Transportation Partnership and Cooperation Meeting Notice ......May 08, 2014 · 8. Authorization to Allocate Line 20a Monies for Fiscal Year 2014/15At its April 24. , 2014 meetingTAC

Transportation Partnership and Cooperation Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, and Contra Costa County

2300 Contra Costa Boulevard, Suite 110 - Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 (925) 969-0841 FAX (925) 969-9135

TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership and Cooperation

Meeting Notice and Agenda

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2014

9:00 A.M. to 11:30 A.M. Pleasant Hill City Hall – Community Room

100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill

TRANSPAC reserves the right to take formal action on any item included on this agenda, whether or not a form of resolution, motion, or other indication that action will be taken is included on the agenda or attachments thereto. 1. Convene Meeting/Pledge of Allegiance/Self-Introductions

2. Public Comment: At this time, the public is welcome to address TRANSPAC on any

item not on this agenda. Please complete a speaker card and hand it to a member of the staff. Please begin by stating your name and address and indicate whether you are speaking for yourself or an organization. Please keep your comments brief. In fairness to others, please avoid repeating comments.

CONSENT AGENDA 3. City of Concord Measure J Reprogramming Request. The City of Concord is

requesting a Measure J Reprogramming Request for Major Capital Complete Streets. The TRANSPAC TAC approved this request at its April 24, 2014 meeting

Attachment: City of Concord Measure J Reprogramming Request for Major Streets Capital Projects. 4. Approval of April 24, 2014 Special Meeting TRANSPAC Minutes Attachment: Minutes of the April 24, 2014 Special TRANSPAC meeting. ACTION: Adopt the Consent Agenda and/or as determined. END CONSENT AGENDA

5. Countywide Transportation Plan – Public Outreach Effort. Alex Evans of EMC

Research will provide a brief overview of their 2014 polling research as part of their work on CCTA’s Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP). The polling data may help to inform both the CTP and a possible future transportation sales tax measure.

TRANSPAC Agenda Page 2 of 3 May 8, 2014

The presentation will include a high-level look at the countywide level results, with breakouts for Central County, where relevant.

ACTION: As determined.

Electronic Attachment: Report on Opinion Research CCTA Countywide Transportation Plan.

6. Update on the Kirker Pass Truck Climbing Lanes Project by Chris Lau, Senior Civil Engineer, Contra Costa County

ACTION: With thanks to Mr. Lau, accept report and/or as determined Attachment: Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes Project Report. 7. Adoption of the Draft TRANSPAC Action Plan. On approval, the Action Plan will be

forwarded to CCTA staff and then circulated with the Draft Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP). As noted on the March TAC agenda, TRANSPAC circulated the Action Plan for comments with a note that any comments received would be reviewed at this meeting in anticipation of TRANSPAC Action Plan review and possible Action Plan approval at this meeting. To date only one comment has been received from the City of Lafayette.

ACTION: As determined. Attachment: The Draft Action Plan will be sent electronically as a separate e-mail to the full TRANSPAC mailing list and/or as determined.

8. Authorization to Allocate Line 20a Monies for Fiscal Year 2014/15. At its April 24, 2014 meeting, TAC members present approved the allocation of Line 20a monies as has been done in the past (see attachment). Shortly thereafter, the TRANSPAC Manager had a conversation with CCTA staff regarding this allocation. The suggestion was made to have a CCTA, CCCTA, and TRANSPAC meeting to see how to continue to maximize the use of these funds. Please note that it is too expensive for CCCTA to provide the same service provided by the Line 20a vendors. To provide some time for planning, the TRANSPAC Manager is requesting approval of a Line 20a allocation now and proceed to work with CCTA and CCCTA on how these agencies may establish an ongoing effective partnership.

ACTION: As determined

9. 511 Contra Costa Staff and TRANSPAC Reports

ACTION: Accept report(s) and/or as determined. Attachment: If available. 10. TRANSPAC CCTA Representative Reports: Reports on the most recent CCTA

Administration and Projects Committee (Member Pierce), Planning Committee (Member Durant), and the CCTA Board meeting (Members Pierce and Durant).

TRANSPAC Agenda Page 3 of 3 May 8, 2014

ACTION: As determined. 11. CCTA Executive Director’s Report from Randell H. Iwasaki regarding Authority

Actions/Discussion Items Attachment: Executive Director’s Report dated April 16, 2014 12. Items Approved by the Authority for Circulation to the Regional Transportation

Planning Committees (RTPCs) and Related Items of Interest

Attachment: Letter to RTPCs from Randell H. Iwasaki dated April 22, 2014 regarding items approved by the Authority on April 16, 2014. 13. TAC Oral Reports by Jurisdiction: Reports from Concord, Clayton, Martinez,

Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, and Contra Costa County, if available.

ACTION: Accept report and/or as determined. 14. Agency and Committee Reports:

• TRANSPAC April 24, 2014 status letter to Randall Iwasaki, CCTA • TRANSPLAN • SWAT • WCCTAC • County Connection – Fixed Route and LINK reports may be downloaded at:

http://cccta.org/public-meetings/agendas/os-april-2014 • CCTA Project Status Report may be downloaded at: http://transpac.us/wp-

content/uploads/2008/08/CCTA-Project-Status-Report.pdf • CCTA Administration & Projects Committee meeting agenda for May 1, 2014,

may be downloaded at: http://ccta.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=1&event_id=167

ACTION: Accept reports and/or as determined. 15. For the Good of the Order: Ask TRANSPAC jurisdiction representatives to post

TRANSPAC meeting notices. 16. Adjourn/Next Meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for June 12, 2014 at 9:00 A.M.

in the Community Room at Pleasant Hill City Hall unless otherwise determined. TRS 5 8 2014

http://cccta.org/public-meetings/agendas/os-april-2014

http://transpac.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/CCTA-Project-Status-Report.pdf

http://transpac.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/CCTA-Project-Status-Report.pdf

http://ccta.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=1&event_id=167

Attachment 1

City of Concord

ITEM FUNDING SOURCE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT

1 SR2S Grant 436,400$

2 Local Match - gas tax Fund 260 148,000$

3 other local funding for pavement rehab. (OSIP) 500,000$

Available Project funding = 1,084,400$

4/3/2014

Item EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION Budget

Expenditure

To-date (

2.17.14)

Project Balance

1 Studies 2,000$ 2,000.00$

2 Permits (PG&E, SWPPP, Sewer,Wtr) 5,000$ 5,000.00$

3 RBF Civil Design Contract 63,000$ 63,000$

4 Landscape/Stormwater treatment Design 5,000$ 5,000$

5 Staff Time 5,000$ 5,000$

6 Swinerton PM Services 12,000$ -$ 12,000$

7 Public Outreach & Misc Items. 3,000$ 3,000$

8 Contingency (TCEs and right of entry agmts) 5,000$ 5,000$

100,000$ -$ 100,000$

9 RBF Civil Design Contract (addendums, etc.) 3,000$ 3,000$

10 Advertisement 1,500$ 1,500$

11 Misc Expenditures 500$ 500$

12 Staff time 2,000$ 2,000$

7,000$ -$ 7,000$

13 RBF Civil Design Contract 10,000$ 10,000$

14 Construction Management & Inspection 75,000$ 75,000$

15 Construction Contract 1,058,000$ 1,058,000$

16 Staff Time (City PM) 2,000$ 2,000$

17 Notices, public relations 2,000$ 2,000$

18 Mat. Testing & Special inspection 5,000$ 5,000$

19 Misc Expenditures -$ -$

20 Contract Change Orders (10% OF CONSTR. CONTRACT) 105,800$ 105,800$

1,257,800$ -$ 1,257,800$

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,364,800$ 1,364,800$

PROJECT FUND BALANCE (SHORTFALL) = (280,400)$

Safe Routes to School - Farm Bureau Road PJ 2251

Sub-Total

BIDDING PHASE (Admin & Design costs)

Sub-Total

DESIGN PHASE (Admin & Design Costs)

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Sub-Total

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN LEVEL BASED COST ESTIMATE as of 4.02.14

Attachment 1

Bid Item

No.

