The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 04031990 - S.3 '53 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORStI G� L FROM: Supervisor Tom Powers r! Cos- LGL DATE: March 28, 1990 �� lE° County SUBJECT; East Bay Rail Plan SPECIFIC REOUE$T(6)OR RECOMMENDATION($)A BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION Recommended Action: 1. Refer request to study East Bay Commuter Rail Plan to Board of Supervisors' Transportation Committee. 2. Committee to consider: A. Asking Byron Sher to amend his bill (AB1145) to include $750,000 to study the East Bay (Contra Costa and Alameda County) rail corridor using funds from the Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PV,EA). B. Asking MTC to include the East Bay Rail Plan in their deliberations for the 1990 Rail Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) programming of the $3 billion rail bond funds. 3. Appoint Supervisor Tom Powers to make contact with Alameda County and the Port of Oakland to develop a joint approach to the East Bay Rail Pian. 4. Authorize staff and members of the Board to testify at MTC rail starts hearings in late April 1990. Background: Contra Costa and Alameda Counties have been considering how to use existing rail lines and rights-of-way for a long time. With much activity now on rail transportation, both in terms of financing (two rail bond measures on the June ballot) and as alternatives to highways, we should do our best to evaluate how these plans can be developed and implemented. Since Byron Sher is including study funds for Santa Clara and Alameda Counties rail plans from the PVEA account in his bill , we should try to amend the bill to do a similar study for Contra Costa County. Presently, there is no other funding available for such studies. The Public Works Department has been following this issue and believes a sum of $250,000 would be adequate to do the studies. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: &—YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE($): ACTION OF BOARD ON April 3, 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS 16 A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(APSENT V AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES., AND ENTERED ON 7HE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT; ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN, CC; Transportation Committee ATTESTED - �i2i �. 990 Steve Goetz, CDD PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD Of Supervisor Powers SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMIN13TRA70A County Administrator BY DEPUTY M382 (10./88) Regarding the $3 billion in rail funds (Costa Bill - Prop. 108 on June Ballot) , MTC is now programming those into the RTIP, and if we do not now seek a position for the East Bay rail corridors, we may not be able to seek any of those future funds if the measure passes voter approval . Alameda County and the Port of Oakland have been discussing this plan for several months and I believe we will find that a joint effort will be very possible, and of course more productive, if we work together on such a regional plan. MAR.- 2S -90 WED 1 1 : 1 2 S U P E R V I S O R T O M P O W E R S P - 02 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: March 26, 1990 TO: Supervisor Tom Powers, District 1 FROM: J. Michael',Wal£ord Publi(Vorks Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Service Between Richmond and Concord This is in response to your memorandum regarding the funding of the Commuter Rail Service between Richmond and Concord. According to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), they are programming the Bay Area's share of the $3 Billion Rail Bond funds in the 1990 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The allocation of funds to the various rail operators is handled by the Transit Operators'Coordinating Committee.The County does not have much say in that. Since the funding allocation has been agreed to by all the operators, politically it will be difficult to change it at this time. MTC also points out that not every project on the New Rail Start Program will receive'funding. This implies that projects not on the New Rail Strut Program will not have much chance of getting any Rail Bond funds. It appears that the best way to move the.project forward is to include the project in the New Rail Start Program, then conduct a feasibility study of the project and prepare the necessary environmental document. MTC will conduct a public hearing on the Regional Transportation Improvement Program as well as the modification of the New Rail Start Program on April 27. Your appearance before MTC on that date is important. We estimate that the feasibility study and the environmental document will cost $250,000 and $500,000 respectively. At this time we have no estimate on the construction, equipment and operating costs. The feasibility study and environmental document can be financed by the following sources of funds: a. Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA): This is the fines'collected from oil companies from overcharges in the 1970's. State legislation will be required. For the amount requested, it should be a routine matter especially if MTC concurs or supports the legislation. Currently Assemblyman Sher is sponsoring legislation (AB 1145) to provide $5.6 million PVEA funds to Santa Clara, City of San Jose, and Oakland for signal and other transportation projects. D.J. Smith is on retainer with Public Works and this would be a very appropriate assignment for him to get Contra Costa added. MAR - 29 - SO WED 11 : 13 SUPERVISOR T O M P O W E R S R . OZ Supervisor Powers March 26, 1990 Page Two b. Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA): UMTA provides planning grants through eligible transit operators for rail projects. Currently, SamTrans, (San Mateo Transit) is using an UMTA grant to conduct a feasibility study of using the Southern Pacific Rail line from Fremont to Redwood City as a commuter rail. Typically, a 20% local match will be required. AC Transit, BARTI), and CC.CTA are eligible recipients of UMTA grants. C. Transportation Development Act (TDA): Each year, MTC receives 5% of the TDA allocation for planning purposes. In 1990, allocation from Contra Costa County will be about $800,000. The demand for these funds is high, but it can be used as local match for UMTA or PVEA funds. d. Gasoline Tax Subvention: Since Contra Costa County is a Prop. 5 county, State gasoline tax subvention can be used for rail projects except for the purchase of rolling stock and operation.We receive less than $9 million per year in gasoline tax from the State. These funds are used to support maintenance (90%), administration (5%), community development (2%), and as local match for State and Federal construction grants (3%). In FY 1990, the Road Funds is being required, for the first time, to pay for services provided by the Auditor's Office and for insurance reserve.This amounts to over $300,000. Because of this new requirement, our road maintenance effort has to be reduced and it is unlikely that Road Funds can finance the feasibility study. Road Funds may be able to provide a small match if it is needed to complete the financing package. e, Measure C funds: The proceeds ,from the 1/2 cent sale tax can. only be spent on projects or programs in the expenditure plan. The Commuter Rail feasibility study may qualify under some of the programs. The Contra Costa Commuterway is primarily intended for the San. Ramon Branchline, yet it does not preclude other projects from applying for funds. Since this is a regional project,the regional planning program may also be available as 4 funding source for the study. The environmental document for the Highway 4, west County project will have to address transit alternatives. A feasibility study of the rail plan could therefore be funded under the Highway 4 west program. Maurice Shlu will be contacting you as soon as possible to plan the next course of action. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please call Maurice at 646-4470, extension 251 as I will be out of town for a couple of weeks. JMW/N4MS-.Iv a:ccrail.t3 CC! Members-Board of Supervisor P. Bat6elOT, County Administrator M. Shiu, Road Engineering