HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03191991 - S.9 s.9
' r
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on March 19, 1991 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Metropolitan Transportation Commission Work Program
Supervisor Robert Schroder transmitted to the Board the
attached reports on 1) Model Trip Reduction Ordinance; 2) San
Francisco Bay Crossing Study; and 3 ) staff evaluation of the
Transportation Improvement Program, all of which are components of
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Work Program.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that receipt of the attached
reports is ACKNOWLEDGED.
cc: County Administrator
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: -12k -A— /9. /QQ
PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
Of upervisore and County Administrator
By .Deputy
S.9
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ROBERTI.SCHRODER
MEMO SUPERVISOR,THIRD OISTMT
TO: Supervisor Nancy C. Fanden, District Two
Supervisor Sunne W. McPeak, District Four
Supervisor Tom Powers, District One
Supervisor Tom Torlakson, District Five
Steve Goetz, Community Development Department
Valentin Alexeeff, Director
Growth Management & Economic Deve pment Agency
FROM: Supervisor Robert I. Schro e i trict Three
DATE: March 15, 1991
SUBJ: MODEL TRIP REDUCTION ORDINACE
Attached is the Model Trip Reduction Ordinance adopted by my
Metropolitan Transportation Commission Work Program and Plan
Revision Committee (WPPRC) on Friday, March 8, 1991.
510 LA GONDA WAY o DANVILLE,CALIFORNIA 94526 • TELEPHONE(415)820-8683
ATTACHMENT X
PHASE 1 TRIP REDUCTION ORDINANCE
Ordinance for Cities/Counties Without Existing Ordinances
and That Are Interested in Establishing Requirements for
Employers to Provide Commute Alternatives Information
to Their Employees Only
INTRODUCTION
The intent of this ordinance is to establish minimum employer requirements
that will be a first step towards implementing the anticipated Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) rule on-employer—based trip reduction
programs. Adoption of this ordinance will not be sufficient to satisfy the
future Air District rule requirements. Adoption of this ordinance is also
intended to fulfill Congestion Management Plan (CMP) requirements.
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this ordinance is to establish requirements for new and
existing employers (a) to provide information to their employees on available
alternatives to solo driving and how commute alternatives use can mitigate
traffic congestion and air pollution, and (b) to survey employees on their
commute modes. The survey information will , in turn, be useful to employers, _
cities, transit operators and ridesharing agencies in developing more .
{ convenient transportation alternatives for employees.
II . FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
The city/county determines that:
A. Use of commute alternatives is beneficial in reducing traffic congestion,
excessive parking demand, and associated air pollution, noise, fuel use,
vehicle wear and tear, and time losses and inconvenience from the levels
that would otherwise occur, and thereby contributes to making city/county
a more attractive and healthful place to live, work, visit, and do
business.
B. Trip reduction information programs offered through employers,
multi—tenant employment centers, transportation management organizations,
and their contractors are an effective and equitable way to encourage the
use of commute alternatives.
C. Government Code 65809 requires a designated local agency in each urbanized
county to develop, adopt, and annually update a Congestion Management
Program (CMP) for the county and its cities and requires that each
designated agency's member cities and county adopt and implement a trip
reduction and travel demand management ordinance.
D. The State of California Clean Air Act (AB 2595, Sher) requires the
adoption and implementation of transportation control measures as part of
(8289p) — 1 —
ATTACHMENT A
the Clean Air Plan to be adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) in June 1991 . An employer-based trip reduction program
will be included in the Clean Air Plan. These programs are considered a
"reasonably available" transportation control measure under the State of
California Clean Air Act.
E. The Federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seg.) requires the region
to adopt a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality. The 1982 Air
Quality Plan for the Bay Area, including the Contingency Plan adopted by
MTC in February 1990, is the currently adopted SIP for the San Francisco
Bay Area. The Contingency Plan includes TCM #27 - Update MTC Guidance. on
Development of Local TSM Programs, and TCM #28 - Local Transportation
Systems Management (TSM) Initiatives.
III. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
A. coal. The goal of this ordinance is to inform employees about the
full range of commute options and, through this process, reduce commuting
by single-occupant auto.
B. objectives. The objectives are:
1 . To implement commute alternatives information programs as the first
step of a future employer trip reduction program.
2. To make information on employee travel patterns available to cities,
employers, ridesharing agencies, and transit operators to develop
improved transportation services.
3. To monitor the use of alternative commute modes.
4. To encourage employers to implement trip reduction programs.
IV. DEFINITIONS
A. "Commute Alternatives" shall mean carpooling, vanpooling, transit,
bicycling, and/or walking as commute modes.
B. "Employee" shall mean any person hired by any employer, including any
part-time and/or seasonal employee working 20 hours or more weekly 52
weeks per year, but excluding any independent contractors. Partners,
joint ventures and the like shall be considered as employees for the
purpose of calculating the number of employees.
C. (-Employer- shall mean any public or private employer, including
city/county, who has a permanent worksite in city/county 52 weeks pet
year. "Employer" shall not include contractors with no permanent place
of business in city/county and other businesses with no permanent
workplace location.
D. 1114ulti-tenant Employment center" (See Discussion, Item 1) shall mean
either:
(8289p) - 2
ATTACHMENT A
1 . any business park or other commercial , business, and/or industrial
( project of 125,000 gross square feet or more, in separate or common
ownership, which can be identified by two or more of the following
characteristics:
a. it is known by a common name given to the project by its developer;
b. it is governed by a common set of covenants, conditions and
restrictions;
c. it was approved, or is to be approved, as an entity by the city;
d. it is covered by a single tentative or final subdivision map;
OR
2. any multi-tenant building or group of buildings on a single site with
five hundred (500) or more employees.
E. Transportation Administrator shall mean the person employed by the
city/county to manage the program developed under this ordinance.
F. Transportation Advisory and Appeals Committee shall mean the group
responsible for advising the City Council or County Board of Supervisors,
and Transportation Board of Directors. (See Discussion, Item 2) .
G. Transportation Board of Directors shall mean the group responsible for
ordinance policy direction. (See Discussion, Item 2) .
H. Transportation Coordinator shall mean the person designated by the
employer who is responsible for day-to-day administration of employer
requirements under the ordinance.
I. Transportation Manager shall mean the person designated by the
employer who is responsible for carrying out the employer requirements
under the ordinance.
J. Trip Reduction Program" shall mean any reasonable method or approach
for providing, supporting, subsidizing, and/or encouraging the use of
commute alternatives, including but not limited to matching and placement
services for carpools and vanpools, provision of carpool and vanpool
vehicles, carpool and vanpool operating subsidies, carpool and vanpool
preferential parking location and/or fees, fees for employee parking,
provision of and/or placement services for subscription bus, provision of
shuttle services, transit fare subsidies, on-site waiting and loading
facilities for transit, travel allowances for bicyclists and pedestrians,
on-site paths, parking, and showers and lockers for bicyclists and
pedestrians, guaranteed ride home and guaranteed transportation in
emergencies for users of commute alternatives, on-site child care and
other service/convenience facilities which lessen the need for a personal
vehicle at the place of employment. telecommuting, and teleconferencing.
K. -Worksite" shall mean the place of employment, base of operation, or
predominant work location of an employee. It includes all of the
employer's buildings or facilities located in city/county that are:
Option 1 : located within 1 .5 miles
(8289p) - 3 -
ATTACHMENT A
Option 2: separated solely by a. public or private roadway or other
right-of-way.
(See Discussion, Item 3)
V. RESPONSIBILITIES OFEMPLOYERS
The requirements of this ordinance are for one of the following employer
groups, whicheverislarger (city/county to choose based on an accurate data
source):
1 . employers with 1004 employees, or employers in multi-tenant employment
centers (see IV.D.)
2. whatever employer size or multi-tenant employment center size that
will include no less than 50% of the Jurisdiction'.s employees.
