meeting notice and agenda

13831 San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo, CA 94806 Ph: 510.215.3035 ~ Fx: 510.237.7059 ~ www.wcctac.org

WCCTAC BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA

DATE & TIME: Friday, April 24, 2009, 8:00 – 9:30 a.m.

LOCATION: City of San Pablo, Council Chambers

13831 San Pablo Avenue (at Church Lane) San Pablo, California

Accessible by AC Transit lines #72 and #72R Additional Parking is available in the City lot two blocks south of City Hall at 13685 San Pablo Avenue

1. Call to Order and Self-Introductions – Chair Maria Viramontes 2. Public Comment. The public is welcome to address the WCCTAC Board on any

item that does not otherwise appear on the agenda. With a full agenda, comments may be limited to three minutes per speaker. Speakers shall follow the rules of common courtesy and decorum. Please fill out a speaker card and hand it to the Chair/Staff.

CONSENT CALENDAR

3. Meeting Minutes and Summary of March 27, 2009 Board meeting. (Attachment – Action)

4. Meeting Summary of the April 9, 2009 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

Meeting. (Attachment – Action) 5. Staff Reports. Staff reports from the Executive Director, Project Managers, and

TDM Program Manager. (Attachment – Action) 6. 2009 Update of Measure J Strategic Plan – West County Project Deferrals.

The economic downturn could compromise CCTA’s future bonding capacity for Measure J capital projects. To preserve that capacity, CCTA requested all sub-regions to nominate projects and programs that may be delayed for programming beyond 2015. Staff requests the Board’s approval to: a) forward to CCTA recommended programming principles pertaining to the requested deferment; and b) defer for programming beyond 2015 $12.8 million in West County Measure J projects, and if necessary, a portion of funding for two programs. Staff’s recommendations have been vetted with, and approved by, the TAC.

Recommendations are due to CCTA on May 7. (Attachment – Action)

El Cerrito

Hercules

Pinole

Richmond

San Pablo

Contra Costa County

AC Transit

BART

WestCAT

WCCTAC Board Meeting April 24, 2009

2

7. Measure J Low-Income Student Bus Pass Program. The Student Bus Pass Program Subcommittee recommends the Board’s approval to: a) advance for further consideration the two programming alternatives described in the attachment for this item; b) use the remaining Lifeline funds to conduct a demonstration program for WCCUSD summer school students whereby WCCUSD would administer the program; and c) request the allocation of Measure J funds for the last quarter of FY 2009 and to use a portion of those funds to reimburse WCCUSD for administration costs associated with the demonstration program. (Attachment – Action)

8. Deferral of Compensation Study. The Compensation Study Subcommittee recommends

deferral of the study due to the volatility of employment conditions in the Bay Area as a result of the economic crisis. The Subcommittee further recommends that, as part of the 2009 employee performance evaluations, the Executive Director shall review with incumbent staff their current job description, excluding salary ranges, to identify any needed updates. Recommended changes to job descriptions will be presented to the Subcommittee for review and referral to the Board for approval at a later meeting. Up-to-date job descriptions will facilitate the conduct of the future compensation study. The Board’s approval of the Subcommittee’s recommendation to defer the study will also de-program the $11,500 that was set aside to conduct the study. (No Attachment – Action)

9. West County Comments on 2009 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan.

Staff prepared and submitted comments to CCTA per the Board’s direction at the March meeting. The comments focused on five key areas: sustainability, response to changing priorities, diversity within the county and different sub-regional priorities, countywide leadership, and environmental stewardship. The County, Hercules, and Pinole submitted separate comments. CCTA will consider all comments received at the May Planning Committee meeting. (Attachment – Information)

10. Comments on MTC’s Proposed Transit Sustainability Initiative in the Revised Draft

Transportation 2035. A subcommittee comprised of Chair Viramontes and Directors Butt and Hansen was formed at the last meeting to guide the review of MTC’s proposal. Staff also recruited Directors Franklin (alternate for Director Keller, who was not available at the time) and Wallace, and consulted extensively with staffs from WestCAT, AC Transit, and BART. A comment letter was submitted to MTC on April 8, which included suggested alternative emphasis areas for the study. MTC has responded, noting that the scope of the study will be finalized at a later time and in consultation with stakeholders, including the West County transit operators and WCCTAC. (Attachments – Information)

11. Proposed Point Molate Casino Resort Update. As of April 16, the developer of the

proposed project had indicated that the Department of Interior had not released the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The presentation of the traffic study by Richmond staff and the developer is postponed until such time as the DEIR has been released for public review and comment. (No Attachment – Information)


3

12. Summer Internship Program Update. Earlier this year, staff indicated to the TAC and Board that there are insufficient staff resources and funds this year to pursue this initiative in similar fashion as in prior years. A subcommittee of the TAC was formed, headed by WCCTAC staff and including volunteer staffs from El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, and the County, to investigate options to jointly fund, develop, and implement the program this year. After exploring various options, the subcommittee resolved to join efforts with Richmond Youthworks this summer to create internships with TAC contacts and hopefully several of the member agencies. Richmond Youthworks is fully funded to support roughly 350 interns for six weeks with a $1,000 stipend per student. Looking forward to 2010, the subcommittee identified the Hercules-Rodeo Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) and the County Safe Routes to School grant program as potential opportunities for youth engagement. (No Attachment – Information)

13. Transportation Demand Management Program Updates:

a. Countywide Guaranteed Ride Home Program. The program provides taxi

vouchers to registered participants who regularly commute to work in Contra Costa by alternative mode (transit, carpool, bike, etc.) to ensure that they have a way home in the event of a qualifying emergency. The program is managed by WCCTAC for the entire County under the Countywide Commute Alternatives Program. The pool of three taxi providers has been narrowed down to two to streamline program administration. The reduction in number of providers is not expected to adversely affect service availability or quality. (Attachment – Information)

b. Pilot Program for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. 511 Contra Costa will be

submitting a grant application to the Air District for a Countywide Electric Charging Infrastructure demonstration program. All member agencies cities have indicated an interest in participating in the program, and each have identified three locations for the charging stations. (Attachment – Information)

c. 2009 Bike-to-Work Day (BTWD). Transportation Demand Management Program

staff have been working on preparations for BTWD on May 14. (Attachments – Information)

14. Grant Application Updates. a) Staff have submitted a Caltrans Planning grant application

for the West County Transit Enhancements Strategic Plan study; and b) developers in the Cities of El Cerrito and Richmond have submitted grant applications for the Prop. 1C TOD program with assistance from WCCTAC consultant Mike Bernick. (No Attachment – Information)

15. Board Retreat Update. The Board retreat will be held on Saturday, May 9 from 9:30 a.m.-

1:30 p.m. in a location to be determined. The purpose of the retreat is to reaffirm the agency’s mission, clarify its responsibilities, identify priorities, and strategize for the future. MIG has been retained to design and facilitate the retreat. The Retreat Subcommittee and staff will be working with MIG over the next few weeks to ensure that the retreat is both informative and productive. (No Attachment – Information)


4

16. Release of WETA Draft Transition Plan. The purpose of the statutorily mandated study

is to plan for the transition of existing ferry services provided by Alameda-Oakland, Harbor Bay, and Vallejo Baylink to WETA. To a lesser extent, the plan also describes the near-future expansion of ferry services to South San Francisco, Berkeley/Albany, and Treasure Island; and to an even lesser extent, touches on future service expansion planning to Hercules, Richmond, and other areas. Staff will review the plan and provide comments to WETA as appropriate. Comments are due on May 18. (Attachment – Information)

17. Draft FY 2009/10 WCCTAC Work Plan and Operating Budget. Staff will present the draft work plan and budget for the Board’s approval for release to the member agencies or other action as appropriate. (Christina Atienza – Materials will be e-mailed under separate cover and will be available as handouts at the meeting – Action)

DISCUSSION ITEMS

18. Proposed Bay Area Express Lanes Network:

a. MTC Presentation of Proposed Concept. MTC staff will present an overview of the

proposed regional network and respond to questions and concerns about the implementation of express lanes on I-80. (Andrew Fremier, Deputy Executive Director, Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) – Handout - Information)

b. Position on AB 744 (Torrico) (formerly high-occupancy toll or HOT network). AB

744, introduced as a spot bill on Feb. 26, would authorize BATA to acquire, construct, administer, and operate a Bay Area Express Lane Network. The Assembly Transportation Committee will conduct the public hearing and vote on the bill on April 27. If approved, the bill would authorize BATA to pursue installation of HOT lanes on I-80, among other corridors. The Board may wish to take a formal position and/or determine additional action as appropriate for the April 27 hearing. (Chair Viramontes, Christina Atienza – Attachments – Action to be Determined)

19. Correspondence/Other Information:

STANDING AGENDA ITEMS

a. Incoming:

§ April 9, letter from MTC’s Doug Kimsey, MTC Response to Comments on Transit Sustainability-Related Revisions to Draft Transportation 2035 (see item 10)

b. Outgoing:

§ April 6, letter to CCTA’s Martin Engelmann, Comments on Draft 2009 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and EIR (see item 9)


5

§ April 8, letter to MTC’s Ann Flemer, Comments on Transit Sustainability-Related Revisions to Draft Transportation 2035 (see item 10)

§ April 17, letter to Congressman Miller, Support for Richmond’s Transportation Reauthorization Request for Marina Bay Pkwy Grade Separation

§ April 17, letter to Congressman Miller, Support for County’s Transportation Reauthorization Request for North Richmond Truck Route

§ April 20, letter to Congressman Miller, Support for Hercules’ Transportation Reauthorization Request for Hercules Transit Interconnectivity

§ April 20, letter to Congressman Miller, Support for Pinole’s Transportation Reauthorization Request for Shale Hill Sidewalk Gap Closure

§ April 20, letter to Congressman Miller, Support for Pinole’s Transportation Reauthorization Request for Pinole Valley Road Widening

c. Workshops/Conferences/Events:

§ none 20. WCCTAC Board and Staff Comments:

a. Board Member Comments, Conference/Meeting Reports (AB 1234 Requirement), and Announcements

b. Legal Counsel Comments and Announcements c. Executive Director Comments and Announcements

21. Other Business 22. Adjourn. Next meeting is Friday, May 29, 2009 at 8:00 a.m. · In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, if you need special assistance to

participate in the WCCTAC Board meeting, or if you need a copy of the agenda and/or agenda packet materials in an alternative format, please contact Nancy Cuneo at 510.215.3035 prior to the meeting.

