Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
6.1 Tri-Val Trans Dev Fee
Of 19'C i82 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL File # ❑OM o❑-®© O�LIFOR� � DATE: April 19, 2011 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager SUBJEC :-- Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Tri-Valley Transportation Council Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update and an Increase to the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Prepared By: Jaimee Bourgeois, Senior Civil Engineer (Traffic) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In 2008, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) completed a Fee Nexus Study Update and developed new Tri-Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee amounts for member agency consideration. The Dublin City Council adopted a Resolution in 2008 approving the proposed new fee increases, which would have gone into effect on July 1, 2010, across all land use categories. The Resolution was later rescinded because not all seven TVTC member agencies approved the fee increases. TVTC has since developed an update to the Strategic Expenditure Plan that identifies fee allocations to specific transportation improvement projects and is reconsidering a fee increase to be enacted on January 1, 2012. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no cost associated with this item. If the revised fee structure is unanimously approved by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council and by each member's Council or Board, the City will likely receive additional development revenues that will be allocated toward high -priority regional transportation improvement projects. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing and receive comments from the public; 3) Close the public hearing and deliberate; 4) Adopt the Resolution amending the Tri-Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee schedule and approving the 2011 Strategic Expenditure Plan Update pursuant to the requirements of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, and 5) Provide direction to the City of Dublin TVTC representative regarding a proposed modification to the TVTC Joint Exercise of Powers Agreemen that would allow amendments to the TVTD Fee schedule and the Strategic Expenditure Pla be ap roved b a 6-1 vote, rather than by a unanimous vote. Submitted By Rev' w By Public Works Director Assistant City Manager Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. (0.1 ,Q� DESCRIPTION: The Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) is composed of elected officials from Danville, Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, Alameda County and Contra Costa County. The initial purpose of the TVTC was to develop and adopt the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (MP/AP). In 1998 and 1999, the TVTC established a Tri-Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee, and adopted a Strategic Expenditure Plan that programmed anticipated TVTD Fee revenue to 11 regional transportation projects that were identified in the TVTP/AP. The governing documents provide for annual adjustments to the fee based upon the annual change in the Construction Cost Index. Other changes to the fee require unanimous approval by all of the member agencies. In 2004, the TVTC began the process of updating the fee nexus study. A second list of 11 new projects was included in the updated study. On January 30, 2008, the TVTC approved the updated Tri-Valley Nexus Study Report that identified the maximum allowable development fees that could be applied to development to fully fund the finro lists of transportation improvement projects. To cover more of the unfunded balance of project construction costs, the TVTC subsequently developed a proposed new fee structure with phased increases, to be considered by each member agency. In this proposal the first adjustment to the new fees was scheduled to take place July 1, 2010. The City of Dublin adopted Resolutions approving the new fee structure in October 2008. Because unanimous approval of this increase was required of all seven member agencies prior to modifying the TVTD Fee, and because one of the member agencies did not approve the revised fee structure, the TVTC did not formally adopt the fee increase. As such, the City of Dublin rescinded the associated 2008 Resolutions on June 22, 2010, before the fees were slated to increase. The one member agency that did not approve the new fee structure communicated support of the, revised fees but indicated that it would not approve until an update to the Strategic Expenditure.Plan was completed. A sub-committee of the MC was formed and an update to the Strategic Expenditure Plan was developed. On February 10, 2011, the TVTC unanimously approved a fee structure as shown in Table 1 and approved the proposed 2011 Strategic Expenditure Plan Update for release to the seven-member jurisdictions for local adoption (Attachment 1). . ~ As unanimously approved by TVTC, the proposed fee structure reflects a two year phase-in of the new fees with an initial increase to 25% of the maximum allowable by the fee nexus study starting January 1, 2012; and a final increase to 35% of the maximum allowable starting January 1, 2013, as illustrated below. The fee schedule was a compromise since some agencies wished to have the fees increase on July 1, 2011, while some agencies wished to refrain from an increase until July 1, 2012. A 2011 MDF Funding Plan (Attachment 2), contained within the TVTC SEP 2011 Update Draft Report, presents funding allocations for each of the high priority projects over a 10-year horizon based on the fee schedule described above. It should be noted that in early 2010 the TVTC elected to proceed with a fee increase for the "Other Uses" land use category. This fee increase was approved by all seven member agencies in late 2009 and ultimately adopted as part of an addendum to the TVTC Joint Page 2 of 4 Exercise of Powers Agreement in early 2010. This adopted increase to the "Other Uses" land use category will remain in effect. In addition, the provision for annual adjustments to the fee based on changes in the Construction Cost Index remains in effect. TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RATES TO EXISTING AND PHASED RATES 2008 Fee Nexus Pro osed Fee Schedule Land Use Study Current Fee Jan 2012 - Dec 2012 Jan 2013 + Category Maximum Allowed (% of Max) (25% of Max (35% of Max) Single Family $12,238/unit $?170/unit 18 /o of Max $3,053/unit $4,275/unit Multi-Family $8,430/unit $10380/unit 16 /o of Max $2,104/unit $2,945/unit Office $20.80/sf $3.89/sf 19% of Max $5.19/sf ~ $7.27/sf Retail 71/sf $22 5 $ $3.40/sf' $3.40/sf' . 0 of Max 6 Industrial $12.10/sf $2.64/sf 22% of Max $3.02/sf $4.23/sf Other $13 598/trip2 ~20170/trip2 $3,053/trip3 $4,275/trip3 , (16 /o of Maz) Afford.Hsg3 $0/unit _ $0/unit $0/unit $0/unit Notes: 1. Retail set at 15% of maximum for January 2012 and beyond 2. Per Avera e AM/PM eak tri In addition to the fee schedule and SEP, the TVTC is also considering amendments to the finro TVTC governing documents: a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA), executed in 1991 and never rescinded, and the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA), executed in 1998 and amended in 2003 and 2009. Steps to consolidate the two documents and amend the language were initiated because the TVTC unanimously agreed to change the Chair rotation from one to two years, to consolidate the roles of Chair and Treasurer, and to retain consultant services on an ongoing basis to handle day-to-day financial management. The above described changes require amendments to the governing documents. As such, the TVTC also authorized a top-to- bottom review of the two governing documents and directed staff to recommend amendments and/or consolidations, as appropriate. A single document has therefore been drafted that consolidates the two documents, removes overlapping inconsistencies, removes outdated language, establishes TVTC as a separate legal entity, streamlines administrative processes, and summarizes the voting requirements for various matters. With respect to voting requirements, the governing documents are currently written such that ~unanimous approval by all seven member agencies is required to amend the fee schedule or the SEP. This requirement was a topic of discussion at the February TVTC meeting, when the Council considered changing requirement to a 6-1 vote. The modification was suggested due to the difficulty in gaining unanimity from seven agencies. Because unanimous approval is required to modify the voting structure and because not all member agencies were in agreement to this change, the amended JEPA was not approved. The MC Chair asked that each member agency discuss this item with their respective Councils/Boards, and a follow-up discussion will occur at the next TVTC meeting in May. As such, Staff asks that Page 3 of 4 the City Council provide direction to the City of Dublin TVTC representative regarding the proposal to modify the TVTC voting structure to require a 6-1 approval for amendments to the fee schedule and the SEP rather than unanimity. It should be noted that although not yet approved, the revised JEPA document does include a provision that "Project Sponsors are eligible to receive MD Fees in accordance with the SEP only if they have adopted the uniform TVTD Fees..." This provision would prevent an agency from receiving money if they have elected to not increase the fees at the same time that the other members do so. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: As required by Government Code Section 66016, notices were mailed 14 days in advance of this meeting to all interested parties, data was made available 10 days in advance of the meeting, and this .item is being discussed as part of an open public meeting. As required by Government Code Section 66018, notice was also published twice in the Valley Times Newspaper prior to this meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Adopted TVTC Resolution 2011-01 2. 2011 TVTD Fee Funding Plan 3. Resolution amending the Tri-Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee schedule and approving the 2011 Strategic Expenditure Plan Update pursuant to the requirements of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, together with Exhibit "A" (Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Fee Update) and Exhibit "B" (TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Report G:\TIF\Tri-Valley Transportation Development~staff rpt 2012 Fee Increase_041911.doc Page 4 of 4 ~~ ~~~ TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2011-01 APPROVING THE RELEASE OF THE UPDATED TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT (TVTD) FEE SCHEDULE AND THE 2011 STRATEGIC EXPENDITURE PLAN UPDATE FOR LOCAL ADOPTION ' WHEREAS, on February 26, 2008, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) adopted the findings of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study - Fee Update ("Study"); and WHEREAS, the Study considered the following Projects and the number of trips generated by each of the land use types and determined the Maximum Fee Rate for each of the land uses; from Table 4.1, Exhibit A of the Study: . A-2a Route 84 Expressway I-580 to I-680 A-2b Isabel Route 84/I-580 Interchange A-3 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes A-Sa I-580 HOV Lane Eastbound A-Sb I-580 HOV Lane Westbound A-7 I-580/FoothilUSan Ramon Road Interchange A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 A-9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2 A-l0a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 A-lOb Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit Projects from Exhibit Table 4.2, Exhibit B of the Study: B-1 I-580/I-680 interchange (westbound to southbound) B-2 Sth eastbound lane on I-580 from Santa Rita to Vasco Road B-3 I-580/First Street interchange modification B-4 I-580/Vasco Road interchange modification B-5 I-580/Greenville Road interchange modification B-6 Jack London Boulevard extension B-7 El Charro Road Extension B-8 Camino Tassajara widening: East Blackhawk Drive to County line B-10 I-680 SB HOV lane Gap Closure, North Main to Livoma B-11 I-680 Express Bus/HOV On- and Off-Ramps B-l lb I-680 Transit Corridor Lnprovements WHEREAS, the Projects listed reflects a removal of the Danville Boulevazd/Stone: Valley Road I-680 Interchange Improvement project at the request of Contra Costa County at the June 30, 2008 TVTC meeting; and W~EREAS, the proposed 2011 Strategic Expenditure Plan Update incorporates a Funding Plan that reflects an increase in the TVTD Fees beginning January l, 2012 as a means of funding portions of these Projects; and __ __ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ r B B ATTACHMENT ~. ~~~o~ WHEREAS, ~the proposed TVTD Fee increase reflects the agreed-upon phase-in of the new fees, with no change in the current year (FY 2010-11, and extended through December 31, 2011), an increase to 25% of the maximum allowable by the fee nexus study in the second year (Calendar Year 2012, beginning January 1, 2012), and a final increase to 35 % of the maximum allowable by the third year (Calendar Year 2013, beginning January 1, 2013); and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. TVTC adopts the following Fee Schedule for each of the designated land uses for the Fiscal Years indicated and finds that said Fee Schedule is determined by the Study to be necessary to generate sufficient revenue to fund portions of the unfunded cost of the listed Projects: FY 2010/2011 through December 31, 2011 Fee Schedule (Existing/No Change) Fee Per Unit Single Family Homes $2 170 Du* Multi-Family Homes ~ $1,380 Du* Office $3,890 1,OOOsf Retail $1,450 1,000sf Industrial , $2,640 1,OOOsf Other $2,170 PHT* * , Affordable Housing $0 Du* Calendar Year 2012 (beginning 1/1/2012) Fee Per Unit Single Family Homes $3,053 Du* Multi-Family Homes $2,104 Du* Office $5,191 1,OOOsf Retail* * * $3,400 1,OOOsf Industrial $3,020 1,OOOsf Other $3, 053 PHT** Affordable Housing $0 Du* Calendar Year 2013 (beginning 1/1/2013) Fee Per Unit Single Family Homes $4,275 Du* Multi-Family Homes $2,945 Du* Office ~ ~ $7,270 1,OOOsf Retail*** $3,400 1,OOOsf Industrial $4,230 1,OOOsf Other ~ $4,275 PHT** Affordable Housing $0 Du* •" Du= Dwelling Unit; •• PHT = Peak Hour Trip; +'~+` Retail is set at I S% of maximum for FY2011/12 to FY 2029/30 ' 3 ~~ ~ 2. TVTC directs each of the signatory parties to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA), June 2, 1998, to collect such fees on developments located within their respective jurisdictions for which they grant a Land Use Entitlement and dispose of said exactions in the manner provided for in the JEPA; and 3. TVTC approves the proposed 2011 Strategic Expenditure Plan Update and release to the seven-member jurisdictions for local adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the meeting of February 10, 2011 by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: /! Andrew Dillard, TVTC Administrative Staff Tri-Valley Transportation Council ~~~a~ TABLE 5- 2011 TVTDF FUNDING PLAN ~,M , ~w ~,o .. ~~.. ~ _. -2a Route 84 Expressway (I-580 to I-680)~ Livermore/Alameda CTC $ 2.94 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 2.83 $ 434 $ 2.83 $ 22.94 -2b Isabel Route 8411-580 Interchange ~ Livermore/Alameda CTC ~ $ L57 $ 3.58 $ 515 -3 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Segment2) DanvillelCCTA ~ $ 3.23 $ 2.65 ~_ ~ ~ ~~ 5•88 -Sa I-580 HOV Lane Eastbound PleasantonlAlameda CTC $ 110 $ 1.10 -Sb I-580 HOV Lane Westbound Pleasanton/Alameda CTC $" -7 I-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road Interchange Pleasanton/Caltrans $ 0.75 $ 0.75 -9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 Alameda Ctylsame $ 1.55 $ 1.55 -9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Pfiase 2 Alameda Cty/same $ 1.69 $ 1.69 -10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 Alameda Ctylsame $ 1.66 $ 1.66 $ 332 -' -10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 Alarneda Cry/same $ 133 $ 1.25 $ 2.58 ~ • ~ ress BusBus Ra ~d Transit Phase 2 ~ 1l Ex p Dublin/LAVTA ~ $ 014 $ 0.14 , p - _ _ _.. ._. . ,,,,,..._ . ~~~ ~,.. ~. dn~ ~~~~ ~,~a~, ~~. ~~~ ~ ,~~~~,~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~_3~~~~ ~_ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~ u~~ .~r ~~P ~ _~~z::~.. ~,~~a~ :;~~ .. .-.,~ ~~,. ~ ~~ ~~ ~,~,~ ~......__ _-- 1 I-580/I-680 Interchange (Westbound to Southbound) Dublin/ACTA $ ' 2 Fifth Eastbound Lane on I-580 (Santa Rita to Vasco Road) Pleasanton/Caltrans $' 3 I-580/First Street Interchange Modification LivermorelCaltrans ~ $" 4 I-SSONasco Road Interchange Modification Livermore/Caltrans $ 2.85 $ 1.95 $ 4.80 S I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification Livermore/Caltrans $- 6 Jack London Boulevard Extension Livermore/same $" 7 El Charro Road Extension Pleasanton/same $- 8(SAFETY) Camino Tassajara Widening (East Blackhawk to County Line) Contra Costa Cty/same $ 1.70 $ 1.70 8(WIDENING) Camino Tassajara Widening (East Blackhawk to County Line) Contra Costa Cty/same $ 2.68 $ 2.68 ~ 10 I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Gap Closure (North Main to Livorna) San Ramon/CCTA $ 2.41 $ 3.08 $ 5.49 ~l la I-680 Express Bus/HOV On- and Off-Ramps San RamonlCCTA ~ ; $" l lb I-680 Transit Corridor Improvements San Ramon/CCTA ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~.. ..,__ , _ w.~.. ~. .,.._~~~ ~~b,o~,, A~»~ ~a ,~~~ wn P~. ~~ ~. ~. ~ - ~~ ~~~ ~ . ~ ~~~~~: x~~~~ ~~ _ ~ A ~~;~~~ ~ i~~~i~r~ ~~n~ ~a~ . .,-- Administative Costs (averaged) $ 0.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.58 ATTACHMENT 2. 5~b~~~ RESOLUTION NO. -11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ~~~~~~~~~ AMENDING THE TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT (TVTD) FEE SCHEDULE AND APPROVING THE 2011 STRATEGIC EXPENDITURE PLAN UPDATE PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Association of Bay Governments (ABAG) projects an additional 157,000 new residents, 58,000 new households and 121,000 new jobs in the geographical area comprising the San Ramon Valley, Livermore Valley and Amador Valley by the year 2020; and WHEREAS, unless the traffic impact of additional residents, households and jobs is timely and adequately mitigated, the quality of life for the existing residents of the Cities and Counties within the Tri-Valley area will be adversely affected; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin entered into a.Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) with the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, the Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon and the Town of Danville in 1998 - with two subsequent amendments in 2003 and 2009 - to collect TVTD Fees on developments within their respective jurisdictions requiring a Land Use Entitlement to fund off-site infrastructure necessary to mitigate the effects of the ABAG projected growth; and WHEREAS, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) identified and prioritized a list of Projects necessary to provide for the mitigation of the ABAG growth projections; and WHEREAS, the TVTC commissioned a study entitled, "Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Fee Update" (the "Study"), which is incorporated herein as Exhibit "A", to determine what fees should be collected for each land use to generate sufficient revenue to fund the unfunded cost of the selected Projects, A-2a Route 84 Expressway I-580 to I-680 A-2b Isabel Route 84/I-580 Interchange A-3 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes _ A-Sa I-580 HOV Lane Eastbound A-Sb I-580 HOV Lane Westbound A-7 I-580lFoothill/San Ramon Road Interchange A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 A-9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements.Phase 2 A-l0a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 A-lOb Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 A-11 Express BusBus Rapid Transit and Projects from Table 4.2 of the Study; B-1 I-580iI-680 interchange (westbound to southbound) B-2 Sth eastbound lane on I-580 from Santa Rita to Vasco Road - -- - -- - B-3 I-580/First Street interchange modification ~ -1- ATTACHMENT 3• ~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~ B-4 I-580/Vasco Road interchange modification B-5 I-580/Greenville Road interchange modification B-6 Jack London Boulevard extension B-7 El Charro Road Extension B-8 Camino Tassajara widening: East Blackhawk Drive to County line B-10 I-680 SB HOV lane Gap Closure, North Main to Livorria B-11 I-680 Express Bus/HOV On- and Off-Ramps B-l lb I-680 Transit Corridor Improvements; and WHEREAS, the Study was available for public inspection and review for ten (10) days prior to this public hearing; and - WHEREAS, the TVTC, by Resolutions Nos. 2008-OS and 2011-01, directed each of the signatories of the JEPA to increase the development fees to an amount that is still less than what was justified by the Study, to fund the unfunded cost of the Projects in List A as 1St priority and List B as 2nd priority; and , WHEREAS, the TVTC acknowledges the need for the creation of additional housing in the Tri- Valley affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households as defined respectively in the State of California Health and Safety Codes Sections 50105, 5007.5, and 50093 or as amended; and WHEREAS, the State of California Housing and Community Development (HCD) encourages affordable housing to remain deed restricted for 45 years for single family residences and 55 years or longer for multi-family projects and by affordability covenants recorded on the property; and WHEREAS, the TVTC waives the TVTD fee for all very low, low and moderate income affordable housing units meeting the applicable State of California Health and Safety Code Sections requirements and having a minimum affordability term of 55 years (multi-family) and 45 years (single family) based on the percentage of affordable housing units to the total number of units in the project; and WHEREAS, the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement specifies that the Fee amounts are to be adjusted automatically on an annual basis to reflect changes in regional construction costs. The amount of the adjustment is based on the changes in the "Construction Cost Index" (CCI) for the San Francisco Bay Area, as reported annually in the Engineering News Record (ENR); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows: A. The purpose of the TVTD Fee is to finance Transportation Improvement Projects needed to reduce the traffic-related impacts caused by future development in the Tri-Valley Development Area, including Dublin. The Transportation Improvement Projects are all necessary to accommodate new development projected within the Tri-Valley Development Area, including development within Dublin; B. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the Transportation Improvement Projects; C. After considering this Study; the Council finds that future development in Dublin will generate the need for the Transportation Improvement Projects and the Transportation Improvement Projects are consistent with the City's General Plan and the Specific Plan; -2- 1~~~05 D. For the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Council finds that the adoption of the TVTD fee is not a."project" under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4). While the TVTD fee is intended to offset development impacts on regional traffic facilities by funding improvements to those facilities, the proceeds of the TVTD fee are not, at this time, being committed to any specific project which "may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment;" E. The record establishes: 1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the Transportation Improvement Projects and the impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding fee is charged in that new development in the City of Dublin -- both residential and non-residential -- will generate traffic which generates or contributes to the need for the Transportation Improvement Projects; and 2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the TVTD Fee's use (to pay for the construction of the Transportation Improvement Projects) and the type of development for which the TVTD Fee is charged in that all development in Dublin -- both residential and non-residential - - generates or contributes to the need for the Transportation Improvement Projects; and 3. That the cost estimates set forth in the Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Transportation Improvement Projects, and the TVTD Fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the projected cost estimates of constructing the Transportation Improvement Projects contained in the Study; and 4. The method of allocation of the TVTD Fee to a particular development bears a fair and reasonable relationship to each development's burden on, and benefit from, the Transportation Improvement Projects to be funded by the TVTD Fee, in that the TVTD Fee is calculated based on the number of automobile trips each particular development will generate; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the following regional impact Fee Schedule, as requested by the TVTC, and will, at the time indicated, collect these fees from any development within the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin that would be granted a Land Use Entitlement for each of the designated land uses for the Fiscal ~ears indicated, and finds that said Fee Schedule is determined by the Study to be necessary to generate sufficient revenue to fund portions of the unfunded cost of the listed Projects: FY 2010/2011 through December 31, 2011 Fee Schedule (Existing/No Change) Fee Per Unit Single Family Homes $2,170 Du* Multi-Family Homes ~ $1,380 Du* Office $3,890 1,OOOsf Retail $1,450 1,OOOsf Industrial $2,640 1,OOOsf Other $2,170 PHT * * Affordable Housing $0 Du* Calendar Year 2012 (beginning 1/1/2012) Fee Per Unit Single Family Homes $3,053 Du* -3- i 'O~ ~~ Multi-Family Homes $2,104 Du* Office $5,191 1,OOOsf Retail* * * $3,400 1,OOOsf Industrial $3,020 1,000sf Other $3, 053 PHT** Affordable Housing $0 Du* Calendar Year 2013 (beginning 1/1/2013) Fee Per Unit Single Family Homes $4,275 Du* Multi-Family Homes $2,945 Du* Office $7,270 1,OOOsf Retail* * * $3,400 1,OOOsf Industrial $4,230 1,OOOsf Other $4,275 PHT* * Affordable Housing $0 Du* * Du = Dwelling Unit; ** PHT = Peak Hour Trip; *** Retail is set at 15% of maYimum for FY2011/12 to FY 2029/30 Section 2. The City Council of the City of Dublin authorizes the Dublin TVTC representative to approve the proposed 2011 Strategic Expenditure Plan Update, which is incorporated herein as Exhibit «B» Section 3. This resolution shall become effective sixty (60) days from the date it is adopted, provided that the same Fee Schedule is adopted by the County of Alameda, the County of Contra Costa, the Cities of Pleasanton, San Ramon and Livermore and the Town of Danville, and that said Fee Schedules are also effective at that time. If such jurisdictions have not all adopted the same Fee Schedule to be effective within sixty (60) days from the date this Resolution is adopted, then this Resolution shall be effective when the same TVTD Fee Schedule becomes effective in all six jurisdictions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of April, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor G:\TIF\Tri-Valley Transportation DevelopmentUeso_TVTDF_2011 Update (041911 Attachment 3).doc -4- c~~~~.e~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~5 T'ri-Valle~r Transportati~n Council Nexus St~dy Fee Update prepared for Tri-Valley Transportation Council prepc~red b~ ~ Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with ~ Dowling Associates, Inc. Ja~nuc~ry 2008 Adopted January 30,2008 Amended February 26, 2008 _ ---- -- - --- -- ---- - ~ ~~EXHIBIT ,~ ~ To the Resolution I7_-'F ~ ... 3~ I iT' ~ { r_,_I ~ ~._._. I Y a~-~ r---• ~ ~._._ ,n__., ~~_l ~--1 ~~._. {~ TI }-~ I ~ ~ ~ .._ ~ a ~~_._ ~___._) a -~ ~_:~ I ~__~ fcnal report. - Tri-Valle Trans ortation Council Y p Nexus Study . ; ~ Fee Update prepared for Tri-Valley Transportation Council ~ prepared b~ Cambridge Systematics, Inc. " 55512~ Street, Suite 1600 Oakland; California 94607 with Dowling Associates, Inc. !~ , ~I date january 18, 2008 , Adopted January 30,2008 Amended Februarv 26, 2008 ~,-1 ~ =~~ ~~~ o -: ~ 5 t, ~T~~ Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study ~ - -~ E , ~-=-:1 ~ . ~I'able of Contents -.1 ; ~---( r-.-1 1.0 Summary ......:................:.........................................:............................................1-1 . '--"- i ~~ ....... .................................2-1 2.0 Introduction and Background ............................ ;.---j ,; . 3.0 Forecast of New Development and Travel Demand .......................:.......:... :3-1 ... _. ~- ---1 3.1 Forecast of New Development .......:.........................:.............................. .3-1 `--~ __ k Y g Y ........................................ 3.2 Total Travel Demand b Land Use Cate or .3-3 ~ ' I ...,__ 4.0 Improvement Projects and Cost Estimates ................................................... .4-1 ~ ~ 4.1 Project Selection ................:.......... ........ . 4-1 ~~': ~ 4.2 Selected Projects and Unfunded Costs ...........:.......::.............................. .4-2 ..~ -, - ~.__.l ! .. ..................................... ..................... 5.0 Nexus Findings .............................. .5-1 ~~. ; ,__ 5.1 Overall Approach ...:.................................................................................. . 5-1 ....... ~ --~ .... .................................................. 52 Mitigation Fee,Act Findings ..:.......:.... .5-2 j ~ ,- - . ~.._._ Purpose of.Fee ............................................................................................ .5-2 ~-- Use of Fee Revenues .................................................................................. .5-3 ~"-" ~ p .. ..................................................................... Benefit Relationshi ....... .5-4 ,-_~ ; ___~ Burden Relationship .................................................................................. .5-6 , ---- l ...................................................................................... Proportionality ..... . 5-7 i~_- _ _._ 5.3 Maximum Fees by Type of Land Use ..................................................... .5-8 i ~.~..~ 5.4 Next Steps ................................................................................................... .5-9 7 '_" :_.~_.I 'Appendix A. Existing TVTC Projects ..........:.......................................................... A-1 `.~I 1 ' ................ .......................................... Appendix B. Additional TVTC Projects - . B-1 , ... ~ ?:,~~:I ~_..l L_.._~ ~ ( ~i~ 1 ~__J '~1 ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ,~.,.1 ~ Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i ,'-~ 7647.001 - ~ _:~l _~ ~-1 ~ t__~ :---~~ , _~ r.__.l ~_- a..... ~ i'__' i..._ T_.__. 3 _ 3 . .__ ~. _._ ~ ~ ~v.?~ , .. .. ~l :-~1 ~_~ ~ ~._~ l :_:~:1 ~.:.~wl _ ~_~ ,~ ~ ; .~ ~ ~._:, ~___I Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Stud~ List of Tables < Table 1.1 2007 Maximum Fee Per Land Use Type ............................................:....1-3 Table 3.1 Household Forecasts 2007 and 2030 ....:...........:.........:............................ .3-1 Table 3.2 Employinent Forecasts 2007 and 2030 .................................................... .3-2 Table 3.3 Conversion of Employment Growth to Square Feet of . Commercial Building Space 2007 to 2030 ............................:................:. 3-3 Table 3.4 Travel Demand from New Residential and Commercial ~ Development 2007 to 2030 .................:..............: ....................................... .3-4 Table 4.1 Existing TVTC Projects -.Exhibit A(Millions of 2007 Dollars) ............ 4-2 Table 4.2 Additional TVTC Projects - Exhibit B(Millions of.2007 Dollars) ......... 4-3 Table 5.1 Projected Increase in Congestion Related to New Development* Vehicle Hours of Delay, 2007 to 2030 ......................................................... 5-3 Table 5.2 Build vs. No-Build Scenario Vehicle Hours of Delay, 2005 to 2030~...... 5-5 Table 5.3 Trip Generation Characteristics by Land Use Type Average AM/P1VI Peak Hour .............................................................................:........ 5-7 Table 5.4 2007 Maximum Fee Rate Per Land Use Type .........................:.............. 5=9 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. iii l05 ~ , i ~ ,_._.~ ~ __ ~_.__~ , ~`-~ q.__:-i ; ~'. _~ ~,.-~ ~_, ~.__.~ ; ~j ~ ,.__ 1 ~ ___._~ ± ._.. ~~_I 9~ } ~ ~ ~:1 ~ ~`J ° ~:~1 ~ ,f - -'j u '..~~1 3_'... ~ ~ .~1 ~_...I , ~...~__I r_ ~ ~ .~~_ ;~I z--:~1 ~._ ; ~_ ~_ ~:::~_ i ~. ,,r List of Figures ~7. ~ `~ Tn-Valley Transportafion Council Nexus Study Figure . 1.1 .............Increase in Average AM/PM Peak Hour Trips 2005 and 2030*1-1 Figure 1.2Tri-Valley Average Change in Congestion form 2005 to 2030 Change in Vehicle Hc Figure 3.1Travel Demand from New Development Average AM/PM_Peak Hour Trip Ends, 200: Figure 5:1Tri-Valley Average Change in Congestion from 2005 to 2030 Change in Vehicle Hou~ ~ i` Tn-Va11ey Transporfation Council Nexus Sfudy ~.""._ ~~ ~-~ ,. ~--~ ?._ ~ 1 ..~ 1-1 i~ i _ _.. ~_ _.1 ~.:__.l i,_.. a"._ t a___ 1_~ -~ i.._._. r -- -~ ~ i_.._ _I i.._ I :_.~l ~__.l ~._t ~~, ~ _~ ._.. I 1.0 Sumnlary New development within the Tri-Valley is forecast to add 57,766 new households and 87,555 additional employees bettiveen 2007 and 2030. This growth will pro- duce an increase of just under 100,000 new peak-hour trip-ends (average of AM and PM) or just about a 44 percent increase above the present volume of over 223,000 trip-ends. Figure 1.1 Increase in Average AM/PM Peak Hour Trips 2005 and 2030* Averege AM/PM Peak Hour Trips Sources: Cambridge Systematics, Inc., antl Dowling Associates. ' The current (2005) and projected trips are based on converting ABAG P'03 residential land and employ- ment projection to trips . The Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC), therefore; has initiated this update to its existing development impact fee. This update includes seven of the original 11 projects from the first fee program adopted in 1995 (see Table 4.1), which have not been fully funded. Of. the estimated $1 billion cost for the seven remaining projects, $389 million remains unfunded. In addition, the update now includes 11 additional projects (see Table 4.2) with a total cost of approxunately Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-1 , ~~~ 2007 2030 ~_.~._ ~__. ~__. ~ ,---- ~:.__ ~ -- , .. ~ _.._. a._._ ~ '~ _- ~Vr~ 1 r ._.-i ,_--~; 3^ ~ i ,__...~ ~--- ~___l 1 ~ i a_-:~/ ~ ~---I ~ !_._..I ~w _.l ....__.I ;_:_~ ~I ~l '---~1 ___I . Tri-Valley Transportntion Council Nexus Sfudy $1.3 billion, of which just under $1.1 billion is unfunded. Added together, these 23 projects require roughly $1.5 billion in additional funding. These cost estimates represent the most extensive engineering analysis available at this time. Nevertheless, as the detailed engineering for each project progresses and actual costs of right-or-way acquisition, environmental clearance, construc- tion materials, etc. become better understood', these costs will change.. Nearly universal experience indicates that cost estimates increase as more information becomes available. To account for some uncertainty in the preliminary estimates used to estimate project costs, the TVTC chose to reduce the costs by 10 percent across all projects as a conservative assumption. .This reduced the total unfunded . cost from $1.5 billion to $1.3 billion. . _ The analysis of the effects of this growth on roadway congestion shows that, if no further roadway improvements are undertaken, delay is expected to iricrease from 5,092 vehicle hours of delay (VHD) in 2005 to 40,058 VHD in 2030 or 660 percent in the morning peak hour and 789 percent in the evening peak hour (Figure 1.2). These increases exclude the effects of increases in traffic transiting the Tri-Valley (i.e., through trips with neither an origin nor a destination in the Tri-Valley). Fimira 1~ Tri-VallPV Avera~e Chan~e in Con~estion form 2005 to 2030 Chanee in Vehicle Hours of Delav Excluding Thrau~h Trips* Vehicle Hours ofDelay (VHD) . 45A00 ---------------- Morn --------------------------- ing Peak Hour -----------~---------~---------------------- Evening Peak Hour 4~r~58 40,000 ._ ._._.__.___._._._._._--'-'-'-°'-'-'3$,'Ttb'---.-._._._._._._...._.._....._._._r_._._._._._._._._._._._.__._._._._._._..---°°•-'°-,~:,., ._~_.__............_._..._ 35,000 --~-------------- , , `~ ------------------- 32,8 90 .,,. ,,.. , -~-----------------~- ~"`=- --------------- 31,osz , 30,000 --------~--_ '--' _. ~. ~ ,.'r: _." --'-'-'-'--- ----'-----------'--_ ._._ - - ..... ._._._. a ~. 25 000 - - . ~` a~ -- ----- ~~-. - -- ------- ----- `'~ , ; 20,000 .- .-._._...._._._._~.._....,.... ._.___._._ ..~........,._.__._.___...__._._._._. . "-~ °.~~;, ' 15,000 - ,. :.-.~~~'-- 10,000 ._._..._._.__._~___._._.___.""" ~ - .'.-."'.'." """"-""'-" -'-'.__._""-' 5,092 ,.< . 4, 505 5,000 - r~c~~. ~.. - ° ~.: -- --- ------- --- - ' .aa~' , ~~~x,=`«=. 0 ~ ~ 2005AM 2030no 2030~with - 2005PM 2030no 2030with ProjectAM ProjectAM Project PM ProjectPM Sources: Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and Dowling Associates. "The current (2005) and projected vehicle hours of delay (VHD) are estimated using the Contra Costa County Travel Demand Model and exclude through trips with neither an origin nor a destination in the Tri-Valley. 1-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ~ , ~_i i ,_ f ~ --~.~ ~ _.._~~ ; --- ~ , __l y-~_~ ; , ':~:1 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Stud~ If all of these projects are completed, the number of AM peak hours of delay would decrease 15 percent compared to the No-Build scenario; whereas, the number of PM peak hour of delay would decrease 22 percent. This 22 percent improvement falls well below the 100 percent mitigation, meaning the fee program will not solve existing traffic congestion problems, only a portion of the future problem. Thus new development may be required to fund the full $1.3 billion unfunded balance of these designated transportation improvements to fully mitigate its impact on the regional transportation system within the Tri- Valley. This $1.3 billion cost is allocated equitably across all types of new development by first dividing the $1.3 billion by the 98,427 average of new AM and PM peak- hour trip-ends, producing a cost per peak-hour trip-end of $13,598. The maxi- mum fee schedule for the five land use types that would fund the full $1.3 billion unfunded balance is shown below (Table 1.1). This maximuin fee schedule is derived by multiplying the $13,598 per average peak-hour trip-end by the aver- age peak-hour trip generation ra#e for each of the five land use types. The T'VTC may set fee rates for each land use category at or below the rates shown in Table 1.1. Table 1.1 2007 Maximum Fee Per Land Use Type Fee Average AM & PM (Cost Per Dwelling Unit Peak-Hour Trips-Ends or Square Feet) Single family dwelling unit 0.90 $12,238 - Multifamily dwelling unit 0.62 $8,430 Square foot of retail 1.67 $22.71 Square foot of office 1.53 $20.80 Square foot of industrial 0.89 $12.10 Other - cost per average AM and PM peak- 1.00 $13,598 hour trip-end` ..__l L_! ;`,_, ~.__ .~ I ~._. ~~1 f _~__~ w..1 Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. "This fee amount may be applied to land use that tloes not conform with the five included in this schedule. This maximum fee schedule shown in the last column would generate sufficient revenues to fund the total unfunded cost of all selected projects. Nevertheless, Tri-Valley jurisdictions are not obligated to apply this fee schedule. Fo'r instance; the existing fee schedule, which was adopted in 1995, embodies the judgment of Tri-Valley jurisdictions to set fee rates at approximately ttivo-thirds of the maxi- mum fee rates calculated in the 1995 nexus study. The 1995 fees were reduced by two-thirds to help foster economic growth within the Tri-Valley while providing a regional funding source that could be used to match and help compete for Federal and State transportation grants and funding programs. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-3 ,~ . r~ ~~ ~ A, Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study 2.0 Introduction ~and Background ~._.. ~. ___. . The purpose of this study is to provide a single nexus analysis that all local agen- cies in Tri-Valley subregion can use to update their existing Tri-Valley Transpor#ation Development Fee (TVTDF). Tn addition, the three Contra Costa County jurisdictions may use this update to fulfill their requirement under the Growth Management Program of the original Measure C Expenditure Plan, which applies only to Contra Costa County jurisdictions. J This report documents the followingl: • Section 2.0 - Introduction and Background. This section provides a sum- mary of the study's results and explains the~ background and purpose for the siudy, including the decisions leading up to this update of the TVTDF. • Section 3.0 - Tri-Valley Growth. Subsection 3.1 presents projected growth in population, employment, and land use based on the Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) Projections 2003 (P'03) forecast of Tri-Valley's growth in population ancl employment to year 2030. Subsection 3.2 converts the P'03 socioeconomic forecast into trips and summarizes the future travel demand throughout the Tri-Valley. It also presents the results of travel demand mod- eling, demonstrating to what degree new development within the Tri-Valley will increase congestion (i.e., vehicle hours of delay) in the year 2030. • Section 4.0 - Project Descriptions and Cost Estimates. This section lists the 22 projects that the T.VTC has elected to receive funding from the TVTDF, and provides total cost estimates. Detailed descriptions are provided in Appendix A and Appendix B. • Section 5.0 - Nexus Findings. This final section summarizes the relevant statutory findings for the unposition of development impact fees, and dem- onstrates how the entire unfunded cost of the selected projects may be assigned to new development over the next 23 years (2007 to 2030). It also presents alternative fee schedules that would fund some percentage of the unfunded cost. • Appendix A. This section provides brief descriptions for each of the ongoing projects that were part of the existing fee program, including a cost estimate, a portfolio of likely funding sources, and brief descriptions of its intended benefit. 1 California Governmem Code, Secdons 66000 to 66025. This code covers the required statutory findings under California's Mitigation Fee Act. __.__~ ^__-.I Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-1 _._.. ~ ~ .~. j ~-~ ; ! ^1 ~_.rl i--•'I i _ _. 1 i_.`_I i i ~__.~ Tri-Valley Trarisportation Council Nexus Study •, Appendix B. This section provides brief descriptions for each new project which have been added with this update, including a cost estimate, a portfolio of likely funding sources, and brief descriptions of its intended benefit. In Novernber 1988, 55 percent of the voters in Contra Costa County passed ~ Measure C, which authorized a 20-year, one-half-cent sales tax increase designed to fund improvements to the County's transportation system. Measure C had two main elements: 1. The Expenditure Plan governs the distribution of sales tax revenues to trans- portation projects and programs iri the County ($740 million); and 2. A Growth Management Program (GMP) attempts to preserve the expendi- ture plan's investrnents by laying out certain requirements that cities arid the County must meet in order to receive their share of Measure C's Local Street Maintenance and Improvement funding. ~---- The overall goal of the Growth Management Program called for in Measure C is to `- '-~ achieve a cooperative process for Growth Management on a countywide basis, while maintaining local authority over land use decisions and the establishmerit ~ ___~ of performance standards. The program has several components, which axe ;T~~~ outlined in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (CCTA) implementation documents. A key component of the Growth Management Program requires local ~. __~ jurisdictions to adopt a development mitigation program that ensures that new ,-- ~ development pays its fair share of the costs of additional facilities needed to 3---- support it. a~..._ d._..LLI In 1991, the seven jurisdictions of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, , Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, Danville, and San Ramon.signed a Joint Powers j=-I - Agreement (JPA) that established the TVTC. The purpose of the JPA was the joint preparation of a Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (TVTC Action ~""~~ Plan) for Routes of Regional Significance (RRS) and cost sharing of recommended ~_4I improvements. The TVTC Action Plan was prepared and presented to all mem- ` ber jurisdictions in April 1995 and updated in 2000 (see Exhibit A). The TVTC ;_. ,.I Action Plan marked a com.mon understanding arid agreement on the Tri-Valley's transportation concerns and directions for improvements. Among its specific recommendations, the TVTC Action Plan presented 15 specific transportation ~ improvements to be given high priority for funding and implementation. ~....I This Action Plan also recommended the development of a Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee to allocate a fair share of the costs of needed xegional infrastructure to new develo.pment. The nexus study for the fee program,- completed in 1995, justified allocating the unfunded cost needed to complete all of the 11 projects identified in the TVTC Action Plan to new development. The TVTC, however, recommended scaling back by roughly ttivo- thirds the total amount the fee program would collect from the maximum funding needed. 