HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02082000 - D5 .� D.5
TO: ' Board of Supervisors •'r. ,~�: Contra
FROM: Dennis M. Bang, AICP Costa
Community Development Director County
DATE: February 8, 2000
SUBJECT: Future Transportation Investments In Contra Costa
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize Chair, Board of Supervisors, to sign letters of appreciation to the panelists
that participated in the January 18 workshop on transportation;
2. Review and consider adoption of the following principles for establishing transportation
priorities for the renewal of Measure C-88 and for MTC's Transportation Blueprint for
the 218t Century:
• Transportation investments for capacity expansion should focus on providing
commuters with reliable aitematives to driving alone, on the efficient movement of
goods, and on the mobility needs of residents who do not have access to a car;
• Transportation investments should support a countywide policy for compact
development to achieve long-term protection of open space and reductions in our
reliance on automobiles;
• Transportation investments should acknowledge the significant unmet need to
adequately maintain and operate our existing road system;
• Transportation investments should be used as incentives for cities and the County to
jointly achieve the related goals of traffic relief, economic development, and
environmental protection;
3. Refer the principles for establishing transportation priorities to the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (Authority) and the county's regional transportation planning
committees for their work in identifying transportation projects and programs to include
in an expenditure plan for the renewal of Measure C-88; and !
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE-
ACTION OF BOARD ON F e b r u a r y 8, 2 9 0 0 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR,'BOARD
ACTION
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
XZ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT - -- - CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: (Steven Goetz, 9251335-1240) ATTESTED F e b r u a r y 8 , 2000 ,
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE
Public Works Department BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (via CDD) COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Regional Transportation Planning Committees (via CDD)
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
G. Binger, Association of Bay Area Governments
J. Roggenkamp, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
R. Ramacier, County Connection
A. Ho, CCEAC (via CDD)
B , DEPUTY
Workshop on Future Transportation Investments for Contra Costa
January 18, 2000
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
4. Consider transmitting comments to the Authority regarding how transportation
investments should be linked with a local jurisdiction's compliance with any
growth management program included in a renewal of Measure C.
FISCAL IMPACT
None to the General Fund.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On January 18, 2000, the Board of Supervisors held a workshop to review potential
transportation investments for Contra Costa, to discuss their implications, and to
determine priorities for these future transportation investments. These priorities will
be transmitted to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority), which is
developing the Expenditure Plan for an extension of Measure C-88 that could be
submitted to the voters as early as November 2000. The priorities will also be
submitted to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which is
developing the Transportation Blueprint for the 21 st Century that identifies major
transportation projects and programs that could benefit from increases in tolls, gas
taxes or sales taxes dedicated to transportation.
During the workshop, the Board considered various issues that are affected by our
transportation investments. The Board received comments from interested
agencies and the public. Board members made several requests for information. A
summary of the issues, comments and the information requests is attached as
Exhibit A. Related correspondence from the Air District and from the Advisory
Council on the Area Agency on Aging, which was received following the workshop, is
also included in Exhibit A. Responses to the questions raised by the Board
members were not available for distribution with this Board Order, and will be
distributed separately prior to February 8, 2000.
The information developed from the workshop provided a countywide and
comprehensive assessment of how transportation investments can affect the
county's quality of life. This perspective can be summarized in the following
principle findings:
Transportation investments that expand the capacity of the transportation system will
not, in the long-term, reduce traffic congestion. Transportation investments for
capacity expansion should focus on providing commuters with reliable altematives to
driving alone, on the efficient movement of goods, and on the mobility needs of
residents who do not have access to a car.
Transportation investments that are not accompanied by complementary land use
planning policies will increase our reliance on the automobile, threaten open space
and increase air pollution. Transportation investments should support a countywide
policy for compact development to achieve long-term protection of open space and
reductions in our reliance on automobiles.
An adequately maintained road system preserves our existing investment, supports
compact development and improves the desirability of our communities. These
maintenance costs are significantly greater than our ability to pay. Transportation
investments must acknowledge the significant unmet need to adequately maintain
and operate our existing road system.
Workshop on Future Transportation Investments for Contra Costa
January 18, 2000
Page 3
BACKGROUNDlREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
Transportation,the economy and the natural environment are significant factors in
Contra Costa's quality of life. Poorly coordinated transportation investments,
however, can hurt our transportation system, local economies and the natural
environment. Transportation investments should be used as incentives for cities
and the County to jointly achieve the related goals of traffic relief, economic
development, and environmental protection.