· If you have special transportation requirements and would like to attend the meeting, please call WCCTAC (see phone number above) at least 48 hours in advance to make arrangements.

· Please refrain from wearing scented products to the meeting, as there may be attendees susceptible to environmental illnesses.

· Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers during the meeting.

· A meeting sign-in sheet will be circulated at the meeting. Sign-in is optional.

This page intentionally left blank.

3-1

WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee

Meeting Minutes, 27 March 2009

Members Present: Maria Viramontes, Chair (Richmond); Ed Balico (Hercules); Tom Butt (Richmond); Bob Franklin (BART); Tom Hansen (WestCAT); Jeff Ritterman* (Richmond); Roy Swearingen, Vice-Chair (Pinole); Joe Wallace* (AC Transit). *Arrived after role call. Absent: Janet Abelson (El Cerrito), Genoveva Calloway (San Pablo), John Gioia (Contra Costa County). Staff Present: Christina Atienza, Nancy Cuneo, Valerie Lipscomb, John Rudolph, Linda Young. Brad Beck, CCTA; Michael Rodriquez, Meyers Nave. Location: San Pablo Council Chambers, 13831 San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo CA 94806 ________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order Self-Introductions. Chair Viramontes convened the meeting at 8:03 a.m. All present introduced themselves. Chair Viramontes noted that there had been a request to add an item to the agenda. Michael Rodriquez stated that the Brown Act allows an item to be added to the agenda if the need to take immediate action arose after the original agenda had been posted. Normally a two-thirds majority is required; however, in the absence of a quorum or two-thirds members present, a unanimous vote of all present members will suffice. Mr. Rodriquez indicated that a motion must be put forth and a statement made that the findings are sufficient to warrant the addition of the item. He noted that the item to be included is Revisions to the Draft Transportation Plan 2035, which were released on March 25, 2009 (after the agenda was posted). Mr. Rodriquez noted that the need to take immediate action is based on the fact that comments related to the revised RTP are due on April 8, 2009. 2. Public Comment. There were no comments from the public. CONSENT CALENDAR Regarding Item #8 on the Consent Calendar, Director Swearingen commented that he would like to confer with the City of Pinole’s Counsel and City Manager to determine the availability of Mr. Winston Rhodes, Pinole staff, prior to his appointment to the position of West County Representative to CCTA’s Technical Coordinating Committee. Ms. Christina Atienza, WCCTAC Executive Director, noted that the term of the existing TCC representatives expires on March 31, 2009, and that Mr. Rhodes’ availability needs to be determined by then. ACTION: Director Balico moved to adopt the Consent Calendar with the removal of Mr. Rhodes from the list of nominees for West County Representatives to CCTA’s Technical Coordinating Committee, pending confirmation from Pinole, seconded by Director Butt, and carried unanimously.

3-2

3. Approved Minutes and Summary from the January 30, 2009 Board Meeting and Meeting Minutes and Summary from the February 27, 2009 Board Meeting;

4. Approved Meeting Summary of the March 12, 2009 Technical Advisory Committee

(TAC) Meeting; 5. Received Staff Reports; 6. Approved Use of Measure J Bus and Paratransit Enhancement Funds to Reduce Transit

Funding Shortfalls; 7. Approved Caltrans Planning Grant Application for West County Transit Investment

Strategic Plan; 8. Appointed Nominees for West County Representatives to CCTA's Technical

Coordinating Committee; 9. Authorized Status of FY 2007/08 Audit and Proposed Financial Management Review; 10. Received Update on Taxi Safety and Accessibility Initiative; 11. Received Information Related to 2009 Bike-to-Work Day (BTWD); and 12. Authorized Letter of Support for El Cerrito's Proposition 1C TOD Application. DISCUSSION ITEMS 13. The Greenprint Project Update DISCUSSION/ACTION: Chair Viramontes moved Item #13 to the end of Discussion Items as Mr. Lamar Turner was not present. This item was later moved to a subsequent meeting. 14. Interstate 80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Management Project Update ACTION: Information only. DISCUSSION: Ms. Atienza introduced Mr. Anush Nejad of Kimley-Horn and Associates, the consultant retained for the I-80 ICM Project by ACCMA, the lead agency, to provide information related to the Interstate 80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Project (ICM). Mr. Nejad distributed copies of a PowerPoint presentation, and stated that the I-80 ICM Project includes $21M for arterial and transit improvements. The ICM Project includes expansion of the AC Transit 72 Rapid to Richmond Parkway; equipping WestCAT with Transit Signal Priority equipment for all major routes; promotion of transit usage through utilization of Changeable Message Signs; signs to direct traffic to future ferry stations; real-time travel time comparisons on freeway signage near transit; construction of Park and Ride facilities in Albany and Pinole; the installation of real-time transit information signs at BART stations and WestCAT stops; and

3-3

a variety of arterial improvements in all affected jurisdictions. Mr. Nejad expressed the desire of ACCMA to work with WCCTAC, CCTA, and all other affected agencies to document ownership and management of the system components and decision-making, in terms of who sets the policies and guidelines for operation of the system, so that all of the relevant agencies are involved. Documentation of the Standard Operating Procedures will be formalized in an MOU that will be reviewed by WCCTAC and other agencies. Director Butt said that the I-80 ICM project is a tunnel-vision approach to solving large land-use and transportation problems. Director Butt noted that the ICM project promotes urban sprawl by effectively increasing freeway capacity, expediting movement from Point A to Point B, and incentivizing continued use of single occupant vehicles in lieu of mass transit. Director Butt stated that in order to make a difference, freeway capacity should be reduced by restricting a lane to buses only. Ms. Atienza noted that the project should address the issue of induced travel demand because increased VMT is inconsistent with SB 375. She noted that the benefits of the I-80 ICM project are traffic safety through uniformity of speed and resultant reduction in congestion: this provides environmental benefits through a reduction in vehicle emissions. Ms. Atienza noted that increasing capacity will benefit transit because cars and buses travel on the same facilities. She noted that the project is an $80M to $90M project. This amount of funding is not sufficient to solve the greater land-use transportation integration issue. Director Swearingen commented that the installation of HOV lanes on I-80 as a result of Measure C did nothing to reduce congestion. He commented that people generally commute from outlying areas because the cost of living in those areas is less than in the inner areas. He commented that reducing capacity will only increase emissions. Director Swearingen voiced approval for the proposed improvements to the I-80 corridor and stated that he would like to see the HOV lane requirements reduced to two persons instead of the existing requirement of three persons. Director Franklin suggested that the I-80 ICM Project should examine impacts and distribute funds proportionally to the most-impacted jurisdictions as part of a phasing process. Chair Viramontes commented that the only way to make the I-80 ICM project feasible for the long-term interests of the region is by considering the current proposals as Phase One of a multi-phase project; otherwise it is not fair to the local agencies. Chair Viramontes requested that her stated concerns be brought back to ACCMA. Mr. Nejad responded by stating that the ICM TAC has requested the development of a financially unconstrained solution that could include ITS, transit enhancements, and other infrastructure improvements to add to the existing project. Director Butt asked if this is an Action item. Ms. Atienza answered that the item is for Information only. The project is fully funded and will move forward. Director Butt requested a motion that WCCTAC write a letter to ACCMA and tell ACCMA that WCCTAC has serious concerns with the lack of attention to the consequences the ICM project will have on land-use, and that WCCTAC needs assurances that this project will not increase

3-4

greenhouse gas emissions and Vehicle Miles Traveled. Ms. Atienza noted that she has asked ACCMA to examine the potential for induced demand. She noted that an EIS will be issued with regard to the ICM project, and WCCTAC may comment on the EIS. Mr. Nejad stated that ACCMA is preparing an EIS that will examine induced demand and air quality issues, for review and comment. The document will be ready for public comment in June or July 2009. 15. Comments on the Draft Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) and Draft EIR ACTION: Chair Viramontes moved to forward the comments from Fehr & Peers and WCCTAC Staff and Board to CCTA. The comments note that even if all of the improvements in the CTP are implemented, there will still be a ten-fold increase in traffic congestion, and that land-use and environmental issues should be addressed as matters of policy in the Plan. The motion was seconded by Director Swearingen, and carried with one nay from Director Butt. DISCUSSION: Ms. Atienza noted that the CTP provides policy and investment guidance for CCTA as required by Measure J. The primary goals of the CTP are to enhance the movement of goods and people on highways and arterial roads; manage the impacts of growth to sustain Contra Costa's economy and preserve its environment; expand safe, convenient and affordable alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle; and maintain the transportation system. Ms. Atienza summarized general comments related to the CTP. Ms. Atienza introduced Ms. Yvetteh Ortiz, Engineering Manager for the City of El Cerrito, to present comments on behalf of the City of El Cerrito. Ms. Ortiz highlighted three areas in which the City of Cerrito believes that the CTP can be improved – strengthening investments in transit, exercising environmental leadership, and developing Operations and Maintenance funding plans for such projects as the I-80 ICM and the San Pablo Avenue portion of the East Bay SMART Corridors Program. Julie Morgan of Fehr & Peers noted that her firm’s comments on the CTP EIR provide a broad, countywide analysis that is not specific to West County. The Fehr & Peers analysis examines the level of development that is anticipated to take place by the year 2030 as provided through ABAG's assumptions relative to population and employment growth. Ms. Atienza noted that even if all $8B worth of improvements in the CTP were implemented today, the effects would still be negligible, underscoring the need for greater emphases on transit as well as transportation demand management strategies. Director Butt said that the entire process of utilizing growth projections to generate traffic models is an obsolete methodology. He commented that the EIR neglects a thorough discussion of the fact that the county is now in a watershed moment due to measures such as AB 32 and SB 375. He noted that all of the mitigations promulgated by the CTP are related to transportation and fail to consider land-use issues as a mitigating factor. Chair Viramontes suggested that CCTA does not have the authority to force a city to change its land-use guidelines. Director Butt commented that there must be some way in which to propose cooperation between those entities with transportation authority and entities with land-use authority; it would be

