May 20, 2010

Prepared for
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
by:

in Association with:

DKS Associates
Design, Community & Environment
Zell & Associates
Next Generation
Barnes, Mosher, Whitehurst, Lauter & Partners
 

Contributing to this report:

Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean
EMC Research

 
 

Table of Contents
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1
A. Purpose of the Expenditure Plan ......................................................................................... 1

B. Statutory Authorization and Requirements ......................................................................... 2

C. How the Plan was Developed.............................................................................................. 2

II. EXPENDITURE PLAN .......................................................................................................... 2

A. Revenue Projections ............................................................................................................ 2

B. Programmatic Expenditures ................................................................................................ 3

C. Required Findings ............................................................................................................... 4

1. Benefits and Relationship of Fee to the Fee Payer.......................................................... 5

2. Consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan ....................................................... 5

3. Identification in Countywide Transportation Plan .......................................................... 6

4. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act................................................ 6

D. Governing Board and Organizational Structure .................................................................. 6

1. Agency Responsible for Administering Proceeds of Fee................................................ 6

2. Annual Budget Financial Projections.............................................................................. 6

3. Annual Report ................................................................................................................. 6

4. Use of Proceeds............................................................................................................... 7

5. Duration of Fee ............................................................................................................... 7

6. Severability ..................................................................................................................... 7

7. Amendments to the Plan ................................................................................................. 7

8. Option to Bond................................................................................................................ 8

9. Statute of Limitations...................................................................................................... 8

10. Implementation ............................................................................................................... 8

APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................................... 9
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................... 10
PUBLIC OUTREACH SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 10

 
 

Public Outreach Products ...................................................................................................... 10

Public Workshops.................................................................................................................. 12

City Council, Board and Stakeholder Presentations.............................................................. 14

APPENDIX B................................................................................................................................ 16
REQUIRED FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... 16

Local Road Improvement and Repair Program..................................................................... 16

Transit for Congestion Relief Program ................................................................................. 16

Local Transportation Technology Program........................................................................... 17

Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Safety ............................................................................ 18

 
 

ALAMEDA COUNTY
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE

REPORT ON THE EXPENDITURE PLAN
(Draft: 5-20-2010)

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to describe how the Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee
Expenditure Plan (Plan) was developed. The report includes revenue projections for the proposed
vehicle registration fee (Fee) and a summary of public outreach conducted to ensure the Plan
represents the input of a diverse population group across all geographic areas of Alameda County.
This report describes the elements and critical language of the Plan. This report also includes the
findings that need to be adopted by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
(Agency) Board that the programs and projects to be funded by the Fee have a relationship or
benefit to the persons paying the Fee and are consistent with a Regional Transportation Plan, as
required by statute.

A. Purpose of the Expenditure Plan

The Alameda County Vehicle Registration Fee Expenditure Plan (Plan) will guide the annual
expenditures of the funds generated by a $10 per year vehicle registration fee (Fee), if approved
by voters in the November 2010 election. Alameda County has very significant unfunded
transportation needs, and this Fee would provide funding to meet some of those needs. It is
expected that this Fee will generate approximately $11.1 million per year.

The goal of this Plan is to support transportation investments in a way that sustains the County’s
transportation network and reduces traffic congestion and vehicle-related pollution. The Fee
would be a key part of an overall strategy to develop a balanced, well thought-out program that
improves transportation and transit for County residents. The Fee will fund programs that:

• Repair and maintain local streets and roads in the county.

• Make public transportation easier to use and more efficient.
• Make it easier to get to work or school, whether driving, using public transportation,
bicycling or walking.
• Reduce pollution from cars and trucks.

The Plan would have the following specific elements:

• All of the money raised by the Fee would be used exclusively for transportation in Alameda
County.

 
 

• None of the funds raised, outside of the costs incurred by the Department of Motor Vehicle to
collect the Fee, can be taken by the State.
• There must be a relationship or benefit between the programs in the Expenditure Plan to the
owners of motor vehicles paying the Fee.
• Help fund roadway repairs and maintenance that make roads in Alameda County safer for
motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians.
• Provide investments that will help create a smarter, more efficient transportation system.
• Establish a reliable source of funding to help fund critical and essential local transportation
programs.

B. Statutory Authorization and Requirements

The opportunity for a Countywide transportation agency to place this Fee before the voters was
authorized last year by the passage of Senate Bill 83, authored by Senator Loni Hancock
(Oakland). The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (Agency) proposes to place a
transportation measure on the November 2, 2010 ballot to enact a $10 vehicle registration fee that
would be used for local transportation and transit improvements throughout Alameda County. A
majority vote of the electorate is required to enact this Fee.

The statute requires that the Fee collected be used only to pay for programs and projects that bear
a relationship or benefit to the owners of motor vehicles paying the Fee and be consistent with a
regional transportation plan. To implement this Fee, the statute requires the governing board of
the Agency to adopt an Expenditure Plan. The statute also requires the ballot measure resolution
be approved by majority vote of the Agency members at a noticed public hearing.

C. How the Plan was Developed

To ensure the Plan is inclusive of Alameda County’s diverse population and geographic areas,
significant outreach was made to a wide range of groups throughout Alameda County, as well as
each jurisdiction in the County. Public workshops were conducted in each of the four Planning
Areas. Input was requested of transit agencies, labor, business, community, environmental, faith-
based and community leaders. A detailed website, http://alamedacountyvrf.org/, was created to
present information on the development of the Plan, provide links to important background
documents, notify the public of upcoming workshops and meetings, and offer a venue to submit
comments. A detailed summary of community outreach efforts is included in Appendix A of this
report.

