
Non-medical appointment
Church
The Senior Center
See friends or family
Grocery shopping/drugstore
Medical appointment
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 86 of 132
Figure 3-14 Most Difficult Trips for Respondents, by Area of County
Note: Respondents could choose up to three trips that they take most often. Hence, the
percentage is out of total responses within each region for each trip type.
Many survey takers living in the West region also mentioned difficulties in taking “Other” trips which
mainly includes recreational trips.
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%
Other
Work or Volunteer position
Church
The Senior Center
Attend a class
See friends or family
Non-medical appointment
Grocery shopping/drugstore
Medical appointment
Southwest - Lamorinda
Southwest - San Ramon Valley
Central
East
West
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 87 of 132
While respondents face a variety of challenges with existing transportation services in
Contra Costa County, many of them report feeling unsafe while traveling (29%). In this
context, safety refers to safer night service and more secure service to avoid thefts and
injuries. Followed by safety, respondents listed that they cannot take transportation when
they need (24%), as in the hours of service do not work for them.
Figure 3-15 Respondent Transportation Challenges
Note: Respondents could choose up to three challenges that they faced most often. Hence, the
percentage is out of total respondents (1,063) individually for each challenge.
Respondents from the Southwest - San Ramon Valley region listed safety and trip length
as their biggest concerns. After safety, service hours were the biggest challenge for
respondents from the Central Region. For respondents in the West region, transportation
service area, hours and trip duration emerged as major challenges after safety.
10.1%
11.9%
12.2%
12.7%
17.5%
18.4%
21.8%
23.0%
23.7%
29.1%
Other
There are problems with street infrastructure
I have to transfer too often
I don’t have adequate information on services
I can’t afford my transportation
No challenges
I can’t go where I need to
My trip takes too long
I can’t go when I need to
I don’t feel safe when traveling
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 88 of 132
Respondents in the East region did not show significant differences between their
concerns.
Figure 3-16 Transportation Challenges, by Area of County
Note: Respondents could choose up to three challenges that they faced most often. Hence, the
percentage is out of total responses within each region for each challenge.
0%5%10%15%20%
Other
I don’t feel safe when traveling
I can’t afford my transportation
I don’t have the information on services
There are problems with the street
infrastructure
My trip takes too long
I can’t go when I need to
I have to transfer too often
I can’t go where I need to
Southwest - Lamorinda
Southwest - San Ramon Valley
Central
East
West
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 89 of 132
Respondents want more frequent trips (30%), followed by same-day trips (22%), i.e. trips
that can be booked on the same day that the trip needs to be taken, similar to
Uber/Lyft, and trips at different times of the week, including evenings and weekends
(20%). Out of area medical trips (23%) is another common transportation need listed by
respondents. Some of the destinations mentioned for out of area medical trips were
University of California- San Francisco campus, Stanford University School of Medicine,
Kaiser in Vallejo, and Summit, Pleasanton and Eden Medical Centers.
Figure 3-17 Preferred Transportation Services
Note: Respondents could choose up to three needs that they require most often. Hence, the
percentage is out of total respondents (1,063) individually for each need type.
Breaking down this need further by region, frequent trips was the top need that the
respondents requested in three out of the five regions (except Southwest - Lamorinda
and West Regions). Respondents in the Southwest - Lamorinda and West Regions listed
other improvements such as additional bus services as their top need. For Southwest -
Lamorinda, out of area medical trips and same day trips are also listed as respondents’
top needs. Whereas for the West region, frequent, same-day and evening/weekend trips
are additional needs mentioned. The Southwest - San Ramon Valley and Central regions
follow the trend of the overall needs chart. The East region follows the same trend as
before, where all the needs had almost equal response rates.
7.5%
10.8%
11.4%
13.7%
14.9%
20.1%
22.1%
22.8%
30.4%
Wheelchair accessible trips
Accessible sidewalks, curb ramps, bus stops,…
Travel information or training
Assistance entering or exiting home/…
Recreational/ group trips
Evening or weekend trips
Same-day trips
Out of area medical trips
Frequent trips (daily or 3-4 times a week)
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 90 of 132
Figure 3-18 Preferred Transportation Services, by Area of County
Note: Respondents could choose up to three needs that they require most often. Hence, the
percentage is out of total responses within each region for each need.
0%5%10%15%20%25%
Other suggestions for
improvements
Same-day trips
Wheelchair accessible trips
Frequent trips (daily or 3-4 times
a week)
Out of area medical trips
Assistance entering or exiting
home/ destination
Evening or weekend trips
Recreational/ group trips
Accessible sidewalks, curb
ramps, bus stops, etc.
Travel information or training
Southwest - Lamorinda
Southwest - San Ramon Valley
Central
East
West
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 91 of 132
Implementation Survey
While developing the Plan, the team created a new survey to ask stakeholders to help
prioritize potential strategies for implementation. CCTA may choose to continue the
survey to collect input on priorities as the Plan moves forward.
WEB OUTREACH
Nelson\Nygaard developed a dedicated website for the project that provided brief
context to the project and what it entails, ways one could participate in the project, up
to date project documents, news articles regarding the project, and lastly, a webform to
join the mailing list and/or to provide comments.
Figure 3-19 Project Website Homepage
The webform responses were all logged, addressed and maintained by Nelson\Nygaard
staff. There have been more than 60 responses via the webform so far. Out of which 50
responses are people who want to join the mailing list and stay updated regarding the
project progress.
The team also received and kept track of all the emails that were sent by residents of
Contra Costa County with concerns about the project or feedback. Most of these direct
emails were regarding service addition to particular areas.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 92 of 132
Figure 3-20 Project Website Mailing List Sign-Up Form
PRESENTATIONS
Nelson\Nygaard presented to the Developmental Disabilities Council of Contra Costa
County on February 18, 2020. CCTA and County staff presented to the Pleasant Hill
Commission on Aging on March 12, 2020. When in-person meetings were rendered
undoable in mid-March due to shelter-in-place restrictions, further opportunities were
sought for presentations at online meetings, but were not found.
FOCUS GROUPS
Nelson\Nygaard conducted five virtual focus groups with seniors and persons with
disabilities. These focus groups were hosted in place of the in-person meetings that the
project team initially expected to hold with CBOs (prior to the pandemic). The
conversations enabled the project team to have in-depth conversations with certain
populations that had not been reached sufficiently through other forms of public
engagement; specifically, they were designed to receive feedback from adults with
disabilities, people with Limited English Proficiency, and residents in West County. During
the conversations, participants shared their experiences with transportation services in
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 93 of 132
Contra Costa County both during and before the COVID-19 pandemic, including key
challenges, opportunities, and priorities. Figure 3-21 describes the target population of
each group, how many people participated, and the date of the event.
Figure 3-21 Summary of Focus Groups
Host Group Target Population
Number of
Participants Date
Diablo Valley College Students with disabilities and
staff 5 June 17, 2020
San Ramon Senior Center Seniors and Mandarin-
speaking residents 10 July 24, 2020
City of El Cerrito West County residents 14 August 3, 2020
Lighthouse for the Blind Visually impaired individuals 13 August 11, 2020
San Pablo Senior Center West County and Spanish-
speaking residents 3 August 31, 2020
Focus group participants reported that they use a variety of transportation modes,
including paratransit, transit, and Lyft/Uber ride-hail services, to make essential and non-
essential trips in Contra Costa County. Many participants find that the paratransit and
transit services across the County are fragmented and that there is a lack of awareness
about non-driving options. As a result, many people rely on family, friends, or neighbors to
drive them, which can be challenging because people are not always available or
willing to drive. For these reasons, the focus group conversations sought to understand
the barriers and challenges that people face when traveling within Contra Costa
County. The following sections describe the feedback we heard from participants
regarding three modes: paratransit, transit, and Lyft/Uber.
Paratransit
Focus group participants expressed a handful of challenges related to paratransit. Most
participants who use or have used paratransit in the past, emphasized that paratransit
lacks reliability due to long wait times and challenging timing issues. For instance, one
participant mentioned how she has had to leave important medical appointments early
because the driver arrived ahead of schedule, and how she has missed important
appointments because the driver arrived late. Also, scheduling a paratransit ride requires
advanced planning, which is not always possible. Furthermore, participants find that
paratransit is expensive; for this reason, many rely on transit services instead. People
provided mixed reviews regarding the helpfulness of drivers – some help carry groceries,
while others do not.
Perhaps one of the greatest challenges is a lack of access to information about
paratransit services. This highlights a major equity concern, as people often do not know
that they may be eligible for paratransit service. Many participants expressed a desire for
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 94 of 132
improved access to information about non-driving options. One participant shared that
she only recently learned that people with disabilities can apply for paratransit. Since this
service is not advertised, she and others who need it are not aware of this service.
Many participants also noted that they feel limited by the types of paratransit stop types.
They would like additional stops that would increase access to shopping centers, parks,
and other places that support their personal well-being outside of medical
appointments. During the pandemic, some paratransit agencies have offered services
for shopping trips. Participants indicated that they like this option and would like to see it
continue in the future.
Transit
Many focus group participants do not qualify for paratransit services, did not know it was
an option, or find that the barriers to access it (i.e. fares) are too high. Thus, many
participants rely on transit services for essential and non-essential trips.
Focus group participants indicated several challenges that they encounter while riding
transit and/or barriers to using the public transit system. For many, BART feels unsafe and
unclean; these conditions often deter people from taking transit at night or at all. People
find that there are poor walking conditions in and around station/stop areas and that
other riders are inconsiderate. Furthermore, announcements on buses/BART are lacking,
do not work consistently, and/or are not loud enough. Also, one participant noted that
she often uses the bus for one direction of her trip, but not for her return trip because she
has difficulty navigating the stops; this participant expressed that she would like training
on how to use public transit.