3-5

irresponsible not to make mention of land-use issues. Director Balico stated that Hercules is formulating comments on the CTP. He commented that CCTA should not be criticized for the EIR as the EIR is a separate process from the CTP. Chair Viramontes asked if CCTA could include alternatives for mitigation that include environmental and land-use issues. Mr. Brad Beck, CCTA, stated that the CTP EIR does not focus on mitigation measures that are not feasible. The CCTA is not a land-use agency; the jurisdictions in the county have made it clear that CCTA that the Authority should not get involved, in a detailed way, in making land-use decisions. CCTA does, in the EIR, consider impacts on land-use and the impacts of land-use on the CTP. Mr. Beck noted that CCTA has provided three alternatives in the EIR which include: (1) application of ICM project technology to all freeways in the county, (2) a frequent service transit network alternative, and (3) the greenhouse gas reduction alternative where CCTA assumes increased telework and increased parking costs in downtowns across the county. Mr. Beck commented that proposal (3) offered greatest benefits to the environment; however, he reiterated that CCTA does not have the authority to enforce such action. Ms. Atienza stated that the discussion pertains to a larger issue than the CTP EIR, namely to a potential change to the Authority’s role. She noted that CCTA does touch on land-use issues through discussions related to Transit Oriented Development and Priority Development Areas even if it does not have the authority to control these matters. Director Wallace commented that transit should be brought to the people rather than expecting people to go to where transit already exists. Director Ritterman commented that language that addresses the unsustainability of the projected increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled should be included in the comments to the CTP EIR. Ms. Atienza commented that the EIR and the commenting process may serve as the catalysts by which CCTA is encouraged to rethink its approach to transportation planning. Director Butt suggested that the current approach is akin to having one's head in the sand. He stated that while WCCTAC may not be able to change the current course of events it should draft a letter to CCTA that states that the CTP is fatally flawed and environmentally unsustainable. Ms. Atienza stated that the CTP fulfills a requirement of Measure J and making such a comment may jeopardize the local agencies by putting them in a position of non-compliance. Mr. Beck commented that CCTA is required to have the CTP in place in order to extend funding through Measure J. Chair Viramontes stated that the CTP reflects the decisions of multiple regions of the county. The guiding document was a voter-approved restriction on land-use. She noted that $2B (plus the match funding) in tax revenues are at stake. It has been a six-year process to get to this point: these decisions cannot be undone at this point regardless of how vehemently one may be opposed to the plan.

3-6

15.a. Revisions to the Draft Transportation 2035 Plan ACTIONS: Chair Viramontes moved to add Revisions to the Draft Transportation 2035 Plan to the agenda as an emergency item, seconded by Director Ritterman, and carried unanimously. Chair Viramontes appointed Director Butt, Director Hansen, and herself to a sub-committee to review and comment on Revisions to the Draft Transportation 2035 Plan. DISCUSSION: Ms. Atienza suggested that the Board nominate a sub-committee to formulate and submit responses to MTC by the April 8, 2009 deadline. She noted that the specific issue is the proposed recommendations for transit sustainability and what implications these recommendations may have. 16. 2009 Board Retreat - Date Options DISCUSSION: Chair Viramontes requested a consensus on the Board Retreat dates. Ms. Atienza stated that staff will poll the Board members to find an acceptable date for the Board Retreat. STANDING AGENDA ITEMS 17. Correspondence/Other Information. None. 18. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 a.m. until the next regularly scheduled meeting on April 24, 2009 at 8:00 a.m.


4-2

13831 San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo, CA 94806 – 510.215.3035

TO: WCCTAC Board DATE: April 20, 2009

FR: Christina Atienza, Executive Director

RE: Staff Report for April 2009

HOT Lanes. Coordinated extensively with CCTA staff, Chair Viramontes, and MTC Commissioner Amy Worth, and MTC staff to flesh out proposal details, issues, and review of proposed legislation. Coordinated with San Pablo staff about taking a position on MTC’s proposed HOT lanes network. Attended Richmond City Council meeting in which the Council took an opposing position to the proposal. Coordinated with MTC and Hercules staffs for upcoming HOT lanes presentation by MTC. Coordinated with Director Abelson to provide documentation for WCCTAC and CCTA’s position on HOT lanes for transmittal to Senator Loni Hancock’s staff. I-80 ICM. Consulted with technical staff from Alameda County CMA to defer April’s ICM TAC meeting until after the release of the Draft Concept of Operations Report and the Draft Systems Engineering Management Plan. Received both draft reports. Participated in Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) meetings. Discussed concerns about the timeline for project deliverables with staff from CCTA, ACCMA, MTC, and Caltrans District 4. Participated in Project Leadership Team discussions about the forward progress of the ICM TAC and the ICM CSMP groups. Proposition 1C TOD and Infill Funding Opportunities. Michael Bernick, WCCTAC’s consultant, worked with Richmond Redevelopment Agency and El Cerrito and their developers to finalize their applications. WCCTAC FY 08 Audit. Continuing to work with Bradley Ward, WCCTAC Treasurer, and Maze Associates to resolve open issues. CCTA-Related Activities. § Attended the Planning Committee, Administration and Projects Committee, and Board meetings.

Clarified WCCTAC’s position on HOT lanes and SB 375. § Participated in the Growth Management Task Force. Personnel Matters. Met with the Compensation Subcommittee to develop a Scope of Work for a consultant, through an RFP process, to conduct a total compensation survey. Arranged for ergonomic evaluations of staff work stations. Measure J Transit and Paratransit Programming and Allocations. Worked with CCTA and TRANSPAC staff to finalize requested Measure J amendment language to allow enhancement funds to be used for existing services during economic slumps. Student Bus Pass Program. Met with the SBPP Subcommittee to discuss programming policies. Continued due diligence. Followed up with AC Transit to obtain reimbursement for WestCAT tickets purchased under the Lifeline pilot program.

5-1

Staff Report for April 2009 April 20, 2009 Page 2 Measure J Strategic Plan 2009. Continued the discussion with the TAC about the need to identify approximately $13M (2004$) worth of West County projects and/or programs that might be deferred beyond FY 2015. Achieved consensus at the April TAC meeting for deferment of approximately $12.8M (2004$) in projects and programs. Casino Impacts. As of mid-April, it is unknown when the DEIR/EIS will be available. WCCTAC TAC Meeting. Met on April 9. See summary under item 4. Caltrans Planning Grant (1). With letters of support from many West County public agencies and non-governmental organizations, submitted a $250,000 WCCTAC application for a Caltrans Statewide Transit Planning Grant to prepare a West Contra Costa Transit Enhancement Strategic Plan. If awarded, funding is expected in early autumn 2009. Caltrans Planning Grant (2). Contributed comments and a letter of support to Alameda County Congestion Management Agency’s application for a Caltrans Partnership Planning Grant to prepare a Central I-80 Rail Corridor Study – Phase 2. Hilltop Interchange Retrofit. Caltrans continues its work and posts regular public announcements. Freeway closures will be implemented during the entire year until the project is completed in 2010. Attached are the additional monthly reports from the WCCTAC Project Managers John Rudolph and Joanna Pallock, and TDM Program Manager Linda Young.

5-2


TO: Christina Atienza DATE: April 20, 2009

FR: Joanna Pallock, Project Manager


MAJOR ACTIVITIES

• Explore potential scenarios for Measure J Bus Pass program • Review Hercules Final Redevelopment Plan EIR; • Finalize and send invoice for WestCAT ticket reimbursement through AC Transit MOU; • Create final letter to Lifeline participants; • Determine best approach with SIP Subcommittee to create Youthworks job opportunities for

summer youth interns. AGENCY COLLABORATION – MEETINGS ATTENDED

• Marin Trujillo from WCCUSD – Conference call on possible administrative approaches to offering and tracking WCCUSD Bus Pass Program under Measure J

• Exploration of student intern options for Summer 2009 • Meet with Board SBPP Subcommittee to present possible scenarios and receive policy

direction for Measure J program • Present to Board the SIP and SBPP on April 24

5-3



FR: John Rudolph, Project Manager


Major Activities: 1. Action Plan Update; 2. Measure J, STMP, I-bonds and other funding tracking; 3. I-80 ICM project development; 4. Transit issues – bus, ferry, BART, Capitol Corridor, etc; 5. Goods movement – trucks, trains, port expansion, trade corridors; 6. Climate Change and Air Quality issues affecting West County; 7. San Pablo Avenue SMART Corridor, and associated ITS projects; 8. Environmental tracking for development projects affecting local roads; 9. TAC follow-through – various research and preparation; 10. Taxicab driver safety and accessibility; 11. Coordination with Joanna P. and other staff; 12. Miscellaneous Other: RSRB, Arterial Operations, RPTC. Agency Collaboration – Meetings Attended: 09 April WCCTAC-TAC 09 April San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Traffic Analysis 15 April I-80 ICM Corridor System Management Plan 16 April CCTA Technical Coordinating Committee 21 April I-80 Rail Corridor Review Team (ACCMA) 23 April Richmond Parkway Transit Center Planning Group 30 April San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Advisory Committee

