Comparison of comprehensive Expenditure Plan packages

The following table shows distributions for three different comprehensive packages proposed for the new Measure J:

• The "Transportation for a Livable Contra Costa" platform endorsed by 40 community groups;

• CCTA's Final Package; AND

• For comparison, the Existing Measure C, passed in 1988 (for more information, see "Background" on this website).

Note: Numbers in each column don't necessarily add up to 100% due to rounding errors.

Overall, it is clear that the new Measure J package is a significant improvement over the existing measure passed in 1988. The new package provides more funding for basic transit programs that many people depend on. It includes new programs that received little or no funding in the original measure, most notably $100 million for smart growth incentives (with a preference for projects linked to affordable housing) and $91 million for safe transportation for children.

Funding for commute transit, while lower than in the 1988 measure, supports a much more cost-effective mix of projects. In the existing Measure, "Commute Transit" meant extending BART to Pittsburg/Bay Point. The new package would support express buses, eBART, ferry, BART stations, Capitol Corridor, and Commute Alternative programs. Further, there is less sprawl-inducing highway expansion than was in the 1988 measure, although several damaging projects remain.

The final package does fall short of the platform endorsed by TALC and 39 other community groups. But overall, the final package devotes over half its funding to alternatives to solo driving: 44% to mass transit and alternatives to driving, and 9% to HOV-related highway projects.

See below for full details on how the final package stacks for on each funding category.

Growth Management Program

As in the existing measure, the new Measure J would include a Growth Management Program. The cities and the county must comply with the GMP in order to be eligible to receive local streets & roads (18%) and smart growth incentive funds (5%). The most important provisions of this GMP are:

Urban Limit Line (ULL): Agreement to develop a binding, voter-approved line:

Each jurisdiction (cities & the county) must continuously comply with either a new countywide mutually agreed upon voter approved ULL or a local voter-approved ULL. The new countywide ULL must be developed consistent with the “Principles of Agreement” included in the new Measure J. If the county and cities cannot reach agreement, each jurisdiction can pass its own voter-approved ULL; those that do not will be considered out of compliance with the Growth Management Program.

The "Principles" mean the existing ULL's location and policies will be up for renegotiation and they do not specify whether major ULL changes must be voter-approved. On the plus side, the new ULL would need voter approval, would be binding on the cities and the county (the existing ULL only binds county decisions), and would be in place through 2034 (24 years past the current sunset of 2010).

The process to develop the new ULL is supposed to start immediately, with the goal of developing the new policy by the end of 2004 and securing voter approval by November 2006. It is crucial that TALC members and allies get involved in this process.

Policies to Require Affordable Housing, but with a loophole:

The previous GMP required that cities and the county comply with a state-approved Housing Element, but contained a loophole allowing cities to “self-certify”. The new GMP requires jurisdictions to “demonstrate reasonable progress” towards providing housing at all income levels. However, this requirement also has a loophole that will allow jurisdictions to comply by stating that their land use plans and policies “provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development.” This loophole makes it difficult to know whether the policy will actually create much affordable housing.

Expenditure Plan

The following describes how the final Measure J package stacks up against the TLCCC platform, covering:

• Commute Transit (eBART, Express Bus, Ferries)

• Highways & Roads

• Smart Growth Incentives

• Local Transit Alternatives (Local Bus, Senior/Disabled Paratransit, Bike-Ped, and Safe Transportation for Kids)

Commute Transit

eBART: Funds to build, but not operate it. No Smart Growth requirements.

The new Measure J would provide $150 million for construction. Combined with money from Regional Measure 2 (passed in March), this would mean eBART would have over half the capital money it needs (for a single-track system), but no funding for operations (out of a $400-$500 million need). There are no policies to ensure eBART will be operated by union labor or that the project includes adequate feeder transit service. There are also no policies to ensure eBART stations are supported by transit-oriented development, even though eBART needs those riders to have decent ridership. And there is no requirement that construction may not begin until CCTA & BART have a secure financial plan. These last two policies, however, are likely to be required by either BART or MTC.
 

Express buses: Expanded services throughout the county

Combined with funds from Regional Measure 2, passed in March, Measure J’s funding will allow a significant expansion of express bus and Bus-Rapid-Transit (BRT) service in all parts of the county (although funding levels are lowest in East County). A majority of the funds are expected to be used for bus operations.

Ferry: New funding for Richmond Ferry

The package includes $45 million for the Richmond ferry, as well as language that would allow funding for the Richmond Parkway ($16 million) to be re-allocated to the ferry in the future if the city of Richmond requests it.

Other Commute Transit Projects: BART Stations, Capitol Corridor & Commute Alternative program

The package also includes $41 million for upgrades to BART stations, $17.5 million to support the Capitol Corridor (including a new station at Hercules and work at the Martinez station), and a $20 million "Commute Alternatives" program to provide and promote alternatives to commuting in single occupant vehicles, including carpools, vanpools and transit.

