Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee September 14, 2015 Page 2 of 5 No. Action Item Response Opened Due Status 4 Develop 3-4 alternative scenarios for

Transcription

1 Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee Meeting Date: September 14, 2015 Subject Action Item Log OPEN ACTION ITEMS No. Action Item Response Opened Due Status 16 CCTA staff to provide a summary of information from analysis of the CTP Transportation Investment Options that will be available for each EPAC meeting Initial model analysis will be available at the 9/28 EPAC meeting. Information will include whether the alternative increases or decreases a metric in relation to the baseline (either No Project or 2013 RTP alternative). Neither numerical outputs nor the percentage changes will be available until January The metrics that will be available include: o Total Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and VMT per capita, o Total Vehicle Hours Travelled (VHT) and VHT per capita, o Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD): AM peak period, PM peak period, and daily VHD, o Average AM peak period and PM peak period speeds on freeways and on expressways/major arterials o Daily mode share (drive alone, shared ride 2, shared ride 3+, transit, walk, and bike) o Total daily transit trips 8/10/15 9/28/15 Open D.3-1

2 Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee September 14, 2015 Page 2 of 5 No. Action Item Response Opened Due Status 4 Develop 3-4 alternative scenarios for September discussion Drafts to be developed based on input from EPAC discussion on 9/14 7/1/15 9/28/15 Open CLOSED ACTION ITEMS No. Action Item Response Opened Due Status 15 CCTA staff and consultant team to prepare preliminary scenarios for EPAC consideration as a starting point for Preliminary TEP discussions at the September 14 meeting 14 CCTA staff to provide a summary of the ongoing MTC effort to determine if a Regional Advance Mitigation Program (RAMP) or RAMP pilot should be included in the next RTP Discussion item scheduled for 9/14/15 meeting See Attachment A: Bay Area RAMP Summary 8/10/15 9/14/15 To Be Closed Pending 9/14/15 EPAC Meeting 8/10/15 9/14/15 To Be Closed Pending 9/14/15 EPAC Meeting D.3-2

3 Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee September 14, 2015 Page 3 of 5 No. Action Item Response Opened Due Status 13 CCTA staff to present information on growth management policies, including the past performance of Contra Costa policies, at the September 14 EPAC meeting 12 CCTA staff to update the EPAC on the State extraordinary legislative session on options for funding repairs to roads, bridges and highways 11 BART to provide a breakdown of the $825 million request, presented as a prioritized list of funding items with associated costs 10 Bus operators to provide an estimate for cost of optimal bus service Presentation scheduled for 9/14/15 meeting See Attachment B: Legislative Report, as of September 2, 2015, CCTA staff will provide an updated Legislative Report or oral report of Legislative action since September 2, See Attachment C: BART Priorities See Attachment D: Response to EPAC from Bus Operators 8/10/15 9/14/15 To Be Closed Pending 9/14/15 EPAC Meeting 8/10/15 9/14/15 To Be Closed Pending 9/14/15 EPAC Meeting 8/10/15 9/14/15 To Be Closed Pending 9/14/15 EPAC Meeting 8/10/15 9/14/15 To Be Closed Pending 9/14/15 EPAC Meeting D.3-3

4 Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee September 14, 2015 Page 4 of 5 No. Action Item Response Opened Due Status 9 CCTA staff to revise minutes to correct name misspelling 8 CCTA staff to develop draft TEP vision and goals for discussion based on EPAC input 7 CCTA staff to invite EPAC members to provide input for a preliminary TEP Vision and Goals document to serve as a starting point for EPAC discussion of a shared vision at the September 14 meeting 6 Provide GIS data regarding housing densities and housing production 5 Provide available project fact sheets regarding projects that are being considered for the TEP Revised and posted 8/28/15 See Agenda Item 1.0: Discussion of EPAC Vision, Goals, and Objectives invitation sent to EPAC Maps were posted at the August 10 meeting Available on request from CCTA and at: Provided at August 10 EPAC Meeting Fact sheets at: 8/10/15 9/14/15 Closed 8/10/15 9/14/15 To Be Closed Pending 9/14/15 EPAC Meeting 8/10/15 9/14/15 Closed 7/1/15 8/10/15 Closed 7/1/15 8/10/15 Closed D.3-4

5 Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee September 14, 2015 Page 5 of 5 3 Provide RTPC proposals to EPAC members Hisham Noeimi of CCTA presented this information to EPAC on August 10 Presentation at: 7/1/15 8/10/15 Closed No. Action Item Response Opened Due Status 2 Set up presentations regarding Caltrans CTP, CCTA Communications Plan, and history of ballot measures 1 Identify new EPAC member to represent health issues Presenters confirmed 7/1/15 8/10/15 Closed Presenters confirmed 7/1/15 8/10/15 Closed D.3-5

