The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 04221986 - X.14 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Tom Torlakson, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (CCTAC) DATE: April 22, 1966 SUBJECT: MTC New Rail Starts - 1986 Biennial Review Specific Requests or Recommendation(s) A Background A Justification RECOMMENDATION Consistent with the charge of the Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (CCTAC) , the CCTAC recommends that the Board of Supervisors consider adopting the following recommen- dations and authorize the Chair of CCTAC and other elected representatives to advise and transmit to MTC's Executive Committee, on April 23, 198E, the Board of Supervisors' recommen- dations: 1 . Continued support of Contra Costa County's number one priority, the West Pittsburg/North Concord BART extension; 2. Continued support for purchasing the S.P. right-of-way in the San Ramon Valley and request that planning studies begin for future transit use of this right-of-way; 3. Request BART to join Contra Costa County and support the West Pittsburg/North Concord BART extension as BART' s number one priority in the BART Tier I priority listing, rather than one project among several which are being pursued concurrently; 4 . Request MTC to amend the New Rail Starts program to include the acquisition of park-and-ride areas and station sites in the Richmond to Hercules area for future BART expansion; 5 . Request that MTC be flexible and schedule earlier review of the New Rail Starts priorities, if the current situation and priorities change due to new federal or state policies, an increase in available funding, a transportation corridor right-of-way becomes available, or other significant event occurs. Respond to MTC's remaining questions as follows: 1 . The operator of any proposed light rail system should not be limited to BART but should be open to the funding and implementing agencies' discretion; 2. Using SB 878 funding without a guarantee that BART can match it dollar for dollar as currently proposed in SB P78, should not be made until the funding situation is clarified. This does not preclude, however, the use of SB 878 funding for other meritorious transit projects which have the support of the public; 3. Sources of local funding for transit would depend upon the situation and the mechanisms for obtaining the funding. Continued on attachment: X yes Signature: Recommendation of County Administrator Recommendationo Board Committee Approve Other: Signature(s): OW a9`� Action of Board on: f y Approved as Recommended Other_ Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY, OF AN ACTION TAKEN �j Unanimous (Absent T. ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. Absent: Abstain: Attested Orig. Div.: CCTAC cc: Community Development THE B ARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Works AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CAO By DEPUTY CLT el FINANCIAL IMPACT None. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND Two years ago the Board of Supervisors adopted the CCTAC recommendations advocating that the MTC New Rail Starts program include the West Pittsburg/North Concord BART extension and the acquisition of the S.P. right-of-way in the San Ramon Valley. In February 10-P4 , the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted Resolution No. 1.367 which sets forth a 1F year, 8F mile, $2.8 billion program for new rail transit starts and extensions in the nine county region. The resolution provided for a review of the priorities established by this process every two years. During the last round of hearings, projects of concern to Contra Costa County were adopted as follows: Estimated Project Capital Cost BART extension to West Pittsburg including a North Concord Station $336 million Acquisition of various rights-of-way including North- western Pacific Railway in Marin County, Southern Pacific in the San Ramon Valley, Contra Costa County; and the Livermore/Amador Valley, Alameda County together with appropriate station sites. $100 million Total $43F million This year MTC is reviewing its aeopted If year program as part of its adopted biennial process. CCTAC is again recommending support of the two adopted projects, adding site acquisitions in the Richmond-Hercules area , requesting a planning study, and responding to MTC questions to Contra Costa County. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION Contra Costa County's priorities for its transportation projects would be delayed or decreased by MTC in comparison to the rest of the Bay Area' s projects. 1 ' t contra costa transportation advifory committee CCTRe 4TH FLOOR, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, NORTH WIND, 861 VINE STREET, MARTINEZ,CALIF. 