These findings can form the basis of principles to assess the ability of potential
transportation investments to improve the quality of life in Contra Costa.
Transportation projects and programs that support such principles and that are
subsequently included in the new Measure C will have a greater ability of providing
traffic relief, economic development, and environmental protection. Once adopted,
the Board of Supervisors to establish transportation priorities can use these
principles or they can be forwarded to the Authority for their consideration.
County staff has drafted transportation investment principles based on the workshop
findings for your review and consideration. County staff recommends that these
principles be forwarded to the Authority and the regional transportation planning
committees for their use in establishing transportation priorities for the renewal of
Measure C.
Growth management was believed by many to be one of the key factors for voter
acceptance of Measure C in 1988. Growth management was defined as ensuring
that new growth pays its own way. The comments at the workshop suggest that the
definition of growth management be expanded to include compact development.
Measure C established growth management by returning a portion of the
transportation revenues generated by the sales tax to the cities and County if they
complied with a countywide cooperative planning process used to implement growth
management. If growth management is to be included in the renewal of Measure C,
the Board should consider if the present retum-to-source provisions can adequately
influence future land use decisions, or if, future land use decisions should be linked
to other transportation projects and programs included in the new Measure C.
Exhibit A: Workshop Summary and correspondence
q
D.5
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D. 5
February 8, 2000 Agenda
On this date,the Board of Supervisors considered the issue of future transportation investments
in the County(See the attached Board Order).
Steven Goetz, Transportation Planning Chief, Community Development Department presented
the staff report. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department Director was also present.
It was suggested that the Board adopt principles for establishing transportation priorities and then
transmit them to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority(OCTA). In response to Supervisor
Uilkema's query,Mr. Goetz advised the Board that they might also consider projects today, if
desired.
The Board discussed the issues.
The public hearing was opened and the following people offered comments:
Jim Gleich,A.C. Transit;
Kathleen Nimr, Sierra Club,2204 Olympic Drive, Martinez;
Sylvia Hemmerich,AFSCME Local 3993,BART Supervisor, 10093
Foxboro Circle, San Ramon;
John Dalrymple, Central Labor Council, 1333 Pine Street, Martinez.
Those desiring to speak having been heard,the Board continued their discussion.
Following the Board's discussion, Supervisor Uilkema suggested that the Board return next
week with a modified list of principles, and a list of projects to measure against the principles.
There was no support for the suggestion.
Following further Board discussion, Supervisor Gerber moved to bring back the 4 bulleted
principles proposed today and include:
A. In bullet#1,remove"...the efficient movement of goods..., and replace with people
and goods;
B. Development and maintenance of a public transit system, including school buses;
C. Add to bullet#2, appropriate infill, economic revitalization and development, and
affordable housing;
D. Add a principle,which refers to promoting good health(in terms of air quality);
E. Add a principle, supporting welfare-to-work goals;
F. Add a principle,wherein prioritization is based on results;
G. Add a principle,wherein return-to-source for existing infrastructure and a percentage
for public transit.
Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion. Chair Gerber called for the vote. The vote was as
follows:
AYES: SUPERVISORS GIOIA,UILKEMA,DeSAULNIER,CANCIAMILLA and GERBER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Steven Goetz questioned whether the motion included Recommendation No. 4. The Chair
advised that it did.
Dennis Barry inquired if the Board would accept the memo titled, "Supplemental Report for
Board of Supervisors February 8, 2000,Agenda, Item D.5,Follow-up to the Workshop on Future
1
Transportation Investments",by a four-fifths vote. Supervisor Uilkema moved to accept the
report. Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous.
The Board took the following action:
AUTHORIZED the Chair,Board of Supervisors, to sign letters of appreciation for
participating panelists at the January 18,2000,transportation workshop;
REVIEWER the responses to the Board's inquiries provided in the Supplemental
Report; and DIRECTED that on February 15,2000,the Community Development
Department staff prepare a report for consideration by the Board of Supervisors on
the proposed transportation principles including: The efficient movement of goods
and people; the mobility of residents who do not have an automobile; long-term
development,and affordable housing, the development and maintenance of a public
transit system including school buses,ferries and rail, the promotion of good health
(such as air quality); support for he welfare-to-work goals; prioritization based on
performance standard and observed results, and return-to-source funds for existing
infrastructure and a percentage for public transit.
2
EXHIBIT A �
Summary of Board of Supervisors Workshop
On Future Transportation Investments
Tuesday, January 18, 2000
PANEL DISCUSSION
Question for CCTA: What will be the three top congestion problems in Contra Costa by 2020 and
why?