6 Regional Advance Mitigation Planning (RAMP) in the San Francisco Bay Area Effort to implement RAMP in the Bay Area for Environmental and Infrastructure Benefits Transportation agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area plan to implement over 680 transportation projects over the next 20 years roads, bridges, transit, and rail lines to serve the growing population and thriving economy. As a global biodiversity hot spot, the Bay Area hosts an extraordinarily rich array of valuable natural communities and ecosystems that provide habitat for rare plants and wildlife, and support residents health and quality of life by providing clean drinking water, clean air, opportunities for outdoor recreation, protection from disasters like flooding, landslides, and adaptation to climate change. As the Bay Area grows, it is important that it happens in a manner that protects and enhances the state s natural resources. Transportation and natural resource agencies are working together to develop an innovative way to advance needed infrastructure projects more efficiently and provide more effective conservation of our natural resources through Regional Advance Mitigation Planning (RAMP). Plan Bay Area articulates this vision, with its balanced approach toward regional growth patterns and conservation of the region s parks, open spaces, farms, and ranches. RAMP is consistent with Plan Bay Area as it incorporates a regional and coordinated approach to infrastructure development and natural resources and working lands conservation, delivering benefits to both sectors. An assessment conducted by researchers from U.C. Davis and The Nature Conservancy of the potential impact of the transportation projects in the approved Plan Bay Area identified 188 projects that may directly impact between 8,400 11,000 acres of the Bay Area s important species, habitat, farmlands and rangelands, rivers and streams. Many of those projects will have impacts that may result in increased fragmentation and degradation of existing habitats and species. Most transportation projects require environmental mitigation (avoidance, minimization, offset) as prescribed in each project s environmental document to reduce the potential impact as well as compensate for any impacts that do occur. These mitigation measures may include purchasing land or retaining land rights for certain affected species or activities. In the Bay Area, mitigation activities often occur on a per-project basis, with each project individually satisfying its own mitigation purchase requirements. This approach is often expensive, not integrated with a regional conservation vision, and done late in the project delivery cycle, thereby losing valuable conservation opportunities to conversion to other land uses. RAMP aims to integrate conservation into infrastructure agencies plans and project development well in advance and on a regional scale to reduce potential impacts of D.3-6

7 transportation projects, as well as to drive mitigation dollars to protect regional conservation priorities and protect important ecological functions that are at threat of loss. There are significant benefits to transportation agencies they can plan comprehensively for project delivery and reduce costs attributed to mitigation, achieve significant conservation benefits, and accelerate project delivery. Not only can RAMP reduce infrastructure project costs, expedite project delivery, and improve relationships among agencies, it also ensures mitigation funds are being put to their utmost and highest use by protecting land with high habitat and connectivity value to create larger scale, more functional ecosystems linked to the conservation priorities of the region. In this same way RAMP can also help reduce GHG emissions through land use changes and carbon sequestration and provide communities with watershed protection, cleaner air, and open space for recreation. RAMP itself is not a regulatory process and does not change CEQA in any way. However by planning strategically on a larger scale and implementing mitigation in advance of project impacts or project delivery, RAMP allows both resource agencies and CMAs to work together to implement mitigation and conservation to be more cost effective, efficient, and successful. Other regions, such as Orange County and San Diego County, have programs for advance mitigation and are seeing the cost, project delivery, and environmental conservation benefits. Opportunity The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is sponsoring an effort to scope and implement RAMP in the Bay Area with the target of including RAMP in MTC s update of Plan Bay Area The MTC, Congestion Management Agencies, regulatory agencies, and the Coastal Conservancy are working together to develop the tools and mechanisms, as well as the science-based conservation and mitigation framework to enable RAMP in the Bay Area. There are many issues to address, such as structure, funding, regulatory support, management, and coordination and support of existing conservation plans like Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) and Natural Communities Conservation Plans (NCCPs) in the Bay Area. This is an opportunity to align conservation and infrastructure planning in the Bay Area to meet both conservation and economic development goals and provide a model for other regions in California and beyond. D.3-7

8 Regional Advance Mitigation Planning in the Bay Area D.3-8

9 Alignment with Plan Bay Area Included as an option in Plan Bay Area EIR Copyright 2013 California Department of Transportation A sound strategy for a sustainable region with a focus on regional planning Implementation tool: Regional Advance Mitigation Planning D.3-9

