HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01182000 - D3 W"
3
TO: Board of Supervisors .�,.. . ; Contra
FROM: Dennis M. Barry, AICP Costa
Community Development Director County
DATE: January 18, 2000
SUBJECT: Workshop on Future Transportation Investments In Contra Costa
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Accept report and take action as appropriate
FISCAL IMPACT
None to the General Fund.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On December 14, 1999, the Board of Supervisors approved a report from the
Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee that directed the Community
Development Director to assist the Chair of the Board of Supervisors in organizing
a workshop to determine projects to include in MTC's Transportation Blueprint for
the 21m Century. The list of Candidate Blueprint Projects for Contra Costa, and a
comparison of projected costs and revenues is included as Exhibit A. MTC plans to
consider comments received and complete the Blueprint for all Bay Area counties
this spring.
On December 18, 1999, the Board of Supervisors received correspondence from the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority describing state legislation, Senate
Constitutional Amendment 3 (SCA 3), that would renew local transportation sales tax
measures in counties where companion expenditure plans were approved by voters.
The Board adopted a position to support SCA 3 when it was introduced last year.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE '
ACTION OF BOARD ON JANuAgy i s , 2nno APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTH
SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
XX UNANIMOUS (ABSENT - - - - - - CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Steven Goetz(9251335-1240) ATTESTED. January 18 , 2000
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE
Public Works Department BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
COUNTY MINISTRATOR
SG:mlk
s:\adv-trans\goetz\marjorie\workshop.bo.doc B -, DEPUTY
Workshop on Future Transportation Investments for Contra Costa
January 18, 2000
Page 2
The legislation, if approved, would authorize such a ballot measure in November 2000. The
Authority has announced its intention to develop an expenditure plan in the event SDA 3 is
approved. It has requested the Board of Supervisors and the Regional Transportation
Planning Committees to submit a summary memo to the Authority containing:
a list of up to five candidate projects or project categories of countywide
significance, in priority order;
a list of up to five proposed candidate projects or project categories of subregional
significance, in priority order; and
comments regarding potential Expenditure Plan programs, and preferred annual
funding percentages for them.
The Authority has requested that the Board of Supervisors submit its summary memo by
February 29, 2000. Based on the comments received, the Authority will approve a final
Expenditure Plan for the renewal of Measure C-88 on June 21, 2000.
The purpose of MTC's Blueprint and the Authority's expenditure plan process are the same,
to determine future transportation investments for Contra Costa assuming establishment of
a significant new transportation revenue source. Consequently, the purpose of the Board's
January 18, 2000 workshop will be to review potential unfunded or under-funded
transportation investments for Contra Costa, discuss their implications, and determine the
Board priorities for these future transportation investments.
To assist the Board in reviewing our transportation needs, potential solutions, and their
implications, a panel of representatives from the agencies concerned about these issues has
been assembled. Invited panelists include:
Bob McCleary and Martin Engelmann, Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Doug Kimsey and Chris Brittle, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Jean Roggenkamp, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Gary Binger, Association of Bay Area Governments
Rick Ramacier, Bus Operators Coordinating Council
Adele Ho, City-County Engineering Advisory Committee
During the workshop, each panelist will be asked a specific question and be allowed five to
10 minutes for a response. This will be followed by follow-up questions from the County
Supervisors. This format will be repeated for each question. Topic areas for the questions
are as follows:
1. Locations of current and future transportation problems;
2. The most promising future transportation investments;
3. The transportation investments that are most beneficial to air quality;
4. The relationship of housing location to the reduction of traffic congestion and the
potential impact on the region's economy;
5. Future needs for transit and alternative transportation modes; and
6. Future road maintenance needs.
At the conclusion of the panel discussions, the Board will be asked if it is ready to identify
investment priorities, and if not, what additional information is needed and what are the next
steps.
The workshop is scheduled from 1 to 4 PM in the Board Chambers, this includes a 10-
minute break and an opportunity for public comment.
Exhibit A: Excerpts from MTC's Transportation Blueprint for the 21"t Century
Exhibit B: December 16, 1999 Correspondence from OCTA
t
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D. 3
January 18, 2000 Agenda
On this date the Board of Supervisors held a workshop on future transportation projects
in Contra Costa County. (See the attached Board Order)
Supervisor Gerber stated the purpose of the workshop was to review future County
transportation projects to aid the Board of Supervisors in formulating their investment
priorities. Supervisor DeSaulnier also offered introductory remarks. Present were Dennis
Barry, Community Development Director; Steven Goetz, Transportation Planning Chief;
Maurice Shiu, Public Works Deputy Director; and Julie Bueren, Transportation
Engineering, Assistant Director.
The panelists for the workshop included:
Doug Kimsey, Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC);
Bob McCleary&Martin Engelmann, Contra Costa Transportation
Authority:
Gary Binger, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG);
Jean Roggenkamp, Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD);
Rick Ramacier, Bus Transit Coordinating Council(BTCC); and
Adele Ho, City-County Engineering Advisory Committee(CCEAC).
Following a framework presented by Mr. Kimsey, each panelist offered their analysis and
strategies for future transportation issues, and responded to Board questions about the
matter.
Mr. Goetz summarized the issues discussed by the panelists, potential solutions, and
County transportation projections. He noted that the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority requested that the Board of Supervisors submit their summary by the end of
February 2000.
Following Board discussion,the public hearing was opened and the following people
offered comments:
Jim Gleich,A.C. Transit;
Stuart Cohen, Bay Area Transportation and Land use Coalition, 1715
Delaware Street, Berkeley;
Leslie Stewart, League of Women Voters - Diablo Malley, 3398 Wren
Avenue, Concord;
Joe Wallace,N. Richmond Employment Collaborative, 1427 Filbert,
North Richmond;
Charles Anderson, WESTCAT, 601 Walter Avenue,Pinole;
Miriam Hawley,A.C. Transit, 1600 Franklin, Oakland.
