patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

$7.7 Billion Transportation Expenditure Plan Approved By County Transportation Commission Board

Poll finds 79 percent of Alameda County voters support transportation funding.

 

By The Alameda County Transportation Commission

The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) Board of Directors approved a $7.7 billion Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) on Thursday, Jan. 26, which will guide spending for transportation projects in Alameda County over a 30-year period. The projects will be funded through the augmentation and extension of the existing county transportation sales tax measure, which will appear on the ballot this November.

A recent telephone survey of Alameda County voters revealed that 79 percent would support extending and augmenting the county’s existing half-cent transportation sales tax (“Measure B”) on a November 2012 ballot to fund the county’s current and future transportation needs.

“This plan provides a tremendous opportunity to move the county forward on broad-based transportation needs," said Mayor Mark Green, Chair of Alameda CTC. "The plan is heavily supportive of transit, and there is something in it for everyone: walkers, cyclists, transit riders, drivers, seniors and youth. I think we have a plan that will achieve two-third of voter support in November.”

TEP Encompasses Many Transportation Needs

The TEP addresses all aspects of the county’s complex transportation system. It includes projects and/or improvements for new and existing freeways, freight, local streets and roads, and major funding increases to public transit (paratransit, buses, rails, and ferries). It also includes significantly more funding for facilities and programs to support bicycling, walking, and transit-oriented development.

Reducing traffic congestion in key corridors is a critical component, as is funding to support demographic trends like the growing population of seniors and urban residents who need more transit services close to housing, services, and jobs.

“This is a huge opportunity for communities throughout Alameda County that will go far to address their transportation needs in the coming years," said Supervisor Scott Haggerty, Vice-Chair of Alameda CTC. "This measure significantly increases funding for all aspects of transportation and reaches into all corners of Alameda County. And lastly, it provides funds to build a much-needed and long-awaited final segment of BART along the chronically congested I-580 corridor to Livermore."

The TEP encompasses a $7.7 billion multimodal plan over an initial 30-year period.

“The TEP gives Alameda County voters an opportunity to create for themselves the kind of sustainable communities they would like to see,” said Nate Miley, President of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and Alameda CTC Board member. “This plan provides billions of dollars for important transportation projects, supports job growth, and restores and maintains critical transit service.” 

Highlights of the plan include:

  • $3.7 billion (48 percent) for mass transit, including transportation for seniors and the disabled,
  • $2.3 billion (30 percent) for local streets and roads,
  • $677 million (9 percent) for highway improvements and efficiencies, including those for freight,
  • $651 million (8 percent) for safer bicycle and pedestrian routes,
  • $300 million (4 percent) for sustainable land use and transportation, and
  • $77.4 million (1 percent) for technology and innovation.

The plan supports a range of many different goals, from maintaining the existing system to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The following are key points the plan addresses:

  • Fix it First: 70 percent of the funds are dedicated to maintaining and operating the existing transportation system.
  • Sustainable Communities Strategy SCS) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reductions: 60 percent of funds support implementation of the SCS being developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which supports the mandates of Senate Bill 375.

-   The long range transportation plan out of which the TEP was derived shows GHG reductions of 24 to 25 percent per capita.

-   Funding is included for transit-oriented development supporting the linkage between transportation, housing, and jobs.

-   Major funding increases are included for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit.

  • Unprecedented transit investments

-   AC Transit funding is increased by more than 100 percent of the current funding allocated by the existing transportation sales tax.

-    BART maintenance and station modernization improvements are included.

-   A “Student Transit Pass Program” will be developed and funded to support student access to schools.

-   Rail, bus, and BART expansions, which require the use of the most effective and efficient technologies, will be funded.

  • Critical road, highway and freight investments will be made that close gaps and improve efficiencies, safety and access.

The TEP comes with important accountability measures, such as an independent Watchdog Committee, annual independent audits and reports to the public, strict environmental funding deadlines, performance and accountability measures on every contract, and voter approval of a new plan every 20 years.

The Public Supports Transportation Funding

In early October 2011, a representative sample of 805 Alameda County registered voters was interviewed in a split-sample poll about transportation funding. Roughly half of the respondents were asked if they would support extending the existing half-cent transportation sales tax and increasing it by a half-cent. The other half of the respondents was asked if they would support a new half-cent transportation sales tax.

According to the survey results, extending and augmenting the half-cent transportation sales tax is preferable to a new half-cent-only measure. Voters want to regularly approve new expenditure plans with citizen oversight.  Audits and a local jobs-creation program are also important to voters.  Five key elements from the survey garnered strong support:

  • Local street maintenance and improvements
  • Mass transit programs to get people out of their cars
  • Highway maintenance and improvements
  • Critical road and transportation improvements
  • Safer bike and pedestrian routes.