BID ITEM DESCRIPTION Quantity Units Unit Price Item Total

1 MOBILIZATION (10%) 1 LS $50,000 $50,000

2 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 1 LS $5,000 $5,000

3 TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM 1 LS $20,000 $20,000

4 CONSTR. AREA SIGNS & CMBS 1 LS $5,000 $5,000

5 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 1 LS $15,000 $15,000

6 ROADWAY EXCAVATION 15000 SF $4 $52,500

7 HOT MIX ASPHALT (TYPE A)

INCLUDING BASE for widening

13400 SF $12 $160,800

8 HOT MIX ASPHALT (TYPE A) for

Overlay

52400 SF $3 $157,200

9 ROADSIDE SIGNS 1 LS $5,000 $5,000

10 RELOCATE/RESET FENCES,

FRONTYARD WALLS, ETC

1 LS $15,000 $15,000

11 REMOVE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER 500 LF $10 $5,000

12 REMOVE EXISTING TREES 6 EA $1,500 $9,000

13 CURB & GUTTER (INCLUDING BASE) 1350 LF $30 $40,500

14 REMOVE PCC SIDEWALK/DRIVEWAY 1000 SF $6.00 $6,000

15 PCC SIDEWALK (INCLUDING BASE) 6000 SF $30 $180,000

16 PCC DRIVEWAY (INCLUDING BASE) 1900 SF $40 $76,000

17 CURB RAMP (CITY STD) 8 EA $4,500 $36,000

18 PAVEMENT STRIPE 6600 LF $0.75 $4,950

19 12" THERMOPLASTIC STRIPE 300 LF $3.00 $900

20 PAVEMENT MARKINGS (ARROWS,

WORDS AND SYMBOLS

(THERMOPLASTIC)

1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000

21 STORMDRAIN IMPROVEMENTS

(INLETS AND 1 MH )

1 LS $15,650 $15,650

22 18" SD PIPE 200 LF $150 $30,000

23 STORMWATER TREATMENT AREA -

INCL. IRRIGATION & PLANTING

1700 SF $15 $25,500

24 RELOCATE STREET LIGHTING

(JP mounted)

1 LS $14,000 $14,000

25 NEW STREET LIGHTING - new poles

at City Standard spacing

1 LS $125,000 $125,000

$1,058,000

TOTAL - BID ITEMS:

FARM BUREAU ROAD IMPROVEMENTS SR2S

Safe Routes to School - Farm Bureau Road PJ 2251

1901 Harrison Street - Suite 900 Oakland, California 94612-3501 voice 510.273.8780 - fax 510.839.9104 www.bwslaw.com

Los Angeles – Inland Empire – Marin County – Oakland – Orange County – Palm Desert – Silicon Valley – Ventura County

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Mark Coon, City Attorney Attachment 2

Susanne Brown, Assistant City Attorney

FROM: J. Leah Castella and Megan A. Burke

DATE: March 17, 2014

RE: Updated Budget for Property Acquisition Required for Clayton Road/Treat Boulevard Intersection Capacity Improvements Project

SUMMARY

After the Resolution of Necessity (“RON”) Hearing on April 8, we will have concluded the initial phase of the Bel Air Condemnation, and we will have spent approximately $40,000 in attorney’s fees and $25,000 in expert fees, which is below our anticipated budget of $70,000. The below budget range is for the remainder of the litigation. While we have done our best to provide you with a realistic assessment of the fees and costs associated with this litigation, these numbers can be impacted by a number of issues that are not in our control, so please note that the actual fees and costs could be lower or higher.

BUDGET

Filing the Complaint and Securing Possession

Attorney’s Fees: $15,000-$30,000 Costs (including Expert Fees): $2,000-$5,000 Discovery & Depositions

Attorney’s Fees: $35,000-$55,000 Costs (including Expert Fees) $5,000-$10,000 Mediation Attorney’s fees: $5,000-$7,500 Costs (including mediator) $3,000

Pre-Trial Preparation Attorney’s Fees: $25,000-$35,000 Costs (including Expert Fees) $4,000-$8,000 Trial Preparation & Trial Attorney’s Fees: $40,000-$50,000 Costs (including expert fees) $8,000-$15,000 Total Attorney’s Fees: $120,000 - $177,500 Costs (including expert fees) $22,000 - $41,000 $218,500

TRANSPAC Summary Minutes – April 24, 2014 Page 1

TRANSPAC Special Meeting Summary Minutes SPECIAL MEETING DATE: April 24, 2014 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT: Mark Ross, Martinez (Chair); Julie Pierce, Clayton, CCTA

Representative; David Durant, Pleasant Hill; Ron Leone, Concord; and Karen Mitchoff, Contra Costa County

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Keith Haydon, Clayton; Bob Pickett, Walnut Creek; and Diana

Vavrek, Pleasant Hill STAFF PRESENT: Deidre Heitmen, BART: Ray Kuzbari, Concord; Jeremy

Lochirco, Walnut Creek; Robert Sarmiento, Contra Costa County; Tim Tucker, Martinez; Corinne Dutra-Roberts, 511 Contra Costa; and Barbara Neustadter, TRANSPAC Manager

GUESTS/PRESENTERS: Brad Beck, Senior Transportation Planner, Contra Costa

Transportation Authority (CCTA); Deborah Dagang, CH2MHill; Julie Morgan, Fehr & Peers

MINUTES PREPARED BY: Anita Tucci-Smith 1. Convene Meeting/Pledge of Allegiance/Self Introductions The meeting was convened at 9:05 A.M. by Chair Mark Ross, the Pledge of Allegiance was observed, and self introductions followed.

2. Public Comment There were no comments from the public. CONSENT AGENDA 3. Approval of March 13, 2014 TRANSPAC Minutes

On motion by Director Leone, seconded by Director Pickett, the minutes of the March 13, 2014 TRANSPAC meeting were approved by the following vote: Ayes: Durant, Haydon, Leone, Mitchoff, Pickett, Pierce, Ross, Vavrek Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Haskew, Mercurio, Stewart END OF CONSENT AGENDA


4. At the February 2014 TRANSPAC Meeting, TRANSPAC Chair Durant Reviewed the Issues Raised by CalPERS Regarding the Status of 511 Contra Costa Employees. He suggested, and TRANSPAC supported, the use of TRANSPAC funds to engage Best Best & Krieger (BB&K) to provide legal services to establish a TRANSPAC Joint Powers Authority (JPA). This action will establish employee status for current and future 511 Contra Costa employees. This approach also was supported by the TRANSPAC Board at the February 2014 TRANSPAC meeting to be reviewed and considered at the April 10, 2014 TRANSPAC meeting (later scheduled for a special meeting on April 24, 2014), when the draft JPA document would be available for review and action. TRANSPAC is requested to review the submitted Proposed Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) document, suggest revisions, and consider adoption of a TRANSPAC JPA.

TRANSPAC Manager Barbara Neustadter advised that Director Durant, who was TRANSPAC Chair at the time, had raised the issues relative to CalPERS and the status of 511 Contra Costa employees, and had suggested moving forward with the creation of a Joint Powers Authority (JPA). She reported that documents were now available to allow that to be done.

Director Durant highlighted the Draft JPA Agreement that had been provided in the TRANSPAC packet and reported that some time had been spent on issues related to CalPERS’ new rules that non-elected officials could not actually serve on the Board, which was a concern of his and Director Pierce given that they valued the input of the Planning Commission representatives who served on TRANSPAC. As such, there had been an attempt to create an ex-officio status for Planning Commission representatives. He stated that the other points in the JPA Agreement were agreeable where there would be one elected member from each jurisdiction and one member from Contra Costa County. With approval from the Board, staff would proceed to secure a CalPERS concurrence that 511 Contra Costa employees would be covered and allow TRANSPAC to be in a position to secure bonds as a separate entity.

Director Pierce stated that one of the other pluses with a formal JPA was the efficiencies that might be possible by amalgamating contracts which might be beneficial to all, and scheduling them throughout the year which was something that could not be done right now.

Director Durant noted that the JPA documents required a unanimous vote to adopt the budget; he sought a 5/6 or 4/6 vote as more appropriate.