The Board continued to discuss the issues. They agreed that transportation needed to be
viewed from a regional perspective, not as individual projects.
Supervisor Gerber moved that the Community Development Department staff prepare a
report for the Board's review on February 8, 2000, at 11:00 a.m. on transportation issues
including the comments from the panelists and the Board members; and that it respond to
the questions relative to bridge retrofitting and the clarification of future bridge projects
as raised by Supervisor Uilkema.
Following further discussion, Supervisor Gerber moved that the Community
Development Department staff prepare a report for the Board's review on February 8,
2000, at 11:00 a.m. on County transportation matters, and include the comments from the
panelists and the Board members; and directed the report include responses to questions
relative to bridge retrofitting and the clarification of future bridge projects as raised by
Supervisor Uilkema.
1
Supervisor Uilkema questioned what process would be used to prioritize the
transportation projects,Bob McCleary responded. Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion.
The Board voted to accept the motion unanimously, and took the following action:
CONTINUED to February 8, 2000, at 11:00 a.m., discussion of Countywide
transportation issues; CONDUCTED a workshop on those issues; ACCEPTED the
reports from the various agency representatives on transportation issues; and DIRECTED
the Community Development Department staff to prepare a further report for the Board's
review on transportation issues including: a regional perspective of transportation; bridge
retrofitting and clarification of future bridge projects;possible BART projects for East
and West County; capital corridor projects;joint land use issues; the accountability for
transportation issues; and the duplication of services among agencies; and SUGGESTED
that the Board of Supervisors provide input for the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority's draft expenditure plan.
2
v
O
4 s a os
0 .2 vi
(A lug -5h.- E
�. a A _ 4 a
lb
4m—
(A
.4) thUi
g `%
.M
CL
�! ,o o.
ICY of t / C
N a
f ��
P N E
A
.Teb
0
U a t�
Re �20
'a c
41
CL
JbA t v ���� ���`j Cy������ c
- ---- --- --- ---- - --- ----
r} 0
Uto ��d y� �6pvraCY t6,� o,y�
41 e-
CL
voo
epi - p CS s�d4;%'9C`�dt C v 0 a
4� cJ+Oco Lnp_ S d�A�J�d��� u� O
67 H' V! ay Vl` 6- t9 b4 b4 d 4id
SU0111!LU Aq,
EXHIBIT B - '
1.4�r?
CONTRA COSTA AEMOR.ANDUM
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY December 16, 1999
TO: Regional Transportation Planning Committees and County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Bob McCleary,Executive Director� �
RE: SCA 3(Burton),Expenditure Plan fo ales ax Renewal: Schedule &Directions for
,Submitting Candidate Projects, Candidate P 'ec Catego ies and Program Comments
SCA 3,by Senate President Pro Tern John Burton, would renew local sales tact measures where a
companion expenditure plan is also approved by the voters. SCA.3 failed to pass the Assembly in
September. Nonetheless, the legislation has a second chance this spring, and the Authority has been
advised by Senator Burton's staff,Assemblyman Torlalcson, and other inside sources that the measure
has a good chance of passing.
The Authority wishes to be prepared in the event that SCA 3 is approved, placing a measure on the
November,2000 ballot which would allow renewal of our Measure C tax. Accordingly, the Authority is
preparing to develop an expenditure plan for that renewal. At its December 15, 1999 meeting the
Authority requested the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs) and the Board of
Supervisors (BOS) to provide fists of potential projects for such a plan, as well as comments on
"program" funding levels.
Specific Submittals
Specifically, the Authority asked each RTPC and the BOS to submit a Summary Memo to the Authority
containing the following information:
1, Regional Projects. A list of no more than five(5) proposed candidate projects or project categories
of"regional" (countywide) significance, in priority order;
2. Sub-Regional Projects. A list of no more than five(5) proposed candidate projects or project
categories of"sub-regional" (i.e., within central, east, southwest and west county sub-areas)
significance, in priority order; and
3. ProgramLevels. Comments regarding potential program components and preferred annual funding
percentages for them. (For reference, current program components are the following percentages of
current annual revenues: local streets and roads, 18%; bus transit, 4.9%, paratransit, 2.9%; and
vanpools, carpools, and park and ride, 1%,' total, 25.801c.)
In addition to the summary memo, an"Information Sheet" (A blank form, and four samples for
illustration only, are provided) for each project, project category, or program comment is required to be
submitted. Aga egating individual eligible projects into "project categories" is offered as an option to
increase future flexibility, while still providing some specificity for the voter to consider. It should also
provide enough detail to promote accountability for project delivery. Relevant information should be
included, to the extent that it is available, for each information sheet. For programs, please provide the
following information under"Eligible Components:"
For transit capital and operating funding, desired service augmentations including approximate
capital and annual operating needs;
RSM:c WPFU.e v1•CCTA Mrc\1999 MTcS\C7EiC 99v343-10 nTPC It,str[kc.-p(I
` '5
RTPCs and DOS
December 16, 1999
Page 2
• For local streets and roads,anticipated local jurisdiction maintenance and rehabilitation
requirements; and
• For paratransit,desired service augmentations and both capital and annual operating needs,
,
The renewal would cover the period from FY 2010 through FY 2029, and would raise an estimated$1.4
billion(1999 dollars)over that period. The Authority wished to clarify for the RTPCs and DOS that
continuation of the programs established by Measure C, 1988 at existing levels would cost approximately
$375 million. If that level were considered a base, it would leave approximately$1 billion for new
projects and program augmentations. (A table showing estimated annual revenues, and deductions for
programs under continuation of the current structure, is attached for information.)
Schedule for Submittals and Authority Actions
The Authority's adopted schedule, below,follows the requirements contained in AD 1155 (Torlakson).
Although that bill did not pass, we anticipate that it would serve as the approximate template for the
expenditure plan development schedule,should SCA 3 pass this spring.