Highways & Roads

Highway Expansion: HOV lanes on I-680, Hwy 4, & I-80, plus straight highway expansion (including Caldecott Tunnel & East County Corridors)

Measure J devotes a significant portion of its highway funding towards HOV-related projects. Highway spending is split among seven projects:

• I-680 HOV/Transit Corridor ($100 million), for HOV lane gap closure and HOV on/off ramps;

• Highway widening which that include HOV lanes ($155 million):

  • widening Highway 4-East ($125 million, including an carpool/HOV lane in each direction);

  • I-80 project ($30 million, which will pay for shortfalls on the HOV lane gap closure or interchanges);

• Highway Expansion (not HOV-related):

  • Caldecott Tunnel 4th bore ($125 million)

  • “East County Corridors” ($94.5 million)

  • I-680/SR-242 interchanges ($36 million)

  • Richmond Pkwy ($16 million, although this funding may go for maintenance or be shifted to the Richmond Ferry)

"East County Corridors": Potential for Sprawl

The highway project with the most potential to induce suburban sprawl is the "East County Corridors" project, which would allow funds to used for Vasco Rd, Hwy 4 Bypass, Byron Hwy, and non-freeway Hwy 4, all of which have the potential to induce sprawl in the county’s precious agricultural areas. To combat that, the final package would only pay for “safety improvements” in areas outside the county’s Urban Limit and it would require policies that would restrict the roads’ potential to spur new suburban developments in those areas. However, Measure J does not clearly define "safety" and the policies have not yet been developed.

Local Streets & Roads: Continuation of existing funding level

Cities and the county would get $402 million (20%) for local streets and road maintenance, about the same as the funding level in the existing measure. Of that total, $360 million is contingent on meeting the requirements of the Growth Management Program, including the Urban Limit Line and requirements on housing.

"Major Streets": new program

In addition, there is a new $80 million program for “Major Streets.” Funding will be spent projects such as traffic signals, road widening, traffic calming and pedestrian safety improvements, shoulders, installation of bike facilities, sidewalks, bus turnouts, curbs and gutters. Most of the program's funds are in Central County, with some funds in the Southwest and East County sub-regions.

Smart Growth Incentives

"Transportation for Livable Communities": New Program gives preference for Projects linked to Affordable housing

One of the bright spots in the Measure J package is initiation of a new $108 million smart growth incentive program. This would be the first transportation sales tax in the state to fund a smart growth incentive program. Modeled after the MTC program of the same name, the program would provide planning and capital grants to support transportation projects that encourage the use of alternatives to the single occupant vehicle such as: pedestrian, bicycle and streetscape facilities, traffic calming and transit access improvements.

In addition, the program would give preference to projects that are linked to providing affordable housing near transit or in downtown areas. And jurisdictions are only eligible for funds if they comply with the Growth Management Program.

Local Transit Alternatives

Local Bus: Increases for AC Transit, WestCAT, and County Connection

All three agencies would receive more than they get in the current measure (about $1 million/yr more each for AC Transit and County Connection, less than $500,000/yr more for WestCAT). These increases will allow these agencies to maintain current levels and possibly improve levels of service, although actual service levels will depend on whether other funding cuts take back these future gains.

Local Bus: No new funding for East County

With no increase to its approximately $360,000/yr from Measure J, East County's bus operator (Tri-Delta Transit) would probably have to cut service, raise fares, and/or cut salaries.
 

Special Transit for Seniors and the Disabled: Funding doubles, but needs remain

Total funding will increase by more than 100% compared to the current Measure C funding (6.2% vs. 3%). But rapidly growing demand and costs mean even this large increase will leave some needs unmet. By 2020, there will be many more than twice as many seniors as there are now, especially in suburban areas that cost more to serve. As a result, some agencies may have to cut service or find other ways to cut costs. Some language in the spending plan make it possible for the county to follow some of the recommendations of the county’s Paratransit Improvement Study, but there is little funding for implementation.
 

Safe Transportation for Children: first in the state!

To our knowledge, no other existing sales tax has established funding specifically to improve safe transportation for children. This program would provide support free or discount bus passes for low-income students in West County, school buses in San Ramon and Lamorinda, and "Safe Routes to Schools" and other programs in Central County. The program's one downside is that there is no funding in East County, although the subregion may allocate flexible funds towards these needs in the future.
 

Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trail improvements: Meager funding, a step forward on policy

The package provides only $20.8 million towards a $230 million need identified in the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and dedicates another $10 million to the East Bay Regional Parks District for building and maintaining paved multi-use trails. In addition, bike-ped improvements are eligible for funding under the Transportation for Livable Communities and "Major Streets" programs.

In a small step forward, Measure C acknowledges the importance of bicycle and pedestrian travel by encouraging "routine accommodation" of bicycle and pedestrian needs in all construction projects. Even this policy is only a partial gain, because it would only encourage routine accommodation "as appropriate", rather than requiring routine accommodation “unless exceptional circumstances exist” (language recommended by the East Bay Bicycle Coalition).