2-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ~ ~~~ ~Yi _ ~b5 . ~I ~ Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study ,--,~ ~---~ ~ Nevertheless, the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) for the Tri-Valley ;~ Transportation Development Fee specifies ~ that the fee amounts are to be adjusted automatically on an annual basis to reflect changes in regional con- i--- ;._' struction costs.z These annual adjustments in fee amounts have maintained j--.- purchasing parity with. current construction costs. Since the fee implementation ?--~ in September 1998, approximately $30 million in fees and interest were collected ; --~ to fund transportation investrnents. In addition, the JEPA calls for a periodic update of the fee program to reflect any significant changes in population growth, project status, and other conditions that would require revisions to the fee program. . Since 1995, there have been substantial changes in the funding, planning, and traffic setting in which the Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fee was originally developed. New funding sources have been established, the TVTC Action Plan has been updatecl, projects have been~completed; project.schedules and/or,funding plans have shifted, traf- fic patterns have changed, and new regional transportation projects have been identified through various traffic studies. The TVTC responded to these changes by directing the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in 2003 to conduct a new fee nexus study to update the fee, and potentially the project list. In 2004, the T`VTC decided to update the Fee Nexus Study to incorporate new regional improvement projects. In November 2006, 70.6 percent of the voters in Contra Costa County passed Measure J, which authorized .a 25-year extension to Measure C, a program designed to fund improvements to the County's transportation system first initi- ated in 1988. ,The program is an extension of a one-half-cent sales tax increase that is projected to raise $2 billion for improvements through 2034. Expenditure of Measure J funds is implemented through the CCTA's Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan (TEP). f ~ ~ ~ ~_ z The amount of the adjustment is based on the change in the Constxuction Cost Index ~ - (CCI) for the San Francisco Bay Area, as reported annually in the Engineering News ~---~ Record (ENR). - i_~ ~ _~ ~ ~ ...~ Carnbridge Systernatics, lnc. 2-3 ~.___ ~_ . ,i ~_.~ 1 I i__.._.~ ~-_ _i ~ ~--_i I__..:I i ~ '~ ~..._.~ r D~ ~ a. 05 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study 3.0 Forecast of New Develo ment ~ and Travel Demand This section consists of ttivo subsections: Subsection 3.1 describes the ABAG Projections `03.forecast far population and employment, and converts these into land use in terms of dwelling units and nonresidential building square feet. In Subsection 3.2, the increase in tzavel demand from new development is deter- mined from the land use forecasts. 3.1 FORECAS'~' OF NEW DEVELOPMENT ~_--.~ } .___~ ~_.~ ~.----~ ~.._.l j.~_1 ~__.., I ~_~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !.~:J ~---~ The planning horizon for this analysis is 2030, consistent with current land use . and transportation foreeasts.adopted by TVTC. The nexus analysis uses forecasts of dwelling units and employment to estimate new development demand for transportation improvements. Population forecasts for 2030 are ABAG Projections 2003 (P'03), which were fully vetted by the Tri-Valley jurisdictions. While the slightly more recent Projections 2005 (P'05) is now available, these forecasts had not been fully vetted at the time this study was initiated. After comparing the differences between the P'03 and P'05 projections, the TVTC TAC directed the consultant team to proceed with the fully vetted P'03 version of the CCTA model. The CCTA travel demand model converts the ABAG household (Table 3.1) and employment (Table 32) forecasts into peak hour trips and assigns them to the transportation network. . Table 3.1 Household Forecasts 2007 and 2030 . 2007-2030 Percent 2007* 2030 Growth Change ' Single family 91,136 129,818 38,682 42% Multifamily 21,959 41,042 19,083 87% Total Households 113,095 170,860 57,765 51% ' Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Projections, 2003. * Dwelling units for 2007 were estimated by interpolating between P'03 estimates for 2000 and 2010. ABAG employment forecasts are converted into square feet of nonresidential buildirig space. The pr,ojected number of new residential units and nonresiden- tial square footage is then . multiplied by standard trip generation rates to Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-1 ~-- 3 , a ._ { ~ ~___ a_ __. :i ~_-- lr_:.-_~ ~___.~ , -... ~_~.1 ~__.I 1..... _i ~ ".._~ ~.~~1 Tri-Valle~ Transportation Council Nexus Stud~ caleulate the total number of traffic trips generated by new development in the Tri-Valley. Table 3.2 Employment Forecasts 2007 and 2030 2007-2030 Percent Employee Categories 2007* 2030 Growth Change Retail 36,806 ~ 48,927 12,121 33% Service - 83,608 129,427 45,819 55% Other 54,076 69,459. 15,383 28% Agricultural 1,483 1,182 -301 -20% Manufacturing 20,048 30,895 10,847 54% TradelWholesale 10,986 14,371 3,385 31% Total Employment 207,006 294,261 87,254 42°!0 Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Projections, 2003. , * Employment for 2007 was estimated by interpolating between P'03 estimates for 2000 and 2010. The method for converting the six categories of net employment growth (as shown in Table 3.2) into four categories of commercial building square feet (office, retail, industrial, and other) involves two steps. First, the six categories of employment are consolidated into four categories of commercial land use based on an analysis of employment by land use known as the Natelson Report.3 Second, these consolidated employment forecasts are converted to building square footage using employee densities. The results are shown in Table 3.3. 3 The Natelson Company, Inc., Emplo~ent Densihj Study Summan~ Report, prepared far the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), October 31, 2001. The density factars were derived from a random sample of 2,721 parcels drawn from across five counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura). Such a - study could not be identified for Contra Costa County. The SCAG study's density factors are based on the largest sample of properties and are used in development " impact fee studies throughout the State. 3-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ Vl g'^. _ ~ ~'f ~~ q =1 ; J ;-- ~ ~___ ~---~ ~ ~--~-, ~_ ._ , ~_~ ,_'"" I ~ a a_ ~..__~ 'i .... _ ~ !. __1 ;...~1 ; L.._ ~_~:l L~l '~J ~r:.~l ~l Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study . Table 3.3 Conversion of Employment Growth to Square Feet of ~ Commercial Building Space 2007 fo 2030 Employee Growth Employee Density Building Square Feet Land Use 2007-2030 (Squace FeetlEmployee) 2007-2030 Retail 12,121 500 , 6,060,500 O~ce/services 45,819 300 13,745,700 Industrial* 14,232 900 12,808,800 Other 15,383 600 9>229,800 Source: The Natelson Company, .Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments; October 31, 2001, Table 2-A, page 15. Note: Source tlata based on random sample of 2,721 developed parcels across five Los Angeles area counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside,.San Bernardino, and Ventura). MuniFinancial estimated weighting factors by land use categories used in the survey to calculate avetage employment tlensities by major category (commercial, office, and industnal). *Adjusted to correct for over-sampling of industrial parcels in Ventura County. The results of this conversion (shown in Table 3.2) are applied in Section 5.0 to calculate an updated fee schedule. As a brief preview, this calculation involves four steps. First, the net increase in commercial square footage is converted into ~ ~ total trip generation from new commercial development. Second, these net new trips are added to the trip generated from new residential growth. Third, this total amount of new trip generation is divided into the total unfunded cost of the improvements described in Section 4.0 to calculate the cost per new trip. Fourth, this cost is used to generate the updated fee schedule. 3.2 TOTAL TRAVEL DEMAND BY LAND USE CATEGORY Tables 3.1 and 3.3 show forecasts of new development broken out to the number of dwelling _units for single and multi-unit residential units and square feet of four types of commercial development. The amount of new travel demand (i.e., trip generation) that this new developxrient will produce is determined by multi- plying these net increases in residential units and new commercial building space by corresponding trip generation rates shown in Table 3.4. These trip gen- eration rates are the average of AM and PM peak-hour trip generation rates from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. Table 3.4 and Figure 3.5 shows that all types of new development will increase number of peak-hour trips by approximately 100,000 ,new peak-hour trips or 44 percent between 2007_ and 2030. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ~ 3-3 ( c~~ ~ ~.. .~ ~T~ ;---~ ~ ~~1 i~! a_ ~~ a ~. i ~~i_"'' =-1 ~--, ~_.~ l ~_._l ~. ~~ ~__. ; z~~_l ~~_LLl ~-~~1 ~ ; 7- -~ 5.-. ~ ~..._._ ~~. ~..._~ ti ,,i a_ __1 +.,,~.~ ~..1 ~l ~~ ~ U ~~_~ ~~--I ~3 ~a5 ~ Tri-Va11ey Transportation Council Nexus Study Table 3.4 Travel Demand from New Residential and Commercial Development 2007 to 2030 ' Land Use Land Use Grovuth Trip Generation Rate* New Trips* ~{ y,~~ ~ ~~ . js,~~,~f "~~r ,~'~,i~'~ ~ ~"~C .~~ ¢ ~` _~ ~ : ~ ~ 3 F ' ~ ~r.~~#1~e~4~i~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~{Wi~ '~' .. `~~Y~,~"'r~'~° . -~;.~ ~ ~,s ~"'s~ ~ r'~~,~ ` fi`~,.W. ' y~ __ ~~ '.~ "y~~~ ~, s~3 ~~~ u`a~„dz~ q'.va'~" ~.~~~ ,,,,w..... ,~..,. .a.,,,2ta.fi~na~.ua~i"~ . ~ar.N .,,_,._..,~ ¢- m;.,~ >.~+v,a..~.. .. ..'F Single family 38,682 0.90 34,814 Multifamily 19,083 0.62 11,831 Total Residential 57,765 46,645 ' ~;~a-~ sn~°r~r= ~ ~~~^~'~",~""~`~~, ,"~~ ~`~ ~ €~W„~ ~~m ~ - ~~r-~~,~~~,'~"~ ~~~~~ . ~~~~.~tl~ ~. 0{~$1IlC~ Stf GdCB' T~Prf~ ~ ~,~ r ~ ~ MM`," ,. ~ ' ~ ~~' ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ,~.~ ~, ..~::..r.:~a.- ~ .~w,~ u~F.,.,._ u m.~.~,. ,~, ~~ ~ .. ~„a Reta'il 6,060,500 1.67 10,118 O~ce 13, 745, 700 1.53 20, 962 Industrial 12,808,800 0.89 11,400 Other 9,229,800 . 1.0 9,230 Total Nonresidential 41,844,800 51,782 - Grand Total 98,427 '` Average AM and PM tlaily trips. . The 98,427 increase in new trips does not include any change in the trips that transit Tri-Valley (i.e., through trips or external-external trips). This increase is roughly 31 percent of the 322,500 total trips that have an origin and ar destina- tion in Tri-Valley (Figure 3.5). 3-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ~~? 1 a _.._,~ ~~~=1 ~ ~l~l ;---J a =l s, _ 1 j~.~-1 ~ ~ _J i a a _ _... r,-,1 ~- _1 a. ~~_ ~ i~ ~l 9 "1 1 _.._ I i _~ 1 ~ i l ~~1 I ~._~l ~ ~~ , _.I ~ W,._l ~ a-. ~~~ ~ Tri-Valley Transporfqtion Council Nexus Study Figure 3.5 Travel Demand from New Development Average AM/PM Peak Hour Trip Ends, 2007 to 2030 AverageAM/PM . Peak Hou r Tri ps Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-5 ~ ~~ i~ ~.~~~ ~~ ,----~ ~... , ~:~ ;T~ ,, s ~~ _~ ~. ~~ ~'_~ ~-~-- ~ __) . ~~ I a5 - Trans ortation Council Nexus Stud v ' Tri Valley p y , 4.0 Im rovement Pro' ects p _ l and Cost Estimates This section identifies the 22 projects that the TVTC has elected to receive funding from fhe Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee. The first 11 are pro- jects that were included in the original program adopted in 1995 (Appendix A). The second set of 11 is new projects that are .being in included in this update (Appendix B). 4.1 PROJECT SELECTION T-_ 1 i_...:~ 9 °' ~"i ~:_i .7 - ,"i :._~_I ~~~1 ~ ---~ !___~ ~ _..~ ~ ,_r, ~ _l ,_~. 1 ~~J L-r1 ~:l '~ The most common approach for selecting transportation projects involves a comprehensive planning process to develop a project list that m'itigates the impacts of new development where projects are most feasible, but also may be implemented with reasonable expectations of community support.. This approach integrates the planning to accommodate growth with ongoing state, regional, and local plaiining efforts. This approach has been followed in the preparation of the TVTC Action Plan far Routes of Regional Significarice and cost sharing of recommended improvements. The other plannulg efforts over the past 20-plus years have included (but are not limitecl to) the following: • Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan; ' • Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan; • Contra Costa County Sales Tax Measures (Measures B, C, and J); • Tri-Valley Triangle Traffic Study; • I-680 corridor studies; and • General plan updates for Tri-Valley jurisdictions, including Alameda and Contra Costs Counties. As a result of this integrated transportation plaruling,' elected officials have determined that the projects identified iri Appendices A and B constitute the most feasible improvements to reduce traffic congestion caused by new devel- opment in the Tri-Valley. The travel ,demand modeling documented in Section 5.0 confirms that these projects do reduce the congestion caused by new development within Tri-Valley, but these reductions do not improve.conditions below what they are at present. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4=1 • ~ ~ , i 3 i ~_ ~.~ ~~ ~ i ~~ ~-~-~ ~.-~-- d ~ ,.._, ~-~- ~~l ,_. ~ ~_ ' _._~ ~ I !. -- { ~l , ~ ~- i. __....~ ;_._Ml I~J i i..Y.~ ~_ _~ ~- I.~l 1~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Tri-Valley Transportqtion Council Nexus Study , 4.2 SELECTED PROJECTS AND UNFLTNDED COSTS The 22 selected projects are a combination of 11 of the original projects (often referred to as Exhibit A) funded through the fee program adopted in 1995 and an additional 11 projects (Exhibit B list). Three out of the 22 projects have been completed, and thus do not need additional funds from the current fee update. Such is the case of I-580/ I-680 Interchange (southbound to eastbound), I-680/ Alcosta Boulevard Interchange, and I-680 HOV Lanes from SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade,.all under Exhibit A. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 show the,total investment cost and unfunded amount of projects described in Appendices A and B, respectively. ' Table 4.1 Existing TVTC Projects - Exhibit A (Millions of 2007 Dollars) Total Unfunded Project Cost Cost Comments A-1 I-580/1-680 Interchange (southbound to eastbound) A-2a Route 84 Expressway I-58~ to I-68~ A-2b Isabel Route 84/I-580 Interchange A-3 I-680 Auxiliary ~.anes A-4 West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station A-5a I-580 HOV Lane Eastbound A-5b I-580 HOV Lane Westbound A-6 I-680 HOV Lenes, SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade A-7 I-5801Foothill/San Ramon Road Interchange A-8 I-6801AIcosta Interchange A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 A-9b Crow Canyon Road.lmprovements Phase 2 A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 A-10b: Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 A-11 Express BuslBus Rapid Transit TotaF - - Project completed. $336.57 $221.77 f?roject study report complete. $180.00 $15.00 Environmental complete. $47.00 $38.33 Segments 1 and 3 complete. - - Under construction. $161.87 $8.00 Project split into $165 40 $20.00 Phases. Project study . report complete. - - Southbound complete. Northbound not considered for funding. $0.81 $0.81 North half complete. - - Project complete. $15.50 $10.95 Project split into $32.34 $32.34 Phases. $23.25 $4.15 Project split into $25.83 $25.83 Phases. $20.36 $12.16 BRT added to scope. $1,008.93 $389.34 Carnbridge Systematics, Inc. ~ ~ a5 ~ ~ s~ ~----~ ; ~__._I ~ ~rt:~l J ~---1 ~ :~ ~__) ,--~ ~ a._._. : =.r, l ; a.. ~ ~- a__,I ~ i__ ~__..r l ~~~I ~=1 ~~l ~} ~:J ~I ~ I.__ _ ~/~ ~ ~5 . Tri-Vnlley Transportafion Council Nexus Study Table 4.2 Additional TVTC Projects - Exhibit B (Millions of 2007 Dollars) ~ Project Total Cost Unfunded Cost B-1 I-58011=680 interchange (westbound to southbound) . $705.00 $700.00 B-2 5th eastbound lane on I-580 from Santa Rita to Vasco Road $131.30 $131.30 B-3 I-580/First Street interchange modification $30.30 $4.2Q B-4 I-5801Vasco Road interchange modification $50.50 $14.60 B-5 I-580/Greenville Road interchange modification $35.35 $7.77 B-6 Jack London Boulevard extension $27.78 $3.54 B-7 EI Cherro Road Extension • $18.50. $5.00 . B-8 Camino Tassajara widening: East Blackhawk Drive to County line $49.43 $44.92 B-9 Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road I-680 Interchange $2.70 $2.60 Improvements , B-10 I-680 SB HOV lane Gap Closure, Livorna to North Main $55:00 $36.50 B-11 a I-680 Express Bus/HOV on- and Off-Ramps $80.00 . $47.30 . B-11 b I-680 Transit Gorridor Improvements $100.00 $100.00 Total $1,285.86 $1,097.73 The total investment cost of projects from Exhibits A and B; excluding completed projects, totals approximately $2,295 million, of which amount almost $1,487 million or 65 percent are currently unfunded. Given that many of the project costs have been estimated using only preliminary engineering, the TVTC lias reduced ~ the total cost of all 22 projects by 10 percent to account for some degree of uncertainty. This discount reduces the total unfunded cost to $1,338 million (in~2007 dollars). Appendices A arid B provide tlie descriptions of each project. Each description includes a cost estimate; a portfolio of likely funding sources, and a brief description of its intended benefit. ~ Cambridge Systematics, lnc. 4-3 y 1 9 t .I ,~ d._ 1 ~I ~_T~ '~_-1 ~ :;- ~ ;~l ~ i ~ :__~1 ; ~ ~=_~l 9,~.. ~ _ .., ' T=1 ~__.~ a __..i ~~~~ ~_._ 4..~,~ 1 4-_~ ~_._.i , ~- ~_.J ,.~J ~ i ..__ ~~-_-~ ~ '- - .~ z~ ~~~ (~1 ~ ~ ~~7 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Stud~ , 5.0 Nexus Findings ~ ~~ This section documents a reasonable relationship between. increased travel, demand from new .development on the Tri-Valley regional transportation sys- tem, the cost of the improvements needed to accommodate that growth, and an impact fee to fund those investments. Section 5.1 explains the overall approach to establishing a legal nexus. Section 5.2 steps through the findings required by state statutes to demonstrate how the entire unfunded cost of the selected pro- jects can be assigned to new development over the next 23 years (2007 through 2030):~ Finally; Section 5.3 presents a maximum cost per trip that would fund the unfunded cost. ' 5.1 OVERALL APPROACH Impact fees may be calculated using a purely technical method that would fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The.four steps followed in any development impact fee study include the following: 1. Prepare growth projections; 2. Identify facility standards; 3. Determine the amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate new development based on facility standards and growth projections; and 4. Calculate the public facilities fee by allocating the total cost of facilities per unit of development. As stated in Section 4.1, the final set of improvements was determined through the plaruzulg efforts of the CCTA; the Tri-Valley jurisdictions; and other stake- holders (including the Tri-Valley Business Council, developers, and other private- and public-sector participants). TVTC directed the consultants to conduct the nexus study and calculate a maxunum fee based on the list of pro- jects identified in Section 4.0 (and described in Appendices A and B) to the great- est extent technically defensible under the Mitigation Fee Act. Consistent with the TVTC's directions, the full cost of funding these improvements is used to calcu- late the maximum fee rates the TVTC could_ apply to all new residential and non- residential development in the Tri-Valley b.etween 2007 and 2030. Since the final list of projects was developed through a long inclusive process with stakeholders and policy-makers at the table, the projects represent the most feasible capacity enhancements to Tri-Valley's transportation system. Cambridge Systematics, lnc. 5-1. ,____o ,~__~ Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study 5.2 MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS r Development impact fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building per- nnit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature aclopted the Mitigation Fee Act (Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, con- tained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee pro- ~ grams. The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee. i.