II. EXPENDITURE PLAN

A. Revenue Projections
Revenue from the proposed Fee is equal to the number of registered vehicles in the County
multiplied by the proposed Fee. Vehicles subject to this Fee include all motorized vehicles –
passenger cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks (such as semi-truck
cabs), buses of all sizes, motorcycles and motorized camper homes. The same flat Fee would be
imposed on all motorized vehicle types regardless of classification. Vehicles that are exempt
from this Fee, as articulated in the California Vehicle Code Division 3, Chapter 6, Article 1,

 
 

include publicly operated vehicles, educational institutional vehicles, privately owned school
buses, fire vehicles used for firefighting or as ambulances, tribal firefighting equipment, vehicles
owned by a federally recognized Indian Tribe and used exclusively on tribal land, vehicles owned
by disabled veterans, recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor and civil air patrol vehicles.

The total number of legally registered motorized vehicles in 2009 was 1,090,764. Using ABAG
Projections for the year 2011, 1,107,000 registered vehicles are projected for Alameda County. If
voters approve this measure in November 2010, the Fee would take effect in May 2011. Based
on these forecasts, a $10 annual vehicle registration fee will generate about $11.1 million. If
households grow as forecasted and the ratio of households to vehicles remains the same, it is
projected that the fee would apply to approximately 1.33 million vehicles annually generating
$13,302,000 by 2030.

B. Programmatic Expenditures
The Plan identifies four types of programs that will receive funds generated by the Fee. Below
are descriptions of each program and the percentage in parentheses of the annual revenue that will
be allocated to each program after deducting for the Agency’s administrative costs.

Local Road Improvement and Repair Program (60%)

This program would provide funding for improving, maintaining and rehabilitating local roads
and traffic signals. It also would incorporate the “complete streets” practice that makes local
roads safe for all modes, including bicyclists and pedestrians, and accommodates transit. Projects
eligible could include:

• Street repaving and rehabilitation, including curbs, gutters and drains

• Traffic signal maintenance and upgrades, including bicyclist and pedestrian treatments
• Signing and striping on roadways, including traffic and bicycle lanes and crosswalks
• Sidewalk repair and installation
• Bus stop improvements, including bus pads, turnouts and striping
• Improvements to roadways at rail crossings, including grade separations
• Improvements to roadways with truck or transit routing

Transit for Congestion Relief Program (25%)

This program would seek to make it easier for drivers to use public transportation, make the
existing transit system more efficient and effective, and improve access to schools and jobs. The
goal of this program is to decrease automobile usage and thereby reduce both localized and area-
wide congestion and air pollution. Projects eligible could include:

• Transit service expansion and preservation to provide congestion relief such as express bus
service in congested areas
• Rapid bus development and implementation as well as other transit priority treatments on
local roadways
• Employer or school-sponsored transit passes such as an “EcoPass Program”

 
 

• Park-and-ride facility improvements

• Increased usage of clean transit vehicles
• Increased usage of low floor transit vehicles
• Passenger rail station access and capacity improvements

Local Transportation Technology Program (10%)

This program would continue and improve the performance of road, transit, pedestrian and
bicyclist technology applications, and would accommodate emerging vehicle technologies such
as electric and plug-in-hybrid vehicles. Projects eligible could include:

• Development, installation, operations, monitoring and maintenance of local street and arterial
transportation management technology such as the “Smart Corridors Program”, traffic signal
interconnection, transit and emergency vehicle priority, advanced traffic management
systems and advanced traveler information systems
• Infrastructure for alternative vehicle fuels such as electric and plug-in-hybrid vehicle stations
• New or emerging transportation technologies that provide congestion or pollution mitigation
• Advance signal technology for walking and bicycling

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Access and Safety Program (5%)

This program would seek to improve the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians by reducing the
conflicts with motor vehicles and to reduce congestion in areas such as schools, downtowns,
transit hubs and other high activity locations. It also would seek to improve bicyclist and
pedestrian safety on arterials and other locally-maintained roads and to reduce occasional
congestion that may occur with incidents. Projects eligible could include:

• Improved access and safety to schools, such as “Safe Routes to Schools Programs”,
“Greenways to Schools Programs”, and other improvements (including crosswalk, sidewalk,
lighting and signal improvements) for students, parents and teachers
• Improved access and safety to activity centers (such as crosswalk, sidewalk, lighting and
signal improvements)
• Improved access and safety to transit hubs (such as crosswalk, sidewalk, lighting and signal
improvements)
• Improved bicycle and pedestrian safety on arterials, other locally-maintained roads and multi-
use trails parallel to congested highway corridors

C. Required Findings
The statute requires that the ballot measure resolution, adopted by the Agency, contain a finding
of fact that the projects and programs to be funded by the Fee increase have a relationship or
benefit to the persons who will be paying the Fee, and the projects and programs are consistent
with a Regional Transportation Plan. Below is a summary of the benefits and relationship of this
Fee to the Fee payer. Detailed documentation is included as Appendix B of this report.

 
 

1. Benefits and Relationship of Fee to the Fee Payer

The Plan includes four programs. Since this fee is on motorized vehicles, by extension
the Fee payer is predominately the driver of the vehicle. Each program benefits the Fee
payer as follows:

• Local Road Improvement and Repair Program: Fee payers benefit from having
roadways safely maintained and operating efficiently. It is difficult for motor
vehicles (auto, truck and buses), pedestrians and bicyclists to safely negotiate poorly
maintained roadways (i.e. low pavement quality, faded striping or signal operation
problems). Programs that improve local road operations benefit the driver by
identifying and mitigating recurring congestion problems.

