WCCTAC

West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee

Minutes

August 10, 2007

The regular meeting of the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee was called to order at 7:56 A.M. on Friday, August 10, 2007 by Chair Sharon Brown in the City Council Chambers of the City of San Pablo, 13831 San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo, California, 94806.

1. CALL TO ORDER/SELF INTRODUCTIONS

PRESENT: Sharon Brown, Chair (San Pablo), Maria Viramontes, Vice-Chair (Richmond), Janet Abelson (El Cerrito), Maria Alegria (Pinole), Ed Balico (Hercules), Bob Franklin (BART), John Gioia (Contra Costa County), John Marquez (Richmond), Jerrold Parsons (WestCAT)

ABSENT: Joe Wallace (AC Transit), Gayle McLaughlin (Richmond)

STAFF: Lisa Hammon, WCCTAC Executive Director

Linda Young, WCCTAC Transportation Project Specialist

John Rudolph, WCCTAC Project Manager

Nancy Cuneo, WCCTAC Administrative Analyst

Bryan Otake, WCCTAC General Counsel

Chair Brown announced that prior to the regular meeting of the WCCTAC a closed Executive session was held.

1. PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments from the public.

On motion by Janet Abelson, seconded by Maria Alegria and carried unanimously, the WCCTAC Board voted to adopt the Consent Calendar with Item 6 pulled as follows:

2. Approved minutes, Sign-In Sheet, and Meeting Summary from the June 22, 2007 Meeting.

3. Accepted Staff Reports.

4. Approved 2008 Transportation Improvement Program Project Applications – Support from the Regional Transportation Planning Committee.

5. Adopted Resolution of Support for the San Pablo Avenue Corridor FOCUS Priority Development Area (PDA) Application.

7. Update on the Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee Program.

Item 6: Consideration and Approval of WCCTAC Executive Director’s Employment Agreement for FY 07-08

On motion by John Gioia, seconded by Maria Viramontes and carried unanimously the WCCTAC Board voted to adopt the Consideration and Approval of the WCCTAC Executive Director’s Employment Agreement for FY 07-08.

Item 9: Board Member Comments and Announcements

Lisa Hammon announced that Michael Bernick would be providing a report to the Board at September 28^th meeting regarding legislation for trailer bills which are on the infrastructure bonds.

Item 10: Legal Counsel Comments

There were no comments from legal counsel.

Chair Brown announced that Item 14 would be moved up due to time constraints.

Item 14: Regional Rail Presentation- Tom Matoff and BART Staff

Ms. Hammon provided a brief introduction on Item 14 by introducing Tom Matoff of the Regional Rail Plan (“RRP”) consulting team.

Tom Matoff thanked the Board and began by providing a history of regional rail service in the Bay Area. He noted that since the initial implementation of regional rail service there has been no systematic revisiting of the development vision of how regional rail transportation should come about more fully.

Development of the regional rail plan was funded by Regional Measure 2 (“RM-2”) and is part of the legislative plan which set RM-2 in motion and is now in the final stages of completion. It is set to go before the MTC planning committee in mid-September and to the full commission by the end of September.

Mr. Matoff continued by stating that the purpose of the regional rail plan is to take the disjointed incrementalism with which regional rail plans have been addressed previously and replace it with a more consistent framework for regional decision-making on major rail investments.

Mr. Matoff noted that RRP is intended to complement regional bus service and not replace it. He stated that the need for the plan stems from ongoing growth in the Bay Area; progressively augmenting congestion and air quality issues; the economic driver at the Port of Oakland, and to some extent the Port of Richmond, causing increased freight movement and commuters. He noted that the plan is not limited to the nine-county area within the jurisdiction of MTC but is projected to include SACAG; Sacramento, San Joaquin County, Stockton, and Stanislaus County.

John Gioia inquired as to whether or not the plan addresses passenger, freight, or both classes of rail traffic.

Mr. Matoff answered that the plan primarily addresses passenger rail traffic but also includes freight rail traffic.

Mr. Matoff continued by clarifying that 90 percent of regional rail consists of BART for which the renewal and expansion of both in terms of capacity and potential extensions are an important issue. In addition to that, certain elements of the nine-county plan as they are being realized are based on the railroad system, both passenger and freight, which are being intertwined with the components of the plan related to area rapid transit.