• January 5 2000: Release of Growth Management Discussion Pager. Planning Cornn-duee release of
the discussion paper originally prepared for the EPC, providing a menu of choices for potential
Growth Management Program revisions. When it is finalized, the Authority's Citizens Advisory
Committee proposal for revisions to the GMP will also be circulated—with this date as a target.
• February 29 2000: Identify Desired Project and Program Funding, Each RTPC and the County I30S
submit to the Authority up to five(5) prioritized "regional" candidate projects (or project
categories),up to five(5) prioritized"sub-regional" candidate projects(or project categories), and
its preferred funding percentages for each program it wishes to comment on. Each listed project,
project category, and program shall have a required information sheet providing details as noted.
• ADril 19 2000: Approval of Draft Expenditure Plan. Authority adoption of a draft Expenditure Plan
for renewal of the sales tax.
• April 21 2000: RTPCs and DOS Submit Growth Mangement Comments. RTPC and DOS
comments are submitted to the Authority regarding desired components and proposed revisions to
the Growth Management Program.
• May 17 2000 Authority Approval of Draft GMP for Expenditure Plan. Approval of revisions to
GMP components and requirements, as a draft for the new Expenditure Plan.
•
June 21 2000: Approval of Final Expenditure Plan. Final adoption of the Expenditure flan and
associated Growth Management Program requirements.
Thank you in advance for your participation in the effort. If you have any questions, please call rne.at
925.256.4724.
RKAM:C:AWPFILESII-CCTA MTG\1999 MTGS\DEC 99U-13-10 WITC:41SZrDee vpd 3.13. 10-5
F
f
A ..
t'k i#
t.�ir.,ary' vo
�...,a,�«*w'� '� •�. a die +q.•�' # IN '�J1`��
4L A
l�-�s � �I �' X$:•���' h.j �� '8.:. y �Y � �Y��1w�"Fj. b,,.-4
7;4-
! !
These Blueprint Projects Have Been Submitted for Contra Costa County(1)
Miscellaneous $100 to$400 miction
• Interchange&Arterial Improvements • I-680/SR 4 Interchange
on SR 4,1-80,and I-680 • I-80/SR 4 Interchange
• Local bridge maintenance and seismic
$0 to 550 million retrofit(RTP)
• AC Transit Operating Shortfall* • Upgrade SR 4 Bypass to freeway(RTP)
• Employee Shuttles at Walnut Creek • Caldecott Tunnel fourth bore
BART Station** • Auxiliary Lanes on I-680(I-580 and SR
• San Pablo Ilam Road Transit 24)(RTP)
Improvements** • Local street non-pavement repair(RTP)
• Express Bus Service in SR 4 HOV lanes • BART Seismic retrofit*
• Subscription Bus Service on Vasco • Light Rail on Benicia Bridge* t
Road** • BART Extension on SR 4 to Railroad
• Enhanced Rapid Bus Service on Avenue in Pittsburg
Ygnacio Valley Rd/Treat Blvd,** • BART Car Replacement*
• Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit*
• Subscription Bus Service through $400 to$900 million
Caldecott Tunnel** • Local street and roads repair(RTP)
• Pittsburg/Bay Point Parking • Widen SR 4 East Corridor(RTP)
Expansion** • Freeway interchange upgrades(various)
• West Contra Costa County Intercity Bus • BART Extension on SR 4 to Hillcrest
Service** Avenue in Antioch
• Ferry Service from Richmond** • BART Extension to Hercules
• Ferry Service from Antioch**
• San Pablo Dam Road Improvements** Over$900 million
• Richmond Parkway Grade Separated • BART Extension to Hilltop Mall or
Interchange Pinole Vista/Pinole Shores
• Widen SR 4(I-680 to SR 242) • SR 239 Connection(Brentwood to
• ACE Branch Line(Brentwood to Tracy) Tracy)
• Ferry Service from Martinez/Benicia
• Capitol Corridor Rail Station in
Hercules
$50 to$100 million
• Freeway-to-Freeway HOV Connectors
• Brentwood to Bay Point Commuter Rail
• Light Rail on Carquinez Replacement (1) Capital costs only,except when noted.
Bridge* (RTP) Portions of the project or related
projects in the RTP. Blueprint would
accelerate the project or close the
shortfall.
* Project listed according to Contra Costa
County share of total cost. Total cost
may be greater than the identified
category.
* Project not shown on Contra Costa
Candidate Projects bar chart.
41
SCA 3 Expenditure Flan
Project, Project Category or Program Information Sheet
Submitted b TPC or BOS
Regional or Sub--Regional:
Priori #(excludes ro ams
Project,Project Category or
Program Name:
Brief Description:_
Eligible Components(Address
Degree of Flexibility in Lan a e)a
Funding Requested
1999$1,000s; %for ro ms):
Other Likely Sources of Funds
include amounts if known):
Status in MTC's Regional
Transportation Plan(RTP) or
`eBlue riot":
Status of Environmental Review
anchor Conceptual Engineering
(detail for individual components if
applicable/available):
SCA.3 Expenditure Pian.
Project, Project Category or Program Information Sheet
Submitted by(RTPC or BOS): WCCTAC
Regional or Sub-Regional: Regional 1
Priority#(excludes programs):
Project,Project Category or I-80 Corridor Transit Improvements
Program Name:
Brief Description: Rail and/or bus capital and service improvements in the 1-80/San
Pablo Avenue Corridor
Eligible Components(Address Eligible components are capital and incremental operating costs
Degree of Flexibility in Language): for expansion of transit services in the I-80 and San Pablo Avenue
corridors,including feeder service to regional routes. Component_s
include,but are not limited to: operational improvements and
operating funding to decrease BART headways on the Richmond
line; expansion of BART parking;replacement of BART parking
to facilitate urban villages; extension of BART from Richmond to
Hilltop and potentially Hercules; light rail construction and service
on San Pablo Avenue; expansion of Capitol Corridor rail service;
express bus service enhancements on 1-80; expansion of local
feeder bus service;extended bus operating hours; intermodal
station investments;park and ride lots; and other enhancements to
transit services.