5-4



FR: Linda Young, TDM Progran Manager


MAJOR ACTIVITIES Reviewed the City of Richmond Proposed Ordinance for a Commuter Benefit Program. Provided technical assistance to the City of Richmond to determine the feasibility/funding for a downtown circulator shuttle and a shuttle between the Marina Bay area and Richmond BART. Updated the 2009 Bike to Work Day list of West Contra Costa energizer stations, the WCCTAC region will host eight stations on May 14. Contacted the five West Contra Costa Jurisdictions to determine the interest in participating in the submittal of a grant application to the BAAQMD to provide Electric Vehicle charging stations at community access locations. Coordinated production of materials to promote the City of El Cerrito Bicycle Safety and Community Awareness Day. COMMUNITY EVENTS AND MEETINGS ATTENDED April 1 511 Contra Costa Program Manager meeting April 2 Pinole Business Networking/Community Information meeting April 4 City of Hercules Community Information event April 6 City of Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee April 8 City of San Pablo Employee Event April 15 City of Richmond Environment Action Committee April 16 City of Richmond Public Safety/Public Services Standing Committee April 16 Kaiser Richmond-Employee Commute Fair April 22 511 Contra Costa Telework/Compressed Work Week Workshop April 23 511 Contra Costa Teleconference – 2009 SchoolPool program April 24 WCCTAC Board Meeting April 25 West Contra Costa Earth Day Celebration

5-5


5-6




RE: 2009 Update of Measure J Strategic Plan – West County’s Project Deferrals

In order to preserve CCTA’s future bonding capacity for Measure J capital projects, CCTA requested all sub-regions to nominate projects and programs that may be delayed for programming beyond 2015. Staff requests the Board’s approval to:

a) forward to CCTA recommended programming principles pertaining to the requested deferment as outlined below; and

b) nominate for deferred programming beyond 2015 portions of four West County Measure J projects (I-80/Central; BART Parking and Access; AC Transit capital improvements; and WestCAT capital improvements) totaling $12.8 million; and

c) if necessary, nominate for additional deferred programming a portion of funding for West County’s Additional Funding for Livable Communities (Program 25b); Additional Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Facilities (Program 26b); and Subregional Transportation Needs (Program 28b) in order of priority.

Staff’s recommendations have been vetted with, and approved by, the TAC. Recommendations are due to CCTA on May 7. Background CCTA staff have requested that WCCTAC identify approximately $13 million (2004$) in Measure J projects and/or programs that can potentially be delayed beyond FY 2015 as a result of lower than expected sales tax revenues and in order to preserve the Authority’s bonding capacity (see Attachment). In consultation with project sponsors, staff have developed recommendations including programming principles and a list of projects that may be delayed. Proposed Programming Principles 1. The voter-approved distribution of funding by sub-region shall not be subject to change. In West

County, the percentages allocated to programs shall also not be subject to change. 2. Funds that have already been committed shall not be deferred. 3. Funds that are earmarked for transit operations and maintenance of local streets and roads, and

funds that are not necessarily earmarked but are eligible for use on transit operations, shall not be deferred. Transit providers are in need of these funds to supplement the loss of State Transit Assistance Program funds. Transit operations-eligible programs include Bus Services, Transportation for Seniors & People with Disabilities, Express Bus, additional funds by sub-region dedicated to the foregoing programs, and Safe Transportation for Children.

4. West County supports not deferring the Commute Alternative Program. These funds are part of a larger program that is coordinated with funding from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and MTC.

6-1

2009 Update of Measure J Strategic Plan April 20, 2009 Page 2 5. West County supports not deferring the Countywide Congestion Management, Transportation

Planning, Facilities and Services Programs shall not be deferred. These funds are necessary to conduct Measure J programming functions performed by CCTA.

6. If the target deferral amounts for West County increases beyond $13 million, then some to all of West County’s share of the Countywide TLC and Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Facilities Programs funds shall be subject to evaluation for possible deferral. The amounts to be deferred shall be consistent with the total program distribution by sub-region. The evaluation shall consider the timing for the Regional TLC Program, as well as any potential new funding for TLC-type projects that may become available as a result of the implementation of SB 375. CCTA staff in consultation with the RTPCs shall develop the recommended percentage or amounts to be deferred.

7. If the target deferral amounts for West County increases beyond $13 million and cannot be satisfied from deferrals of capital projects and the programs noted under #6 above, then the Subregional Transportation Needs Programs shall be subject to evaluation for possible deferral. Deferral of these funds should be a last resort as these funds are flexible and may be used to leverage future funding from other sources.

8. Deferred funds shall be reprogrammed in inflated dollars. 9. Absent extenuating circumstances, projects that are deferred beyond 2015 shall be prioritized for

programming over projects that were not originally programmed to receive funding before 2015. Extenuating circumstances could include but are not limited to opportunities to leverage funding from other sources.

10. If funding for programs is deferred, funding shall be reprogrammed on an annual basis over the remaining life of Measure J.

Proposed West County Project Deferrals Subject to the above principles, Measure J funding for West County projects may be delayed for programming beyond FY 2015 or reprogrammed as a Measure J program as shown in the following table. The deferral means that the amounts will not be included in the total amount of CCTA’s first bond issuance against Measure J revenues, and therefore will not be available for capital uses. The AC Transit and WestCAT projects, which were capitalized portions of the percentage allocations for those operators under Measure J Program 14 Bus Services, are proposed to be reprogrammed as operational programs. As operational programs, AC Transit and WestCAT will receive a fixed percentage of the annual sales tax revenues as stipulated in the Measure J Expenditure Plan.

West County Measure J Project Amount Ok to Be Programmed

Beyond FY 2015 (in millions of 2004$)

I-80/Central Avenue Interchange Improvements (Note: El Cerrito requests that $1 million of the programmed amounts for this project that are not currently proposed to be deferred beyond 2015 be advanced to them asap.)

$6.609

BART Parking, Access, and Other Improvements – West County $2.500

6-2

2009 Update of Measure J Strategic Plan April 20, 2009 Page 3

Amount Ok to Be Re-Programmed

as Measure J Program (in millions of $2004$)

AC Transit Capital Improvements $1.000

WestCAT Transit Capital Improvements $2.700

Total West County Deferral $12.8 The entire Measure J amount for the Hercules Rail Station, I-80/San Pablo Dam Rd., I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility, and Marina Bay Parkway Grade Separation projects are not proposed to be deferred as these funds are committed.

6-3


6-4




RE: Measure J Low-Income Student Bus Pass Program

The Student Bus Pass Program Subcommittee1

a) advance for further consideration the two programming alternatives described below; recommends the Board’s approval to:

b) use the remaining Lifeline funds to conduct a demonstration program for WCCUSD summer school students whereby WCCUSD would administer the program; and

c) request the allocation of Measure J funds for the last quarter of FY 2009, and to use a portion of those funds to reimburse WCCUSD for administration costs associated with the demonstration program.

Background The development of the Measure J Low-Income Student Bus Pass Program is an extension of the Lifeline grant program with some new variables. It now covers all of West County with both school districts (West Contra Costa and John Swett USD) participating. The Measure J allocation also expands funding so more students can be served. And finally, the plan will hopefully be administered by the districts themselves as opposed to WCCTAC staff devoting almost a half-time person. At the February Board meeting, a subcommittee of five WCCTAC Board members was appointed to assist in the policy development of the Student Bus Pass Program. The first meeting of the subcommittee was held at Supervisor Gioia’s office on March 18. The subcommittee was asked to develop criteria for who qualifies for a bus pass, addressing likely fare increases, and designing a program that best fits the needs of the individual school districts. After this meeting with the subcommittee, staff was directed to explore a variety of scenarios to cover as many eligible students as possible with a focus on those most in need of a transit pass. Subcommittee Recommendations A second subcommittee meeting was held on April 15. Staff presented a matrix showing how many students could be covered with a flat $15 subsidy. The subsidy is designed to be equitable for all recipients, but the challenge is how to ensure a low-income student is NOT stigmatized by having any special marking on their bus pass that identifies them as low-income. The other yet to be resolved challenge is how to get the most buying power from WestCAT, which currently charges twice the fare of an AC Transit student fare.

1 Subcommittee consists of Directors Abelson, Chavez, Gioia, and Wallace.

7-1

Measure J Low-Income Student Bus Pass April 20, 2009 Page 2 Subcommittee members made a final recommendation to design a Student Bus Pass Program for the next two years that includes the following guidelines:

• Approve the school districts to operate and charge for administrative costs to manage the program for their districts;

• Create an 11-month program that ensures summer school students who are in the free/reduced lunch program receive a one month bus pass for summer school;

• If there is any leftover money, use it to shrink the distance criteria, or if the funds are very limited, put funds into a pot for special hardship cases (i.e. low income but lives closer than 1.5 miles from school);

• Fund the Free & Reduced Alternative High School students 100% (there are currently a total of 326 Alternative school Free/Reduced students); and

• Create a WestCAT pass that does not stigmatize the students by identifying them as low-income.

There were some critical factors identified that affect the ability for the number of students served to remain constant through the 25 year Measure J funding allocation. The first is the assumption that AC Transit can maintain a $15 Youth Pass. Expectations are that the $15 Youth Fare will increase by 2011. Currently, WestCAT has not proposed a fare increase but their budget cuts will result in reduced service and eventual fare increases. The second assumption is that the allocation from Measure J will vary over the life of the measure. To date, the first year projections for Measure J have declined by almost $10 million countywide. The third variable is the projected increase in the school free and reduced lunch program over the next few years due to the downturn in the economy. Based on what the subcommittee reviewed to date, the following two options are being conceptually proposed to the Board. In each case, the estimated number of students that can be served is 2,380 over an 11-month time period.

Option A: Include middle schools (6th-8th grade), high schools, and alternative free and reduced school students living at least 1.5 miles (as the crow flies) from school. Option B: Include only high school students and alternative free and reduced school students living at least 1 mile (as the crow flies) from school.

Attachment A shows how the flat fare subsidy of $15 breaks out based on the options. The intent of Option A is to cover both middle and high school students as well as the greatest at risk population which is summer school students and possibly Alternative High School students. With a focus on at risk students and attendance rates which feeds into graduation rates, Option B was designed after the subcommittee met but with John Gioia’s staff input. The intent of Option B is to look closely at attendance rates between middle school and high school and the higher rate of absenteeism in high school which is part of the increased drop out risk. Also, high school students are more likely to have after school jobs and the use of a transit pass or subsidy would assist with their ability to work and earn money.