I-80 westbound in the A.M. pear, and eastbound in the P.M.;
SR 4 East, westbound in the A.M. commute, and eastbound in the P.M.
I-680 south, at Livorna Road, and this bottleneck appears to be a problem in both directions,
during both peaks.
Traffic Congestion is here to Stay in Contra f:nota
Pogglation in Contra Costa is exgected to continue to grow. Contra Costa and the Tri-Valley are
forecast to add 114,000 new households by 2020, a 28%, increase. These increases could add a
quarter million more cars to the road during peak commute hours.
The-automobile remain the dominant form gf gQrnmute travelhr h2020.
Most commuters find the automobile faster, cleaner, safer, more comfortable, more convenient, and
often cheaper, than transit, especially if there is free parking. In the future, our time spent in traffic
could become more productive and our tolerance for enduring congestion may increase, as the
automobile acquires more creature comforts.
The n i we hm tQdU are not snectgd to chanin the n
20 years, 80 percent of the development that will exist in 2020, already exists now. Another 10
percent is already approved. Even radical changes in the land use patterns of the to-be-added 10
percent would not substantially change the trip-malting patterns in place, which are patterns that are
best served by auto.
Increasiniz-&n.sities and encouraginginfill on h m r in will not eliminater ffi i . Higher
densities don't necessarily reduce traffic congestion, and can cause more local congestion, since many
people who live in high-density areas still drive their car, and more cars are concentrated in a smaller
space.
Im rovingjobs/housing balance won't make conger i go &wU. Although our forecasts show that
Contra Costa's jobs/housing balance picture will improve by 2020, housing shortages in San Francisco
and Santa Clara will attract many of our residents to jobs outside of Contra Costa.
Trafic congestion is not all had, People would rather be here, in Contra Costa, enjoying our
excellent quality of life, than somewhere else, where the traffic isn't so terrible.
Question for ABAG: What local land use actions could be taken to reduce future
transportation problems in Contra Costa?
Forecasts aren't what we would like to see, but what we expect to happen.
Vehicle delays in the Bay Area will increase 250%by 2020.
Land use patterns can affect congestion more than vehicle pricing strategies. All jurisdictions must
implement the following planning strategies to help address traffic congestion:
Encourage more compact and balanced communities through urban growth boundaries;
Encourage higher density mixed use development near transit service;
Adopt pedestrian/bicycle friendly development standards; and
Provide incentives to reduce driving- shuttles, transit passes, cooperative planning.
Opportunities for infill development are unknown.
Our ability to provide in-fill housing relies on our ability to solve the traffic congestion, make housing
affordable, and improve our educational facilities.
Land costs for infill development increase for brownfield parcels.
1
7
Question for BAAQMD: What transportation investments for Contra Costa would be most
beneficial to air quality?
What are therip imary air pollu ion problems in C?
Ckound-level Qzone
Breathing ozone is bad for our health;
Highest levels of ozone in the Bay Area are recorded in Tri-valley, at our monitoring station in
Livermore, and high levels are also recorded at our monitoring station in Concord;
Levels in recent years have exceeded the national ozone standard up to 8 times per year; and
Levels exceed the more stringent state standard about 20 times per year.
Particulate matter
Breathing high levels of particulates into our lungs makes it hard to breathe, and
particulates can cause permanent damage to our lung tissue;
Research has demonstrated a correlation between high particulate levels and increased
mortality rates and increased incidence of chronic respiratory illnesses; and
Levels exceeding the state particulate matter are recorded throughout the Bay Area in the
winter months, including at the monitors in Contra Costa County.
Diesel Particulate
Diesel particulate is the tiny particles in diesel exhaust;
Air Resources Board recently identified diesel particulate as a toxic air contaminant; and
Diesel particulate poses the highest health risk of any identified toxic air contaminant.
2. What is the transportAtion sector's contribution to these air pollution r 1 ms?
zon
The primary sources of pollutants that form ground-level ozone are cars, trucks and other
motor vehicles; and
At present, on-road motor vehicles account for approximately 40% of the ozone precursor
emissions.
Particulate Matter
Motor vehicle activity accounts for approximately 1/3 of particulate matter.
Diesel PM
90% is from mobile sources, mostly heavy duty engines that includes on-road vehicles such as
trucks and buses, and off-road equipment, such as construction equipment.