10 Why RAMP? Why not Status Quo? Environment: Isolated islands of habitat ineffective and at risk of failure Lost opportunities due to conversion Inefficient process D.3-10 Infrastructure: Inefficient project-by-project approach Delayed project delivery Costly mitigation

11 Trend: Landscape-scale mitigation Infrastructure Capacity: Cheaper: analysis, acquisition and management costs Faster: project delivery More certainty: reduced risk of delay and lawsuits Improved relationship with regulatory agencies Environmental Stewardship: D.3-11 More effective conservation Contributes to climate goals Promotes avoidance and minimization

12 Central Sacramento River Pilot RAMP Methodology D.3-12

13 NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Agency Support U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE D.3-13

14 RAMP in the Bay Area Goal: Expedite project delivery and achieve meaningful conservation outcomes Timeline: decision for inclusion in Plan Bay Area 2040 Process: D.3-14 Estimate the mitigation needs for several planned infrastructure projects Drive mitigation funds to most productive ecological lands Mitigate in advance

15 BAY AREA TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROJECT D.3-15 Number of Projects Listed in MTC Report Number of Projects Included in Analysis Projected Total Costs for Selected Projects (in millions) Region or Type of Project Bay Area Region/Multi- County ,882 Alameda County ,752 Contra Costa County ,158 Marin County 29 * Napa County San Francisco County 54 * San Mateo County Santa Clara County ,989 Solano County Sonoma County Total ,623

16 Bay Area Conservation Lands Network = Baseline for RAMP Greenprint D.3-16

17 Benefits Efficient and cost-effective mitigation Advance regional conservation priorities Consistency with Plan Bay Area Productive engagements Leadership and innovation D.3-17

18 Challenges Funding strategies Policy issues Scope and scale Agency capacity and structure D.3-18

19 Winter 2016 Summer 2017 PBA 2040 Adoption Timeline: A Snapshot July 2015 Summer 2015 Fall 2015 Winter 2015 Spring 2016 Summer 2016 Fall 2016 Outreach and engagement Mitigation conservation assessment Assessment review Research and analysis, problem solving Pilot project D.3-19 Mitigation framework and program development

20 Timeline Agencies engagement; TAC established; Research on models; Conservation Assessment refined; Impacts Assessment refined; Pilot selected Financial model developed; Pilot launched; Mitigation Framework developed; Program guidelines developed Pilot continues; Review and revise practices; Advisory group established; MTC adopts program with parameters and best practices determined; Included in PBA 2040 D.3-20

21 D.3-21 Questions?

22 Smith, Watts & Company, LLC. Consulting and Governmental Relations September 2, 2015 MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Linsey Willis Mark Watts Legislative Report Special Session On Transportation and Infrastructure Following the Legislature return from its Summer Recess on August 17th, the focus in the transportation community has been on transportation funding (Special Session #1). The Senate has conducted two policy hearings in the Special Session to address key bills while the Assembly focused on conducting a series of three Roundtable Workshops around the state to enlighten their membership and targeted communities on transportation funding issues. In addition, over the Summer Legislative Recess, a broad-based coalition of transportation stakeholders was formed to push for a resolution to the transportation funding issue at the heart of the Special Session. Fix Our Roads Coalition Funded by CSAC, the League of Cities and the Alliance for Jobs, this group was founded around seven key principles: Make a significant investment in transportation infrastructure. Focus on maintaining and rehabilitating the current system. Invest a portion of diesel tax and/or cap & trade revenue to high-priority goods movement projects. Raise revenues across a broad range of options. Equal split between state and local projects. Strong accountability requirements to protect the taxpayers investment. Provide Consistent Annual Funding Levels. After delivering the coalition principles in letter form to the Governor and legislators, a press briefing was conducted in August to provide a deeper background understanding of the transportation funding situation and the coalition s suggested approach to the media. Additional activities executed by the Coalition include: 925 L Street, Suite 220 Sacramento, CA Telephone: (916) Fax: (916) D.3-22

