HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02061996 - D4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS =
w(`nn+
FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE ,s VIJS+Ia
DATE: February 5, 1996 ��••
County
sTA � NT
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON PROPOSED EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE BAY AREA AIR
QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR
PROGRAM.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Authorize the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign and transmit a letter (see Exhibit B) to
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District addressing the following comments on their
proposed evaluation policies and criteria for the Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program:
- Remove the proposed policy that would restrict arterial management projects only to
certain roads or corridors included in the county's Congestion Management Program road
network;
- Remove the proposed policy that would prohibit funding of fueling facilities for clean air
vehicles;
- Clarify the application of the proposed scoring criterion for benefiting disadvantaged
communities; and
- Support proposed criteria that would direct funding to projects that are the most cost-
effective at reducing emissions.
FISCAL IMPACT
None directly. The proposed policies and criteria could limit the types of projects and programs
the County may submit to the Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program for funding.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINI TRATOR
X RECOMMENDATION OF ARD M TE
_ APPROVE
_ OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): J Smith Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD ON February 6 , 19 9 6 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
_ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: 1,4 , 5,2 NOES: 3 ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: r?brie ABSTAIN: None MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact Person, Steven Goetz, 646-2134 ATTESTED February 6 , 1996
Orig: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Public Works Department THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND aYdWY MINISTRAT
B UTY
Comments on Evaluation Criteria for the Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program
February 5, 1996
Page Two
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) levies a $4 surcharge on motor vehicle
registration fees paid within the District. The revenues raised by the surcharge are available only
to public agencies for projects and programs that reduce air pollutant emissions from motor vehicles
and implement transportation measures in the District's Clean Air Plan. The surcharge raises
approximately $18.4 million annually. Forty percent of these revenues go directly to Program
Managers designated by the cities and the Board of Supervisors in each county for purposes
consistent with State law. The remaining 60% is allocated by the District to any project or program
in the District and is designated as the "Regional Fund". The District has proposed policies and
criteria to be used to evaluate projects and programs submitted for funding from the Regional Fund
(see Exhibit A).
The comments of the Transportation Committee are directed at maximizing the types of projects the
County could submit for funding while ensuring the all projects remain cost-effective. A sample
letter is provided as Exhibit B. The deadline for comments is February 9, 1996
EXHIBIT A .t
RECEIVED
t
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
JAN - g I"�
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94109 OFFICE OF
January 5, 1996
RECEIVED
TO: PUBLIC AGENCIES AND INTERESTED PARTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
FROM: AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER Ad JAN 171996
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND
SUBJECT: PROPOSED GRANT EVALUATION CRITERIA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
WORKSHOP NOTICE
WHO: This notice is being sent to public agencies and interested parties to invite
comment on proposed policies and criteria. The proposed policies and
criteria would be used to evaluate grant applications for funding from the
Transportation Fund for Clean Air(TFCA) 60%Regional Fund for the
1996 funding cycle.
WHAT: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District)levies a$4.00
surcharge on motor vehicle registration fees paid within the Air District's
jurisdiction. The revenues raised by the surcharge are available only to
public agencies for projects that reduce air pollutant emissions from motor
vehicles and implement transportation measures in the Bay Area's Clean
Air Plan.
WHEN: Air District staff will conduct a workshop to receive comment and input on
the proposed policies and criteria at the time �n� it'Ce Lbelow.
Written comments may also be submitted to: Edward Miller,BAAQMD,
939 Ellis Street, San Francisco, CA 94109. The deadline to submit written
comments is February 9, 1996.
WHERE: February 5, 1996
1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
7th Floor Board Room
939 Ellis Street, San Francisco
Directions appear on the reverse side of this notice. Attendees are
encouraged to ride public transit, rideshare, bicycle, or walk to and from
the workshop. The meeting room is handicap accessible.
1
How to reach the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Offices
teL'COJD�t�\
:C ��Y)1J��J,�iA]ti��lC, l'F..:::'•`x N/,i.'!1r�wM;,..