OPTION: See Discussion Item 4 on employer size thresholds, and Discussion
Item 1 on employersin multi-tenant employment centers
All employers shall do the following within the specified time period
following notification from city/county that they are subject to the ordinance
requirements:
A. Transportation Manager. Within 30 days following notice from
city/county as to employer requirements under the ordinance, appoint a
Transportation Manager for each employer worksite. An employer having
more than one worksite within city/county may appoint one manager for all
worksites or individual managers for one or more of the worksites. The
Transportation Manager shall be responsible for carrying out the employer
requirements under the ordinance. The Transportation Manager shall have
authority for the employer's trip reduction information program budget.
B. Transportation Coordinator. Within 30 days following notice from
city/county as to. employer requirements under the ordinance, appoint a
Transportation Coordinator for each worksite within the city. The
coordinator shall have the day-to-day responsibility for administering the
ordinance's employer requirements. Within 60 days following appointment,
unless the coordinator has had one year of experience as a coordinator,
the coordinator shall complete a coordinator training course approved by
city/county. A designated Transportation Manager may also function as a
coordinator, provided the manager meets the qualifications set forth in
this section.
C. Information Dissemination. Within 60 days following notice from
city/county and not less frequently than once per year thereafter,
distribute to every employee up-to-date marketing and information
materials about commute alternatives and their impact on congestion and,
air pollution. These materials shall be provided or approved by
city/county.
D. Annual Employee Survey. The survey form will be provided by
city/county. Within 90 days following notification from city/county, all
employers shall conduct an employee transportation survey at the
(8289p) 4 -
ATTACHMENT 'A
worksite. In addition, every employer shall conduct a survey each year
1 thereafter during the 120 day period that includes the anniversary month
of the baseline survey. The survey must be conducted during a 5-day
period that does not include any special events or holidays that could
substantially influence commute behavior. The response rate for the
survey must be 70% or greater. Within 60 days following survey
completion, the surveys must be sent to city/county.
1 . The employee survey'shall be used to identify current employee use of
alternative commute modes, calculate average vehicle ridership (AVR) ,
and serve as a data base for the future design, implementation, and
monitoring of employer trip reduction programs.
2. The employee information to be obtained by the annual survey shall
include the following:
a. Number of employees by work hours and work site.
b. Number of employees residing in each zip code area.
c. The AVR determined by dividing the number of day shift employees
by the number of vehicles they drive to work.
3. The employer shall also provide brief written descriptions of the
following:
a. The number of off-street parking spaces provided by the employer.
b. The fees, if any, charged on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis
for parking employee carpools, vanpools, and single occupancy
vehicles.
c. A listing of all information provision and marketing efforts,
services,. and incentives included in the employee trip reduction
program, whether provided by the employer or a third party,
including a building or multi-tenant employment center owner or
manager, a transportation management organization, or any other
entity.
D. If requested to do so by city/county, the Transportation Manager or
Coordinator or other person designated by the employer, shall attend a
meeting held by city/county to provide information about developing and
implementing commute alternatives programs.
VI. CITY/COUNTY ASSURANCES
The city/county shall undertake the following:
A. Transportation Administrator. City/county shall designate a
Transportation Administrator to serve as the point of contact for
employers subject to this ordinance.
B. Technical Guidance and Support. The Transportation Administrator
shall provide guidance to employers in carrying out provisions of this
ordinance, including but not limited to the following:
i
(8289p) - 5 -
ATTACHMENT A
1 . Provide employers or cause employers to be provided with marketing
materials and information about commute alternatives and how commute
alternatives can mitigate traffic congestion and air pollution.
2. Provide training or cause training to be provided for employer
Transportation Managers and Coordinators in fulfilling their
responsibilities.
3. Analyze data or cause data to be analyzed from the employer surveys.
Prepare a report on the results of the employer surveys annually.
Transmit report to employers, Congestion Management Agency (CMA) ,
local transit operators. and local and regional rideshare agencies.
4. If deemed necessary, conduct annual meetings or cause annual meetings
to be conducted for employer Transportation Managers and Coordinators.
5. Coordinate with other jurisdictions and with the region in developing
and implementing transportation management and trip reduction programs
and disseminating information about these programs to employers in
city/county.
VII. ENFORCEMENT
A. Appeals.
1 . Appeals to Advisory and Appeals Committee. If the Transportation
Administrator finds that an employer has failed to fulfill any
. ordinance requirements, the administrator shall notify the employer
within 30 days. The employer or sponsor may, within 15 days of
receipt of such notice, file an appeal with the Transportation
Advisory and Appeals Committee stating the grounds for the appeal .
Upon receiving an appeal , the Advisory and Appeals Committee shall
hear the appeal and render an advisory opinion within 60 days. The
opinion shall be filed with the employer, Transportation
Administrator, and Transportation Board of Directors.
2. Appeals to transportation Board of Directors. Within 60 days of
receipt of the advisory opinion of the Advisory and Appeals Committee,
the Board of Directors, after hearing the appeal , will determine..
whether the employer is fulfilling the requirements or if penalties
shall be applied. ••
B. Penalties.
1 . civil Assessment. An employer or sponsor who fails to comply with
the provisions of this ordinance within ninety (90) days of written
notice to comply, shall be liable to the city for a civil assessment
in the amount of $250.00 per day for each day of noncompliance,
commencing with the ninety-first (91st) day following said notice.
2. Injunction. In addition to any other remedy which may accrue to
the city hereunder, the city may enforce the provisions of this
ordinance, or any regulation or order promulgated or issued. or any
program approved, pursuant hereto by civil injunction.
(8289p) - 6 -
ATTACHMENT A '
3. Operative Date. The provisions of this section of this ordinance
shall be effective from and after one year following the effective
date of this ordinance.
i
(8289p) _ 7 _
ATTACHMENT A
DISCUSSION
I . Applying the Ordinance to Employers in Multi-Tenant Employment Centers
Cities/counties will need to decide whether or not the ordinance's
employer requirements should be applied to employers in multi-tenant
employment centers as described in Section IV, Definitions. Multi-tenant
employment centers are buildings or groups of buildings with small
employers that, taken together, meet the employer size threshold. They
are more difficult to organize for the purposes of fulfilling ordinance
requirements than individual employers. However, many cities will elect
to include employers in multi-tenant employment centers in ordinance
requirements, if the centers are widespread and needed to reach a
substantial portion of the jurisdiction's employees.
2. Transportation Board of Directors and Transportation Advisory and Appeals
Committee
The membership of these groups can be defined in the ordinance or by the
City Council or Board of Supervisors. The membership for the groups
should be different. They should include representatives of the public-
and
ublicand private sector, rideshare agencies, and transit operators.
3. Definition of Employer "Worksite"
While the definition that allows for some distance (e.g. , 1 .5 miles)
between employer owned buildings and facilities has the advantage of
including more employers in the ordinance requirements, we recommend the
definition that allows minimal distance between employer buildings.
Buildings must be close together if employees are to coordinate carpools
and vanpools and if a single Transportation Coordinator is to be
designated.
4. Employer Size Threshold
Cities/counties should select an employer size threshold that will result
in subjecting a substantial portion of the jurisdiction's employees to
ordinance requirements. However, they should also consider that large
employers (with 50+ or 100+ employees) can fulfill the ordinance
requirements more easily than small employers and produce greater trip
reduction results.
(8289p) - 8 -
Agenda Item 5(a)
MTC
METROPOLITAN JOSEPH P. BORT METROCENTER
101 EIGHTH STREET
t TRANSPORTATION
MEMORANDUMOAKLAND,CA 94607
COMMISSION 415/464-7700*FAX 4151464-7848
f
1
TO: Work Program and Plan Revision Committee (WPPRC) Date: 3/08/91
Fr: Executive Director
Re: Model Trio Reduction Ordinance
Background
MTC staff has developed a model employer-based Trip Reduction Ordinance
(TRO). This Model TRO is intended to serve three purposes:
• it continues an ongoing commitment in the new federal TCMs adopted in
February 1990 to develop a model ordinance and support local TSM
efforts;
• it will assist cities and counties who must adopt ordinances under new
Congestion Management Program (CMP) legislation; and
• it will begin implementation of trip reduction efforts, which is
defined as a reasonably available control measure under the California
Clean Air Act.