• Transit for Congestion Relief Program: Fee payers benefit from the operation of
desirable, effective transit service. Because transit currently carries a substantial
number of peak hour work, school and shopping trips in congested corridors, transit
can contribute to reducing traffic congestion and air pollution. Many regional transit
riders drive to stations, so providing good access benefits those drivers. Transit
service can be made more attractive with priority treatments, station access and
faster-loading vehicles that help it operate more effectively and attract more people
away from driving. Cleaner transit vehicles can also reduce air pollution. Programs
that encourage transit ridership can also be effective if offered by employers or
schools as a way to reduce both corridor and site-related congestion.

• Local Transportation Technology Program: Fee payers benefit from the introduction
and utilization of new transportation technology. Projects that use roadway
technology can provide overall traffic speed improvements on the corridor and
reduce congestion at hot spots when they occur. Use of advanced detection systems
can identify when pedestrians, bicyclists or transit vehicles are present and need to be
considered as part of street operations. One purpose of advanced systems
technology programs is to intercept drivers before reaching congested hot spots and
influence a driver's decision to choose a less congested route or use transit. Programs
that support emerging "greener" transportation technologies such as alternative fuel
vehicles can reduce air pollution.

• Pedestrian and Bicyclist Access and Safety Program: Fee payers benefit from
bicyclist and pedestrian access and safety programs. Programs designed to increase
bicyclist and pedestrian use can reduce localized traffic congestion such as in the
vicinity of schools or in shopping areas and related air quality impacts. The driver
also benefits from safety improvements that reduce occasional congestion and related
air pollution that are created when incidents occur. This program can also provide
better access to transit, resulting in fewer drivers in congested corridors.

2. Consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan

The Plan is consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Regional
Transportation Plan (“Transportation 2035 Plan”) and performance objectives outlined
in the Regional Transportation Plan. Details that support these findings are included as
Appendix B of this report.

 
 

3. Identification in Countywide Transportation Plan

Programs in the Plan are identified in the investment policies outlined in the Countywide
Plan adopted by the Agency. Details that describe investment policies of the Countywide
Plan are included as Appendix B of this report.

4. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act

Environmental review of the Expenditure Plan is not required under the rationale stated
in Sustainable Transportation Advocates of Santa Barbara v. Santa Barbara County
Association of Governments (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 113. None of the programs in the
Expenditure Plan rises to the level of specification that would create a project under
CEQA. Many of the programs would be categorized as exempt. If a project to be funded
by one of the programs listed in this Expenditure Plan requires an analysis under CEQA,
no expenditures will be made until the requisite analysis has been completed.

D. Governing Board and Organizational Structure

1. Agency Responsible for Administering Proceeds of Fee
The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency ("Agency"), pursuant to
California Government Code Section 65089.20, shall place a majority vote ballot
measure before the voters to authorize a $10 per year increase in the motor vehicle
registration fee. If so approved, the Agency will collect and administer the Fee in
accordance with the Plan.

The Agency and the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (Authority)
have approved a merger of the two agencies into a new Alameda County Transportation
Commission (Alameda CTC), which would have members from all the jurisdictions that
currently are represented on the Agency’s Board. The Agency and the Authority expect
to delegate all of their powers, assets and liabilities to Alameda CTC. Upon such
delegation, the Fee would be collected and administered by the Alameda CTC pursuant to
the Plan. All references to “Agency” include reference to Alameda CTC.

2. Annual Budget Financial Projections

The Annual Budget, adopted by the Agency each year, will project the expected Fee
revenue, other anticipated funds and planned expenditures for administration and
programs.

3. Annual Report
The Agency shall draft an Annual Report, which shall be made available to the public
and will include the following:

• Revenues collected
• Expenditures by programs, including distribution of funds within each program and
in each planning area of the County, and administrative costs
• Accomplishments and benefits realized by the programs
• Proposed projects for funding in each program

 
 

Before adopting the Annual Report, the Agency will hold a public meeting and will
address public comments in the Annual Report.

4. Use of Proceeds
The proceeds of the Fee governed by this ordinance shall be used solely for the programs
and purposes set forth in the Plan and for the administration thereof. The Agency will
administer the proceeds of the Fee to carry out the mission described in the Plan. A
sponsor’s costs shall be reimbursed for expenditures incurred on an approved project
rather than provided in advance. Pursuant to California Government Code Section
65089.20, not more than five percent of the Fee shall be used for administrative costs
associated with the programs and projects, including the amendment of the Plan.

Pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 9250.4, the initial setup and programming
costs identified by the Department of Motor Vehicles (Department) to collect the Fee
upon registration or renewal of registration of a motor vehicle shall be paid by the
Agency from the Fee. Any direct contract payment with the Department by the Agency
shall be repaid, with no restriction on the funds, to the Agency as part of the initial
revenue available for distribution. The costs deducted pursuant to this paragraph shall
not be counted against the five percent administrative cost limit specified in California
Government Code Section 65089.20(d).

The costs of placing the measure authorizing imposition of the Fee on the ballot,
including payments to the County Registrar of Voters and payments for the printing of
the portions of the ballot pamphlet relating to the Fee, advanced by the Agency, shall be
paid from the proceeds of this Fee, and shall not be counted towards the five percent limit
on administrative costs. The costs of preparing the Plan, advanced by the Agency, shall
be paid from the proceeds of the Fee subject to the five percent limit on administrative
costs. At the discretion of the Agency, these costs may be amortized over a period of
years.

5. Duration of Fee
The Fee, if so approved, would be imposed annually unless repealed.

6. Severability
If any provision of this Plan or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is
held invalid, the remainder of this Plan and the application thereof to other persons or
circumstances shall not be affected.

If any provision of this Plan or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is
held invalid, the remainder of this Plan and the application thereof to other persons or
circumstances shall not be affected.