Funding Requested $xx,xxx
(1999 1,000s;% for programs):
tither Likely Sources of Funds Bridge tolls (for capital); State (public transportation account);
(include amounts if known): STIP(for capital); growth in TDA revenues; renewed Measure C
transit category funds.
Status in MTC's Regional 1-80 corridor study(Fall, 1996) suggested express bus service and
Transportation Plan (R'I'P) or moderate expansion of Capitol Corridor service were most cost-
"Blueprint": effective. BART extensions and light rail suggested in draft
Blueprint.
Status of Environmental Review No environmental review complete. BART performed a
and/or Conceptual Engineering conceptual engineering study of BART extensions in the mid-
(detail for individual components if 1990s.
applicable/available):
r
t
SCA 3 Expenditure Plan
Project, Project Category or Program Information Sheet
Submitted by(RITC or BOS): ITRANSPAC
Regional or Sub-Regional: Regional 2
Priority#(excludes programs):
Project,Project Category or I-680/Rte.4 Interchange Improvements
Program Name:
Brief Description: Improve merge/weave safety and operating efficiency of the I-
680/Rte.4 Interchange, with staged improvements.
Eligible Components(Address Project includes,but is not limited to, improvements on 1-680,Rte.
Degree of Flexibility in Language): 4, and connectors thereto,which improve the safety, operating
efficiency and capacity of the 1-680/Rte. 4 interchange. Project
includes necessary right of way acquisition,construction of staged
improvements,necessary mitigation, traffic staging and other costs
attributable to construction of these improvements.
Funding Requested $xx,xxx
(1999 S1,OOOs;%for Programs):
Other Likely Sources of Funds STIP funds; Central County mitigation program funds.
(include amounts if known):
Status in MTC's Regional Not included in RTP. Contained in draft Blueprint.
Transportation Plan (RTP)or
"Blueprint":
Status of Environmental Review OCTA initiating conceptual engineering studies, and possible
and/or Conceptual Engineering Project Study Report(PSR) for initial phase(s).
(detail for individual components if
app licable/available):
r.•1
�� v
SCA 3 Expenditure Plan
Project, Project Category or Program Information Sheet
Submitted By(R.TPC or BOS); ITRANSPLAN
Regional or Sub-Regional: Regional 1
Priority#(excludes programs):
Project,Project Category or Far East County: Route 4 Corridor and Transportation
Program.Name: Connections to the South P
Brief Description: Highway and Transit Improvements to existing Route 4, the Route
4 Bypass,and connections to San Joaquin County and/or to
Alameda County.
Eligible Components(Address Eligible projects include highway, arterial, and transit capital and
Degree of Flexibility in Language): operating improvements. Components include,but are not limited
to, enhancements which improve: existing Route 4, through
Oakley,Brentwood, and Discovery Bay;the Route 4 Bypass;
transit capital and operating funding for connections from East
County to Alameda County and Central Contra Costa; and road or
highway connections from East County to San Joaquin County at
1-205, and/or to Alameda County at I-580. Funds can be spent for
projects in Alameda and/or San Joaquin Counties if it is
demonstrated that the investment significantly improves access,
safety and/or capacity to East County.
Funding Requested $xx,xxx
(1999$1,000s; % for programs):
Other Likely Sources of.Funds East County Fees; STIP Funds
(include amounts if known):
Status in MTC's Regional Some Federal Funds are shown for the Route 4 Bypass in MTC's
Transportation Plan (RTP) or 1998 RTP, and further upgrades are suggested in the draft
"Blueprint": Blueprint. The draft Blueprint also lists the following potential
projects: "SR[State Route] 239 connection from Brentwood to
Tracy; Brentwood to Tracy commuter rail; and a Brentwood to
Tracy branch line of the ACE service.
Status of Environmental Review The Route 4 Bypass has a completed EIR. The Route 4 Major
and/or Conceptual Engineering Investment Study(MIS) conducted by CCTA included an initial
(detail for individual components if study of commuter rail ridership and costs for East County. The
applicable/available): East County Toll Road Company prepared some initial studies of a
connection to Alameda County in the Route 84 corridor, but did
not complete them.
C:AblP ILFS'�l-CCTA vfTG'.1999 MTGSTEC99\343-10 r Corr",inpl.doc
SCA 3 Expenditure Plan
Project, Project Category or Program Information Sheet
Submitted by(RTPC or BAT
Regional or Sub-Regional: Sub-regional 1
Priority#(excludes programs):
Project,Project Category or Southwest Arterial and Local Roads,Trails, Sidewalks
Program Name:
Brief Description: Rehabilitation,protection and enhancement of arterial roads,trails,
and sidewalks throughout southwest county.
Eligible Components (Address This category includes,but is not limited to, enhancements to the
Degree of Flexibility in Language): following: arterials such as Mt. Diablo Blvd.,Moraga Road,
Moraga Way, Camino Pablo,Rhee n Blvd.,Hartz Blvd.,Railroad
Ave., San Ramon Valley Blvd., Crow Canyon,Diablo Road,
Camino Tassajara, Sycamore Valley Road,Norris Canyon Road,
Bollinger Canyon,Alcosta Blvd.; and improvements to trails and
sidewalks throughout the southwest county area. Eligible
improvements shall include,but not be limited to: protective
betterments such as drainage and storm drain replacements and
expansions;retaining walls; pavement rehabilitation; capacity
expansion through widening, turn lanes, signalization, and
channelization; new,widened or enhanced sidewalks and trails;
trail crossing signals and/or grade-separated trail crossings; ALTA
compliance for sidewalks and trails; and landscaping.