~,_1 a___ _1 The five statutory findings required for adoption of the TVTC impact updated fee have already been adopted when the first TVTC fee was adopted in 1995. They are presented here and supporfed by the Nexus Analysis section (Section 5.0) of this report. All statutory references below are to the Act. This sample framework for the Mitigation Fee Act findings is only to provide local ~ agencies with guidance, and is not a substitute for legal ad~ice. Local agencies . should customize the findings for their jurisdictiori and consult with their legal counsel prior to adoption of the updated TVTC impact fee. Purpose of Fee 7__~ ~.~._~ ~_~~ s i ~1 ~~_~l ~ ~.~1 For the first finding, the local agency must identify the purpose of the fee (Section.66001(a)(1)). The TVTC policy, as expressed through the TVTC Action Plan, is that new development shall contribute for mitigation of their unpacts on the Routes of Regional Sigruficance; and that the cost sharing of recomznended improvements will be implemented through the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF) regional impact fee program. This is administered by the seven jurisdictions of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, Danville, and San Ramon, which all signed a joint powers authority (JPA). The fee advances a legitimate public interest by enabling the TVTC to fund improvements to transportation infrastructure required to accoinmodate new development. This finding is documented by the analysis of the projected increase in travel over the next 23 years generated by the new development that is projected to be occupied in the Tri-Valley. This growth in new residents and employees is pro- jected to increase ~umulative average daily delay on the Tri-Valley regional roadways by over six and one-half fold (660 percent) in the morning peak and almost eight fold (789 percent) in the evening peak. This increase in congestion excludes any effects from more through traffic, (i.e., trips the transit the Tri-Valley but neither start nor end there). Table 5.1 shows the current average daily vehicle hours. of delay (VHD) and the projected increase by the year 2030 (see Figure 5.1). 5-2 , Carnbridge Systematics; lnc. i~ ~ ~1 , . ` ~ i .1 ~ , ~ - ~~5 Tri-Va11ey Transportation Counc~il Nexus Study ~~) ~ '~' Table 5.1 Projected Increase in Congestion Related to New Development* g.__ ;_ Vehicle Hours of Delay, 2007 to 2030 ; ~~~ 2007 ~. Change ;- Current 2030 2007-2030 y--~ AM peak 5,092 38,715 660% ~~.M~ PM peak 4,505 40,058 789% ? ~ ' Through traffic (external-external trips) was removed and its effects of VHD have been exclutled. , ~, Use of Fee Revenues For the second finding, the local agency must identify the use to which the fee is `-'~~ to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. ;. `..~ That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan, as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in appli- '~F~ cable general or specific plan requirements, ar may be made in other public ;~ documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged . f-~ (Section 66001(a)(2)). The Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee will fund ;`~ expanded facilities on the Routes of Regional Significance to serve new devel- ~~ opment. These £acilities include the following: . ~ --~ • Roadway widening; ~_~_ ~ • Roadway extension; ~ a= • Traffic signal eoordination and other traffic improvemerits; ..-~.~ , -~ • Freeway interchanges and related freeway improvements; '~J ; ~ • Safety improvements needed to mitigate the higher volume of traffic gener- 's_.. ~ ated by new development on a major arterial or other regional facility; and ! I • Improvements required for regional express bus and rail transit. The TVTC has restricted spending fee revenues to capital projects that expand capacity on the Routes of Regional Significance to serve new development or mitigate its impact of the safety of the facility. Costs for planned traffic facilities - are identified in Section 4.0 of this report. Costs funded by tlie Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee may include project administration and man- agement, design and engineering, riglit-of-way acquisition, and construction. 1Vlore detailed descriptions of planned facilities, including their specific location, if known at this time, are shown in Appendices A and B attached to this report, the TVTC Action Plan, and other documents. The seven agencies implementing the Tri-Valley Transportation Developmerit ,Fee may use fee revenues for the purposes of. expanding capacity and mitigating the impacts of more congestion on the Routes of Regional Significance to accommodate new development as designated in the Strategic Expenditure Plan. ' (~l Cambridge Sysfernatics, lnc. 5-3 ;---~ . L ~. ~~_ 1 ~ , ____, ~~[~ Tri-Valley Transportation Counr.il Nexus Study ' _~ ~ .~j . Benefit Relationship ~_._- ~- I For the,third finding, the local agency must determine how there is a reasonable ;"_-~ relationship or nexus between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed (Section 66001(a)(3)). In.other words, the objective ~~ ~ this nexus analysis is to show how the improvements will mitigate the impact.of ,__ new development on a facility standard. The facility standard determines new i_~ development's need to provide additional capacity in arder to maintain existing ,---- levels of service (LOS) as measured by systemwide delay on regional transporta- ~--~ tion facilities: Thus, the current LOS provides a benchmark that is used to com- ~_~ , pare the existing conditions (2007 Base Year LOS) on the transportation system with two future year scenarios (2030).4 a~-~ Both future scenarios include all of the travel associated with new development a-~ within the Tri-Valley, but do not include the new travel associated through trips . ~~-~~ (i.e., trips that have origins and destinations outside the Tri-Valley. The first sce- °,_~,1 nario (i.e., Future No-Build) is based on a year 2030 transportation network that 1 will carry all of the locally produced or attracted new trips, but will only include ~ 4~ improvements that are expected to be funded under at the LOS for the financially- ~--- constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) without the proposed Tri-Valley _-_~~ Transportation Development Fee projects (No-Build Scenario). !^__J The second scenario (i.e., Future Build) is based on a year 2030 transportation ~__. netwark that includes all of the additional unprovements that are expected to be j_ _.~.~ funded with the updated Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee. These ~~ three comparisons must show that: 1) the Base Year conditions are better than the ~-•~ Future No-Build conditions; 2) the Future Build conditions are better than the i_`~~ Future No-Build; and 3) the Future Build conditions are not better than the Base Year conditions. These comparisons ensure that new development does not fund ,--- ~~ infrastructure needed to serve existing development. These comparisons also demonstrate a nexus between the impacts of new development and their share of i...__~ the funding for the TVTC Action Plan projects. I{ This nexus may be demonstrated at a systemwide level. The systemwide nexus 'a~ __1 is measured using the aggregate regional peak-hour average weekday vehicle ,.,....~ hours of delay on all the significant roadways (includes freeways, expressways --~ arterials, and major collectors) in the. Tri-Valley on the 2005 Base Year networks ~----~ and the two 2030 No-Build and Build networks. The aggregate vehicle hours of ; delay provides a reasonable systerriwide measure of the unpact of new develop- ~~~ ~ ment on congestion.arid mobility, and is sufficient as the measure of nexus. ~ _. y-.-~ The CCTA travel demand model.is the certified model being used to establish a ~^- I technical nexus between the proposed projects and the impacts of new develop- '-- ment on congestion (measured as. recurrent delay). The model is based on the . ;- 1 i 4 The 2005 and 2030 year benchmarks were chosen, because these calculations are based ~-_) on the CCTA travel demand model that has, only these years available. j I r . 5~} Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ~_Ll . ( 05 . . . . ~.. . ~ J ~ r i -~ 3r, ~~ ~~~ Tri-Valle~ Transportation Council Nexus Study ` i~ ~ ~ spatial interrelationships among economic factors, housing and population fac- ~I tors, land use patterns, and the transportation system. The model generates 2030 3 - forecasts for small geographic areas, including the traffic analysis zones (TAZ) a.~~ used in the transportation modeling process. The CCTA travel demand model ~s-~ complies with Federal mandates that transportation plans consider the long-. range effects of the interaction between land uses and the transportation system. ,- ~__~ According to the CCTA travel demand model, between 2005 and 2030, if no pro- ~-_ jects are undertaken, the number of AM peak hours of delay is expected to ~-.~ increase 660 percent from 5;092 to 38,715 hours; while the number of PM peak d---~ hours of delay is expected to escalate 789 percent from 4,505 to 40,058 hours. If ;u the projects are undertaken, the number of AM peak hours of delay would ?~~ decrease 15 percent compared to the No-Build scenario; whereas, the number of ; _... PM peak'hour of delay would decrease 22 percent. This modest'improvement ~--- ;,. ~_ - demonstrates that the funding of the des'ignated new transportation improve- ~ ments (i.e., the construction of projeets shown in Tables 4.1 and 4.2) by new ~~~_~ development only partially mitigates their contribution to future congestion. `}~~ Table 5,2 and Figure 5.1 show the comparison between. the Future Build and Future No-Build scenarios. a ~v ~1 h Table 5.2 Build vs. No-Build Scenario ' i-r-~ Vehicle Hours of Delay, 2005 to 2030* 9__- #--•~~.-~ 2030 Difference ~ 2005 - 2030 Built vs. Hours of Delay 2005 No-Build Build No-Build No Built i . ~•~-~•~ AM Peak 5,092 38,715 32,890 ' 660% -15% ~i ~~ PM Peak - 4,505 40,058 31,062 . 789% -22% # * The through trips have been excluded from these figures and, therefore, their affects on delay have been s_a~ removed. ;: ~~l '.--J . , ~ ~~_l ~ i___l ' _ __4 ,.:_~ ~___J ~~ . ~J ~4,~~ ~ Cambridge Systematics, lnc. 5-5 1~.~1 ~ ,:. ~•---~ ~ p ~_ 1~ ~ q_.,_. Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study . - Figure 5.1 Tri-Valley Average Change in Congestion from 2005 to 2030 Change in Vehicle Hours of Delay Excluding Through Trips* ~ ~ ~ ~-I t """I s ~ i"_'I d:r.~ ^r.~.~ 7 n. a `-- ~:_-s ~ _.__ 1 :-_~ i .~ ~ i __~ i .~ F.. _I Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) V 2005 AM 2030 no 2030 with 2005 PM 2030 no 2030 with ProjectAM ProjectAM ProjectPM , ProjectPM Sources: Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and Dowling Associates. * The current (2005) and projected vehicle hours of delay (VHD) are estimatetl using the Contra Costa County Travel Demand Model and exclude through trips with neither an origiri nor a destination in the Tri-Vafley. This analysis has deterinined that the planned projects identified in this report will expand the capacity of .the Routes of Regional Significance to accoinmodate the increased trips generated by new development. Thus, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of fee revenues and the residential and nonresiden- tial types of new development that will pay the fee. Burden Relationship ~_._i ; i...:, _I I ~__.._. p i_.__ For the fourth finding the local agency must determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need far the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed (Section 66001(a)(4)). New dwelling units and building square footage are indicators of the demand for transportation improvements needed to accommodate growth. As additional dwelling units and building square footage are created, the occupants of these structures gener- ate additional vehicle trips and place additional burdens on the transportation system. 5-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ~~ ~ '~~ ~_ io5 ~i ~. Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study ~_~ . a ~" ~ The need for the Tri-Valley Transpartation Development. Fee is based on the i~~~ CCTA transportation model projections of growth that show an increase in vehi-. ~ cle .hours of delay on the Routes of Regional Significance, primarily as a result of . '~~~ new development, even with planned improvements to that system. The model y--~ estimated ixnpacts from new development based on trip generation rates that ~ varied by land use category, providing a reasonable relationship betcveen the #~°~-;I type of. development and the need for improvements. ~.-..-~ ~ The trip generation rates applied in this nexus siudy are an average of AM and ~~.-~~ ~ PM peak-hour vehicle trips rates from the ITE to estimate travel demand by type of land use. These were the same rates used in the initial 1994 TVTCDF calcula- ~~~ . tion. Vehicle trips can be calculated~in a consistent manner across land use cate- gories based on population and employment estimates by land use categary. ~~:~ 1 This enables the impact of development to be distinguished between land use ~~ i categories, a key requiremenf of the Mitigation Fee Act. This method is preferred to the most common alternative using vehicle miles traveled (VMT). VMT, ori ~-~~ the other liand, is available from transportation models only for a limited num- ~~__.. ~-T ber of production and attraction categories: home-work, home-school, home- . ~-~°-, college; home-other, and nonhome. ~~,~ Table 5.3 shows the calculation of travel demand factors by land use category , based on the adjustments described above. ~.. ~_~ ~~~~~ Table 5.3 Trip Generation Characteristics by Land Use Type ~"~~~ Average AM/PM Peak Hour ~ -_-- ~` ~ I Percentage of q ~~ ` ~ Capture Trips ~ Land Use Gross Trip Rate (Pass by Trips) Net Trip Rate ~-- ;.... ~ Single Family Householtl 0.90 0%0 0.90 3 Multifamily Household 0.62 0% 0.62 i.:_l Retail (1,000 sq ft)* 2.39 30% 1.67 ~ ~~-) Office (1,000 sq ft) 1.53 0% 1.53 f~ Industrial (1,000 sq ft) 0.89 0% 0.89 , i Other (1,000 sq ft) 1.00 0% 1.00 !_ I ~ ~ Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc., with data from the ITE Traffic Generator Manual and Minnesota ~.._...~ Department of Transportation. ? * Institute of Traffic Engineers has estimated that 30 percent of trips to and from retail lantl use are i"'~'~ . intermediate stops on a longer trip matle of other purposes. 3~..:~.I ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ Proportionality ~---) Fox the fifth finding, the local agency must determine how there is a reasonable 1 I relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility, or ' t._.,. portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is y~`~ imposed (Section 66001(b)). This reasonable relationship between the Tri-Valley ~~,._~ _ Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ' 5-7, ~ j ____I fI ~ _.i ~3~ ~o~ ~ Tri-Valle Trans ortafion Council Nexus Stud ~ ' ~ y P y . ~g~I '~ Transportation Development Fee for a specific development project and the cost . j^~` of the facilities attriUutable to that project is based on the estimated vehicle trips the project.will add to the Routes of Regional Significance. The total fee for a ,.._.. ;-:~ specific residential development is based on the number and type of new ~--1 dwelling units multiplied by the trip generation rate for the applicable residen- ~ tialland use category. The fee for a specific nonresidential development is based ~y-~I ' in a sunilar manner on the amount of building square footage by land use cate- gory. Larger projects generate more vehicle trips and pay a higher fee than ~T' smaller projects of the same land use category. Thus, the fee schedule ensures a ~... _~ reasonable relationship between the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee ~-~ for a specific development project and the cost of the transportation improve- ~ .°.~I . ments attributable to the project. ~~~ ~ 5.3 MAXIMUM FEES BY TYPE OF LAND USE ~T= ~ The following steps describe how the fees are calculated for each of the six differ- ~•--- ent types of land uses: ~ ... ~ . 1. Section 4.0 documents the investment cost for projects proposed and not yet ~_m, ~ built or under construction (described in Appendices A and B) totals ;-- $2,295 million, of which $1,487 million remains unfunded from other sources. ~-~ . This unfunded amount has been reduced by 10 percent to $1,338 million to ~ ~~-- account for some uncertainty in the preliminary engineering used to estimate g-~-~ project.costs, The amount corresponds to the cost that new development is. ~--} expected to cover to mitiga#e future congestion. H . . _! ~-- I 2. Forecast peak-hour trips generated by new development per type of land use '-= using an average of AM and PM peak-hour vehicle trip rates from the ITE. f~I According to estimates shown in Table 3.4, a total of 98,427 new average AM i~~~ and PM peak-hour trips-ends will be generated behveen 2007 and 2030. ~' ° I 3. Divided the 98,427 new peak-hour trips by the total unfunded cost of $1,338 million. This produces an average cost per peak-hour trip of $13,598. i ._~ ~ , I $1,338,363,000 _ $13,598 d-"~ 98,427 °~ 4. This cost per average AM and PM trip-end amount is then multiplied by the ji~! trip generation. rates for each of the six land use types, which produces a ` maximum fee for each land use. For, example the equation used to calculate ~__`_I the fee for a single family home is: ; $13,598 x 0.90 =$12,238 per single family home ~ ~~.~ . ~ Where:0.90 is the average of AM and PM peak-hour trips generated froin a ~---~ single family dwelling unit. ;_~,I The fee for a multifamily dwelling unit is: ~ . -~I $13,598 x 0.62 = $8,430 ~._u_~ 5-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ~.~~_I ~ ~~l -, ~~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~~1 Tri-Valley Transportation Counc~l Nexus Study - . ~!~ Where:0.62 is the average of AM and PM peak-hour trips generated from a g ^~ ' multifamily dwelling unit. ?'~~l ~-~ The fee per square foot of retail space is: ~--~ $13,598 x 1.67 =$22.71 per thousand square feet of retail development _..~. Whexe:1.67 is the average of AM and PM peak-hour trips generated from a ~ g~ square foot of retail development. ~ ~ Table 5.4 presents the results of these calculations for each of the six land use types. Note that the trip generation rates for two residential land use,types are ~~-~ expressed as average AM and PM peak-hour trip-ends per dwelling unit, while ~.,-._ the trip generation rates for the four commercial land use types are expressed as y--~ average AM and PM peak-hour trip-ends per square foot. The "other" ~~-~l comnnercral land use applies a rate of one average AM and PM trip-end, so the' ' f corresponding fee amount 'is the cost per average AM and PM trip-end ~_~ calculated above. This fee may be applied to any commercial land use that does . n._~. a._._~ not conform to the three types specified in Table 5.4. ~ d.~_ ~ f~ Table 5.4 2007 Maximum Fee Rate Per Land Use Type ~. Fee R ~ ~ (Fee Rate per Dwelling . _.. v Average AM 8~ PM Unit ~ „~ Peak Nour Trips-Ends* or Square Feet) ~~ ~ ~ Single family (units) 0.90 $12,238 -` ` Multifamily (units) • 0.62 $8,430 ~ ,- -~ Retail (sq ft) 1.67 $22.71 1 I ~ ..__ Office (sq ft) 1.53 $20.80 ~ Industrial (sq ft) 0.89 $12.10 ' Other (trip) 1.00 $13,598 ~ ' .I ° Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ' ~~ , * TVTC and, the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. The fees shown in the last column would generate sufficient revenues to fund the total unfunded cost of all selected projects. Nevertheless, Tri-Valley jurisdictions are not obligated to apply this fee schedule. The existing #ee schedule embodies the judgment of Tri-Valley jurisdictions to reduce the maximum fee amounts determined in the first nexus analysis. by roughly two-thirds. This type of adjustment may be applied to the maximum fee schedule shown in Table 5.4. 5.4 NEXT STEPS This nexus report documents the technical findings needed.to adopt a fee sched- ule to fund the projects listed in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. The next step will be for the 1.~....~ i Cambridge Sysfematics, lnc. 5-9 i_.__~ ~ ~ ~ ~.l ''~l ~ _ ~TCI ~-1 ~_~~..~ ~:l~:l (~ ~ ..~,_. q^ ~.~ n ~ ~.~ ~~:~1 8m T~ ~_ ~~ ~._.~.I a._... i ._,_ ~_~~ 3_ M.1 i ~_..,~ ~ __.~ 1 _... ~. 1 't ~..._ i.,..~ ! ~ ~ ~ i._._, ~wI 3 .. t...,:.;._I I.~A_I ~.~:~ ~_I l.._._I Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study '~ 1 a5 TVTC to adopt a fee schedule they believe will be the most appropriate for their . needs. If the final fees adopted by the TVTC. were below the maximums calcu- lated in Subsection 5.5; the resulting revenue shortfall will require the TVTC to take one ar both of the two following actions: 1. Increase funding from 'other sources to fill shortfalls in specific projects. These may include Federal earmarks, state funding, local general fund; development agreements that include direct funding, dedication of right-of- way; or in-kind construction, assessmerit districts, tolling, environmental mitigation through CEQA, and value capture fechniques. 2: Full funding for only selected projects. The TVTC has used this practice by prioritizing funding through the Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP) to com- plete a subset of the projects identified in the first impact fee program adopted in 1995. If applied to this update of the fee program, the TVTC may need to rank the list of projects accordingly through an update to the SEP. Regardless of what final fee schedule is adopted, the implementation of the. pro- ject will require the TVTC to set priorities for which projects are furided first. This may be best accomplished through an update to the Strategic Expenditure Plari (SEP). 5-10 ~ Cambridge Systematics, Inc: ~^ i Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix S 3., ~~ ~I ,-~-~ ~ _: ~.~1 ~-1 ~.~~) ~-:~1 ~.~1 ti.::...i j.~rt.l ;-~1 a_._~ ~.. ~~~ ~....~I l,.~:_ ~_- ~ ~ ,._._- 1~~:1 ~~.~~] 1~-~1 1~ 1~~...