Director Pierce explained the intent to ensure that no one was done unto by the rest, although she expected they had gone beyond those days.

On the discussion of the vote required to adopt a budget, by consensus the Board agreed that two thirds of the membership, or four votes, would be appropriate, and amended the Agreement in Section 5, TRANSPAC Organization, (d) Vote, as follows:

(ii) TRANSPAC Business. Four votes of the voting members present shall be required to take action with respect to the budget. A majority vote of the voting members present will be required to take action on all other matters.


In response to Keith Haydon, Director Pierce explained that there was no current JPA agreement; there was a voluntary cooperative agreement with no legal standing and the JPA would change that and TRANSPAC would become a legal entity.

With respect to the budget and cost, Director Pierce explained that the cost to each jurisdiction was based 50 percent on population and 50 percent on the proportional share of return to source funds.

Director Durant noted that the JPA would allow TRANSPAC to draft rules and procedures and he suggested the adoption of the rules that had been used under the cooperative agreement. He added that the TRANSPAC Manager would draft a budget and the Board would vote on it and then proceed.

Ms. Neustadter concurred that the budget would be 50 percent divided by six, and 50 percent the return to source as a percentage of the budget which took into account the varying sizes of the jurisdictions involved.

Bob Pickett asked if there had been a determination of incremental additional cost of creating another entity and asked if it would cost more if there was no JPA, to which Director Durant stated the expectation was that there would be no additional cost.

In further response to Mr. Pickett, Director Pierce explained that there would be no additional meetings or a change to the name ‘TRANSPAC’ under the JPA.

Diana Vavrek referred to Section 9 of the agreement related to withdrawal from the JPA and asked if that was enforceable, to which Director Pierce advised that it was enforceable because it had been written into the statute of Measure J, and had been tested in East County when the City of Pittsburg had withdrawn from TRANSPLAN. After some time, that issue had now been resolved and the City of Pittsburg had now received its return to source monies in arrears.

Director Durant stated that TRANSPAC would be asked to agree that it was interested in pursuing the agreement and each member would have to take the agreement to the respective body to get approval. Once each jurisdiction had signed on, the new cooperative venture in compliance with Measure J would have been formed. He noted that any jurisdiction that did not participate in TRANSPAC would not participate in the cooperative and would therefore not be eligible for return to source funds.

Director Pierce referred to Item 1, Definitions, bullet (f) related to Measure J, and requested the following addition given that it was unknown whether there would be a replacement tax, an augmentation, or an extension beyond Measure J:

(f) “Measure J” shall refer to the extended half-cent local transportation sales tax first established by Measure C or replacement and augmentation thereof.

Director Mitchoff moved to establish the agreement and send it out for everyone to sign and to return as soon as possible.


Ms. Neustadter reported that Mala Subramanian would be provided the notes from the meeting, make the requested changes, and send the agreement to the elected officials and seek approval from the applicable jurisdictions. She expected that Ms. Subramanian would then identify the next steps.

On motion by Director Mitchoff, seconded by Director Durant to approve the establishment of a TRANSPAC Joint Powers Agreement, with the amendments to Section 1 (f) and 5 (d) (ii), as shown, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Durant, Haydon, Leone, Mitchoff, Pickett, Pierce, Ross, Vavrek Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Haskew, Mercurio, Stewart 5. Draft Report on Contra Costa Safes Routes to School Assessment Presented by Brad Beck,

Senior Transportation Planner CCTA. Comments on this report are requested to be sent to Mr. Beck by April 15, 2014.

Brad Beck introduced Julie Morgan from Fehr & Peers to discuss the Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Needs Assessment to assess the cost of maintaining and expanding SR2S programs in Contra Costa County, and a SR2S network at schools in Contra Costa County. Julie Morgan, Fehr & Peers, reported that they had been working over a year with a group of SR2S program providers and interested stakeholders that had formed an oversight committee under the CCTA to define the countywide need for SR2S programs and capital projects. She identified good efforts in a number of different parts of the County with specific projects at different schools with providers that were doing support programs in the County although there was a desire to see a comprehensive view of that effort countywide. Ms. Morgan stated that the purpose was to understand what was going on currently to be able to reach out and engage stakeholders and to come up with an estimate of the funding that might be needed, with the intent to roll it into the measure reauthorization. The basic approach had been to work from what had already been occurring and there was a desire to take advantage of that knowledge and understand what was going on in terms of capital, educational, and encouragement programs. To that end, they had worked with the oversight committee to extrapolate those costs countywide. Ms. Morgan noted the caveats and limitations involved and stated that Fehr & Peers had focused exclusively on 217 public schools in Contra Costa County that enrolled 160,000 students, with the understanding that there were private schools around the County that had a different set of needs than public schools. The study had been based on existing information which meant there was a fairly limited sample size used to extrapolate outward, which was a limitation, and required quite a few assumptions to do something on a countywide scale with the limited funding and resources available. Fehr & Peers had broken it down into capital projects, the physical improvements needed around school sites, and education and encouragement programs.


On the capital project side, Fehr & Peers had assembled a list of SR2S projects that had been completed in the County over the last ten years, gathered information from the local jurisdictions about the definition and costs of those projects, categorized them to define project types, and identified costs extrapolated throughout the County to get an idea of a County cost. Unusual projects had also been identified and recognized in that there were some locations that needed significant high cost type improvements with some examples of those schools that needed a new pedestrian bridge across a canal or a freeway to improve access to that school or schools, such as Walnut Creek Intermediate which needed sidewalks that would require major drainage improvements. An average cost for those unusual projects had been estimated and it had been determined that about 10 percent of those projects would be required. Added up and taking account of prior expenditures and already completed projects, close to $250 million of need for future capital improvements around schools had been identified such as sidewalks, traffic signals, and various access projects. Ms. Morgan stated with respect to programs that there were a number of program providers: Contra Costa Health Services, Street Smarts, 511 Contra Costa, San Ramon Valley Street Smarts programs, and others which provided good information at what was being provided, extrapolated out countywide. Additional programs had also been evaluated in that program providers could provide additional programs with more funding and there was an interest in additional types of programs. She referred to the cost estimate on an annual basis and noted that Fehr & Peers had first looked at providing the existing programs to all school districts annually countywide which had been estimated at $4 million. Adding new educational and safety programs and a comprehensive crossing guard program had resulted in an estimate of $3.8 million for crossing guards alone, and there was also interest in seeing the cost of more focused transportation type programs such as subsidized transit passes and the yellow school bus program. The costs associated with those two types of programs had been extrapolated outward to $48.5 million, primarily driven by the school bus program. In the current programs, a parent contribution of 25 percent of the total cost of providing yellow school bus service was required; if extended countywide the parent contribution was expected to be less. That would be close to $58 million as an annual cost for those programs, all of which had been summarized in the needs assessment report. Ms. Morgan stated that they were reaching out to all Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs), had met with the TRANSPAC TAC to solicit comments, and with a consolidated set of comments would revise the report and finalize the financially constrained project list. Mr. Beck stated that they would meet with SWAT and TRANSPLAN to get their responses and that Ms. Morgan had met earlier with WCCTAC to gather comments. She would then refine the assessment, and identify other needs to be incorporated into the countywide plan. He stated that the deadline for comments had been extended to May 8 or May 9, 2014. Jeremy Lochirco noted that he had inquired at the TAC meeting about incorporating more school specific access planning documents and he did not see that discussed at this time. He asked if it had been considered as a potential need given the high level document and foresaw local schools needing a site specific assessment to improve access and safety.