Given this information, the transportation sector plays a significant role in our air pollution
problems and should play a significant role in the solution to our problems.
2. What transportation investments would be most beneficial to `r Quality
ILw vehicles for kw—gr tr* >
Make transportation and land use decisions in ways that increase peoples options to safely and
pleasantly walk or bike for some kinds of trips. This would mean:
• Sidewalks and crosswalk, and pedestrian friendly site design
• Bike lanes
• Compact development
• Mixed uses
• Services in close proximity to work places
• Services, entertainment, schools in close proximity to homes
2
T
Use vehicles more efficiently
• Emphasize alternative transportation modes;
• Provide people with a safe and pleasant option to take transit or a shuttle or to
carpool rather than drive a car;
• Invest in transportation improvements that provide alternative modes; and
• Make land use decisions to support the use of transit.
Use cleaner vehicles
Turn over the fleet of vehicles more quickly and use alternative fuel vehicles:
For cars and trucks:
• Use natural gas or electric vehicles; and
• Provide refueling infrastructure
For heavy duty vehicles:
• Reduce diesel particulate emissions from on-road motor vehicles such as
trucks, transit buses, school buses, other heavy-duty equipment such as
garbage haulers, and street sweepers;
• Replace old diesel engines with newer, cleaner diesel engines;
• Switch to clean fuels B natural gas, hybrid electric engines, fuel cells; and
• Provide refueling infrastructure
Preventing air pollution is key to our quality of life and is key to sustainable communities.
Fuel and engine type is what determines pollution from any vehicle, including ferries and buses.
Studies were requested that could provide recommendations on what fuel and engine types are needed to
support expanded ferry and bus service.
Question for Bus Transit Coordinating Council: What markets in Contra Costa are best served by
transit? Are they being adequately served today? If not,why?
• Transit works best where there are higher densities and where there is a grid system.
• Transit works with HOV which provide a travel time advantage compared to driving alone.
• Transit works best for short trips B 4 miles or less.
• Transit works best for area with low auto ownership rates.
• Transit works best for school kids.
• Bus operators can adapt their recommendations based on decisions for BART extensions.
• Pricing strategies and employer subsidies help increase transit ridership, but not as much as
travel time savings.
• Boulder got a 25%increase in ridership by making the bus free, but it may have been a result
of its existing riders using the bus more, rather than attracting new riders to the system.
• The public values qualities of convenience and speed over the price of bus service.
• Transit agencies often must choose whether to expand service where it will get the most
ridership or expand service where in neighborhoods where residents don't have cars available.
3
Question for City-County Engineering Advisory Committee: What are the consequences for of
maintaining local streets, roads, and signal systems?
• Local streets and roads are the backbone of our transportation system since they are used by
all modes -transit/bikes/walking/cus.
• There is a six-year road maintenance shortfall of $400 million for Contra Costa jurisdictions.
• Consequences of bumpy roads are driver aggravation, higher vehicle repair costs, higher
insurance claims, and more frequent emergency response.
• Deferred maintenance will generate greater costs in the long run due to the higher costs of
road reconstruction compared to preventive maintenance strategies.
• Signal upgrades and interconnects improve traffic flow for a relatively low cost.
• Well-maintained roads with lights and landscaping are indicators of a high quality of life.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jim Gleich. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District Oakland
Bus Transit Coordinating Council has put forward their own proposal for using sales tax revenues from a
renewed Measure C.
HOV lanes are saving AC Transit express buses 23 minutes on some runs. Bus ridership is booming on
the I-80 corridor. AC Transit is acquiring better express buses to respond to the demand for this service.
Congestion relief can be achieved by serving untapped commuter markets.
AC Transit has initiated a project to develop better inner city bus service on San Pablo Avenue. New
low-floor buses are being acquired to improve the quality of service here.
Further study is needed on the relationship between fares and ridership.
Stuart Cohen, Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition, Berkeley
The Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition recently released the report-World class transit
for the Bay Area. The study recommends more express bus service in western Contra Costa which
provide more transportation for the dollar compared to other transportation investment options.
Existing transit service is very inadequate.
Traffic congestion will increase even with road projects that expand capacity. Road construction causes
more congestion than the bottlenecks that they are intended to relieve.
Relieving road bottleneck elsewhere will shift more congestion to recently widened I-680.
We need to fund road maintenance.
We need more than one percent of Measure C sales tax revenue for transit incentives.
Alameda County will have a Transit Oriented Development Program included in its transportation sales
tax proposal that Contra Costa should consider.