Ordinance Concept
Employer-based trip reduction requirements are being considered both in the
! CMP arena and by the Air District as part of the State Clean Air Plan. The
Air District's proposed trip reduction rule will apply to employers, but will
allow delegation of responsibility to local governments if they adopt an
ordinance as strict as the Air District's rule. The current air quality
planning for state standards appears to be headed in the direction of meeting
transportation requirements for a "severe" -area. The attached ordinance
provides a staging framework to address severe area requirements and enable
future flexibility to adjust the ordinance approach as needed.
Phase 1 Model TRO
The first phase would recognize the variation in TSM approaches currently
being undertaken by different cities and counties in the Bay Area and the fact
that many cities have not yet adopted TSM ordinances; this phase would also
recognize that some portions of the TCM Plan will be "incomplete" until the
Air District finalizes its rulemaking process. Phase 1 would:
• accept existing ordinances;
• provide cities/counties without ordinances with a model ordinance with
very basic requirements; and
• provide guidance to cities/counties interested in adopting an
ordinance with a more comprehensive set of requirements.
The second phase would introduce specific mandatory requirements as defined by
the results of MTC's legislative approach for securing more funds for commute
alternatives, the Air District's rulemaking process, and other measures in the
TCM Plan that may be required. For example, a "severe" air quality area would
need to achieve a vehicle occupancy of 1 .5 during peak commute periods by
— 2 —
1999. This phase would be triggered around 1993 and coincide with the first
review period of the Clean Air Plan.
Phase three of the ordinance would be targeted for 1997 and beyond. If
contingency measures are required at this time to bring the Bay Area into
compliance with the state air quality standards, the ordinance will need to be
restructured to reflect these contingency measures. Currently pricing
strategies are included in the Contingency Plan as the primary means. to reduce
vehicle driving and emissions.
Process for Developing a Model Trip Reduction Ordinance
MTC staff discussed a draft ordinance prepared by MTC's consultant, Elizabeth
Deakin, with interested parties on November 7, 1990. Several issues were
raised at this meeting, such as how to define the ordinance's trip reduction
goal , employer requirements, and how to define an employer "worksite" for the
purposes of applying requirements. Based on that meeting, staff developed a
revised Model- TRO concept. Included in that process was a review of the
adopted transportation system management ordinances of Contra Costa County and
the peninsula communities of Belmont, Foster City, Redwood City, San Carlos
and !San Mateo.
On December 17, 1990, we held a meeting with a small group of individuals from
around the region who have experience in developing trip reduction
ordinances. This group endorsed the phased approach and reached agreement
about the elements for the Phase 1 model ordinance, including the purpose of
the ordinance model , employer size thresholds, requirements for employers to
provide information and survey employees, and the need for enforcement
penalties for employers. A second meeting was held on February 6 to review
the ordinance. The TCM Task Force discussed the ordinance at the February 27
meeting.
Attachment A sets forth the Phase 1 Model TRO. It proposes language that
cities/counties may wish to adopt, plus a brief discussion of a few key
issues. This model is for cities/counties without adopted ordinances.
Attachment B is proposed guidance for cities/counties considering a more
comprehensive set of employer requirements for Phase 1 . We caution that the
model is a guide which each community should review with its legal counsel ,
and which should be revised consistent with its own particular circumstances.
Text Steps
With the approval of the Work Program and Plan Revision Committee, staff will
request that the Commission transmit the model ordinance to the Air District
and to the cities and counties.
Lawrence D. Dahms
Attachments
LDD: :JG:SPmy
7602p/21-22
ATTACHMENT B
PHASE 1 MODEL TRIP REDUCTION ORDINANCE
f Guidance for Cities/Counties Interested in Adopting
Ordinances That Have Stringent Goals and Require
Employer Trip Reduction Programs
INTRODUCTION
This document is guidance to assist jurisdictions that wish to establish
stringent trip reduction programs for employers now as opposed to waiting for
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's rulemaking process to be
completed. While the guidance is organized into the format of an actual
ordinance, it is not in legal language. Rather, it includes a discussion of
the advantages and disadvantages of options for the various ordinance
components. Ihis guidance is to be used separately from the Phase 1
Ordinance, Attachment A. It identifies a comprehensive set of trip reduction
strategies that can affect the amount of vehicle use to a worksite. Note that
specific trip reduction goals for the region will most likely be determined
through the process for developing the Air District rule. If the Air District
determines that a local trip reduction ordinance is at least as stringent as
the Air District's rule, the Air District may delegate the implementation of
the rule to the city/county.
I. PURPOSE
1 The purpose of the ordinance is to establish requirements for new and existing
employers that will contribute to reductions in vehicle travel to work and
will improve air quality.
II. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
This section should include a description of the CMP requirements for
cities/counties to adopt an ordinance in order to receive state subvention
funds for road improvements. It should also describe the relevant
requirements from the new 1991 Clean Air Plan to be adopted by the Air
District.
III. GOALS AND OBJECTIyES
A. GOALS. The goals of the ordinance are:
1 . To obtain the most efficient possible use of existing and future
transportation facilities and to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle
miles travelled for regional work trips; and
2. To reduce traffic—related air pollution, noise, fuel use, and vehicle
wear and tear from the levels that would otherwise occur within the
city/county and region.
(8294p) _ 1 _
ATTACHMENT B
B. OBJECTIVES. The specific objectives or goals of this ordinance are:
1 . To work through employers to provide employees with information on
commute alternatives;
2. To implement, at all employer worksites with [number] employees, trip
reduction programs to achieve expanded use of commute alternatives and
to monitor the effectiveness of these programs;
3. To produce, over a [number] year period, for all employers with
[number] employees at a single worksite, an Average Vehicle Ridership
(AVR) of [number] which reflects a [number] percent reduction in
vehicle trips as compared to all commuters driving alone.
C. DISCUSSION
1 . Trip Reduction Objective or Goal Definitions
The ordinance should include a specific quantified trip reduction objective or
goal . This allows for measuring trip reduction program results against the
goal and for refining the program in order to improve results. Specific goals
for the region will be determined through the process for developing the Air
District rule to take effect in 1993. Cities/counties should consult with MTC
and the Air District for a recommendation on interim goals. The goal can be
specified in terms of:
o Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR)
o Percentage reduction in vehicle trips compared to some baseline
o Percentage of workforce participation in alternative modes (e.g. , 70%
of employees use commute alternatives)
The Bay Area is expected to be designated as a Severe area under the,
California Clean Air Act, which triggers a requirement for a 1 .5 AVR during
the commute period. Therefore, AVR is likely to be used in the anticipated
Air District' s employer-based trip reduction rule. It requires information
about the number of vehicles being used by employees to commute to work.
Different AVR goals should be established for different geographic areas. For
example, the South Coast Air District Regulation XV includes three goals for
different geographic areas. It applies the lower goals, 1 .3 and. 1 .5. to
suburban areas which must rely primarily on carpooling programs. The higher
goal , 1 .75 is applied to downtown areas which are well served by transit.
Another option for specifying a goal is the percentage reduction in vehicle
trips as compared to a baseline defined as the vehicle trips that would occur
if all commuters drive alone. This goal is easy to understand. its units are
in vehicle trips reduced, and its connection to air quality objectives is
clear. The percentage reduction in vehicle trips can also be applied to a
baseline defined as the vehicle trips currently occurring. However, this
option would result in inequities, as employers who already have accomplished
their "fair share" in terms of trip reduction would be required to generate
additional reductions.