~ A. Existing TVTC Proj ects The following projects were included in the 1995 Tri-Valley Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance, and the original fee nexus study `for the Tri- . Valley Transportation Development Fee, adopted in 1998. These projects continue to be a priority for the. Tri-Valley. Projecf scopes, cost estimates, and status have been updated based on the most recent data available. Table A.1 Projects Adopted for Fee Program in 1998 7otal Unfunded . Project . Cost Cost Comments A-1 I-580/1=680 Interchange ~ - - Project completed . (southbound to eastbound) A-2a Route 84 Expressway I-580 to $336.57 $221.77 Project study report complete I-680 A-2b Isabel Route 8411-580 $180.00 $15.00 Environmental complete Interchange A-3 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes $47.00 $30.00 Segments 1 and 3 complete. Cost shown is for Segment 2 A-4 West DublinlPleasanton BART - - Under construction Station A-5a I-580 HOV Lane Eastbound $161.87 $8.00 Project split into phases, project ` A-5b I-580 HOV Lane Westbound $165.40 $20.00 study report complete A-6 I-680 HOV Lanes, SR 84 to Top - - Southbound compiete, northbound of Sunol Grade not considered for funding A-7 I-580IFoothill/San Ramon Road $0.81 $0.81 North half complete Interchange A-8 I-680/Alcosta Interchange - - Project complete A-9a Crow Canyon Road $15.50 $10.95 Project split into phases Improvements Phase 1 ~ A-9b Crow Canyon Road $32.34 $32.34 Improvements Phase 2 A-10a Vasco Roatl Safety $23.25 $4.15 Project spiit into phases .. Improvements Phase 1 A-10b Vasco Road Safety $25.83 $25.83 Improvements Phase 2 A-11 Express BuslBus Rapid Transit $20.36 $12.16 BRT added to scope - The pages below provide details about each project including scope, benefit, cost, and funding. Cambridge Systematics, Inc A-1 I~~ 4--1 ;~ ~ Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study i__T, Appendix Project No. A-1, I-580/I-680 Interchange (Southbound to Eastbound) Involved Agencies: Caltrans and the Alameda County Transportation Authority. Project Type: Freeway-freeway interchange modifications. ~ Project Scope: The project constructed the southbound to eastbound flyover, a northbound to eastbound direct connector, southbound on and off hook ramps, and a northbound on ramp: ~ Need/Purpose: This project was needed to improve safety and reduce conges- tiorl on southbound and northbound I-680 near I-580, and mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment. This project was approved Uy the voters of Alameda County as a portion of the Measure B sales tax program. Current Status: This project has been completed. Project funding and cost: Most of the project was funded by Measure B. TVTC ~ initially appropriated $5.6 million in TVTDF inatch funds, including approxi-- ' mately $4.2 million in funds provided to the project to fulfill its funding needs , and $1.4 million in reimbursements to the Cities of Dublin .and Pleasanton for prior contributions. ~-~....1 ~ Projeet No. A-2a; Route 84 Expresszvay I-580 to I-680 ;, ~ Involved Agencies: Caltrans, Alaineda County Transportation Improvement s_.~ Authority, City of Livermore, City of Pleasanton, and Alameda County. ~..._,_~ Project Type: Expressway. f _"_. I ~ o- l Project Scope: This project will be . widen and reconstruct Route 84 as an , ~_... ,` expressway in several stages using a variety of funding souxces. The ultimate ~°~° configuration is expected to consist of six lanes from I-580 to Stanley Boulevard i l and four lanes from Stanley Boulevard to I-680. A TVTC-funded project study a_._ f report was completed in 2003. A Caltrans SHOPP-funded project is under con- ;_~,~ struction to realign Route 84 to expressway standards between Ruby Hill Drive ~ and south of Pigeon Pass. Other near-term projects will relocate utilities between ~~ -• ~ Airway Boulevard and Jack London Boulevard, and widen and utility relocation { between Jack London Boulevard and RuUy Hill Drive. Subsequent stages ~ include realigrunent, relocation, and widening between Pigeon Pass and I-~i80, i 1 ramp improveinents at the Route 84/I-680 interchange, and construction .of a ~..~,.. , southbound auxiliary lane on I-680 from Route 84 to Andrade Road. Need/Purpose:, This project is needed to.improve safety and reduce congestion on Route 84, I-580; and I-680 between Livermore and Sunol, and mitigate the impacts of Iocal and regional growth in housing and employxnent. The project also will improve access to regional routes for portions of Livermore and Pleasariton. The existing two-lane roadway between Livermore and I-680 is operating at capacity at certain locations during the peak periods. This project is identified in.the TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan, and the Alameda Countywide ~_J A-2 _ ~ Cainbridge Systematics, Inc. ~.~ ,~~~~ I~l ~-- ~ 1 ~~~ ~ ~ Trt-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study I^~ • APpendix ! Transportation Plan. Portions of the project are included in the voter-approved Alameda County Measure B sales _tax program. The Tri-Valley Triangle study, completed in 2007, included this project as an important part of the proposed regional transportation netwark for the Tri-Valley.: This project will reduce regional traffic volumes from local Pleasanton roadways. ~~ Current Status: A project study report was completed in 2003. A Caltrans ~~~ SHOPP-funded project is under construction to realign Route 84 to expressway standards between Ruby Hill Drive and south of Pigeon Pass. Other near-term ~--~-~ projects will relocate utilities between Airway Boulevard and Jack London ~~ Boulevard, and widen and utility relocation between Jack London Boulevard and -~ Ruby Hill Drive. Subsequent stages include realignment, relocation, and wid- ! ening between~Pigeon Pass and I-680, ramp improvements at the Route 84jI-680 . ~T.~.~.1 interchange, and construction of a southbound auxiliary lane on I-680 from ~_~,_~ Route 84 to Andrade Road. ~~j Cost Estimates and Funding (2006 dollars): The total cost for this project is ~_ _ estimated at $336.57 million. ~-_ ~---~~ Project Funding and Cost: ~-~ ~ , Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources . ~ (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) ~~:~1 _ TVTDF $4.80 l:~._l Measure B $80.00 ~ . SHOPP $30.00 ~ Total $114.80 $336.57 $221.77 1_~I ~-- ~ ~...~.I ,._.. Project No. A-2b, State Route 84/I-580 Interchange a~..J Involved Agencies: City of Livermore, Caltrans, Alameda County Transportation ;,. _~ Improvement Authority, and Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. !~°~'~~ Project Type: New freeway-expressway interchange. i~:..,~1 Project Scope: This project will construct a new partial cloverleaf interchange on the extension of Isabel Avenue (State Route $4) and I-580. This project will be ~~°'='I built in two phases. Initially a four-lane overcrossing will be constructed. The '~ I. ultimate project would widen Isabel Avenue and the I-580 overcrossing to six lanes. The project also includes removal of the Portola Avenue Interchange, con- ~ ;~~, struction of a new overcrossing, and extension of Portola Avenue north of I-580 . ~ ,_1 ~ to Isabel Avenue. ~.~~..i Need/Purpose: This project is needed to improve access between I-580 and State ~~.~1 Route 84, and mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and ~ employment. It will reduce regional traffic volume from local Livermore i~>~~ . ~ ~..~~ - Cambridge Systematics, Inc. A-3 ~ __~ ~=-~ ~ . .. ~~I ~_~,l ~~l ~M}T~ ~~ ~j 'i__~~ ~~.~1 ~~~ -1 . ~~~.) ~..~1 ~~l ~~~1 ~.~:~~ ~.-~.1 ~_....~~ ~ _,_. !~ ~~: l ~~~.) ~~....:~ ~__~~:1 ,. ,.....J i _..,..~ ~~~i.-1 ;_~~ ~_.~~~ ~....,_~ ~~~y~l 1 _~-~ ~_-~ ~~,~ ~ -- 1~_~ Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix ~f~q ~OS ~ roadways. The Tri-Valley Triangle study, completed in 2007, included this pro- ject as an important part of the proposed regional transportation network for the Tri-Valley. This project also is included in the TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan, ~ the City of Liverinore General Plan, and the expenditure plan for the State',s CMIA program. Current Status: The environmental assessment has been completed and certi- fied. Right-of-way acquisition and design is underway. Construction is sched- uled to begin in 2009 arid be completed by 1012. ~ Project Funding and Cost: Sources Funding Cost Funding Shortfall (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2010) (Millions, 2006) Federal $11.30 ~ Measure B $25.10 I-580 Corritlor $15.00 Dev. R/W contribution $19.30 Livermore TIF $7.30 ' Bike/Ped Grant $1.00 CMIA $68.00 STIP $18.00 Total $165.00 $180.00 $15.00 _ Project No. A-3, I-680 Auxiliary Lanes Project - Segment 2 Involved Agencies: City of San Ramon, Town o~ Danville, and Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Project Type: Freeway Project Scope: The I-680 Auxiliary Lanes Project Segment 2 is from the Sycamare Valley Road interchange in the Town of Danville to the Crow Canyon Road interchange in the City of San Ramon on I-680. Segment 2 will add two auxiliary lanes, one each, to both northbound and southbound direction of I-680. Need/Purpose: Auxiliary lanes are lanes that run along the freeway from the on- ramp of one interchange to tlie off-ramp of the next interchange, but do not con- ~ tinue tl~rough the interchange area. The purpose of the I-680 Auxiliary Lanes Project is to improve the overall free- way performance and enhance motorist's safety by relieving. corigestion due to merging and weaving, and mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment. In addition, the project will reduce congestion by eliminating backups that occur when cars merge on and off the freeway between interchanges. Construction will reduce friction, conflicts, capacity constraints, , . A-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ~_~ ~ .~ ~~ q---- ~-1 ~_~ ~.~~ ~~•~i ~~ ~~..1 ~~J ~'-~ Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study , Appendix and congestion on the on and off ramps; reduce average travel times (as much as 10 percent) and increase average travel speeds (as much as 4 percent) for the peak traffic period; reduce vehicle hours of delay during peak traffic (as much as 24 percent); and reduce the duration of peak traffic periods (by as much as 20 percent). This project was identified in TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan, Measure C Strategic Plan, and the General Plans of the City of San Ramon and Town of Danville. Project Funding and Cost; Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources {Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) (Mi{lions, 2006) Measure C $17.00 Total $17.00 $47.00 $30.00 Current Status: Segments 1 and 3 were completed in April 2007 and provide ; auxiliary lanes from Diablo Road to . Sycamore VaIley (Danville) and Crow . Canyon Road to Bollinger Canyon Road (San Ramon). Segment 2 construction will complete the entire project. Construction is expected to start in 2011 and be complete in 2013. Project No. A-4, West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station Involved Agencies: BART, City of Dublin, and City of Pleasanton. ~ ~.,.~( ~ __~ , -~ -, a....~ ~ ~.....~ ~~.,_.{ ~~....~ ~ -) i -"~. ~....4.I ' . _- f..W.::l iyy.:l 1.~~~J ~~I Project Type: Rail Transit. Project Scope: This project is the construction of the West Dublin-Pleasanton BART station and related transit improvements. The project is a joint puUlic and private venture to build a station on the active BART line in the median of I-580. The related transit improvements, such as patron parking garages and kiss-ride and bus drop-offs, will Ue located on Uoth the north (Dublin) and south (Pleasantori) sides of the freeway on property owned by BART. NeedJPurpose: The construction of the West Dublin-Pleasanton BART station will address existing demand within the west section of the Tri-Valley for BART service. This project was identified in TVTC Strategic' Expenditure Plan,. BART's plan for system expansion, West Dublin Specific Plan, and the City of Pleasanton General Plan. ~ Current Status: This project is under construction and is expected to be com- pleted in 2010. , Cambridge Systernatics, Inc. A-5 - 1~~ ,. ~ ~-~ ~ l~ l ~ Tri-Valley Transporfafion Council Nexus Study ~" {.. ~ Appendix . ~~~ Project Funding and Cost: ~ ~-~ , Funding Cost Funding Shortfall ~_~.~1 Sources (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) 6T. TVTC $4.00 ~~ Other $54.00 ~~ ~ ~ Total $58.00 $58.00 - tl_ .~~ ~ ~-~ Project No. A-5a, I-580 HOV Lane Eastbound _ Involved Agencies: Caltrans, Alameda County Congestion Management ~-~-~ Agency, Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority, City of ~ _~ Livermore, City of Dublin, City of Pleasanton, and Alameda County. ~~._~ Project Type: Freeway. dV~ Project Scope: This project will construct about 10 miles of HOV lanes on I-580 ~ ~ from west of Hacienda Boulevard to east of Greenville Road. After it is com- ~ pleted, this freeway segment will have a total of four mixed-flow lanes and one . ~_ R~ HOV lane in each direction. The project will be completed in two stages. The ~ ~ first stage is eastbound. ~._.. Current Status: A PSR has been completed. Environmental clearance for the " ~ t~._I eastbound ro ect is ex ected b the end of 2007. Desi is nearl com lete. p l P Y ~ Y P ~~- ~ Construction is expected to begin in late 2008, and be completed in 2011. ~,.:- Project Funding and Cost: f ~1 , Funding Cost Funding Shortfall j . ~~~ . .. Sources (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2010) (Millions, 2006) . . 1,_.._ . TCRP $25.00 ~ ~ . a~._~ RM2 $6.00 ~,....~ STIP $17.67 i i_.~..~ CMIA $72.20 ~ ~ ~ SHOPP $27.00 :_ __~ . Fed $6.00 i4~ ~ Total $153.87 $161.87 $8.00 i.r~~~ , Need/Purpose: This project is needed to increase overall person-trip capacity in ~~._.4~ the I-580 corridor to help improve safety; reduce traffic congestion, and nnitigate i the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment: This pro- `--~~ ject will reduce eastbound traffic congestion and delay, decrease travel times, ~ I reduce accident rates, encourage use of HOVs, and help attain air quality. goals. ~'" ~ This project is identified uz the TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan, Alameda ~_- ~y~ County Transportation Plan, and the City of Livermore General Plan. The ~.~ . ~ ~~ A-6 ~ ~ Catnbridge Systematics, Inc. , ~~ ' "I ~ ~~ ~~ ' ~ ~ ~ Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus SEudy i.,,_,~ . APPendix a.-- - ~ ~~~ Tri-Valley Triangle study, completed in 2007, included this project as an impor- ~^'~ tant part of the proposed regional transportation network for the Tri-Valley. ~T-~ Project No. A-5b, I-580 HOV Lane iNestbound ~~_. ~~: Involved Agencies: Caltrans, Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, Alaineda County Transportation Improvement Authority, City of ~~~ Livermore, City of Dublin, City of Pleasanton, and Alameda County. Project Type: Freeway. ~.,~..) Project Scope: This project will construct about 10 miles of HOV lanes on I-580 . ~T-~ from west of Hacienda Bouleyard to east of Greenville Road. After it is com- pleted, this freeway segment will.have a total of.four mixed-flow lanes and one ~~~1 HOV lane in each direction. The HOV project will be completed in two stages. ~~ ~ The second stage is westbound. A direct bus-only connection from the HOV lane . to Dublin-Pleasanton BART is included with the westbound project. ~~-~ ~ °"'~ Need/Purpose: This project is needed to increase overall person-trip capacity in ~~~ the I-580 corridor to help improve safety, reduce traffic congestion, and mitigate ~~.~ the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment. This pro- ~~^~ ject will reduce westbourid traffic congestion and delay, decrease travel times, reduce accident rates, encourage.u.se of HOVs, and help attain air quality goals. ~-+-.-~ This project is identified in tYie TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan, Alameda . ~-- County Transportation Plan, and the City of Livermore General Plan. The a~~ .°~ Tri-Valley Triangle study, completed in 2007, included this project as an impor- '- tant part of the proposed regional transportation network for the Tri-Valley. ~.,~~~ ~ ~ ~ Current Status: A PSR has been completed. Environmental studies have begun. ~°-~~ Construction is expected to Uegin in 2012 and be completed in 2014. ~,~,_~ Project Funding and Cost: ~ ~ V.~ ~ Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2013) (Millions, 2006) i ~~°~ RM2 $34.10 ~~ „~ CMIA , $101.70 ;1 Fed $9.60 ~ ~~ rv~ Total $14~.40 $165.40 $20.00 i.~:.,J ~-~°=~~ Project No. A-6,.I-680 HOV Lanes, SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade ~-~ Involved Ageneies: Caltrans, AIameda County Congestion 1VIanagement i.~~.. Agency, and City of Pleasanton. ~~_...~ Project Type: Freeway. , ~"°'~"~ . ~ Project Scope: Const~uct approximately 3.5 miles of HOV lanes on I-680 from !~~ State Route 84 to the top of Sunol Grade. ~w ~ ~ ~ -~~ . { Cambridge Systematics, Ine. _ A-7 L._~ , ~~ ~~~1 1_~l l~~l ~~1 / - ~~ Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Sfudy ~ Appendix Need/Purpose: This project is identified in the TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan and the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan. The Tri-Valley Triangle study; completed in 2007, included this project as an important part of the pro- posed regional transportation network for the Tri-Valley. However, the northbound project was a low priority. , Current Status: Southbound interim HOV project is completed. Ultixnate southbound HOV/HOT lane is under design. ~ Project Funding and Cost: It is anticipated that this project will be funded by sources other than the TVTDF. Projeet No. A-7; I-580/Footliill/San Ramon Road Interchange Modifications Involved Agencies: City of Dublin, City of Pleasanton, and Galtrans. Project Type: Freeway/Arterial Interchange Modification, Project Scope: To enhance safety and improve traffic operatiori at the. inter- change, the design of the existing four quadrant cloverleaf. interchange will be modified, replacing the westbound and eastbound off loops with diagonal ramps. The two remaining off-ramps would be signalized at :their intersections ~ with the local street. In addition, the eastbound diagonal off-ramp will be wid- ened to two lanes, and a 700-foot eastbound auxiliary lane on I-580 will be con- structed. Need/Purpose: The project is needed to ensure adequate access to and from the West Dublin-Pleasanton BART station, arid mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment. In addition, the Pleasanton side of the freeway experiences safety issues . due to off-rainp traffic weaving and merging onto Foothill Road. This project is identified in the TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan and in the General Plans~of the City of Dublin and the City of Pleasanton. Current Status: The improvements on the north side of I-580 (Dublin side) have ~ been completed. The Pleasanton side to the souEh has not been improved. ~.__~.~ 1~ ~~.:~.1 ~~1 Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) . (Millions, 2006) Total $0.00 $0.81 $0.81 ' Project No. A-8, I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange Involved Agencies: .Caltrans and City of San Ramon. Project Type: Freeway/Arterial Interchange Modification. Project Scope: Reconstructed the southbound off ramp and added a new on- ramp at the I-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange to improve operations at the p-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ~ :~l ~~ t~~ aT~i ~~ ~1 Tri-Valley Transportation Counc~l Nexus Sfudy Appendix interchange. This project closed the southbound off-ramp and built new on- and off-ramps north of Alcosta Boulevard. Need/Purpose: . This project was needed to eliminate traffic congestion in the. vicinity of the interchange, and mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and emplo.yment. Current Status: This project has been completed. I/ ({~, ~~~ V ~ .~.. Cost Estimates and Funding: This project cost approximately $12 million and ~....._.~ . was funded by various sources, including $1.6 million in TVTDF allocations. ~ Project No. A-9a, .Crow Canyon~Road Improvements Phase 1 ~~ ~~ Inv.olved Agencies: Alameda County. ~~ ~ Project Type: Arterial Road Improvement. ~~-_~ Project Scope: This safety improvement project uzcludes roadway realigntnent; '°--= sl~oulder widening, retaining wall systems, and guardrail modifications in the ~ ~~.~.~ vicinity of Mile Marker 2.15. . . ~~ Need/Purpose: This project will increase safety for motorists traveling along this major arterial roadway between Castro Valley residents in Alameda County and ~~-1 San Ramon residents in Coritra Costa County, The realignment of various curves, shoulder widening, and retaining wall sys- ~---~~ tems will facilitate traffic operations and reduce congestion for residents trav- r-_-] eling between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Roadway improvements ~~"! will reduce traffic collisions and, therefore, improve traffic flow along this road- . ~_ ~ ~ ~ way.. The modification of this tight curve (Mile Marker 2.15) will reduce the high W ~ ,._.~. number of collisions, including fatalities along this congested roadway. , ~ `•-~ Current Status: Preliminary Engineering and Environinental Studies. . ~_.u,..~ Project Funding and Cost: ~~_~ Sources Funding Cost Funding Shortfall (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006~ (Millions, 2006) ~--°-I STIP ~ $0.50 ~-} 1...~_1 CMA TIP $0.45 i ~ Prop 1-B $3.00 ..~.... Local Alameda County $0.60 ~~-~ Total $4.55 $15.50 $10.95 9 o.:~,~ ~. ~ Project No. A-9b, Crow Can~on Road Improvements Phase 2 ~LL„ ~ Involved Agencies: Alameda County. ~ ~ Project Type: Arterial Road Improvement. ~~ Canibridge Systematics, Inc. , A-9 ~~~~1 , ;-.~ ~T~ Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix ~~ ~ ~a~ ~ Project Scope: This safety improvement project includes roadway realignment, shoulder widening, retaining wall systems, two-way left turn lane as needed, and guardrail modifications. Need/Purpose: This project will increase safety for motorists traveling along this major arterial roadway between Castro Valley residents in Alameda County and San Ramon residents in Contra Costa County. The realignment of various curves, shoulder. widening, and retaining wall systems will facilitate traffic operations and reduce congestion for residents traveling between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Roadway improvements will reduce traffic collisions and, therefore, improve traffic flow along this roadway. Current Status: Not started. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions, 2006) (Millions; 2006) (Millions; 2006) Total $0 $32.34 $32.34 '~`' Project No. A-10a, Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 ~~~~~ Involved Agencies: Alameda County. Project Type: Arterial Road Improvement. ~ Project Scope: This project includes roadway realignznent, shoulder widening, ~~wi and installation of truck and bus climbing lanes and median barriers. As a result ~_~ of a number of traffic collision fatalities that had occurred along this roadway, o~~. the installation of inedian barriers had been added to this project. This phase of ~__. l..:..;.~ the project will straighten the alignment of Vasco Road at about 1.8 miles north of the Livermore city limits to about 1.6 miles .south of the Alameda/Contra ~~~~°~ Costa county line. , Need/Purpose: This project will in~rease safety for motorists traveling along this roadway. The realignment of Vasco Road, shoulder widening, and barrier installations will improve traffic operations.and reduce congestion for residents traveling between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Roadway improve- ments will reduce traffic collisions and, therefore, improve traffic flow along this roadway. The installation of inedian barriers will eliminace cross-over-type colli- sions that resulted in fatalities in the past. The realignment of tight curves will facilitate Tri-Delta bus services between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. I Current Status: The utility relocation phase of this project has been awarded in ~..~.: J June 2007 and expected for completion by end of December 2007. Construction I~ of the ro ect will be awarded b Ma 2008. L._~I P l Y Y ~.:..~ A-10 Cambridge Systematics, lnc. ~~,~ . ~ ~ ~~~ i _... ~,._ ~ -~ ' ~~ ~T TI ~^^~ 1?~l ~.-~ ~~~1 ~_~.._~ ~, Tl~ ~~.~~ ~ ~~. ~~-~.~ ~ ~~ ; ~_~~1. ~.~.~:~ ~ ~ al ~ ~~_" ~.:-~ ~:~.1 d. _~. ~ ~ --- ~..__.,.~ ~.~~ d.. _.I I.~1 ~~_,w~ ~~~ ~..~~.~ 1~.~.::1 ~~,~.1 ,_ - i.~.~..I 1.~J 1__~~ ' Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix Project Funding and Cost: Sources . Funding Cost Funding Shortfall (Millions, 2006) (Millions; 2006) (Millions, 2006) Measure B $1.50 STIP $4.60 . TCRP $6.50 Local Alametla County $2.81 STP/CMAQ $3.90 _. Prop 1-B $6.00 Fed tlemo $0.80 Total $26.11 $30.26 $4.15 Project No. A-10b, Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 Involved Agencies: Alameda County. Project Type: Arterial Road~Improvement. Project Scope: This phase of the Vasco Road project includes roadway realign- ment, shoulder widening, and installation of inedian barriers. This phase of the project will install median barriers along.Vasco Road within Alameda County on portions of the roadway not covered by Phase 1. In addition, this phase will include shoulder widening and curve modifications, as needed. Need/Purpose: This phase of the. Vasco Road project will increase safety for motorists traveling along this roadway. The realignment of Vasco Road, shoul- der widening, and barrier installations will facilitate traffic operations and reduce corigestion for residents traveling between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. . Roadway unprovements will reduce traffic collisions and, therefore, improve traffic flow along this roadway. Contra Costa County is working towards the installation of inedian barriers in the Contr.a Costa C.ounty portion of Vasco Road. This Phase II of Vasco Road will provide continuous median barrier proteetion between Contra Costa County and Phase I of the Vasco Road project. The installation of inedian barriers will eliminate cross-over-type collisions that resulted in fatalities in the past. Current Status: Preliminary Engineering: ~ Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) Total $0 $25.83 $25.83 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. A-11 105 I.~l ~~ _l ~~ ~ ~~;`i ~~:Fl ~.~-~ ~~l ~ ~ ~_~ ~ ~~~ 8..._~ ~~~ 9:~;.a. ~~~~ ~~ ~~._. I:u~ ~ ~:~ ~...~.~ 1.::1 i.~ ~1 o.._.J ly.~..l ~.:wl ~ , ~~.~I ~~..-J 3.~:~::1 j.~:~.1 , --.. ~.~J ll~:l ~~l Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ Appendix ~ Project No. A-11, Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit ` Inv.olved Agencies: LAVTA, City of Livermore, City of Dublin, and City of Pleasanton. , Project Type: Bus Transit. , Project Scope: Develop express bus/bus rapid transit service along I-580 corri- dor. Project may be completed in stages. First stage is to develop bus rapid tran- sit. along No. 10 route between Lawrence Livermore Lab and Dublin-Pleasanton BART. Future stages of express bus may be implemented after I-580 HOV lanes have been completed. Improvements include stop upgrades, passenger infor- mation systems, new rolling stock, roadway, intersection, and signalization modifications to construct queue jump lanes:and provide transit priority at key intersections. Need/Purpose: Express bus/bus rapid transit will provide, the Tri-Valley with a flexible alternative to heavy rail or auto facilities. Flexibility is a benefit, allowing for changes in the access. of successful employment centers. As development in and beyond the Tri-Valley continues, congestion and commute tiines will grow and frustrated coinmuters will continue to seek out alternate ways . to get to work. Express bus/bus rapid transit can transport riders efficiently to job sites; and they can link people to fixed transit liries, such as BART and the Altamont Commuter Express. Project Funding and Cost: ~~~~ . Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) Measure B $0.30 FTA $4.90 STIP $2.00 Local $1.00 Total $8.20 $2~.36 $12.16 Current Status: Initial bus rapid transit improvements along the No. 10 route are expected to be completed in 2010. A-12 Cambridge Systematics; Inc. ~ ~_~1 !._~ ~~~ ~~ ~) '~ _M~ ~.~.~ ~...~-~ ~~~.~ 9_~~:I ~-~~ e~ ~_~ ~~ ~~ ~f 1~1 ,~__.,, 1 ~,..I i~,~J ~ ~:l ~4I , .nd~~o5 . Tri-Valley Transportafion Council Nexus Study . Appendix °. B. Additional, TVTC Proj ects The following projects in Table B.1 are being considered for Tri-Valley Transpoi~tation Development Fee funding, along with the projects shown in Table A:1. The Table B.1 projects. were selected because they are important transportation projects . to help address the impacts of growth within the Tri-Valley. While some of these projects are more sub-regional than regional in nature (e.g. Projects B-6 and B-7, they have been included such that a local jurisdiction may elect to utilize its 20 percent local share funds (as provided for ; in the TVTC JEPA) to implement these projecfs. Project scopes, cost estimates, and status have been developed based on the most recent data available. Table 6.1 Projects Proposed To Be Added To Fee Program in 2007 Project ~ Total Cost Unfunded Cost B-1 I-58011-680 interchange (westbound to southbound) $705.00 $700.00 B-2 5th eastbound lane on I-580 from Santa Rita to Vasco $131.30 $131.30 Road B-3 I-580IFirst Street interchange modification $30.30 $4.20 B-4 I-580/Vasco Road interchange motlification $50 ~50 $14:60 B-5 I-580/Greenville Road interchange motlification $35.35 ~ $7.77 B-6 Jack London Boulevard extension $27.78 $3.54 B-7 EI Charro Road Extension $18.50 $5.00 B-8 Camino Tassajara widening: East Blackhawk Drive to $49.43 $44.92 County line B-9 Danville BoulevardlStone Valley Road I-680 Interchange $2.70 $2.60 Improvements ^ B-10 I-680 SB HOV lane Gap Closure, North Main to Livorna $55.00 $36.50 B-11 a I-680 Express Bus/HOV On- and Off-Ramps . $80.00 $47.30 B-11 b I-680 Transit Corridor Improvements $100.00 $100.00 The pages below provide details aUout each project, including scope, benefit, cost, and funding. Project No. B-1, I-580/I-680 Interchange (Westbound to Soutl~bound). Involved Agencies: Caltrans, Alameda C~unty Congestion Management Agency, Alameda County; City of Pleasanton, and City of Dublin. Project Type: Freeway-freeway interchange improvements. Cambridge Systemdtics, Inc. B-~ ~ ~ n /kli~ I V5 ~^I Tri-Vklley Transportation Council Nexus Study ~~ ApPendix ,-' . ~'~ , Project Scope: The project is located at the I-580/I-680 Interchange in Alameda ~~ ~ ~ County. The proposed project limits are from 1700 LF .east of the Hacierida Drive Overcrossing (PM 18.50) to 2000 LF west of the San Ramon Road Overcrossing . ~-1 (PM 21.81) along I-580, and from the Amador Valley Boulevard Undercrossing (PM 20.73) to 3400 LF south of the Stoneridge Drive Overcrossing (PM 19.94) ~-F--~ . along I-680. ,~r,- j_~. Three project alternatives have been identified as follows: - • Alternative 1. Provides a mixed-flow lane direct connection from westbound ~~.~.~ I-580 to southbound I-680, and a combined westbound I-580 to southbound ~~~ ~ I-680 and northbound I-680 to eastbound I-580 HOV lane direct connection. ~ Construct an express bus lane from the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station ~~.~~ to eastbound I-580. ~~ 1 ~ • Alternative 2. Provides a combined mixed-flow lane and HOV lane direc,t p connection from westbound I-580 to southbound I-680 and a northbound 9~_-;~ I-b80 to eastbound I-580 HOV lane direct connection. Construct an express , bus lane from: the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station to eastbound I=580. ~ ~.^W~~ • Alternative 3. Provides a mixed-flow lane direct connection from ~,~ ~~ northbound I-680 to westbound I-580, and removes the northbound I-680 to westbound I-580 loop ramp connection. Construct an express bus lane from . ~--~~~ the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station to eastbound I-580. Alternative 3 provides a potentially fundable early phase to planned ultimate improve- ~"u~~ ments to the I-580/I-680 I/C within the foreseeable future. ~..._; 1...-~.~ Need/Purpose: The purpose of the modification to the I-580/I-680 Interchange is the following: . , ~_-~ , . j • Improve capacity, operations, and safety on westbound I-580 between the I.~~.~~ Hacienda Drive Interchange and the I-580/I-680 interchange in the Tri-Valley ~ _ _ ~ area; ,- ~...~_ I • Meet increasing transportation demand and enhance modal interrelation- ~.,~,.f ships in the corridor, which is the only. major transportation corridor pro- , i viduzg a commute route between San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose (via l-680) ~•°_°-! and the Tri-Valley (Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore), and growing Central , ~ 1 Valley areas (Tracy, Stockton, and the I-5 Corridor); and ~.`~_I j I • Enhance both mixed-flow and HOV system connectivity between I-580 and ~ ~.~1 . I-680. j_~.,a„~ ~. Regional connectivity and people carrying capacity are very important to the movement of passengers, goods, and freight. Some local access may be xemoved ~__ =~ as part of the project in need of maintaining that regional connectivity. Specifi- cally, current freeway agreements call for the elimination of Stoneridge Drive ~~ and I-580 connections due to the close proximity of the connections to the ~ J I-580/ I-680 interchange. In addition, the movement of northbound and ,., _, . southbound I-680 to San Ramon Road/Foothill Road may be removed, in ~ _.._. ~,4,~ ~ B-2 Cambridge S~stematics, Inc. 1~~~:1 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~..-~ i „~.... ~ ~~ i_.....~ ~ ~~ ~ ~. ~! ~~~ l~~ i 1~~:1 ~. ~~ ~ ~{ i~~.._t r i.....,.~[ ~J ~1. l~.l ~~J ~~ I~ .~ Tri-Valley Transportation; Council Nexus Study , Appendix Alternative 3 in order to fit the proposed connections into existing and planned ,~ constraints, uzcluding pedestrian access between the new West Dublin j Pleasanton BART station and the adjacent parking garage. . I-580 currently experiences serious congestion while carrying substantial traffic volumes through the project area during peak hours. Long-range projections indicate an iricrease in person trips along this freeway section associated with the continuing development within the project corridor and in the Central Valley. Travel demands.and urban growth projections indicate that, if no improvements are made, unacceptable levels of service will extend for longer periods of time during peak travel periods. The No-Build alternative would continue to extend the periods of unacceptable delays and congestion, as well as perpetuate existing safety issues. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources f Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) RM2 $5.00 Total $5.00 $705.00 $700.00 As traffic volumes increase, per forecasted projections, traffic issues will continue to worsen and become intolerable within the foreseeable timeframe. In addition, it is critical to reduce the number of accidents that take place in the project loca- ~ tion due to the weaving problems associated with interchange spacing. There- fore, there is a critical need to decrease existing and projected freeway congestion l,, ~ by improving the people-carrying capacity, as well as meeting the increasing transportation.demands of route I-580.and the I-580/I-680 interchange: Current Status: Preparation of a project study report is in progress. Project No. B-2, Fifth Eastbound Lane on ,~-580 Betzveen Santa Rita and Vasco Road Involved Agencies: Caltrans, Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, Alameda County, City of Pleasanton, City of Dublin, and City of . Livermore. ~ Project Type: Freeway Project Scope: The project would construct a fifth eastbound lane on I-580 between Santa Rita Road arid Vasco Road, eliminating the lane drop at Santa Rita Road. This project may be constructed in stages. Completion of eastbound aux- iliary lanes between Fallon Road and Vasco Road may be an initial stage. Need/Purpose: This project is needed to improve safety and reduce congestion ` _ on eastbound I-580 between I-680 and Vasco Road, and help mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment within the Tri-Valley: The existing main line lane drop on eastbound I-580 at Santa Rita Road is a bot- Gambridge Systeinatics, Inc. B-3 ~ / r V~ ~~ 1~~ . ~~ Tri-Va11e~ Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix , ~ _~ '~' ~' tleneck that causes significant peak-hour congestion, and results in level of ser- i~~, vice "F" conditions during the PM peak hour, with queuing that often extends back to I-680 and beyond. The Tri-Valley Triangle Study, completed in 2007, ~_~~ included this project as an important part of the proposed regional transporta- ~ tion network for the Tri-Valley. This project will reduce`regional traffic volumes from local roads in Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore. ~~ Current Status: The auxiliary lane components of this project between Fallon Road and Isabel Avenue and between First Street and Vasco Road are funded ` ~..,~...~ and will be constructed in conjunction with the I-580 eastbound HOV lane pro- ~ ject. The cost and funding data shown below is for the remaining components. The remaining components of the project have not begun. ~~: ~~ . Project Funding and Cost: ~T4} Funding Cost Funding Shortfall l Sources (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) ~~~J Total $0.00 ~ $131.30 $131.30 . ~~ ~ Project No. B-3, I-580/First Street Interchange Modification ~~ Involved Agencies: City of Livermore and Caltrans: ~~ Project Type: Freeway-arterial ulterchange modification. ~:~_ Project ,Scope: This project will modify the I-580/First Street interchange, i h ~->=:~I ng t e including widening the overcrossing to provide six lanes, and reconstruct ~_~ ramps to achieve a partial cloverleaf interchange design. The project would also ~~'° construct segments of auxiliary lanes in the vicinify of the interchange. 9._...~ Need/Purpose: This project is needed fo reduce anticipated congestion at the ~--- I-580/First Street interchange, and help mitigate the impacts of local and regional ~----~ growth in housing and employment within the Tri-Valley. This project is ~u~"I included in the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan and the City of Livermore General Plan. ~.LL~-~~ Current Status: A project study report has been completed. ~~, I Project Funding and Cost: ~~l Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) i-~-j Livermore TIF $26.10 ~ ,~~ ~ Total $26.10 $30.30 $4.20 ~:::~1 Local funding provided through the City of Livermore Traffic Impact Fee pro- ~~ gram. Funding shortfall represents the proportion of project cost related to fore- ~-ti- .I d~,.l casted regional traffic using the interchange. I.~J B-4 ~~ Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ~~ ~ ~~. ~~ ~__i Tri-Valle~ Transportation Council Nexus Study ~ ~ APpendix ~.~~ Project No. B-4, I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification " , ~~ Involved Agencies: City of Livermore, Caltrans. ~T~ ~ Project Type: Freeway-arterial interchange modification. ~.~~ Project Scope: This project will modify the I-580/Vasco Road interchange, including widening the overcrossing to provide eight lanes, and reconstructing ~~ the ramps to achieve a modifi~d partial cloverleaf interchange design. The pro= ject would also construct segments of auxiliary lanes in the vicinity of the ~w_..~ interchange. ~~~^~ '. ` Need/Purpose: This project is needed to reduce existing and future congestion at the I-580/ Vasco Road interchange, and help mitigate the unpacts of local and ~M,,....~ regional growth in housing and employment within the Tri-Valley. This project ~ would eliminate weaving and merging required under the current design that ~~~~ causes queuing on both I-580 and on Vasco Road. This project is included in the j_ ; • Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan and the City of Livermore General ~.~, , Plan. - ~•~~ Current Status: A PSR has been completed. A programmatic environmental impact report for right-of-way protection has been coxnpleted. Right-of-way ~; ~~~~ ~ acquisition is underway. ~:.,.~~ Project Funding and Cost: ~._~ ~._,,,~ Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) q._. ~_ ~'~'~~ - Livermore TIF $35.90 ~~~ ~ Total $35.90 $50.50 $14.60 ~ _.__ l__..~~ ,____ Local funding provided through the City of Livermore Traffic Impact Fee pro- ~_~.~ gram. Funding shortfall represents the proportion of project cost related to fore- ~=--I cast regional traffic using the interchange. i.._.._ Project No. B-5, I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification 1...~1 Involved Agencies: City of Livermore, Caltrans. i ~~.1 Projecf Type: Freeway-a"rterial interchange modification. ~ I ,°`~'J Project Scope: This project will modify the I-580 f Greenville Road interchange, q including widening the undercrossing to provide six lanes, and reconstructing ~ Iv_~~ the ramps to achieve a modified partial cloverleaf interchange design. The pro= ~.~,~ ject would also construct segments of auxiliary lanes in the vicinity of the ~I interchange. Need/Purpose: This project is needed to reduce existing and future congestion at j~ , the I-580/Greenville Road interchange, and help mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth iri housing and employment within the Tri-Valley. This ~-~~1 . f~::l Carnbridge Systematics, Inc. B-5 '___ ~W .I ~..I r- ~.l ~. : i~ ~~~~ !~1 ~:.~ l ~~ I ~~ 1 ~~ l~ i.~~.l ~~~ ~ _~ ~~~ ~~A~ g __I i~i ~_~._. ~ I.~~~ ~~ ~.~~.~ ~ .... ~) 1. ~.l ~' ~~ Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix ~ project is included in the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan and the City ~ of Livermore General Plan. Current Status: A project study report has been completed. A programmatic envirorunental impact report for right-of-way protection has been completed.. Right-of-way acquisition is underway. Project Funding and Cost: ~ Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) . (Millions, 2006) Livermore TIF $27.58 Total $27.58 $35.35 • $7.77 Local funding provided through the City of Livermore Traffic Impact Fee pro- gram. Funding shortfall represents the proportion of project cost related to fore- cast regional traffic using the interchange. Project No. B-6, Jack Londorc Boulevard Extension a , Involved Agencies: City of Livermore: Project Type: Arterial.extension. ~ Project Scope: This project will extend Jack London Boulevard to El Charro Road as a four-lane arterial roadway. The project will be constructed in stages. The initial stage will be a two-lane extension. ,Future stages will relocate a por- tion of the roadway away from the Livermore Airport to its ultimate aligiunent on lands currently being mined for aggregate, after the quarry operations have been completed. Need/I'urpose: This project is needed to improve access to I-580 and Route 84 from the El Charro Specific Plan area, and to provide a parallel freeway reliever route south of I-580. This project will reduce congestion on I-580 bettiveen Route 84 and El Charro Road, and help m.itigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment within the Tri-Valley. This project is included in the City of Livermore General Plan. Current Status: An environmental impact report has been completed. Design and right-of-way acquisition is undexway. Construction of the two-lane exten- sion is scheduled to begin in 2008 and Ue completed in 2009. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) ~Millions, 2006) Livermore TIF $24.24 Total $24.24 $27.78 ~ $3.54 , B-6 Cambridge Systemafics, Inc. ~ - ~ " ~ ~b~~5 ~~~ ~ Tri-Valle~ Transportafion Couneil Nexus Study ~_~) Appendix Local funding provided through the City of Livermore Traffic Impact Fee pro- gram. Funding shortfall represents the proportion of project cost related to forecast regional traffic using the intei•change. ~.~~ Project No. B-7, El Charro Road Ea tension , Involved Agencies: City of Pleasanton. ~~ ~ Project Type: Arterial extension. ~~F~ - • Project Scope: This project will extend El Charro Road to Stanley Boulevard as a ~ ~ ~ four-lane arterial roadway. • . _- Need/Purpose: The City of Pleasanton is linked to the City. of Livermore by ~___.~~ 1-580, Stanley Boulevard, and Vineyard Avenue. These primary east-west corri- dors have. a connecting north-south corridor in State Route 84, which runs along ~.~~ Livermore's western Uoundary, Uut do not have a similar connection. The pur- g- ~ pose of this project would be to provide a linlc between I-580 and Stanley '= Boulevard to allow greater inovement between. the east-west corridors. This ~~~~ project is identified in the 1996 General Plan as a necessary circulation element to maintain the safe and efficient movement of goods and services in and around ~~~ the City of Pleasanton. Currently, any connection between I-580 and Stanley Boulevard must use Santa Rita Road through Pleasanton, which is very conges- ~~~~~1 tion in the peak hours. The construction of this arterial will relieve congestion ~ ~ along Santa Rita Road, and provide greater mobility between the two ~~ Livermore/Pleasanton east-west connecting roadways. ,~-~ 4.:..