Leslie Stewart_ Leasrue of Women Voters, Concord
More alternatives to using the auto are needed. Keep asking questions that will trigger their examination.
Proper land use planning can support for alternatives to auto use.
Contra Costa should strengthen the Measure C growth management program.
We will always need more roads if that is all we build. If we build more transit, it will become more
convenient and lead to greater transit use.
4
i�
Employers need to be encouraged to subsidize transit use by their employee so that we can make further
improvements to transit service and to support people moving from welfare to work.
Toe Wallace.North Richmond Emgovment_Collaboratve.North Richmond
BART is too expensive, so he uses the buses.
Families with school children must choose between buying food and buying bus passes for their children
to get to school.
Bus service does not serve the employment centers that will allow people to get off welfare.
Public transit will help families achieve economic self-sufficiency, build self-respect and improve family
life.
Transit improvements must be made, people can't afford BART, and we need to solve that problem.
Charlie Anderson. West Contra Costa Transit AuthonlL Pinole
The current sales tax revenues dedicated to transit limit transit expansion.
Bus operators are struggling to meet a variety of service needs with limited resources.
Infill development will increase demands for transit operators without providing additional funding to
serve that demand.
Be sure to consider future transit needs and how difficult they will be to meet under existing funding
levels.
Miriam Flawly. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit. Oakland
Beware about doing more of the same with the renewal of Measure C since what we are doing now is not
really working well.
The Measure C proposal prepared by the bus operators should be considered. It proposes a seamless
web of transit services,a first class bus system, which is something we are missing.
Cost benefit analysis of the projects should be done carefully so we can make appropriate choices
between competing projects. The Transportation Blueprint for the 21't Century did not perform an
adequate cost-benefit analysis.
Traditional approaches to congestion relief are no longer appropriate. There are limits to building more
concrete. Environmental and social issues need to be considered.
BOARD COMMENTS
Supervisor 'oia
More information is needed on certain transportation projects, programs and options.
Our transportation investments need to achieve other objectives in addition to traffic relief. We shouldn't
necessarily use the same assumptions that were used in the current Measure C program, but rather should
move forward with something that reflect land use goals, transit-oriented and mixed-use development,
and community revitalization. We shouldn't just look at cost-effectiveness criteria in our transportation
investments since that doesn't acknowledge social equity issues. Lets define the objectives we want to
achieve and then determine the transportation investments that will support them.
We need to have some principles that can be used to evaluate any transportation project, principles from
a regional perspective. We have an opportunity to address some larger issues and a chance to attain a
greater vision, even if it falls on deaf ears.
Su ervisor yle B. Uilkema
Road maintenance needs are important to many communities so we must ensure that each community will
benefit for the Measure C road maintenance program.
5
.�2 5-b-
�t
We need to look at our transit needs to see how they relate to our land use planning.
What are the rules for funding earthquake reinforcements to our bridges? How are these needs funded
now?
How is Capitol Corridor train funded?
Why are AC Transit's operating costs highlighted for Contra Costa? �.
Do all counties make commitments to fund earthquake reinforcements to the Golden Gate Bridge, the
Benicia Bridge and the Carquinez Bridge?
If light rail is funded on the Benicia Bridge, will that compete with the Capitol Corridor service?
Supendsor Gerber
Regardless of the potential for putting a new Measure C on the ballot this year, the Authority and MTC
are moving forward with developing recommendations for transportation investments so we need to
make sure those discussions are integrated with our other priorities in the County.
The County is in a unique position to provide leadership on all these issues since we are general purpose
and countywide in jurisdiction. Transportation investments have many important consequences on land
use, air quality, community revitalization and infrastructure that we need to consider, AQ, community
revitalization, meeting the needs of all residents of the county. We need to identify what we can say to
these other agencies to further a countywide vision.
Supervisor DeSaulnier
We need to be prepared in case SCA3 passes and identify real projects to can use the money.
We need to tell MTC that the traffic problems are not that easy to solve and transportation priorities can
not be easily established when we want to coordinate these actions with other county goals. Whatever
new funding comes about, we must take a different approach than just dividing money about among
projects and programs, all these investments need to work together and with other initiative in order to
accomplish overall goals. We shouldn't rush to get something ready by November without giving
adequate time to discuss the larger issues.
Our problems are larger than what is faced in the urban core of the Bay Area, the traffic problems
between the Central Valley and the Bay Area are even more difficult to address.