Ms. Morgan affirmed that was one of the comments from the TRANSPAC TAC, to add a line item for site specific planning studies given that SR2S needs tended to be site specific and there should be a line item for the cost of doing site specific safety audits for improvements to each school. Director Leone commented that the capital projects were fine but the commitment to the long term, specifically the buses in the transportation plan, was a concern to him given that related to ongoing funds over a long period of time. He asked if long-term assessments had been considered to determine how much it would cost over the long term given that costs escalated and once included on an annual basis the budget commitment might be greater than anticipated. Ms. Morgan stated that the numbers for the school bus program, in particular, had been based on the program in the San Ramon Valley, which had been ongoing for the last ten years. On the discussion of that program and the source of funding for that program, it was noted that the parent contribution had been determined based on what was and was not available. Ms. Neustadter commented that ordinarily the bus fleet would be costly but that would not necessarily address staffing and there was both an operational cost and an administrative cost, which was usually a contribution from city staff. Director Mitchoff emphasized that the costs would fluctuate in that parents in more affluent areas had an ability to subsidize more than parents from less affluent areas. Chair Ross referred to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and a potential direct connection to safe access to schools. The TRANSPAC Board thanked Brad Beck and Julie Morgan for the presentation. 6. Review of the TRANSPAC Action Plan and Circulation of the Draft for a 30-day Agency, RTPC,

and Local Jurisdiction Review and Submission of Comments. Comments to be transmitted to the TRANSPAC Manager by April 18, 2014. TRANSPAC approval/adoption of the Action Plan is scheduled for May 8, 2014.

Ms. Neustadter advised of the need to complete the review of the Action Plan. She reported that comments on what the Action Plan was all about had been sent out and only one laudatory comment had been received up until a couple of days ago. Since then, the City of Lafayette had submitted a comment letter. Among other things, the City of Lafayette had expressed concern with the fact that Central County sent its traffic down Pleasant Hill Road. Since the letter had just been received, the letter would be addressed by the TAC and return to the TRANSPAC Board at its next meeting with recommendations as to how to address the City of Lafayette. She added that the City of Lafayette had suggested specifically that since it had designated BART as a Route of Regional Significance, TRANSPAC should consider the same designation. She explained that the TAC on its last Action Plan had declined to designate BART as a RORS, and suggested that would be the same response from the TAC in that it was not necessary. From her perspective, such a designation would not do anything to increase the efficiency of the Action Plan or moving people from one location to another.


In response to Director Durant as to whether the City of Lafayette had explained its choice of designating BART as a RORS, Ms. Neustadter suggested that the same could be done with trails, sidewalk paths, and the like and the question was whether it did anything to communicate to the public what it was trying to achieve; so far the answer was no. Ray Kuzbari commented that the control was in the actions not in the process. In response to Director Mitchoff, Ms. Neustadter explained that TRANSPAC did not have to respond to the letter and there was no requirement that the recommendations be accepted. She clarified that the letter was from the City of Lafayette, not from an RTPC (SWAT). The TRANSPAC Board supported the staff recommendation to complete the Action Plan process at the next TRANSPAC meeting on May 8, 2014, when TRANSPAC would be asked to approve the Action Plan. 7. Update on the Appointment of Loella Haskew, City of Walnut Creek, as the Second CCTA

Alternate in Addition to First Alternate Ron Leone Ms. Neustadter reported that a process had been started of identifying and appointing a third alternate to the CCTA given that Director Leone had been the lone alternate and on occasion both representatives could not attend a CCTA meeting and another alternate was needed. Loella Haskew had been asked to take on the roll of a second CCTA alternate, she had agreed, and the City of Walnut Creek had been required to file the appropriate paperwork. On motion by Director Mitchoff, seconded by Director Pierce, to approve the appointment of Loella Haskew, City of Walnut Creek, as the second CCTA alternate in addition to first alternate Ron Leone, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Durant, Haydon, Leone, Mitchoff, Pickett, Pierce, Ross, Vavrek Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Haskew, Mercurio, Stewart 8. 511 Contra Costa Staff and TRANSPAC Reports. Electric Vehicle Charging Program, Lynn

Overcashier, 511 Contra Costa, Status Update and Summary of Activities Report In Lynn Overcashier’s absence, Corinne Dutra-Roberts, 511 Contra Costa, reported that the Electric Vehicle Charging Program had funded 28 electric vehicle charging stations throughout Central and East Contra Costa County with funding provided by the BAAQMD Transportation Fund for Clean Air, Measure J and Measure C, at a cost of $165,043. As an owner of an electric vehicle, she was personally pleased with the program. Chair Ross reported that the City of Martinez had taken the step of charging per hour for its electric vehicle charging stations to avoid space hogging and noted that at some point the question of paying for fuel of private vehicles could be considered a gift of public funds.


Chair Ross commented that there were few stations, cars were multiplying, and the need was growing faster than charging stations were being produced. Martinez’ charges were $1.00/hour for charging stations which matched the parking rate, but raised the question of sustainability. He suggested consideration of that fee unless there was a backlash and suggested that charging stations no longer needed to be free to attract users. Ms. Dutra-Roberts explained that hosts had been warned about granting use of charging stations with attention to time allowed, how long they may be plugged in, whether paying or not, and noted the fine line that would be borne given that most people used electric vehicles long distances. In her case, she charged at home three times a week at a cost of $12/month and was not paying to park in Martinez since she did not drive far. She explained that the Park and Ride lot would generally cost $12 because most electric vehicles would need a bigger charge to get to and from its destination. She added that the process was evolving. Chair Ross noted the need to keep people moving and not just camping out, which was a problem with general parking spaces and specifically with specialized parking spaces. Director Pierce stated there was the same issue with the parking garage for the CCTA, and when charged the electric vehicle would have to be moved and reserved spots would have to be found outside of the vehicle charging station. She acknowledged the issues would expand. Chair Ross added that the question of gift of public funds of electricity was an issue. He noted that the Pacheco Park and Ride Lot was being advertised for the casual carpoolers with a charging station. 9. TRANSPAC CCTA Representative Reports: Reports on the most recent CCTA Administration

and Projects Committee (Member Pierce), Planning Committee (Member Durant), and the CCTA Board meeting (Members Pierce and Durant).

Director Pierce reported that the Administration and Projects Committee had met, and among other things had discussed legislation. One issue that had been raised was HR 29 which the League of California Cities had raised as a concern in that it would take away the ability to contract out. In her city, it contracted out for city attorney, city engineer, and planning services and it was a distressing law since the CCTA also contracted out for an attorney and for construction projects, among other things, which could be a serious problem. She asked that issue be followed. HR 29 was a measure that asked Legislators to commit to voting against any ability to contract out in future bills, although it did not specifically deny it in itself but made a commitment against contracting out in the future, which she suggested was a horrible precedent to set. Director Leone commented that he had been in Sacramento yesterday and had talked to several Legislators when the topic of HR 29 had arisen with several of them, and he and others had been assured that HR 29 would probably not pass and if it did it would be limited to a specific jurisdiction because it was targeted legislation. He had been told that people were making a bigger deal out of the legislation than was necessary in that it would be targeted to a specific jurisdiction.


Director Mitchoff advised that she had been given the same explanation which meant that as bills moved forward HR 29 was to be kept in mind. Director Pierce stated that the big discussion item for the Administration and Projects Committee was the CCTA’s salary range and benefit discussion. A salary study had been completed and the recommendation was to increase the salary ranges by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as opposed to an automatic pay increase. Given that there was insufficient information at the time of the discussion related to all the other benefits, the CCTA Board had agreed to appoint a subcommittee to comprehensively evaluate that situation as soon as this year’s budget with a discussion to be included in next year’s budget whether to have employees contribute to PERS and to medical coverage in the realization that raising incomes to offset contributions increased the overall PERS benefits, which had to be considered. Director Durant reported that the Planning Committee had approved the PDA Investment and Growth Strategy and the draft outline and revised strategies for the 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP). In other matters, he suggested it would be useful for the TRANSPAC website to include a link to the new CCTA website with links to the agendas for the CCTA Board, the Planning Committee, and the Administrations and Projects Committee given that there was a lot of detail in the agendas themselves. He also recommended that the TRANSPAC website allow access to the agenda through an ‘agenda’ title as opposed to the current ‘minutes’ title. Chair Ross commented that the most prominent items on an agenda had to be meeting dates and times. Ms. Neustadter did not believe the CCTA understood the extent to which RTPC managers, city, and county staff looked to its website for information, which had been very frustrating. 10. CCTA Executive Director’s Report from Randell H. Iwasaki regarding Authority

Actions/Discussion Items The Executive Director’s Report from the March 19, 2014 CCTA meeting had been included in the TRANSPAC packet.