Funding Requested $xx,xxx
(1999 $1,000s; % for programs):'
Other Likely Sources of Funds Renewed Measure C local street maintenance and improvement
(include amounts if known): funds; local gas tax. funds; Surface Transportation Improvement
(STP) funds through MTC; possible STIP funds.
Status in MTC's Regional MTC's RTP shows an estimated$400 million backlog for
Transportation Plan (RTP) or adequate rehabilitation of Contra Costa's local streets and roads,
"Blueprint": and associated facilities. Rehabilitation and maintenance of
existing facilities is MTC's top priority.
Status of Environmental Review Would depend on individual projects.
and/or Conceptual Engineering
(detail for individual components if
applicable/available):
1
fi..
SCA 3 revenue Forecasts
& Impact of Continuing Existing Programs
(in 1,0008 of 1999 $)
all
14,944.7 2,690.0 732.3 433.4 149.4 10,939.5
60,675.6 10,921.6 2,973.1 1,759.6 606.8 44,414.5
61,585.7 11,085.4 3,017.7 1,786.0 615.9 45,080.7
62,509.5 11,251.7 3,063.0 1,812.8 625.1 45,757,0
63,447.2 11,420.5 3,108.9 1,840.0 634.5 46,443.4
64,398.9 11,591.8 3,155.5 1,867.6 644.0 47,140.0
t 65,364.9 11,765.7 3,202.9 1,895.6 653.6 47,847.1
x 66,345.3 11,942.2 3,250.9 1,924.0 663.5 48,564.8
67,340.5 12,121.3 3,299.7 1,952.9 673.4 49,293.2
"a 68,350.6 12,303.1 3,349.2 1,982.2 683.5 50,032.6
x 69,375.9 12,487.7 3,399.4 2,011.9 693.8 50,783.2
70,243.1 12,643.8 3,441.9 2,037.0 702.4 51,417.9
71,121.1 12,801.8 3,484.9 2,062.5 711.2 52,060.6
72,010.1 12,961.8 3,528.5 2,088.3 720.1 52f 711.4
72,910.3 13,123.9 3,572.6 2,114.4 729.1 53 370.3
xT 73 821.6 13,287.9 3,617.3 2,140.8 738.2 54,037.4
74,744.4 13,454.0 3,662.5 2,167.6 747.4 54,712.9
926 � b 75,678.7 13,622.2 3,708.3 2,194.7 756.8 55 396.8
76,624.7 13 792.4 3,754.6 2,222.1 766.2 56 089.3
77,582.5 13,964.9 3,801.5 2,249.9 775.8 56,790.4
58,914.2 10,604.6 2,886.8 1,708.5 589,1 43,125,2
otaJ,'A 1,387,989.5 249,838.1 68,011.5 40,251.7 13,875.9 1,016,008.3
"Note; revenue generated in fourth quarter of FY 2008-09.
"Note: revenue generated through third quarter of FY 2028-29,
RKM:CAWPFILES\SCA3\Revenue Forecasts by Program.xis 3.B.10-1 1
Board of Supervisors Workshop
On Future Transportation Investments
Tuesday, January 18, 2000
1:00 —4:00
Room 107 - Board of Supervisors Chambers
651 Pine Street, Martinez
FORMAT AND SCHEDULE
1:00 PM: Workshop Orientation. Supervisor Gerber and Supervisor DeSaulnier
The workshop will use a panel discussion format. Panelists include:
Doug Kimsey, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
Bob McCleary & Martin Engelmann, Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Gary Binger, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
Jean Roggenkamp, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
Rick Ramacier, Bus Transit Coordinating Council (BTCC)
Adele Ho, City-County Engineering Advisory Committee (CCEAC)
MTC will provide a policy framework for the transportation issues to be discussed. This
will be followed by a question and answer period with the panelists. Each panelist will
be asked a pre-determined question and be allowed up to five (5) minutes for a
response. This will be followed by questions from the County Supervisors. This format
will be repeated during the panel discussion for each question.
1:05 PM Discussion with the Panelists (Moderated by Supervisor Gerber)
MTC Overview.
Question for CCTA: What will be the three top congestion problems in Contra
Costa by 2020 and why?
Follow-up questions of Supervisors related to this topic.
Question for ABAG: What local land use actions could be taken to reduce future
transportation problems in Contra Costa?
Follow-up questions of Supervisors related to this topic.
Question for BAAQMD: What transportation investments for Contra Costa would
be most beneficial to air quality?
Follow-up questions of Supervisors related to this topic.
Question for BTCC: What markets in Contra Costa are best served by transit?
Are they being adequately served today? If not, why?
Follow-up questions of Supervisors related to this topic.
Question for CCEAC: What are the consequences for not maintaining local
streets, roads, and signal systems?
Follow-up questions of Supervisors related to this topic.
Opportunity for Supervisors to ask any additional questions of the panelists.
2:50 PM Ten Minute Break
3:00 PM Summary of Issues
County staff will summarize the issues that have been discussed and will ask the
County Supervisors the following questions:
- Do the candidate projects and programs listed for MTC's Blueprint and the
Measure C-88 Expenditure Plan include all major options, or are there other
transportation investments to consider? (e.g. BART access, school buses,
bicyclelpedestrian projects, transportation improvements to upgradelrevitalize
communities or assist in redevelopment)
- How does the Board maintain consistency between transportation
investments and economic revitalization and environmental protection? Are
there transportation investments that conflict with these other initiatives?
3:10 PM Public Comment
CONCLUSION: How would the Board like to proceed in order to identify investment
priorities for MTC and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority?