7-2

Measure J Low-Income Student Bus Pass April 20, 2009 Page 3 Next Steps Staff will continue to work the subcommittee to explore the following:

• Create a program with WestCAT to resolve the subsidy issue and assure there is no stigma attached to a subsidy/pass;

• Finalize a proposed two-year plan for Board adoption.

• Determine school district administrative costs for implementing and managing the SBPP

internally (confidentiality issues and expediency).

• Use remaining Lifeline funds to create a summer school program with WCCUSD’s administration managing the process.

• Prepare a press event in September with John Gioia’s office at their request as well as any

other agency or group that would like to highlight this program’s efforts. Staff is set to meet with WCCUSD on April 30 to define the process for administering distribution of passes for the summer school program.

7-3


7-4

Attachment B

9-5

Attachment B

9-6

Attachment B

9-7

Attachment B

9-8


10-6




RE: Countywide Guaranteed Ride Home Program Update

WCCTAC/511 Contra Costa operates the Countywide Guaranteed Ride Home Program (GRH) as part of the Commute Alternative Network incentive programs funded by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District – Transportation Fund for Clean Air grant and the Contra Costa Measure J – Commute Alternatives - Employer Services program. The Countywide GRH Program provides a valuable service to individuals who use a commute alternative to reach the workplace in the Contra Costa region. The program provides a taxi or rental car voucher to registered participants who have commuted to the worksite by carpool, vanpool, transit, bike or walking. The program may be used a maximum of twice in one month and up to six times in a calendar year per registered commuter. Vouchers are used if the registered participant or an immediate family member suffers an illness, injury or severe crisis; the program can also be used if the participant is asked to work unscheduled overtime; if the participant’s ridesharing vehicle breaks down (on the trip home) or if the participant has an emergency such as a flood or fire at their residence. The GRH program may not be used for personal errands, pre-planned medical or dental appointments; business-related travel, working overtime without a supervisor’s request, non-emergency side trips on the way home or as an ambulance service. Over 4,000 commuters who work in Contra Costa County have registered for the GRH Program. Program participants receive a voucher which is held in a secure location at the worksite until an emergency occurs. The participant makes a direct contact to the taxi or rental car company to request GRH service and verifies that they hold a voucher for the program. The voucher is the payment method for the trip home (taxi trip or rental car use), tip for the taxi driver and bridge toll if necessary. Within a week of using the voucher the participant returns a completed Evaluation Form to the WCCTAC/511 Contra Costa office where the evaluation is matched with the taxi or rental car company bill. The next voucher is sent when the evaluation form is received. WCCTAC/511 Contra Costa provides the GRH program through contracts with three taxi companies and one rental car agency. It was recently determined that consolidation of service from three taxi companies to two would be the best use of resources and provide consistency of service to the program participants. WCCTAC/511 Contra Costa staff members are updating the program database and informing the program participants of the service provider change. Program participants will receive the same level of service and for the most part will not notice a change outside of a new telephone number for the service provider.

13a-1




RE: Pilot Program for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations

511 Contra Costa is providing an opportunity for cities/agencies to take part in a grant application to install Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. The application funding request to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District will be below $150,000 to ensure that no matching funds are required. Notice of the program was distributed at the April 9, 2009 WCCTAC - TAC meeting. The interested cities and their potential locations for charging stations are as follows: Jurisdiction Potential Charging Station Locations City of El Cerrito City Hall; Community Center; El Cerrito Plaza Retail/Office Center City of Hercules City Hall; BART Park & Ride Lot; BioRad (employer) City of Pinole City Hall; Appian Way Shopping Center; Park & Ride Lot City of Richmond City Hall Complex (Community Center, Police, Library) City of San Pablo City Hall; San Pablo Lytton Casino; Contra Costa College Background: 511 Contra Costa will be submitting a BAAQMD Regional TFCA grant application in May on behalf of interested Contra Costa jurisdictions for a Countywide Electric Charging Infrastructure Pilot Program. 511 Contra Costa staff has been researching electric charging station technology over the last 12 months and has received requests for financial assistance for this infrastructure from several cities. Details about the technology: For more information about this type of technology, including some photos of bollard and/or post-mounted charging stations, please visit the website at: http://www.mychargepoint.net/. The company which provides this technology is Coulomb. Coulomb has presented their program to the BAAQMD, so the Air District is up to speed and seems receptive to this electric infrastructure. The cities of San Jose and San Francisco already have programs and installed these charging stations. Each location requires a master “gateway” hook up which looks like a simple bollard which houses a wireless link to the master computer at Coulomb which tracks the usage. It is recommended to start off with only one or two of these hookups per site initially. Card fobs are used to activate each secure use of the stations, which are identified by registered fobs from Coulomb and are free during 2009 to all registered users. The local jurisdiction may receive a small revenue stream from the use of the charging stations in the form of a rebate from the company, while Coulomb receives monthly payments for the use of the card fobs. WCCTAC staff will keep the TAC and interested cities informed of the progress of the grant application.

13b-1

http://www.mychargepoint.net/�


13b-2




RE: 2009 Bike-to-Work Day

Last month WCCTAC/511 Contra Costa announced the kick-off activities of the 15th annual Bike to Work Day - May 14, 2009. Since the initial announcement of activities another Energizer Station location has been added bringing the total to seven in West Contra Costa! The Energizer Stations will provide a drop-in location on May 14th where bike commuters can stop for refreshments and receive encouragement from bicycle experts and program organizers. If you ride your bike to work on May 14th be sure to stop between 6 and 9 am at one of the Energizer Station locations in West Contra Costa:

• The Pedaler Bike Shop – 3826 San Pablo Dam Road, El Sobrante

• CARS (Complete Auto Repair Service) – 13052 San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo

• Bike Lockers on the Ohlone Greenway - El Cerrito Plaza BART Station, El Cerrito

• Kaiser Regional Labs – 930 Marina Way South, Richmond

• Edwards Park at the SF Bay Trail – 1600 Marina Way South, Richmond

• Richmond BART – Upper Plaza by bike lockers – 1500 Nevin Avenue, Richmond

• Richmond Central Greenway – at Harbour Way, Richmond Thank you to all our sponsors and supporters. We hope to see you at one of the above noted locations on your way to work on May 14!

13c-1

In conjunctIon wIth:

cIty of alameda

cIty of vallejo

metropolItan transportatIon commIssIon

Water Emergency Transportation Authority | Draft Transition Plan

4 / 2 / 2009

Executive Summary

16-1

ii

DRAFT ISSUE

A Message From the Chair of the WETA Board of Directors

this promises to be a watershed year for ferry transportation on san francisco Bay, as we cement a partnership of our city-owned water-transit agencies, plan for service expansion, and coordinate ferry-based emergency response through the new Bay area water emergency transportation authority. It has been a long-time coming. now, a critical public policy goal is within our grasp.

In 1999, the state legislature created the Bay area water transit authority (wta) to plan new and expanded environmentally friendly ferry service and related ground facilities. an Implementation and operation plan delivered four years later by the wta identified seven new potential ferry routes linking oakland-south san francisco, Berkeley-san francisco, richmond-san francisco, hercules-san francisco, antioch-san francisco, redwood city-san francisco and treasure Island-san francisco.

In 2007, with the aftermath of hurricane Katrina still fresh, the governor signed sB 976, which created the Bay area water emergency transportation authority (weta) as successor to the wta. It directed weta take over ownership of local ferry services (except those operated by the Golden Gate Bridge, highway and transportation district) to not only run a consolidated regional ferry system but also prepare the system to respond to a natural or man-made disaster, in particular a major earthquake that disrupts bridge traffic in and out of san francisco.

“the public interest requires swift action and steadfast resolve to prepare for the coming earthquakes,” the legislation stated. It added: “In order to protect the lives and livelihoods of the Bay area, the legislature in this act establishes a new governmental entity specifically charged and empowered with responsibility to plan, implement and manage these critical services and facilities, as a matter of utmost urgency.”

a year later, responding to the respective concerns of vallejo and alameda over the loss of control over the vallejo Baylink and the alameda-oakland and alameda harbor Bay ferry services, the legislature passed sB 1093. It required that the transfer of the boats, terminals and other equipment and facilities to the weta be negotiated between the agency and those cities; that it be subject to public hearings and review; and that a transition plan laying out the weta’s plans for operating and financing current and expanded ferry service first be approved by the state.

It is with pride that the Board of directors of the weta issues this transition plan, which was prepared by weta staff in a spirit of cooperation with city-owned ferry services to ensure continuity of service and respect for local development goal’s for ferry terminal property and nearby lands.

under separate cover, the board also is submitting a mandated emergency water transportation system management plan, prepared in cooperation with state emergency officials and the u.s. coast Guard. It lays out how weta will prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters impacting public health, welfare and transportation across the Bay area.

In accepting responsibility for the city-owned ferry systems, weta is putting forth commitments to the cities, weta’s new customers and the community at large that it will work to maintain the services as they are today and strive to make improvements as opportunities arise.

commitment to the cities--weta will work in partnership to serve its constituents and coordinate ferry transit services with local development and emergency response plans and concerns.

commitment to the customers--weta will continue existing service routes through a five-year transition period, retain existing revenue streams to individual services, and seek to bring in additional operating and capital money needed to maintain, sustain and improve existing services at levels that match system demand.

commitment to the community--weta will work with surrounding communities to build system partnerships and coordinate service and funding needs. this includes working with connecting local transit providers to coordinate system schedules, transfers and marketing activities, and working with city, county, regional and state agencies to coordinate project funding and emergency response activities and needs.

the expansion of ferry service on san francisco Bay as envisioned by our predecessor agency the wta is already under way. earlier this year, we received two new state-of-the-art ferry vessels that we have chartered to the city of alameda for use to support its ferry service. later this year, we will break ground on a new ferry terminal in south san francisco, which will be the first terminal providing ferry transportation to the south Bay. this terminal will support oakland-to-south san francisco service beginning in 2011. new Berkeley-to-san francisco service is scheduled to begin in 2012. additionally, weta will continue to partner with interested cities and communities, such as hercules, richmond, redwood city, antioch and martinez to plan, develop and seek funds for other new ferry services over the next five years.

as we move forward to implement this transition over the next 12 months, and settle into our new role as service operator over the next five years, we look forward to working with our many stakeholders to build upon this plan and provide a regional ferry service that people can be proud of, can count on to meet their daily needs and that stands at the ready in the event of emergency.

sincerely,

Charlene Haught Johnson

16-3

iii

DRAFT ISSUE

Executive Summary

established in january 2008, the san francisco Bay area water emergency transportation authority (weta) was created to consolidate public ferry service on san francisco Bay, plan new ferry service routes and coordinate ferry transit emergency response activities across the region. consistent with state law, the regional system to be operated by weta will include the alameda-oakland and harbor Bay services currently managed by the city of alameda, the vallejo Baylink system currently managed by the city of vallejo, and expanded services previously planned for implementation by weta’s predecessor agency, the water transit authority. It excludes the Golden Gate Bridge, highway and transportation district’s ferry system serving larkspur and sausalito.

pursuant to state legislation passed in 2008, sB 1093, consolidation of city-owned ferry service under weta management would occur through a negotiated process that would result in asset transfers and lease agreements that respect prior local commitments made by the cities and provide for continued local support by the cities for the services and its passengers into the future.

DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING SERVICES: the alameda-oakland and harbor Bay services to san francisco and vallejo Baylink service to san francisco are owned and managed by the cities of alameda and vallejo, respectively. collectively, they provided 1.36 million passenger trips in fy 2007/08.

Alameda-Oakland Initiated in 1989 in response to damage to the Bay Bridge caused by the loma prieta earthquake, alameda-oakland ferry service (aofs) is carried out by private contractor Blue & Gold fleet under contract to the city of alameda. utilizing two 25-knot vessels, aofs serves four terminals on a daily basis: main street in alameda (“Gateway”), the foot of clay street in oakland, the san francisco ferry Building; and pier 41 at fisherman’s wharf (during midday and weekends). In addition, limited seasonal service is provided to at&t park for selected Giants games and to angel Island state park. aofs patronage has varied from year-to-year over the past ten years, dropping slightly overall, from 479,680 passengers in fy 1998/99 to 466,820 passengers in fy 2007/08. aofs experienced a 15 percent decline in ridership in the first half of fy 2008/09, likely due to the economic recession. aofs’s fy 2008/09 operating budget is $4.17 million, funded with 75% fares and other local contributions and 25% regional toll subsidies.

Harbor Bay Begun in 1992, the alameda harbor Bay ferry service (ahBf) was launched and initially funded by harbor Bay Isle associates, the master developer of the harbor Bay project in alameda, as a traffic mitigation element for the harbor Bay development. today, it is managed by the city of alameda and operated as a peak-period commute service under

contract by harbor Bay maritime between terminals on harbor Bay in the southeastern portion of alameda and the san francisco ferry Building. service is provided with one 25-knot vessel, and one back-up vessel. annual patronage has increased over the past ten years from 104,040 passengers in fy 1998/99 to 148,600 passengers in fy 2007/08. ridership levels increased a slight 2.6% during the first half of fy 2008/09, making ahBf the only route considered for transition that has not experienced ridership decreases in recent months. ahBf’s fy 2008/09 operating budget is $1.68 million, funded with 73% fares and other local contributions and 27% regional toll subsidies.

Vallejo Baylink started in 1986 by private red & white fleet to serve a then newly opened marine world amusement park, the service was taken over a year later by the city of vallejo to serve its growing population--and saw a sizeable jump in use following the loma prieta earthquake in october 1989. In 1994, the city of vallejo purchased its first high-speed ferryboat. service is provided today with four 34-knot vessels providing 60 minute crossings between the vallejo ferry terminal located at mare Island way and Georgia street to the san francisco ferry Building, with select trips departing pier 41 adjacent to fisherman’s wharf. the service is currently operated under contract by Blue & Gold fleet. exceeded only by Golden Gate ferry’s larkspur route, vallejo Baylink has the second largest ferry transit ridership in the Bay area. Baylink patronage has increased over the past ten years from 613,080 passengers in fy 1998/99 to 743,480 passengers in fy 2007/08. Baylink ridership dropped almost 20% in the first half of fy 2008/09, likely due to the large fare increase instituted in june 2008 and overall travel reductions associated with the recession. Baylink’s fy 2008/09 operating budget is $14.66 million, funded with 47% fares and other local contributions, 31% regional toll subsidies, 7% federal subsidies and 15% one-time subsidies provided by the solano county transportation authority and weta. this high operating expense is reflective of the high-speed, long-haul nature of the vallejo services and the robust operating schedule currently provided.

PUBLIC FERRY SERVICE EXPANSION: weta’s predecessor agency, the san francisco Bay area water transit authority (wta), was charged with preparing and adopting the Implementation and operations plan (Iop) for new and expanded water transit and related landside services in the Bay area. the state approved the Iop in 2003. the document provided a blueprint of how regional ferry service could be expanded beyond the existing services.

since the adoption of the Iop, wta and successor weta aggressively pursued new funding sources to build and operate the recommended new and expanded regional ferry system. successful passage of regional

measure 2 (rm2) in 2004 provided local toll bridge funds for regional ferry system expansion, including $84 million in capital funds and $18.3 million in annual operating subsidies. these funds, along with approximately $20 million federal dollars, $15 million measure a sales tax funds made available from the san mateo county transportation authority, and the promise of $250 million proposition 1B bond, have enabled the following public ferry expansion projects, included in the Iop, to move forward:

spare vessel construction: two spare vessels have been constructed •and funded with rm2 funds. these will be used to augment existing alameda services and expand emergency response capabilities.

south san francisco ferry service: this project consists of two •199-passenger 20-knot vessels and a new ferry terminal in oyster point to provide access to biotech jobs in south san francisco from the east Bay. It is anticipated that this service will cost $3.2 million annually (fy 2011/12), funded with 71% rm2 and 29% fare revenues.

Berkeley/albany ferry service: environmental review of a proposed •Berkeley/albany ferry terminal (four sites are considered) and service is under way. service could feature 30-minute peak service and 60-minute mid-day service between Berkeley/albany and san francisco, provided with two vessels. It is anticipated that this service will cost approximately $5.3 million annually, funded with 71% rm 2 and 29% fare revenues.

treasure Island ferry service: the san francisco treasure Island •development authority (tIda), mayor’s office of economic and workforce development and the prospective developer are proceeding to develop plans for the treasure Island redevelopment project, which includes new ferry service between treasure Island and san francisco. while weta would operate the ferry service, the treasure Island developer would fund the terminal and vessels and the service’s operating cost.

san francisco ferry Building docking facility expansion: weta •is working closely with the port of san francisco to prepare environmental and design documents related to the development of three new ferry-docking facilities at the downtown san francisco terminal. one of these new terminals is critical to the operation of the treasure Island service, while the other two would be needed to support other future expansion projects and expanded capacity for emergency response services.

Future Service Expansion Planning to meet its mandate of expansion of water transit services, for both regular commuting and disaster recovery

16-4

iv

DRAFT ISSUE

needs, weta must also continue to consider and develop projects requiring planning for implementation beyond the five-year period. In support of this effort, weta will continue preliminary environmental and conceptual design work associated with development of ferry services between san francisco and the cities of antioch, hercules, martinez, redwood city and richmond over the next five years. these services all have varying degrees of financial commitments for construction and operation. however, none have sufficient funding to date to support full implementation, and would require the support of new funding commitments to be fully implemented.

additional notable future and ongoing waterfront developments that could support terminals and service are the alameda point redevelopment project at the alameda navy station, which would supplant the alameda main street terminal once constructed, “oak-to-9th”, a residential project along the embarcadero in oakland, mission Bay, the san francisco home to the new ucsf campus, and port sonoma developments in the north Bay. weta will continue to monitor these developments and provide support as needed.

SERVICE TRANSITION PLAN: Transitioning to Regional Management weta’s approach to system consolidation and transition emphasizes a commitment to ensure continuity in programs, services and activities of the existing ferry services. as weta moves from a planning to an operating agency, it will assume responsibility for existing services and associated contracts, and management and maintenance functions. the changeover will be carried out so existing services continue as they’ve been operated and patrons see no discernable differences or disruptions. Key transition elements include:

weta to continue service provision through contract operators. Initial •contract transfer scheduled for january 1, 2010, with a new single operating contract to be awarded and in effect january 1, 2011;

existing fare structures to be adopted by weta to ensure continuity •for passengers and system;

weta to secure similar passenger transfer discount agreements with •connecting transit systems;

weta support staff and contractors to be secured to manage system •operation, maintenance and administration activities;

emergency response training and coordination activities to continue, •and all staff to participate;

marketing plan and branding efforts to be initiated to ensure customer •awareness;

capital asset transfer, use and compensation agreements to be •finalized between cities and weta, with vessels, waterside terminals

and related spare parts transferring to weta and landside terminal and maintenance facilities being made available through lease agreements;

ongoing city participation as a system partner, providing landside •planning and management support and advocating for local funds to support system needs.

Five-Year Financial Plan the five-year financial plan is required in order to ensure that weta can both maintain and sustain existing services and fund planned expansion within its existing system revenues. a key component of the five year financial plan is the establishment of an operating reserve to support core wta business functions. this reserve would serve to ensure that sufficient funds are available to weta to float cash flow needs associated with operating and construction projects, support emergency response needs as they arise, and weather sharp, unexpected increases in operating costs, such as was experienced in 2008 when fuel prices spiked.

the budget is expected to support five services--alameda-oakland, harbor Bay, vallejo Baylink and Berkeley to san francisco routes, and south san francisco to east Bay service--with a fleet of 14 vessels providing 94 ferry trips per weekday and carrying 1.73 million passengers per year by year 5. although weta projects balanced budgets through the five-year transition, culminating in a year five operating budget of $36.3 million, and total spending over the period of $155.2 million, this projection is based upon several factors that may change as the transition is implemented, as discussed in the body of the plan. these include:

current local funding subsidies provided by the city of alameda and •port of oakland, which are under discussion and may be phased out over time;

potential fare revenue reductions associated with ridership losses seen •over the past year;

potential future costs for the vallejo services as the result of •new expenses associated with the long-standing vallejo station project, which will replace existing surface parking spaces with an underground garage that will require new levels of operating and maintenance subsidies by the city;

development of final asset transfer and lease agreements with the •cities.