The other option, the percentage of workforce participation in commute
alternatives, is not recommended. It does not provide a direct means to
(8294p) - 2 -
ATTACHMENT 8
ascertain reductions in vehicle trips since commute alternatives cover a wide
( range of options with different implications for vehicle use.
2. Phasing In the Trip Reduction Goal
Increasing the goals over time is recommended because it takes a few years to
reach a demanding goal . Cities and employers will need the first year
following ordinance adoption to gain experience with trip reduction programs
and determine what works for their situation.
In addition, the ordinance should be applied first to the largest employers
and than phased in for smaller employers. This approach will help the
city/county to avoid an overwhelming workload and allow them to address
problems and refine their approach while working with just the initial group
of employers.
3. Peak Commute Hours for Applying the Goal
The goal can be applied to the following weekday peak hours:
o 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.
o 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
o 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
o 24 hours a day
A broad peak, 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. , is recommended for applying the goal .
In many corridors, heavy commute traffic extends several hours every weekday
morning, so the goal should be to reduce trips throughout this time period.
Another option is to apply the goal to the entire day, so that the focus
remains on reducing overall vehicle trips and not just shifting trips out of
specified hours. Employees working the day shift may have to reduce trips in
greater numbers to offset the lower commute alternatives use of employees
working other shifts.
IV. E(�FINITIONS
A. "Average Vehicle Ridership" ("AVR") shall mean the figure derived by
dividing the employee population at a worksite that reports to work during
the a.m. peak period by the number of vehicles driven by these employees
commuting from home to the worksite during these hours. Bicycles, transit
vehicles, buses serving several worksites, and cars stopping on route to
other worksites shall be excluded from the vehicles counted.
S. "carpool" shall mean a private motor vehicle occupied by two (2) to
six (6) employees travelling together for 75% or more of their commute
trip distances.
C. "coamute Alternatives,, shall mean carpooling, vanpooling, transit.
bicycling, and/or walking as commute modes.
(8294p) - 3 -
ATTACHMENT B
D. "Employee" shall mean any person hired by any employer, including any
part-time and/or seasonal employee working 20 hours or more weekly, but
excluding any independent contractors. Partners, joint ventures, and the
like shall be considered as employees for the purpose of calculating the
number of employees.
E. "Employer" shall mean any public or private employer, including the
(CITY/COUNTY) , who has a permanent worksite in the (CITY/COUNTY).
"Emp2oyer" shall not include contractors with no permanent place of
business in the (CITY/COUNTY) and other businesses with no permanent
workplace location.
F. "Multi-Tenant Employment center•• shall mean either:
1 . any business park or other commercial , business, and/or industrial
project of. 125,000 gross square feet or more, in separate or common
ownership, which can be identified by two or more of the following
characteristics:
a. it is known by a common name given to the project by its developer;
b. it is governed by a common set of covenants, conditions and
restrictions;
c. it was approved, or is to be approved, as an entity by the City;
d. it is covered by a single tentative or final subdivision map;
OR
2. any multi-tenant building or group of buildings on a single site with
five hundred (500) or more employees, which is not included under the
definitions in Section IV.F.0) above.
G. "Transit" shall mean a vehicle operated on a for-hire,
multiple-occupant, shared-ride basis, including bus, light rail , heavy
rail , shared-ride taxi , and shuttle bus or van.
H. 'Trip Reduction Program" shall mean any reasonable method or approach
for providing, supporting, subsidizing, and/or encouraging the use of
commute alternatives, including but not limited to matching and placement
services for carpools and vanpools, provision of carpool and vanpool
vehicles, carpool and vanpool operating subsidies, carpool and vanpool'
preferential parking location and/or fees, fees for employee parking.
provision of and/or placement services for subscription bus, provision of
shuttle services, transit fare subsidies, on-site waiting and loading
facilities for transit, travel allowances for bicyclists and pedestrians,
on-site paths, parking, and showers and lockers for bicyclists and
pedestrians, guaranteed ride home and guaranteed transportation in
emergencies for users of commute alternatives, on-site child care and
other service/convenience facilities which lessen the need for a personal
vehicle at the place of employment, and telecommuting.
I. •vanpooi- shall mean a van occupied by seven (7) to fifteen (15)
employees traveling together for 75% or more of their commute distances.
J. "Worksite" shall mean the place of employment, base of operation, or
predominant work location of an employee. It includes all of the
employer' s buildings or facilities:
(8294p) - 4 -
ATTACHMENT B
Option 1 . located within 1 .5 miles
Option 2. separated solely by a public or private roadway or other
right-of-way.
Discussion of Options: While the definition that allows for some distance
(e.g. . 1 .5 miles) between employer owned buildings and facilities has the
advantage of including more employers in the ordinance requirements, we
recommend the definition that allows minimal distance between employer
buildings. Buildings must be close together if- employees are to
coordinate carpools and vanpools and if single Transportation Coordinator
is to be designated.
V. EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Employer Size Thresholds for Applying Ordinance Requirements
Employer size thresholds typically used in ordinances are: none, 20+, 50+,
and 100+ employees. In addition, some ordinances apply to employers in
multi-tenant employment centers of a certain size, often 500 or more employees.
The threshold should result 'in subjecting a substantial portion of the
jurisdiction's employees to the ordinance requirements. Another consideration
is that large employers can fulfill the requirements more easily and produce
greater trip reduction results than small employers. Therefore, the
recommended cutoff is employers with 50+ employees or the size cutoff needed
1 to subject at least 50% of the jurisdiction's employees to the requirements.
Some jurisdictions may still want to require that ail employers engage in some
trip reduction activities, regardless of size; this may work when there is a
transportation management association or rideshare agency to relieve small
employers of ordinance requirements that could be an unjustified burden on
their operation.
Cities/counties will need to decide whether or not the ordinance's employer
requirements should be applied to employers in multi-tenant employment centers
as described in Section IV, Definitions. Multi-tenant employment centers are
buildings or group of buildings with small employers that, taken together,
meet a certain employer size threshold. They are more difficult to organize
for the purposes of fulfilling ordinance requirements than individual
employers. However, many cities/counties will elect to include employers in
multi-tenant employment centers in ordinance requirements if the centers are
widespread and needed to reach a substantial portion of the jurisdiction's
employees.
B. Employee Surveys
Employers should conduct or cause to be conducted, within a specified time
period following notice from the city/county, baseline data on employee
commute alternatives use. Methods for gathering data to assess employee
performance include the following:
(8294p) - 5 -
ATTACHMENT B
o surveys
o gate counts
o parking lot counts
Surveys are recommended as they are most accurate at identifying the specific
commute mode used. Survey information can also be used for a ridematching
data base and for planning improved transit service. In addition, the survey
forms can be audited.
The ordinance should be specific as to the way in which survey data is
collected. It should require data to be gathered during a five-day period and
that a week should be selected that does not include a special event or
holiday that will substantially influence travel behavior. It should also
specify a response rate--70% or greater is recommended,
C. Trip Reduction Programs
The following options should be offered to employers as part of a more
comprehensive for their trip reduction program ordinance:
o Option 1 - To implement a parking fee program
With the parking fee approach, the employer would use revenues
generated by the fees to pay for on-site (option 1) services, such as
those from the comprehensive list, to help employees to change to
commute alternative modes. The advantage of this approach is that the .
parking fees alone might provide sufficient motivation for employees
to reduce trips to the point of meeting the goal . Also the employer
would have a new source of revenue to pay for the services.
Note that the parking fee program could take the farm of a travel
allowance program, in which employers eliminate free parking, increase
salaries by a commensurate amount, and subsidize the use of commute
alternatives (e.g. , carpools and transit).
o Option 2 To develop a trip reduction program consisting of a set of
measures the employer agrees to implement from the
following list. The employer would be provided
flexibility in selecting which measures to use.
a. Transportation Coordinator (Required)
b. Carpooling:
-- carpool and vanpool matching services
-- providing carpool and vanpool vehicles
-- carpool and vanpool operating subsidies (fuel , insurance, etc.).
