|
Expenditure Plan
What has Measure C funded?
During the 20-year life of the original Measure C, the sales tax
is expected to distribute approximately $740 million to specific
transportation projects and programs in the county. As the chart
below shows, most of this money has gone towards major highway
expansions (I-680, Hwy 4 East, and the Richmond Parkway) and
extending BART to the Pittsburg/Baypoint station (CCTA, 2002).
Some of those projects are not yet completed but do have
funding. For example, CCTA is still working on expanding Highway
4 and putting HOV lanes on I-680, using a combination of sales
tax, state, and federal funds.
By
contrast, very little money is going to support other services
that give people an alternative to driving, including vital
transportation programs serving those who depend on mass transit
the most, and these services have suffered as a result. Funding
for local bus service and transit service for the elderly and
disabled (or "paratransit") accounts for only 5% and 3%,
respectively, of the existing measure. This meager funding
significantly limits the ability of AC Transit, County
Connection, Tri-Delta Transit, WestCAT, and the paratransit
operators to provide the services community members need. Bus
riders have to endure hour-long waits between buses, little
weekend or night service, circuitous routes, and few basic
amenities such as bus shelters. Without more funding, these
services are not going to get better.
Priorities in the county have changed since 1988, but because
Measure C's expenditure plan was locked in by the voters,
funding allocations have not changed. The original Measure C
provided almost no funding for safety and access for pedestrians
and bicyclists. There is no funding to support affordable
housing to allow people to live closer to their jobs, or other
incentives for smart growth. And with the exception of
Lamorinda's school bus program, there are no funds to support
transportation for children, which has become a major issue both
of congestion and of access to education.
How does Contra Costa's spending compare to other counties?
Contra Costa County spends much less of its sales tax funding on
alternatives to solo driving than other counties in Northern
California. As the following chart shows, since the November
1988 election, when Measure C was passed, every subsequent
successful measure in Northern California has devoted more than
60% of its funds to expand transportation choices (Wachs et. Al,
2002). Santa Clara County's 2000 measure devoted all of its
funding to mass transit, mostly to a BART extension, light rail,
and buses. And Alameda County's 2000 measure devoted 61% of its
$1.4 billion measure to a diverse mix of alternatives: 24% to
buses, 20% to BART, 11% to paratransit for seniors and the
disabled, and 6% to a combination of pedestrian/bicyclist safety
and smart growth incentives.
Measure C's spending choices leaves Contra Costa's commuters
with few alternatives to ever-more congested roads. Residents
who depend on mass transit are simply left out in the cold, and
smart growth developments find no support from the sales tax.
The new Measure C must provide more transportation choices for
all the county's residents.
What is the Growth Management Program?
When Measure C first went before voters in 1986, it failed
(receiving only 47% of the vote) largely because of concerns
that its transportation spending would spur unchecked suburban
sprawl. The 1988 measure was successful (receiving 55% approval)
largely because of the addition of a Growth Management Program (GMP)
and because an open space bond measure (Measure AA) was on the
same ballot. With the addition of the GMP, proponents of the
1988 measure claimed that the measure's transportation projects
would "right past wrongs" while the GMP would ensure that future
development would pay its own way.
The GMP was meant to ensure an acceptable quality of life and a
healthy economy in the County by making sure that cities and the
county adequately plan for new growth. The GMP was also supposed
to ensure that the public infrastructure necessary to support
this new growth would be paid for by the new development itself,
not by existing residents. The "teeth" in the plan were supposed
to rest in CCTA's ability to withhold local transportation
funding (18% of total Measure C revenues) if local jurisdictions
did not comply with the countywide GMP.
GMP Requirements
CCTA monitors local compliance with the GMP using a "compliance
checklist" that every jurisdiction must complete to receive
their Measure C funds. Local governments must declare that they
have taken the following actions to achieve "compliance":
*
Adopt a Growth Management Element in their General Plan
including roadway level-of-service (LOS) standards and
performance standards for other infrastructure (police, fire,
parks, water, sanitiation, and flood control).
*
Develop corresponding five year capital improvement plans to
meet these LOS and performance standards.
*
Adopt a development mitigation program that ensures new
development pays its "fair share" towards necessary
infrastructure improvements.
*
Plan in cooperation with other jurisdictions
*
Address the housing and jobs needs of its population, at all
income levels
If a jurisdiction is unable to submit a satisfactory compliance
checklist, it must simply produce a "Statement of Progress"
outlining their work to meet the compliance standards.
Contra Costa's GMP was unique among Northern California
transportation sales tax measures - no other county made such a
comprehensive attempt to link transportation and growth
management. And in at least one respect, the GMP has had some
success: there is much more coordination among the 19 cities and
the county on transportation and growth planning, through CCTA
and the Regional Transportation Planning Councils.
Compliance with the GMP
To date, all local jurisdictions have submitted compliance
checklists that have been approved by CCTA and have received
their local transportation funds. Clearly, however, new
developments have not paid their own way. Congestion has gotten
much worse despite major investments far beyond those paid for
by the new development themselves. The county has seen far less
affordable housing built than has been needed, and far more
high-end homes than are needed.
How could this happen if all the demands of the GMP were truly
being met?
Wrong Tool for the Right Goal
Experience with the GMP suggests that it is a poorly designed
tool for well-intentioned goals.
Contra Costa's recent history is replete with developments, such
as Camino Tassajara, that violate both the spirit and the letter
of the GMP but which have not provoked any withdrawal of Measure
C funds. For example, Brentwood adopted a new General Plan
calling for an increase from 7,500 to over 70,000 residents,
even though it could not provide water and sewage treatment
capacity, or meet traffic and other infrastructure standards.
Nonetheless, Brentwood has continued to receive sales tax funds
for doing exactly what the ordinance was designed to prevent.
Another shortcoming of the GMP is the design of its
requirements. For example, the auto-based traffic
level-of-service (LOS) requirement has at least two major
drawbacks. First, the requirement serves to push new growth out
to underdeveloped areas which currently have little congestion.
As a result, the new residents must travel long distances to get
to their jobs or other services, resulting in an overall
significant increase in traffic. Secondly, because the LOS
standards only measure flow of cars, not flow of people, they
undermine and penalize smart growth developments in existing
urbanized areas, by requiring overly large intersections which
are dangerous to pedestrians and which increase project costs.
Rather than directing new growth where it can be best
accommodated by existing transportation system (as intended),
the current traffic LOS standard actually promotes suburban
sprawl.
Another key problem is the GMP's enforcement mechanism. To
enforce compliance, CCTA's Board members, all of whom represent
local jurisdictions, must decide to withdraw funds from another
jurisdiction, whose representative may also sit on CCTA. This
enforcement mechanism is simply unrealistic. The GMP will not be
adequately enforced without a change in either the enforcement
mechanism or the structure of the CCTA Board.
The GMP was an innovative and unique effort to link
transportation and growth management. But its goals can be
better met by a growth management program that protects the
environment, encourages transit-oriented and affordable
development, and preserves the GMP's successes in encouraging
coordination among the 19 cities and the county on
transportation and growth planning. A simpler plan could use
Urban Growth Boundaries to protect the environment along with
incentive programs to encourage more vibrant, affordable,
equitable, and livable communities.
[1]
CCTA’s 2002 Strategic Plan. TALC Calculations based on data in
Appendix A (Program of Projects through FY 2009) and Appendix B
(Financial Plan).
[1]
Wachs, Martin, Amber Crabbe, Rachel Hiatt, and Susan D. Poliwka,
“Local Transportation Sales Taxes: California’s Experiment in
Transportation Finance”, California Policy Research Center, UC
Berkeley, September 2002. |