,a
• r(�/
FUTURE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS, 1998 - 2018
LOCAL ROAD PROGRAMS (Partial Funding)
TRANSIT PROGRAMS (No service expansion)
TRANSIT
• Richmond BART Intermodal Station
• Martinez AMTRAK Intermodal Station
• Capitol Corridor Trains (6 Round Trips)
MAJOR ARTERIALS
• San Pablo Avenue Transit Upgrades
• Construct/Widen Appian Way, Alhambra Ave, Pacheco BI, Ygnacio,
Dougherty Valley arterials, Vasco Rd (Alameda Co. portion)
1-80 CORRIDOR
• HOV Lanes (Cummings — SR 4)
• Carquinez Bridge Replacement
SR 4 CORRIDOR
• Upgrade SR4 West to Freeway
• Widen SR 4 East Corridor(Railroad to SR 4 Bypass)
• Construct SR 4 Bypass (4 Lanes n/o Balfour, 2 Lanes s/o Balfour)
1-680 CORRIDOR
• SR 24 Auxiliary Lane (Caldecott--Orinda)
• Alcosta Interchange Upgrade
• Auxiliary Lanes (Bollinger Cyn — Diablo Rd)
• HOV Lanes (SR 242— Marina Vista)
• Benicia Martinez Bridge— 2nd Span
CANDIDATE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS
LOCAL ROAD PROGRAMS— 18%
• Bridge Maintenance and Seismic Retrofit
• Street Non-Pavement Repair
• Street and Road Repair
PARATRANSIT SERVICE— 2.9%
TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAMS - 1%
• Transit/Rideshare Incentives
• Park & Ride Lots
TRANSIT PROGRAMS —4.9%
• AC Transit Operating Shortfall
• Employee Shuttles to BART Stations
• Express Bus Service on Major Corridors (e.g. SP Dam Rd, SR 4, Ygnacio,
Treat, Vasco, Caldecott, 1-80, 1-680)
• BART Parking Expansion
• BART Seismic Retrofit
• BART Car Replacement
FERRY SERVICE
• From Richmond
• From Antioch
• From Martinez
MAJOR ARTERIAL CORRIDORS
• San Pablo Dam Rd Improvements
• Richmond Parkway Grade Separations
• Byron Highway/SR 239 Improvements
• Vasco Road Widening
CANDIDATE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS
(continued)
1-80 CORRIDOR
• Local Interchange Upgrades (e.g. SP Dam Rd, Cummings Skyway)
• Capitol Corridor Station at Hercules
• Capitol Corridor/West Oakland BART Station
• Light Rail on Carquinez Bridge
• BART to Hercules
• BART to Hilltop or Pinole
SR 4 CORRIDOR
• Local interchange Upgrades (e.g. A St., Hillcrest)
• Widen SR 4 (1-680 to SR 242)
• ACE Branchline (Brentwood to Tracy)
• Brentwood to Bay Point Commuter Rail
• 1-680/4 Interchange Upgrade
• 1-80/4 Interchange Upgrade
• Upgrade SR 4 Bypass to freeway
• Widen SR 4 East Corridor
• BART to Railroad Ave.
• BART to Hillcrest Ave.
1-680 CORRIDOR
• Local interchange Upgrades
• Caidecott Tunnel 4 t Bore
• Auxiliary Lanes (1-580 to SR 24)
• Light Rail on Benicia Bridge
OTHER PROJECTS
• Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit
Bay Area Pavement Maintenance & Rehabilitation Six-year Shortfalls
in 1997 dollars
CNTRLINE MTS PAVEMENT PAVEMENT PAVEMENT MTS NON-MTS
MILES 94) MILES SHORTFALLS REVENUES NEEDS SHORTFALL SHORTFALL.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 735.8 98 $82,798,048 $33,934,560 $116,732,608 $11,022,786 $71,775,262
ANTIOCH 213 21.1 No data No data No data No data No data
BRENTWOOD 59.9 1.1 No data No data No data No data No data
CLAYTON 37.7 3.1 No data No data No data No data No data
CONCORD 334.5 26.5 No data No data No data No data No data
O ,E 131.3 9.4 $3,478,756 $3,622,759 $7,101,515 $248,706 $3,230,050
EL CERRITO 73 1 $5,699,798 $1,677,272 $7,377,070 $75,503 $5,624,295
HERCULES 51.7 2.7 No data No data No data No data No data
LAFAYETTE 93.2 2.3 No data No data No data No data No data
MARTINEZ 110.9 8.2 No data No data No data No data No data
MORAGA 53 0 No data No data No data No data No data
ORINDA 93 2.1 $2,324,747 $4,992.320 $7,317,067 $52,369 $2,272,378
PINOLE 51.9 3.6 No data No data No data No data No data
PITTSBURG 131.6 8.8 No data No data No data No data No data
PLEASANT HILL 115 16.4 No data No data No data No data No data
RICHMOND 251.8 29.5 $39,585,363 $4.628,974 $44.214,337 $4,636.424 534.948,939
SAN PABLO 48.8 7.3 $5.614,986 $2,463,498 $8,078.484 $839,947 $4,775,039
SAN RAMON 129.4 17.8 $7,446,507 $6,542,465 $13,988,972 $1,026,513 $6,419,994
WALNUT CREEK 174 12.8 No data No data No data No data No data
2,889.50 271.8 $384,764,970 $219,011,390 $603,776,360 $35,287,344 $349,477,626
N13L,.t-ctc.)t. , mats, 19
�a�s �..�,ra,.to,t`�,-t'C7 t•.s,z `"� • �=, ( `� � l� -��� i
Annual Cost to Maintain a Mile of Pavement in Good
Condition.
According to FY 1994-95 data from.. the State Controller office, pavement expenditures per
centerline mile were $14,566 for Bay Area cities and $7,622 for Bay Area counties. But
how current expenditures compare to the amount cities and counties should ideally spend
to maintain a mile of road in good condition on a yearly basis?
Since the deterioration of pavement is a function of the type and amount of traffic carried
by the roadway, different functional classes of roads (i.e., arterials, collectors, and
residential roads) will require different treatment strategies. Treatment strategies vary by
the type of treatment and frequency of the application. Assuming funds are not a
constraint, and roads are in excellent condition (i.e., no maintenance backlogs exist), it is
possible to calculate the cost of maintaining a mile of pavement in "good" condition by
identifying pavement repair strategies for the different functional classifications of
roadways. Present costs of treatments can be annualized using current inflation rates,
and a mile of road can be assumed to resemble the distribution of functional classes in a
typical road network.