91553-0095 April 22, 1986 i TO: Board of / J FROM: Tom Torlakson, Chair CCTAC i SUBJECT: New Pail Starts i Background f 1 In February 1984 , the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted Resolution No. 1367 which sets forth a 1E year, 8E mile, $2.8 billion program for new rail transit starts and extensions in the nine county region. The resolution provided for a review of the priorities established by this process every two years . This year, MTC is reviewing its adopted 16 year program. During the last round of hearings , projects of concern to Contra Costa County were adopted as follows: Estimated Project Capital Cost BART extension' to West Pittsburg inclueing a North Concord Station $336 mill ion Acquisition of various rights-of-way including North- western Pacific Railway in Marin County, Southern Pacific in the` San Ramon Valley, Contra Costa County; and the Livermore/Amador Valley, Alameda County together with appropriate station sites. $100 million Total $43E million Out of a total of fourteen regional proposals , the two Contra Costa proposals represent 15.Eq of the $2.8 billion program. MTC Questions, MTC is currently holding meetings on the New Rail Starts to consider whether the adopted program should be altered or maintained . At their meeting in San Francisco, MTC staff presented a set of questions that were directed at Contra Costa County. These questions are: 1 , Does Contra Costa County support the priority MTC now gives to a West Pittsburg BART extension over a Richmond Extension , or a San Ramon light rail project? 2. If not, what are Contra Costa County priorities? 3. If light rail is a priority in Contra Costa County, should BART build and operate the system? If not, who? 4 . Does Contra Costa County intend to include substantial funding from SB 878 as a local commitment to any transit project? 5. If SB 878 funding is not proposed, what other substantial source for local funding is proposed? Contra Costa County Concerns East Contra Costa County is concerned with whether the extension will ever be constructed. Also, East Contra Costa is not convinced that heavy rail is the preferred alternative. There is some discussion that light rail may provide more track miles , enabling BART to extend to Antioch , and is more cost effective. West Contra Costa County would like BART to be expanded beyond its Richmond station to Pinole and Hercules. There has been discussion for just purchasing land for park and ride areas and the station sites, in light of the bleak funding picture being given by the federal government. Also , there is some discussion about using existing railroad tracks , that may be abandoned between Richmond and Antioch by the pending SP/Santa Fe merger, for commuter trains . Central Contra Costa County' s major project is . purchasing the abandoned SP right-of-way in the San Ramon Valley. This project is part of the MTC program of projects adopted in 1084 . This project may be ready soon to be advanced to the next stage by doing a parallel study of this project while the West Pittsburg BART extension Alternative Analysis is proceeding. This is because Right-of-Way acquisition is nearing completion , so planning must begin soon to study future transit uses of the right-of-way and identify the need for acquisition of future station and park and ride sites. The New Rail Starts program should recognize this need and- support the County in conducting the required study. CCTAC Recommendations Based on an understanding derived from a meeting of the east and west county transportation groups and staff analysis of the MTC questions, CCTAC recommends the following to the Board of Supervisors: 1 . A unified presentation be made by Contra Costa County at the April 23rd MTC meeting; 2. A Board resolution stating Contra Costa' s priorities be adopted by the Board and that the CCTAC Chair and other elected representatives present it at the April 23rd MTC meeting. Support for specific projects on the Contra Costa County list of priorities can be made by a represen- tative(s) of that area of the county. 3. The Board resolution lists as priorities, the following: continued support of the West Pittsburg BART extension; continued support for purchasing the SP right-of-way in the San Ramon Valley; and to begin planning studies for future transit use of this right-of-way; - request BART to join Contra Costa County and support the West Pittsburg/North Concord BART extension as BART' s number one priority in the BART Tier l priority listing, rather than one project among several which are being pursued concurrently; request MTC to amend the new rail starts program to include the acquisition of park and ride areas and station sites in the Richmond to Hercules area for future BART expansion; request that MTC be flexible and schedule earlier review of the New Rail Starts priorities , if the current situation and priorities change due to new federal or state policies , an increase in available funding , a transportation corridor right-of-way becomes available, or other significant event occurs. 4. Respond to MTC' s remaining questions as follows: a . The operator of any proposed light rail system should not be limited to BART, but should be open to the funding and implementing agencies' discretion. b. Using SB 878 funding for .any BART transit project without a guarantee that BART can match it dollar for dollar as currently proposed in SB 878, should not be made until the funding situation is clarified. This does not preclude, however, the use of SB 878 funding for other meritorious transit projects which has the support of the public. C. Other sources of local funding for transit would depend upon the situation and the mechanism for obtaining the funding. TT:RC:dsp TormCCTACrail .t4