Participant feedback indicates that bus experience is very much dependent on how the
driver responds to the passenger and the amenities on- and off-board the bus. Drivers
vary in terms of how responsive they are to the passengers’ needs. For example, one
visually impaired participant noted that she has to communicate with the bus driver
about her stop because she has trouble locating the cord on the bus; some drivers
remember where she plans to get off, while others forget. In addition, elderly and
disabled participants mentioned that the different floor levels within the bus can be
difficult to navigate. They also noted that the lack of benches at bus stops and the poor
first/last-mile connection between their home and a bus stop often discourages them
from taking the bus.
During the pandemic, most participants who used BART and other transit services are not
currently using these services. The shelter-in-place mandate and social distancing
practices have discouraged much of what would have been “normal” travel. However,
participants also described a few barriers related to the transit systems that have
discouraged them from riding during this time:
•Bus systems are requiring back door boarding; this is challenging for disabled
persons and seniors because the back entrance is high and most lack a ramp
•Buses may skip stops due to limited capacity constraints (to maintain social
distancing on board); this creates significantly longer wait times for riders and bus
tracking apps are not accurate
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 95 of 132
•Passengers are concerned that not all riders are practicing social distancing
Lyft/Uber
Some participants reported that they occasionally use Lyft/Uber if they are unable or
would prefer not to ride transit or paratransit. For instance, people who can no longer
drive but do not quality for paratransit because they do not need assistance door-to-
door, may opt to use Lyft/Uber in areas where transit service is limited or feels unsafe.
While these services can be convenient given their on-demand, door-to-door service,
they also pose some challenges to their riders. Those who use these services indicated
that it can be difficult to communicate with the drivers; for this reason, transit can be a
better option. Furthermore, a handful of participants mentioned that dog shaming in
Lyft/Uber is a common experience; thus, those who travel with a dog, many of which
may be service animals (which are legally authorized), do not feel comfortable using
these services because of driver reactions. Furthermore, Lyft/Uber is expensive, especially
currently as pooling is not allowed during the pandemic. Most people who had been
using these services, are not currently doing so during the pandemic.
TELEPHONE TOWN HALL
Nelson\Nygaard hosted a live Telephone Town Hall on 27th October 2020. The Town Hall
was available in three languages: English, Spanish, and Mandarin. At this event,
Nelson\Nygaard dialed more than 23,000 numbers, out of which 1,149 participants
accepted the call and joined in over the phone line all over Contra Costa County to
understand more about this project and get some of their questions answered. The event
was pre-registered by 225 people and other phone numbers were provided by project
partners, staff and people who had previously shown interest in staying in the loop about
the project. Before the Telephone Townhall all participants were called to connect to the
Town Hall and callers could choose to be connected or hang up.
The event was held over an hour and was hosted by a facilitator who navigated the
questions and conducted the flow of the conversation. The Town Hall had two featured
speakers: Candace Andersen who represents the Board of Supervisors, and Teresa
Gerringer, who is a Lafayette Councilmember and member of the CCTA Board. The
event was also attended by four key project staff from Nelson\Nygaard, Contra Costa
County and CCTA. There were two additional support staff to troubleshoot in case
something comes up.
Telephone Town Hall worked like a live radio show. Once connected, participants
listened to the presentations by featured speakers and staff about the ATS project and
next steps. To make the event interactive, participants were asked to complete simple
poll questions and were also given opportunities to ask questions about the project and
provide feedback on other mobility challenges in the county. Four multiple choice poll
questions were asked as part of the interaction, where the participants could answer by
dialing their answer on the phone number pad. Not all participants answered the polls.
The questions and their respective responses are shown below:
a.What part of the County do you live in? (64 total responses)
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 96 of 132
i.East – 25 participants (39%)
ii.West – 6 participants (9%)
iii. Central – 26 participants (41%)
iv.Southwest – 7 participants (11%)
b. Are there places you would like to go, but are unable to get to due to lack of
convenient transportation? (56 total responses)
i.Yes – 34 participants (61%)
ii.No – 22 participants (39%)
c.What are the challenges you face with existing transportation services in Contra
Costa County? (31 total responses)
i.I cannot travel at the time I want to – 7 participants (23%)
ii. I cannot travel where I want to – 8 participants (26%)
iii.My trip takes too long – 16 participants (52%)
d.What transportation services do you need that you do not currently receive? (25 total
responses)
i. Evening or weekend trips – 9 participants (36%)
ii. Frequent trips, such as daily or 3-4 times a week – 3 participants (12%)
iii.Out of area medical trips – 6 participants (24%)
iv.Same-day trips – 7 participants (28%)
Other than the survey questions, the speakers and staff answered 17 questions asked by
the participants. Following are some of the highlights from the question and answer
session:
In response to a number of callers’ questions about ensuring that the study not “sit on the
shelf”, Council Member Gerringer, Supervisor Andersen and Peter Engel indicated that
elected officials at the county and city levels are committed to serving as champions of
the study’s recommendations, at the same time that they are aware of the existing fiscal
constraints. As such, they welcomed participants’ inputs to help prioritize the
recommendations. Richard Weiner gave a similar response to a caller who was
questioning how the study’s recommendations can be given priority by elected officials
who are able to find funding for other projects such as the fourth bore in the Caldecott
Tunnel.
Naomi Armenta explained to a caller who is unable to use the fixed route system that
she can apply for ADA paratransit certification or call CCTA to find out about additional
options.
In response to a question about out of county trips, Richard affirmed that these are
difficult trips to provide, but indicated that the study will look at innovative models that
have been used in other locations in order to address this mobility need. Naomi
responded to a similar question about out of town trips and indicated to the caller that
as a wheelchair user she too is sensitive to accessibility concerns.
Naomi indicated to a caller who was concerned about the conditions of sidewalks and
how they impact residents’ ability to access bus stops that infrastructure improvements
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 97 of 132
are probably beyond the reach of this study, but the team will be looking at service
models that will transport riders to fixed route services such as BART or key bus stops.
In response to two questions about fare unaffordability for low-income people, John
Cunningham indicated that the study will be considering fare discounts that go beyond
the required levels for seniors and people with disabilities but reminded listeners that
because of fiscal constraints it will be important that the study receive input on how to
prioritize strategies. Peter Engel reiterated that affordability will be a key issue to be
addressed in the study.
A resident of Camino Tassajara asked a question about how residents of that and other
rural locations can be better served. Peter Engel indicated that the study will be looking
at TNCs and taxis as one possible way of serving these areas but will also explore other
options. A similar response was given to a question about serving far eastern Contra
Costa County.
In response to a question about the future of the subsidized Lyft program in Walnut
Creek, Peter indicated that this is considered to be a very successful program and the
study will look for ways of expanding this to other locations.
Richard confirmed in response to a caller’s question that the study will be looking at a
Consolidated Transportation Agency (CTSA) as a model for overall coordination of
transportation in the county and will be looking at what worked and did not work at
other CTSAs in the state.
Peter confirmed with a caller that funding issues will be addressed in the study.
In response to a caller who was concerned about the future of paratransit services in the
county, Richard indicated that while the study will certainly not call for a reduction in
paratransit services, there are events beyond the study that could impact overall
services, such as the impact of COVID on transit ridership and sales tax revenues.
In response to a caller who was concerned about missed fixed route connections,
Richard indicated that while he isn’t familiar with the specific routes indicated by the
caller, if he is eligible for paratransit there is a new one seat ride pilot program that could
address this need, even while he appreciated the caller’s commitment to try using fixed
route service. Peter added the county is currently working on a pilot with Tri-Delta called
Connection Protection which will enable train riders to call their connecting bus to let
them know that their train is running late and they should wait for the transfer. When this
program is implemented it should address the caller’s concern.
Finally, Naomi responded to a caller who was concerned about whether people with
intellectual disabilities are being considered in the study that indeed they are, and that
the study will consider a number of ways in which use of transportation is a challenge for
people with various disabilities.
The participants were directed to the project website for more information and to fill out
the webform, in case of more questions. Overall, it was a successful event that reached
out to a lot of the key stakeholder and focus groups, especially those without access to
or knowledge of the internet technology. The entire Town Hall was also transcribed and
provided to participants who asked and to people who could not attend the event and
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 98 of 132
wanted to hear the conversation. The transcript and the recording were also uploaded
on the project website for members of the public to look at.
Use of the Telephone Town Hall was determined to be very effective at raising the
visibility of the project and educating the public about the project’s goals. TTH was a
very efficient way of reaching over a thousand members of the public, most of whom
would have been challenged to attend an in-person meeting. However, as far as
substantive input on the study contents, this may be considered a rather limited medium
due to the volume of participants, and the short time frame of the event.
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
Nelson\Nygaard conducted a series of stakeholder interviews over the course of the
year, starting in March of 2020 and then stopping to pause and reflect on the
circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. The interview questions were reevaluated to
reflect post-pandemic circumstances and were then completed between September to
November. The agencies contacted by Nelson\Nygaard included a range from public
to nonprofits, which represented different stakeholder groups and interests. The
interviewed agencies are listed in the table below:
Figure 3-22 Summary of Stakeholder Interviews
Organization or Agency Name Area of County
County Connection Central, Southwest
East Bay Paratransit West, Southwest
Tri Delta Transit East
WestCAT West
Martinez VA Clinic Central
Choice in Aging Central
Contra Costa ARC Countywide
Contra Costa Health Plan / Health Services Countywide
Independent Living Resource Center (ILR) - Concord / Independent
Living Resources of Solano & Contra Costa Counties (ILRSCC)
Central
Office of Emergency Services Countywide
Mobility Matters Countywide
These stakeholder interviews focused on understanding how each of these organizations
function and some of the key gaps and needs that they have identified. The interviews
also captured the agencies’ opinion on some of the umbrella strategies that had come
up in previous Technical Advisory Committee and Public Advisory Committee meetings.
Below are some of the common themes that came up from the interviews.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 99 of 132
Creation of a Coordinating Agency such as a Consolidated
Transportation Services Agency (CTSA)
One of the key questions addressed by stakeholders is whether there is a need for a
coordinating agency to implement study recommendations, and whether this needs to
be a CTSA. A CTSA is a designation by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MYC) that provides certain limited benefits regarding state funding. More details on
CTSAs is provided in Chapter 5.