--
carpool/vanpool preferential parking location
c. Transit:
-- subscription bus service
-- shuttle bus service
-- transit fare subsidy
-- .. transit stop amenities
-- agreements with local operators for additional service
(8294p) _ 6 -
ATTACHMENT B
' d. Implementation Support:
( -- parking, showers, and lockers for bicyclists
-- guaranteed ride home for commute alternative users
-- on-site child care and convenience services and stores that
lessen need for personal vehicle at work
-- posting information about commute alternatives
-- publicity (newsletter articles, transportation fairs, meetings
with zip-code groups)
-- new employee orientation packets
-- commute alternatives information centers
e. Other Incentives:
-- employee transportation allowance
f. Other Alternatives:
-- flextime to commute alternatives schedules (e.g. transit
schedules)
-- compressed work week
-- . telecommuting
The approach used in most trip reduction ordinances is Option 2 which
allows employers to decide which measures they will implement.
Employers prepare and submit plans to the city/county for review and
dedicate money to the program from their existing operating budget.
The employer would probably have to implement several of these
measures in order to meet their goal .
�. Note that alternative work hours is included on this list and is
acceptable as a measure insofar as it enables employees to use commute
alternatives (e.g. , meet carpool or transit schedules).
VI. ITY/COUNTY ASSURANCES
Successful ordinances generally require a commitment on the part of the local
jurisdiction to:
o provide technical guidance and support to employers
o review employer trip reduction programs and require changes as
necessary
Cities/counties support employers by providing commute alternatives marketing
materials, arranging for Transportation Coordinator training, analyzing
employee survey data and preparing summary reports, and holding information
sharing meetings for employers on trip reduction programs. In addition,
cities/counties can encourage the development of effective trip reduction
programs by setting an example and implementing a well designed program for
city/county staff.
Cities/counties also review employer trip reduction. programs. After the first
year, the jurisdiction reviews the program results and may require additional
employer activities. An appeals board is usually needed to resolve
i disagreements between the jurisdiction and employer. While this review
requires more city/county staff time, it also ensures more effective employer
programs.
(8294p) - 7 -
ATTACHMENT 8
VII. ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement penalty options for employers are:
o Option 1 - Fines for failure to submit a program or implement
portions of an agreed to program
This option provides an incentive for employers to fulfill the basic
ordinance requirements. The disadvantage is that it does not provide
a positive incentive for employers to develop good programs.
o Option 2 - In lieu fees based on the number of trips by which the
employer exceeds the goal
This option provides strong incentives for employers to try to attain
the goals. However, this approach is more difficult to monitor and '
can be somewhat inequitable. It does not take into account that some
employers will have far more difficulty reducing trips than others
because of their particular transportation setting and availability of
commute mode options. Note that it is unknown at this time whether or
not in lieu fees will be included in the future Air District rule.
(8294p) _ 8 _
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ROBERT I.SCHRODER
SUPERVISOR.THIRD DISTRICT
TO: Supervisor Nancy. C. Fanden., District Two
Supervisor Sunne W. McPeak, District Four
Supervisor Tom Powers, District One
Supervisor Tom Torlakson, District Five
Steve Goetz , Community Development Department
Valentin Alexeeff, Director
Growth Management & Economic Development Agency
FROM: Supervisor Robert I . :Schroder ct Three
DATE: March 15, 1991
.SUBJ: SAN FRANCISCO BAY CROSSING STUDY
You appointed me as Contra Costa' s representative to this
Committee and this is our report to the Legislature. The
Committee has now been disbanded.
510 LA GONDA WAY • DANVILLE,CALIFORNIA 94526 • TELEPHONE(415)820-8683
Agenda Item 4
MTC
M E T R O P O L I T A N JOSEPH P. BORT METROCENTER
101 EIGHTH STREET
TRANSPORTATION
• MEMORANDUM 4 1 51454-7 7 04*FAX 4 1
COMM ] CA 94607
S S I O N 5/464-7848
•
To: Work Program and Plan Revision Committee (WPPRC) Date: 318!91
Fr: Deputy Executive Director W j 903.25.01
Re.: San Francisco Bay Crossing Study
Attached is the Executive Summary of the San Francisco Bay Crossing Study and
key findings and recommendations of the Advisory Committee and MTC—appointed
Policy Committee.
The committees recommend that the San Francisco Bay Crossing Study be referred
to the full Commission for its acceptance and transmittal to the State
Legislature, and to MTC staff for its consideration in the future update of
the Regional Transportation Plan.
William F. Hein
WFH:DT:lw
5707Z
Att.
Agenda Item 4
MTC
M E T R O P O L I T A N 1QSfPN P. BORT Mf 7ROCENTER
101 EIGHTH STREET
TRANSPORTATION
,CA 94607
C O M M I S S I O N MEMORANDUM 415/454-7700•f XN4115/454--7848
"TQ: Work Program and Plan Revision Committee Date. 3/8/91
Fr: Francisco Bay Crossing Policy/Advisory Committees w j.: 903.25.01
Op. KeyFindings and Recommendations from the San Francisco Bay Crossing Stud
The Bay Crossing Study was overseen by an Advisory Committee and by an
MTC—appointed Policy Committee. The establishment and composition of the
Advisory Committee was specified in the state legislation requesting MTC to
conduct the study (SCR 20, Kopp). The legislation directed the Advisory
Committee to review and comment upon the work of MTC and its consultants. The
Policy Committee was appointed by MTC to act as a liaison between the full
Commission and the Advisory Committee. Both committees have been meeting
jointly to guide MTC staff and consultants in their work.
The Bay Crossing Study was performed pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution
No. 20 which requested that MTC conduct a study to examine methods for
improving transbay travel . The study should, therefore, be considered a
preliminary study that focused on one Bay Area corridor--the transbay
corridor--which is projected to account for 3.7% of all regional daily person
trips in the year 2010. As such, the study did not consider the regional
impacts of financing and constructing any of the alternatives examined. The
study is intended to identify several alternatives for improving transbay
travel , not to identify a single preferred alternative.
The Advisory and Policy Committees have carefully reviewed the technical
reports. working papers and findings from the study.. While the Advisory and
Policy Committees do not recommend a specific alternative, the committees
believe that the study contains valuable information on the transbay corridor
that should be taken into consideration by MTC in its future update of the
Regional Transportation Plan. The committees believe the following are the
study's key findings:
i The study shows that transbay travel demand will increase by 25% by the
year 2010. However, the transportation improvements assumed in the
study's Base Case (the highway/transit blend alternative now being studied
in the Regional Transportation Plan) will provide enough capacity to
accommodate this demand. Therefore, the improvements assumed in the RTP
highway/transit blend should be financed and constructed.
• The Bay Bridge will be at maximum capacity for up to 3.5 hours by the year
2010. This is more than double today's maximum capacity time of 1.5
hours. Implementation of Alternative 4 (new bridge with BART) will reduce
Bay Bridge congestion and maximum capacity time by 1 hour, and would
reduce travel times from Concord to downtown San Francisco by 2 minutes,
for example.
• An "infill" land use assumption was examined by MTC staff for its effects
on the Base Case travel demand. The results show that transit ridership
would increase by 12 percent, highway volumes regionwide would increase by
4 percent and transbay travel would increase by 6 percent.
Memo to WPPRC
3/8/91
Page 2
• Of the five build alternatives studied, Alternative 1 (expanded ferry
service) is the easiest to implement, could be undertaken in the shortest
period of time and has the lowest capital costs. However. Alternative 1
also has the highest operating costs of the build alternatives studied.
Alternative 1 should be examined further in the context of the MTC
Regional Ferry Plan, which is now underway.