ACCESSVUBLIC TRANSIT,
..'2.
R
�5b{>t:Mn:km^:xw•.i.v:'wS .'':;�`.'.••,fv$:"ri r.r::r!i\:: ::�•\e',r,:ri
$F.4h/wi.$•..'rwr'./•ii.
BART:
BUS14 x4444 Y m h IK:
.5 PAS
Civic Center Station ' � arc Z 0
8th and Market Streets)) = gi p
0 SUTTER O Z Z < •.. �rh:r'
'w
=it
S.F. Muni: ' ' POST
42(Downtown Loop)to Van Ness&Eddy :y - ,. :J {:, +.. ^ > \ w� 2 7 ., ! N;
47(Van Ness)to Van Ness and Eddy GEAR1f �...,.
49 an Ness/Mission)to Van Ness&E %>w: % `�> :-:< <;:e R ; t
N /►"l ) �Y �•,}� �' `� � it
31 (Balboa)to Van Ness&Eddy 'vx'^ OTARRELL
38(Geary)to Van Ness. ' . "~ ( `^ <::w�
Ell
CalTrairr
Take CalTrain to SF terminal,from there take0111,
EDDY
41(Gold)to Van Ness&Eddy. ISOMER. ' w>
TURK • • • W.,
NINE
SarnTrans: GOLDEN GATE Mug :;EM IM ma
::::::.. Y��X
Take Sam rans to the Transbay Terminal. , O
T T from
there take 38(Geary)bus to Van Ness& Eddy. f,
McAWSTER
~"rte
Ferry: RJL.TON
From the Terminal, take the 31 Balboa
to Van Ness&Eddy. GROVE .•''}:>: r
{ ?,
..
_w• AIRPORTS %-" .- „ So+xk„x5:;:
FELLti
A ;:::, � re ?y .:;•
San Francisco Int 1 Airport ......
�rr
Door-to-door shuttle services are CAK FEW
available from the center island on the s •
0 PAGE „:
upper level in front of all terminals. - 11 v',
r., NS/?.wy:�:;i: ;;;?oadt�;' ti''{::}:tiN}} ,N.I ra ,`'>>?<^.fin,', ::1W �•'.
Fare is a rcDcimatel 10. �,} r$ z$ 3 e ”is>: :2,
Allow 30 to 45 minutes. :�.•.. 'r,'�.::
.�.n,:.• !.\S-:ja•. .:�.. •ti��c�^:s �w '��'•'v' , ::'.u.,w?...V.>.
ri}}}. $'h•' .\:h M. )r. 'r?tv:^X:moi:.,%.,;:n
:v.:,,.?•y.w{.: ...,{$:u�.'•J;?i}'v>:$:Y.:$i}•v::�,\,.:.vi.' 4:•:.'�.Y.'iii:�,vi:.f�nn..�?r.�>.::^:::\:+f?f,... ;�j:r.:::>.{y'':,.
y...:::,:..v:.,...,.Jvi}::.,,.;.;....;:,,,y.4q{.>};�n;:n.y,v::.i?,? : �- r::\:•wM?v>n:{:.^:•::nv?::>:::.�,. :m:W:\::`{+'C`
Oakland Airport
Take the AIR BART shuttle to the '"`V". "��.•»awe.`.""`�: s ;_:;:_:::< >:"' "s�,."a-.•� xc"`"
Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART station.
At BART. board the northbound train to • • = ;ACCESS
San Francisco or Daly City. Get off at
the Civic Center Station. From the North:
Allow 60 to 90 minutes. Take Highway 101,cross the Golden Gate Bridge,take the Lombard Street exit. stay
on Lombard to Van Ness, turn right and proceed to Van Ness& Ellis.
From the East Bay:
Cross the Bay Bridge, stay in right lanes to the Ninth Street-Civic Center exit, go
L • a • one block on Harrison.then right on Ninth.stay in left lanes. immediately after
crossing Market Street veer left on Hayes Street. go right on Van Ness and proceed
to Van Ness& Ellis.