It should also be noted that by year 5, annual operating expenses are almost on par with annual revenues, indicating a need to consider options for reducing expenses or raising revenues. weta should plan to pro-actively review service levels, local subsidies and system performance and take actions to address this shortfall in advance of its arrival.

Capital Improvement Plan a five-year program of capital improvements running from fy 2009/10 through fy 2013/14, the cIp supports weta’s regional public transit and emergency response service through one-time expansion and cyclical rehabilitation and replacement programs prepared in consultation with cities of alameda and vallejo.

over five years, total cIp spending on vessel maintenance and acquisition; ferry facility rehabilitation, replacement and dredging; and new construction of terminals and maintenance and operations facilities is $218.4 million.

highlights include acquisition of four vessels--two a piece for Berkeley and south san francisco service--and corresponding new terminals. and two new operations and maintenance facilities are proposed for the north and central Bay.

a variety of federal, state and local funding sources are programmed and available to support the cIp, including the regional measure 2 levy on state-owned bridges in the Bay area approved by voters in 2004, federal formula funds for rehabilitation projects and ferry Boat discretionary funds for expansion projects, proposition 1B, the state highway safety, traffic reduction, air Quality, and port security Bond act, approved by voters in 2006, and the san mateo sales tax approved by county voters in 2004.

NEXT STEPS: following the adoption of the transition plan, weta will have six months to complete a number of work activities associated with service transition in the following areas:

developing service delivery contracts•

developing asset transfer and use agreements with cities, funding •agencies and regulators;

preparing fare policies and securing passenger transfer agreements •with connecting operators;

developing ticketing and fare collection agreements;•

developing and implementing marketing and communications plan;•

Instituting management oversight plans and programs; and•

securing additional staff to support system management.•

with the support of the cities, this work will be completed in december and service transition will take place as planned on january 1, 2010.

16-5


16-6




RE: AB 744 (Torrico), Regional Express Toll Lane Network

AB 744, the Regional Express Toll Lane Network (formerly high-occupancy toll or HOT network), was introduced as a spot bill on Feb. 26. If passed, the bill would authorize the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) to acquire, construct, administer, and operate a Bay Area Express Lane Network. The Assembly Transportation Committee will conduct the public hearing and vote on the bill on April 27. If approved, the bill would authorize BATA to pursue installation of HOT lanes on I-80, among other corridors.

On April 10, Chair Viramontes on behalf of CCTA and WCCTAC testified before MTC’s Legislative Committee (Attachment 1). The Committee approved legislative principles for the bill (Attachment 2), as amended to ensure that: a) there will be appropriate collaboration and partnership among MTC, congestion management agencies (CMAs), and Caltrans; b) toll revenues are invested in the corridors that generate them; c) toll revenues are dedicated to transit; d) HOT lanes would not have adverse effects, especially in highly congested corridors; and e) there will be a commitment to pursue the network as a region, with no option for individual CMAs to opt out of participation. Amendments a through d were requested by MTC Commissioner and Contra Costa Cities representative Amy Worth per discussion with CCTA and WCCTAC Board members and staff. Amendment e was requested by MTC Commissioner and Solano County representative Jim Spering. MTC staff sent the proposed bill language to the CMAs for review and comment. On April 15, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) took a “support if amended” position on MTC’s proposed bill language. CCTA is seeking stronger language with respect to items a through d above (Attachment 3). MTC is scheduled to adopt the proposed bill language on April 22. At that time, we will find out to what extent the requested amendments will be incorporated. On April 23, the CCTA Board will meet to discuss the final bill language that will be presented at the public hearing and reevaluate its position on the bill as appropriate. Given the Board’s concerns about the implementation of express lanes on I-80, the Board may wish to take a formal position on the proposed bill as well, and determine additional action as appropriate for the April 27 hearing.

18b-1


18b-2

MTC LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE HEARING, APRIL 10, 2009 CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TESTIMONY, MARIA THERESA VIRAMONTES, CHAIR Chairperson Rubin, and members of the Legislative Committee, Thank you for the opportunity to address in person, our concerns regarding AB744 which is scheduled to be heard on April 20th, and the MTC staff proposed Legislative Framework. My name is Maria T. Viramontes, I am the Chairperson of both the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee.

As a region, we are committed to working on congestive management issues with MTC and that is why CCTA approved the I-80 Corridor Mobility Project as a priority project in our region and work with our neighbors in the Alameda Congestion Management Agency, it is just one small example of working together,

• However, to address the issues on Hot/Express Lanes Network, as outlined to MTC by letters previously submitted by CCTA and WCCTAC, requires a careful partnership between MTC/BATA and the Congestive Management Agency or Agencies, in which the corridor lies, along with Caltrans. Detailed studies, in far more depth than those conducted to date need to be done in an objective manner, prior to any decision on implementation of lanes. This requirement should be a part of the framework and legislation and completed by an independent third party.

• This is particularly important in the area I come from, West Contra Costa

County, since I-80 is considered highly impacted and HOV lanes are projected to reach limits by 2011. It is clear that the MTC staff has already established criteria to excluded certain transit corridors from participation in the Bay Area Express Lane Network for not being appropriate settings: for environmental, structural and traffic congestion reasons.

For example: Sections of 580 west of 680 and portions of 880 in Alameda County are excluded Approach ways towards bridges: SF Airport to Bay Bridge; Oakland Airport to Bay Bridge Sections on 101 in SF and Marin County most lanes within the City of Oakland and what appears is all of San Francisco are excluded

18b-Attachment 1-1

• West County considers I-80 from the Carquinez Bridge South shares similar restraining challenges as the above MTC staff recommended list that creates a “Gap Allowance” in the Network for Alameda, San Francisco and Marin Counties. Contra Costa County is asking for the same respectful consideration for Gap Allowance for environmental, structural and traffic congestion reasons.

• We also believe given the region’s focus on clean air, reduction of

greenhouse gas emissions and social equity, that special consideration needs to be given to assure that a Hot/Express Lane will provide significant revenues by priority, for support of transit, and alternatives to the single occupant vehicle such as carpools and vanpools very early after its opening, and does not discourage such alternatives; or create or increase social inequities by adversely impact disadvantaged communities. It is conceivable that the criteria for the CWG’s might not have representation from impacted disadvantaged communities.

• San Diego provided an upfront financial commitment to transit

(50%) by policy direction. If the Network even by policy priority decides to fund transit it doesn’t necessarily mean it happens. Material presented by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, entitled, Do Hot Lanes Generate Enough Revenue to pay for themselves? Demonstrates that Three Major Agencies Express Lanes did not meet their costs for operations and management. The legislation and framework and detailed studies should directly address this issue if funding model expectations are not met and HOT/Express Lanes do not meet their financial costs, what happens? If Hot/Express Lanes provide little/or no transit funding, what happens? The Framework address that the BATA is responsible for bonding against all tolls in the Network but not specifically what happens if there is a shortfall or no funding to transit.

• The current legislation and framework should be consistent with

state and local requirements for implementation of AB32 and other state, regional green house gas reduction requirements.

• Legislative principles can be amended to create a real partnership

with CMA’s and Caltrans and assure that the issues raised are addressed in implementation decisions.

18b-Attachment 1-2

Legislative Framework for a Bay Area Express Lane Network

OBJECTIVES

The development and implementation of a Bay Area Express Lane Network (hereafter “network”) has five

primary objectives:

1. More effectively manage the region’s freeways in order to provide higher vehicle and passenger

throughput and reduce delays for those traveling within each travel corridor.

2. Provide an efficient, effective, consistent, and seamless system for customers of the network.

3. Provide benefits to travelers within each corridor commensurate with the revenues collected in that

corridor, including expanded travel options and funding to support non-highway options that

enhance effectiveness and throughput.

4. Expedite the implementation of the network using a rapid delivery approach that, to the greatest

extent possible, relies upon existing highway right of way and minimizes the environmental impact.

5. Use express lane toll revenue to finance construction of the network and other corridor

improvements, operate and maintain the network; and provide transit services and improvements in

the network corridors.

I. THE KEY PLAYERS

Bay Area Express Lane Network Project Oversight Committee (BAY POC)

Create in statute the Bay Area Express Lane Network Project Oversight Committee (BAY POC), consisting

of a staff representative from each of the participating congestion management agencies (CMA), Caltrans,

California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA). Participation by CMAs in the

BAYPOC shall be limited to those that are participating in a Corridor Working Group (CWG).

BAY POC will be the primary entity responsible for recommending policies for the network.

Recommendations of the BAYPOC shall be forwarded to BATA for approval.

BAYPOC will be responsible for recommending an express lane development plan. The plan will consist of

two elements: (1) a phasing plan for development of the express lane network, and (2) an operational plan

that will recommend consistent standards for the regional network, including, but not limited to, the

following: (a) geometric design; (b) signage; (c) safe and simple operations; (d) technology; (e) shared

marketing, logo and terminology; (f) pricing policies and goals; and (g) occupancy requirements. While

development of a consistent, regional network will be the goal, some variation in design or other policies

will be permitted as needed to build the system in a timely manner. In developing the phasing plan,

BAYPOC will first prioritize those corridors that can be converted to express lanes from existing high

occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and that demonstrate the ability to generate sufficient toll revenue to cover

their financing, operating and maintenance costs. Caltrans and CHP will each be required to approve the

elements of the plan that fall under their authority.

Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA)

The legislation will authorize BATA to acquire, construct, administer and operate an express lane network

within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. It will provide that BATA is

18b-Attachment 2-1

2

responsible for: (a) establishing and approving standards for the network; (b) adopting a phasing plan for

construction of the network, consistent with the goal of rapid delivery; (c) toll collection and the

maintenance and operation of the toll collection equipment; (d) all financial management, including the

issuance of express lane toll revenue bonds for the network, toll setting authority and project financing; and

(e) compliance with any requirements necessary to meet financing obligations and assure efficient operation

and build-out of the network. While BATA shall be responsible for the financial management of the express

lane network toll revenue stream, the legislation will not preclude a local agency from proposing to use its

own funds, including bonds backed by sources other than express lane tolls, for a portion of the construction

of the network. The legislation will authorize BATA to use bridge tolls for costs associated with the

network.

Corridor Working Groups

Implementation of the network shall follow a corridor-based model that recognizes commute-sheds and

geographic communities of interest as the most effective and customer-oriented approach. The legislation

shall establish Corridor Working Groups (CWGs) as subgroups within the BAYPOC. The initial CWGs

shall be based on the existing, statutorily created HOT lane corridors. The legislation will provide flexibility

to allow new CWGs to be created, existing ones merged and membership changed to reflect actual travel

patterns. The CWG shall propose the geographic boundary of the corridor subject to approval by the CMAs

in which the express lane corridors are located and BATA.

CWGs shall be comprised of a staff representative of a CMA as well as a representative of Caltrans, CHP

and BATA. CMA membership in a CWG shall include any of the following: (a) a Bay Area CMA that has

committed funding associated with that county to the final design or construction of an express lane

corridor; (b) a CMA whose board has an adopted policy in support of developing an express lane project

along the corridor within the BAYPOC framework; or (c) a Bay Area CMA that represents a county whose

residents comprise a significant share of the toll payers along the corridor. The legislation should allow each

CWG to determine its own representation and voting arrangements to reflect the level of county investment

and the commute shed patterns served by the corridor.

II. USE OF REVENUE

Bond financing will require toll revenues from each corridor to be pooled for financing purposes and spent

first on debt service and financing costs associated with phased construction of the network, including all

debt service and bond covenant requirements, potential reimbursement of local funds previously invested in

the HOV lane system, operation (including collection and enforcement), maintenance, and administration of

the express lanes. At least 95 percent of revenues net of operating, maintenance, debt service, financing

costs and all covenants required of the issuance generated within each corridor ─ “corridor revenues” ─ will

be provided to that corridor’s corridor working group to fund projects in the corridor investment plan. The

use of corridor revenues shall be determined by the CWGs in Corridor Investment Plans, as described

below.

BATA will establish a process whereby a CMA who is a project sponsor of a CIP project can access the

corridor revenues from BATA by (1) submitting an invoice for CIP expenditures or (2) receive regular

payments of net revenue for eligible CIP expenditures, subject to an approved CIP; or (3) another method

agreed to by BATA and the CMA.

18b-Attachment 2-2

3

III. CORRIDOR INVESTMENT PLANS

Each CWG shall create a Corridor Investment Plan (CIP) for express lane improvements in the corridor,

improvements to be funded from reimbursement of local investment in the HOV system, as well as the

investment of any corridor revenues. In selecting projects recommended to be funded, the CWG shall

prioritize projects that reduce vehicle emissions and provide cost-effective public transit options. The CIP

shall contain two key elements. The first will focus on the development of the corridor, the use of HOT

revenue, and include proposed phasing of express lane projects in the corridor; the second element will

include a recommendation for occupancy and tolling policies that would support the corridor phasing plan

and a proposed timeline for implementation.

The CIP shall also contain an examination of equity considerations, including, but not limited to, the impact

of the proposed segment of the network on low-income travelers in the corridor, transit riders, carpoolers,

and the distribution of benefits by geographic area. Each CIP shall be reviewed by the BAYPOC for network

consistency and subsequently forwarded for review and approval by the respective boards of the CMAs in

which the express lane corridors are located. Subsequent to CMA board approval, the CIP shall be

forwarded to BATA for approval. If BATA adopts a finding that the CIP is not consistent with the goals of

the network, it shall return the CIP to the CWG for revision. Upon revision of the CIP, the CWG would then

be required to resubmit the CIP to both the CMA and BATA for approval. If a CMA board has not

approved the CIP within 60 days of its initial receipt from BAYPOC or its return from BATA for revision,

the CIP shall be presented to BATA for approval with an opportunity for representatives of the CMA to

present their reasons for not acting on the CIP.

The CIP will detail any local funding proposed to be used for the development of the express lane corridor,

which may include the use of bond financing backed by local sources other than express lane tolls.

The CIP will also detail which agency should perform the work described therein, including, but not limited

to, the express lane network planning, environmental review, design and construction, as well as other

improvement projects to be funded with corridor revenues.

IV. TRANSITION FOR EXISTING HOT LANE AUTHORITY

For corridors in development under existing statutory authority provided by AB 2032 (Dutra), Statutes of

2004, a transition plan for incorporating those corridors into a Bay Area Express Lane Network shall be

negotiated between the existing authority and BATA within one year after enactment of the legislation. A

final sunset date for all existing authority shall not exceed one year from the start of service on the first of

the express lane segments previously authorized for each agency authorized to develop express lanes within

the Bay Area.

J:\COMMITTE\Legislation\PacketsPrevious\Legis2009\Legis04-09\3a_AB744TorricoLegPrinciples-Amended.doc

18b-Attachment 2-3


18b-Attachment 2-4

COMMISSIONERS: Maria Viramontes, Chair Robert Taylor, Vice Chair Janet Abelson Newell Arnerich Ed Balico Susan Bonilla David Durant Federal Glover Michael Kee Mike Metcalf Julie Pierce Robert K. McCleary Executive Director 3478 Buskirk Ave. Suite 100 Pleasant Hill CA 94523 PHONE: 925/ 256-4700 FAX: 925/ 256-4701 http://www.ccta.net

17 April 2009 D R A F T Hon. Scott Haggerty, Chairman Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607-4700 RE: Authority Position on AB 744 (Torrico), Regional Express Toll Lanes Network:

Support if Amended Dear Chairman Haggerty: At the Authority meeting of April 15, 2009, the Authority considered its position on this bill and decided to take a “support if amended” position. Our discussion focused on how to achieve the desired outcomes of enhanced corridor management, efficiency and effectiveness, including improving opportunities for those using carpools, vanpools, and buses. Within that context, our members are conceptually supportive of the express toll lanes concept where it can be shown to provide significantly enhanced benefits to corridor travelers, particularly those using carpools, vanpools, and buses, while respecting the interests of local communities and providing environmental benefits. Any degradation of services to those using carpools, vanpools, or buses, or to the local or regional environment, should be avoided. The specific amendments we require fall within the four policy objectives adopted by the Commission’s Planning Committee on April 10, 2009, as set out below.

• Partnership. The Authority believes that MTC, the Bay Area congestion management agencies (CMAs), and Caltrans should be engaged in a true partnership for management of the Bay Area’s travel corridors. Where benefits can be shown, such management can include HOT lanes. The partnership should be constructed in the same manner as has been utilized so successfully with the local sales tax projects, where decision-making is shared. AB 744, as currently proposed, does not go far enough to establish such a partnership. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) has offered conceptual recommendations which we believe are essential, whereby the CMAs would define corridors, establish corridor working groups, approve the Corridor Improvement Plan (CIP) for each corridor (subject to final approval or rejection by the Bay Area Toll Authority), and ensure that the CIP includes phasing plans for development and deployment, financing plans, toll operations plan and a corridor re-investment plan for projects and services benefitting the corridor. We also believe that the legislation should include a more transparent and explicit strategic planning process consistent with sales tax agency strategic planning, to enhance openness, collaboration, a clear assessment of investment alternatives based on available cash flow and bonding, and accountability. An enhanced public process can allow a clear discussion of trade-offs and help set realistic expectations for what can be accomplished.

18b-Attachment 3-1

Hon. Scott Haggerty April 17, 2009 Page 2

• Dollars Stay in Corridor. The Authority understands and believes that toll lanes gain public acceptability by returning significant investments from the fees collected to benefit travelers in the corridor where the funds are collected. VTA has offered a recommendation that 95 percent of the revenue net of bond funding and operating costs for the corridor be returned to the corridor. Up to 5 percent could, under some circumstances, be applied for start-up activities of the Bay Area Network, which we can accept. This provision as essential to reassure travelers in a corridor that the tolls are fees providing them some benefit.

• Transit Is Key. The Authority recognizes it is difficult to determine, in advance, both the levels of net revenue that might flow from corridors or specific project segments, and the competing demands on that funding. Therefore, we propose that the legislation explicitly recognizes that converting a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane to a high occupancy toll (HOT) lane should, at a minimum, “do no harm”; i.e., not degrade to the utilization of carpools, vanpools or bus transit. When net revenues are available, the top priority should be investment in transit capital needs and enhancements of transit services. Such commitment should be at least 50 percent of those net revenues.

• Priorities for Implementation. The Authority believes that the bill, as currently proposed, does not go far enough to spell out l criteria that will be applied to determine if a HOT lane will be constructed in a corridor. We believe the legislation should state such investment will proceed only if objective analysis can demonstrate that: (a) a proposed project will provide significant benefits to the traveling public, including to the local communities through which it runs; (b) the environmental impacts of the project, both locally and regionally, can and will be reasonably mitigated; (c) the project will reduce emissions of air quality contaminants and greenhouse gases; (d) the project does not cause operational or safety impacts on the state highway or adjacent local streets and roads; and (e) if significant right of way or community impacts would be present, the consent of the local community has been given. To answer these questions, both full environmental review and additional detailed, technical studies will be needed.

We appreciate your consideration of our views, and look forward to working with you to make AB 744 a true partnership endeavor between the CMAs, MTC, Caltrans and the CHP to enhance management and mobility of the Bay Area’s transportation system. Sincerely, Maria T. Viramontes Chairperson c.c. Authority Members MTC Commissioners Steve Heminger Andrew Fremier Bay Area CMA Directors

18b-Attachment 3-2

19b-10

meeting notice and agenda

Documents

city of san pablo

san pablo avenue

church lane san pablo

demonstration program

meeting summary

meeting minutes

west county measure

allocation of measure