Ke Assumptions
� p ons
w Roads are assumed to be in excellent condition at start of cycle(i.e., no maintenance
backlog exists).
• Unit costs are roughly typical of the amount local agencies are currently spending:
Treatment Cost in $ per sq.yd. Cast in $ per sq. ft.
Slurry Seal $0.90 $0.10
Cape Seal(Slurry Seal+Chip Seel) $1.70 $0.19
Thin AC Overlay(2") $4.58 $0.51
Mill and Thin Overlay $10.3 $1.14
Thick AC Overlay(2.5") $6.50 $0.72
Reconstruct Surface $17.0 $1.89
A-14
An inflation rate of 3 percent per year is used to calculate annual costs.
• A typical roadway network consists of 70 percent residential streets, 20 percent
collectors, and 10 percent arterials.
• Arterials are 48-ft. wide (two lanes per direction), collectors 36-ft wide (one lane per
direction and a center turn lane), and residential streets 24-ft wide(one lane per
direction).
• With proper preventive maintenance, the life times for an arterial, collector,and
residential street are 60 years, 72 years, and 100 years, respectively.
• Cyclical repair programs (as shown below) roughly represent actions a select group of
local pavement engineers suggested should be done to keep roads in good condition.
Treatment Strategies
W
a�
V
Arterial
0 7 15 22 30 37 45 52 60 years
Ile
Collector
0 9 18 27 36 45 54 63 72 years
V
CiJ (a1 iP h � +1yJ � VJ
Residential
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 years
A-15
Introduction
3
Monies Made Available Figure 2 illustrates the percentage of monies made available from state
to Cities and Counties (31.8%),federal(7.2%), and local(61.0%)sources.
Figure 2
Monies Made Available to Cities and Counties by Source
Fiscal Year 1997-98
Federal
7.2% State
31.8%
3
a
Local
61.0%
Cities received 73.6%and counties 26.4%of total monies made available for
street and road purposes(Figure 3).
Figure 3
Monies Made Available to Cities and Counties
Fiscal Year 1997-98
City
73.6°l0
L
County
26.4%
V
Z7.r ;_
I 1-If
Streets and Roads Annual Report
Figures 4 and 5 show total monies made available have increased by
approximately $645 million (21.0%) since the 1993-94 fiscal year. During
this period, state funding increased by $73 million (6.6%), federal funding
increased by $71 million (36.6%), and local funding increased by $500
million (28.3%). The local funding portion of total funds made available
increased from 57.6% in 1993-94 to 61% in 1997-98.
Figure 4
Source of Monies Made Available and Percent of Total Monies Made Available
(Amounts in thousands)
Fiscal Stag Federal Local Total
Year Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount
1997-98 .....................$ 1,182,742 31.8 % $ 265,924 7.2 % $ 2,269,162 61.0 % $ 3,717,828
1996-97 ..................... 1,182,669 34.8 240,140 7.1 1,969,634 58.1 3,392,443
1995-96 ..................... 1,173,326 35.3 236,554 7.1 1,916,834 57.6 3,326,714
1994-95 1,171,626 37.2 214,368 6.8 1,761,855 56.0 3,147,849
1993-94 ........... 1,109,568 36.1 194,627 6.3 1,769,040 57.6 3,073,235
i
I
i! Figure 5
1
Monies Made Available by Source ,z
Five-Year Summary
11, $2,500,000
�t
$2,000,000
.i
$1,500,000
'7 $1,000/vW
l
l
t
$500 000
x4
$0
State Federal Lord
C]1993-94 ■ 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 0 1997-98
Sources of monies made available for cities and counties are summarized on
pages x and xv, respectively. Detailed amounts of monies made available
for each city and county are presented in Tables 3,4,9,and 10.
Introduction
City and County Cities and counties reported combined expenditures of$3.6 billion, as
Expenditures shown in Figure 1. This is an increase of $202 million (6.00/x) over
fiscal year 1996.97. Figure 6 illustrates that cities' expenditures
represented 73.1% of the total and counties' 26.9%.
Figure 6
City and County Expenditures Figure 7 provides a breakdown of expenditures by classification for the
Fiscal Year 1997-98 1997-98 fiscal year. This figure shows that of the total expenditures
reported by cities and counties, 43.5% was expended for construction
City and rights-of-way, 43.1% for maintenance, 11.5%for engineering and
73.1% administration,and 1.9%for other expenses.
Total expenditures have increased by approximately $598 million
(20.2%) since the 1993-94 fiscal year. Construction expenditures,
which increased by $337 million (27.8%), accounted for the majority
of the increase in total expenditures. Expenditures for maintenance
County increased by $182 million (13.5%). Administration and other
26.9%�0 expenditures increased by$79 million(20.0%)during this period.
Figure 8 summarizes street and road expenditures by funding source.
Streets and Highways Code Sections 2105 and 2106 designate that
funding may be used for any street or road purpose. Section 2104 is
restricted for county roads, Section 2107 for street purposes, and
Section 2107.5 for city administration and engineering and, in special
situations, for right-of-way acquisition and street system construction.
Discretionary funding sources provided by cities and counties
represented 29.1% of total expenditures. As referenced in Figure 8,
sr
nondiscretionary expenditures are those whose use is restricted,
discretionary expenditures are not restricted. County contributions are
made by counties to cities for nondiscretionary purposes and are not
included in the nondiscretionary total.
Expenditures by cities and counties are further summarized in Figures
14 and 20. Detailed expenditure figures for each city and county are
presented in Tables 5, 6, 11,and 12.