23 In district meetings. Over the recess, in district meetings with key legislators have been conducted with local government, business and labor and asking that the coalition principles guide legislative negotiations. Online & Digital Advertising. Also to correspond with the principles launch, they initiated a website and posted banner advertising on the most frequented political web sites. Op-eds. Beginning in August, the coalition targeted placement of localized op-eds highlighting specific regional needs. Local government/third party support. The League and CSAC worked with their members to pass resolutions in support of coalition principles. They also reached out to local organizations, such as local chambers, to join the Fix Our Roads coalition. In addition, Fix Our Roads was deeply involved in assisting the Speaker s Office in implementing the 3 Roundtable Workshops. The first was conducted at CCTA Offices on August 19 and featured a local government panel that included CCTA Commissioner, Pierce, Supervisor Anderson among others. Two other successful Roundtable workshops were conducted in Los Angeles and in Fresno. Legislative Activity Special Session Senate August 19 hearing: The Senate Special Session Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure conducted its first policy bill hearing on August 19 on Special Session bills, starting with the Chair Beall s centerpiece measure, SBX1 1, which is largely based on his regular session bill, SB 16. The revised version of SBX1 1 bill increases the amount of funding raised to the $4 billion level and not only proposes new higher gas and diesel taxes, but frames a new charge on vehicles to be collected in the manner of the Registration Fee. Additionally, the bill provides a new process to replace the annual Board of Equalization Tax Swap adjustment; in its place, the bill resets the Tax Swap increment, currently at 12 cents per gallon (CPG) since July 1 st, to 17 CPG, and adds a triennial CPI adjustment. The bill passed. The remainder of the bills heard on August 19 th comprises key elements of Senate Republican Caucus reform measures: SB X1 3 (Vidak) HSR Bonds. Amends HSR bond funding initiative (and requires a general vote) to redirect HSR Bond funds to repair or construct highways and local streets and roads. FAILED PASSAGE. SB X1 9 (Moorlach) Department of Transportation. Prohibits Caltrans from using temporary funding (e.g., bonds) to support permanent positions; mandates increased contracting for engineering services. FAILED PASSAGE. SB X1 12 (Runner) Transportation Commission. Makes the CTC independent and authorizes CTC to approve the Department s individual repair and maintenance projects. PASSED. SB X1 13 (Vidak) Inspector General. Creates an Inspector to assure that Caltrans and HSRA operate efficiently, effectively, and in compliance with federal and state laws. PASSED. 2 D.3-23

24 SCA X1 1 (Huff). Guarantees that transportation taxes are used for transportation purposes. TESTIMONY ONLY; VOTE AT LATER HEARING. September 1 Hearing: Additionally, on September 1 st, the committee conducted a second hearing on Republican reform proposals and two bills seeking to supplement current levels of transit funding. Bills heard are as follows: SBX1 2 (Huff) Cap and trade funds, reallocated. Appropriates Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) monies generated from transportation fuels to transportation infrastructure, excluding highspeed rail. FAILED PASSAGE. SCAX1 1 (Huff) Protects motor vehicle fees and taxes. This SCA seeks voter approval to protect transportation taxes by requiring that they be used only for transportation purposes. VOTE DEFERRED. SBX1 6 (Runner) Cap and trade. Prohibits expenditure of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) monies on the high-speed rail project and appropriates the majority of GGRF monies to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for allocation to high-priority transportation projects. FAILED PASSAGE SBX1 7 (Allen) Diesel Sales Taxes. Increases the sales and use tax on diesel fuel and dedicates the increase to transit. PASSED. SBX1 8 (Hill) Transit funding, Cap and Trade. Increases the continuous appropriations of GGRF monies from 10% to 20% for the TIRCP and from 5% to 10% for the LCTOP. PASSED. Assembly It is anticipated that the Assembly will follow suit and develop their hearing schedule for their Special Session Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure in the coming week. Additionally, both houses are taking steps to possibly convene a conference committee as a means to foster a negotiating environment on transportation funding. Legislative Activity Regular Session AB 194 (Frazier): This bill would provide the statewide authority for Caltrans and Regional agencies to use tolling, HOT Lanes and managed lanes. The Self-help counties negotiated with the Administration on amendments during the Summer Recess. These were inserted into the bill while it was in the Senate Appropriations committee. In the meantime, it appears the Administration has concern over elements of the bill with the Department of Finance authorized to take an Oppose position. 3 D.3-24

25 In the immediate past week, the Administration further signaled interest in tying the department more closely to development of corridor expenditure plans, which has been resisted by Self-Help Counties and the author. ABX1 10 (Levine): Assemblymember Levine introduced this bill to require Caltrans, by September 30, 2015, to temporarily restore the third eastbound lane on State Highway Route 580 from the beginning of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge in the County of Marin to Marine Street in the County of Contra Costa to automobile traffic and temporarily converts the existing one-way bicycle lane into a bidirectional bicycle and pedestrian lane. 4 D.3-25