11. Items Approved by the Authority on March 19, 2014 for Circulation to the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs) and Related Items of Interest

The Letter to RTPCs from Randell H. Iwasaki dated March 26, 2014 regarding items approved by the Authority on March 19, 2014 included attachments of the Contra Costa County Voter Research 2014 Survey 2, and a letter to the Governor’s Office of Planning & Research regarding the implementation of SB 743.

Ms. Neustadter referred to the Voter Research 2014 Survey and explained that the sole purpose of its inclusion in the packet was to give members time before a conversation was initiated for going back to the voters.


12. Oral Reports by Jurisdiction: Reports from Concord, Clayton, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, and Contra Costa County, if available.

Deidre Heitman referred to brochures from BART related to the new BART train car model that she had made available to those assembled, and stated that a number of people had walked through the new BART car and there had been a lot of interest and enthusiasm. For those interested, she reported that the new car would be displayed at the Concord BART station on May 9, 2014, from 2:00 to 7:00 P.M.

Ms. Dutra-Roberts added with respect to the 511 Contra Costa Report, that Bike to Work Day would be on May 8, 2014, and that Senator Yee’s SB 39 had been formally instituted and so far the 511 Contra Costa Office had supported 50 employers with questions. In addition, on April 3, 2014, Kerri Huesler of 511 Contra Costa had coordinated the Street Smarts Diablo Smart Program, the Teen Driving Program where the CHP showed graphic pictures of distracted driving, at Liberty Union High School in Brentwood when Legislators had spoken and when over 100 families had attended. She reported that Assemblymember Frazier had asked that the program be brought to every high school in Contra Costa County. Along with that, bicycle blenders had been taken to the high schools to promote the event because if completing the program through the CHP the teens would be eligible for discounts through some insurance carriers.

Director Pierce requested that the Teen Driving Program be coordinated with the Every 15 Minute Program, which Ms. Dutra-Roberts affirmed had been done.

13. Agency and Committee Reports There was no Agency or Committee Report. 14. For the Good of the Order Ms. Neustadter took this opportunity to commend the efforts of Pleasant Hill employee Connie Oaks who had, with good humor and a professional manner, worked to arrange the meeting place for this special meeting. 15. Adjourn/Next Meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 A.M. The next meeting is scheduled for May 8, 2014 at 9:00 A.M. in the Community Room at Pleasant Hill City Hall unless otherwise determined.

Report on Opinion ResearchCCTA Countywide Transportation Plan

Prepared for Transportation Partnership and Cooperation (TRANSPAC)

May 8, 2014

CCTA Opinion Research 2014 - TRANSPAC | 2

Region Subgroups

21%

23%32%

16%

8%


CTP development: Awareness, project priorities, messaging, CCTA connection Sales tax renewal

1. Focus Groups: September/October 2013

8 groups (2 per region, Lamorinda/South combined)

2. Quantitative Survey #1: February 2014

Countywide: 814 interviews, margin of error + 3.4

Central County: 224 interviews, , margin of error + 6.5

3. Quantitative Survey #2: March 2014

Countywide: 606 interviews, margin of error + 4.0

Central County: 174 interviews, , margin of error + 7.4

The Research

Research Purpose: Explore public perceptions of the county’s transportationnetwork, opinion on what should be included in the Countywide TransportationPlan update and other transportation planning documents and communications,reaction to various project and program descriptions, and awareness of currentfunding mechanisms.

Focus Groups


Summary of Focus Group Findings

• The importance of traffic and transportation as high-profile problems is returning with the resurgence of the economy

• While the road/highway network is catching up with population growth in the area, BART and public transit remain inadequate

– They can see the promise of public transit through their experiences with BART and MUNI

• The CCTA doesn’t exist, the transportation sales tax doesn’t exist, and county-level transportation planning is underappreciated

• They think current highway improvement projects are the result of state and federal funding and Caltrans management

– They like what’s been done, but they don’t know what role Contra Costa residents have played in it


Summary of Focus Group Findings (continued)

• The public wants the CCTA to be more aspirational

• Their world doesn’t end at the county line; the plan needs to look farther

• Many improvements are unpopular before they are built, but they prove their worth once they have been experienced

• Many of the planned improvements will be popular once people understand what they are

• Use plain language

CCTA Opinion Research 2014 – TRANSPAC | 7

Focus Group Findings: Central County

• This area still feels the squeeze of past and current growth, but does not see the economic improvements.

– Growth and overpopulation is mentioned as a major problem here.

– They believe they are crossroads of the county, as well as being impacted by people driving through from Solano, but feel ignored by transportation planners.

• The project map looked very light in their area to them.

• This group was more concerned with road maintenance, traffic congestion, and parking than public transportation.

– They wanted parking improvements, onramp metering, timed lights, and freeway traffic management.

– More electronic information signs.

– Public transit improvements were seen as a waste here, they would rather the money go to roads.

• Ygnacio Valley Road is a particular problem.

Telephone Survey


Bay Area: Right Direction/Wrong TrackAbout half of Contra Costa voters think things in the Bay area are heading in the right direction.

Central county is very similar to the county overall.

49%

48%

47%

61%

60%

41%

20%

19%

28%

10%

15%

21%

31%

33%

26%

29%

24%

38%

+ 19%

+ 16%

+ 21%

+ 32%

+ 36%

+ 3%

Overall

West

Central

San Ramon Valley

Lamorinda

East

Right Direction Don't know Wrong Track Net R/D

2/14 Q4. Do you think things in the Bay Area are generally going in the right direction, or do you feel that things are pretty seriously off on the wrong track?


Contra Costa: Right Direction/Wrong TrackA majority of voters believe things are going in the right direction for Contra Costa, in particular.

Voters in Contra Costa’s East region are split.

54%

51%

57%

64%

60%

45%

19%

17%

18%

13%

16%

16%

27%

32%

25%

23%

23%

39%

+ 26%

+ 19%

+ 32%

+ 42%

+ 37%

+ 6%

Overall

West

Central

San Ramon Valley

Lamorinda

East

Right Direction Don't know Wrong Track Net R/D

2/14 Q5. Do you think things in Contra Costa County are generally going in the right direction, or do you feel that things are pretty seriously off on the wrong track?


Contra Costa: Right Direction/Wrong Track - Countywide

57%

45% 47%

36%

54%

20%

12% 15%21%

16%

23%43%

38%

43%

29%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Right Direction Don't know Wrong Track

Since dropping in 2010, voters’ right direction sentiment has rebounded to near-2001 levels.

2/14 Q5. Do you think things in Contra Costa County are generally going in the right direction, or do you feel that things are pretty seriously off on the wrong track?


Most Important Problem by Region

2/14 Q6. What is the most important problem facing Contra Costa County today?

Transportation is among the most important problems in the County.

Overall West Central

San Ramon Valley Lamorinda East

Unemployment/jobs/Economy 17% 22% 19% 14% 10% 14%

Traffic/transportation/roads/highways/ infrastructure

15% 8% 15% 17% 21% 18%

Schools/education/teacher layoffs/school budget

11% 18% 9% 12% 11% 5%

Violence/crime/drugs 11% 12% 6% 4% 6% 21%

Water/water supply/shortage/drought 9% 5% 14% 8% 8% 5%

Housing/cost of housing/lack of affordable housing

4% 3% 4% 5% 5% 4%

Budget/financial issues/too much spending 4% 4% 5% 5% 1% 3%

Police/Fire fighter layoffs/public safety budget 3% 3% 2% 2% 0% 7%

Homeless/Poverty 2% 0% 4% 2% 2% 2%

Taxes 2% 1% 2% 7% 2% 0%

None/Nothing/Don't Know 14% 14% 14% 14% 21% 11%


Breakout of “Transportation” Response by Region

Overall West Central

San Ramon Valley Lamorinda East

Traffic/transportation/roads/highways/ infrastructure

15% 8% 15% 17% 21% 18%

Traffic/Parking 8% 4% 8% 11% 11% 9%

Transportation system 3% 1% 4% 3% 4% 5%

Roads/Highways/Bridges 3% 2% 1% 3% 6% 4%

Infrastructure 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%

Traffic is the top transportation-related response.