7. Amendments to the Plan

It is expected that the Plan will be amended from time to time. Amendment to the Plan
shall be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Agency Board. All jurisdictions within the

 
 

County will be given a minimum of 45 days notice and opportunity to comment on any
proposed Plan amendment prior to its adoption.

8. Option to Bond
The Agency administering the Fee will have the authority to bond for the purposes of
expediting the delivery of projects within the transportation programs. The bonds will be
paid with the proceeds of the Fee. The costs associated with bonding will be borne only
by programs in the Plan utilizing the bond proceeds. The costs and risks associated with
bonding will be presented in the Agency’s Annual Budget and will be subject to public
comment before approving a bond sale.

9. Statute of Limitations
Any suit, action or proceeding in any court against the Agency, or against any officer of
the Authority, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this ordinance, of any Fee or any
amount of Fee required to be collected must be brought within 120 days of the approval
of the imposition of the Fee by the voters of Alameda County.

10. Implementation
• The Agency will select and allocate funds to specific projects from each program.
• An equitable share of funds will be distributed among the four geographical sub areas
of the county over a five year cycle. Geographic equity is measured by formula
weighted 50 percent by population (as published by the California Department of
Finance) of the sub-area and 50 percent by registered vehicles (as determined by
California Department of Motor Vehicles) of the sub-area.
• The sub-areas of the county are defined by the Agency from time to time as follows:
North Area refers to the Cities of Oakland, Berkeley, Albany, Piedmont, Emeryville
and Alameda as well as unincorporated area within that boundary. Central Area
includes the Cities of Hayward and San Leandro, and the unincorporated areas of
Castro Valley and San Lorenzo, as well as other unincorporated lands governed by
Alameda County in the Central Area. South Area includes the Cities of Fremont,
Newark and Union City and all unincorporated lands in that area. East Area includes
the Cities of Livermore, Dublin and Pleasanton, and all unincorporated lands in that
area.
• Leveraging of outside funding sources is highly encouraged.
• New cities or new entities that come into existence in Alameda County after Fee is
authorized by voters could be considered as eligible recipients of funds through a
Plan amendment.

 
 

APPENDIX

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summary

Appendix B: Required Findings

 
 

APPENDIX A
PUBLIC OUTREACH SUMMARY
To ensure that the Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF) Expenditure Plan is inclusive of a diverse
population and all geographic areas, significant outreach was made to a variety of people and
groups throughout Alameda County. In March and April, the Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency (ACCMA), with assistance from Design, Community and Environment,
held a weeknight public workshop in each of the four ACCMA Planning Areas: North, Central,
South and East. These workshops were noticed in 14 Alameda County newspapers,
including notices in Spanish and Mandarin. In addition, ACCMA contacted over 100 local
stakeholder groups and individuals, including elected officials, transit agencies, labor, business,
community, environmental, faith-based and community leaders, to alert them of the process to
develop a VRF Expenditure Plan and upcoming workshops and presentations. The workshops
were also advertised on the project website, Facebook and Twitter. A detailed website,
http://alamedacountyvrf.org, was created to present information about the proposed VRF, provide
links to important background documents, notify the public of upcoming workshops and
meetings, and offer a venue to submit comments directly to ACCMA staff.

Public Outreach Products

The following materials were prepared to inform and educate the public and stakeholders about
the proposed fee and development of an Expenditure Plan:

• Branding: The VRF brand included a logo and trademark color palette and font used for
all outreach material.
• Website: The VRF website presented information about the proposed VRF and
development of an Expenditure Plan and provided an opportunity for public comment.
• Fact Sheet: The Fact Sheet presented the VRF message and summarized key points
regarding the VRF and the Expenditure Plan. It also included workshop and meeting
dates, times, and locations.
• Invitation Letter to Key Organizations: This letter informed local environmental and
business organizations and political/legislative groups about development of the VRF
Expenditure Plan process and encourage their participation.
• E-Newsletters: The E-Newsletters notified the public about key milestones of the
process and was e-mailed to over 100 stakeholder organizations and individuals.
• Social Media: Facebook and Twitter accounts were established and updated periodically
with reminders of upcoming events.
• Newspaper Notices: Newspaper notices informed the public about the four public
workshops. The table below summarizes when and where the newspaper notice was
advertised.

10

 
 

NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS
Number of Times
Newspaper Dates
Advertised
Alameda News Group:
- Alameda-Times Star
1 Sunday, March 14, 2010
- Oakland Tribune
- The Daily Review
Berkeley Voice 1 Friday, April 9, 2010
Piedmont Post 1 Friday, April 9, 2010
El Mensajero (Spanish language Sunday, March 14 and 21; April
3
ad) 4, 2010
India West 2 March 12, 2010; March 19, 2010
Oakland Post 1 Week of Monday, April 5, 2010
Oakland Tribune 1 Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Sing Tao Daily (Chinese
1 March 16, 2010
language ad)
The Daily Review 1 Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Independent - Livermore
1 Thursday, April 1, 2010
paper
Tri-Valley Herald 1 Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tri-Valley Views - Dublin
1 Monday, March 29, 2010
edition

11

 
 

Public Workshops
Four public workshops were conducted to inform the public about the proposed VRF and to
gather input for the Expenditure Plan. One workshop was held in each of the four ACCMA
Planning Areas.

REGIONAL WORKSHOPS SUMMARY

Date Day Planning Area* Location

3/18/10 Thursday Central Bay Fair Center Mall, San Leandro

3/31/10 Wednesday South Fremont Library

4/8/10 Thursday East Dublin Library Community Room
4/15/10 Thursday North City of Oakland, Hearing Room 3
*North: Refers to the Cities of Oakland, Berkeley, Albany, Piedmont, Emeryville and Alameda as
well as unincorporated area within that boundary.
Central: Refers to the Cities of Hayward and San Leandro, and the unincorporated areas of Castro
Valley and San Lorenzo, as well as other unincorporated lands governed by Alameda County in the
Central Area.
South: Refers to the Cities of Fremont, Newark and Union City and all unincorporated lands in that
area.
East: Refers to the Cities of Livermore, Dublin and Pleasanton, and all unincorporated lands in that
area

Five people attended the Fremont workshop and approximately 15 people attended the Oakland
workshop. The San Leandro and Dublin workshops did not attract any participants.