• Alternative 4 (new mid-bay bridge with BART) would carry the greatest
number of daily trips in the year 2010. The travel demand analysis shows
that a 4 lane structure with BART in the median is sufficient to
accommodate year 2010 travel demand. For Alternative 4, the study
examined two East Bay alignments in the vicinity of San Leandro-San
Lorenzo. Other East Bay alignments are potentially possible.
• All five build alternatives have significant land-use and environmental
impacts. The Alternative 1 (expanded ferry service) has the least
environmental impact of the build alternatives while Alternatives 4 and 6
(BART between the airports) have the most significant impacts.
• The study evaluated the cost of alternatives relative to several travel
performance measures. These cost performance measures do not take into
account environmental costs associated with constructing and operating
any of the alternatives..
• The following table contains key information that the committees wish to
highlight.
Base Alt. 1(3) Alt. 4(3) Alt. 6 Alt. 8(2) Alt. 11
Daily Person Trips 715,000 55,000 66,000 16,100 2,700 6,300
Daily Transit 183,554 5,000 12,000 16,100 2,700 6,300
Ridership
New Daily Transit NA 600 1 ,600 10,000 2,700 1 ,300
Riders
% Reduction in Daily NA —0.02% —1 .80% —0.11% -0.03% —0.13%
Vehicle Miles
% Reduction Auto NA 200 20,000 1 ,200 400 1 .500
Vehicle Hours per Day
Capital Cost NA $738 $3,081 $3,688 $2.382 $1 ,560
in millions(2)
Annual Cost per Trip NA $31 .50 $0.50 $10.00 $20.00 $3.50
(1) Represent mid-range capital cost estimates
(2) Travel figures represent increases over the Base Case )
(3) Lower cost sub-alternatives are discussed in report
NA Not applicable
Memo to WPPRC
3/8/91
Page 3
• Financing a bay crossing alternative would preclude the use of federal ,
state and regional toll revenues for other important regional transit and
highway improvements. Costs range from $245 million for an expanded
ferry system to $3.7 billion for a new BART tube between the airports,
and would require toll increases on the Southern Bridge Group of $1 .00 to
$4.00 or greater to provide sufficient funding.
• Since most of the build alternatives are long-term improvements, improved
long-range forecasting is necessary in order to more carefully consider
potential transbay markets beyond the year 2010. The combination of
travel forecasting with alternative land-use scenarios, and a more
integrated regional policy on land use and transportation, would assist
in determining the need for any new Bay crossing.
• The Advisory and Policy Committees are not recommending any alternatives
as a result of their review of the Bay Crossing Study.
Therefore, we recommend the report titled San Francisco Bay Crossing Study be
referred to MTC for its acceptance and transmittal to the State Legislature,
and referred to MTC staff for its consideration in the future update of the
Regional Transportation Plan.
Tom Nolan, Chairman, Policy Committee
D
TN:DT:lw
8417p
Att.
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Inception of Study
This report presents the results of a comprehensive initial evaluation of the travel characteristics,
environmental impacts,costs,and financial feasibility of transportation improvements which would
Increase the capacity and mobility options for transbay travel between San Francisco and the
Peninsula and the East Bay, and points along the Carquinez Strait including Vallejo, Benicia,and
Martinez. This evaluation is an examination of only one corridor, and did not evaluate
transportation improvements or financial impacts on a Bay Area-wide scale. This initial evaluation
does not attempt to identify or recommend a preferred transportation alternative. In addition,this
is a preliminary feasibility study and not a scoping study.
The evaluation was performed pursuant to California Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 20
(SCR-20), which recognizes:
a "San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
District trains, which cross under San Francisco Bay in the vicinity of the Bay
Bridge, have been operating at full or nearly full capacity for some time;
■ Travel demand between the east and west sides of the Bay is expected to
continue to grow;
a A targe proportion of vehicular traffic between the east and west sides of San
Francisco Bay is not destined for Oakland or San Francisco; and
■ Bay Area community leaders are requesting that a bridge or tunnel be constructed
to relieve traffic on the Bay Bridge."
1
In accordance with SCR-20, the following topics are addressed:
i
■ Current and predicted. patterns of land development and travel demand patterns;
■ Current and predicted transportation facilities, including an inventory of potential
capital and operating improvements which would facilitate transbay travel over,
under, or on San Francisco Bay;
■
Identification of the most promising locations for additional transbay crossings,
approaches, and terminals;
■ Preliminary consideration of environmental issues related to new transbay
crossings; and
■ Comparative analysis of costs and benefits of expanding existing bay crossings
and of constructing additional crossings.
Study Process
The identification and analysis of bay crossing alternatives was conducted using a "two-cycle"
process. An initial set of 11 build alternatives were identified and evaluated using preliminary
travel demand, feasibility, and cost information. As a result, five build alternatives were selected
for further study and full evaluation.
0
The study took direction from three groups:
■ Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) —The TAC consisted of staff members from
various agencies involved in Bay area transportation planning, including MTC,
BART, CalTrans, AC Transit, Port of Oakland, San Francisco International Airport,
East Bay Regional Park District, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and
others. The TAC, along with assigned MTC staff, provided primary technical .
oversight of the study.
2
■ Advisory Committee—The Advisory Committee, established by SCR-20, included
three members appointed by MTC from lists of nominees submitted by
environmental organizations,one member appointed by the Senate Committee on
Rules, one by the Speaker of the Assembly, one by the Mayor of San Francisco,
one by the Mayor of Oakland, one by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors,
one each by the Boards of Supervisors of Alameda,Contra Costa,and San Mateo
Counties, one each by the Council of Mayors of Alameda, Contra Costa and San
Mateo Counties, one by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission, one by the San Mateo County Transit District, and one by the
Secretary of Business,Transportation and Housing. The Advisory Committee was
established to review and comment upon the work of MTC and its consultant.
■ Policy Committee — SCR-20 further required MTC to meet and confer frequently
with the Advisory Committee., For this purpose, MTC established the Policy
Committee as a liaison panel between the full commission and the Advisory
Committee. The MTC Policy Committee met jointly with the Advisory Committee
to review and comment upon the progress of the study. At the conclusion of the
study, the Policy Committee will provide the full commission with Its oonciusions
based upon the study.
Progress on the study was presented to the TAC, Advisory Committee and Policy Committee
through a series of reports on various topics which are represented as sections in the final report.
'Study Alternatives
Six alternatives were studied; five "build" options and a base case:
■ Base Case (RTP Highway/Transit Blend)
■ Alternative 1 — Expanded High-Speed Ferry System
■ Alternative 4 — Highway Bridge (1-380 to 1.238) with BART Connecting San
Francisco International Airport with New Dublin-Pleasanton Une
3
■ Alternative 6 — New BART Tube Connecting San Francisco International Airport
with Oakland International Airport and New Dublin-Pleasanton Line
■ Alternative 8 — New BART Tube Parallel to Existing Transbay Tube with New
Subway in San Francisco and New 4th Track through Oakland
■ Alternative 11 — Heavy Rail Tunnel Connecting Peninsula Unes with Lines in
Vicinity of Port of Oakland
1.2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The following key findings resulted from the travel analysis of the alternatives:
■ Transbay travel demand (highway plus transit person-trips) will increase by
approximately 25 percent by the Year 2010. This demand Increase would occur
with or without construction of a new bay crossing; construction of a new bay
crossing would not significantly further increase transbay travel demand. (See
Figure 4-1.) i
■ The base case RTP Blend set of improvements, which includes widening of the
San Mateo Bridge to six lanes and more frequent BART transbay service, will
provide enough capacity to accommodate the 715,000 daily person-trips crossing
the Bay in the study area in the Year 2010.
■ The Bay Bridge is at maximum capacity for 1.5 hours today, with heavy
congestion over a longer period. With Year 2010 travel demand and no.new
bridge, the Bay Bridge would be at maximum capacity for 3.5 hours and heavy
congestion would extend over an even longer period. (See Figure 4-4.)