Figure 7
Expenditures by Classification
Fiscal Year 199798
Construction
and Rights-of--Way
Other 43.5%
Expenses
Engineering
and Administration
11.5%
Maintenance
43.1%
Vii
3 Ili d%e
1998 Pavement Management Report
C. Bay Area roadway Mileage
The 1995 Assembly of Statistical Reports, published in December 1997, indicates that
18,862 centerline miles of roadways fall under the maintenance jurisdiction of Bay Area
cities and counties (see Table 1). The 13,708 miles of streets maintained by the region's
cities and the 5,154 miles of roads maintained by the counties represent one of the Bay
Area's single largest public investments.
TABLE 1. Bay Area Mileage of Maintained Public Roads by County -1995
County State Hwy Cities and counties Other Total
Local Streets&Roads
Alameda 207.4 3281.9 0.9 3490.2
Contra Costa 113.5 2899.3 75.8 3088.6
Marin, 90.4 1005.9 135.6 1231.9
Napa 111.9 729.5 7.5 848.9
San l:randsco 32.7 851.2 8.7 892.6
San Mateo 215.8 1797.8 34.9 2048.5
Santa Clara 253.6 4387.9 137.1 4778.6
Solan - 157.9 - - 1598.0 2.2 1758.1
Sonoma 242.4 2310.4 98.2 2651
'total 1425.6 18861.9 500.9 20788.4
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) maintains an additional 1,425
miles, while another 500 miles fall under the jurisdiction of State Parks and Recreation,
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S, National Park
Service, and the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District. Local streets
and roads comprise more than 91 percent of all road mileage in the Bay Area (see Figure
1).
FIGURE 1. Bay Area Mileage by Maintenance Jurisdiction -1995
State Hwy Other
7% 2%
Coup Pies
25%
Cites
66°J�
�SO
Uk!Z-E`;The Metropolitan Transportation Commission , �.v �- 3
P Kimley-Hom
�,.. and Associates, Inc.
Section I - Executive Summary
1.1 Introduction
The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) in association with the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority(OCTA); West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC);
Contra Costa County; Caltrans; and the Cities of Albany, Berkeley, EI Cerrito, Emeryville, Hercules,
Oakland, Pinole, Richmond and San Pablo received a grant to complete the existing signal interconnect
system and to conduct a signal retiming study along San Pablo Avenue from 17`h Street in the Oakland to
Highway 4 in Hercules. Other project participants for the San Pablo Avenue Signal Interconnect Project
were Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Alameda County (AC)Transit.
San Pablo Avenue, State Route 123 from Cutting Avenue in EI Cerrito to Highway 580 in Oakland, is a
major north/south arterial and consists of four to six lane divided/undivided arterial. San Pablo Avenue
i serves the local agencies and is a significant regional route. The project area consists of 83 traffic signals
along San Pablo Avenue and 13 signals along several connecting arterials to San Pablo Avenue, a total of
I 96 traffic signals. Traffic signals that were included as a part of the signal system included signals on
I Sycamore Avenue, Barrett Avenue, Cutting Boulevard, Potrero Avenue, University Avenue, 40th Street and
San Pablo Dam Road.
The Alameda County CMA retained Kimley-Horn and Associates to develop signal interconnect and signal
system plans, assist with construction administration, and conduct the signal retiming study. The
consultant team consisted of Kimley-Horn, Dowling Associates, and Nelson/Nygaard.Traffic counts were
provided by BayMetrics.
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was convened to oversee the project and to advise on the goals
and direction of the project. In addition, the consultant staff provided periodic presentations to the
Alameda County CMA Policy Board, and to West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory
Committee (WCCTAC) Technical Committee and the Policy Board.
1 1.2 Project Objective
N
The project objectives included completion of the signal interconnect, implementation of new signal
systems for the agencies, and implementation of new signal timing pians for the corridor. The goals of the
M project included:
• reducing traffic delays and congestion
■ Improving corridor progression and mobility
Improving the local circulation and access to properties on San Pablo Avenue
>R Improving corridor accessibility for both automobiles and transit
Ilk ■ Improving pedestrian mobility and convenience
■ Improving coordination across jurisdictional boundaries
• Improving safety and public convenience
San Pablo Avenue Signal Interconnect Project
August 1999
Page 1
r
i
i'
HERCULES
d "
PINOLE
r 4
"War.
RICHMOND
LEGEND
sr • Ex%lm Owmi-NoNow sww
lnpro
� � ,,�'4, _•'-� _ `'/ J AS Ta&lar
SAN PABLO °i0"� wwwolFIonMpawm
p Cob"a e m*tdn uppwr
�i r t� Cl�orr srdbr solbrw uoa>�
amominoww
► �;�`e`�' „Ir� � � ....Irrrr cane�e to
+ AGOW QT=
city No
o.ft,W. 'mow►
c6oft�,
E RICHMOND
raKpown
OW ��;,•
1 A �+
100,
` EL CERRI`I`O N
Not to Scale r
to
FIGURE 4a CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS � and deAssocmoc
r �,I• aniatest,Inc. �
r
r
<. 1
So PSW Amm k*mwmd Pmft
�-� mow►
F
w t ALBANY
t r
&` Aw _
w
t
LEGEND -r—
s oNvw-H,lnvrovmvwo 1 �"�9,
Fwrsow qpn* r�hdrr.Nwy
AFietlillm�"rra7a t Corpor"W YW
InW�rdon Mrp � t
A cd**i CQ uchr L*wa r
Carrual+rodforealtwsrtlpvwr BERKELEY
-W_ams d+w in swim Irrboornecr t
—-Imm CCM"tar Re"Cnrnsatlsn
yCnfar
I
yl i
OAKLAND
EMEA�,nLLE a.!�
` �
w
t7AKLAND
r
1 a ureic 4
1 a
Er at oaku"md
Er4h&WM9 DOM J .
Not to Scale
CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS � Kim'yNom
FIGURE 4b ,,,,,,M� and Associates,Inc. �
o