BAAQMD
939 Ellis Street (cross street Van Ness) From the South:
Safi Francisco CA 94109 Take Highway 101 bear left at Golden Gate Bridge/101 North juncture. exit at
Mission/Van Ness,go right on Mission and left on Van Ness and proceed to Van
Switchboard (415) 771-6000 Ness& Ellis.
Public Information (41S)749-4900 Public Parking Lots:
An outdoor lot is located adjacent to the District offices at Van Ness & Ellis.
Underground parking is available at the Cathedral Hill Hotel at Van Ness & Geary.
12/
PURPOSE
This document outlines proposed policies and criteria to be used by the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District(Air District)to evaluate projects submitted for funding in
1996 from the Regional Fund of the Transportation Fund for Clean Air, and invites
comment on the proposals.
BACKGROUND
The Air District, in conjunction with the Department of Motor Vehicles, collects a$4.00
surcharge on motor vehicle registrations within the Air District's jurisdiction, pursuant to
Health and Safety Code Section 44223. The surcharge funds the Air District's
Transportation Fund for Clean Air(TFCA). TFCA funds are awarded to public agencies
to implement projects to reduce air pollutant emissions from motor vehicles consistent
with strategies and measures contained in the Air District's Clean Air Plan(CAP). The
$4.00 surcharge raises approximately$18.4 million annually.
All of the funds raised through the surcharge are distributed by the Air District. The
distribution is through two processes. Forty(40)percent of the funds generated in each
county are returned to the designated Program Manager within the county. For example,
40% of the funds generated from motor vehicles registered in Santa Clara County are
returned to the designated Program Manager for Santa Clara County. Each county
Program Manager then recommends projects to be funded with that county's 40% share
of the TFCA funds. Each Program Manager submits an expenditure plan each fiscal year
to the Air District for approval by the Air District Board of Directors. The expenditure
plan specifies the recommended projects to receive funds.
The remaining 600/c of the revenues, referred to as the Regional Fund, are first used to
fund certain eligible Air District programs, such as the 1-800-EXHAUST Smoking
Vehicle complaint line and the regional Vehicle Buy Back program. The remainder of the
Regional Fund is distributed to public agencies on a competitive basis. Any public a e�
within the Air District's jurisdiction may apply for funding from the Regional Fund for
eligible projects. This notice outlines proposed policies and criteria to be used to evaluate
projects submitted for funding from the Regional Fund in 1996.
ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
The purpose of the TFCA is to reduce air pollutant emissions from motor vehicles. State
law limits eligible projects to the following categories:
1. The implementation of local agency voluntary trip reduction programs.
2. The purchase or lease of clean fuel buses for school districts and transit operators.
3. The provi*ion of local feeder bus or shuttle service to rail and ferry stations, and to
airports.
2
4
4. The implementation and maintenance of local arterial traffic management,
including, but not limited to signal timing,transit signal preemption, bus stop
relocation and"smart streets."
5. Implementation of rail-bus integration and regional transit information systems.
6. Implementation of demonstration projects in low-emission vehicles, and
demonstration projects in congestion pricing of highways, bridges, or public
transit.
7. Implementation of a smoking vehicles program.
8. Implementation of an automobile buy-back scrappage program operated by a
governmental agency.
9. Implementation of bicycle facility improvement projects that are included in an
adopted countywide bicycle plan or congestion management program.
Legislation enacted in 1995 modified the list of eligible categories of projects. Clean air
vehicle projects are now limited to low-emission vehicles. Bicycle facilities(category 9)
were added to the eligible categories list. Telecommuting demonstration projects were
deleted from the eligible categories list and will not be considered for TFCA funding.