26 Bart Priorities At the August 10, 2015 Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC) meeting, BART General Manager Grace Crunican presented a preliminary request for $825 million to fund potential BART priorities. Based on feedback from EPAC members, BART refined its request and identified top priorities totaling $732.5 million. These priorities are itemized in the table below. New cars are BART s first priority for transportation expenditures. New BART cars will allow the system to increase service to meet current and projected need. However, rolling stock cannot be funded by the proposed bond measure. BART does not distinguish the other two categories in priority. These figures, for BART stations and ebart, cover the proposals by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs) and TRANSPLAN, respectively. Cost New BART cars to increase service (rolling stock cannot be funded by bond measure) BART stations, parking and access (from the RTPC proposal summary) East County BART transit improvements (ebart Phase 2) Total Priority $529 million $123.5 million $80 million $732.5 million D.3-26

27 Bus Operations Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) The four bus agencies submitted plans to each of the four RTPCs as summarized below to define optimal service. The RPTCs included a portion of this request in their submittals to CCTA. In very short order, this shows what it would take to have 15 minute frequency service in all of the primary corridors within the county as identified by the individual operators. Agency Estimated Capital Cost Estimated Annual Operating Cost County Connection $16,200,000 $12,000,000 Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority $17,000,000 $12,800,000 Western Contra Costa Transit Authority $41,500,000 $4,500,000 Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District $0 $8,800,000* Total Estimated County-Wide Costs $74,700,000 $38,100,000** Very rough estimate. ** Based in part on a very rough AC Transit estimate. County-wide, the investments made through these proposals are projected to facilitate an increase in ridership by approximately 8.4 million annual trips at minimum. If all of the projected social, economic, and demographic trends come forth, it is projected that the additional ridership could over 12 million trips annually. To achieve this, below is a summary of each agency s submittals to their respective RTCPs. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority County Connection, Concord, CA County Connection has developed plans to expand its service by increasing routes to local BART stations in 15 minute frequencies. In addition, County Connection has also included plans to increase bus service on the weekends for routes most demanded by passengers. To achieve service expansion, County Connection has proposed an additional 27 buses at an approximate cost of $600,000. The breakdown is as follows: Total Capital Costs: $16,200,000 Annual Operating Costs: $12,000,000 D.3-27

28 Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority Tri-Delta Transit, Antioch, CA Tri-Delta Transit plans to utilize local funds through the TEP to increase its fixed route service in 15 minute frequencies serving BART and ebart stations. This is expected to be achieved by funding 20 additional coaches at approximately $530,000 each with an additional $12.6 million of ongoing operating costs. In addition to service expansion on its fixed-route side, Tri-Delta has also proposed expansion of its paratransit services which would require an additional $200,000 per year in operating costs. Lastly, the Authority seeks to complete some of its major construction of park and ride facilities which would service surrounding east bay neighborhoods. Federal and state funds have allowed for the acquisition of parcels for the start of this project and additional capital funding of $6.4 million through the TEP is proposed to complete the construction phase. The breakdown is as follows: Total Capital Costs: $17,000,000 Annual Operating Costs: $12,800,000 Western Contra Costa Transit Authority WestCAT, Pinole, CA WestCAT has proposed to increase its volume of express service between Hercules and San Francisco and increase its frequency to 10 minutes. This is to be achieved through increasing its current Transbay fleet by 10 vehicles at an approximate cost of $1 million per vehicle (such vehicles are 80-passenger, double decker buses with 40% additional seating capacity) and $1 million in ongoing operating costs. WCCTA plans to increase its connectivity and frequencies between residential and commercial developments to major rail systems, particularly with its expressed routes. This will require capital funding of $7.5 million with annual operating costs of $1.5 million. In addition, the Authority seeks to increase connectivity along the I-80 corridor, specifically to areas which are not in close proximity to BART. This service will require capital funding of $6 million and $1.5 million in ongoing operating costs. To better assist seniors and individuals with disabilities, WCCTA has proposed to increase its curb-tocurb services which will require an additional operating cost of $500,000. Lastly, to support the increase to services and fleet size, WestCAT plans to expand its existing facility, which includes upgrades and development of a satellite facility. This is approximated at a capital cost of $18 million. The breakdown is as follows: Total Capital Costs: $41,500,000 Annual Operating Costs: $4,500,000 D.3-28

29 Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District AC Transit, Oakland, CA AC Transit has proposed a range of plans, including more frequent service and longer hours throughout the day. Routes that currently run every minutes would be reduced to 15 minute frequencies and busier/successful routes would be reduced to 10 minute frequencies. By adding more frequent service and reducing wait time, AC Transit plans to improve its services in connection with BART and/or any other transfers made. The District also plans to attract more passengers to transit, including those of the surrounding lower income communities. D.3-29