WCCTAC

West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee

MINUTES

September 29, 2006

The regular meeting of the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee was called to order at 7:39 A.M. on Friday, September 29, 2006 by Chair Sharon Brown in the City Council Chambers of the City of San Pablo, One Alvarado Square, San Pablo, California

CALL TO ORDER/SELF INTRODUCTION

PRESENT: Janet Abelson (El Cerrito), Maria Alegria (Pinole), Ed Balico (Hercules), Tom Butt (Richmond), Bob Franklin (BART), Maria Viramontes (Richmond), Joe Wallace (AC Transit), and Chair Sharon Brown (San Pablo)

ABSENT: Irma Anderson (Richmond), John Gioia (Contra Costa County), and Jerrold Parsons (WestCAT)

STAFF: John Rudolph, WCCTAC Management Assistant

Linda Young, WCCTAC Transportation Project Specialist

Nancy Cuneo, WCCTAC Administrative Analyst

Bryan Otake, Attorney – Meyers Nave

Hisham Noeimi, Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments from the public.

CONSENT CALENDAR

On motion by Tom Butt, seconded by Janet Abelson and carried unanimously, the WCCTAC Board adopted the Consent Calendar, as follows:

3. Approved Minutes, Sign-In Sheet and Meeting Summary from the August 25, 2006 Meeting.

4. Accepted Staff Reports from the Managing Director, Management Assistant, and Transportation Project Specialist for September.

5. Accepted Results of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Contra Costa Program Applications for Transportation for Livable Communities Program.

6. Approved Continued Internship with Brock Winsted Through December 2006.

BOARDMEMBER COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no Boardmember comments or announcements.

LEGAL COUNSEL COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Legal Counsel Bryan Otake summarized the new Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Regulation No. 18944, Gifts to Officials or Candidates Immediate Family, which became effective August 23, 2006. He clarified the rules regarding reporting requirements for immediate family members. He cautioned that the burden of proof would still be upon the official in areas where there were questions as to whether or not to report. To avoid conflicts, he recommended full disclosure.

MEASURE J AND STMP PRIORITY PROJECTS

Management Assistant John Rudolph referred to the staff report dated September 21, 2006, and described the background related to the prioritization exercise associated with funding projects under Measure J (transportation sales tax renewal), and the Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (STMP) (developer fee program). He explained that working with CCTA staff, Dowling Associates and Cambridge Systematics and project sponsors, fact sheets had been created, revenues projected, and the cost of projects matched with available revenues based on specific criteria.

As a result of that process, six projects had been recommended for funding: AC Transit Capital Improvements ($1 M), WestCAT Capital Improvements ($3.7 M), BART Capital Improvements ($8.8 M), Capital Corridor/Hercules Rail Station ($7.5 M), Central Avenue/I-80 Interchange ($14 M) and San Pablo Dam Road/I-80 Interchange ($16 M). Two contingency projects had also been identified as BART Capital Improvements ($6.7 M) and the Richmond Parkway ($16 M).

Mr. Rudolph reported that the WCCTAC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) had reviewed the projects and recommended that the WCCTAC initially fund the priority projects, support the prioritized contingency list as shown, submit a letter to the CCTA with the Measure J project priority list and the contingency list, prepare the Strategic Plans, and update the Strategic Plans at least every two years.

In response to Ed Balico as to what would occur if priority projects were not project-ready, Hisham Noeimi explained that if a project did not get constructed by 2015, the contingency list would apply. If no project on the contingency list was ready, projects in the subregions would be evaluated to identify project readiness for funding. He stated that no funding would be lost. Each project in the Expenditure Plan had a specific earmark. If a project was not ready by 2015, the money would remain with the project. The only way money could be taken from a project and dedicated to a different project would be through an amendment to the Expenditure Plan, which required a special procedure.

In terms of the Strategic Plan, Mr. Noeimi advised of the flexibility to move the money within specific years from one project to another, constrained by the earmark for each project in the Expenditure Plan.

In further response to Mr. Balico, Mr. Otake clarified that STMP fees were being collected to mitigate subregional impacts in the West County region. By law, STMP fees could not be transferred out of the region.

Mr. Noeimi also clarified that for Measure J, funding would remain with a project and a region although if the contingency list was not ready, the money could be considered within the 2010 to 2015 timeline for other regions, if necessary.

On motion by Janet Abelson, seconded by Maria Viramontes and carried unanimously, the WCCTAC Board adopted the recommendations from the WCCTAC-TAC to:

· initially fund the priority projects: AC Transit Capital Improvements ($1 M), WestCAT Capital Improvements ($3.7 M), BART Capital Improvements ($8.8 M), Capital Corridor/Hercules Rail Station ($7.5 M), Central Avenue/I-80 Interchange ($14 M) and San Pablo Dam Road/I-80 Interchange ($16 M);

· support the prioritized contingency list: BART Capital Improvements ($6.7 M) and the Richmond Parkway ($16 M);

· submit a letter to the CCTA with the Measure J project priority list and the contingency list;

· prepare the Strategic Plans, and

· update the Strategic Plans at least every two years.

STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BOND FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS - CORRIDOR MOBILITY INVESTMENT ACCOUNT, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TRADE AND MOBILITY CORRIDOR, AND OTHER FUNDING CATEGORIES

Anush Nejad, Kimley-Horn, presented the I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility (ICM) Project, where the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) was working in association with the CCTA, WCCTAC, Caltrans, MTC, local agencies and transit agencies in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties to prepare a Systems Engineering and Management Plan (SEMP)/Project Study Report (PSR) for the I-80 Corridor from the Carquinez Bridge to the Bay Bridge Toll Plaza.

Mr. Nejad identified I-80 from the Carquinez Bridge to the Bay Bridge as the number one worst congested freeway in the Bay Area for the last five years and on MTC’s list of worst congested corridors. He explained that some of the problems of I-80 related to an inconsistent traffic flow along the highly congested corridor, a lack of viable alternative routes, a high utilization of commercial vehicles, a total system imbalance, lack of travel time reliability, the vulnerability to incidents and breakdowns, a lack of proactive and responsiveness in the corridor, significant physical constraints, and an unreliable transit system.

Mr. Nejad explained that a traditional widening along I-80 was not feasible in that the corridor was bounded by the Bay on the west and fully developed urban areas on the east requiring a proactive systems management approach for traffic management. He advised that the essence of the project, an Integrated Corridor Mobility System, which included freeway, ramp system and local arterials, had been implemented elsewhere in California and in the country.

Mr. Nejad described the system goals important to the corridor as the creation of a well balanced system that would be responsive to traffic demands and incidents, equitable for all users, influence user behavior by encouraging a mode shift, maintain optimal operational viability and proactively avoid flow breakdowns. It was also important to deal with incidents and reduce problems in the corridor, improve safety and security, manage congested flow when it did occur, manage adverse social and environmental impacts and encourage information sharing between Caltrans and local agencies,

Mr. Nejad identified potential project elements, presented a diagram to show how the congestion problems could be resolved, highlighted the current level of service (LOS) and congestion on the freeway and described existing conditions where some segments were highly congested while others were not so congested. He explained that stop and go conditions caused delays. The main emphasis would be to create a more balanced system across the corridor to avoid stop and go conditions and create a more consistent flow.

Mr. Nejad identified the goal of completing an enhanced Systems Engineering and Management Plan (SEMP)/Project Study Report (PSR) to document the system and identify the concerns by January 10, 2007 so that the project could be submitted as a candidate project to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for potential I-Bond funding by January 15, 2007. To do that, future meetings with the Alameda CMA would occur. He anticipated that those meetings would occur on October 10 to finalize goals and objectives and present the concept of the operational plan; on November 14 to present a traffic analysis; functional requirement and alternative analysis; December 12 to present a Draft SEMP/PSR document and draft cooperative agreements and project charter; to culminate on January 9 when presenting the Final SEMP/PSR document and finalizing the cooperative agreements and project charter.

Tom Butt expressed concern spending West County resources to help commuters from Solano County travel by road to San Francisco, particularly when that would take riders away from the ferries, buses, BART and other public transportation modes that were more energy efficient. He preferred that available funding be utilized to improve transit systems. He verified with Mr. Nejad that the project would be funded out of the State bond on the ballot.

Mr. Nejad clarified that the role of all agencies would be to provide input into the project. He sympathized with the concerns related to traffic from Solano County and noted the intent to create an equitable system that was balanced between the freeway side, ramp side and traffic coming from the corridor, particularly the Carquinez Bridge. The intent was to create an integrated management solution that would be able to reduce the level of congestion by reducing the turbulence within the system by providing better traffic information and information management systems to better manage traffic along the corridor.

Mr. Noeimi commented that in order for the money to be available, all candidate projects must have a completed PSR by January 15, 2007. The goal at this point was to get the PSR completed so that the project could compete for State funding.

Mr. Nejad added that there were specific categories for funding in the State bond measure. One category of $4.5 billion was specifically to address corridor mobility and improving the LOS on highly congested networks. There were other categories for specific transit improvements. The project would be integrated with the transit system to offer choices to the public and work in coordination with transit to encourage transit where needed.

Janet Abelson stated that she had some specific concerns about ramp metering. In general she had used ramp metering and it seemed fine to her.

Ms. Abelson’s concerns related to specific spots along I-80 because they were already so congested that those on-ramps were not used. She did not want to fix I-80 to move the problem to city streets. Her concern was for Central Avenue, San Pablo Dam Road, and Highway 4. She had personally experienced delays in those areas waiting to get to the freeway. She suggested that the delay occurred prior to the on-ramp in those cases. She was concerned that traffic would be backed up farther in those three specific areas and that the proposal would be contrary to the effort to address those specific problems.

Mr. Nejad explained that the idea was not to improve I-80 alone. The proposal was for an Integrated Corridor Mobility System to address the project corridor along with the cross connectors. He added that the problems would be evaluated, such as at Central Avenue, to identify where the problems were within the corridor, to develop types of solutions to effectively coordinate between the freeway and the cross connectors, and to see how they coordinated traffic to the freeway to be able to improve those types of issues.

Mr. Nejad suggested looking at arterial management, signal coordination on San Pablo Avenue and on the freeway and making sure that the system was connected between the freeway ramp side and the arterial side to coordinate the entire network, including transit. He emphasized that the study had not yet been done. The objective was to look at all of those issues to create an integrated corridor strategy. When asked about funding for the project, he reiterated the goal of creating a project equitable to local agencies, Caltrans, and transit agencies in an integrated system to submit to the CTC as a candidate for the use of I-Bond funds to address the number one congested corridor in the Bay Area. He recommended looking at all components of the system collectively to create a complete solution.

Maria Alegria asked about the scope of services and whether or not that could be amended. She verified with Mr. Nejad that was possible. She expressed concern that the lead agency was Alameda County and asked whether or not the CCTA and Contra Costa County could also be lead agencies.

Mr. Noeimi clarified that Contra Costa County would probably be participating, although in terms of lead agency, a single project manager as point of contact for the study was preferred. He added that the CCTA would be active in the study.

Maria Alegria shared the concerns of integrating transit into the modeling. She used the example of the congestion that impacted Sacramento and beyond. She noted that as a result of the slide on I-80, there was gridlock on Pinole streets during the AM and PM peaks. As a result, she emphasized that the impacts to city streets also had to be included in the study.

Mr. Nejad reported that all of the local connectors between San Pablo Avenue and I-80 would be included in the scope, as well as all transit options; AC Transit, WestCAT and BART. The intent was to create an integrated solution including freeway, arterial and incident management, all to be evaluated in the project scope.

Maria Alegria noted the reference to 15 to 20 percent reduction in delay and asked where that had worked, reported by Mr. Nejad that there were systems in Southern California including Los Angeles with ICM systems. In addition, Houston had a significant ITS project, Boston had a central arterial project, Phoenix had an integrated system, and Las Vegas, and others had implemented ITS corridor management systems.

Ms. Alegria asked for a comparison of the West County situation to those other areas.

Mr. Nejad stated that the study could include examples of other systems that had similar conditions. He recognized the physical constraints on I-80 and considered a systematic approach versus physical improvements. The study would look at the overall system and would look at examples to document. He added that Solano County would be invited to participate in the study to give input. He would also make a presentation to Solano County given the need to modify the behavior of those coming from Solano County to reduce the traffic coming into the system.

Ed Balico liked the presentation and was glad that the study was being considered. He suggested that one of the concerns related to another mode of transportation, such as the use of ferry service to reduce cars on I-80. Having been present at a recent meeting of the Solano Transportation Authority, he had learned about an increase in the number of toll booths for the Benicia Bridge that could process 2,000 cars an hour. He suggested that would help alleviate some congestion and should be considered in the study, along with a greater use of Fast Track and longer queues.

Joe Wallace noted that Las Vegas was subcontracting its transit. He emphasized the importance of transit and suggested that new drivers and 9 to 5ers needed to be retrained. He urged attention to the education of drivers, particularly new drivers, to reduce some of the causes of congestion.

Maria Viramontes supported full bond funding of the proposal from San Pablo Avenue all the way to Crockett. She stated that the San Pablo Avenue corridor was the alternative to I-80, had always been part of the highway system and should be part of the study and funding.

Mr. Nejad clarified that the bond measure would not pay for operations and maintenance. Street improvements in terms of capital improvements were acceptable, but not for maintenance purposes.

Bob Franklin stated that BART had not been shown on the list of stakeholders. Mr. Nejad stated that BART would be added to the stakeholders list.

Summarizing the comments, Mr. Nejad noted the need for more emphasis on all modes of transit, BART, AC Transit and WestCAT and ways to improve transit service within the context of the ICM project, to add ferry systems and to place more emphasis on the local side and the local arterials and connectors to the freeway, specifically in the context of the project, and to also consider a high occupancy toll booth type of operation at I-80.

Janet Abelson suggested that there should be another category for incentives, to encourage people to use transit.

John Greitzer, Contra Costa County Transportation Planner, explained for the benefit of the discussion that the bond program, if adopted, would include $2 billion for road maintenance; $1 billion to counties and $ billion to cities.

In response to Jerry Bradshaw, City of El Cerrito, as to whether or not physical improvements would be considered, Mr. Nejad stated that physical improvements could be considered, although not significant physical improvements.

Mr. Bradshaw spoke to auxiliary lanes and bottlenecks at Powell in Emeryville, for instance, which would impact Contra Costa County. He did not know what the solution would be other than to limit access although he suggested that some spot physical improvements needed to be considered and studied. He referred to Central Avenue with the same concerns where access modifications could be considered to relieve on-ramp traffic. He added that freeway to freeway was a concern as well, not only Highway 4 but I-580 as well and at the Bay Bridge. He asked if there was a metering or modulating type of process. He clarified his understanding of the intent to balance out traffic.

Mr. Nejad referenced another study by the Alameda CMA to look at auxiliary lanes on I-580, ongoing parallel to the subject study. In terms of freeway metering, he suggested that was one of the types of solutions to consider through a “lane management system” to manage both the freeway side as well as the local side.

Mr. Rudolph referred to the request for funding by the Alameda Congestion Management Agency for the I-80 System Management Project PSR/Systems Engineering and Management Plan (SEMP).

Mr. Rudolph reported that Mr. Nejad would attend TAC and Board meetings to make the project the best it could be for West County. The one sixth cost of the study that had been assigned to West County would represent $97,500 derived from WCCTAC funds, Measure C funds and an advance from the I-80 Carpool Extension and Improvements category of Measure J.

Tom Butt noted his skepticism and suggested that adding another lane would only encourage traffic from elsewhere and create a growth enhancement for those living farther and farther out. He was not prepared to support any WCCTAC funds for the study.

Ed Balico suggested that Solano County should assist in the funding for the study. He was otherwise supportive of the proposal since most of the projects presented were to relieve traffic. He wanted to make sure that the necessary projects would be funded.

On motion by Joe Wallace, seconded by Ed Balico to approve the WCCTAC portion of funding in an amount of $97,500 for the Alameda Congestion Management Agency for the I-80 System Management Project PSR/Systems Engineering and Management Plan (SEMP). Tom Butt voted no.

With respect to the Northern California Trade and Mobility Corridor, an integrated trade, logistics and mobility program designed to meet current and future requirements to move people and goods throughout the state and the nation quickly, reliably, and safely, while improving environmental quality, Mr. Rudolph referred to a summary pamphlet that had been circulated out of the Alameda CMA from MIG. He noted the possible inclusion of the Port of Richmond for funding under that program, as recommended at the CCTA Administration and Projects Committee and Board meeting, which represented a separate element of the bond where approximately $3 billion would be eligible for funding.

Mr. Rudolph presented an approximate list of projects in Northern California to be eligible from bond proceeds as expanded rail infrastructure and service from the Port of Oakland to Martinez, new intermodal freight terminal at Oakland Army Base, additional tracks and clearance through Donner Pass, short haul freight service between Oakland and Central Valley, truck climbing lanes at Altamont Pass, increased capacity on I-580 in the Livermore Valley, truck bypass lanes on I-238, improvements to I-880 in Oakland and San Leandro, operational improvements on I-80 in Alameda, Contra Costa and Solano Counties and operational improvements on I-205 in San Joaquin County.

Mr. Rudolph advised that the WCCTAC would need to work with local authorities, including Richmond, to make sure that the Port of Richmond was added to the list.

Bill Lindsay, City of Richmond City Manager stated that the mobility needed to be looked at as a broad network. He supported the recommended language to be able to move forward with those improvements, including grade separations.

WCCTAC members expressed support for the inclusion of the Port of Richmond, including new rail enhancements. A letter to the CCTA was recommended to include new language to that effect.

Tom Butt stated that his perception was that rail access to the Port of Richmond was not a problem although what was a problem was that transcontinental trains going from the Midwest to the Port of Oakland passed through Marina Bay in Richmond and blocked grade crossings. As such, relief in terms of grade crossing improvements for rail transportation related to the Port of Oakland was required. He was not sure that the Port of Richmond itself needed additional rail improvements. Richmond did need grade separations at rail crossings.

Maria Viramontes suggested that the language include grade crossings and deal with truck traffic coming off I-580 in Richmond.

Mr. Rudolph advised that WCCTAC staff was looking for support from the Board to work with the Chair and Bill Lindsay to modify the language and ask that it be included.

On motion by Maria Viramontes, seconded by Joe Wallace and carried unanimously, the WCCTAC Board requested the inclusion of the following language to the Northern California Trade and Mobility Corridor:

Include the I-580 corridor in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, issues around the Richmond Parkway, and issues related to the entrance and exit to the Port of Richmond that might include rail separations, overpasses and other needed improvements.

CORRESPONDENCE/OTHER INFORMATION

Incoming:

TRANSPAC meeting summary; 08.21.06

Newspaper/Internet Articles:

(all articles from West County Times unless stated otherwise):

“Smart Growth is Not that Smart After All;” 08.18.06

“Efficient Bridge Plan;” 08.21.06

“BART Obtains Grant to Improve Security;” 08.24.06

“Altamont Commuter Express Train Adds 4^th Daily Run to Weekday Trips;” 08.26.060

“Wi-Fi Coming to AC Transit on Select Routes to Woo Riders;” 08.27.06

“Assembly Passes Hands-free Phone Bill;” 08.30.06

“It’s Time to Get Serious About Traffic Congestion;” 08.31.06

“Tweaking Travel During Bay Bridge Closure: New Ways to Travel;” 09.03.06

“Marshlands Considered for Port;” 09.03.06

“Commute Time Cut, Study Says;” 09.03.06

“State Bets Technology Will Ease Road Woes;” 09.04.06

“More Hybrids May Get Car Pool Perk;” 09.08.06

“Speed Up Road Work;” 09.08.06

“Closure of Bridge Not Cause for Chaos;” 09.09.06

“Legislature May Reconvene Over Casino Slots;” 09.10.06

“BART Makes Security its Priority;” 09.11.06

“Free Shuttle Service Eases BART Parking Shortage;” 09.13.06

“Costco, Safeway to Sell Fastrak;” 09.13.06

“House Kills Bill to Ban Off-Reservation Indian Casinos;” 09.14.06

“Sting Meant to Aid Pedestrians;” 09.16.06

“Light Rail Has Heavy Price Tag;” 09.16.06

“Support Wanes for Public Works Bond;” 09.16.06

“County Conserves with Fuel Conversion;” 09.18.06

“Chevron to Fund Alternative Fuel Research at UC Davis;” 09.18.06

“Tribe Opposes Indian Gaming Reform;” 09.20.06

Meeting Announcements:

Street WISE Workshop – Thursday, October 5^th at Noon at the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor

Conferences:

California Redevelopment Association 2007 Annual Conference; February 28 to March 2 in Long Beach, CA.

Handouts Available at the Meeting:

Letter from CCTA to TRANSPAC 09.21.06

Contra Costa Times Articles: “Lamorinda Spirit Keeps on Rolling -- But Slowly” and “Biodiesel Emerges as Fuel Alternative” Both 09.22.06, “Public-private Partnership to Fund new BART Station” 09.24.06, and “Streets Are Getting Repaved – Finally” 09.25.06.

One-page pamphlet from “Northern California Trade and Mobility Corridor” prepared by MIG for ACCMA.

Draft G5 WCCTAC Draft Strategic Expenditure Plan 2006

OTHER BUSINESS

Ed Balico referred to the extension of HOV lanes eastbound from Hercules to Carquinez and noted his understanding of a disagreement with that project. He recommended the preparation of a letter to Caltrans and the MTC to address that situation.

Hisham Noeimi explained that issue had been resolved with Caltrans although another issue had arisen. He agreed that a letter from the WCCTAC Committee would be helpful to avoid further delays with that project.

Tom Butt requested a future agenda item to address an issue in Richmond where a bike trail and the future Bay Trail crossed north to south near the Hope Plaza of I-80 and where the bike trail ran along the shoulder of I-580 at the east end of the Richmond/San Rafael Bridge. He wanted to see if the WCCTAC could help address that situation for safety reasons.

Maria Alegria asked for a status of the construction of the retaining walls along I-80 at the next meeting.

Maria Viramontes took this opportunity to clarify her understanding of the funding priorities under the WCCTAC’s Draft Strategic Expenditure Plan 2006.

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business to come before the WCCTAC, on motion by Joe Wallace, seconded by Janet Abelson to adjourn the meeting at 8:58 A.M. to the next meeting set for October 27, 2006 at 7:30 A.M. at the San Pablo City Council Chambers, One Alvarado Square, San Pablo, California.

Respectfully submitted,

Anita L. Tucci-Smith

Minutes Clerk