Spapervisor Canciamilla
We need to put as much money as we can into the projects on the list, but the bigger questions is how we
will get these projects to the voters. We don't need to talk about projects though because the regional
committees discuss those.
We need to consider some other issues:
1) safety, when will the Bay Bridge reinforcements occur in addition to the Golden Gate
project?
2) is BART committed to looking at other alternatives than expensive BART extensions?
3) can we look at better ways of providing bus service such as transit consolidation to
eliminate duplication of effort and reduce overhead, and to provide convenient bus
transfers between systems
4) land use planning such as the Urban Limit bine, or if cities are not committed to
providing affordable housing to coincide with the jobs they are producing then there
needs to be real penalties not just pretend penalties that we use now.
6
i�-
00,
ti
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
f COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT QC
651 Pine Street, N. Wing - 4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553 •
Telephone: 335-1290 Fax: 335-1299
TO: Members, Board of Supervisors
FROM: Dennis M. Barry, ACCP, Community Development Director—,
By, Steven L. Goetz„ Transportation Planning Division
DATE: February 8, 2000
SUBJECT: Supplemental Report for Board of Supervisors February 8, 2000 Agenda, Item D.6,
Follow-up to the Workshop on Future Transportation Investments
This memorandum provides a response to questions raised by Board members during the January 18'
workshop on Future Transportation Investments in Contra Costa. The response to these questions could
not be completed 96 hours in advance of the meeting as required by the Better Government Ordinance.
Under certain circumstances, the Board can waive the requirement that supporting staff reports must
be made available to the public at least 96 hours before the meeting. Upon a determination by three-
fourths vote of the Board that it is essential to waive the time limits and after receiving from staff a
written explanation as to why the staff report could not be made available 96 hours in advance, the
Board may waive the time limits.
The research necessary to respond to the questions was completed very recently and could not be
completed sooner.
What are the rules for funding seismic retrofit (reinforcements) to our bridges' How are these needs
funded now?
Different rules were developed for different types of bridges.
The state initiated reinforcements to state-owned bridges following the Northridge earthquake in
1991. That work was funded by the State Highway Account (SHA), which receives revenue
collected from the state diesel/gas tax, vehicle weight fees and federal transportation funds. Seismic
reinforcements for state-owned toll bridges are funded separately, through a combination of toll
revenue and the SHA. Toll revenue for the seismic retrofit program is generated from a $1 toll
increase on state-owned toll bridges in the Bay Area. This toll increase will expire when the retrofit
work is completed.
Seismic reinforcements to the Golden Gate Bridge is a separate matter since it is not a state-owned
bridge, but rather is owned by the Golden Cate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District. A
portion of this work is currently funded through a combination of toll revenue from the District and
discretionary federal revenue allocated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(Commission). The portion of the seismic retrofit not covered by toll revenues is referred by the
Commission as a "regional cost". Over $200 million in additional revenue is needed to fully fund
seismic reinforcement of the Golden Cate Bridge. This is a regional cost and no consensus has been
reached on how this additional revenue should be collected.
As part of the Transportation Blueprint for the 21' Century, the Commission is taking the
opportunity to highlight the deficit for the Golden Gate Bridge seismic retrofit. For discussion
purposes, the Commission allocated the deficit to each county based on their share of traffic using
the Golden Gate Bridge. For Contra Costa, that amount is under $10 million.
The rules for funding the deficit for the Golden Gate Bridge seismic retrofit will be developed by the
Commission in cooperation with its partner agencies. If each county (in Contra Costa the
responsible agency would be the Contra Costa Transportation Authority) does not agree to fund this
deficit out of revenue they control, the Commission may decide to fund the deficit from
discretionary transportation revenue controlled by the Commission.
How is the Capitol Corridor train funded?
The Capitol Corridor is a state-supported intercity train service, similar to the San Joaquin and San
Diegan train service. The state and Amtrak each pay a portion of the operating cost of state-
supported intercity train services. The state pays for the majority of capital improvements to
intercity train services. Local agencies often pay for station improvements, and railroads have also
made contributions. In the past, the federal government and Amtrak have paid for a minimal
amount of capital improvements, but recently Amtrak has increased its capital contributions.
State funds to operate intercity train services are allocated from the Public Transportation Account
(PTA) which is a trust fund used for transportation planning and mass transportation purposes. The
PTA is primarily funded from sales tax on the sale of diesel fuel and the sales tax derived from a
portion of the state gas tax.