The same format was used for all the workshops. A presentation included an overview of the
proposed VRF, the types of potential programs that funds could be used to cover, the process of
developing the Expenditure Plan, and opportunities for public participation. A question and
comment period followed the presentation. Some frequently asked questions from the workshops
were:

Q1: How will the funds from the VRF be distributed?

A1: The distribution formula will be determined as part of the Expenditure Plan. ACCMA is
committed to ensuring that, over time, the funds are distributed fairly throughout all geographic
areas of the County.

Q2: Could the funds be used to support transit operations?

A2: The funds could preserve existing transit operations. Or, if these funds are not directly used
for transit operations, they could allow transit agencies to shift existing funds to cover operations.

Q3: How much will it cost to administer these funds?

12

 
 

A3: SB 83 limits administrative costs to five percent of total funding. ACCMA is proposing to
direct the VRF funds to existing programs with administrative frameworks already in place to be
as efficient as possible. Actual administrative costs cannot be estimated since, at the time of the
workshops, the Expenditure Plan has yet been developed. Funds generated from the fee would
have to be used for programs or projects that have a relationship or benefit to the fee payer.

Participants then reviewed the five program categories under consideration for VRF funding:
Roadway Rehabilitation, Maintenance and Operations, Non-Motorized Transportation, Transit,
New Roadway and Vehicle Technology, and Goods Movement. For each category, potential
types of improvements were described, and then comments were solicited on that category.
Comments from workshops included:

General
• Consider adding a sunset provision to help ensure accountability.
• Minimize spending on VRF administration.
• Funding should be equitably distributed throughout the County.
• Although this is called a “fee,” it is really a tax.

Roadway Rehabilitation, Maintenance and Operations

• There is a significant need for roadway rehabilitation and maintenance in many
Alameda County communities.
• Directing most of the funds to this category would reduce VRF administrative costs.

Non-Motorized Transportation
• Funding to improve access to transit hubs, including bus as well as BART hubs, is
preferred over funding for BART operations.

Transit
• Provide regular bus service – not Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).
• Reduce public transit fares.
• Improve transit operations and maintenance.
• BART should not receive VRF funding because it serves the entire region and this
money should stay within Alameda County.

New Roadway and Vehicle Technology

• Electric vehicle programs should not be considered at this time because it’s unclear
where the additional electricity needed would come from or whether the existing grid
can carry it.

Goods Movement
• Intersection improvements that help trucks make easier turns may make those
intersections less safe or inviting for cyclists and pedestrians.

After the comment period, workshop attendees participated in an expenditure plan exercise. The
purpose of the exercise was to give the public an opportunity to provide input on which
transportation programs should be funded by the VRF. At the beginning of the workshop,
participants were given play money in $1 million dollar bill increments totaling $11 million
 

13

 
 

dollars, equivalent to the funds that would be expected to be generated from the VRF.
Participants were asked to distribute their money into the following five categories, which were
described in detail during the presentation and are listed in the table on the next page.

EXPENDITURE PLAN WORKSHOP EXERCISE RESULTS

Fremont Oakland
Expenditure Plan Program
Workshop Workshop
Roadway Rehabilitation, Maintenance and 18% 55%
Operations
Non-Motorized Transportation 23% 17%

Transit 36% 18%

New Roadway and Vehicle Technology 11% 6%

Goods Movement 11% 4%

City Council, Board and Stakeholder Presentations

By the end of May 2010, information about the proposed VRF and development of an
Expenditure Plan and identified opportunities for public participation had been presented to all
City Councils of the 14 incorporated cities in Alameda County, as well as to the Alameda County
Board of Supervisors, BART Board, AC Transit Board and LAVTA Board. Presentations were
made to the East Bay Economic Development Alliance, the Mayor’s Conference, Breakfast of
Champions, the Oakland Chamber of Commerce, the City Manager’s Association, the County
and City Planning Director’s Forum, the Livermore Chamber of Commerce, the Tri-Valley
Business Council and the East Bay Bicycle Coalition.

Comments received at these presentations included:

• Clarification that the State cannot take the vehicle registration fee funds. There is
concern that protections be put in place to make sure that the State cannot take the
funds.
• Similar to the poll results, roadway rehabilitation and maintenance and transit and
bicycle connections (e.g., the complete streets concept) have also garnered support.
• Consider a “maintenance of effort” requirement for transit systems.
• Keep the program flexible as needs will change over time.
• Transit connections, especially in cities that do not have good connections, should be
emphasized.
• An equitable distribution of the funds is critical.
• It was suggested that the fee be collected by vehicle type rather than a flat fee on all
vehicles.
• A sunset on the fee should be included and a less than five percent administrative fee
should be applied.
• Concern that funds should not be spent on Bus Rapid Transit, but on local transit and
express bus.

14

 
 

• Funds should be spent on reducing the vehicle miles travelled through transit,
bicyclist and pedestrian projects rather than large capital projects.
• The fee should support free access to transit, such as the EcoPass.
• Geographic equity should be maintained.
• It is important to use the fee on projects that will smooth traffic flow, synchronize
signals and give priority to buses.
• Funding projects that provide safe routes to transit are critical.
• For the local road repair program, prioritization should be given to completing streets
that are on local bicycle and pedestrian plans.