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
The expected schedule for distribution of the 1996 TFCA Regional Funds is:
01/05/96 Distribution of notice of proposed policies and criteria
02/05/96 Public workshop on proposed policies and criteria
02/09/96 End of comment period on proposed policies and criteria
02/28/96 Air District Budget and Finance Committee approval of policies
and criteria
03/06/96 Air District Board of Directors approval of policies and criteria
04/15/96 Distribution of application packages
06/28/96 Deadline for public agencies to submit project proposals
10/23/96 Air District Budget and Finance Committee approval of projects
11/06/96 Air District Board of Directors approval of projects
The schedule for allocation of the 40%portion of the TFCA funds to the county Program
Managers is outlined below. Questions regarding the distribution of the 40%funds within
a county should be addressed to the appropriate county Program Manager. (The
designated Program Manager for each of the nine Bay Area counties is the County
Congestion Management Agency.)
02/01/96 Air District guidance and criteria issued to Program Managers
04/30/96 Program Manager submits expenditure plan to Air District
07/03/96 Air District Board of Directors approval of expenditure plans
3
Contacts
Air District staff are available to answer your questions and to provide assistance in
developing projects. Please call the appropriate individual listed below with any questions.
Project Category Contact Name Phone Number
Feeder bus service/shuttles Andrea Gordon 415-7494940
Rail bus integration/transit information Andrea Gordon 415-749-4940
Trip reduction programs/bicycle projects David Burch 415-749-4641
Arterial management Joseph Steinberger 415-749-5018
Congestion pricing demonstrations Joseph Steinberger 415-749-5018
School/transit bus replacements Michael Murphy 415-749-4644
Natural gas vehicle demonstrations Mark Kragen . 415-749-4643
Electric vehicle demonstrations Thomas Addison 415-749-5109
PROPOSED POLICIES AND CRITERIA FOR 1996
The Air District wants to encourage the development and implementation of cost-effective
projects that reduce air pollutant emissions from motor vehicles, as provided by the
enabling legislation. The Air District also wants to communicate to applicants the process
and criteria used to select projects for funding, so that applicants can efficiently develop
fundable projects.
Outlined below are proposed policies and criteria that would govern how the Air District
would evaluate projects and allocate available funds among eligible projects. Several of
the proposed policies state that certain types of projects would not be considered for
funding. Air District staff would not review, evaluate, or recommend these projects for
funding.
The proposed policies and criteria outlined below are designed to ensure the funding and
implementation of a wide range of cost-effective projects that can be completed in a timely
fashion. The proposed policies are intended to assure the wise and efficient use of public
funds, and are intended to address lessons that have been learned through previous TFCA
funding cycles.
1. CLEAN AIR VEHICLE SET-ASIDE: One-half of the TFCA Regional Fund
will be available for clean air vehicle projects. One-half of the TFCA Regional
Fund will be available for all other types of eligible projects.
The clean air vehicle set aside was proposed in October 1995. Comments received
on the October 1995 proposal were generally supportive. The main reasons for
this set-aside are: 1)to assure that clean air vehicle projects are evaluated using
criteria that are tailored to achieve the greatest emission reductions from these
projects, and 2)to create a visible clean air vehicle program for the Bay Area that
4
r
can be used to leverage and attract additional public and private funding for clean
air vehicles.
At this time, it is estimated that between$10 million and $11 million will be
available for allocation from the TFCA Regional Fund in 1996. It is proposed that
one-half of the available funds be earmarked for clean air vehicle projects, and one-
half of the available funds be earmarked for the other eligible categories of
projects. Clean air vehicle projects include both demonstrations of low emission
vehicles, and school and transit bus replacement projects.
2. Minimum Score: The Air District will not award TFCA funds to arty project
which achieves a point score of less than 50 points based upon the project scoring
criteria listed below.
This minimum score cut-off will insure that only the most effective projects in
reducing motor vehicle emissions will receive funding. In the past, some
marginally effective projects received funding. A minimum score will eliminate this
possibility.
3. Monitoring: Project sponsors who havelailed to fuYll any post project
monitoring requirements for previously funded projects will not be considered for
new funding in 1996.
