Contra Costa Panel Ranks $230M in Grant Requests Chasing Roughly $99M

Contra Costa's transportation engineers got a blunt reality check on Sept. 17: 39 applications worth about $230 million are competing for roughly $90 million to $99 million in regional federal funds. The Technical Coordinating Committee spent more than an hour on the One Bay Area Grant 4 (OBAG 4) ranking, with San Pablo Avenue safety improvements on top. It did not take a recorded vote, and staff expects only three or four city projects to win OBAG money once countywide programs are funded.

---

• San Pablo Avenue multimodal safety package ranks No. 1 among 20 scored OBAG 4 projects
• Only 3 or 4 projects are likely to get OBAG funds after countywide set-asides
• Staff will ask the board to cut the student Bay Pass from $17.7M to $10M and Smart Signals from $24M to $14M
• Chair flags missing West County projects; staff says equity will be measured across the whole funding call
• Final list goes to the CCTA board on the 21st, ahead of an end-of-October deadline from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)

---

39 Applications, 20 Ranked, Few Winners

Why it matters: MTC caps how much the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) can nominate. This ranking decides which local projects compete for regional dollars and which go back to smaller county pots.

Where things stand: Staff received 39 applications. One was ineligible. Staff then screened the remaining 38 to a shortlist of about 20 to 23 using five tests: willingness to accept federal funds, ability to cover the 11.47% local match, deliverability, MTC's regional criteria and readiness for a construction or implementation phase.

A six-member TCC scoring subcommittee then rated each project individually on a 75-point scale. MTC adds 25 to 35 points of its own. The subcommittee ranked projects by average reviewer rank rather than average score because outlier scores distorted the results.

Matt Kelly, CCTA staff, said the ranking held up across methods: "the top 3 do not change," whether projects were sorted by average, median or rank. He explained that "MTC assigns us a nomination target that is 120% of our formula-based target," which lets CCTA submit more than it will actually receive.

The other side: Members questioned whether the exercise left them enough to work with. Chair Leah Greenblatt said, "I feel like this committee should have some recommendation on what it wants to see funded, but we don't have that information." Another participant cautioned against reading too much into the list: "These are just the top 20 that were scored for OBAG."

One member asked whether generous local scoring could backfire under MTC's normalized scoring: "are we kind of shooting ourselves in the foot?" Kelly said it should not, pointing to the last round: "I think our highest score was 52 out of 75," and that score did not hurt the county in OBAG 3. A member also asked why the Crow Canyon overcrossing did not make any list. Greenblatt asked whether CCTA would give applicants feedback on their submissions if they request it.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: The item was billed as an action item, but no motion or vote on the ranking was recorded. Chair Greenblatt and staff asked members whether they agreed with the order. Cities near the top of the list, led by the San Pablo Avenue corridor sponsors, are best positioned. Lower-ranked sponsors are not shut out. Kelly said "projects, whether they were scored or weren't scored, will still move on if they still have a funding gap remaining," meaning they will move into the county's Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) and Measure J-funded pedestrian and bicycle (PBTF) processes.

What's next: Staff invited the top eight to 10 applicants to present Complete Streets checklists at the Sept. 28 meeting of the countywide bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee. A funding table is due in the planning committee packet.

---

Countywide Set-Asides Squeeze the Competitive Pot

Why it matters: Money for countywide programs comes off the top before any city project is funded. Those set-asides largely explain why so few local projects will win.

Where things stand: In June, the CCTA board chose to prioritize three countywide programs: Smart Signals Phase 2, Safe Routes to Schools non-infrastructure work and the Student Transportation program, which would provide Clipper Bay Passes to students. The rest of the funds go to competitive transit and active transportation categories under an 80/20 split.

Hisham, CCTA staff, said staff will lower the requests: Smart Signals from $24M to $14M, and "the request was lowered from $17.7 to $10 million" for the student Bay Pass. Updates to the transportation demand management (TDM) and electric vehicle blueprints moved out of OBAG and into the CMA planning agreement. Staff said $10M for the Bay Pass would fund a pilot.