15

 
   

APPENDIX B
REQUIRED FINDINGS

Local Road Improvement and Repair Program

This program would provide funding for improving, maintaining and rehabilitating local roads and traffic signals. It would also incorporate the “complete streets”
practice that makes local roads safe for all modes, including bicyclists and pedestrians, and accommodates transit. Fee payers benefit from having roadways safely
maintained and operating efficiently. It is difficult for vehicles (automobiles, trucks and buses) and bicyclists to safely negotiate poorly-maintained roadways (i.e. low
pavement quality, faded striping or signal operation problems). Programs that improve local road operations benefit the Fee payer by identifying and mitigating
recurring congestion problems.

Eligible Projects Could Include: Relationship to Fee Payer

Street repaving and rehabilitation,
including curbs, gutters and drains
Traffic signal maintenance and upgrades,
including bicycle and pedestrian treatments
Signing and striping on roadways,
including traffic and bicycle lanes and
crosswalks
Sidewalk repair and installation
Bus stop improvements, including bus
pads, turnouts and striping
Improvements to roadways at rail
crossings, including grade separations
Improvements to roadways with truck or
transit routing, including intersection
improvements
Local streets and roads must be kept in good working order, including proper drainage, design and maintenance. Street
repaving and rehabilitation are essential for the continued operation of all modes of transportation, especially automobiles
and trucks. If streets are not routinely repaved and rehabilitated, the pavement quality deteriorates to a point where motor
vehicles can no longer drive safely on roadways, and must drive slowly because they cannot travel at normal speeds. If
drainage is not maintained properly maintained, large pools of water may result during rainy periods, which creates
slowdowns as vehicles are unable to drive through areas of standing water at safe speeds.
Traffic signals are essential for the operation of major roads and streets in communities. These signals require routine
maintenance to keep them in proper working order. If signals are not in good working order, drivers will be unable to
negotiate the intersection without stopping, which creates significant local traffic congestion. It is also important to
periodically upgrade signal equipment and timing so that the operation of the intersection can be maximized.
In order for roadways to be safe and effective for motor vehicles (and other users) to travel, good signing and striping are
needed. This includes making sure that lanes are properly marked and that the signs and stripes are visible. Signing and
striping also extends to good bicyclist and pedestrian treatments, which provide notice to drivers as well as other users
where the safer areas on the pavement are.
The installation and repair of sidewalks provide a safe route of travel for pedestrians. Without a sidewalk in good working
order, pedestrians may be forced to walk alongside traffic lanes, resulting in reduced motor vehicle speeds. It also
improves safety, so that there are fewer opportunities for vehicle/pedestrian conflicts and associated traffic congestion that
may result when incidents occur.
The proper design of bus stop improvements greatly improves corridor traffic that operates along bus routes. For example,
concrete bus pads in the roadway provide better places for buses to stop, so that they do not stop at locations which have
softer asphalt, resulting in uneven pavement for automobiles and trucks that can develop due to the weight created by
buses.
Rail crossings at roadways are frequent causes of traffic delay. Improving the pavement quality around rail tracks can
enable vehicles to cross the tracks at higher speeds, which reduces congestion. Grade separations can help eliminate
places where traffic currently must wait for trains to clear a roadway before crossing, and remove the potential for
train/vehicle/bicyclist/pedestrian incidents that can occur at at-grade crossings.
These roadways, a subset of all roadways, have roadway design elements which make them unique. Heavier and larger
vehicles often benefit from geometric and other improvements if roadways are not designed to accommodate them
effectively. Without these improvements, trucks and transit vehicles may have difficulty traveling on some roadways,
resulting in slower general traffic speeds and an increase occurrence of localized congestion.

Consistency with Regional Transportation Plan

The program is consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Regional Transportation Plan (Transportation 2035 Plan). The 2035 Plan includes
several performance objectives that this Fee will help address, including:
• Maintain pavement condition index (PCI) of 75 or greater for local streets and roads.
• Reduce fatalities from motor vehicle collisions by 15 percent from today by 2035.
• Reduce bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities attributed to motor vehicle collections by 25 percent (each) from 2000 by 2035.
• Reduce bicyclist and pedestrian injuries attributed to motor vehicle collections by 25 percent (each) from 2000 by 2035.

Included in County Transportation Plan

This program is identified in the County Transportation Plan (Countywide Plan), which seeks to:
• Maintain and operate existing facilities.
• Ensure that regional gateways are safely operated to manage traffic flow and, where appropriate, give priority to the movement of carpools, buses and
commercial vehicles.
• Ensure routine accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists as identified in MTC Resolution 3765.

Transit for Congestion Relief Program

This program would seek to make it easier for drivers to use public transportation, make the existing transit system more efficient and effective, and improve access to
schools and jobs. The goal of this program is to decrease automobile usage and thereby reduce both localized and area-wide congestion and air pollution. Fee payers
benefit from the operation of desirable, effective transit service. Because transit currently carries a substantial number of peak hour work, school and shopping trips in
congested corridors, transit can contribute to reducing traffic congestion and air pollution. Many regional transit riders drive to stations, so providing good access
benefits those drivers. Transit service can be made more attractive with priority treatments, station access and faster-loading vehicles that help it operate more
effectively and attract more people away from driving. Cleaner transit vehicles can also reduce air pollution. Programs that encourage transit ridership can also be
effective if offered by employers or schools as a way to reduce both corridor and site-related congestion.