The possible implementation of a high-speed rail system is as well part of the plan. He noted that advocates of the plan have proposed two alternative routings for high-speed rail traffic coming into the Bay Area through the Central Valley over the Altamont Pass and alternatively, through Pacheco Pass from the south through San Jose. He noted that the implications of this in terms of regional mobility are as well addressed in the plan in addition to connectivity and integration with local transit services, e.g. bus and ferry services.

In relation to BART itself, the plan addresses retention and expansion of the core system in the central Bay Area as defined by the term “Metro Service” which is more akin to frequent metropolitan subway service rather than longer distance travel exclusive to peak commute times. Implementation of this aspect of the plan would include a fourth track through downtown Oakland, and maximizing efficiency at the Oakland “Y.”

In terms of railroad service there is a proposal to increase the capacity of the Union Pacific mainline and improve connections with the BNSF line driven primarily by the prospect of increased rail traffic at the Port of Oakland but also by the desire to improve passenger service on those lines which requires investment of public funds in the plans of the railroad corporations.

He continued by emphasizing the need for joint connectivity through ticketing and interconnection of terminals; selecting an appropriate technology by corridor and extending BART to key locations where interfaces can be made. He noted that a complimentary land-use strategy would be recommended, e.g. housing developed near transit corridors.

Regarding phasing of the plan, Mr. Matoff clarified that “near term” refers to the present until approximately 2015-17 which would include the following:

The current BART fleet is reaching the end of its economic life and will require replacement. Core capacity is of high importance given the current levels of BART ridership (and the trend is upward); increasing pedestrian flow through station improvements is as well given high priority in the proposed rail plan.

Mr. Matoff stated that Capitol Corridor and UP Central Corridor improvements are related. The proposal is to add a third track to the UP mainline from West Oakland to Richmond which will in turn make possible expansion of Capitol Corridor service. As well, grade separation improvements; connection of the Peninsula with the East Bay at Dumbarton Bridge; enhanced service along the “A” system including public acquisition of the right-of-way over the Altamont; corridor preservation with the possibility of public ownership with grade crossing improvements and separations.

Mr. Gioia inquired about how to incorporate mitigation into the plan to make improvements along the BNSF and UP lines from the Port of Oakland to Richmond given the potential impacts on local communities as a result of increased freight traffic.

Mr. Matoff replied that the plan is essentially a strategic framework from which pieces will be moved forward into a project development phase at which time the issues brought forth by Mr. Gioia would be appropriately addressed. Mr. Matoff agreed that if mitigation is required as part of a project it should be part of the project budget. He stated that traditionally grade crossing separations have been a shared expense between the railroads and the public sector. He noted that components of the I-bonds and potential public investment beyond that goes beyond traditional forms of providing grade separations. He offered the Alameda Corridor project in Los Angeles as an example of what current proposals are likely to resemble.

He noted that beyond the third track there is consideration being given to a fourth track so that frequent passenger service can exist along that corridor in addition to a third line from Richmond to Martinez including improvements to the existing Martinez yard.

Ms. Hammon added that one of the purposes of the current, incomplete presentation is to compile a list of comments to include in a letter to present to Mr. Matoff next month to comment on what is coming out of the plan in the near term relative to those issues that most directly affect West Contra Costa. Given this, Mr. Matoff may move ahead to those issues.

Mr. Matoff moved forward in the presentation addressing a third main track for the UP line from Richmond to Oakland; construction of and implementation of Capitol Corridor service to the Hercules station; improvements in the Martinez yard; more service along the Capitol Corridor lines and investing in BART so that it can provide more frequent services all of the time; in general, reinvestment in stations and rolling stock independent of extensions of the current system along with improvement of the Benicia-Martinez rail bridge.

Moving beyond that to the mid-to-long term issues effecting West County, Mr. Matoff cited a fourth main line between Richmond and Oakland; a new connection for the Santa Fe at South Central Richmond which would connect directly to the BNSF from the UP. This would alleviate current environmental and traffic-related problems caused by the existing connection. The preceding improvements would make possible the Eastshore Express: a rapid, west-side rail service between Richmond, West Oakland, and perhaps areas in southern Alameda County.

Ms. Hammon inquired about improved service to north of Richmond.

Mr. Matoff replied that the improvements would make service to Hercules possible and increase the scope of “W” BART. He noted that the level of project development is uncertain at this point however projected costs and demand forecasts should be determined within the next couple of weeks.

He noted that what would in fact happen north of Richmond remains to be seen. The options include following the new connection onto the BNSF which would take the line up to the Hercules station at an I-80 intercept; however it means less service at the Capitol Corridor station. Despite the fact that the draft summary report does not address this issue, Mr. Matoff stated that it needs to be kept alive as an option for future study.