■ Peak hour BART load factors on transbay lines exceed policy levels today.
Capacity increases due to anticipated reduction in BART headways in the
transbay tube would Increase capacity by about 50 percent by the Year 2010,
4 ►
however, at that time, BART would again be approximately at capacity due to
projected travel demand increases.
■ Of five bay crossing build alternatives studied,a mid-bay bridge in the I-380!1.238
corridor with BART would carry the greatest number of daily trips. Year 2010
travel on such a facility would be similar to the current level of travel
accommodated on the Dumbarton Bridge. These trips could be accommodated
on the existing bridges and BART, though there would be greater congestion,
longer travel times, and a 3.5 hour peak period on the Bay Bridge.
■ Although originally defined as an eight-lane facility with BART,travel model results
Indicate the facility could be constructed with four travel lanes plus a shoulder
similar to the Dumbarton Bridge.
■ A new bridge crossing with BART in the median would reduce daily volumes on
the Bay Bridge by 15,000 vehicles and would reduce volumes on the San Mateo
Bridge by 6,00.0 vehicles. Peak hour volumes on the Bay Bridge would not be
significantly reduced; however,the duration of the peak period on the Bay Bridge
would be shortened by one hour or more. (Without additional bay crossing
capacity, the length of peak period on the Bay Bridge Is forecast to more than
double compared to today's condition.) By providing a "missing link" in the Bay
Area highway network, regional highway vehicle miles traveled would be reduced
by about 2-million daily from the RTP blend scenario total of 111 million daily
vehicle miles travelled.
■ In addition to relieving the Bay Bridge, a new bay crossing would serve an
emerging mid-bay travel market, which will increase over the next 20 years. For
example, the new bridge would cut peak-hour travel times between the Oakland
Airport and the San Francisco Airport by 20 minutes. (See Figure 46.) The
amount of travel between the two airports was not assessed In this study.
5
■ Of the various transit lines studied, a second BART tunnel across the Bay
(Alternative 6) at the same approximate location as a new highway bridge, linking
the San Francisco Airport with Oakland Airport,would attract the greatest number
of trips. (BART operating on a new highway bridge would attract 80 percent of
the trips as a "BART-only" tube.)
■ Ferry system enhancements (Alternative 1) consisting of additional routes with
faster vessels operating on frequent headways could result in ferry ridership many
times today's levels. Of the routes studied, highest ridership was obtained in the
congested 1-80 highway corridor north of the Bay Bridge. This service would
relieve the Bay Bridge.
■ A sensitivity analysis conducted for this study showed that a four-dollar toll
Increase applied to all bridge crossings in the study area would reduce transbay
vehicular demand by as much as 13 percent. However, transit demand would
increase by 10 percent, therefore pushing BART load factors further above
capacity.
■ An"infill" alternative land use scenario was run by MTC for the RTP. The result of
this test indicated that transit ridership would increase by about 12 percent
regionwide, highway volumes would also increase about 4 percent regionwide,
and transbay travel would increase by an additional 6 percent. This land use
would therefore further strain the capacity of the BART transbay tube and existing
highway crossings.
■ While the Year 2010 demand can be met by pushing the highway and BART
systems to capacity for trips to San Francisco, continued growth in employment
In San Francisco and northern San Mateo Counties beyond that year would
exceed the bay crossing capacity provided in the RTP Blend if current trends
continue.
■ Given that capacity in the BART tube and Bay Bridge would be a critical issue in
the Year 2010, a land use assessment and transportation forecast capability must
6
f .
be developed to plan adequately for the Year 2010 -2030 era when substantial
capacity increases for transbay travel may be necessary.
The following findings resulted from the environmental and socio-economic assessment:
■ The Base Case(RTP"Blend")assumes certain improvements to the transportation
network as proposed in the Regional Transportation Plan. (For example, this
Includes the widening of the trestle portion of the San Mateo Bridge from four to
six lanes). The impacts associated with these Base Case Improvements were not
evaluated as a part of this study. Such Impacts will be evaluated in a separate
EIR being prepared for the Regional Transportation Plan by MTC.
■ The enhanced ferry system alternative resulted In the lowest levels of
environmental and socio-economic impacts overall relative to the total alternatives
examined.
■ Construction of a new bridge would have significant land use impacts. These
Impacts are most severe in the East Bay, where the proposed freeway structure
would cut through established neighborhoods, displacing homes (110-120 units
under Alternative 4) and creating a physical barrier between neighborhoods,with
the resultant noise, vibration, visual, dust and particulates, and construction
impacts. The proposed 1-880/SR-238 Interchange would displace businesses in
San Leandro's retail center.
■ Dredging and water quality Impacts would be significant with all of the tunnel
options examined. in particular, the Airport-to-Airport BART tube would result In
dredging of as much as 11.8 million cubic yards,equivalent to the annual average
for all dredging activity in the Bay in 1886 and 1987. Disposition of dredge spoils
Is an unresolved policy Issue that could significantly affect the viability of tunnel
options. (A dual transbay BART tube or rail tunnel would have lower Impacts due
to the shorter length of the alignments compared to an airport-airport crossing.)
■ Ecology Impacts would be significant with Implementation of Alternative 4(Bridge)
and Alternative 6(Airport to-Airport BART)due to the presence of known wetlands
7
and sensitive habitat resources. In addition, two endangered species, the San
Francisco Garter Snake and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, are known to exist in
areas possibly affected by Alternative 4.
■ All of the Alternatives would, as a result of their location, tend to reinforce the
existing urban patterns of development and location of metropolitan centers In the
East and West Bay. By encouraging infill development, rather than growth In new
areas, all of the Alternatives can be considered growth-directing rather than
growth-inducing.
The following key findings resulted from the cost evaluation:
■ As originally formulated, the enhanced ferry services alternative (with some 17
routes) would not be a "low" cost option. However, a scaled-down alternative
consisting of the five top lines, would enhance travel options at low cost.
■ A downsized new bridge providing four lanes of highway travel and with adequate y
foundation and vertical support for the addition of BART at a later date would be
the most cost-effective solution of the alternatives studied.
■ BART could be added to a four-lane bridge with a lower cost ($700-million as
opposed to $2.4 billion - $3.7 billion for BART Alternatives 8 and 6, respectively)
and insignificant dredging impacts compared to a new BART tube.
■ The cost per person trip of a new bridge with BART would be significantly lower
than all other alternatives, largely due to higher travel levels which would occur
with inclusion of the highway mode.
The following key findings resulted from the financial evaluation:
■ A four dollar increase in tolls (on the southern bridge group) In the Year 2000
would generate approximately 1.5 billion dollars in bonding capacity through the
Year 2030. Other funding sources may include federal Interstate funds or Urban
Mass Transportation Authority (UMTA) funds.
8
• A four dollar toll increase in the Year 2000, when discounted to 1990 levels, Is
comparable to charging $3.50 for a bay crossing trip,which Is similar to toll levels
for trans-Hudson crossings In the New York metropolitan area. Recent public
opinion polis have indicated a willingness by Bay Area citizens to accept higher
tolls.
• A four dollar toll Increase would be sufficient to fund the enhancement of the ferry
system capital plus operating costs, construction of a new four-lane highway
bridge, or a heavy rail tunnel. This level of increase would also cover most of the
cost of a new bridge with BART or a lesser portion of a new BART tunnel.
■ The cash flow generated exclusively on the new bridge crossing from a $10 toil
Increase is not sufficient to support private financing of the bridge's construction.
■ Financing a bay crossing alternative may preclude or delay toil financing of other
important transit or highway Improvements In the region for which it may be
desirable to use bridge toll monies. Some of the other projects being considered
Include:
Proiect Cost (millions of 1990 dollars)
BART to San Jose (East Bay) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,800
BART from San Jose to Palo Alto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
Dumbarton Rail Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Oakland Airport Connector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
BART SFO to Santa Clara Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853
Muni Bayshore Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
MuniGeary Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600
BARTto Livermore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481
Unfunded Tier I Rail Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,263
9
To provide a comparison with the study alternatives,the projects above show some of the other
significant improvements being considered in the study corridor. These costs generally represent
the high end of the estimates. In addition to the projects above, significant funding will also be
needed for seismic retrofitting of existing bridges in the Bay Area.