The Air District does not believe it is appropriate to fund projects sponsored by
public agencies who have failed to fulfill commitments contained in previous
funding agreements. This policy is intended to assure that project sponsors will be
conscientious in fulfilling any follow-up or subsequent monitoring and reporting
requirements that were contained in previous funding agreements.
4. 40% TFCA Funds: Project sponsors may utilize 40% TFCA funds received
through their county Program Managers toward the total cost of the project.
This policy will give project sponsors the flexibility and option to utilize TFCA
funding received through their county Program Manager for a project proposal
from the TFCA Regional Fund. However, the cost-effectiveness ratio for TFCA
funds(Criterion#2 below)will be based upon all TFCA funds being used for the
project, both 40%funds and the requested 60%funds.
5. Minimum Amount: Only projects using$10,000 or more in TFCA Regional
Funds will be considered for funding.
It is not cost-effective for very small projects to receive TFCA funds. The
administrative efforts to prepare, evaluate, and fund proposals;then implement,
monitor and audit projects are too large for the benefits realized.
5
6. Readiness: Projects will be considered for funding only if the project will
commence by July 1, 1997 or sooner.
The Air District is interested in funding projects which are ready to be
implemented. This policy is intended to assure that only projects that can begin by
July 1, 1997 or sooner will be considered.
7. Employee Subsidy: Projects that provide a direct financial transit or rideshare
subsidy to employees of the project sponsor, or other public agency employees
will not be considered for funding.
The Air District believes that using TFCA funding to provide a direct financial
transit or rideshare subsidy to public employees is not the best use of the funds and
inconsistent with the spirit of the enabling legislation.
8. Shuttles: TFCA funding will be limited to a maximum of 50 percent of the total
project cost for shuttle service projects to rail stations,ferry terminals, and
airports TFCA funding for shuttle or feeder bus projects will be limited
according to the following schedule:
Number of years Project Percentage of TFCA
subsidized with TFCA to Total Cost
First year up to 50%
Second year up to 40%
Third year up to 30%
Fourth and subsequent years up to 20%
The intent of this policy is to assure that TFCA funding leverages other available
funding for shuttle services, thus increasing the overall effectiveness of the TFCA.
9. Arterial Management: Arterial management projects will only be considered if
the project affects intersections on corridors or links identified in the County
Congestion Management Program (CMP) as below CMP established level of
service (LOS) standards.
The intent of this policy is to assure that TFCA funding is directed at those arterial
management projects which have the greatest degree of traffic congestion, thus
assuring the greatest emission reductions from the funded projects.
10. Infrastructure: Projects to develop infrastructure to support clean air vehicles
(e.g. natural gas or electric fueling facilities)will not be considered for funding.
The intent of this policy is to clarify that TFCA funding may no longer be used to
build fueling facilities. Private resources are now available to provide fueling
facilities.
6
Y
11. Clean Air Vehicles. Clean air vehicle projects will be funded only for the
demonstration of light and medium duty low emission vehicles certified by the
California Air Resources Board(CARE)as meeting established low emission
vehicle (LEIS, ultra low emission vehicle (ULEi9, and zero emission vehicle
(ZEA standards Any demonstrations of heavy duty vehicles or school/transit bus
replacement projects must result in tailpipe emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
below 3.0 grams per brake horsepower hour.
The intent of this policy is to clarify recent legislation regarding the eligibility of
clean air vehicle projects to receive funding and to establish a standard for heavy
duty vehicles and school/transit bus replacement projects. '
12. Low-Emission Vehicle Demonstrations: Funding for low emission vehicle
demonstration projects for light, medium, and heavy duty vehicles will be
considered within the following guidelines.
a. TFCA funding will be allowed for 100 percent of the vehicle's total cost for the
first 10 vehicles, or 10 percent of the sponsor's fleet, whichever is less. Project
sponsors with vehiclefleets leets of less than ten vehicles will be allowed 1 vehicle at
100 percent TFCA funding.
b. TFCA funding will be allowed for 75 percent of the vehicle's total cost for the
next 11-25 vehicles, or up to 25%of the sponsor's fleet, whichever is less
Project sponsors with vehiclefleets leets of less than ten vehicles will be allowed 1
vehicle at 75 percent TFCA funding.