Extensive Community Input Obtained

Concurrently with developing the TEP, Alameda CTC has also been developing the Countywide Transportation Plan (CWTP), which will guide sustainable transportation planning and future land use development across the county for the next 25 years. The TEP is a funding document for many of the CWTP projects. The new CWTP and TEP are critical to proactively prepare for Alameda County’s future transportation needs.

To develop the CWTP and TEP, Alameda CTC engaged in extensive public outreach to the diverse communities within the county, and especially to those who face particular transportation challenges. Public input was essential to the TEP development and is reflected in its content.

Alameda CTC conducted over 40 public meetings to develop the TEP and worked with a Steering Committee of elected officials from throughout the county, a 27-member Community Advisory Working Group, and a 58-member Technical Advisory Working Group. These committees include representatives from 15 local jurisdictions, six transit operators, Caltrans District 4, the Port of Oakland, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and community, environmental, and social justice stakeholders. The committees helped to identify and prioritize projects and programs.

Full details of the plan and its developmental process may be found at www.alamedactc.org

Transportation Funding in Alameda County

The existing Measure B half-cent transportation sales tax, which was passed by voters in 1986 and reauthorized in 2000, is a key source of funding for transportation projects and programs in Alameda County. Most of the existing capital projects have either been built or are under construction.

The Alameda CTC will seek approval of the TEP from the majority of cities in Alameda County representing the majority of the population, before seeking approval from the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors will then place the plan on the ballot for the November 2012 election.

About the Alameda County Transportation Commission

The Alameda County Transportation Commission is a newly‐formed countywide transportation agency, resulting from a merger of the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) and the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA).

Its mission is to plan, fund and deliver a broad spectrum of transportation projects and programs to enhance mobility throughout Alameda County. This merger eliminates redundancies and creates efficiencies in planning, programs and projects delivery and also streamlines legislative, policy and funding efforts, and in the first year, saved over $3 million in taxpayer dollars. For more information on the Alameda CTC, ACCMA and ACTIA, visit www.alamedactc.org.

Related Topics: Alameda County Transportation Commission, Measure B, Transportation Expenditure Plan, and half cent sales tax

Thomas Clarke

10:31 am on Saturday, January 28, 2012

7.7 Billion dollars over the next thirty years. Hopefully we voters will realize that this makes no sense in the current economic climate. We cannot afford to increase indebtedness way past the life of the improvements we are talking about. Wake Up. Speak Out. Vote No on taxes, bonds and incumbents who are not much better than the Paula Deen's, McDonald's and Taco Bells out there. Unhealthy, bad taste and not real nourishing. Vote out the incumbents who bring this to a vote and eliminate the commission. Trim the fat out of this measure and limit it to fixing existing roads. That is all that is needed and it can be done for way less than 7.7 Billion Dollars.

Reply

David

6:02 pm on Saturday, January 28, 2012

48% of of funding to mass transit? 48% of the money for about 10% of trips. Brilliant

Reply
Comment_arrow

anthony

7:23 pm on Saturday, January 28, 2012

so we're to assume that number won't change for thirty years. stand on an overpass during commute hours and count the single occupant drivers, there is no way that selfish and wasteful habit is sustainable. why not plan for the future?

Comment_arrow

Nadja Adolf

12:33 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

I lived in Portland, Oregon, at the time a city that had very heavy use of mass transit. Then the focus changed to getting people in the suburbs out of their cars, making car ownership in the city difficult, and building transit oriented development.

The result was that people moved into counties adjacent to the city, and when the ordinances were passed there, they moved farther out, and Clark County, Washington went from a beautiful, predominantly rural area to looking like Levittown.

The upshot was that the ordinances were repealed by ballot measure. Transit ridership had already woefully declined because reduced urban service meant that people bought cars and started using them, and the suburbs were too distant for effective mass transit - if you lived in Woodburn and worked in Beaverton, using transit effectively doubled or tripled a commute from more than an hour to three to four hours.

Few people are so idealistic that they will trade a half hour commute for ninety minutes on mass transit. I won't ride mass transit because it is impossible to get anywhere in a reasonable length of time, and mass transit seems to have an abundance of perverts and thugs. (Did you read the Bay Citizen article on mass transit molestation?)

Comment_arrow

Nadja Adolf

12:41 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012

When we lived in Palo Alto, I was a participant in a mass transit study. It seemed that the assumption was that people commuted to downtown areas to work in office buildings - or that they remained in the same jobs in the same places for decades. This isn't the case in high technology - companies expand and move miles away from their previous location, and people tend to move from company to company.