State funds for capital improvements to intercity train services are allocated primarily from the State
Highway Account (SHA). The SHA is a trust fund and receives its funds from the state gas/diesel
tax, vehicle weight fees and federal transportation funds. Capital improvements have also been
funded through state bonds authorized by the voters (e.g. Propositions 108 and 116).
Federal funds for intercity train service are funded from annual appropriations by the federal
government.
Counties in Southern California have elected to augment the San Diegan intercity train service with
local funds to allow operation of commuter trains.
-9-ero
Why does the Transportation Blueprint for the 21"Century highlight AC Transit's operating costs
for Contra Costa?
The AC Transit District includes portions of Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The Contra Costa
portion includes Richmond, El Cerrito, and San Pablo and adjacent unincorporated areas. Existing
revenue sources are not sufficient to maintain current AC transit service for the next 20 years. This
20-year deficit must be funded by Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The portion allocated to
Contra Costa is based on this county's population within the AC Transit District.
Do all counties make commitments to fund seismic reinforcements to the Golden Gate Bridge, the
Benicia Bridge and the Carquinez Bridge?
The Benicia Bridge and the Carquinez Bridge are state-owned toll bridges. Their seismic
reinforcement is funded through a combination of State Highway Account revenue (a statewide
revenue source) and toll revenue from the "Northern Bridge Group", which consist of the
Richmond-San Rafael, Carquinez, Benicia, and Antioch bridges.
The Golden Gate Bridge is owned by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District
(District). A portion of the seismic reinforcement of this bridge is funded by tolls from the District.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Commission) is seeking additional revenue to fund
the remaining portion of this work, which it refers to as a "regional cost". The Commission has
funded a portion of this regional cost using some of the discretionary transportation revenue it
controls. These discretionary funds can be used for any project or projects in the nine-county Bay
Area. The Commission will be consulting with all counties in the Bay Area to determine how to
fund the remaining cost of the seismic reinforcement of'the Golden Gate Bridge.
If light rail is funded on the Benicia Bridge, will that compete with the Capitol Corridor service?
Operating light rail service on the Benicia Bridge may impact other rail services such as the Capitol
Corridor. Such impact would depend on the area served by the light rail project. As part of the
Transportation Blueprint for the 21" Century, a suggestion was made to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission to consider light rail on the Benicia Bridge. County staff is not aware of
the specifics of this proposal. Any preliminary studies for such a project would require an
evaluation of its impact on other rail services such as the Capitol Corridor. That evaluation should
also include an analysis of alternatives to a light rail project, which may include upgrades to the
Capitol Corridor. That information has not been developed.
File:dlworkshop.ga.doc
Cc: P. Bachelor, CAO
V. Westman, County Counsel
C. Cervelli, Clerk of the Board
D. Barry,CDD
M. Shiu, PWD
3
. The Board of SupervisorsC7Clr Phil Batchelor
Clerk of the Board
County Administration BuildingCost and
Gi County Administrator
651 Pine Street, Room 106 (925)M.1900
Martinez, California 94553-1293 Co u nl
L
John Gioia, 1vDistrict �l
Gayle B. Uiikema,2'4 District
Gonna Gertner, are District
{
Mark DeSaulnier, 41h District
Joe Canciamilia, 51" District
February 15, 2000
Ms. Adele M.D. Ho
Public Works Division Manager
City of San Pablo
13831 San Pablo Avenue
San Pablo, CA 94805
Ms. Ho:
The Board of Supervisors wishes to express our appreciation to you for your participation in our
workshop on future transportation investments for Contra Costa on January 18, 2000. That
workshop helped to broaden our understanding of the various issues affected by our
transportation investments. Your contribution helped point us in a direction that will lead not
only to traffic relief, but also to improvement in other factors that are important to the quality of
life we enjoy in Contra Costa.
Thank you for helping us make some important choices for Contra Costa's future.
Sincerely,
Donna Gerber, r
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
d7,.6'
The Board of SupervisorsCentra Phil Batchelor
Clerk of the Board
Costa and
County Administration Building County and
651 Bine Street, Room 106 (925)335-1900
Martinez, California 94553-1293 Counl /
John Gioia, 10 District
Gayle B.Ullkema,2"'District
Donna Gertner, 3r° District
Mark DeSaulnier, 41^ District
Joe Canciamilla, 51h District
February 15, 2000
Mr. Rick Ramacier, General Manager
Central Contra Costa Transit Authority
2477 Arnold Industrial Way
Concord, CA 945
.Dear Mr. ra
The Board of Supervisors wishes to express our appreciation to you for your participation in our
workshop on future transportation investments for Contra Costa on January 18, 2000. That
workshop helped to broaden our understanding of the various issues affected by our
transportation investments. Your contribution helped point us in a direction that will lead not
only to traffic relief, but also to improvement in other factors that are important to the quality of
life we enjoy in Contra Costa.