On the question of whether there is a need to create a new entity that oversees the
transportation services for human service agencies, interviewees generally agreed on
the need for a coordinating agency but disagreed about whether this needs to be in the
form of a CTSA.
Those in favor emphasized the gaps in existing services that they believed will continue as
long as there is no centralized entity that provides comprehensive oversight of
transportation service delivery. They also pointed out that CTSAs have been
recommended in previous studies for good reason, as lack of coordination has been
seen as a key weakness in the system of service delivery in the county. In the current
service delivery structure, existing agencies would not be able to take on everything on
the proposed “shopping list” of mobility strategies. Instead, a new entity whose primary
focus would be working to provide high quality paratransit and human services
transportation will work most efficiently.
Conversely, those opposed to the creation of a CTSA were concerned that this new
entity would lead to an overall loss of service, particularly those services that exceeded
the minimum ADA requirements or that received TDA 4.0 funding. Stakeholders
indicated that proponents mistakenly (according to the interviewees) believe there will
be economies of scale, even though there will remain a need for multiple facilities
throughout the county to minimize deadheading, and centralization would reduce the
potential for spreading overhead costs over both fixed route and paratransit services.
There was also a concern about the diversion of existing funding sources to cover CTSA
administrative costs. Finally, opponents indicated that 13C labor considerations had not
been fully taken into account when considering the benefits of a CTSA.
Even those who weren’t necessarily supportive of a CTSA indicated that there are
potential benefits from a centralized agency, such as joint procurements, unified ADA
paratransit eligibility process, a unified call center and outreach messaging.
Identified Gaps and Concerns
Over the course of the interviews, each stakeholder listed their top concerns and
identified key gaps within the existing system. Many of the concerns identified in the
interviews were similar to the responses to the online public survey, such as issues with
transferring between paratransit vehicles and from paratransit to fixed route, which can
lead to long and confusing trips for the rider; need for service during evenings and
weekends; frequent trips to social and recreational places within the county; safety and
hygiene within the vehicles; provision of East Bay Paratransit trips during peak hours when
significant service is assigned to Regional Center trips; long ride times on Health Plan trips.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 100 of 132
Some of the other issues that were listed were the loss of revenue to human service
programs due late arrivals by clients, wait-time on return trips, and overtime costs for the
agencies; concerns with loss of existing funding due to change in programs; lack of
volunteers for driver programs, especially in East County; the belief that many people in
the county are technologically limited and do not have access to the internet.
Recommendations
The interviewees were also asked to list their agencies’ top five priority recommendations
or programs that they think will address some of the issues listed above. Following are the
ones that were most frequently mentioned.
•Same day rides
•Dedicated service for certain trip types (such as dialysis and Regional Center
trips)
•Extensive volunteer driver program
•Wheelchair breakdown service
•Real- time information
•One call/one click call center
•Travel training
•Regional connected trips without transfers
•Fare subsidies
•Hospital discharge program
•Guaranteed Ride Home program for working veterans
•Training for Uber and Lyft drivers in how to serve people with disabilities
Other Recommendations and Concerns for Specific
Stakeholder Groups
Some of the agencies that were interviewed represented a specific group or service
such as the Office of Emergency Services which focuses on planning, outreach, and
training as it relates to Disaster Management and Emergency Preparedness. One
concern they stated was the potential impact of language barriers in the event of an
evacuation, particularly with people in the deaf community. They also recommended
further coordination with adjoining agencies outside Contra Costa in order to transfer
people out of a disaster area if local services are overstretched.
Similarly, the Martinez VA Clinic expressed concerns about non-authorized non-medical
trips as a key need for veterans, along with same-day trips. Many veterans fall through
the cracks of eligibility if they received a less than honorable discharge, and most
services are geared towards medical services, rather than other trip purposes. Service
provided through the VA is also limited to day-time hours, thus not meeting many of the
veterans’ mobility needs.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 101 of 132
One stakeholder stated that the paratransit programs should not be expected to be all
things for all people i.e. designated agencies should serve the needs of specific
populations, such as those attending dialysis clinics or adult day health centers. A
centralized agency could oversee contracts with these various entities, thus lightening
the burden on the paratransit programs.
Recommendations for Moving Forward with the Plan
Most of the interviewed organizations suggested that the Nelson\Nygaard team review
ongoing or successful programs that could be replicated in the County. Overall, the
stakeholder interviews provided insight into the workings of these organizations and also
gave the team an understanding of potential implementation issues. The request from
some of the stakeholders was to create a solid implementation plan to increase the
likelihood that recommended strategies and programs would be implemented. One of
the agencies indicated that they expected this plan to be implementable rather than a
visionary document.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 102 of 132
4 IDENTIFICATION OF
TRANSPORTATION NEEDS AND
GAPS
The transportation needs identified in this chapter draw on several sources including
demographics and analysis of current programs (Chapter 2), outreach conducted with
consumers, their advocates, and agencies who serve them (Chapter 3), and other
reports. Many of the needs and gaps identified in this chapter have been identified in
prior studies.
Issues and Needs Related to
Fixed-Route Transit Service
Fixed-route transit services are often a lifeline to older adults, people
with disabilities, people with low income, and also veterans. In the
course of the study’s outreach activities, stakeholders spoke of issues
that had been exacerbated by COVID-19, such as crowding on
buses, length of wait at stops, mismatched transfers, etc.
Identification of potential transit need based on demographic
measures (population density, jobs, older adults, people with
disabilities, and where lower income persons live) compared to existing transit service
indicates the areas where there are potential gaps. There appears to be a patchwork of
gaps of medium to high need in West County and in Central County in the areas of
Concord and Pleasant Hill. There is a lower level of need but larger geographic areas in
North County such as near Port Chicago, East County around Antioch and Brentwood,
and South County east of San Ramon (refer to Figure 2-8 in Chapter 2).
Additional needs included:
Many respondents reported feeling unsafe while traveling; BART feels unsafe and
unclean and announcements are not clear
Bus drivers are not always responsive to passenger needs and bus amenities such
as lack of shelters pose challenges for seniors and people with disabilities
Stakeholders find it challenging to get to the two locations where people can
apply for Regional Transit Connection (RTC) cards (for reduced transit fares due
to disability)
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 103 of 132
Transit has been challenging to ride during the pandemic (thus most people are
not using it) due to back door boarding, skipped stops due to capacity
constraints, longer wait times, and concerns about social distancing
Issues and Needs Related to ADA
Mandated Paratransit Service
Similar to fixed-route transit, stakeholders discussed a range of
concerns related to ADA-mandated paratransit. The ADA
establishes minimum requirements for the provision of
complementary paratransit service which all Contra Costa
operators meet. However, the travel needs of the senior and
disabled community consistently exceed or are often outside of
these requirements, financial resources, and operational capacity, which creates
challenges.
Four different providers with different fare structures and media, and different
certification processes create confusion for customers
Issues with transferring between different ADA paratransit services
Paratransit lacks reliability (long wait times and challenging timing issues), requires
advanced planning, is expensive, has mixed reviews regarding helpfulness of
drivers, and has limited stop types (during the COVID mode of service provision)
Tri-Delta Transit and WestCAT offer supplemental services to residents aged 65+
but others do not
Consumers report arriving late to day programs and are picked up late e.g.
Regional Center trips for people with developmental disabilities
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 104 of 132
Issues and Needs Related to Community Based
Transportation Services
Community-based transportation services may be provided
by public sector services (e.g. a city’s senior center) or
nonprofit organizations. Contra Costa County has a wide
range of these types of programs including city-based
programs (e.g. San Pablo Senior & Disabled Transportation) and programs offered by
nonprofit organizations (e.g. Mobility Matters.) In most cases providing transportation is
not the core mission of the nonprofit agency but is provided to fill specific gaps for
agency clients rather than the general population. Programs such as these are often
challenged to meet gaps and needs not filled by ADA paratransit service. There are a
range of programs throughout the County, but nevertheless, gaps remain.
City services that supplement ADA-mandated programs are only located in West
County
There are two volunteer driver programs in the County, a third – John Muir Health:
Caring Hands – recently closed
The two volunteer driving programs need more volunteers and more reliable
funding to increase capacity; reliance on volunteer driver programs to fill door-to-
door transportation needs is problematic
Monument Shuttle recently shut down due to lack of funding
Consumers have difficulty making frequent trips
Wheelchair accessible transportation options are limited in parts of the County; if
available, users must schedule 2-3 days in advance
Geographic and Temporal Inequities
A review of demographics and the location of services in the
County makes geographic inequities evident. East County in
particular faces a number of challenges.
There is a concentration of seniors south of Brentwood,
and disabled veterans throughout rural East County
There are no community-based transportation services
in East County
There are a number of disabled veterans in other remote areas such as South of
Moraga and North County near Port Chicago
A prior study in West County discussed the closure of Doctors Medical Center, the
most frequently used emergency room in West County; most medical facilities
appear to be clustered in the center of the County between Pleasant Hill and
Walnut Creek
Two facilities that are needed by residents throughout the County are both
located in Martinez - the Regional Medical Center and the VA Medical Center
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 105 of 132
The current Mobility Matters program is unable to cover all parts of the county
effectively and has been impacted by a depletion of grant funding
Many stakeholders report a need for expanded service during evenings and
weekends
Lack of Affordability
Low-income populations are particularly concentrated in West
County, Concord, and North County near Pittsburg and Antioch.
Concern with affordability related to all transportation
services
Lack of means-based discount program for general
population (which is planned to be addressed through
MTC’s Clipper START pilot program)
Lyft/Uber is expensive and it can be difficult to communicate with drivers; dog
shaming (referring to the reluctance of Uber/Lyft drivers to take blind passengers
and their service animals) also common
Access to Essential Services
General access to essential services and quality of life needs
arose repeatedly in community engagement efforts.
Consumers expressed the need for same-day trips and
wheelchair accessible trips
Consumers found it difficult to travel to medical
appointments; out of area medical trips were noted to be an issue
Some consumers are too frail to use traditional services when discharged from a
hospital during non-operational hours
Long ride times on Health Plan trips
Consumers found it challenging to access grocery stores and shopping
Consumers had difficulty in making quality of life-essential trips to visit friends and
family, the senior center, and church
Access to Information
In West County, Concord, Pittsburg, and other areas of Contra
Costa County with a high proportion of people of color, there is a
concern that residents are less likely to be informed of the
transportation options available to them.
Emerging transportation services require a higher level of
technical sophistication than traditional services. This creates a
barrier between targeted populations of seniors and disabled
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 106 of 132
people and the transportation services they need. Lack of information was cited as a
challenge to many residents.
Awareness about accessible programs/options is lacking among eligible
populations; paratransit services generally don’t do marketing or other
campaigns to increase ridership in direct contrast to conventional transit
Veterans’ transportation programs have specific limitations, availability and limits
may not be well-known
There is a lack of awareness of non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT)
options provided to Medi-Cal beneficiaries
Programmatic Needs and
Organizational Structure
Stakeholders provided a significant amount of input regarding
programmatic needs and organizational structure, partially in
reaction to participation in prior studies.
Accessible services for seniors and people with disabilities
are siloed between transit agencies, social service
agencies, cities, and non-profit organizations
Limited coordination exists between existing providers,
which limits ease of use for users and presents difficulty to providers, particularly
related to lengthy trips that require transfers between different agencies (such as
fare coordination, coordinating pick-up times etc.)
Stakeholders expressed interest and concerns about the creation of a
Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) to improve coordination
and address gaps in service
Historical lack of political support/ a champion for these types of
recommendations
Funding for these types of services is limited and/or stagnant; grants are available
for planning and pilots, but still need funding for ongoing operations
Significant portions of current funding, such as for ADA-mandated paratransit
programs, are restricted on how and to whom they can provide service.
Regulatory concerns also affect transportation to and from healthcare.
Private vehicles (e.g. taxis, Lyft/Uber), which are often looked at to supplement
service are not required to provide accessible vehicles, can be prohibitively
expensive, or are limited in availability.
Need to plan for / accommodate future growth of seniors in the County
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 107 of 132
5 Recommended Strategies
This Strategic Plan recommends strategies to both facilitate Countywide transportation
coordination efforts and address specific transportation gaps through mobility strategies
that have been adopted in other counties in the Bay Area and throughout the country.
While some strategies can be implemented in the short term through existing
organizations and agencies, it is critical that an organizational infrastructure be created
in order to facilitate the implementation of other mobility strategies as well as advocate
for increased funding, modify strategies to respond to changing conditions, and monitor
overall performance of different strategies. This chapter first presents the steps that will
need to be taken in order to facilitate this process, followed by an evaluation
methodology for prioritization of a broad range of strategies. The strategies
recommended in this chapter respond to a combination of extensive input from
members of the public, advisory committees, agency staff, and are based on the
consultant’s experience with coordination efforts throughout the country.
ESTABLISH A COORDINATED STRUCTURE
A coordinated structure will need to be in place to implement countywide and
centralized mobility strategies, as described later in this chapter. Due to the complexity
of implementing a coordinated service, as described previously1, establishment of this
structure will be an iterative, two-phase process. In the short term a Task Force will need
to be established that will be responsible for identifying which strategies require a
dedicated entity to increase the likelihood of implementation of countywide study
recommendations, and which strategies could be assigned to existing entities for
implementation in the shorter term.
It should be noted that in the Telephone Town Hall and committee meetings a number of
stakeholders questioned how the present study will succeed in implementation of
recommended strategies where previous studies did not. Apart from the higher level of
collaboration evident in the current effort, this distinction between 1) establishment of an
overall coordination infrastructure and 2) usage of existing entities for more short-term
improvements, is an attempt to address the lessons that have been learned from
previous efforts. More details on this approach are provided below.
Phase 1: Establish a Task Force
Nelson\Nygaard recommends that an Accessible Transportation Strategy (ATS)
Implementation Task Force (TF) be established to take the study recommendations to the
1 ATS Plan Policy Briefing Packet: Page 8: Potential Barriers in the Implementation of Coordinated Transportation
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 108 of 132
next level of implementation. Following are some of the elements of this task that will
need to be implemented:
Composition: The TF should include representatives of a broad variety of individuals
representing agencies or user groups that have a stake in the project outcomes. At the
very least, this TF should include representatives of relevant human service agencies,
transit agencies, elected officials, disability and older adult advocates representing a
range of segments of these communities, veterans, funding bodies, and other
representatives.
To expedite the development of the TF, we recommend that it be composed of a
modified version of the current PAC, depending on interest, availability, and
representation of a diversity of interests.
Mission: The TF will have three primary tasks:
1.Identify ATS recommended strategies that can be delegated to existing agencies
or non-profit organizations that do not require a Coordinated Entity for short term
implementation.
2.Define and establish a dedicated countywide Coordinated Entity for
implementation of countywide strategies.
3.Identify funding
Activities should include prioritizing of the strategies presented in this study, and
development of an incremental approach to strategy implementation. This would
ensure that select study recommendations can be implemented in the short-term rather
than waiting for the creation or designation of a unified entity for implementation of
large-scale, longer term strategies.
Reporting Structure and Administrative Support: One option will be assigning the
responsibility of interim oversight of the TF to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(CCTA) in order to ensure continuity beyond the present study. CCTA could designate
staff resources to provide the support needed by the TF to fulfil its duties. This
recommendation has not been considered by CCTA, but has been presented to the
oversight committees to allow for the suggestion of alternative options. With the timing of
approval of the ATSP (planned for February/March 2021), CCTA could adopt the process
as part of its FY 2021-22 Work Plan in its Congestion Management Agency (CMA) Work
Plan.
The TF could be an advisory committee to the CCTA Board and report regularly on
activities. It would need to be determined how/when the TF would report to the County
Board of Supervisors, and/or transit agency Boards.
Funding Sources: Potential overhead costs for this task should be relatively limited
beyond the required staffing support.
Political Feasibility: It is anticipated that establishment of this TF will encounter little
political resistance as stakeholders are familiar with the incremental approach that can
result in implementation of smaller scale but meaningful improvements.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 109 of 132
CCTA may be limited in its ability to lead some of these strategies due to its legislative
authority 2 and may need to either explore different governance alternatives or expand
its authority through specific legislation.
Time Frame: Once the ATSP has been approved by the CCTA Board and County Board
of Supervisors, the TF could begin operating within three to six months. If the PAC is used
as the basis for the formulation of the TF, it will ease implementation of this
recommendation. The TF would remain in place until it completed its mission and could
be dissolved once a CE is in place.
Phase 2: Establish a Dedicated
Countywide Coordinated Entity
A Coordinated Entity (CE) should either be created or designated to implement
countywide study recommendations. The TF will be responsible for determining where
this entity should be housed – it could be in an existing non-profit or public agency, or the
TF could determine that a new entity will need to be established.
Mission: The role of the CE would be to implement study recommendations. Examples of
strategies to be implemented by the CE could include:
Identify and pursue new funding sources
Administer a uniform countywide ADA paratransit eligibility certification
Expand mobility management function
Procure joint paratransit scheduling software
Present a unified voice regarding policy and funding at the local, state, and
federal levels
Oversee a one-seat ride for inter-jurisdictional trips both within and outside the
county
Additional opportunities for countywide service could be considered in the future as
appropriate.
Political Feasibility: Although previous studies have recommended a centralized entity
for coordination of transportation efforts countywide, these have not been implemented
to date. The 2013 Mobility Management Plan 3 stated that a barrier to progress in the
County is, “...the lack of a structural platform...” and specifically recommended the
establishment of a Coordinated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA). It will be
important for the TF to reflect on what was learned from that process and what should
be done differently in considering the CTSA model and alternatives.
2 California Public Utilities Code Sections 180000 et seq., added Statutes 1987, Chapter 786,
3 2013 Contra Costa Mobility Management Plan “This Plan recommends the formation of an organization to
take the lead in implementing a broad range of mobility management strategies. Specifically, a Consolidated
Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) is recommended for Contra Costa County.”
https://cocodcd.egnyte.com/dl/Kuu6OSY0Hi
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 110 of 132
The TF will decide where the CE will be housed and this entity can apply to become a
CTSA 4 if determined that this is the most effective vehicle for achieving the ATS mobility
goals, or if other models should be considered. Following is a brief description of the
CTSA model.
Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA). Designation as a CTSA is
incorporated in the California Transportation Development Act (TDA) to promote
service coordination. In the Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) can designate an agency as a CTSA. The designee can be an existing
agency, new agency (such as a joint powers authority), or a non-profit organization.
CTSA designation may give preferential access to certain funds, such as Federal
Section 5310. A CTSA could be designated Countywide or by a smaller area (e.g. by
planning area).
In determining the viability of a CTSA, transit agency ADA paratransit obligations will
need to be taken into account.
Successful implementation of this recommendation will require political commitment at
the highest levels of elected representatives in the County serving on the CCTA Board,
County Board of Supervisors, and transit agencies. The PAC already includes a number
of elected officials who have indicated a willingness to champion the study’s
recommendations, thus providing a basis upon which the TF can build political support.
Potential Overhead Costs: Given the potential staffing required to set up the countywide
CE, overhead costs are likely to be relatively high. This will need to be viewed in the
context of potential cost savings that could be derived from the centralization of some of
the transportation activities cited previously. However, the County may also prioritize
improved and/or increased service over cost savings. As an example, the 2013 Plan
estimated annual costs in the first two years of operation of a CTSA to be $325,000. This
does not include the costs of actual service provision.
Effort Required to Create the Coordinated Entity: Substantial effort will be required to set
up this organization (or to designate an existing organization to take on this role). Some
of the considerations include potentially lengthy negotiations between stakeholders,
resolution of legal issues, governance decisions, incorporating and otherwise incubating
a non-profit, setting up joint power’s agreements etc. We anticipate that setting up a CE
will take 12 to 36 months, depending on the direction provided by the TF and the
cooperation of participant stakeholders.
Potential for Implementing Large-scale/Long-term Strategies: The CE could have
significant potential for implementing some of the strategies proposed below depending
on the strength of leadership and the ability to secure dedicated funding.
Funding Sources: The CE will need to seek funding through a variety of means, likely
including funding dedicated through a sales tax measure. In Monterey County,
Monterey-Salinas Transit placed a successful sales tax measure on the ballot to benefit
similar populations to those of the ATSP. CCTA or the County could potentially fill the role
of putting a tax measure forward. The recent history of transportation sales tax measures
4 The California Association for Coordinated Transportation (CALACT) maintains information about
Consolidated Transportation Services Agencies here: https://www.calact.org/ctsaebook
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 111 of 132
(requiring a supermajority vote) in Contra Costa County indicates that passage of such a
tax could be a daunting task, and other revenue generating activities will be important
to the creation of a CE.
A non-profit could have access to funding not available to public entities, such as grant
funding and Community Development Block Grants, foundation funding, donations,
other public funding options, etc. However, we are not aware of any precedent for
transportation services being funded this way, although examples exist for other
programs.
One role of the TF and CE will be to explore comprehensive funding opportunities outside
of “transportation” dollars. State and federal agencies provide funding through social
service departments for transportation, outside of the traditional transportation silos.
MOBILITY STRATEGIES
The strategies listed below should be viewed in terms of both the paradigm shift that has
occurred due to the COVID pandemic, hopefully in the short-term, and longer-term
strategies that will be needed to meet the study’s overall coordination objectives.
At the time of preparation of this report, many transportation modes have limited
services to target populations to medical consultations, food shopping and other urgent
needs, while expanding their services to incorporate increased meal deliveries. Whether
these shifts will outlast the pandemic in some form remains to be seen, but we anticipate
that many traditional forms of transportation will undergo some shift in overall purpose
and design as a result of current events.
These strategies are not prioritized, but rather are arranged in a similar order as they were
presented to the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) for evaluation.
Increase Local and Regional Mobility
Improve connectivity between paratransit programs/eliminate transfer trips.
Paratransit travel between transit agency service areas typically requires a transfer.
Challenges associated with inter-service area have been identified for many years by
paratransit riders and advocates.
In order to address this need, the three Contra Costa-based agencies, in association
with LAVTA in eastern Alameda County have initiated a one seat ride pilot program.
This program is intended to address the complexities of traditional transfer programs,
which can include coordination between the schedulers and dispatchers of both
agencies and often require a wait for the second vehicle to arrive. Transfers can be
inefficient, expensive, and reduce safety. The current pilot program includes non-
binding agreements that address accounting, cost-allocation, and reporting
procedures. This strategy proposes an expansion of the pilot program, with
modifications that result from lessons learned during the initial phase. This strategy
could result in a significant improvement in service available to Contra Costa
paratransit customers and address concerns expressed at the Telephone Town Hall
and other venues. This approach to eliminating transfers is a move in the direction of
providing a countywide service, but its effectiveness is still to be determined.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 112 of 132
Same-day trip programs (including wheelchair-accessible service). Allows users to
travel without needing to reserve a day in advance, as required on ADA paratransit.
Most commonly, same-day service is provided using taxis and/or TNCs (such as Uber,
Lyft), so wheelchair-accessibility and (for TNCs) access for people without
smartphones (concierge/phone-order service) are issues that need to be addressed.
Examples of existing same day services in Contra Costa County include Go San
Ramon!, Walnut Creek Seniors Club Lyft program, and various wheelchair accessible
taxi services.
Expand existing and add new Volunteer Driver programs. Volunteer drivers can
provide a degree of personalized service that paratransit programs cannot. Typically,
volunteers driving their personal vehicles provide one-on-one service, taking
individuals to and from medical appointments, often with assistance to and from
doctors’ offices (“escort” service). Wheelchair-accessible service requires adding
some agency-owned vehicles to the mix, usually small vans that do not require a
commercial driver’s license. Programs can be traditional (staff matches the volunteer
and rider and schedules the trip) or reimbursement-based (riders recruit their own
drivers). The former model already exists in Contra Costa County through Mobility
Matters and other city- or church-based volunteer driver programs, while the latter
model was pioneered in Riverside County (known as the “TRIP” program) and has
been replicated throughout the US.
Service beyond ADA service areas. Since ADA paratransit is required only where and
when fixed-route transit operates, many rural areas in the county are not well served,
and many areas lack service during evenings and weekends. These issues were cited
repeatedly in various outreach forums, including previous studies and input from East
County residents in the Telephone Town Hall. The most common means of filling this
gap is using taxis, but other service types can also be used. Some options for
providing service that exceeds the ADA minimums that currently exist in various parts
of the country include premium fare paratransit, shuttles that serve first mile/last mile
needs (e.g. to a BART station), zonal dial-a- ride that connects to BART or major fixed
route transit stops, and point deviation service, which is a hybrid between fixed route
service (to fixed points in a geographic area) and demand-response, since the
vehicle does not follow a fixed route but can either access a rider’s location or an
easily accessible nearby stop.
Early morning and late night service (e.g. to dialysis). A variation on service beyond
ADA service areas would be directed to specific trip types (like dialysis) that
commonly require travel early in the morning or late into the evening. Programs that
are designed for these services generally employ either taxis or TNCs. Services that
exceed the ADA minimum requirements that serve specific, privately operated
destinations, such as dialysis clinics, could be candidates for cost sharing
arrangements with those entities, similar to the previously mentioned premium
paratransit trips.
On-demand subsidies. A popular means of providing same-day service, typically
including service at times when paratransit does not operate, is to subsidize taxi
and/or Transportation Network Company (TNC) usage. Mechanisms can involve
scrip, tickets, vouchers, debit cards, or accounts maintained by the subsidizing
agency. Since taxis and TNCs typically do not operate wheelchair-accessible
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 113 of 132
vehicles, some means of filling this gap needs to be included. In the case of TNCs,
which usually require a smartphone, a concierge/phone-order option is also needed.
Improve Coordination Among Providers and
Community Stakeholders
Shopping trips with package assistance. As an alternative to ADA paratransit, a
shopping shuttle may be more convenient for riders and less expensive to operate.
Shuttle trips usually connect senior apartment complexes with major shopping
centers. A variety of living and shopping locations may be served on a rotating
schedule, with each route operated on a weekly or more frequent basis. In addition,
as a result of innovative new developments that have responded to COVID
restrictions, shopping programs targeting low-income populations have been
initiated that do not require a computer for ordering food. Some of these programs
have integrated food stamps into their payment methods.
Hospital discharge service. Following hospital treatment, a person may be newly
disabled, or temporarily disabled and require assistance beyond that which a taxi or
TNC can provide. In addition, hospital rules may not allow a patient to be discharged
to these services. Since the person is not certified as eligible for ADA paratransit and
cannot become certified on short notice, high-priced medi-van service is often the
only option. A lower-cost option operated in Alameda County for a number of years.
This program, which could be replicated in Contra Costa County, offered resource
information, assistance with applying for transportation services such as ADA
paratransit, and provided wheelchair accessible trips upon discharge. A key
component of this program would be educating discharge planners about
transportation resources in the area and doing so on a recurrent basis due to staff
turnover.
Customized guaranteed ride home programs for people with disabilities. A
guaranteed ride home program usually is intended to encourage use of transit and
carpooling/vanpooling by providing an alternative means to get home if the
participant needs to work late or return home early due to an emergency. Usually,
taxi or TNC rides are provided. A program geared to people with disabilities would
provide wheelchair-accessible options. In order to meet the needs of disabled riders,
the program would need to incorporate design features such as a
GoGoGrandparent account, establishment of a mechanism for charging agencies
for the trip or providing the consumer with a voucher for emergency trip purposes.
Call-taking, eligibility screening and payment procedures would need to be put in
place.
Means-based car-share including accessible option. Improved access to car share
services for low-income individuals with mobility issues could provide an important
complement to other options by improving access to essential destinations such as
medical facilities, grocery stores, and other services. Car sharing could be subsidized
and could be modeled on or operated by Mobility Development (MioCar) or
another, similar vendor.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 114 of 132
Increase Awareness of Existing Services
One-call / one-click; information & referral (I&R). This type of program would result in
a single phone number and website for people to connect people with all of the
available transportation services for people with disabilities and seniors in their area,
rather than a myriad of numbers for different programs and geographic areas.
Programs with trained staff that help callers figure out the best service to meet their
needs are sometimes called “travel navigator” programs. The name “one-call / one-
click” suggests that callers are immediately connected to the service they need,
while “information & referral” may simply provide information. One-call / one-click
programs have some combination of personnel who take calls (“one-call”) and a
searchable database on a website (“one-click”).
Programs for disabled/senior veterans. Aging veterans and those with disabilities may
benefit from travel training conducted by other veterans (“peers”). Programs for
veterans may also address specific issues related to travel for treatment at Veterans
Administration hospitals, which can involve long distances across jurisdictional
boundaries. These programs can also be customized to fill gaps in the existing
veteran programs, such as to non-medical destinations or to veterans without an
honorable discharge.
Real-time transportation information (paratransit vehicle location, BART elevators,
wheelchair spaces on buses). ADA paratransit programs increasingly offer riders real-
time information about vehicle location, usually with a smartphone app. Real-time
information about fixed-route accessibility features such as availability of wheelchair
spaces in an oncoming vehicle would be an innovation that would encourage
usage by people with disabilities.
Travel training (including inter-operator trips). Travel training is usually intended to
help people learn to use fixed-route transit effectively. Group training sessions can be
helpful for some people, but many riders need intensive one-on-one training, either
by qualified trainers or sometimes by “peers”, i.e. other seniors, people with
disabilities, or veterans as the case may be. Travel between transit operator service
areas can be particularly challenging and could be part of a travel training program.
Travel training programs can also be customized to serve non-English speaking
groups, as have been offered in the city of Fremont for many years. In previous
studies stakeholders expressed interest in learning to use Clipper Cards, and how to
call ride hailing and concierge services. These could be folded into the proposed
expanded travel training programs.
Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS). MaaS is a shift away from personally-owned modes of
transportation and towards mobility provided as a service. This is enabled by
combining transportation services from public and private transportation providers
through a unified gateway (usually an app) that creates and manages the trip,
which users can pay for with a single account. Users can pay per trip or a monthly
fee for a limited distance. While MaaS has only recently entered the larger
transportation dialog, the concept has been in operation for decades in the form of
a paratransit brokerage absent the automation approach a smartphone app
provides.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 115 of 132
Develop Partnerships for Supportive Infrastructure
Administer a uniform countywide ADA paratransit eligibility certification program. The
different transit operators could develop a joint application process, including a
uniform paper application, and an agreed methodology for certification (e.g.
interview, functional assessment, etc). Riders could be provided a single point of
contact to apply for ADA paratransit anywhere in the County.
Fare integration. The different ADA paratransit operators could develop joint fare
structure and payment mediums. East Bay Paratransit is currently investigating options
in this area for contactless payment and to better prepare for the next phase of
Clipper.
Procure joint paratransit scheduling software. Regionally there have been many
recent discussions on scheduling software as providers try to get ready for the next
phase of Clipper. Procuring joint software would allow the County providers to
potentially obtain better software and support via economies of scale. This would
support other listed strategies, such as the one-seat ride pilot program, and uniform
paratransit eligibility certification.
Sidewalk improvements to enhance wheelchair accessibility in high-priority
locations. Access to public transit is sometimes limited by lack of sidewalks, poor
sidewalk condition, lack of curb cuts, and obstructions on sidewalks. Typically, cities
rather than transit agencies are responsible for sidewalks. By targeting sidewalk
improvements in locations near transit stops that serve key facilities and residential
locations, accessibility for wheelchair users may be significantly improved. In addition,
expanding existing bus shelter installation programs at transit agencies could serve
the needs of those who wish to use fixed route but are prevented from doing so due
to the lack of shelters. Consumers could be provided a phone (e.g. 311) or app
option to report barriers.
Means-based fare subsidy. Operators of transportation services for seniors and
people with disabilities could provide reduced fares for low-income qualified riders.
Most likely, such a program would be based on some other existing means-tested
program like Medi-Cal, SSI, general assistance, etc. The paratransit program
operated by SamTrans in San Mateo County has operated a low-income subsidized
paratransit program for many years that reports very limited administrative burden.
Paratransit fare affordability was a concern expressed by a number of stakeholders
during the study’s outreach phase.
Wheelchair breakdown service. Wheelchair users who use public transportation can
find themselves stranded away from home if their wheelchair malfunctions or is
damaged. If this occurs, they require urgent help getting home and getting their
chair repaired. This need may be addressed by an accessible same-day trip program
or it could incorporate a repair element (e.g. Easy Does It has a pilot wheelchair
breakdown program in Alameda County).
Accessible Bikeshare. Oakland and San Francisco recently offered adaptive bike
share programs. Trained staff from BORP, a leading provider of accessible recreation
and adaptive sports for people with mobility-related disabilities, were on-hand to fit,
train and assist riders on how to use the adaptive bikes. Adaptive equipment used in
the program includes supportive pedals, seats and straps, and hand pedals for quad
level riders. The program had five adaptive bikes available in Oakland and San
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 116 of 132
Francisco: upright handcycle, recumbent handcycle, recumbent leg trike,
recumbent trike tandem, and side-by-side tandem bicycle. This program could be
implemented in one of the more urbanized level terrain parts of the county.
PROPOSED PRIORITIZATION OF STRATEGIES
The strategies described above range from those that are extremely comprehensive and
serve a lot of sections of the disability, older adult, low-income and veteran communities,
to those which are very customized to smaller groups but serve a critical transportation
need. In order to help prioritize the strategies for the final implementation plan, a set of
evaluation criteria were developed and are described below.
TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY EVALUATION CRITERIA
The following criteria have been used with the Policy and Technical Advisory Committees
as a guide for evaluating strategies intended to address the transportation gaps
identified in this project. The criteria are intended to be flexible, so that differences
among different communities in Contra Costa County can be taken into account. The
order of presentation does not correspond to order of importance—no one category is
considered more important than the others.
In addition to the measurable (either quantitative or qualitative) criteria presented
below, some overarching considerations include:
•Measure J (2020) language (user-focused, seamless, streamlined, unified,
affordable)
•Status of legacy recommendations (from previous studies in the County) relative
to new recommendations
•FTA concept of “confidence the trip can even be completed” as a part of the
trip planning process.
•Current Measure J Eligible Expenditures [(a) managing the program, (b)
retention of a mobility manager, (c) coordination with non-profit services, (d)
establishment and/or maintenance of a comprehensive paratransit technology
implementation plan, and (e) facilitation of countywide travel and integration
with fixed route and BART specifically, as deemed feasible.]
•MTC Resolution 4321 requirements (each county must establish or enhance
mobility management programs to help provide equitable and effective access
to transportation)
There are four groups of evaluation criteria: financial; implementation; transportation
benefit; and community criteria.
Financial Criteria
Cost: Is the overall cost within a range that can realistically be funded with available
sources, taking into account sales tax funds, grants from the private or public sector or
user fares/fees?
Cost per beneficiary: A broad range of a small to a large number of beneficiaries is
compared to the cost of a program. Even though a program’s total cost is low, if it
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 117 of 132
reaches very few people it might still have a high cost per beneficiary. This would not
necessarily eliminate a project from consideration if it ranked highly on other criteria
including those listed under “Transportation Benefits Criteria” and “Community Criteria.”
Similarly, even though a program’s total cost is high, if it reaches many people it might still
have a low cost per beneficiary.
Funding availability and sustainability: To the degree possible, strategies and related
projects should have stable sources of funding to cover match requirements. In the case
of pilot, demonstration, or capital projects, there should be reasonable likelihood of
continued funding for operations. It is recognized that continued funding can never be
guaranteed, as it is subject to budget processes, as well as decisions and priorities of
funders.
Leveraging resources: It is desirable for strategies and projects to help tap into other
funding sources, especially new sources not previously available. Displacing existing
funding is discouraged.
Implementation Criteria
Implementation time-frame: Strategies that will produce results quickly are preferred, as
long as they are also sustainable. Projects with long-term payoffs should have some form
of measurable accomplishments in the short run.
Staging: Can the improvement be implemented in stages?
Coordination: Strategies that involve coordination, for example multiple organizations
working together to address a need, would be prioritized.
Transportation Benefits Criteria
Number of problems and trip types: Strategies that address multiple problems and serve
multiple customer groups and trip purposes are preferred, with an emphasis on those
that facilitate coordination in the county.
Number of beneficiaries: In general, improvements that benefit many people are
preferred to those that benefit few. However, the needs of relatively small groups might
be considered particularly critical based on criteria under the heading “Community.”
Unserved needs: Projects are preferred that address gaps left by other services rather
than duplicating, overlapping with, or competing with other services. Note that the
relative importance of various needs is a matter for local priorities as addressed under
“Community.”
Measurable benefits: As much as possible, there should be ways to measure how a
strategy is benefiting target groups (seniors, veterans, people with disabilities), whether in
terms of numbers of people served, numbers of trips provided, improved measures of
service quality, user-friendliness for end user and their aides etc.
Community Criteria
Community support: Community support may take the form of formal endorsement by
organizations and individuals, support by elected governing bodies, a potential project
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 118 of 132
sponsor (“champion”) with staff or vehicles, and connections to adopted plans to carry
out the strategy. Input from community outreach and stakeholder interviews conducted
in Spring/Summer 2020 was taken into account in the scoring of these strategies.
Acceptability: While a strategy may look good “on paper”, there may be more subtle
reasons – for example, cultural, practical, or financial – that would result in it not being
successful if implemented. The strategy must be acceptable to the target population.
That is, will the target population actually use this service being offered?
Acute needs: The importance of needs will normally be reflected in community support,
but also in priority designation in locally-adopted plans or policies. Acute needs may
include needs of small groups who have been left unserved by other programs due to
expense or other difficulties.
Unserved groups: Identifiable groups that are not able to use existing services may
include people who face language and cultural barriers.
Prioritization by the Policy Advisory Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee
During meetings held in November 2020 the various strategies were presented to these
two committees, in addition to the evaluation criteria described above. The results of
input received from committee members are presented in the following matrix.
Strategies have been arranged in four groups: Increase Local and Regional Mobility;
Improve Coordination among Providers and Community Stakeholders; Increase
Awareness of Existing Services; and Develop Partnerships for Supportive Transportation
Infrastructure. The strategies in the matrix have been arranged according to the level of
priority within each of the four groups, and key comments from committee members are
presented in the right-hand column. It should be noted that at this stage of the
evaluation estimated costs were not included in the information available.
Figure 5-1 Strategy Prioritization
STRATEGY COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Increase Local and Regional Mobility
Expand the current
one-seat ride pilot
program - improve
connectivity
between paratransit
programs/eliminate
transfer trips
Allows for travel within the county to be like drivers experience
it- without imaginary boundaries. Allows people to fully live and
work where they desire. Additionally, it has been a recurring
recommendation over the past studies.
Clear benefits to existing population (now using transfers).
Unclear whether existing provider has resources to take on East
Bay Paratransit (and Alameda County).
Yes, 100%+ convinced we need to improve connectivity! What
we ask our service recipients to go through to get from point A
to point B is ludicrous.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 119 of 132
STRATEGY COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Increase Local and Regional Mobility (Continued)
Same-day trip
programs (including
wheelchair-
accessible service)
Allows for a more natural way to get around. Drivers and public
transportation users can make spur-of-the-moment trips. Same
day trips are necessary to truly be an accessible way to get
around.
Tri Delta Transit offers same day paratransit trips through a
partnership with United taxi and Lyft.
A very desirable improvement for existing paratransit users. Will
push up cost per user unless unproductive standby time can be
controlled or TNC labor can be employed. TNC or third-party
liability is a critical concern.
We need for folks to be able to call and get rides upon
demand. Life cannot always be led with advanced notice of
needs, etc.
Volunteer driver
programs
My concern is in implementation. Relying on volunteers is tricky.
Would volunteer drivers be in the areas of the county where
they would be most needed? I think some areas of county
would have a harder time getting drivers, and that would likely
be where they would be most needed.
Vulnerable riders, or those in wheelchairs may not be well
served.
We absolutely need to get a better handle on who is doing
what, when, where and how! I fear waste galore based on
duplication of efforts and lots of unmet needs.
Service beyond
ADA service areas
and regular service
times
Tri Delta Transit offers service beyond ADA service areas in east
county.
Need may grow if fixed route services are cut and ADA
obligations are reduced. Funding will be politically difficult in this
case (as paratransit funding is already well short of what is
needed even for required ADA service.) Some agencies
already offer beyond ADA service.
This could be a game changer for people with destinations
outside ADA areas.
Already in place in WestCAT area
We absolutely need the ability to customize coverage and
time.
Subsidize on-
demand programs
Valuable if it would provide same day service, and at times
when paratransit typically does not operate.
Yes, keeping one’s integrity intact and feeling of freedom is
crucial to living a quality life.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 120 of 132
STRATEGY COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Improve Coordination Among Providers and Community Stakeholders
Shopping Trips with
package assistance
This would serve many people, likely on their more
frequent/regular trips. It is a model that is already happening
with shuttles connecting senior apartments with shopping
centers. Also allows for socialization, opportunity to be out in the
community with peers
Tri Delta Transit will assist with up to 4 bags on paratransit trips
(more during COVID)
Demand and number of beneficiaries is unknown. Experience in
other communities suggests low participation rates, though high
benefit to those served.
In emergency planning the critical areas are being able to
access appointments, medications, food, and essential
supplies. Some of the burden on the transportation service
could be alleviated with neighbor helping neighbor.
Hospital discharge
service
Seems this would be a relatively low cost project to implement.
Completely dependent on how service is delivered
This is a healthcare issue. The health system is responsible for
getting patients safely home.
Customized
Guaranteed Ride
Home program for
people with
disabilities
We need to build services around need, not expect people to
build needs around a service delivery box.
Means-based
carshare including
accessible option
I think the cost to implement would be high, and actual use
would be low.
The logistics of this program is really the question. Clearly there
are benefits associated with occasional access to a vehicle,
but the combination of disabled access (vehicle controls) and
the means-based qualification process and the need for a third
party relationship with an outside vendor makes this extremely
complicated and unstable.
Is this relevant for the population we are focusing on? Seniors,
Disabled, etc. This option implies folks are driving themselves vs.
relying on a system. Also, COVID/Virus safe?
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 121 of 132
STRATEGY COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Increase Awareness of Existing Services
One call/One click
(and/or Information
and Referral
Service)
Yes! People need a central place to get their information. Has
been recommended repeatedly in past studies.
The coordinated dissemination of information streamlines
delivery of all transportation resources and improves the end
user experience. Really no downside to this other than the
process and cost of establishing and managing the service.
Maybe the most effective use of available funding.
Yes, no more multiple hoops to jump through to get simple
transportation requests filled.
Programs for
veterans (older
adults and people
with disabilities)
Peer training is good, but not as beneficial as some of the other
strategies. And would not reach as many riders.
Unclear relationship to VA and other veteran resources. Not
sure that veteran mobility needs differ from those of others in
the community. Possibly worth pursuing if the effort can attract
funding or assistance from veteran-serving groups.
Yes, we need more programs, better options, and coordination.
I suspect the left does not coordinate all that well with the right.
True regional planning ensures everyone is aware of who is
doing what, when and where.
Real Time
Information
Yes! People need access to real time information so they can
determine how to proceed, advise others if they will be running
late, etc.
Potentially complicated and expensive to set up for multiple
providers of paratransit services. Potentially simpler if limited to
public agencies but would still require significant investment
and development time to deploy app based real time
information system.
Yes, completely makes sense. Need redundancy options as
there are varying degrees of tech savvy users.
Travel Training I would challenge us to ensure a system requires minimal service
recipient training need. Also need to remain cognizant that
there are varied degree of users and this skill is perishable.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 122 of 132
STRATEGY COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Develop Partnerships For Supportive Transportation Infrastructure
Fare integration Fare integration and a unified fare structure is part of the one-
seat pilot. Costs of fare integration would be the work to
implement it, and ongoing impacts to agency revenues, and
potentially to customers in areas with low fares. If more
transportation providers are included (e.g. TNCs or other private
entities) the process becomes much more complicated with
the potential for public subsidies to be necessary to accomplish
it.
This will all allow for a more streamlined experience for riders.
The fact that we have differing eligibility, fares structures, and
scheduling software are evidence of how fractured the system
is. I would put these three strategies as the first priority as they
should be somewhat straightforward to implement and would
help support some of the other strategies.
Administer a
uniform countywide
ADA paratransit
eligibility
certification
program
This will all allow for a more streamlined experience for riders.
The fact that we have differing eligibility, fares structures, and
scheduling software are evidence of how fractured the system
is. I would put these three strategies as the first priority as they
should be somewhat straightforward to implement and would
help support some of the other strategies.
No objection to centralizing this function. Some cost
implications. This function is being performed now by public
agencies in the County with few problems so cost/benefit is
unclear.
Absolutely, this is a MUST have.
Joint procurement
of scheduling
software
Value depends on the objectives of the project. If one seat ride
pilot succeeds, then cross jurisdictional scheduling is already in
place. If other benefits from software are realized (e.g.
coordinated billing and payment, real time information, user
interface, etc.) this could be worth pursuing. In any event, it is a
very complicated and expensive enterprise.
This will all allow for a more streamlined experience for riders.
The fact that we have differing eligibility, fares structures, and
scheduling software are evidence of how fractured the system
is. I would put these three strategies as the first priority as they
should be somewhat straightforward to implement and would
help support some of the other strategies.
Safe Routes for
Seniors/Safe Routes
for All
Pedestrian right of way issues abound in older neighborhoods
and bus stops are few and far between. Addressing this would
increase use and access to fixed routes by wheelchair users or
those with mobility issues
This is another MUST have. To knowingly put anyone at risk is
never a good business model.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 123 of 132
STRATEGY COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Develop Partnerships For Supportive Transportation Infrastructure (Continued)
Means-based fare
subsidy
This is a good idea to base one’s fee on his/her ability to pay /
income level.
Wheelchair
breakdown service
Tri Delta Transit offers emergency wheelchair transportation in
east county
Accessible
bikeshare program
I think utilization would be low.
Given the vast number of other needs in the county, this seems
like a project that may best be handled by an outside
advocacy group or bikeshare entity. Could become very
complicated to deploy a viable system without considerable
work and expense, and without the participation of private
entities.
May not be realistic for many users.
Is this COVID safe and if so then there must be some pretty
stringent sanitation procedures to be followed. Not sure on the
relevance of this option.
PRESENTATION OF FINAL STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS
Once the Project Management Team has had a chance to review the recommended
strategies as described above, the consultant will meet with the team to finalize
prioritization of strategies. This will be the penultimate step before the creation of an
implementation matrix that will include all the recommended strategies, in addition to
potential costs, funding sources, lead agencies, champions, and implementation steps.
These will be finalized for presentation to the PAC and TAC at the end of January, early
February 2021.
Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 124 of 132
6 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
In progress…
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 10.
Meeting Date:02/08/2021
Subject:REVIEW, REVISE as appropriate, and ADOPT the 2021 Transportation,
Water, and Infrastructure Committee Calendar.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
N/A. This is an annual administrative task of the Committee.
Referral Update:
The Committee should review, revise if appropriate, and adopt the 2021 draft calendar.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
REVIEW and REVISE as appropriate, and ADOPT the 2021 Transportation, Water, and
Infrastructure Committee Calendar.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
2021 TWIC Calendar.pdf
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 125 of 132
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II, Chair
Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III, Vice Chair
2021 Meeting Schedule
DATE Location* TIME
February 8 1025 Escobar Street, Room TBA, Martinez or
Remote Meeting (see agenda for details)9:00a.m.
March 8 9:00a.m.
April 12 9:00a.m.
May 10 9:00a.m.
June 14 9:00a.m.
July 12 9:00a.m.
August 9 9:00a.m.
September 13 9:00a.m.
October 11 9:00a.m.
November 8 9:00a.m.
December 13 9:00a.m.
The Agenda Packets will be posted and emailed out prior to the meeting dates.
* To slow the spread of COVID-19, the Health Officer’s Shelter Order of December 16, 2020, prevents public gatherings. In
lieu of a public gathering, the Board of Supervisors and Committee meetings will be accessible via live-streaming to all
members of the public as permitted by the Governor’s Executive Order N29-20.
For Additional Information Contact: John Cunningham, Committee Staff
Direct Line: 925-674-7833
Main Transportation Line: 925-674-7209
John.Cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us
1025 Escobar Street, Room TBA, Martinez or
Remote Meeting (see agenda for details)
1025 Escobar Street, Room TBA, Martinez or
Remote Meeting (see agenda for details)
1025 Escobar Street, Room TBA, Martinez or
Remote Meeting (see agenda for details)
1025 Escobar Street, Room TBA, Martinez or
Remote Meeting (see agenda for details)
1025 Escobar Street, Room TBA, Martinez or
Remote Meeting (see agenda for details)
1025 Escobar Street, Room TBA, Martinez or
Remote Meeting (see agenda for details)
1025 Escobar Street, Room TBA, Martinez or
Remote Meeting (see agenda for details)
1025 Escobar Street, Room TBA, Martinez or
Remote Meeting (see agenda for details)
1025 Escobar Street, Room TBA, Martinez or
Remote Meeting (see agenda for details)
1025 Escobar Street, Room TBA, Martinez or
Remote Meeting (see agenda for details)
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 126 of 132
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 11.
Meeting Date:02/08/2021
Subject:REVIEW Communication, News, Miscellaneous Items of Interest to the
Committee and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
This is a standing item on the TWIC agenda.
Referral Update:
Communication Received:
None.
News :
Article attached: Buttigieg cites gas-tax hike at hearing, but aide walks it back
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE information and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
FederalGasTax-P.Buttigieg
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 127 of 132
Buttigieg cites gas-tax hike at hearing, but aide walks it back
Jan. 21, 2021; Updated 5:29 p.m.
By Jessica Wehrman, CQ
Former South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg Thursday put a gas tax hike on the table of ways to pay
for federal highway programs, only to have a spokesman later rule out that possibility.
Buttigieg, testifying before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee at his
confirmation hearing to be secretary of Transportation, was pressed on a gas tax increase by Sen. Rick
Scott, R‐Fla., one of several Republicans eager to put him on the record supporting a tax hike.
“Would you support gas tax increases, and if so, how much?” asked Scott.
“I think all options need to be on the table,” Buttigieg replied. “As you know, the gas tax has not been
increased since 1993 and it's never been pegged to inflation, and that is one of the reasons why the
current state of the Highway Trust Fund is that there's more going out than coming in.”
Later, under questioning from Sen. Mike Lee, R‐Utah, Buttigieg said it was “possible” the federal
government could raise the gas tax.
“Certainly many states have taken that step, including my own, but it's not the only approach,” he said.
A Buttigieg spokesman later walked that statement back, telling reporters that a “variety of options
need to be on the table to ensure we can invest in our highways and create jobs, but increasing the gas
tax is not among them.”
Buttigieg added that Congress has solved the trust fund shortfall in the past by making periodic transfers
from the general fund. “I don't know whether Congress would want to continue doing that, and I think
in the near term, we need a solution that can provide some predictability and sustainability,” he said.
In ruling out raising the gas tax, Buttigieg would be at odds with a variety of transportation stakeholders,
including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Trucking Associations, the AFL‐CIO and the
American Automobile Association. It also puts him at odds with Rep. Peter A. DeFazio, D‐Ore., the
chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
President Joe Biden has not specifically endorsed hiking the gas tax, but his campaign website says "the
Highway Trust Fund has for far too long been grossly underfunded," and that Biden "will ensure new
revenues are secured to stabilize" the fund.
Others, such as Rep. Sam Graves, R‐Mo., the ranking member of the House Transportation Committee,
have advocated a financing measure based on vehicle miles traveled. Buttigieg suggested a similar
method during his 2020 presidential run but acknowledged technological and privacy barriers that keep
it from being a short‐term solution.
Perennial debate
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 128 of 132
The standoff over whether to raise or even index the federal gas tax, now an 18.4‐cents‐a‐gallon federal
gas tax and 24.4‐cents‐a‐gallon diesel tax, has become a perennial one.
“Transportation infrastructure investment around here has always been an area for bipartisan
cooperation,” said Sen. John Thune, R‐S.D. “The other thing that enjoys bipartisan popularity around
here is not paying for it.”
Buttigieg acknowledged during the hearing that there are a variety of models and timelines to consider,
including adjusting the gas tax, connecting it to inflation or moving toward a model based on vehicle
miles traveled.
“I think there's a recognition that we don't have adequate national resources going into roads and
highways and that we need to look at any responsible viable revenue mechanism we can all agree on to
do something about that,” he said.
Despite repeated questions over highway financing, Buttigieg faced a largely friendly panel, with many
eager to win cooperation from the former Democratic presidential candidate on their pet transportation
projects.
Incoming Chairwoman Maria Cantwell, D‐Wash., pushed the importance of the Interstate 5 Columbia
River Bridge replacement and other bridges in her state. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D‐Conn., urged
Buttigieg to support the $30 billion Gateway Program, a multifaceted infrastructure project on Amtrak's
Northeast Corridor that includes rebuilding the Hudson Tunnel between New York and New Jersey. Sen.
Kyrsten Sinema, D‐Ariz., urged his support for work on Interstate 11 in her state.
For those projects, and the other legislative proposals, agenda items and wish lists offered by the
senators, Buttigieg was amenable, promising to work with the senators and study what they asked him
to study. His most common answer during the three‐hour hearing was an expressed willingness to work
with senators on their concerns.
The strategy worked. “You have put on a clinic on how a nominee should work and act,” said Sen. Jon
Tester, D‐Mont. “You haven't avoided the questions. You've been straightforward, and you know what
the hell you're talking about. And that's really pretty damn refreshing.”
But at least two Republican senators offered mild pushback on Biden’s decision to revoke the Keystone
XL pipeline permit.
Without targeting Buttigieg directly, Sens. Dan Sullivan, R‐Alaska, and Ted Cruz, R‐Texas, both criticized
the decision, saying it would eliminate thousands of jobs.
Buttigieg defended the decision.
“We are very eager to see those workers continue to be employed in good‐paying union jobs, even if
they might be different ones,” he said.
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 129 of 132
Cruz was dissatisfied, arguing that the Keystone XL decision “is the front end of a whole series of
regulatory decisions, one after the other after the other, that will be eliminating union jobs, that will be
eliminating manufacturing jobs, that will be eliminating energy jobs.”
“I think the answer is that we're going to create more good‐paying union jobs,” Buttigieg replied. “And
we can do that while recognizing the fact that when the books are written about our careers, one of the
main things we'll be judged on is whether we did enough to stop the destruction of life and property
due to climate change. I've got to believe we can do both of those things.”
Even before the hearing ended, Buttigieg had stated support from Sens. Edward J. Markey, D‐Mass., and
Jacky Rosen, D‐Nev., who urged the committee “to facilitate a swift confirmation of Mr. Buttigieg so he
can immediately get to work on all the things that our colleagues on this committee have asked for for
our nation and their states as well.”
Outgoing Chairman Roger Wicker, R‐Miss., praised Buttigieg’s “impressive credentials” and said he was
“quite certain” that Buttigieg would be confirmed.
If confirmed, Buttigieg could become familiar with the committee quickly. Congress faces an October
deadline to reauthorize federal highway programs. Last year, Congress extended the current highway
law (PL 114‐94) for a year.
First posted Jan. 21, 2021 12:28 p.m.
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 130 of 132
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 12.
Meeting Date:02/08/2021
Subject:TWIC Referrals for 2021
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
This is an annual Administrative Item of the Committee.
Referral Update:
Staff has proposed one change to the referrals. As seen in the attached, "Monitor and report on the
eBART Project" was replaced with "Monitor and report on the East County Integrated Transit
Study".
eBART is operating and stable, the East County Integrated Transit Study is looking at a potential
next segment BART extension among other issues.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Consider recommendations on referrals to the Committee for 2021, revise as necessary, and direct
staff to bring the list to the full Board of Supervisors for approval.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None.
Attachments
TWIC Referrals 2021 - DRAFT
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 131 of 132
DRAFT 2021 Referrals to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee
(For Consideration by TWIC at their February 8, 2021 Meeting.
1.Review legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.
2.Review applications for transportation, water and infrastructure grants to be prepared by the Public Works
and Conservation and Development Departments.
3.Monitor the Contra Costa Transportation Authority including efforts to implement Measure J.
4.Monitor EBMUD and Contra Costa Water District projects and activities.
5.Review projects, plans and legislative matters that may affect the health of the San Francisco Bay and Delta,
including but not limited to conveyance, flood control, dredging, climate change, habitat conservation,
governance, water storage, development of an ordinance regarding polystyrene foam food containers, water
quality, supply and reliability, consistent with the Board of Supervisors adopted Delta Water Platform.
6.Review and monitor the establishment of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies and Groundwater
Sustainability Plans for the three medium priority groundwater basins within Contra Costa County as required
by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
7.Review issues associated with County flood control facilities.
8.Monitor creek and watershed issues and seek funding for improvement projects related to these issues.
9.Monitor the implementation of the Integrated Pest Management policy.
10.Monitor the status of county park maintenance issues including, but not limited to, transfer of some County
park maintenance responsibilities to other agencies and implementation of Measure WW grants and
expenditure plan.
11.Monitor and report on the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan.
12.Monitor the implementation of the County Complete Streets Policy.
13.Monitor and report on the Underground Utilities Program.
14.Monitor implementation of the Letter of Understanding with PG&E for the maintenance of PG&E streetlights
in Contra Costa.
15.Freight transportation issues, including but not limited to potential increases in rail traffic such as that
proposed by the Port of Oakland and other possible service increases, safety of freight trains, rail corridors,
and trucks that transport hazardous materials, the planned truck route for North Richmond; freight issues
related to the Northern Waterfront (and coordinate with the Northern Waterfront Ad Hoc Committee as
needed), and the deepening of the San Francisco-to-Stockton Ship Channel.
16.Monitor the Iron Horse Corridor Management Program.
17.Monitor and report on the eBART the East County Integrated Transit StudyProject.
18.Review transportation plans and services for specific populations, including but not limited to County Low Income
Transportation Action Plan, Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan for the Bay Area, Priorities for
Senior Mobility, Bay Point Community Based Transportation Plan, and the Contra Costa County Accessible
Transportation Strategic Plan.
19.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.
20.Monitor the statewide infrastructure bond programs.
21.Monitor implementation and ensure compliance with the single-use carryout bag ban consistent with Public
Resources Code, Chapter 5.3 (resulting from Senate Bill 270 [Padilla – 2014]).
22.Monitor efforts at the State to revise school siting guidelines and statutes.
23.Monitor issues related to docked and dockless bike share programs.
24.Monitor efforts related to water conservation including but not limited to turf conversion, graywater, and
other related landscaping issues.
25.Monitor the County’s conversion to solar/distributed energy systems.
G:\Conservation\TWIC\2021\02‐21 TWIC Mtg\TWIC Referrals 2021 ‐ DRAFT.Doc
02-08-21 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 132 of 132