C. TFCA funding will be allowed for 50 percent of the vehicle's total cost for the
next 26-50 vehicles, or up to 50%of the sponsor's fleet, whichever is less
Project sponsors with vehiclefleets leets of less than ten vehicles will be allowed 1
vehicle at 50 percent TFCA funding.
d TFCA funding will be allowed for the incremental cost of a clean air vehicle (i.e.
the cost difference between the clean air vehicle and a regular new vehicle)for
51-100 vehicles, or up to 75%of the sponsor's fleet, whichever is less Project
sponsors with vehicle fleets of less than ten vehicles will be allowed 2 vehicles at
the incremental cost.
e. TFCA funding will not be provided for demonstration projects above 100 vehicles
in the sponsor's fleet or 75 percent of a sponsor's fleet, whichever is less.
For purposes of this policy, a sponsor's vehicle fleet includes all light, medium, and
heavy duties vehicles(excluding any school and/or transit buses) owned by the
sponsor.
7
The intent of this policy is to extend the emission reduction effectiveness of the
overall TFCA program. In the past, the Air District has funded the entire cost of a
clean air vehicle. This policy will continue that practice up to an established level
of a project sponsor's fleet. After that point, the Air District would continue to
fund clean air vehicles but at a reduced percentage rate. This should assure that
more clean air vehicles will be placed in public agency fleets, thus resulting in
greater air pollutant emission reductions.
VaSTING POLICIES
Existing policies regarding TFCA funding will continue. Listed below are selected
existing policies that are included herein as a reminder to readers. These are mentioned
because they may influence how readers view the proposed policies listed above, and may
influence how readers wish to comment on the above proposed policies.
Project applications will not be considered for funding from sponsors who received
previous TFCA grants and have not signed a funding agreement with the Air
District.
Project applications will not be considered for funding from sponsors who received
previous TFCA grants for projects which have not been implemented, or the
project sponsor has not made good-faith progress toward project implementation.
Project applications will not be considered for funding for projects which duplicate
other projects and/or duplicate projects funded through the county Program
Managers(40%funds).
Any application for a project to operate a shuttle service or feeder bus service to
and from a rail station, airport, or ferry terminal must be submitted by a public
transit agency, co-sponsored by a public transit agency, or accompanied by a letter
of support from all potentially affected public transit agencies.
PROPOSED PROJECT SCORING CRITERIA
Two sets of parallel criteria are proposed. One set of criteria would apply exclusively to
clean air vehicle projects,the other set of criteria would apply to all other eligible projects.
Projects will be evaluated and scored based upon the criteria. The maximum point score
for a project would be 100 points. Projects would then be ranked based upon their point
score. Available funding would be allocated to projects beginning with the highest ranking
project for each set of criteria until all funds have been allocated.
8
IKITI
"7TO
1. Cost-Effectiveness 30 1. Cost-Effectiveness
Proj ct Cog
Total Project Cost Total PKoject Cost
2. Cost-Effectiveness 30 2. Cost-Effectiveness
Total TFCA$$$ Total TFCA$$$
3. Infrastructure Su port 15 3. Eliminates/Reduces Trips
4. Technology Advancement 10 4. Reduces vehicle miles of
travel (VMT)
5. Clean
Cities Participation 5 5. Intermodalism
1 6. New Initiative 5 6. New Initiative
7. Disadvantaged Community _ __5 7. Disadvantaged Community
................W.. _J
DISCUSSION
Please note that Criteria 1, 2, 6, and 7 apply to both clean air vehicle projects as well as all
other types of eligible projects. Criteria 3, 4, and 5 are different for clean air vehicle
projects and all other types of projects, as explained below.