Even with the cuts, Hisham said "we will probably be able to fund 3, maybe 4 projects from the OBAG funding with the countywide programs." He acknowledged the countywide programs were scored only because the board directed it: "we probably shouldn't have scored them, but we scored them anyway." Staff defended the set-asides on their merits, on geographic equity and as a hedge against tightening MTC rules.

The other side: Member Andy Smith questioned the student pass's cost, noting that "the request for the program or the proposal for Bay Pass for students countywide, it's $17.7 million." He floated a cheaper alternative: year-round free rides for youth on County Connection, WestCAT and Tri-Delta, which he said would "probably be in the neighborhood of about $1 million a year, and that would be effectively zero overhead." One member asked whether the savings from the cuts would only show up years later. Staff said the reduction applies to the requested amount itself.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: No vote was taken. Transit riders and school districts stand to benefit if the board keeps the Bay Pass pilot. Cities sponsoring bike and pedestrian projects gain only marginally from the trims. Smith's estimate gives the board a concrete low-cost comparison to weigh against a $10M pilot.

What's next: Staff will bring the reduced asks to the CCTA board.

---

Who Gets a Share: The Equity Debate

Why it matters: Under a stand-alone OBAG call, East and Southwest County could get nothing. How equity is counted determines which parts of the county benefit.

Where things stand: Contra Costa is running several funding streams in one coordinated call:

• CARE: funded by REAP and replacing the Lifeline program. It lists two projects.
• TFCA: lists about seven partially funded projects.
• Selection basis: both lists were chosen on eligibility and cost-effectiveness, not OBAG rank.

Looking at those lists, Chair Greenblatt said "there's no West County representation in there."

Staff answered that equity is calculated across the whole call. TLC money is allocated by shares in the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP), the voter-approved spending plan, and East County has no TLC share left after E-BART. Asked about using TLC to balance the regions, Hisham said, "We'll be violating the TEP if we do that." Staff said a stand-alone OBAG call would send money only to West and Central County. PBTF funds go through the countywide bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: A member confirmed that roughly $100 million, minus about $35 million in TLC, will be distributed equitably across subregions. West County cities should watch whether OBAG awards make up for their absence from the CARE and TFCA lists. East County sponsors depend on the non-TLC streams. Staff said it would revise the slide describing equity.

What's next: MTC requires OBAG, TFCA and CARE recommendations by the end of October. Regional transportation planning committees will rank TLC and PBTF projects in November. Those decisions will wait for MTC's response, expected around year-end. Kelly said that "on the 21st, our board meets to consider our final OBAG 4 project nomination list." Greenblatt asked staff to debrief the committee on how this complex call for projects went.

---

Minor Items

• Consent calendar approved: The motion by Member Smith passed 15-0, with four members absent. For: Chair Greenblatt, Vice Chair Celestine Do, and Members Aaron Elias, Patrick Golier, Habibullah Habib, Nate Levine, Josef Munoz, Matt Redmond, Anju Pillai, Smith, Jamar Stamps, Regina Tran, Jeff Valeros, Chris Weeks and Finn Wurtz. Against: 0. Absent: Agustin Diaz, Gina Haynes, Trevor McGuire and Will Nelson.
• SR 4 money may shift: Associate Engineer Jay Zhang said, "We'll be seeking at the October CDC meeting to reprogram those funds from SR 4 onto San Pablo Dam Road," referring to State Route 4 Operational Improvement Phase 1 funds.
• Projects on track: Zhang reported STIP and ATP projects on schedule. A handful of OBAG 3 projects remain, and fiscal year 2027 is the final year.
• Inactive federal projects at risk: Sponsors with no reimbursement requests in six months are on the federal inactive list. Zhang urged them "to start submitting invoices to Caltrans to make sure that your project is not at risk of losing federal funding."

---

Looking Ahead

Watch the CCTA board meeting on the 21st, where set-aside sizes and the final OBAG 4 list will be decided. City staff with projects below the top three or four should prepare for the TLC, PBTF, TFCA and CARE processes, the more likely sources of funding this cycle.