The evaluation identified the following findings relative to benefit to cost:
■ A highway bridge with BART at a later date in the 180/1-238 alignment would
have the highest cost-effectiveness, and would provide a high benefit/low cost
solution relative to other bay crossing alternatives.
■ An enhanced ferry system would be moderately cost effective, providing a low
benefit/low cost means of providing additional bay crossing capacity. An
enhanced ferry system could be expanded incrementally and could provide a
near-term solution for locations which do not have good competing transit
services and where substantial highway congestion exists.
1
■ A heavy inter-city rail tunnel between San Francisco and Oakland would also be
moderately cost effective, providing a relatively low-cost means of providing
additional bay crossing capacity.
1.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
1. Ferry system expansion and enhancements offer a relatively inexpensive means of adding
bay crossing capacity and providing new transit options. Effort should be undertaken to
Identifying the most cost-effective means of expanding ferry services between selected
points. (A study is currently underway to provide a more detailed definition of an
Improved Bay Area ferry system including near-term improvements to the promising
Vallejo-San Francisco route.)
V
10
4
2. The RTP Blend transbay-related improvements should be financed and constructed.
These include widening the San Mateo Bridge to sic lanes, approach improvements to
the Dumbarton Bridge and San Mateo Bridge,certain ferry services improvements,transit
access improvements, and Increased BART transbay frequencles. These Improvements
would.accommodate the projected 23 percent increase In transbay travel through the
Year 2010.
3. Further travel forecasting"effort is necessary to develop refined projections of highway
travel,to explore the systemwide impact of a new bridge, and to more carefully consider
potential transbay transit markets In the Year 2010 and,beyond.
4. While this study found that planned BART transbay capacity increases and further
extension of the peak period on the Bay Bridge may absorb a significant portion of
additional travel demand until the Year 2010, at that point in time a critical capacity
condition will occur. it is therefore very Important that longer-term land use and travel
forecasts be developed In order to plan for new bay crossing facilities needed over the
longer term.
11
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ROBERTI.SCHRODER
IBRO SUPERVISOR,THIRD DISTRICT
TO: Supervisor Nancy C. Fanden, District Two
Supervisor Sunne W. McPeak, District Four
Supervisor Tom Powers, District One
Supervisor Tom Torlakson, District Five
Steve . Goetz, Community Development Department
Valentin Alexeeff, Director
Growth Management & Economic Development Agency
FROM: Supervisor Robert I...Schzoder, District Th
DATE: March 15, 1991
SUBJ: FUNDING FOR PARK 6 RIDE LOTS IN PITTSBURG AND BRE1TWOOD
Attached is a request to increase funding for Park and Ride lots
in Pittsburg and Brentwood, which was passed by my Metropolitan
Transportation Commission Work Program and Plan Revision
Committee last Friday, March 8, 1991.
510 LA GONDA WAY • DANVILLE,CALIFORNIA 94526 • TELEPHONE(415)820-8683
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION March 8, 1991
Work Program & Plan Revision Committee MTC Resolution No. 2205, Revised,
and TIP Amendment 91-02
Staff Evaluation
TIP Amendment
A. Applicants:
Bay Area Rapid Transit District *RT)
B. Project' Descriptions:
Park and ride lots in Pittsburg and Brentwood.
C. Actions Reguested:
Amend the Annual Element of the FY 1991-95 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) to increase funding for two capital projects in the UMTA
Section 9 program.
D. Prior Actions:
o FY 1991-95 Transportation Improvement Program - MTC Resolution No.
2205, approved September 26, 1990.
o FY 1991-97 Regional Transit Capital Priorities - MTC Resolution No.
2111 , approved November 22, 1989 and revised May 23, 1990.
E. Recommendation:
Refer MTC Resolution No. 2205. Revised and TIP Amendment No. 91-02 to the
Commission for approval as requested.
F. Background/Analysis:
See next page.
(7967a:2)
Page 2
F. Background/Analysis:
In the TIP which was approved last September, BART had proposed
park-and-ride lots in Brentwood and at Railroad Ave in Pittsburg. BART
has recently concluded the environmental documentation on these projects,
and is proposing to increase the size of the lots. In addition, more
detailed cost estimates have revealed that construction and real estate
costs are higher than initially estimated. The following summarizes the
changes:
Project 0riainal TIP Requested Change
Railroad Ave
No of Spaces 100 200
Total Cost $690,900 $1 ,762,030
Section 9 Amt. . 552,720 1 ,409,624
Brentwood
No of Spaces 100 175
Total Cost $351 ,750 $704,375
Section 9 Amt. 281;400 563,500
BART has coordinated these new work scopes with the communities and with
the Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority, which will also serve these
facilities.
BART is currently the only eligible applicant for federal funds in the
Pittsburg-Antioch Urbanized Area. There are sufficient funds, in the
apportionment for this area to cover these increses. Accordingly, we
recommend approval of the requested TIP amendment.
Unless otherwise stated, MTC staff finds this amendment to be in conformance
with applicable rules and regulations.
(7967a:3)
1991-95 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
AMENDMENT NO.91-02
CURRENT ENTRIES:
COST(Dollars) I
OPERATO BART I Annual I I
CATEGOR UMTA Section 9 I Element I I
PROJECT: Railroad Ave.Park/Ride I I 90-91 1 91-92 1 92-93 I 93-94 1 94-95 I
I Federal 1 552,720 1 I I I I
TRN N: BA03 I I I I I 1 I
REMARKS: I Local 1 138,180 I I I I 1
I 1 I I I I I
Total I 690,900 1 0 1 0 1 0 I 0 1
I I I I I I 1
SRTP REF: 1 5-Yr Tota I I I I I 690,900 1
COST(Dollars) I
OPERATO BART I Annual 1 I
CATEGOR UMTA Section 9 I Element 1 1
PROJECT: Brentwood Park/Ride I I 90-91 1 91-92 1 92-93 1 93-94 1 94-95 I
1 Federal 1 281,400 1 I I 1 I
TRN N: BA04 I I I I I I
REMARKS: I Local 1 70,350 1 I I ( I
I I I I I I 1
Total 1 351,750 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
I I i I 1 I 1
SRTP REF: 1 5-Yr Tote I I I I I 9.51.750 1
PROPOSED ENTRIES:
COST(Dollars) i
OPERATO BART I I Annual 1 i
CATEGOR UMTA Section 9 I I Element 1 1
PROJECT: Railroad Ave.Park/Ride I I 90-91 1 91-92 1 92-93 I 93-94 1 94-95 1
I I I I I I
1 Federal 1 1,409,624 1 I I I 1
TRNM: BA03 I I I I I I 1
REMARKS: 200 space lot. 1 Local 1 352,406 I I I I 1
I I I I I I 1
Total 1 1,762,030 I 0 I 0 I 0 1 0 1
I I I I I I 1
SRTP REF: CIP,pp.4 1 5-yr Tote I ( 1 I I 1,762,030 1
COST(Dollars) I
OPERATO BART I I Annual I i
CATEGOR UMTA Section 9 I I Element ( 1
PROJECT: Brentwood Park/Ride I I 90-91 1 91-92 I 92-93 I 93-94 1 94-95 1
I Federal I 563,500 I ( I I 1
TRNM: BA04 I I I I I I 1
REMARKS: 175 space lot. 1 Local 1 140,875 I I I I 1
Total ( 704,375 I 0 1 0 ) 0 1 O I
I I I I I I 1
SRTP REF: CIP,pp.4 1 5-yr Tota I I I I I 704,375 1