Criteria 1 and 2: Cost-Effectiveness: [maximum 60 points]
Air District staff considers cost-effectiveness to be the most important criterion to
evaluate proposed projects. Cost-effectiveness is the ratio between the project's cost and
the estimated emission reductions for the project. Air District staff will calculate a
project's cost effectiveness using information provided by the applicant. Cost- -
effectiveness will be calculated two ways: 1)based upon the total project cost, and 2)
based upon the total TTCA funds budgeted for the project (including both the 60%funds
being requested as well as any 40% funds the applicant is proposing to use for the
project). Both Criteria I and 2 will be scaled to allow projects to score partial points
(from 0 to 30) for each criterion. Projects with a cost-effectiveness ratio of more than
$120,000 per ton of reduced emissions for Criteria I would score zero (0)points.
Projects with a cost-effectiveness ratio of more than $30,000 per ton of reduced emissions
for Criteria 2 would score zero (0)points.
Criterion 3: Eliminates/Reduces Trips: All Other Projects: [maximum 15 points]
Projects will score points for this criterion based upon a project's ability to reduce or
eliminate vehicle trips. This criterion will be scaled to allow projects to score partial
points(from 0 to 15)based upon the number of trips estimated to be reduced.
9
Criterion 3: Infrastructure Support: Clean Air Vehicle Projects: [maximum 15
points]
Clean air vehicle projects(except for electric vehicle projects)that facilitate or cause
private investment in refueling facilities for these vehicles will score 15 points. Also, clean
air vehicle projects(except for electric vehicle projects)where the project sponsor has
constructed, or is constructing, appropriate refueling facilities that are or will be
completely accessible to the public will score 15 points. Clean air vehicle projects (except
for electric vehicle projects)where the sponsor has or will have appropriate refueling
facilities with limited public assess will score partial points(from 0 to 15) depending upon
the number of entities allowed access to the facilities.
For electric vehicle projects, projects may score up to 7 points for this criterion based on
the community's electric vehicle"readiness." The number of points will be based on the
extent of compliance with the California Energy Commission's Electric Vehicle(EV)
Ready Checklist. Electric vehicle projects may score up to 8 additional points based on 1)
how accessible the charging infrastructure is to the public, and 2)how rapidly this
infrastructure allows recharging.
(Consistent with proposed policy number 10 above, TFCA funds could not be used for
infrastructure development.)
Criterion 4: Reduces VMT: All Other Projects: [maximum 10 points]
Projects will score points for this criterion based upon a project's ability to reduce vehicle
miles of travel (VMT). This criterion will be scaled to allow projects to score partial
points(from 0 to 10)based upon the amount of VMT to be reduced.
Criterion 4: Technology Advancement: Clean Air Vehicle Projects: [maximum 10
points]
Projects that introduce a new technology that significantly improves the performance or
reliability of low emission vehicles will score up to 10 points under this criterion. To score
points under this criterion, the technology must not be widely used and have a potential to
result in at least a 25% increase(from established benchmarks)in the performance or
reliability parameter affected, e.g. a 25% increase in a vehicle's driving range; 25%
increase in an electric vehicle's battery life; a 25% decrease in refueling/recharging times,
etc. This criterion will be scaled to allow projects to score partial points.
Criterion 5: Intermodalism: All Other Projects: [5 points]
Projects that improve connections between various modes of alternative transportation or
improve access via alternative modes to transit, will score five points under this criterion.
Examples of projects that would meet this criterion include: bicycle lockers at transit
stations, bicycle racks on transit buses or train-cars, shuttles from transit stations to
10
r
• - 1
activity centers, and projects that improve connections between two or more transit
systems, etc. Projects which improve automobile access to transit will not receive points
under this criterion.
Criterion 5: Clean Cities Participation: Clean Air Vehicle Projects [5 points]
Project sponsors who are stakeholders in a Bay Area clean city coalition and regularly
participate in coalition meetings are eligible to receive 5 points under this criterion.