The survey included some sample trips so the participants could see how to record their travels - the sample trips seemed to focus on the lives of bureaucrats going to the city office buildings - or the lives of people who worked in SF. SF is the tail that wags the dog - the center of population and action is San Jose and the suburbs.

We could reduce pollution enormously by providing adequate lanes on the freeways - few people are aware, or care, about the enormous amount of pollution generated by vehicles idling in traffic jams. In fact, transportation planners focus on making driving miserable in order to get people onto the Toonerville Trolleys that don't interconnect. BART, the SJ light rail, and Cal Trains do not have efficient and useful interconnections. The Bay Area is about to waste billions of dollars in expanding BART instead of using existing rolling stock and existing freight and passnger rail lines to reach SJ.

David

7:40 pm on Saturday, January 28, 2012

Anthony, mass transit as a percentage of trips has not only declined in the USA but also in that often hallowed example of mass transit-Europe and has been declining for the past 30 years. Yes the number will change-mass transit will continue to decline as a percentage of trips taken. Even at $8 gas, it's cheaper to drive than to take the bus and if you account for time wasted, the car wins every time.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Tim

7:46 pm on Saturday, January 28, 2012

Not in New York it doesn't. If you have an immensely densly populated area like NYC and a DECENT mass transit system, the mass transit system wins everytime. According to MTA reports, the NYC subway handles over 5 million rides on the average weekday. It hasn't been diclining either. I tend to agree in a spread out area like the Bay Area it's not feasible to expect high usage as there's not one central place people are going to like Penn Station or GCT.

David

7:42 pm on Saturday, January 28, 2012

Ps. Does the government exist to serve you, or does it exist to tell you how to live your life? Where to go, how to go about it, what to eat, how to spend your money? Are you free or a slave?

Reply

David

8:17 pm on Saturday, January 28, 2012

Tim if you haven't noticed this is alameda county, not NYC or even San Francisco. Mass transit continues to decline across the country, the suburbs are still where nearly all population growth is happening. NYC has the same number of people it did in 1950.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Tim

8:41 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012

Again, you're wrong. NYC's population has been steady with little increase between 1950 (~7.8 million) and 2010 (~8.1 million) but the suburbs of Long Island, Westchester, and New Jersey have exploded in population during this period and NYC subway use on nearly half of their lines increased over 50% between 1998 and 2008. While NYC's resident population has been steady, the need for mass transit has only increased.

I do agree that here in Alameda County, at least for now, we should not be hemorrhaging money at new mass transit at this time. The high speed rail in particular was a disaster and a lie from the beginning in terms of cost... it's always more than they say. I'm all for repairing roads but I don't see a benefit in adding new lanes to the freeway. People will have to decide for themselves whether or not mass transit is worth it for them compared to time spent in freeway traffic.

David

8:19 pm on Saturday, January 28, 2012

Since its not feasible to expect mass transit to *ever* win here, why not spend our money on improving the roads that people actually use.

Reply

Summer Hemphill

8:40 am on Sunday, January 29, 2012

When are the people in Fremont & Newark going to get the service they pay for from AC Transit instead of subsidizing service in Oakland,Berkeley & San Leandro ? While the number of routes & hours of service continue to dwindle here most of our transit dollars are spent elsewhere ! A review of this issue is far overdue as ridership plummets due to fewer routes & longer waits between buses. Elsewhere buses run on fifteen minute intervals,but here the wait is an hour & that doesn't include another potential hours wait if you must transfer. Public transportation in this area is so inconvenient that it's virtually worthless,long walks to bus stops & no service after 10 PM. It's time to consider opting out of AC Transit & forming our own system along the lines of Union Cities. This is the only way we'll ever get a workable transportation system here,by keeping the money here. It's about time that what we get should reflect what we pay,instead of continuing to pay for everyone elses service !

Reply

Jack

6:31 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012

If I want to go from Newark to Hayward, it would take three buses plus BART, almost two hours, and I would get there three hours ahead of when I need to be there. I can
drive it in 10-20 minutes!

Reply

ordinary joe

7:23 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012

I don't understand why the authorities, Cities like UNion City or the County, have not switched over smaller buses. Most of the public transport consist of large buses that go around practically empty or half full at the most. Switiching over could save money which in turn should be able to provide better public transport that the public can count on.

Reply

David

9:45 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012

Tim. I stated that nyc's population is the same as it was in 1950 and all the growth has been in the suburbs. You state that I'm completely wrong, nyc's population has been flat since 1950 and all the population growth has been in the suburbs? Wow. Now I see how I'm completely wrong. Thanks

Reply

Tim

1:01 am on Monday, January 30, 2012

Sorry for the misunderstanding David. You're wrong about their being a decline in mass transit ridership throughout the nation as you said in an earler comment. The facts I found show NYC as a case where your statement is disproven.

