HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04111995 - TC.1 �; TC
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Transportation Committee
DATE: April 3, 1995
SUBJECT: Senate Bill 877, Alquist
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. Recommended Action:
Request clarification from the author and from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) regarding changes that are being incorporated into Senate Bill 877 and other concerns that
the Board of Supervisors may have; and
DIRECT staff to work with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) and the business
community in monitoring the progress of Senate Bill 877; and
Support Senate Bill 877 when the proposed changes are incorporated and the concerns of the
Board of Supervisors are satisfactorily addressed.
II. Financiallmpact:
NONE
III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background:
Senate Bill 877 is sponsored by MTC and, if passed, will allow the nine County Bay Area to vote
for an increase of up to 8% of the sales tax on motor fuels. Senate Bill 877 would require MTC,
in consultation with the congestion management agency in each County, to develop an Z
expenditure plan for the region before a vote is proposed. Senate Bill 877 gives MTC the
authority to administer the new sales tax and specifies the types of transportation projects that can
be funded.
Continued on Attachment: X
_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY INISTRATOR
_RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD PITTE
APPROVE OT
SIGNATURE(S): �
S , Chair om Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD ON 11) 415" APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER—
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
/ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT )
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
MMS:JB:drg
g\admin\shiu:BOsb877.t4 t�by cO�fy thm this h a
triA an `action taken and a�Mi��f m
Orig.Div: Public Works(Admin) 9Merad On tfle mtnutea � the
Contact: M. Shiu(313-2251) Board of Supen! om On qts dft ahoam.
cc: County Administrator ATTESTED.
County Counsel PHIL BA CHELOR.
Community Development of patsora ry and Of ttte Board
Metropolitan Trans. Commission Coon tY ft
Alfred E. Alquist,Senator '
100 Paseo de San Antonio#209 By a.
San Jose,CA 95113 putt'
Senate Bill 877, Alquist -
April 3, 1995
Page Two
III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background (Cont'd):
Subsequent to the printing of Senate Bill 877, the Bay Area Transportation Partnership has
recommended several technical changes which will be amended into Senate Bill 877.
There are several remaining concerns that need clarification or amendment.
1. The highway projects for which this bill will allow funding are the construction of high
occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and improvements to facilities that have demonstrated
higher than average accident history. The Board of Supervisors has adopted a general
plan policy to discourage single occupancy vehicle travel in the County where possible
and appropriate. This policy recognizes the geographic differences in the County and the
fact that HOV lanes may not be the best approach in certain parts of the County to reduce
vehicle travel and to improve air quality. The criteria in Senate Bill 877 will preclude the
County from exercising its judgement as to what is the best strategy to reduce travel
demands in different areas of the County. It is also generally accepted that if a facility has
less than six lanes, it is not appropriate to designate two of the lanes as HOV lanes. Under
this scenario, the initial construction of State Route 4 Bypass would not qualify for the new
sales tax revenue, nor would the future auxiliary lanes on Interstate 680 from Diablo Road
to Bollinger Canyon Road as called for in the County's Transportation Plan. Also it is
unclear as to whether the funds could be used for local road improvements such as
widening to provide shoulders for increased safety and for bicycle lanes.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors request that the criteria for project
selection be modified to allow more flexibility.
2. Senate Bill 877 specifies that priority for project consideration shall be given to projects
where "local land use policies reduce dependence on single-occupant motor vehicle
travel". The County General Plan encourages high density development around transit
stations and requires all developments, both residential and commercial, to accommodate
other modes of transportation. It can be argued that the General Plan also allows
development to occur in areas that are not presently served by transit nor by a network of
HOV lanes. In this case, does the County's General Plan meet the test of being a plan that
will "reduce dependence on single-occupancy motor vehicle travel"?
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors seek clarification from the author and from
MTC.
3. Senate Bill 877 specifies that "no operating or maintenance funding provided from the tax
shall be used to supplant existing transportation operating or maintenance revenues".
Staff recommends that Senate Bill 877 specify a particular time period as a basis for the
determination of existing funding levels and allow for the fluctuation of existing revenue.
CCTA supports the principles of Senate Bill 877 with two recommended additions; (1) add a
provision allowing the funds to be used for the Route 4 west gap closure project; and (2) confirm
the eligibility of funding for HOV lanes and the transit median for Route 4 east. County staff's
recommendations are consistent with those of CCTA.