Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12182001 - C.41 T'O: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CO, `� Contra F%„A.. FROM: . TRANSPORTATION, WATER AND INFRASTRUCTURE Costa COMMITTEE (SUPERVISOR DONNA GERBER, CHAIR) Count DATE: DECEMBER 10, 2001 SUBJECT: PROPOSED.TRANSPORTATION LEGISLATIVE GOALS FOR 2002 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the attached set of goals for transportation legislation for calendar year 2002. FISCAL IMPACT None to the General Fund. If some goals are obtained, they could result in increased funding for transportation purposes. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Each year the Board of Supervisors adopts a set of goals for transportation-related legislative advocacy for the coming year. The Board's Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee and staff work with the County's legislative advocacy firm on transportation, to try to attain the legislative goals. In some cases the goals include sponsorship of legislation, while others may rely on adopting positions or seeking amendments to legislation sponsored by others. The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee has discussed transportation legislation periodically throughout the past year. At the Committee meeting on December 10, the Committee developed a recommendation for the Board of Supervisors to adopt the attached goals for transportation legislation in 2002. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES RECOMMENDAT OF COUNT DMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE T H E R SIGNATURE (S): Supervisor o na Gerber pervisor John Gioia ACTION OF BOARD ON Decem er 18, 2001 APPROVED AS KECOMMENDED xx OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT None ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: John Grelitzer (9251335-1201) cc: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED December 18, 2001 Public Works Department JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF S.Hoffman, CAO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY SAtransportationUi board order trans leg.doc TRANSPORTATION LEGISLATIVE GOALS FOR 2002 DECEMBER 10, 2001 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Continued The goals are similar to those adopted by the Board for 2001, although updated to reflect recent developments in several areas, such as ongoing transit studies and County efforts to develop inter-regional highway connections with the Central Valley via the proposed State Route 239. The only significant change from last year's transportation goals is the removal of smart growth as a transportation goal. Instead, smart growth legislation will be a part of the County's general legislative program developed through the County Administrator's Office. Previously smart growth was included among the transportation goals. The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee recommends dealing with smart growth separately because it impacts numerous other areas besides transportation. For example, smart growth has implications for resource conservation, air quality, and economic development, among other areas. The County's transportation advocacy firm, Smith Kempton & Watts of Sacramento, will represent the County in seeking to attain these goals. ATTACHMENT A Goals For Transportation-Related Legislation In The 2002 Legislative Session 1. Increase transportation funding and protect current transportation funding This goal would focus on the development of, or support for, bills that would generate major funding for transportation in Contra Costa County. One such bill supported by the Board in 2001 —ACA 4—led to Proposition 42 on the March ballot. This legislative goal also includes protection of existing transportation funding programs, should there be proposals to shift them to help resolve the current state budget shortfall. Part of this goal will be to seek full funding of the Caldecott Tunnel fourth bore project as a state funding obligation. 2. Regional rail coordination. Several pending rail issues could fit into a goal to reach regional coordination on rail development. One issue is ensuring funds are available for the extension of BART or other commuter rail service into East County along the State Route 4 Corridor and Vasco Road Corridor, and West County along the 1-80 Corridor. The agreement between BART and Santa Clara County for the San Jose extension didn't include any "buy in" funds for Contra Costa or Livermore extensions. While MTC has proposed funding commitments for the East County extension, legislation may be needed to ensure funding is made available. East County interests also have proposed the use of conventional trains on Union Pacific's little-used "Mococo" freight line in East County to connect with the ACE train station in Tracy. This, along with a BART extension, is under study in the East County Transit Study. Senator Jackie Speier(D-San Mateo) is interested in extending ACE train services from the East Bay to the Peninsula, possibly in the Dumbarton Bridge corridor. Senator Speier's office indicated she would be interested in cooperative arrangements with Contra Costa and Alameda Counties to develop a coordinated approach to rail funding and expansion to accomplish ACE train expansion. Expansion of intercity rail services on the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin lines also is part of this goal. It is recommended that any funding for regional rail projects not come from road funds or from further transfers from the General Fund. 3. School transportation expansion and improvements. The Board of Supervisors has expressed an interest in school transportation issues. Legislative efforts by Assemblymember Dion Aroner to equalize school transportation funding across school districts have failed to pass the Legislature in recent years, due to a lack of statewide support. This goal includes support for new efforts to explore funding for home-to-school transportation. Bills that deal with the planning requirements for new school facilities also would fall into this category. One bill that passed the Legislature requires consultation between school districts and local governments on new school siting. 4. Pedestrian safet . Bicycle legislation and funding programs have been the subject of recent legislative activity but less attention has been given to pedestrian issues. There is a proposal to extend the Safe Routes to Schools grant program beyond its expiration date of January 1, 2002. This initiative, or similar measures, may be the focus of legislation in the next session. 5. Inter-regional corridor improvements. This goal deals with development of better transportation linkages between the County and other regions. One example is a possible widening project for Vasco Road on both the Contra Costa and Alameda County side. Vasco Road has become a heavy commute route for East County residents getting to Livemore area jobs. The road is only one lane in each direction. Another example is State Route 239, an unbuilt segment of the state highway system that would run roughly from Brentwood to Tracy. County staff has participated in discussions with Caltrans, local legislators and other entities to try to develop a funding strategy for the necessary inter- regional corridor study. However, the study has not progressed through state funding or prioritization channels. Caltrans indicates multi-county coalitions would be helpful in advancing the project at the state level. Therefore TRANSPLAN,the regional transportation committee for East County, expects to contact elected officials in San Joaquin County to determine their level of interest in the project. The Board may consider sponsoring or supporting legislation to help advance projects such these inter-regional projects.