Thank you for helping us make some important choices for Contra Costa's future.
Sincerely,
Donna Gerber, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Phil Batchelor
The Beard of Supervisors Contra Clerk of the Board
t and
County Administration Building County Administrator
851 Pine Street, Room 106 {925)335-7900
Martinez, California 94553-1293 cunt j
John Gioia, 1"District `J
Gayle B.Ulikema,2"'District
Donna Gertner, aro District
Mark DeSaulnier, 41' District
Joe Canciamilla, 50, District
February 15, 2000
Ms. Jean Roggenkamp
Bay Area Air(duality Management District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Dear Ms. Roggenkamp:
The Board of Supervisors wishes to express our appreciation to you for your participation in our
workshop on fixture transportation investments for Contra Costa on January 18, 2000. That
workshop helped to broaden our understanding of the various issues affected by our
transportation investments. Your contribution helped point us in a direction that will lead not
only to traffic relief,but also to improvement in other factors that are important to the quality of
life we enjoy in Contra Costa.
Thank you for helping us make some important choices for Contra Costa's fixture.
Sinrely,
4
DonnZab r it
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
r`Q
Phil Batchelor
.The Board of Supervisors Contra Clerk of the Board
and
County Administration BuildingCounty Administrator
651 Pine Street, Room 106 Costa (925)335-1900
Martinez, California 94553-1293 County
John Gioia, 1"District
Gayle B.Ulikema,2ntl District
Donna Gerber, 3" District
1 Y
Mark DeSauinier, 4", District
Joe Canciamiila, 51"District
February 15, 2400
Mr. Gary Binger, Deputy Executive Director
Association of Bay Area Governments
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94607-2050
Dear Mr. Bi r:
The Board of Supervisors wishes to express our appreciation to you for your participation in our
workshop on future transportation investments for Contra Costa on January 18, 2000. That
workshop helped to broaden our understanding of the various issues affected by our
transportation investments. Your contribution helped point us in a direction that will lead not
only to traffic relief, but also to improvement in other factors that are important to the quality of
life we enjoy in Contra Costa.
Thank you for helping us make some important choices for Contra Costa's future.
Sincerely,
Donna Gerber, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
el!
Phil Batchelor
. The Board of Supervisors C�'''}C1`t+rra� Clerk of the Board
V%3tGl
and
County Administration Building County Administrator
651 Pine Street, Room 106 ts2sy33s-1s°°
Martinez, California 94553-1293 County
John Gloia, 1"District ``JJ
Gayle B.Uiikema,2n4 District
Donna Gerber, 31'District
Mark DeSaulnier, 41' District j
Joe Canciamilla, 51, District
rw°t
February 15, 2000
Mr. Robert L McCleary, Executive Director
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dear Mr. eary:
The Board of Supervisors wishes to express our appreciation to you for your participation in our
workshop on future transportation investments for Contra Costa on January 18, 2000. That
workshop helped to broaden our understanding of the various issues affected by our
transportation investments. Your contribution helped point us in a direction that will lead not
only to traffic relief, but also to improvement in other factors that are important to the quality of
life we enjoy in Contra Costa.
Thank you for helping us make some important choices for Contra Costa's future.
Sin ely,
Donna Gerber, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Phil Batchelor
The Board of Supervisors Contra Cierkoa de Board
County Administration BuildingCosta County Administrator
651 Pine Street, Room 106 (925)335-1900
Martinez, California 94553-1293 County
John Glola, 1"District �J
Gayle B.Uilkema,VI District
Donna Gerber, 31" District
Mark DeSaulnier, d`1 District :
Joe Canciamilla, 51" District
February 15, 2000
Mr. Martin R. Engelmann
Deputy Director, Planning
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dear Mr. E mann:
The Board of Supervisors wishes to express our appreciation to you for your participation in our
workshop on future transportation investments for Contra Costa on January 18, 2000. That
workshop helped to broaden our understanding of the various issues affected by our
transportation investments. Your contribution helped point us in a direction that will lead not
only to traffic relief, but also to improvement in other factors that are important to the quality of
life we enjoy in Contra Costa.
Thank you for helping us make some important choices for Contra Costa's future.
Sin ely,
Donna Gerber, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors