Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT November 18, 2015 Page 2 of 11 TEP for a November 2016 ballot measure. 2. Direct staff to defer dev

Transcription

1 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: November 18, 2015 Subject Development of a Potential Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) Update on Stakeholder Input from the Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPCs), the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC), and Public Engagement Program Summary of Issues Recommendations Authority staff and its consultant team have conducted a number of activities to develop a TEP for a possible new revenue measure to be considered for placement on the ballot in November 2016 or a later general election. The development of a TEP for a possible new measure is being conducted concurrent with the update of the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP). Authority staff has sought input on a TEP from RTPCs, EPAC, the general public, and other stakeholders. Staff is providing an update on stakeholder input received to date, and observations and considerations as the Authority continues its efforts to update the CTP and develop a possible TEP. Staff recommends the Authority consider the stakeholder input received to date and provide staff direction on future actions, if any, towards development of a TEP for a possible new revenue measure. Financial Implications Options A one-half percent transportation sales tax with a twenty-five year term, if approved by voters in November 2016, would generate an estimated 2.3 billion (current dollars) for various purposes included in a possible TEP. In addition, at its meeting in September 2015, the Authority approved Amendment No. 2 for Agreement No. 366 with Gray-Bowen-Scott Consulting Team (GBS) to expand consulting services, to coordinate the efforts to finalize a CTP document concurrently with the strategic planning and stakeholder outreach related to the TEP. Direction by the Authority to staff could increase or decrease the level of effort and associated costs of the GBS agreement. 1. Direct staff to continue to undertake activities to develop a potential 3.1-1

2 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT November 18, 2015 Page 2 of 11 TEP for a November 2016 ballot measure. 2. Direct staff to defer development of a potential TEP and undertake certain activities identified in this staff report to prepare for a future election cycle. 3. Direct staff to stop all activities related to development of a potential TEP. 4. Any other option that the Authority deems appropriate. Attachments Changes from Committee A. Table 1, Measure J Revenues and Expenditures B. Summary of Public Engagement Program, August 2015 through November 11, N/A Background Update on Existing Measure J Funding A Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) is an important planning tool, intended to inform the public of the types of transportation improvements that get funded with revenue derived from a proposed transportation sales tax. The TEP includes a commitment to taxpayers that funds will be used for specifically defined purposes, and to communicate the rules, policies and procedures that govern the use of sales tax proceeds. Contra Costa currently has a Transportation Expenditure Plan, Measure J, which was passed by voters in November Measure J authorized a one-half percent sales tax for a twenty-five year period from April 1, 2009 through March 31, Measure J has helped fund highway, bus, and BART projects in the county, and expanded bicycle and pedestrian trails. Measure J funding is used to maintain local streets and roads, improve Capitol Corridor train stations and to restart ferry service between Richmond and San Francisco. CCTA and its partners work to ensure that the promise made to voters in 2004 is kept through the delivery of transportation projects, programs and services funded by Measure J. The Measure J TEP dedicated about 42% of the overall revenues to large, long-lasting infrastructure projects like the Caldecott Fourth Bore, BART extension to Antioch, transit station improvements, major road projects, State Route 4 reconstruction and widening, and various 3.1-2

3 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT November 18, 2015 Page 3 of 11 improvements on Interstate 80 and Interstate 680. The Authority adopted a policy to bond against revenue committed to these large infrastructure projects in order to accelerate completion and to realize the benefits of these investments earlier than would occur under a pay-as-you-go approach. As a result, most of the future Measure J revenue for projects is dedicated to debt service, i.e. paying off the bonds, that accelerated completion of these projects. Conversely, Measure J dedicated approximately 58% of overall revenues for pay-asyou-go programs (maintenance and operations programs and small project programs) which each receive an annual allocation of funds based on percentages spelled out in the Measure J TEP. The funding for these programs continues to the end of Measure J in Examples of pay-as-you-go maintenance and operations programs include local streets and roads (20%), bus and express bus service (12.7%), transportation for seniors and people with disabilities (6.2%); and safe transportation for children (4.5%). Examples of pay-as-you-go programs of small projects include Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC, 5.4%), pedestrian and bicycle projects (2.3%), and projects for BART, Capitol Corridor and ferry services. Table 1 below outlines the estimated future Measure J revenues and the planned use of these revenues from Fiscal Year (current year) through the end of Measure J in In summary, the forecast revenue for Measure J from current year through the end of the TABLE 1 (Table 1 is also included as Attachment 1 to this document with larger print) Measure J Revenues and Expenditures through 2034 (Shown in thousands) Prior FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 SUM FY20-FY34 SUM FY15-FY34 Measure J - Estimated Total Revenue 359,582 79,964 86,051 89,335 92,746 96,287 1,906,703 2,351,084 Programs - Estimated Revenue (Total) 57.55% 206,909 46,012 49,515 51,405 53,367 55,405 1,097,145 1,352,849 Program Allocations Local Streets Maintenance & Improvements 18.00% 64,725 14,393 15,489 16,080 16,694 17, , ,195 Additional Streets and Roads Maintenance 2.09% 7,515 1,671 1,798 1,867 1,938 2,012 39,850 49,138 Transportation for Livable Communities 3.56% 12,788 2,846 3,062 3,179 3,300 3,426 67,852 83,666 AdditionalTransportation for Livable Communities 0.40% 1, ,627 9,404 Ped/Bike 1.50% 5,390 1,199 1,291 1,340 1,391 1,444 28,601 35,266 Additional Ped/Bike 0.04% Bus Service 5.00% 17,968 3,998 4,303 4,467 4,637 4,814 95, ,554 Additional Bus Transit Enhancements 3.36% 12,070 2,686 2,890 3,001 3,115 3,234 64,044 78,971 Express Bus 4.30% 15,452 3,438 3,700 3,841 3,988 4,140 81, ,097 Transportation for Seniors & People with Disabilities 5.00% 17,968 3,998 4,303 4,467 4,637 4,814 95, ,554 Additional Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities 1.15% 4, ,027 1,067 1,107 21,927 27,037 Safe Transportation for Children 4.55% 16,333 3,634 3,911 4,060 4,215 4,376 86, ,857 Ferry Service in West County 2.25% 8,086 1,799 1,936 2,010 2,087 2,166 42,901 52,899 Subregional Transportation Needs 1.35% 4,848 1,079 1,161 1,205 1,251 1,299 25,721 31,716 Commute Alternatives 1.00% 3, ,067 23,511 Congestion Management, Transportation Planning, Facilities 3.00% 10,780 2,399 2,582 2,680 2,782 2,889 57,201 70,533 Administration 1.00% 3, ,067 23,511 Projects - Estimated Revenue 42.45% 152,673 33,951 36,536 37,930 39,378 40, , ,235 Interest earnings (additional revenue) 3,699 1, ,167 Reserved for Debt Service/Issuance Costs 78,993 31,185 34,365 36,121 35,466 37, , ,499 Reserved for Project Management/Program Management 6,233 1,633 1,677 1,723 1,769 1,817 33,743 42,362 Available for Projects (pay as you go) 71,146 2, ,452 1, , ,

4 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT November 18, 2015 Page 4 of 11 measure is 2.35 billion in year-of-expenditure (nominal) dollars. Of this total, 998 million is available for projects, including debt service, and 1.35 billion for pay-as-you-go programs. Of the project funding, 852 million (85%) is to pay costs of debt service and for program management services, with the remaining being available for projects included in the later years of the Measure J expenditure plan. In summary, approximately 1.5 billion in Measure J funds remain available for projects and programs through 2034, excluding debt service. Authority's Consideration of a Possible Transportation Expenditure Plan As the Authority proceeded through the CTP update process, it became apparent that transportation funding remains a critical issue in Contra Costa despite the ongoing Measure J revenue stream depicted in Table 1. The need for increased funding and a mechanism to prioritize the use of existing and possible increased funding was communicated to the Authority by many stakeholders throughout the CTP process. A public opinion research poll conducted in early 2014 revealed that a significant percentage of likely voters would support increased funding for transportation purposes similar to those included in Measure J. As a result of these factors, the Authority at its meeting in March 2015 directed staff to develop a plan for development of a possible TEP to be considered for placement on the ballot in November 2016 or a later general election. Developing a TEP requires involvement of a number of key stakeholders and the public through a variety of means. The plan approved by the Authority solicits input through the following three primary methods as shown in Figure 1 and as explained below: 1) Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs). The RTPC structure was embedded in Contra Costa's original transportation sales tax measure and is an important element of ensuring involvement of all the cities, transit operators and Contra Costa County in planning and funding critical transportation projects and programs throughout Contra Costa County. Each RTPC represents a region within Contra Costa County. In June 2015, CCTA requested that each RTPC provide its recommendation for funding for the portion of future sales tax revenue that would be made available to the RTPC region. Each RTPC provided its recommendation to CCTA in August The results of the RTPC input was discussed at the Authority's September 16, 2016 meeting

5 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT November 18, 2015 Page 5 of 11 Figure 1 - TEP Stakeholder Outreach 3.1-5

6 2) Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC) Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT November 18, 2015 Page 6 of 11 At its May 2015 meeting, the Authority approved the formation of the EPAC and subsequently appointed individuals to establish membership of the EPAC. The committee membership is intended to represent a balance of stakeholders (defined by stakeholder categories) that reflect the broad range of issues and interests in Contra Costa. The EPAC has held a number of meetings since June 2015 to receive information about critical funding needs in Contra Costa and to discuss transportation-related matters such as the relationship of transportation and land use, impacts on climate as a result of transportation and greenhouse gas emissions, and other topics. The original intent was for the EPAC to provide a recommendation for a TEP to the Authority Board in November The EPAC diligently met for several meetings, but could not develop a proposed TEP within the time allotted. Staff provided an update at the Authority's October 21, 2015 meeting, discussing challenges in generating a productive discussion about a potential TEP within the EPAC. The EPAC has not met since the October 21, 2015 Authority meeting. However, valuable information on many perspectives was provided by the EPAC over the course of the past several months that should be considered by the Authority as it considers future steps towards development of a potential TEP. 3) Contra Costa Residents (Public) The Authority established a robust and award-winning public engagement program for the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) and built upon the participation developed through this process for continued public engagement on the TEP. The Authority established an internet website (KeepContraCostaMoving.net) where residents are encouraged to provide their opinions on transportation priorities. The Authority distributed paper surveys for residents without access to the internet or who prefer to use this method. The Authority also conducted a series of telephone town halls where thousands of residents listened to dialog about the TEP process and asked live questions of CCTA Board members and executive staff on many transportation issues and concerns. A summary of the public engagement program is included in Attachment B. The Authority also conducted two public opinion polls to seek the opinion of likely voters on their possible support for a new transportation sales tax and the priorities for 3.1-6

7 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT November 18, 2015 Page 7 of 11 use of potential new sales tax revenue. A summary of the first public opinion poll was discussed at the Authority's March 19, 2014 meeting. The second public opinion poll was discussed at the Authority's September 16, 2015 meeting. Conclusions and Observations from Stakeholder Outreach and Input A. Developing a TEP concurrently with completion of the update of the CTP presents significant challenges. The Authority's original plan was to complete the update of the 2014 CTP, and then to consider options to fund needs identified in the CTP including consideration of a potential new transportation sales tax. Due to significant public comment on the Draft CTP and the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) released for review in July 2014, the Authority modified its approach for the CTP. The CTP was modified to include the analysis of three financially constrained Transportation Investment Options (TIOs) specifically intended to inform the development of a final TEP. Efforts to develop a draft TEP were conducted concurrently with the analysis of the performance of three TIOs. Several members of EPAC and other stakeholders expressed concern that the draft TEP would be produced prior to release of the performance measure for the TIOs, a concern that contributed to challenges in EPAC s development of a draft TEP. Furthermore, the adopted timeline for release of the Final TEP for approval by cities and the County coincides with the Authority's schedule to approve the CTP and adopt the final Subsequent EIR in May Any potential challenge to the EIR could cause considerable concern with the TEP by cities, the County or public. The Authority may wish to revise its strategy to complete the CTP process prior to adopting a Final TEP. B. The Authority and its stakeholders have recognized that there have been many significant changes in transportation policy since Measure J was approved in Policy changes include SB 375 being enacted in law and the subsequent requirement for sustainable communities strategies to become center in any long-range plan for transportation. This has significantly expanded the diversity of stakeholders and interest groups involved in transportation planning as evidenced by the 29 person membership of the EPAC. Stakeholder perspectives have greatly expanded for such items as the relationship between transportation and land use, strategies to embed social equity in transportation investments and policies, and increased citizen oversight of government programs. There is a general consensus that we must address the issue of environmental justice while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but there is not a 3.1-7

8 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT November 18, 2015 Page 8 of 11 consensus on the best means to address this with limited funding from a possible TEP. The process to achieve consensus among such a diverse group of stakeholders may require a different approach and additional time. C. The impetuous for a new transportation revenue measure is unclear to many key stakeholders, especially considering that Measure J continues through As shown on Table 1 above and Attachment A, approximately 1.5 billion of Measure J funding remains for projects and programs through the life of Measure J. The majority of capital project funding is committed, however the majority of program-related funding remains to be appropriated. Considerations on what level of funding should be used to augment existing programs is difficult without a clear understanding of the performance measures and outcomes of current funding and with limited understanding of the ability to leverage program funding with new State and regional programs such as the One Bay Area Grants (OBAG) and State Cap and Trade. The Authority may wish to consider the following activities to better inform a discussion on the appropriate investments for program categories in a possible new TEP: Undertake a focused effort to develop performance measures for program categories and identify quantitative and qualitative outcomes for program investments. Quantify the amount of competitive or discretionary leveraged funding currently being realized from Measure J programs and assess the likelihood to sustain or increase the amount of leveraged funding considering existing and possible new programs. Evaluate possible changes in policy or program guidelines to ensure that technology and "best practices" are being employed to ensure maximum benefit and efficiency is achieved for all future funding. The results of these activities should allow the Authority and stakeholders to better understand the expected outcomes of different levels of funding for program categories in a potential new TEP. D. Studies for major commute corridors are underway, however, the results have not been published to better inform stakeholders and the public of possible solutions to chronic congestion problems. The I-680 Transit and Congestion Relief Study is nearing completion and the results will soon be ready for public review. The I-80 High Capacity 3.1-8

9 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT November 18, 2015 Page 9 of 11 Transit Study is scheduled to run through The State Route 4 Operational Improvements and Integrated Corridor Management studies are underway and should be completed in Development of a possible new TEP may be better informed with more complete results of these studies. E. One of the most significant and potentially polarizing issues discussed among EPAC members and other stakeholders is the status of the Measure J Growth Management Program (GMP) and the Principles for Establishment of the Urban Limit Line (ULL). Many stakeholders are demanding that any new TEP include revisions to the GMP and ULL, while some jurisdictions and many other stakeholders believe the current GMP and ULL meet current and future needs of Contra Costa residents. Examples of proposed changes to the GMP include changing the Authority's traffic demand modeling approach, changing the provisions in the GMP Checklist to require additional actions by jurisdictions to receive return-to-source funding, and adding mitigation requirements for open space and agricultural lands. Additional time is needed to discuss and determine if consensus can be reached on these suggestions. A potentially contentious issue among stakeholders involves proposed changes to the provision in Measure J which allows minor (less than 30 acre) adjustments to the ULL without voter approval. Concurrent with this debate on the ULL has been the discussion and commitment by the County Board of Supervisors to conduct its periodic review of the ULL. An evaluation of the need to change the GMP and ULL in a potential new TEP may be better informed by the County's review of the ULL in F. The potential new TEP became burdened with demands for large percentages of funding for single purposes that may be better addressed by State or regional initiatives. BART requested approximately one-third of the funding from a potential new TEP to augment its 10 Year Capital Improvement Program and to acquire additional BART cars. The BART Board is discussing a potential bond initiative for November 2016, however it has not yet committed to place the initiative on the 2016 ballot nor is it guaranteed that such an initiative would be approved by voters. It is also unclear how much funding for this regional solution would be made available from Alameda County, San Francisco or MTC. Cities and the County have strongly requested that 30% of a possible new measure must be dedicated to return-to-source funding for infrastructure maintenance and 3.1-9

10 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT November 18, 2015 Page 10 of 11 preservation. Existing funding for local road maintenance and preservation is inadequate, however, efforts at the State and regional levels to provide dedicated funding for this purpose are underway. Nonetheless, the 30% request for funding has been endorsed by the RTPCs, the Public Managers Association and the City- County Engineering Advisory Committee. Authority staff and consultants acknowledge that needs to improve the BART system and to maintain local roads are real and well documented, however, it is the judgment of staff and consultants that funding these activities at the amounts requested will not yield a balanced program that is necessary to achieve a two-thirds voter approval. The Authority may wish to actively engage in State and regional efforts to fund these activities and consider more modest funding levels in a potential new TEP. Summary and Recommendations Many Authority Board members, Authority staff and many stakeholders have expressed a desire to develop a "transformative" TEP, especially considering that a potential new TEP passed in November 2016 would overlap with the existing Measure J for 17 years. However, there are many different opinions and interpretations of what will make a possible new measure "transformative." Many people view emerging technologies as the transformative force to improve safety and mobility for all travelers, reduce the need for new infrastructure by improved operations of the existing transportation system, and to integrate transportation into other government services. However, proposals for funding levels in any potential new TEP for technology has been minimum. Others view a stronger link between transportation, land-use and affordable housing as transformative compared with historic transportation funding programs. Experience with these types of programs, including the first round of OBAG funding and competitive cap and trade programs, reveals that certain areas of the county are better positioned to take advantage of these programs. Ensuring geographic equity requires a thoughtful approach to balance benefits across the county. A third view of a transformative measure is one which is specific enough to define categories of investments (projects and programs), but also flexible enough to adapt to technology and innovation, changing demographics, or other factors. All stakeholders, including the Authority Board, staff and consultants, recognize any opportunity to develop and pass a TEP is very limited and that a thoughtful, deliberative and inclusive process is required to meet the needs of all residents of Contra Costa. The summary of the input received from stakeholders over the past several months documented in this staff

11 Contra Costa Transportation Authority STAFF REPORT November 18, 2015 Page 11 of 11 report confirms a strong interest among stakeholders to participate and be heard in our process. The current situation also confirms that the Authority, staff and consultants have not yet been able to reconcile different perspectives among stakeholders at all levels (RTPCs, jurisdictions, advocates and interest groups and the public) for TEP investment and policy outcomes that will allow for their support should a TEP move forward for the November 2016 general election. Staff requests that the Authority consider the facts documented in this staff report and provide direction to staff on actions needed to continue to address funding for future transportation needs of Contra Costa

12 Prior FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 SUM FY20-FY34 SUM FY15-FY34 Measure J - Estimated Total Revenue 359,582 79,964 86,051 89,335 92,746 96,287 1,906,703 2,351,084 Programs - Estimated Revenue (Total) 57.55% 206,909 46,012 49,515 51,405 53,367 55,405 1,097,145 1,352,849 Available for Projects (pay as you go) 71,146 2, ,452 1, , , Attachment A Measure J Revenues and Expenditures through 2034 (Shown in thousands) Program Allocations Local Streets Maintenance & Improvements 18.00% 64,725 14,393 15,489 16,080 16,694 17, , ,195 Additional Streets and Roads Maintenance 2.09% 7,515 1,671 1,798 1,867 1,938 2,012 39,850 49,138 Transportation for Livable Communities 3.56% 12,788 2,846 3,062 3,179 3,300 3,426 67,852 83,666 AdditionalTransportation for Livable Communities 0.40% 1, ,627 9,404 Ped/Bike 1.50% 5,390 1,199 1,291 1,340 1,391 1,444 28,601 35,266 Additional Ped/Bike 0.04% Bus Service 5.00% 17,968 3,998 4,303 4,467 4,637 4,814 95, ,554 Additional Bus Transit Enhancements 3.36% 12,070 2,686 2,890 3,001 3,115 3,234 64,044 78,971 Express Bus 4.30% 15,452 3,438 3,700 3,841 3,988 4,140 81, ,097 Transportation for Seniors & People with Disabilities 5.00% 17,968 3,998 4,303 4,467 4,637 4,814 95, ,554 Additional Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities 1.15% 4, ,027 1,067 1,107 21,927 27,037 Safe Transportation for Children 4.55% 16,333 3,634 3,911 4,060 4,215 4,376 86, ,857 Ferry Service in West County 2.25% 8,086 1,799 1,936 2,010 2,087 2,166 42,901 52,899 Subregional Transportation Needs 1.35% 4,848 1,079 1,161 1,205 1,251 1,299 25,721 31,716 Commute Alternatives 1.00% 3, ,067 23,511 Congestion Management, Transportation Planning, Facilities 3.00% 10,780 2,399 2,582 2,680 2,782 2,889 57,201 70,533 Administration 1.00% 3, ,067 23,511 Projects - Estimated Revenue 998,235 3, ,499 42, % 152,673 33,951 36,536 37,930 39,378 40, ,557 Interest earnings (additional revenue) 3,699 1, Reserved for Debt Service/Issuance Costs 78,993 31,185 34,365 36,121 35,466 37, ,400 Reserved for Project Management/Program Management 6,233 1,633 1,677 1,723 1,769 1,817 33,743

13 Attachment B Summary of Public Engagement Program: August 2015 November 10, 2015 Background The Authority is in the midst of an exciting period of public education and discussion about the future of transportation in Contra Costa. Informed by work on the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) process over the past year, the Authority Board has signaled its intention to place a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) before the voters in Accordingly, staff has undertaken a public engagement effort to inform the public about past, present and future transportation investments in Contra Costa, and how to participate in the process of planning and funding Contra Costa s transportation future. In July 2015, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board approved a public education and outreach plan and associated costs for activities through the end of this calendar year. Below is an update on approved activities, participation levels and a summary of what we ve heard through November 10, Engagement Methods Beginning with the launch of an online engagement tool in August 2015, staff has been actively engaging the public via social media, online advertising, and mail to encourage participation through a variety of methods including: Online engagement tool at o Launched August 17, 2015 Telephone town halls o October 26, 2015 (TRANSPAC) o October 27, 2015 (SWAT) o November 2, 2015 (TRANSPLAN) o November 12, 2015 (WCCTAC) Printed Surveys o Distributed to all Contra Costa libraries o Mailed to members of the public upon request o Distributed upon request to City Halls, Community Organizations Comments o Comments have been received at: info@ccta.net In Person Comments at Board Meetings o Public invited to attend October 21, 2015 and November 18, 2015 board meetings Public Opinion Polls Participation and What We ve Heard The information below reflects participation levels and what we ve heard directly from the public through November 10, Online Engagement Tool

14 The online engagement tool, located at was designed in both desktop/tablet and mobile-friendly formats to encourage Contra Costans to prioritize their transportation improvements by providing 10 CoCo Coins to each user for allocation across a variety of transportation categories. Users had the ability to spread the coins, or deposit multiple coins, in categories that were important to them. Below is a summary of the number of visitors to the site, along with a summary of how the CoCo Coins have been deposited to date. Total # of visitors to the 9,051 total visits to the site 6,696 unique visitors 1,019 actual number of accounts created How was accessed Direct 5,990 Referral 1,406 Social 1,286 Organic Search Total number of coins deposited in each major category: BART 2037 Highways 1714 Local Streets 1666 Biking 1469 Buses 979 Walking 917 Programs for Seniors and 517 People with Disabilities Top 15 categories/improvements selected by users of the online engagement tool Local Streets Pothole and Pavement Repair 707 BART BART Parking 591 Biking New Bike Lanes 557 BART New BART Cars 464 Highways Transit Option on I-680 Corridor 401 Local Streets Traffic Signals 353 Highways Create a New Route Into the Bay Area 292 Biking Trail Maintenance 277 BART Updated BART Train Controls 273 Highways Safe and Efficient Highway Connections 264 Highways Continuous Carpool/Bus Lane Network 250 Biking Safe Routes to School 231 BART Supplement Ferry Service to Relieve BART Crowding 229 Biking Improved Bike/Pedestrian Crossings 226 BART More Buses to BART

15 Telephone Town Halls In partnership with each RTPC, the Authority hosted four telephone town halls on the following dates: o October 26, 2015 (TRANSPAC) o October 27, 2015 (SWAT) o November 2, 2015 (TRANSPLAN) o November 12, 2015 (WCCTAC)* *not yet conducted as of the date of this report Each call was recorded, and is posted to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority s website at this link: Each telephone town hall was scheduled to last for one hour, with the format for the first three town halls consisting of approximately a minute introduction to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, the regional transportation planning committee, the transportation expenditure plan process, and the regional transportation planning committee s priorities for an expenditure plan. Speakers from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and regional transportation planning committee then took live calls directly from residents for the remainder of the hour. Many callers were interested in the status of specific improvements in their regions, curious about when the Authority was going to address items or issues they believed were problematic, and unsure about which agencies are responsible for different types of transportation service and projects. Using this method of outreach, we were able to reach more than 6,500 residents in the first three telephone town halls, asked four in-call poll questions, and took a combined total of 48 calls live on the air (out of 182 calls in the queue). Caller participation summaries for each of the first three telephone town halls are included at the end of this document as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. Printed Surveys As an alternate to utilizing the online engagement tool, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority also created a printed version of the survey to be distributed to residents who preferred to provide feedback offline. A total of 3200 surveys were distributed to city halls, all Contra Costa libraries, and to a variety of organizations that serve senior and disabled populations. Unlike the online version, the paper version asked users to select their top ten priorities across a variety of categories, but did not explicitly offer the opportunity to select a priority more than once. Here is a snapshot of the postage-paid reply card for the printed survey:

16 The information below reflects the 213 surveys the Authority has received as of November 10, Total number of selections by category Programs for Seniors and People with Disabilities 515 Local Streets 302 Walking 297 Buses 273 BART 266 Highways 217 Biking

17 Top 15 categories/improvements selected by printed survey users Programs for Seniors/People with Disabilities Expand Services & Programs for Growing Senior Population 129 Local Streets Pothole and Pavement Repair 115 Programs for Seniors/ People with Disabilities On-Demand Transportation Services 107 Programs for Seniors/People with Disabilities Mobility Alternatives 81 BART BART Parking 79 Programs for Seniors/People with Disabilities Dedicated Shuttles 79 Programs for Seniors/People with Disabilities On-Demand Bus Detours 65 Buses Expanded Local Bus Service 61 Walking Safer Street Crossings 61 Programs for Seniors/ People with Disabilities Transit Education Programs 54 Buses Bus Frequency 51 Local Streets Traffic Signals 50 Walking Longer Pedestrian Crossing Times 48 Buses More Buses to BART 46 Highways Safe and Efficient Highway Connections 45 Comments The Authority has received approximately 20 s from Contra Costa residents detailing their transportation priorities, or items they feel the Authority is not addressing or offering as a transportation priority option. Comments received to date via this medium are diverse, ranging from road improvements for motorcycles/scooters, extending BART on Highway 4 and Interstate 80, adding more highway lanes, to increasing bus service. In-person comments at the October 21, 2015 Authority board meeting The Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board meetings provide an additional forum for residents to express their priorities directly to board members. At the October 21, 2015 board meeting, there were 15 residents who chose to provide public comment, which was focused almost exclusively on the need to allocate at least fifteen percent of any new transportation expenditure plan revenues for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements. Additionally, a handout describing a community vision for a new transportation sales tax, provided and endorsed by a number of the commenters, was distributed to meeting attendees and board members. Public Opinion Polling In September 2015, the Authority conducted a public opinion poll to determine relative regional priorities, receptivity to a potential revenue measure under a variety of scenarios and understand the potential impact of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and Contra Costa County on a ballot with a BART bond. The presentation given to the Authority on this poll at the September Board meeting can be found here: For reference, the March 2014 public opinion poll information can be found on the Contra Costa Transportation Authority s website here:

18 This Page Intentionally Blank

19 Exhibit 1 Transportation Partnership and Cooperation Town Hall Memo Prepared for Contra Costa Transportation Authority November 10, 2015 Recruitment & Attendance For recruitment of participants in the Transportation Partnership and Cooperation (TRANSPAC) telephone town hall, we reached out to 32,581 residents in the central region of Contra Costa County. A total of 862 residents confirmed they would attend the town hall and 381 residents said they might attend the town hall. Our recruitment calls took place over a six-day period, from Friday, October 16 to Wednesday, October 21. We ve documented recruitment calls for the TRANSPAC telephone town hall in the table below: RSVP Response 10/16/15 10/17/15 10/18/15 10/19/15 10/20/15 10/21/15 Total Yes Maybe The TRANSPAC telephone town hall drew a total of 3,420 attendees. The call s peak attendance was 781 and 14 attendees contributed to the discussion by asking questions to CCTA board members and staff. Survey Responses Do you feel that transportation or traffic congestion is a top concern for you as a Contra Costa resident? The first survey question asked in the TRANSPAC telephone town hall drew a total of 176 votes. A majority of the attendees who participated in the survey indicated that they felt the issue was a top concern. We ve documented the attendees responses in the graph below: Undecided 15% No 16% Yes 69% Do you think we should invest in more sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails? The second survey question drew a total of 258 votes. A majority of the respondents, expressed support for increased investments in sidewalks, bike lanes and trails. We ve detailed the responses in the following graph:

20 No 29% Yes 71% Do you think it s a good idea to include funding for technology in the plan? The third survey question drew a total of 247 responses. A majority of the participants in the survey, indicated they believed it was a good idea to include funding for technology in the plan: No 24% Yes 76% Would you prefer that the Contra Costa Transportation Authority fund increased bus and shuttle service to BART stations during peak commute hours, increase parking at BART stations or add more bike parking at stations? The fourth survey question drew a total of 258 votes. The survey found that 46% of the attendees were in favor of increased bus and shuttle service, 42% of the attendees were in favor of increased car parking and 12% of the attendees were in favor of increased bike parking. We ve documented the attendees responses in the graph below: For Increased Bike Parking 12% For Increased Car Parking 42% For Increased Bus and Shuttle Service 46%

21 Southwest Area Transportation Committee Telephone Town Hall Memo Prepared for Contra Costa Transportation Authority November 10, 2015 Exhibit 2 Recruitment & Attendance For recruitment of participants in the Southwest Area Transportation Committee (SWAT) telephone town hall, we reached out to 22,948 residents in the southern region of Contra Costa County. A total of 578 residents confirmed they would attend the town hall and 216 residents said they might attend the town hall. Our recruitment calls took place over a four-day period, from Friday, October 16 to Monday, October 19. Confirmed attendance grew steadily throughout the week. We ve documented recruitment calls for the SWAT telephone town hall in the table below: RSVP Response 10/16/15 10/17/15 10/18/15 10/19/15 Total Yes Maybe The CCTA SWAT Telephone Town Hall drew a total of 1,940 attendees. The call s peak attendance was 745 and 15 attendees contributed to the discussion by asking questions to CCTA board members and staff. Survey Responses Do you feel that transportation or traffic congestion is a top concern for you as a Contra Costa resident? The first survey question asked in the SWAT telephone town hall drew a total of 96 votes. A majority of the attendees who participated in the survey indicated that they felt the issue was a top concern. We ve documented the attendees responses in the graph below: Undecided 11% No 16% Yes 73% Would you prefer that the Contra Costa Transportation Authority fund increased bus and shuttle service to BART stations during peak commute hours, increase parking at BART stations or add more bike parking at stations? The second survey question drew a total of 201 votes. A majority of the attendees who participated in the survey indicated that they were in favor of increased car parking. We ve documented the attendees responses in the graph below:

22 For Increased Bike Parking 5% For Increased Bus and Shuttle Service 35% For Increased Car Parking 60% Do you think it s a good idea to include funding for technology in the plan? The third survey question drew a total of 183 responses. A majority of the participants in the survey, indicated they believed it was a good idea to include funding for technology in the plan: No 24% Yes 76% Do you think we should invest in more sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails to help keep Contra Costa's residents and air quality healthy? The fourth survey question drew a total of 191 votes. A majority of the respondents, expressed support for increased investments in sidewalks, bike lanes and trails. We ve detailed the responses in the following graph: No 41% Yes 59%

23 TRANSPLAN Committee Telephone Town Hall Memo Prepared for Contra Costa Transportation Authority November 10, 2015 Exhibit 3 Recruitment & Attendance For recruitment of participants in the TRANSPLAN Committee telephone town hall, we reached out to 20,247 residents in the eastern region of Contra Costa County. A total of 769 residents confirmed they would attend the town hall and 324 residents said they might attend the town hall. Our recruitment calls took place over a five-day period, from Saturday, October 24 to Wednesday, October 28. We ve documented recruitment calls for the TRANSPLAN telephone town hall in the table below: RSVP Response 10/24/15 10/25/15 10/26/15 10/27/15 10/28/15 Total Yes Maybe The CCTA TRANSPLAN telephone town hall drew a total of 1,300 attendees. The call s peak attendance was 429 and 19 attendees contributed to the discussion by asking questions to CCTA board members and staff. Survey Responses Do you feel that transportation or traffic congestion is a top concern for you as a Contra Costa resident? The first survey question asked in the TRANSPLAN telephone town hall drew a total of 123 votes. A majority, or 75%, of the attendees who participated in the survey indicated that they felt the issue was a top concern. We ve documented the attendees responses in the graph below: Undecided 13% No 12% Yes 75% Do you think we should invest in more sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails? The second survey question drew a total of 183 votes. A majority of the respondents, or 56%, expressed support for increased investments in sidewalks, bike lanes and trails. We ve detailed the responses in the following graph:

24 No 44% Yes 56% Do you think it s a good idea to include funding for technology in the plan? The third survey question drew a total of 197 responses. A majority of the participants in the survey, indicated they believed it was a good idea to include funding for technology in the plan: No 27% Yes 73% Would you prefer that the Contra Costa Transportation Authority fund increased bus and shuttle service to BART stations during peak commute hours, increase parking at BART stations or add more bike parking at stations? The fourth survey question drew a total of 181 votes. A majority of the attendees who participated in the survey indicated that they were in favor of increased car parking. We ve documented the attendees responses in the graph below: For Increased Bike Parking 12% For Increased Bus and Shuttle Service 42% For Increased Car Parking 46%