2/14 Q6. What is the most important problem facing Contra Costa County today?

Local Funding


Need for Transportation Funding

2/14 Q16. Would you say that there is a great need for additional funding, some need, a little need, or no real need for additional funding for Contra Costa County’s transportation network?

A supermajority of voters believe there is at least some need for additional transportation funding in Contra Costa. Just under a third consider it a ‘great’ need.

30%

40%

37%

24%

20%

20%

42%

37%

38%

45%

47%

46%

72%

77%

75%

70%

67%

66%

Overall

East

West

Central

San Ramon Valley

Lamorinda

Great need Some need


Sales Tax Measure Support – CountywideJust over two-thirds of voters support a sales tax increase to fund transportation improvements

within Contra Costa.

2/14 & 3/14 Sales Tax Vote

The following measure may be on a future ballot in Contra Costa County:

Shall voters authorize implementing the Contra Costa County twenty-five year Transportation Expenditure Plan to:

• Expand BART in Contra Costa County;• Improve transit connections to jobs and schools;• Fix roads, improve highways and increase bicycle and

pedestrian safety;• Reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality;• Enhance transit services for seniors and people with

disabilities?

Approval increases by half a cent and extends the existing County sales tax, with independent oversight and audits. All money spent will benefit Contra Costa County residents.

If this measure were on the ballot today, are you likely to vote yes to approve it, or no to reject it?

68% 68%

3% 6%

29% 26%

February '14 March '14

Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject


Sales Tax Measure – by RegionSupport for an increase and extension is highest in Central and Lamorinda.

3/14 Q8 Sales Tax Vote

68%

72%

71%

68%

66%

60%

6%

3%

8%

8%

1%

10%

26%

25%

21%

24%

33%

30%

+ 41%

+ 47%

+ 50%

+ 44%

+ 33%

+ 30%

0% 33% 67% 100%

Overall

Lamorinda

Central

West

East

San Ramon Valley

Yes, Approve Undecided No, Reject Net

Attitudes


Attitudes About Transportation – TopMany believe more local jobs can shorten commutes

2/14 Q21-33. I’d like to read to you a few statements. For each of the statements, please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the statement.

93%

88%

87%

85%

83%

83%

93%

88%

86%

89%

81%

83%

Q33. We need to attract more good jobs to Contra CostaCounty so people don't have to commute as far

Q26. CC needs to actively manage impacts of growth tosustain our economy & preserve our environment

Q28. We must have long term planning in our area thataccommodates drivers

Q31. There should be a plan that addresses transp. needsall across the entire Bay Area, not county by county

Q25. We need to enhance transit services for seniors andpersons with disabilities

Q24. It is important to improve BART and other publictransportation to prepare for an aging population

Agree - Countywide Agree - Central County


Attitudes About Transportation – BottomCentral county residents hold similar attitudes as residents countywide.

2/14 Q21-33. I’d like to read to you a few statements. For each of the statements, please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the statement.

71%

70%

67%

66%

62%

59%

47%

70%

70%

66%

66%

59%

56%

48%

Q21. Taking public transportation is not a practical optionfor me most of the time

Q23. Contra Costa's transportation network needs to bemore resilient

Q22. Technology can reduce traffic congestion in my area

Q32. It is crucial to have high quality roads and publictransit, even if it means raising taxes

Q29. Fixing potholes and maintaining roads should beour highest transp. priority

Q27. We need to drastically reduce our reliance on carsin our area, even if doing so is difficult for us today

Q30. I trust our local elected officials to properly manageour tax dollars

Agree - Countywide Agree - Central County

Priorities


Q35-42: Priority Ratings on a 7-point scale(1 - Very low priority; 7 - Very high priority)

34%

37%

37%

31%

28%

30%

26%

24%

23%

21%

18%

19%

20%

18%

16%

13%

22%

19%

22%

22%

23%

22%

21%

24%

78%

77%

77%

72%

70%

70%

63%

61%

Q38. Smoothing traffic flow on major roadsby synchronizing lights & adding turn lanes

Q35. BART extensions and new passengerrail services

Q41. Repairing potholes and road surfaceson local streets & roads

Q36. A more reliable, comfortable, andconvenient bus network

Q37. Completing our highway system andnetwork of carpool lanes

Q42. Better use of technology to reducecongestion and give people real-time info

Q39. Creation of a safe and accessiblenetwork of bike lanes and paths

Q40. Improvements to sidewalks,crosswalks, and paths

7 - Very high priority 6 5 Total 5-7

Concept Category Ratings (Independent) - Countywide

2/14 Q35-42. I am going to read you a brief description of several different types of projects and programs being considered to include inthe Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan. For each one, please tell me how high a priority you think that should be for transportation planners as they consider how to spend our limited resources.


Modified Pairwise Comparison Testing

Each respondent was read a series of lists of four

transportation items of the eight at right. For each list, the

respondent was asked to pick their one highest priority

from the list. Combining the answers to this series of

questions, results in a robust understanding of how survey

respondents rank the importance of the entire set of items.

This technique enables a full comparison of all eight items

while significantly reducing respondent burden.

Question Text: Now I am going to read you some lists of items that transportation planners could spend more money on in Contra Costa County. For EACH SET of four items I read you, please tell me which ONE ITEM would be YOUR highest priority to increase funding for in Contra Costa County. You may hear some items repeated as we progress through this section and you are free to choose those items each time, but for EACH particular SET of four items I read you, you may only choose one.

Each question: One, <<insert item>>, two, <<insert item>>, three, <<insert item>>, or four, <<insert item>>.

(As needed: Of the four things I just read you, which one would be your highest priority to increase funding for in Contra Costa County?)

Priority Items

1. BART

2. Buses

3. Highways

4. Traffic smoothing on major roads

5. Bike lanes and paths

6. Sidewalks and crosswalks

7. Pothole repair

8. Technology


Modified Pairwise Comparison Methodology

Every respondent was read the same fourteen lists of four items. For each list of four services, the respondents were asked to choose the one most important item from that list.

– 14 questions total

– Each item appeared 7 times

– Both question order, and the order of items within each question were randomized

This enabled a comparison of all eight items, while significantly reducing respondent burden by not asking 36 separate questions comparing only two items at a time.

Question number

(RANDOMIZE Q43-

Q56) Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4

43 1 2 3 5

44 2 3 4 8

45 2 4 5 6

46 1 3 7 8

47 1 3 4 6

48 4 6 7 8

49 1 2 4 7

50 3 5 6 8

51 1 4 5 8

52 2 3 6 7

53 1 5 6 7

54 2 5 7 8

55 3 4 5 7

56 1 2 6 8


Modified Pairwise Comparison Results - Countywide

Question

number

(RANDOMIZED) Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4

43 BART (37%) Buses (15%) Highways (34%) Bike lanes and paths (14%)

44 Buses (20%) Highways (27%)Traffic smoothing on major

roads (36%)Technology (18%)

45 Buses (23%)Traffic smoothing on major roads

(47%)Bike lanes and paths (13%)

Sidewalks and crosswalks (17%)

46 BART (34%) Highways (23%) Pothole repair (30%) Technology (14%)

47 BART (33%) Highways (22%)Traffic smoothing on major

roads (31%)Sidewalks and crosswalks

(14%)

48Traffic smoothing on major

roads (39%)Sidewalks and crosswalks (12%) Pothole repair (33%) Technology (16%)

49 BART (27%) Buses (15%)Traffic smoothing on major

roads (30%)Pothole repair (28%)

50 Highways (45%) Bike lanes and paths (16%)Sidewalks and crosswalks

(15%)Technology (24%)

51 BART (33%)Traffic smoothing on major roads

(40%)Bike lanes and paths (13%) Technology (14%)

52 Buses (18%) Highways (36%)Sidewalks and crosswalks

(12%)Pothole repair (34%)

53 BART (39%) Bike lanes and paths (9%)Sidewalks and crosswalks

(12%)Pothole repair (40%)

54 Buses (21%) Bike lanes and paths (12%) Pothole repair (45%) Technology (21%)

55 Highways (27%)Traffic smoothing on major roads

(29%)Bike lanes and paths (11%) Pothole repair (33%)

56 BART (40%) Buses (18%)Sidewalks and crosswalks

(19%)Technology (23%)

2/14 Q43-46. Of the four things I just read you, which one would be your highest priority to increase funding for in Contra Costa County?