Ms. Hammon asked if considerations north of Richmond would be identified in the full report.

Mr. Matoff replied that it would be helpful is there was an expression from WCCTAC provided in support of the preceding proposal.

He continued by stating that another advantage of using the BNSF line to Hercules which will not be included in the RRP is if at some point there is a new Carquinez Bridge with the possibility of a rail line into Vallejo, the best way to achieve this would be through annexing of the BNSF line to Hercules.

Maria Alegria asked if a highly focused look at the environmental and transit related impacts on West County and the I-80 Corridor would be included in the final report.

Mr. Matoff replied that the plan is a fifty year strategic vision for the entire Bay Area with connections to outlying areas. He noted that the existing report is intended to apprise of the content and adoption of the RRP and then the order in which projects are extracted from the RTP for implementation. He stated that concerns about the implications of the RRP are valid however the final proposal is not the place in which to include examination of the stated concerns.

Ms. Alegria augmented her concern by stating that the existing plan appears to contribute to urban sprawl; the responsibility for accommodating this movement would fall on local jurisdictions and therefore it is the duty of local officials to be fully aware of the potential impacts and benefits that may arise from the proposed plan. She expressed her desire to be pro-active as opposed to reactive regarding the stated issues.

Ed Balico thanked Mr. Matoff for the presentation. He stated that he is in favor of a dedicated rail for passengers and that he would like the WCCTAC Board to give high priority to the “W” BART and study of the BNSF line proposal.

Ms. Hammon expressed that the “W” BART and implementation of the BNSF line could be incorporated into the RTP.

Mr. Balico inquired about whether or not there is a deadline in submitting projects for the FOCUS Priority Projects.

Mr. Gioia replied that FOCUS Priority projects are land use issues around specific transit stations.

Mr. Balico expressed that land use objectives were included in the RRP presentation and the impacts would be felt regardless. He reiterated his desire to have the stated issues considered.

Mr. Gioia commented that to the extent to which the East Bay rail project removes vehicles from I-80, it should be examined how to achieve this earlier e.g. the removal of vehicles to alleviate congestion around Hercules.

He asked which body will be adopting the RRP and will the RTP be adopted in conjunction with it.

Mr. Matoff replied that MTC will be the adopting body. He expressed that the RRP will be adopted prior to the RTP. He stated that it will be considered by the MTC planning committee on September 14th and moved before the entire commission on September 27th.

Mr. Gioia clarified that this would consist of high level strategic documents which would identify issues for further study.

He inquired as to whether or not the high speed rail Mr. Matoff addressed was exclusive to Altamont Pass or was it the same high speed rail project that would travel to southern California.

Mr. Matoff replied that it is the same and noted that there is a dispute between two different groups advocating implementation of a high speed rail. He noted that the rail would travel from southern California, through the San Joaquin Valley. There is debate over what occurs at Merced: should the line go up to Modesto and over Altamont Pass into the Bay Area in which case a branch from Sacramento becomes quite feasible consequently enabling Sacramento-to-Bay Area service in addition to the Capitol Corridor.

Mr. Gioia commented that high speed rail to southern California may help to alleviate elevating levels of air traffic by providing a viable, transit alternative.

Mr. Matoff stated that he does not believe that the specific demand forecasts that would have demonstrated the efficacy of implementing high speed rail for the purpose of achieving these goals will be included in the RRP; however, as a matter of policy it will put forth the question in the RTP. He noted that in addition to travel to L.A. there is a great deal of shorter distance air travel that could be replaced by the provision of high speed rail directly to the airports.

Mr. Gioia commented that high speed rail may as well eliminate the need for large scale infrastructure alterations by alleviating pressure on the San Francisco to L.A. corridor.

Bob Franklin asked if there will be a recommended alternative for which high speed rail connection will come into the Bay Area or should preparations be made for both.

Mr. Matoff replied “no,” that the plan provides for optimization of the regional plan depending on a decision to be made by the high speed authority.

Mr. Gioia asked if there is a relevant website.

Mr. Matoff provided the URL www.bayarearailplan.info. He noted that recommendations will be posted at the same time as the public meetings.

Jerrold Parsons stated regarding congestion along I-80 that he would like to see the inclusion of Solano County involved in the process through attendance at related meetings. He stated his fervor for a rail from the Carquinez Bridge to Vallejo as currently there is large scale congestion along that corridor. He as well expressed support for the “W” BART to go to; or beyond Vallejo.