Eligible Projects Could Include: Relationship to Fee Payer

Transit service expansion and preservation to
provide congestion relief, such as express
bus service in congested areas
Rapid bus development and implementation,
as well as other transit priority treatments on
local roadways
Employer or school-sponsored transit passes,
such as an “EcoPass Program”
The continuation or expansion of transit service provides congestion relief as there are fewer drivers on the road.
Extending or expanding transit service beyond commute hours can increase the desirability of commuting by transit
during peak periods because riders know that there are options to leave and return home at any time during the day.
There is a particularly strong relationship between providing express bus service in congested corridors and the Fee
payer: this service can provide an alternative transportation choice for persons frustrated by waiting in traffic, resulting in
some benefit if drivers choose to make their trips by transit instead.
Transit priority treatments on local roads, transit speed protection and rapid bus. Transit priority treatments on local
roads can also increase the running speeds of buses, and reduce the duration of the traffic signal stopping that buses must
make while in service. The benefit is not only for the bus operators, but often the moving of buses can provide
additional time for adjacent traffic to also move more quickly though intersections. Without transit priority, buses must
stop more frequently or for longer periods of time, creating short periods of traffic congestion and create overall lower
corridor driving speeds. Also, as buses are able to make trips faster, their desirability as an alternative transportation
mode is increased.
These work or school site incentive based tools provide a financial incentive to use transit, bicycle or walk rather than to
drive. Fewer vehicles on the road can lead to an easing of traffic congestion and air pollution.

16
   

Transit for Congestion Relief Program

Park-and-ride facility improvements Park-and-ride facilities provide strategic intercept points for getting solo drivers off of congested roadways earlier, and
either form carpools or use public transportation instead. If no places to park are available or if the facilities are not in
good working order or designed safely, drivers may choose to make their entire trip by driving alone, resulting in more
congestion and air pollution.
Increased usage of clean transit vehicles These vehicles can provide a clear air pollution reduction benefit. These vehicles need to be both purchased and have
routine maintenance to be effective at reducing air pollution.
Increased usage of low-floor transit vehicles Low-floor transit vehicles can increase the running speeds of buses, and reduce the duration of the stops that buses must
make when boarding and alighting passengers in travel lanes. The benefit is only a few seconds for the general
passenger, as they are more rapidly able to get on or off a bus; the benefits are much more significant for those who
travel by wheelchair or walker, and need considerably more time to adequately board or alight a bus. When a high-floor
vehicle is used, buses must stop for longer periods as passengers must climb steps, which then creates short periods of
traffic congestion and overall lower corridor driving speeds. Also, as buses are delayed by longer stops, their desirability
as an alternative transportation mode is reduced.
Passenger rail station access and capacity Improving access to rail stations in all the possible modes – driving, drop-off/pick-up, walking, bicycling, transit
improvements transferring – are ways that provide an alternative to driving, thus providing some ease in traffic congestion and air
pollution.
Consistency with Regional Transportation Plan
The program is consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Regional Transportation Plan (Transportation 2035 Plan). The 2025 Plan includes
several performance objectives that this Fee will help address, including:
• Achieve an average age for all transit asset types that is no more than 50 percent of their useful life.
• Increase the average number of miles between service calls for transit service in the region to 8,000 miles.
• Reduce bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities attributed to motor vehicle collections by 25 percent (each) from 2000 levels by 2035.
• Reduce bicyclist and pedestrian injuries attributed to motor vehicle collections by 25 percent (each) from 2000 levels by 2035.
• Reduce daily per-capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 10 percent from today’s levels by 2035.
• Reduce emissions of fine particulates (PM2.5) by 10 percent from today’s levels by 2035.
• Reduce emissions of coarse particulates (PM10) by 45 percent from today’s levels by 2035.
• Reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2035.

Included in County Transportation Plan

This program is identified in the County Transportation Plan (Countywide Plan), which seeks to:
• Maintain and operate existing facilities.
• Encourage the purchase of alternative fuel transit vehicles to the greatest extent possible given financial constraints.
• Support strategies that reduce transportation’s share of greenhouse gas emissions.
• Ensure that regional gateways are safely operated to manage traffic flow and, where appropriate, give priority to the movement of carpools, buses and
commercial vehicles.
• Implement incentives for transit use, ride sharing and more efficient use of existing roads.

Local Transportation Technology Program

This program would continue and improve the performance of road, transit, pedestrian and bicyclist technology applications, and would accommodate emerging vehicle
technologies, such as electric and plug-in-hybrid vehicles. Fee payers benefit from the introduction and utilization of new transportation technology. Projects that use
roadway technology can provide overall traffic speed improvements on the corridor and reduce congestion at hot spots when they occur. Use of advanced detection
systems can identify when pedestrians, bicyclists or transit vehicles are present and need to be considered as part of street operations. One purpose of advanced
systems technology programs is to intercept drivers before reaching congested hot spots and influence a driver's decision to choose a less congested route or use transit.
Programs that support emerging "greener" transportation technologies, (such as alternative fuel vehicles, can reduce air pollution.