Priority Scores(The scores are calculated using the percentage of times each item was chosen.

They range from 0 to 100 where 0 means nobody chose that item and 100 means everyone chose that item in every instance)

36

35

35

27

19

19

14

11

Traffic smoothing on major roads

Pothole repair

BART

Highways

Technology

Buses

Sidewalks and crosswalks

Bike lanes and paths

Priority Ranking Scores - Countywide



Priority Ranking Scores – by Region

Voters prioritize traffic smoothing, BART and pothole repair in all regions.In San Ramon traffic smoothing tops the list, while BART is a higher priority in Lamorinda.


Overall West CentralSan Ramon

ValleyLamorinda East


36 30 39 41 29 36

Pothole repair 35 38 33 34 33 35

BART 35 34 33 36 44 33

Highways 27 23 24 33 24 33

Buses 19 24 20 14 18 15

Technology 19 19 17 21 23 17

Bike lanes and paths 11 10 12 9 12 11

Sidewalks and crosswalks 14 17 17 7 13 14


Q43-56: Total number of times each item was chosen(7 is the maximum number of times each item could be chosen)

10

15

14

5

5

4

21

16

16

14

8

7

6

4

30

25

26

33

18

22

19

14

20

16

14

21

19

19

18

17

4.97

4.38

4.10

4.40

3.63

3.53

3.11

2.78


Pothole repair

BART

Highways

Buses

Technology



6 to 7 4 to 5 2 to 3 1 Mean

Priority Ranking Frequency - Countywide



Q43-56: Percentage not choosing each item(6 is the maximum number of times each item could be chosen)

64%

55%

49%

48%

30%

28%

27%

19%



Buses

Technology

BART

Pothole repair

Highways


% Never choose item

Priority Ranking Frequency - Countywide



57%

57%

49%

49%

48%

38%

48%

45%

37%

35%

32%

30%

37%

34%

34%

42%

30%

31%

40%

41%

88%

87%

86%

83%

83%

80%

79%

77%

77%

77%

Q85-89. Synchronize traffic lights along major roads (region-specific)

Q67. Improve safety in BART stations and parking lots

Q83. Use technology to improve traffic flow on major roadswhen there is an accident on the freeway

Q73. Better coordinate BART and bus schedules to makeconnections easier with less waiting

Q61. Increase parking at all BART stations in Contra CostaCounty

Q90. Extend freeway on-ramp lanes to the next off-ramp toreduce accidents & make traffic flow more freely

Q58. Extend BART to Brentwood in East Contra Costa County

Q77. Improve the intersection of Highways 4 & 680

Q68. Replace BART's forty year old rail cars

Q70. Use smaller buses on routes with fewer riders

Very Important Somewhat Important Total

Projects/Programs for CTP – Top 10 CountywideImprovements to traffic flow and BART are top priorities for voters

2/14 Q57-93. Now I’d like to read you some of the specific projects and programs being considered for inclusion in the Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan. For each one, please tell me how important you think it is to include in the plan…


88%

87%

86%

83%

83%

80%

79%

77%

90%

83%

85%

81%

80%

80%

79%

81%

76%

Q85-89. Synchronize traffic lights along major roads (region-specific)

Q67. Improve safety in BART stations and parking lots

Q83. Use technology to improve traffic flow on major roadswhen there is an accident on the freeway

Q73. Better coordinate BART and bus schedules to makeconnections easier with less waiting

Q61. Increase parking at all BART stations in Contra CostaCounty

Q63. Increase parking at the Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill,Concord and North Concord BART stations

Q90. Extend freeway on-ramp lanes to the next off-ramp toreduce accidents & make traffic flow more freely

Q58. Extend BART to Brentwood in East Contra Costa County

Q70. Use smaller buses on routes with fewer riders

Very + somewhat important - Countywide Very + somewhat important - Central County

Projects/Programs for CTPCentral County voters place traffic light synchronization on major roads as the highest priority



77%

77%

76%

76%

73%

72%

71%

71%

78%

80%

71%

69%

78%

67%

75%

66%

Q68. Replace BART's forty year old rail cars

Q77. Improve the intersection of Highways 4 & 680

Q71. Mobile apps that make riding the bus easier and moreconvenient, like real-time bus arrival times and stop…

Q91. Make it easier for people to access real-time traffic infoon their mobile devices

Q59. Create a new BART line that connects Dublin to WalnutCreek with stops in Danville and at Bishop Ranch in San Ramon

Q81. Use metering lights on freeway on-ramps to reduceaccidents and make traffic flow more freely

Q80. Lighting and safety improvements in the three olderbores of the Caldecott Tunnel

Q60. More frequent BART trains at stations in Contra CostaCounty


Projects/Programs for CTPA BART line between Dublin and Walnut Creek is appealing to Central County voters



67%

66%

64%

62%

62%

62%

69%

67%

56%

62%

61%

64%

Q74. Widen and improve Highway 4 in East Contra CostaCounty

Q57. Extend BART up the I-80 Corridor between Richmondand Hercules.

Q66. Mobile apps and electronic signs to help me quickly findparking at BART

Q93. Expanded ferry service to San Francisco

Q76. Widen and improve Vasco Rd. between Brentwood andLivermore

Q92. Improve major biking & walking routes


Projects/Programs for CTPHighway 4 improvements in East County are important to Central County voters



60%

60%

58%

53%

53%

51%

56%

57%

55%

52%

49%

52%

Q79. Improve the intersection of Highway 80 & San PabloDam Rd.

Q82. Create ramps that go directly from carpool lanes on thefreeways to major job centers

Q84. Turn carpool lanes into Express Lanes that solo driverscan pay to use while remaining free for carpools

Q72. Create dedicated bus-only lanes along major commutecorridors, like I-80 and I-680

Q78. Improvements along the Richmond Parkway

Q75. Create a new highway that connects Brentwood andTracy


Projects/Programs for CTPCentral County voters are very similar to voters countywide, even on specific projects not in their area



47%

49%

48%

49%

47%

45%

47%

52%

51%

58%

36%

32%

32%

31%

36%

31%

34%

17%

36%

28%

82%

81%

80%

80%

83%

76%

81%

69%

87%

86%

WEST

Q61. [West] Increase parking at all BART stations in CCC

Q65. …at Richmond, Del Norte & El Cerrito Plaza BART

CENTRAL

Q61. [Central] Increase parking at all BART stations in CCC

Q63. …at WC, PH, Concord & N Concord BART

SAN RAMON

Q61. [San Ramon] Increase parking at all BART stations in CCC

Q62. …at Orinda, Lafayette & WC BART

LAMORINDA

Q61. [Lamorinda] Increase parking at all BART stations in CCC

Q62. …at Orinda, Lafayette & WC BART

EAST

Q61. [East] Increase parking at all BART stations in CCC

Q64. …at Pittsburg/Bay Point, N Concord & Concord BART


BART Parking – Local vs. Countywide



2/14 Q57. How important it is to include in the plan: Extend BART up the I-80 Corridor between Richmond and Hercules.

30%

52%

30%

22%

24%

18%

35%

33%

37%

41%

32%

27%

66%

85%

67%

64%

56%

45%

Overall

West

Central

East

Lamorinda

San Ramon Valley


BART Extension: I-80 Corridor


2/14 Q58. How important it is to include in the plan: Extend BART to Brentwood in East Contra Costa County.

48%

71%

48%

39%

39%

32%

30%

18%

33%

35%

34%

36%

79%

89%

81%

74%

73%

68%

Overall

East

Central

Lamorinda

West

San Ramon Valley


BART Extension: To Brentwood


2/14 Q59. How important it is to include in the plan: Create a new BART line that connects Dublin to Walnut Creek with stops in Danville and at Bishop Ranch in San Ramon

40%

50%

37%

28%

36%

43%

33%

28%

40%

47%

34%

19%

73%

78%

77%

75%

70%

63%

Overall

Central

Lamorinda

West

East

San Ramon Valley


BART Extension: Dublin-Walnut Creek


2/14 Q72. How important it is to include in the plan: Create dedicated bus-only lanes along major commute corridors, like I-80 and I-680.