Regarding bus connectivity he stated that linkage at Point Pinole up to the Hilltop Area should be given due consideration. He remarked that the consideration being given to the Hercules area regarding a world class transit center is well received.

Mr. Parsons expressed that one issue that may contribute to greater ridership would be higher standards of cleanliness of transit facilities and vehicles.

Mr. Matoff remarked that capital renewal would address these issues and that proper maintenance of the existing system in addition to the extensions is reflected in the plan.

Ms. Hammon stated that it is important to look at the plan in its entirety in the context of the coming meetings and the drafting of the comments letter. She noted that although adoption of the plan by MTC occurs prior to the next WCCTAC Board meetings the comments are still applicable to the RTP and serves to put forth input from West County.

Maria Alegria asked Chair Brown if members should be preparing presentations on the RRP to bring before the individual city councils.

Maria Viramontes stated that the Board should discuss the matter on a separate item and then go before the city councils.

Item 10: Commendation to Linda Young on her Five-Year Anniversary

Chair Brown invited Linda to stand before the Board.

Ms. Hammon thanked Linda for her work with commute alternatives, attempting to reduce SOV congestion, and employer outreach through various incentive programs.

Item 11: Resolution of Congratulations and Thanks to WestCAT on the Transit Agency’s 30 Year Anniversary

Chair Brown presented the Resolution of Congratulations to WestCAT General Manager Charley Anderson.

Jerrold Parsons expressed thanks to WCCTAC and stated a desire to continue to serve the community.

Charley Anderson expressed thanks for WCCTAC’s acknowledgement and the participation of the Board members in the growth process.

Item 12: Up Coming Conference Attendance

Ms. Hammon noted that there are three upcoming conferences that may be of interest to Board members: the 2007 CalACT “Speed of Life Summit”, Rail-Volution 2007, and the Seaside Institute’s “Atlanta on the Cutting Edge: New Models for Growth and Renewal.”

Ms. Hammon expressed a desire to determine the number of members that would be attending various conferences in the interest of budget determinations. She noted that there is currently $7,000 in the WCCTAC budget for Board member conference attendance and related expenses. She stated that Charley Anderson would provide a brief overview of the CalACT conference.

Mr. Anderson noted that world class speakers would be in attendance including the head of the APTA. He remarked that the conference would address issues of policy regarding climate change from the transportation section in addition to community development.

Ms. Hammon added that a session addressing facilitation of senior mobility will as well take place.

Jerrold Parsons stated that he would be attending the CalACT conference at the expense of WestCAT and stated the hope that WCCTAC would pay his expenses for attendance of the Rail-Volution 2007 conference.

Bob Franklin noted that Rail-Volution 2008 will take place in San Francisco.

Chair Brown asked that any members planning to attend any of the various conferences email Ms. Hammon at their earliest possible convenience.

Item 13: Letter to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Regarding Current Projects, Programs, and Priorities

Ms. Hammon stated that the letter was drafted with purpose to keep the CCTA apprised of WCCTAC’s current projects. She noted that the letter outlines nine key projects and offers the WCCTAC staff for presentation of any projects related to West County; in particular presentations given by John Rudolph regarding the I-80 ICM.

Janet Abelson requested that comments regarding a lack of funding for ramp metering projects be included in the letter. She as well expressed a desire to communicate that the proposed improvements will in fact not aid local communities, rather outlying jurisdictions.

Ms. Hammon noted that there is money included for mainline freeway improvements and an application for the $24.3 million dollars to come from the traffic light synchronization account in the infrastructure bond. She noted this requires a 25 percent local match in funding.

Jerrold Parsons expressed disagreement with Ms. Abelson’s comment and stated his belief that ramp metering will improve mobility overall thus benefiting local jurisdictions.

Ms. Hammon stated that Ms. Abelson’s concern pertained to the funding and assurance that the local improvements could be made in addition to the mainline freeway improvements and that those aspects worked in conjunction with one another rather than mention ramp metering specifically as it is a component of the overall, proposed local improvements that do not currently have funding.

On motion by Maria Alegria, seconded by Ed Balico and carried unanimously, the WCCTAC Board voted to approve the Letter to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Regarding Current Projects, Programs, and Priorities.

With no further business to come before the WCCTAC Board, Chair Brown adjourned the meeting at 9:03 A.M., until the next, meeting to be held on September 28, 2007 at 7:30 A.M. at the San Pablo City Council Chambers, 13831 San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo, California, 94806.