Project sponsors who regularly participate in a recognized clean air vehicle coalition may
also receive points. A letter from the chair of a coalition stating that the project sponsor
regularly participates is sufficient evidence to receive points under this criterion.
Criterion 6: New Initiative [5 points]
Projects which are new initiatives for the project sponsor, i.e. the project sponsor has not
previously conducted such a project, will score points under this criterion. Also, eligible
projects which are totally new, i.e. no similar type of project has previously received
TFCA funds, will score points under this criterion. However, consistent with existing
policies, projects which duplicate an existing project will not be considered for funding.
Criterion 7: Disadvantaged Community [5 points]
Projects that benefit communities within the Air District's jurisdiction that have at least ten
(10) percent of households with income in 1989 dollars below the poverty level will earn
five(5)points under this criterion.
11
The Board of Supervisors Contra CerikloofftheBoad
Costa and
County-Administration Building County administrator
651 Pine Street, Room 106 (510)646-2371
Martinez,California 94553-1293 County
Jim Rogers,1 st District E L
Jett Smith,2nd District
Gayle Bishop,3rd District f
Mark DeSaulnier,4th District c � •a
Tom Torlakson,5th District
T�`� COtIN'r'
RECEIVED
February 6, 1996 FEB _ 81996
Mr. Edward Miller CLERK BOARD OF S
Bay Area Air Quality Management District CONTRA COSTTAA CO.CSoy
O.
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Dear Mr. Miller:
The Board of Supervisors authorized transmittal of the following
comments on the proposed grant evaluation policies and criteria
for the Transportation Fund for Clear Air (TFCA) Program. These
comments specifically address arterial management projects, clean
air vehicle infrastructure, and the disadvantaged communities
criterion.
The Air District should remove the proposed policy that restricts
arterial management projects only to roads or corridors
identified in a county' s Congestion Management Program (CMP) as
operating below the CMP-established level of service standard.
Please be aware that traffic congestion was not specified in the
CMP statute as a criterion for designating facilities as CMP
routes . Consequently, there are facilities not designated as CMP
routes that have congestion greater than what occurs on CMP
routes. Such facilities would be excluded from the TFCA Program.
The Air District should also be aware that by limiting project
eligibility to facilities with certain levels of congestion it
may be screening-out more cost-effective projects that have lower
levels of congestion, but have lower-cost strategies to relieve
that congestion and improve air quality.
At a minimum, the County suggests that the Air District evaluate
arterial management projects funded by the Program. This
evaluation should identify which projects meet the proposed
policy and determine if such projects achieved more emission
reductions than projects that didn' t meet the policy. Then the
Air District would have some basis for proposing this policy.
The Air District should remove the proposed policy that prohibits
funding of fueling facilities for clean air vehicles . The Air
District' s notice indicates that private resources are now
available to provide fueling facilities, eliminating the need to
Mr. Miller
February 6, 1996
Page Two
fund such infrastructure through the TFCA Program. The County is
not aware that private funds are more available for fueling
facilities than any other portion of a clean air vehicle program.
The County' s primary barrier to acquiring clean air vehicles is
that lack -of� convenient fueling facilities. Prohibiting funding
of this infrastructure is premature at this time.
u
It is unclear if the proposed criterion for disadvantaged
communities would be applied to the overall population of a
jurisdiction -•or.the target population of the proposed program or
project. A jurisdiction might benefit disadvantaged communities
by targeting a project/program to a specific geographic area, or
to a specific population. The Board of Supervisors requests that
the scoring criterion for disadvantaged communities be applied
only to the target population as defined in a jurisdiction' s
application.
The Board of Supervisors supports proposed policies and
criteria that emphasize project or program cost effectiveness .
Such proposals are consistent with the legislative intent of the
statute .
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on a program that has
become very important to Contra Costa.
Si
J f m' th, Chair
C n ra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
CC : J. Pierce, OCTA