21%

29%

30%

19%

13%

8%

32%

39%

29%

34%

29%

25%

53%

68%

59%

52%

42%

33%

Overall

East

West

Central

Lamorinda

San Ramon Valley


Bus-Only Lanes


2/14 Q77. How important it is to include in the plan: Improve the intersection of Highways 4 and 680.

45%

70%

46%

40%

26%

22%

31%

21%

35%

33%

36%

34%

77%

92%

80%

73%

62%

56%

Overall

East

Central

West

San Ramon Valley

Lamorinda


Highway 4 & 680 Intersection


2/14 Q74. How important it is to include in the plan: Widen and improve Highway 4 in East Contra Costa County from Discovery Bay to Highway 5 near Stockton.

34%

55%

30%

34%

18%

18%

33%

28%

38%

29%

38%

30%

67%

83%

69%

63%

57%

48%

Overall

East

Central

West

Lamorinda

San Ramon Valley


Widen & Improve Highway 4


2/14 Q76. How important it is to include in the plan: Widen and improve Vasco Rd. between Brentwood and Livermore.

33%

55%

28%

31%

27%

19%

29%

29%

33%

28%

21%

28%

62%

84%

61%

59%

48%

47%

Overall

East

Central

San Ramon Valley

Lamorinda

West


Vasco Road Improvements


2/14 Q79. How important it is to include in the plan: Improve the intersection of Highway 80 and San Pablo Dam Rd.

26%

50%

23%

28%

18%

13%

34%

29%

38%

31%

38%

32%

60%

79%

61%

59%

56%

44%

Overall

West

East

Lamorinda

Central

San Ramon Valley


I-80 & San Pablo Dam Rd. Intersection


2/14 Q75. How important it is to include in the plan: Create a new highway that connects Brentwood and Tracy.

20%

39%

17%

17%

10%

9%

31%

32%

36%

27%

25%

25%

51%

71%

52%

45%

35%

34%

Overall

East

Central

West

San Ramon Valley

Lamorinda


New Highway: Brentwood-Tracy


2/14 Q78. How important it is to include in the plan: Improvements along the Richmond Parkway, including a new overpass at San Pablo Ave. and new on and off ramps at Highway 580.

18%

26%

24%

8%

16%

8%

35%

44%

34%

42%

33%

28%

53%

70%

58%

50%

49%

36%

Overall

West

East

Lamorinda

Central

San Ramon Valley


Richmond Parkway Improvements


2/14 Q82. How important it is to include in the plan: Create ramps that go directly from carpool lanes on the freeways to major job centers, like Bishop Ranch.

21%

26%

23%

20%

11%

16%

39%

44%

42%

37%

44%

30%

60%

70%

65%

57%

55%

47%

Overall

East

West

Central

Lamorinda

San Ramon Valley


Carpool Lane Ramps


2/14 Q80. How important it is to include in the plan: Lighting and safety improvements in the three older bores of the Caldecott Tunnel.

33%

47%

34%

31%

18%

27%

38%

32%

41%

39%

43%

33%

71%

79%

75%

69%

61%

60%

Overall

East

Central

West

San Ramon Valley

Lamorinda


Caldecott Tunnel Improvements

CCTA Opinion Research 2014 - TRANSPAC | 482/14 Q93. How important it is to include in the plan: Expanded ferry service to San Francisco.

28%

31%

42%

25%

21%

17%

34%

40%

27%

37%

28%

31%

62%

71%

69%

62%

49%

48%

Overall

East

West

Central

Lamorinda

San Ramon Valley


Ferry Service to San Francisco


Contacts

Alex [email protected]

510.550.8920

Sara [email protected]

510.550.8924

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Background • • •

Kirker Pass Road is an

interregional route between

Central and East Contra

Costa County. The roadway

is used by commuters and

approximately 1,200 trucks

each day. The mountainous

terrain features a number of

sustained grades greater

than 8%. With a high

volume of passenger cars,

the truck traffic along the

roadway contributes to

significant congestion during

peak hours. The addition of

truck lanes along the

roadway would reduce

congestion and improve

safety along the roadway.

Project Description

The project will improve safety and reduce congestion along

Kirker Pass Road by constructing a truck climbing lane in the

northbound direction. The project is approximately 1 mile in

length, beginning at the Concord Pavilion and ending at the

northern Hess Road intersection. Pavement widening is

proposed on the east side of the roadway to provide a 12-

foot truck lane and 8-foot paved shoulder. Widening will

require significant retaining walls due to the existing slopes

and drainage adjacent to the roadway.

Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes Contra Costa County

County Project No. 0662-6R4052

Measure J Project #24004

Funding Plan

($ in millions)

Measure J $ 6.15

State Transportation Improvement

Program – Regional (STIP-RIP) $ 2.65

Unfunded $ 4.3

Total $ 13.0

Project

Location

Pittsburg

Concord

Project Features • • •

• Pavement Widening • Earthwork • Retaining Walls

• Storm Drainage • Stormwater Treatment • Signing and Striping • Utility Relocation

Project Website • • •

http://www.cccounty.us/

KirkerPassRoad

Project Schedule

Environmental Clearance Summer 2015

Design Spring 2016

Right of Way Fall 2016

Construction Summer 2017

Project Contact

Chris Lau, Senior Civil Engineer

Transportation Engineering Division

(925) 313-2293

[email protected]

"Accredited by the American Public Works Association"

255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4825

TEL: (925) 313-2000 • FAX: (925) 313-2333

www.cccpublicworks.org

Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Lanes Contra Costa County

County Project No. 0662-6R4052

Measure J Project #24004

TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership and Cooperation Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek and Contra Costa County

2300 Contra Costa Boulevard, Suite 110 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523

(925) 969-0841 April 29, 2014 Randell H. Iwasaki, Executive Director Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2999 Oak Road, Suite 100 Walnut Creek, CA 94597

Re: Status Letter for Special TRANSPAC Meeting – April 24, 2014 Dear Mr. Iwasaki: At its special meeting on April 24, 2014, TRANSPAC took the following actions that may be of interest to the Transportation Authority:

1. Approved by a unanimous vote of members present the establishment of a

TRANSPAC Joint Powers Agreement, with amendments.

2. Received Draft Report on Contra Costa Safe Routes to School Assessment presented by Brad Beck, Senior Transportation Planner, Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), and Julie Morgan of Fehr & Peers.

3. Reviewed the TRANSPAC Action Plan and submission of comments from the 30-day Agency, RTPC, and local jurisdiction review; reviewed comment letter from the City of Lafayette dated April 15, 2014; and supported the staff recommendation to complete the Action Plan process and approve the Action Plan at the next TRANSPAC meeting scheduled for May 8, 2014.

4. Reapproved the appointment of Loella Haskew, City of Walnut Creek, as the second CCTA alternate in addition to first alternate Ron Leone.

5. Received update from Corinne Dutra-Roberts, 511 Contra Costa, on the Electric Vehicle Charging Program.

TRANSPAC hopes that this information is useful to you. Sincerely,

Mr. Randall H. Iwasaki April 29, 2014 Page 2

Barbara Neustadter TRANSPAC Manager cc: TRANSPAC Representatives; TRANSPAC TAC and staff Candace Andersen, Chair – SWAT Sal Evola, Chair – TRANSPLAN Martin Engelmann, Hisham Noeimi, Brad Beck (CCTA) John Nemeth – WCCTAC Janet Abelson – WCCTAC Jamar I. Stamps – TRANSPLAN Andy Dillard – SWAT Danice Rosenbohm, CCTA June Catalano, Diana Vavrek, Diane Bentley – City of Pleasant Hill

Documents

Transportation Partnership and Cooperation Meeting Notice ......May 08, 2014 · 8. Authorization to Allocate Line 20a Monies for Fiscal Year 2014/15At its April 24. , 2014 meetingTAC