Eligible Projects Could Include: Relationship to Fee Payer

Development, installation, operations, These programs can optimize the operation of the existing system, which minimizes congestion. The minimizing of
monitoring and maintenance of local street congestion may even be possible if the same number of vehicles are on roadways, but are able to be operated with less
and arterial transportation management delay as a result of the use of new technologies and thus less air pollution is created from idling or slow-moving cars.
technology, such as the “Smart Corridors
Program”, traffic signal interconnection,
transit and emergency vehicle priority,
advanced traffic management systems and
advanced traveler information systems
Infrastructure for alternative vehicle fuels, Providing alternative vehicle fuel infrastructure can make using lower emission vehicles feasible for many drivers. The
such as electric and hybrid vehicle plug-in result would be less air pollution than if standard vehicle fuels are used.
stations.
New or emerging transportation The continuing advancement of transportation technologies to provide congestion or pollution mitigation will improve the
technologies that provide congestion or efficiency and effectiveness of the overall transportation system. New technologies can also emerge that have lasting
pollution mitigation ability of improving the operation of the existing system or the amount of pollution created by some vehicles.
Advance signal technology for walking Pedestrians and bicyclists often must cross roadways. Emerging technology will be better able to identify when
and bicycling. pedestrians and bicyclists are present and to determine the best time for them to cross a roadway. For example, signal
equipment that can sense the presence of pedestrians and bicyclists can automatically provide longer crossing times
without relying on push buttons. The signal operation can apply this technology to automatically adjust crossing phases
that provide better safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, while optimizing traffic flow.
Consistency with Regional Transportation Plan
The program is consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Regional Transportation Plan (Transportation 2035 Plan). The 2025 Plan includes
several performance objectives that this Fee will help address, including:
• Enhance or install critical infrastructure detection equipment on high-priority transportation facilities.
• Reduce emissions of fine particulates (PM2.5) by 10 percent from today’s levels by 2035.
• Reduce emissions of coarse particulates (PM10) by 45 percent from today’s levels by 2035.
• Reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2035.

Included in County Transportation Plan

This program is identified in the County Transportation Plan (Countywide Plan),, which seeks to:
• Maintain and operate existing facilities.
• Encourage the purchase of alternative fuel transit vehicles to the greatest extent possible given financial constraints.
• Support strategies that reduce transportation’s share of greenhouse gas emissions.
• Ensure that regional gateways are safely operated to manage traffic flow and, where appropriate, give priority to the movement of carpools, buses and
commercial vehicles.

17
   

Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Safety

This program would seek to improve the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians by reducing the conflicts with motor vehicles and reduce congestion in areas such as
schools, downtowns, transit hubs and other high activity locations. It would also seek to improve bicyclist and pedestrian safety on arterials and other locally-maintained
roads and reduce occasional congestion that may occur with incidents. Fee payers benefit from bicyclist and pedestrian access and safety programs. Programs
designed to increase bicyclist and pedestrian use can reduce localized traffic congestion such as in the vicinity of schools or in shopping areas and related air quality
impacts. The driver also benefits from safety improvements that reduce occasional congestion and related air pollution that are created when incidents occur. This
program can also provide better access to transit, resulting in fewer drivers in congested corridors.

Eligible Projects Could Include: Relationship to Fee Payer

Improved access and safety to schools, such School-related congestion can pose an issue on local streets as parents, teachers and sometimes students are all burdening
as “Safe Routes to Schools Programs”, local street operations. Congestion is highest during periods of school opening or closing. Reducing localized traffic
”Greenways to Schools Programs”, and other congestion in school zones by encouraging walking or bicycling provides both congestion relief as well as general air
improvements (including crosswalk, pollution reductions.
sidewalk, lighting and signal improvements)
for students, parents and teachers
Improved access and safety to activity Improved pedestrian and bicycle access and safety to activity centers – such as commercial districts, medical services
centers (such as crosswalk, sidewalk, areas, office parks and other major attractions -- can result in less driving in these areas, creating localized reduction in
lighting and signal improvements) congestion as traveler’s journey to, from and within these activity centers.
Improved access and safety to transit hubs All persons using transit are also pedestrians or bicyclists at some point on their trip. Improvements to these modes of
(such as crosswalk, sidewalk, lighting and access, whether from a parking lot, home, business, or drop-off/pick-up area, can improve the usage of the transit system
signal improvements) and attract travelers from driving on congested corridors. In particular, crosswalk, sidewalk, lighting and signal
improvements can improve safety for persons using these modes of travel, as well as provide a greater awareness of
when it is desirable to not block general traffic movements. Fewer accidents will reduce occasional congestion. In
addition, it can attract persons to transit, resulting in fewer drivers on the road.
Improved bicycle and pedestrian safety on In order for motorized vehicles (and other users) to travel safely and efficiently on arterials and other locally-maintained
arterials, other locally-maintained roads and roadways, pedestrian and bicyclist safety treatments are valuable. These treatments alert drivers to bicyclists and
multi-use trails parallel to congested pedestrians as well as direct bicyclists and pedestrians to safer areas of the roadway or away from congested roadways to
highway corridors trails. For example, without a sidewalk, pedestrians may be forced to walk alongside traffic lanes, and may result in
reduced motor vehicle speeds. Without bicycle treatments, bicyclists may be forced to use traffic lanes, and may result
in reduced motor vehicle speeds. Finally, treatments can reduce the opportunities for vehicle/bicyclist/pedestrian
conflicts to occur, resulting in less traffic congestion that may result when incidents associated with bicyclists and
pedestrians occur.
Consistency with Regional Transportation Plan
The program is consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Regional Transportation Plan (Transportation 2035 Plan). The 2025 Plan includes
several performance objectives that this Fee will help address, including:
• Reduce bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities attributed to motor vehicle collections by 25 percent (each) from 2000 by 2035.
• Reduce bicyclist and pedestrian injuries attributed to motor vehicle collections by 25 percent (each) from 2000 by 2035.
• Reduce daily per-capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 10 percent from today’s levels by 2035.
• Reduce emissions of fine particulates (PM2.5) by 10 percent from today’s levels by 2035.
• Reduce emissions of coarse particulates (PM10) by 45 percent from today’s levels by 2035.
• Reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2035.

Included in County Transportation Plan

This program is identified in the County Transportation Plan (Countywide Plan), which seeks to:
• Maintain and operate existing facilities.
• Give priority to projects that are most effectively coordinated with land use planning, with special focus on Priority Development Areas (PDAs).
• Support strategies that reduce transportation’s share of greenhouse gas emissions.
• Ensure routine accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists as identified in MTC Resolution 3765.

18