Reply
Comment_arrow

David

5:57 am on Monday, January 30, 2012

No, I stated that mass transit as a percentage of trips has only declined nationwide. Furthermore, I stated that transit trips, even in the Bay Area (which is of at least middling density in some parts) are 10% or less of the trips taken here, and it is not a wise allocation of resources in my opinion to devote nearly half of transportation funding on a mode of transit that comprises that small of a portion of trips taken.

David

5:58 am on Monday, January 30, 2012

I've provided sources in other threads to support that statement by the way. Find me a source that shows mass transit as a percentage of trips has increased overall in the US, and/or find me a source that shows mass transit is >10% of trips in the Bay Area.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Tim

11:50 am on Monday, January 30, 2012

"Percentage of trips"??? What kind of statistic is this? So, if I commute from Fremont to SF for work five days a week, this is equivalent to a half mile drive to the post office, or the supermarket? A better statistic would be a percentage of commuters that take mass transit vs driving. And I don't know what that is, maybe it's still fairly low as more and more jobs nationally are in the suburbs but I wouldn't underestimate the importance of mass transit. Just shut down Caltrain and BART for a day and see that the freeways look like then.

Comment_arrow

David

12:16 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012

Well, Tim, fortunately, you can look at that up at the Census.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-15.pdf
In the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA MSA, 14.6% of workers commuted via public transportation. So, ok, without counting the Peninsula, the Bay Area is over 10%, but only when counting commuting trips (overall trips would be below 10%).
48% of transit dollars spent on 14.6% of even commuting trips doesn't make sense.

Comment_arrow

Tim

3:08 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012

I agree with your conclusion, just not your analysis. Mass transit plays an important role. In NYC it's over 30% of workers that use mass transit. I remember a few years ago during the MTA strike when the subways were shutdown, the city was gridlock. Mass transit has a role, but 3.7 billion or 48%... absurd. I agree.

Comment_arrow

anthony

8:37 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012

Thanks David for the reminder to the census data, interesting site as always. Didn't see exactly where the 14.6% came from, but the bar graph was real close. Don't really see the question of mass transit to private transit as a win/ lose proposition. If both are done effectively win/win is possible, but I can see that who's money is going where can easily throw up the fences. Found some numbers off the census site that show possible savings of 10,000 to $13,000/year by utilizing mass transit, granted it was put together by a mass transit org but it was on the census site. www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tabls/12s1116.pdf (current fuel prices) I was surprised by the estimates of trip time differentials, less than i expected. Considering that most trips at present are drivers flying solo, catching up on the reading might be the selling point. Having trouble understanding your reasoning as to what % or dollar value should be directed where. Can't see how you can separate the effect of all those folks driving or not driving has on the others experience. Would you consider a directly proportioned allotment effective? (15% use mass transit/ 15% of funds) As to the government question, Ron Paul and I wouldn't argue too often.

Comment_arrow

David

9:07 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012

I see a lot of the funding likely going to marginal improvements (BART to Livermore? Really? A cost of how much for how many riders?, a stupid bike path going on the Bay Bridge from the East Bay to...Treasure Island? wtf?), whereas the major, obvious improvements go wanting (truly upgrading CalTrain, never mind completely missing the boat on building a spur underground from BART in the City to Caltrain and then pushing that to SFO, instead of useless BART stations in San Bruno mall and S. SF).
What bothers me is everyone follows this "mass transit is good" religion without thinking about the fact that most people drive and maybe, just maybe, we could improve our ride by improving our roads. Your link doesn't work, but it's bull, I can tell already. For example, even if I were to drive to work everyday (I take BART), I'd spend: $28 on toll and parking and about $8 on gas, or about $28 incremental over BART, or $7,000 in additional costs. Even if I leased a car and swapped it out every 3 years, I'd spend $9400 (you can lease several different cars for $200/month) per year, not $10,000+++ and that's worse case scenario (parking in the City). If I worked where I had parking, like say, where I used to have an office in Redwood City or whatnot, the cost is about $4,000. People have cars anyway, so the insurance etc is paid no matter what.

anthony

10:27 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012

David Sorry about the link, add an "e" to the tabls. Glad you can save so much money taking the train, still not happy with the time differentials though. Agreed, sometimes routes and priorities take the path of least resistance, squeaky wheels or worse, lining the pockets, not always the best options. It's not a religion with me, but I do believe that encouraging less travel in personal vehicles, at the present rate, is the healthy choice for all of us. Just my opinion, could be wrong, just like you could be...

Reply
Comment_arrow

David

6:13 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Of course, that's not counting the parcel taxes and sales taxes that I pay to support BART and AC Transit...

Leave a comment