„~.1 . Current Status: This roadway currently is a private roadway that extends from ~~ Busch Road to I-580. There are development plans approved to construct the northern segment of this roadway (between I-580 and Stoneridge Drive/Jack ~""~" ~ Londori Boulevard). The remaining roadway will continue to serve private d_~.. ~- access only. ~ ~--~- Project Funding and Cost: ~y..:~ Funding ~ Cost Funding Shortfall i Sources (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) d"""°I Pleasanton TIF $13.50 1.:..~,1 Total $13.50 $18.50 $5.00 ~ ~ i„~.,. j- Construction of the northern segment of El Charro Road is anticipated to Ue con- . ~-~--~ structed in 2008 to 2009. The segment between Stoneridge Drive and Stanley ~~~- ~ Boulevard is dependent upon the construction timeline of the East Pleasanton ~`~" Specific Plan developers: The East Side Specific Plan will. be completed in 2008 to ~~1 2009. It.is anticipated that the project will be constructed with the first stages of ,_,. the East Side Specific Plan development. , ~_~ I Cambridge Sysfematics, Inc. B-7 ~~.~1 ~ ~ ' ~ ~~ I.m.~~ i:~l ~ _1 ~_ ~1 ~ '~~~ ~~ 9~.~ ~~ ~,-~ I ~~rl ~,TM~~ ~~~,A.~ ~ ~~ i~~~ ~~ - t~.I . .. ~......I ~. ~« Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix ~ Project No. B-8, Camino Tassajara INidening, East BlackhawTc brive to County Line Involved Agencies: Contra Costa County. Project Type: Arterial widenulg. Project Scope: This project will widen Camino Tassajai~a from two to four lanes from 1,500 feet east of Blackhawk Drive to Windemere Parkway; and widen , Camino Tassajara from two to six lanes from Windemere Parkway to the Contra Costa/Alameda county line. Need/Purpose: This project will increase capacity on Camino Tassajara, and will help mitigate the impacts of local and xegional growth in housing and employ- - ment within the Tri-Valley. Current Status: Not started. Project Funding and Cost: Funding . Cost Funding ShortfaA Sources (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) SCC D. JEPA $3.97 SCC SUB-REG JEPA $0.44 Tass JEPA $0.10 Total $4.51 $49.43 $44:92 Project No. B-9, Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road, I-680 Interchange Improvements Involved Agencies: Calt~ans and Contra Costa County. , Project Type: Freeway-Arterial interchange modification. Project Scope: Widen Stone Valley Road, including the bridge over San Ramon Greek to improve access to and from the ramps to I-680. Signalize both northbound and southbound ramp intersections. Modify the Stone Valley Road/Danville Boulevard intersection to provide left-turn channelization west- bound to southbound and southbound to eastbound. Need/I'urpose: The capacity of these intersections needs to be improved and upgraded to handle the projected traffic movements. This project will increase capacity and provide enhanced traffic circulation. This project will help mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment with.in the Tri-Valley. Current Status: Not started. B-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ~~. ' ~:~~1 5~~ i~~ Tri-Valley Transportation Couricil Nexus Study ~y-M'~ Appendix ; ~J Project Funding and Cost: ~-~f ` Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions, 2006) (Mil{ions, 2006} (Millions, 2006} ~.mm... ~..~ Local $0.10 _ ~'--~ Total $0.10 $2.70 $2.60 ~,~~ ~_~ ~~ Project IVo. B-10, I-680 SB HDV Lanes, Nort]i Main to Livorna ~~ Involved Agencies: Caltrans and Contra Costa Transportation Authority. ~ Project Type: Freeway, ~_~.~ ~ Project Scope: Close the HOV lane gap along I-680 between North Main Street ~ '~.:..:..~ and Livorna Road in the southbound direction. ~~ ~ Need/Purpose: Closing this gap will provide a continuous HOV lane from the Benicia-Martinez Bridge to the Contra Costa/Alameda County line. Project is ~,,4:~ necessary to encourage carpooling and provide the necessary infrastruciure for express buses in the corridar. `~~~ Current Status: A PSR is currently being completed Uy Caltrans.. Construction is ~~ planned for 2010 to 2012 timeframe. .. ~~~ ~ Project Funding and Cost: +"'" Funding Cost Funding Shortfall ~~~°) Sources (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) ~_Tn.~ RM2 $14.00 . d.. -- Measure J $4.50 ~ :~.1 Total $18.50 $55.00 $36.50 ~_._..~ i~~, Project No. -11a, I-680/Norris Canyon Express Bus/Carpool On- ~~~ and Off-Ramps ~ -+~ Involved Agencies: City of San Ramon and Contra Costa Transportation i:~:xl - . . Authority. ~ . _~._I . i~- Project Type: Freeway/Transit. ~~"y,;.,~ , " Project Scope: The project is one component of a multiple planned I-680 corridor .J..-~, improvements. The project will improve transit/carpool/vanpool accessibility ~--~~ to existing transit center located in the San Ramon Valley. The project will con- l struct HOV/express bus on- and off-ramps at Narris Canyon Road. ~~.1 Need/Purpose: The HOV project will deliver the following needed improve- ~~. ments to help mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and '`-- ~ employment within the Tri-Valley: L_.J ` ~ ~.~.::.~ ..Cambridge Sysfematics, Inc. B-9 1:~J - 1~~ i .:.~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~, ~ ~~~ ~~1 ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~.~ ~~ ~~-~.- 1~1 1~ i,~....1 ~.,~J ~-L.--.~~ ~~1 ~~ ~1 ~~ L~.1 ~~ . 1 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Stud~ Appendix • Iinproved access for express bus service, carpools, and vanpools traveling to and from the San Raznon Valley; • Improve accessibility to regional transit network; • Provide linkage to adjoining HOV lanes; • Flexibility to service out-of-corridor locations; and • Reduce traffic conflicts by decreasing the amount of weaving by HOVs entering or exiting the freeway. Current Status: A project study report is underway and is expected to be com- • pleted by July 2008. Construction is expected to begin in 2013. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) Measure J $32.70 Total $32.70 $80.00 $47.30. Project No. B-11 b, I-680 Transit CorrTdor Improvements Involved Agencies: City of San Ramon, Town of Danville, Contra Costa County, Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, and Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Project Type: Freeway/Transit. • Project Scope: The project will provide improvements to address congestion and/ or increase people throughput along the I-680 corridor. Improvements could include additional express bus service: on I-680, necessary infrastructure to encourage use of transit and reduce transit travel time, and expansion of park- and-ride lots. Need/Purpose: The project will help mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment within the Tri-Valley by providing an alter- native mode of transportation; improved access for express bus service, carpools, and vanpools traveling to and from the San Ramon Valley; and unproved acces- sibility to regional transit network. Current Status: Not started. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) (Millions, 2006) Total 0 $100.00 $100.00 B-10 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. '~~ ~,o~ ~~ TRI-VALL,EY ~CIZANSPOR'I'ATION COUNCIL STRATEGIC EXPENDI'I"LTIZE PLAN 2011 LTPDATE DRAFT ~INAL REl'OIZ'I' FOit THE ~'IZI-VALLEY T'RANSPOIZT'ATION DEVELOPMENT FEE PROPOSAL BY THE ~'RI-VALLEY 'I'RANSPORTATION COUNCIL FOR ~ZELEASE TO MEMBER AGENCIES FOR APPROVAL TVTC 1VIEMBER AGENCIES: ~~p~,~ e~-. ,~.~o^ro~ef~ - lt~ ~~ .: G~ /~` ~1 ~ '` THE CITY OF ~ x +'; /p ~II/ U1 ~,P~~/-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~`~~" ~~~~~~;_~~~~ ~~,~+zu~ ki'trrr~tr ! I~ 1-~f ~~ a ~ :~~:~1 ° r~~r °~ f~c+a - C'~~ ~RN~~ , ~ ~.~..:~.;.. ,,: ' L~ ~S~4NTONo LIVE ~RE - j~ ~~~.,..a,N,. IN ASSOCIATION WITH: ALAMEDA ~~ CONTRp ~aSTA County Transportation ~ trans ortation Commission ~ authority PREPARED BY: ' ~ Kimley-Horn ~. and Associates, Inc. - ~ MARCH ~5,,2011 ;EXHIBIT ~. ~ ~ , ' To the Resolution ~zl I ~5 ~ T`VTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update I~raft Final Report CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................:..............................1 CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS .................................................................................... .. 3 A-2a. Route 84 Expressway (I-580 to I-680) ................................................................................ .. 4 A-2b. State Route 84/I-580Interchange .....................:.......................................................:........ .. 6 A-3. I-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Segment 2) ....................................................................................... .. 7 A-5a. I-580 HOV Lane Eastbound ..........................:...........................:........................................ .. 8 A-5b. I-580 HOV Lane Westbound ..:........................................................................................... , 10 A-7. I-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road Interchange Modifications ........................................... 12 A-9a. Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 .......................:............................................. 14 A-9b. Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2 ..................................................................... 16 ' A-10a. Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 ..................................................................... 17 A-10b. Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 ............................................................:........ 19 A-11. Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit - Phase 2 ........................................................................ 20 B-1. I-580/I-680 Interchange (Westbound to Southbound) ....................................................... 23 B-2. Fifth Eastbound Lane on I-580 (Santa Rita to Vasco Road) ................................................ 25 B-3. I-580/First Street Intercharige Modification ...................................................................:.... 26 B-4. I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification ..........:........................................................... 27 B-5. I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification .:............................................................ 28 B-6. Jack ,London Boulevard Extension .......:............................................................................... 29 B-7. El Charro Road Extension (Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard to Stanley Boulevard) ..................................................................................................................................... 30 B-8. Camino Tassajara Widening (East Blackhawk Drive to County Line) ..............:.............. 32 B-10. I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Gap Closure (North Main to Livorna) ............................. 34 B-11a. I-680/Norris Canyori Express Bus/Carpool On- and Off-Ramps ................................. 35 B-11b. I-680 Transit Corridor Improvements .............................................................................. 37 CHAPTER 3: PROJECT FUNDING .............................................................................................. 38 2004 SEP Funding Plan ................................................................................................................. 38 Estimation of Developer Fee Revenues ...............................:...........:........................................... 39 2011 SEP Funding Plan ...................................................................................:............................. 40 TABLE 1- 2004 SEP UPDATE SUMMARY ...................................................:............................. 38 TABLE 2- ESTIMATE OF DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUE .................................................. 39 TABLE 3- LIST A PROJECTS IN TVTC 2011 SEP ..................................................................... 42 TABLE 4- LIST B PROJECTS IN TVTC 2011 SEP .................................................:................... 43 TABLE 5- TVTDF FUNDING PLAN .......................:.....................................:............................. 44 Table of Contents Page.i Revised: 03/1 S/11 ~~~~~5 TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Izeport In 1991, the seven jurisdictions of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, Danville, and San Ramon signed a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) that established the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TV'TC). The purpose of the JPA was the joint preparation of a Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan ("TVTC Action Plari') for Routes of Regional Significance (RRS) and cost sharing of recommended improvements. The TVTC Action Plan was prepared and presented to all member jurisdictions in Apri11995 and updated in 2000. The TVTC Action Plan marked a common understanding and agreement on the Tri-Valley's transportation concerns and directions for improvements. Among its specific recommendations, the TVTC Action Plan presented 11 transportation improvement projects to be given high priority for funding and implementation. The TVTC Action Plan also recommended the development of a Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee to allocate a fair share of the costs of needed regional infrastructure to new development. The nexus study for the fee program, completed in 1995, justified allocating the unfunded cost needed to complete all of the 11 projects identified in the TVTC Action Plan to new development. The TVTC, however, recommended scaling back by roughly two-thirds the total amount the fee program would collect from the maximum funding needed. The TVTC and its member jurisdictions subsequently created and adopted the Tri-Valley Transportation DEVelopment Fee (TVTDF) in 1998 through a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement QEPA). The original Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP) was adopted in 1999 and was updated in 2004 (Tri- Valley Transportation Council, Strategic Expenditure Plan 2004 Update with Interim Fee Adjustment, 2004). The JEPA calls for a periodic update of the fee program to reflect any significant changes in population growth, project status, and other conditions that would require revisions to the fee program. Since 1995, there had been substantial changes in the funding, planning, and traffic setting in which the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee was originally developed. New funding sources had been established, the TVTC Action Plan had been updated in 2000, projects had been completed, project schedules and/ or funding plans had shifted, traffic patterns had changed, and new regional transportation projects had been identified through various traffic studies. The TVTC responded to these changes by directing the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to conduct a new fee nexus study to update the fee, and potentially the project list. Completed and adopted in early 2008, the TVTC Nexus Study: Fee Update ("2008.Nexus Study") identified 22 projects that the TVTC elected for eligibility to receive funding from the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee. The first 11 were projects that were included in the original program adopted in 1995. The second set of 11 were new projects that were included in the 2008 Nexus Study. As a result of this integrated transportation plaruling; elected officials have determined that the projects identified in the 2008 Nexus Study. constitute the most feasible and effective improvements to reduce traffic congestion caused by new development in the Tri-Valley. The travel demand modeling documented in the 2008 Nexus Study confirms that these projects reduce the congestion caused by new development within the Tri-Valley, but these red~uctions do not improve conditions below what they are at present. ' Chapter 1: Introduction Page 1 Revised: 03/15/11~ ~3~~D5 TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report A revised fee structure was released by TVTC for consideration by each member agency in late 2008. While each member agency communicated support for the revised fee structure~ it was not approved by all member agencies pending preparation and approval of a corresponding Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP). A TVTC SEP Subcommittee was tlierefore formed to coznmence preparatian of an SEP. To facilitate the progress of existing projects while an update to the SEP was underway, an Interiin Funding Plan was approved by TVTC in Apri12010 that matched the programmed amounts and priorities as established in the 2004 SEP Update with a revised disbursement timeline to reflect the current Joint T'VTD Fee Account balance and pro}ected fee collections over the next five years, and to reaffirm commitment to the high priority projects. This 2011 update to the SEP incorporates and builds upon each of the updated documents and progress of the TVTDP over the last 15 years. Some of the original list of transportation improvement projects have been completed, and schedules and funding for others have changed. This report summarizes the current status of the 22 projects listed in the 2008 Nexus Study, estimated revenues from the TVTDF over a 10-year horizon, and a proposed funding plan for the 22 projects considered. Adoption of the SEP requires the unanimous approval by the TVTC, Following release of this Draft Final SEP by the TVTC, it will be referred to the mexnber jurisdictions for approval and ultimately referred back to TVTC for final adoption. Chapter 1: Introduction Page 2 Revised: 03/15/11 ~~~ia5 TV'I'C Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report This section summarizes project details for each of the 22 projects included in the 2008 Nexus Study including a project description, phasing, funding sources, schedule and status. This is based on the latest information obtained from various member agencies acting as project sponsors. The 22 projects are categorized in tcvo lists, "A" and "B," representing the original 11 projects and the 11 new projects, respectively, as discussed below. LIST~ A • A-1 I-580/ I-680 Interchange (southbound to eastbound) - completed, therefore not considered for further funding • A-2a Route 84 Expressway I-580 to I-680 • A=2b Isabel Route 84/I-580 Interchange • A-3 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes ~ • A-4 West Dublin/Pleasanton BART - completed, therefore not considered for further funding ~ • A-5a I-580 HOV Lane Eastbound • A-5b I-580 HOV Lane Westbound • A-6 I-680 HOV Lanes, SR 84 ta Top of Sunol Grade - southbound completed, northbound not considered for funding • A-7 I-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road Interchange ~ A-8 I-680/Alcosta Interchange - completed; therefore not considered for further funding • A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 o A-9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2 e A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 s A-10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 ~ A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit LIST B • B-1 I-580/I-680 Interchange (westbound to southbound) • B-2 Fifth Eastbound Lane on I-580 from Santa Rita to Vasco Road ~ • B-3 I-580/First Street Interchange Modification • B-4 I-580/ Vasco Road Interchange Modification • B-5 I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification ' • B-6 Jack London Boulevard Extension • B-7 El Charro Road Extension ~ o~ B-8 Camino Tassajara Widening: East Blackhawk Drive to County Line s B-9 Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road I-680 Interchange Improvements - removed from project list and no longer considered for funding • B-10 I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Gap Closure, North Main to Livorna • B-11 I-680 Express Bus/HOV On- and Off-Ramps • B-11b I-680 Transit Corridor Improvements Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 3 Revised: 03/15/11 l~s~ i~~ TVTC Strategic. Expenditure P1an 2011 Update Draft Final Report A-2a. Route 84 Expressway (I-580 to I-680) s~a~ Q - Staga 7: Conslnct inMiai Imertfienpe wNh 2 lene overpaea: exteid PoAola See to Isebel end iemove~POrtda rampx de Bmge x canetn~rx e lene arerpase and ulfimate iNerchenpe. . 1~~. ~ (O ~~~,~~a~~. s~~ OO Stags 1: Consirum uphlA cruck lanes; Improve daficfent curve6. Stepe 2: Cotislrwf 41ane expresswaY. Note: Sepmerrt tOls T?DF Projea 2B Sepmens 2OaMQareMDFPmjea2A u~mnme TVTC PROjECT SPONSOR: City of Livermore LEAD AGEIVCY: Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority PROiECT DESCRIPTION: This project will widen and reconstruct Route 84 as an expressway in several stages using a variety of funding sources. The ultimate configuration is expected to consist of six lanes from I-580 to Stanley Boulevard and four lanes from Stanley Boulevard to I-680. In addition, Route 84 will be realigned to expressway standards between Ruby Hill Drive and south of Pigeon Pass. Other near-term projects will relocate utilities between Airway Boulevard and Jack London Boulevarcl, and widen and relocate utilities between Jack London Boulevard and Ruby Hill Drive. Subsequent stages include realignment, relocation, and widening between Pigeon Pass and I-680, ramp improvements at the Route 84/I-680 interchange, and construction of a southbound auxiliary lane on I-680 frorn Route 84 to Andrade Road. STATUS: A Project Siudy Report of the entire route was completed in 2005 and was funded through a$1 million allocation of TVTDF funds. The project has been segmented into three primary sections: Segment 1- I-580 to Airway Boulevard. This segment is the I-580/Route 84 Interchange project listed separately as Project A-2B Segment 2- Airway Boulevard to Ruby Hills Drive. This segment will be constructed iri three phases: o Phase 1- Isabel Avenue/ Vineyard Avenue intersection realigllrnent. This phase was completed in 2008, and was funded with $2.3 xnillion of TVTDF 20% funds. o Phase 2- Airway Boulevard to Jack London Boulevard. This stage received a, $5.2 million allocation of TVTDF funds. Environmental clearance was obtained in 2007 with the I-580/Route 84 Interchange project. I'S&E was coznpleted in 2008. Construction activity commenced in 2009 and will be completed by 2011. Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page4 Revised: 03/15/11. ~~(a,~ I o~ TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft FinaY Report o Phase 3- Jack London Boulevard tb Ruby Hills Drive. 'This stage is included as Project 24 in the Alameda County Measure B program. Environmental clearance was obtained in 2008. PS&E development is underway and is scheduled to be complete in 2011. Construction is scheduled from 2011~ to 2013. • Segment 3- Ruby Hills Drive to I-680. This segment has two stages: o Stage 1- Ruby Hills Drive to Pigeon Pass. This stage was completed by Caltrans in 2009 and was funded with approximately $30 million in SHOPP funds. o Stage 2- Pigeon Pass to I-680, including the I-680/Route 84 interchange and auxiliary lane on I-680 from Route 84 to Andrade Road. This stage has not been developed beyond the PSR. ~It is expected that the PSR will be updated and environmental work started in 2010. There has been no funding allocated for this stage. PHASING AND SCHEDULE: The project is expected to be constructed in several stages. ~ Segment 1- See project A-2B • Segment 2- completion in 2013 a Segment 3, stage 1- completed in 2009 • Segment 3, stage 2- schedule undetermined COST ESTIMATE AND FUNDING SOURCES: SEGMENT 2 ~::~- ~- -~ .~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~„~;~ ~~ ~~~,~~.~~,~#~~~.~ ~ r ~~ ~'~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~tCost IvI~llions 62009~ s ~~_ ~~ ~ a -~ ~ ~: ~:~ ~~ ;~° ~:"~., ~ ~ ~ T .~, ~~ ~~;t~.,. ~T. . .. ~ `~ ~ ~ ~, ~~~' ~ , ~~ ~~ ~ x ~~4.:~~.x~,~~~. ~ ~~u ~, ~ ~ ,~~~ .~~,~,~ ~ $1~27, 11a ~.~~ ,~ ~... ~:_~ ~~, ~x. -~s-_ Fundin Millions, 2009 TVTDF $10.00 Measure B $96.46 CMIA . $20.00 Other $0.65 ' ~. "" s21 *~"i:t". . fi ~' R'7' '~„ , ~.. # ~~,'.r s "r m y~ ns -z. ~c t-~*~C ' n 4, "y" ~ i ~~g € s 4>7 S '4a ~k~4" a.. `~' .r ~. ~ S'~'k ~! Sk ~ x~~,~'~" ,'q ~W +~ a' rn~'~yt, a~c."'.i~n~'~Z ~" "~ '~" r~Total~ Millions, 2009 ~~~::F~:~r, ~~.,~f~~f~;~~~:.~~~,~~ ~ .:r..~~s , ~,~~~:~~:~~~~~ ,:r~~'~~ ~~~~, ._. ~ ~-° ~»~.;" ~ ~- ~,-~ ~ ~ -~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~ ~~ ~.~~~~~ ~ ,~~~~} ~~~ ~~~undul 5hor.tfall~ 1VI~lhons;~2009 ,~~~°~.,~~~~;~~' ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~ ;~,~ ~ ~,:~"`` * ~~~~}'' ~ ~. ~ ~ti. o ~~:,~ ~,~~~~ ~. ~.~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~ ' T . ~ ~ .'~wr'*Y'a c~'" "fi4 ...~ ~ ,~$127,11~.~;~,~~~~~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~: ~, ~$0 00 ~ ~~~~„~k~ ~~ ~,~ ~~ ~ ,... ~~; SEGMENT 3 „j;"~+ ~h -7~~{ y twil`~eL~ (~ i '~,, 4~ ~X &tc~..~r 1`#` Y~'Rp~°:. F's `ey'.-~~1ix~' Y.i"?tiTc~rsF~ X'R .. ,~ z'? L.QcJt lYl~ll~~ 20~7~! s}~ ax~? Y a~ ~*~v '~'7'~,r *';, ''~~r .. ~+'` ~, ~"'GT ~~ t-~er~;,, t~ .,~G ~~ _,,. .~ ~`~~~.. _~.~~a,3~a~.~~,~,,~A~~ .~_~:.~~`._..~._~, ~~~:;~.,~~ ~ ~~+ t Y~ Y4' L'A 1' r1i V ~.~~~ ~i 23Q OQ~~ ~~~:~ illions, 2009 ' Fundin TVTDF $3.00 Measure B. $0.00 SHOPP i~,,. ,~ }... ~'~ ~, ~ ~.~r~~~+"^ ~'fi'~~~.'~:~.~.~-i~~~ ~~~ ~,~X„-~~ ~ ~ .~„fi~s x . ~~ x. ~ '" ~'~ ~To~al,~ Milhons~2009~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~~~ ~.~ s'~'-~~-~~" ~~" ~a3n.~.,5!-_.., t y x:.....~ i=n "`~...^3~ ~^c . rv$i~f~ _.S.~.sC . $30.00 ~ ~~ ~ u ~,~ $33 00~~ '~,~ `~ ..ii ~ 5n"~.~1.~~: . ..:.„~~ ,*?F~ 't~.+~37'~'S , ~ ... . 4~,,"'~ u~,~`*a'~"n~ F :s~ ' ~ a ~'~^,.r 'k.~5~3 ws ~'~~ F`un~'dm ~Shor,tfall~ UT: ~1~hons;~2009, ~ ~ ~~~ ~.~w~,~"~~~ ~~:~'~~~., ~ `~. ~~~~~~~ ~~~~ b ~-'32+w .~$197 00~,`~ ~~ Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 5 Revised: 03/1 S/11 ~~~ l a5 TVT'C Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update ]Draft Final Report A-2b. State Route 84/I-580 Interchange It GYV~H fMMf. '~. . . \ , ~~ ~ Nsw hlbtChenge \ \ \ ~ ro n. uramme ~va. ~ i ~-- ~ r ro ~x~.er ehw, a,wcnmB. ~ ~~ TVTC PROiECT SPONSOR: City of Livermore LEAD AGENCY: Caltrans, City of Livermore PROTECT DESCRIPTION: This project will construct a new partial cloverleaf interchange on the extension of Isabel Ayenue (State Route $4) and I-580. This project will be built in two phases. Initially a four-lane overcrossing will be constructed. The ultimate project would widen Isabel Avenue and the I-580 overcrossing to six lanes. The project also includes removal of the Portola Avenue Interchange, construction of a new overcrossing, and extension of Portola Avenue north of I-580 to Isabel Avenue. STATUS: The environmental assessment has been completed and certified. Construction of Phase 1 is underway anc~ is expected to be completed in 2012. PHASING AND SCHEDULE: The project will be constructed in 2 phases. The Phase 1 project is fully funded, under construction, and expected to be complete in 2012. The funding shortfall is for the Phase 2 project. The Phase 2 project has completed environmental clearance and right of way certification. Design work for Phase 2 is expected to begin after 2015. COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING SOURCES: t~:.T" f !#~ ,~'. ,n;w 3~a`5~, ~f~' ~,3. ` ^.~w{ .~ -~r?~' ~^t'e'~y~i~ti~.e Y`" r 3:1'~..'~~ .M~+. ~~- ~ ~~ ~ Cost IVI~ll~ons~2009 t ~ ~ ~~~~: '~ ~~~~~ ~`~~~~ .~ ~~ ~ ` ? ~ ~~~ ~~~ b ~ ~ xt 3 ~ _$165 00~~ ~ ~ ~~-~~'~ . ~ ; .~, ~~ . ,~ , a~: ~.~v ~ :,. ~.k / . .,~.U-:.. ~ ~ , - .. ~ Fundin Millions, 2009 Federal $11.30 Measure B $25.10 I-58U Corridor $10.00 Dev. R/ W contribution $19.30 Livermore TIF $25.58 CMIA $68.00 'T otal~F~undui ~' ~ i!1Ti~ons;;~2009 ~,~,,.~ ~~ ~~:~~~-~~~~~ ~~~ .~~ ~-~'~~~'~'~ ~ ~~ ~~``~~ ~~T159~28~~~~~~~`~'.~~ , , . , "~~ ~~°§. ~" J ; . '~i}'S3'`~. ~ ~ ~ ,''.~ "~^k~~ '~ n`~2009 n Sh ll ~ ` ill " ~' ~F 3 rtf ~ ~ -~~ ~~~' ~'~ ~ ~ ~'(~ ~ k..: ~- 3.. "~~~ ~'C~1. T5 72 ~ ` ~ ~~ a to ? ~ ~. unc ~ o , . . F.~.:: ~ ~ ~.~.., .,.~. _ ~ ~. ~ 3.~ ~.~~ ~ ~ ~hapter 2: Project Descriptions Page6 Revised: 03/1 S/11 ~~~~~~ TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report A-3. I-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Segment 2) ~ .~ ~,o.~ a,e.o , ~` ~~, ~ ~1 ~ .n ~ c~mca mo~c~ i }e . ` ---LFI~:~YCR)PBMf SF ~ 'J `\ ~ ~ ,a.~w,~~ ~ ~ '.~ ~s ~ ~ ~~1 \a ~ ~ f ~roa , \C `~~. ~ '',\r Y l r ~ . ~ i; ~ ~~ \ n~+ ~` ~'' ,.~ , ; ~,~ fr , ~ ~,x,r `~,~, ~•:' ,.. . ti ~ ~~' ~~,~~~ ,> ~ # - ~ ~ ~r 1 . ~ `~. ~~- ~,r~} ~¢~:.- 4 4 ~~ ~;' , ~' `~ ~`°, ~:.~ ~:~~ q~, ~.~ `~-`,FF <yPS ~""~ .y , ~. TVTC PROTECT SPONSOR: Town of Danville LEAD AGENCY: Contra Costa Transportation Authority PROiECT DESCRIPTION: The I-680 Auxiliary Lanes Project Segment 2 is from the Sycamore Valley Road interchange in the Town of Danville to the Crow Canyon Road interchange in the City of San Ramon on I-680. 'Segment 2 will add two auxiliary lanes, one eacli, to both northbound and southbound direction of I-680. The entire project consists of construction of auxiliary lanes between Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Road. Construction of Segment 1 and 3 has been completed. STATUS: The project was environmentally cleared in September 2002 and the project report was approved in February 2003. Construction of Segment 2 is expected to start in 2012 and be complete in 2014. PHASING AND SCHEDULE: Construction is expected to start in 2012 and be complete in 2014. COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING SOURCES: ty* $ ^'S ~ Y '~-~ `t'~ ' h'`SF'~y 2 ~ Snk~#i" ^at~.' L} `~a"°x2 ,~"~ `~^t ~ 3..~ y" "`L5~ ~r~t.Y~°'T k ~Ss`~..~ G ~'~.~~'f ~~r.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~` ~` ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~~ s ~ ~ 1Vl~ilio 201~2 ~ Cost ~'i"~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~~+ 1T' ~'G9 .S"~.. l ~:.; "c 36 DO y ~ 3~fi'~ ~`P ~ ~ " , ~ c , ns,f ~ } ,s~S. ~_ ~m?S,..r . .,.'~"~',~ .aa.~ rr,a':ie, ~~ _. c ' ,~: _ .5r~.xy ~"~ ~5,1 .q ~Yrz. .. . s Fundiri ~ illions, 2012 Pro 1B CMIA Savin s $6.00 Local Sales Tax Revenue $16.40 Local Fees $1.60 f ~~ ~ ~ ~, ~~,x -~~ ~~ ,~~. ~ ~~~},~ ,~"~~,,~, ~ v~` ~~~~~.Cc~~,~ c~ '~~'~~ ~~^,~~ ~~~~'~ ~` ~Total~Fundin ~ ~M~ilions ~2012a ~ ,i ~~ ~^~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~, k ~ ' :Z ' ^ ~ ' ' ' '~~~~~ ' ~ ~ ~a~~ ~ ~L~~ ~; r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 24 00 ~' ~ ~~ ~; ~~' ` ~r. ....:. ~ ~.! . aF.::. ~ 133~ 1s. . f~ '. ~.iS: dk, .x, Y F'Snk~z... L F ,lkr,r .,-/ sk': ., ~~~ M'~k~" igt3i6~C"~" k f "S } ~1k 1:E:3fi~ a'.t 'N 'g~~ ~}~+~t~d ~~ ~ ~ ~~ tfall~~IvI~1lio s~~20~ 2 ~~ r ~` ~ ;~ ;~~ ~~ ~' Sho ~Fund ~ ~ ~~~ ~ . . -, __..!&X.n.., s. 'R `RC 'f$~~;; ~$1b2 OO~~~r'~ ~; ~ ~ n ~~ ~ ~ y „. „ , „ r . 1F+ in ~ te~ss±- , r,Tle Sz! ~ v "s1p+n 1 . i%k~~4 ~ l,kr. r.-5"+ ~....: ~ A.~,.G: _ $Fr cLt"*+a o- , b Chapter 2: Project Descriptians Page 7 Revised: 03J15/11 ~~~61~~ TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report A-5a. I-580 HOV Lane Eastbound Dublin Pleasanton TVTC PROTECT SPONSOR: 'The City of Pleasanton LEAD AGENCY: Alameda County Transportation Commission PROTECT DESCRIPTION: This project constructed abaut 11 miles of HOV lanes on I-580 from west of Hacienda Boulevard to east of Greenville Road. Completed in November 2010, this freeway segment now has a total of four mixed-flow lanes, and one HOV lane. This project is part of a two-phase project with the first phase consisting of construction HOV lanes on the eastbound segment and the second phase consisting of construction HOV lanes on the westbound segment (refer to Project A-5B for details}. S~raTUS: The HOV pro}ect was split into three separate contracts for bidding purposes. The first HOV segment, from Airway Boulevard to the Greenville overcrossing, was opened to traffic on October 2, 2009 and the construction contract was accepted on February 2, 2010. Construction of the second HOV segment began on August 2009. The HOV lane from Airway to First Street was opened on july 18, 2010. The remaining portion between Hacienda and Airway opened on November 5, 2010. Alameda County Transportation Commission has initiated design of Phase 3, the eastbound auxiliary lanes project between Isabel Avenue and North Livermore Avenue and North Livermore Avenue and First Street. PHASING AND SCHEDULE: The i'irst HOV construction contract was completed in Fa112009. The second HOV construction contract will be completed in Winter 2011. The auxiliary lanes project is sclieduled to go to construction in Summer 2012. Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 8 Revised: 03/15/1.1 ~ ~~~~~. TVTC Strategic Expenditure P1an 2011 Update Draft Final Report . COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING SOURCES: °Ya`.y-~.v'i alm^ ~,u .t" 'F"" r. 'trT~* 3',~" .~i5 ~ ~'Nt ~ i-... ~~ '~~' . Cost~ +Millio~2010 : ~`~~~ ~a~~~~~~. _~:~~'~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ `~ ~ ~~157~5~6~f~~~~:~~; : . , ,~ ~ : , ~ illions, 2009 Fundin TCRP ~ $7.00 RM2 $11.18 STIP/ RIP $17.67 CMIA $72.20 SHOPP $27.00 CMAQ $6.00 Earmark $14.12 TVTDF $2.39 ~2'$ ~` ~~' ~'9" 5~"' 3 ' 'a`a`" t~ L x5 "~e T9"+i. '7w^-e L~r N~"''Z"'•~ t >r- }~`u`t `~b '< .E! ~~undu~ ~ Millions,"~2009 3 ~'~~~~~~~~~~~r~~-~:~ ~~~~~`;~;~~ ~~'~.~""~~~~x~~~"~~~~~ oEal ~~T "it^ y y~ .,"u ~ =,.a ~$157M56~'~~ ~,,~%~~,,.~~~.~~_ ~ ~ 2009~~~~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~~~ ~ -r~`~ ~~~ ~ ~~: ~~ ~~ ~~'~ ~ ~ ~~~ n ~ShortfaII~ ~ ~F ~` i ~ ~~~ ~ ~ 0 00 ~~ ~'~ ~. ~~ ~ ~;~ ~ ~ ~~ ~.,~ ~. .. ~ ~ nc i u ~~ ~.. ~~,~ ~.~ _~ ~ ~ ~' - ~~~.~~~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ _;~ .~ 1VoTE: ~ • RM2 funds ($ 3M) were used in lieu of TVTDF due to timing. Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 9 Revised: 03/15/11 ~,i~~~ ~. TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report A-5b. I-580 HOV Lane Westbound Dublin Pleasanton TVTC PROTECT SPONSOR: The City of Pleasanton LEAD AGENCY: Alameda County Transportation Commission PROTECT DESCRIPTION: This project will construct about 13 miles of HOV lanes on I-580 from east of Greenville Road to Foothill Road. After it is completed, this freeway segment will have a total of four mixed-flow lanes, one HOV lane and auxiliary lanes at various locations. ~ A direct bus-only connection from the HOV lane to Dublin-Pleasanton BART was originally included with the project but has been removed from the scope. STaTUS: The Environmental Document for the HOV Lane was approved on October 16, 2009 and the Project Report was approved on January 19, 2010. The project has been split into three phases for construction, the east segment (Greenville to Isabel) PS&E is at 95%, the 100% west segment (Isabel to Foothill) PS&E has been submitted to Caltrans District 4 for review. The third segment will consist of and be combined with work in the eastbound direction within the limits of the I-580 eastbound auxiliary lane project. A Program Change Request (PCR) was prepared and approved for the project split, to remove the bus ramp from the project scope, and to add auxiliary lanes from Airway to Fallon (ACTIA Project) and Vasco to First (Livermore Project). A new PCR to add pavement rehabilitation to the scope and to revise the project schedule is being prepared. PHASING AND SCHEDULE: A revised project schedule, reflecting the inclusion of pavement rehabilitation, is currently being prepared. Project Approval was completed in October 2009. 100% Design completion is anticipated in Fa112011. Construction is scheduled to begin in Spring 2012. Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 10 Revised: 03/15/11 ~~ o~ ~l TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan_2011 Update Draft Final Report COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING SOURCES: ~Cost~~; ~ ~lli ~;~2013 ~~:~~ .~~,~~ ~~~~~~-~.~~ m~~ ~ :b~ ~'~ ~'~~~~`.~~~~~t.~.~~~ ~~138 39~~.~~~~~~ Fundin illions, 2009 • RM2 $13.20 CMIA $101.70 LONP $18.00 Other Local Livermore & Measure B $4.49 TVTDF ' i- Xi. 8 t' .P'~~ '4-k'~k ~r -~ rn ~ °a~ ~~~E ~, ~~ r,~~ ,~s.~,~~ ~;"~yW~ r`3 ~;& w.r ~'i^i 1.'"~ ~~.Tptalr{Fund~n a 3Millions; 2009~ r~~.~~.=~s ~~~`'~~~~~;.`.~,~'~~~~~,~'"'_ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~.~,~~~~,~~,~, ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~F"undtn .~.Shortfall~ ~1lions~20~09 ~. .~~; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~.~~ .~~.~~~~~. Y~ ~~~:. $1.00 T ~ "~k "~" ~'~*''"~ y~ ~$138r 39~~ 4~s,~y~ ~~ , ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~0. OO,,~~,~~~~~~~~~,~~~,~r NOTE: • Cost and funding were reduced due to elimination of the bus connector ramp ($12 Million in RM2) • Rehabilitation cost of $33.4 Million is not inclucled in either the cost or funding sources listed above, but has been programmed • RM2 funds were used in lieu of TVTC due to timing •$4.49 Million from City of Livermore and Measure B to fund the added Auxiliary Lanes Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 11 Revised: 03/15/11 73~Io~ 'TV'TC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report A-7. I-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road Interchange Modifications TVTC PROTECT SPONSOR: City of Pleasanton LEAD AGENCY: Caltrans `~ y 1~ 1 Pha~e 2 i i 4, PROTECT DESCI2IPTION: ~8687 ~ This project will construct ~ f~~' ~ ~ ~ ,~, '' ~ Mctaq Redocatad Ramp improvements at the I-580 ~. ~ --~ ` C~ 1, ~'~, R~~~~~ intersection at Foothill Road to '"'~'~ m`"'° ~'9"~' ' .r~~'~ ~~~ , J L improve intersection operations and t ,l y },; ~ ~ ', ~,~.~~~ ~ a.„~,~,Po ; ~~ ~ ~T~ .~ ; _ _ ,- safety. The project will modify the - „ - --~~,. y` ~~ ; ~ intersection to remove the direct EB ~~ 1 '~ ~ ~~ 1 ~~ ~j ; ~/~~ to SB connection and EB to NB "loop" ' ~~ ' \ ~ ~' ~ `~'- ~/~ ~~/~ connection so that it terminates into a ~ ~P.~ RamoraRempa 4i~ ~~ ~' // '~`'' ~J ~ l '~, ~~s~~ r~ ~~ ~ 1 f~ ,.~'';~,~ "T" style intersection at Foothill Road g~~~ . 'pp~ d ~`~ ~~i just south of the Foothill Road Bridge. '--'"~ "~~'~+~~~ . The intersection would be signalized. ~ ?~j~+t , coruuvct7wlool j i,r~ ; ~~~~~ This project would significantly ~ 1~jjr ,% improve the safety at the intersection, ~Jj ~~,l ;' removing three weaving locations at ~~ ~'+' ,r' ~ the intersection. The off-ramp would ~~ '~' """' terminate at Foothill and would . include EB left and right turns off the freeway. In addition to intersection operations and safety improvements, the improvements are also being designed to improve bicycle and pedestrian circulation at the intersection and through the corridor. STATUS: The improvements on the north side of I-580 (Dublin side) have been completed. The City of Pleasanton began preparing the design package for Caltraris submittal in 2010 and anticipates completirig design and commencing construction in 2011. PHASING AND SCHEDULE: The project is part of a two phase interchange modification project. Improvements on the north side of I-580 (Dublin side) in Phase 1 have been completed. Construction of Phase 2 improvements, on the south side of I-580, is expected to start in 2011. Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 12 Revised: 03/15/11 ~ : ~~ _-~ TVTC Strategic ~xpenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING SOURCES (PHASE 2): ~ Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 13 Revised: 03I1 S/11 ~>~~~~. TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final IZeport A-9a. Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 :~ ~ . ~'~ ~~ ~~,, ~ .~ \~'.~ ~ ~ ~ \ , ~ ~ PO O~ a~ ~~ ~' ~ ~ `~ ~. ~ ~ ` ~ e ~ _ - ~~ - ~ ~-'~ ~ ,~,,,,. ~ GOfIStRIGt 3 Safety ° ° \ \. ~--1 ' Improvements ~ ~~ ~ ~ a`~ g ~ ..~ ~ ~~ ' ~ TVTC PROTECT SPONSOR: Alameda County LEAD AGENCY: ~ Alameda County PROiECT DESCRIPTION: This project is Phase 1 of a inulti- phase safety improvement project along Crow Canyon Road between E. Castro Va~lley Blvd. and the vicinity of Alameda Mile Marker 2.15. The Phase 1 safety improvement praject includes roadway realignment, ~ shoulder widening, retaining wall systems, and guardrail modifications. (Please refer to Project A-9B for details an Phase 2.) Overall, the realignment of various curves, shoulder widening, and retaixung wall systeins will facilitate traffic safety and operatioris and reduce congestion for residents traveling between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The rnodification of the tight curve near Mile Marker 2.15 will reduce the high number of collisions, including fatalities along this high volume inter-regional roadway. STATUS: The project is currently in the Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Studies stage. Construction is expected to begin by 2014. PHASING AND SCHEDULE: Construction of Phase 1 is expected to begin by 2014. 2 ,Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page.t4 Revised: 03/.15/11 . ~~:e ~~ ~ TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final IZeport COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING SOURCES: x-P~ `3' "~`~i~-~t~,! ~ '~-*";~~'~.iS.~Ytt'.~.t'~7 4~~'= l ~'w~gp a+~l~~ 'ku~~39Y~# ~ ~ n~ ~ ~~ ~„~a~~~ ~~Cost; ~Milhons 2009 ~~~~~ '~: ~'.' • ~~~~~~~ F'"~~ ~~'~ ~~~°~~ ~a~t~ ~~~ ~ 1 k ~ .d ~s ~ x ~$13 5~~; ~, ~,-:=~~' : . ~ ~ . .~.~ __. t.~~. ~.~ ~. . ~ ~ ~ k , W.v .n.....~~.~~u_.,~..... ~ -~ :~, a- ~ ; ~ .. . . ~ Fundin illions, 2009 STIP $0.50 CMA TIP $0.45 Pro 1-B $1.00 Local Alameda Coun $0.60 ~i~.". .. Rz».~. ' ~'.3~" Fs~ f #`u"£`L ~" `" ~, r S ~ v 'E' v- ~rt t: ' ~° °AC ,~r"~ +~ i . b s1 ~#' -G ~R "v S ~ `~."g ~ ~ a\ ;~ ~~ `~~~~'~ ~ '~~~~ ~.~ li ~~ ~ "~ZOQ9 ~.~K ~~ ~g~~~~~ tal;~Fundin ~ ~Millions ~'`z'~~ ~`To ~ ° ' "~" "~ "fe'~ ,+!, 1 KE F ~$2 55~~x ~ ~~~'~~~ '~ t . ,~ _ . ,, ~. -J~~Ge44..~ _ ~S2~,M S~ ~ F ~S ~3. L ~ ~, ~ ~ s~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ , ~~~~~~,~~ ~~°~~ ~ " ~ ~~~,~~~ -~~~ Shorffall~ 1VI ions 20 ~ 9-~~ ~: ~ ~ ~~ Fundln fl M.1 . . ~ ~ ~ ~$1~0 ~95~ ~-~ ~~~ ~;_ ,,~„~ , ~ ~ ~ . , ~ ~, , Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 15 Revised: 03/15/11 ~~ ~ . TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update I~raft Final Report A-9b. Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2 ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ `,~ \ . ~ ~ Construct \ Safety `~ b~ I J ' ~ emen mpro ~ ~ \ / ~ ~p0 `~ ~ ~ i . Y ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ a \ ~ ~ ' ~~ ~ .~="`°N'",,,~ ~ ~' ,- ~ ~.- '€ p, ~ ~ ~ ... :~ F~ ~ TVTC PROTECT SPONSOR: Alameda County LEAD AGENCY: Alameda County PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project is the second phase of a multi-phase safety improvement project along Crow Canyon Road between Castro Valley Blvd. and the Alameda/Contra Costa County Line. Please refer to Project A-9A for details on Phase 1. Overail, this safety improvement project inciudes roadway realignment, shoulder widening, retaining wall systems, two-way left turn lanes (as needed), and guardrail installations or upgrades. This project will increase safety for motorists traveling along this major arterial roadway between Castro Valley in Alameda County and San Ramon in Contra Costa County. The realignmerit of various curves, shoulder widening, and retaining wall systems will facilitate traffic operations and reduce congestion for residents traveling between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. STATUS: This project is in the scoping stage. Construction is expected to begin after completion of Phase 1. PHASING AND SCHEDULE: This project is in the scoping stage. Phasing and schedule have not been decided. Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 16 Revised; 03/15/11 COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING SOURCES: ' _ `1~ I~~ . . ~ ~ TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final iZeport A-10a. Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 ~ r.~~.r„~~ v~ r~. ~ Improramada ~ ~ ~ TVTC PROTECT SPONSOR: Alameda County . LEAD AGENCY: Alameda County • PROTECT DESCRIPTION: This project includes roadway realignment, shoulder widening, and median barriers. This phase of the project will straighten the aligru7lent of Vasco Road at about 1.8 miles north of the Livermore city limits to about 1.6 miles south of the Alameda/ Contra Costa county line. A median barrier will be installed between the Contra Costa County line and about 1.8 miles north of the Livermore city limits. The installation of inedian barriers will eliminate cross- over-type collisions that resulted in fatalities in the past. The realignment of tight curves will facilitate Tri Delta bus services betvveen Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. STATUS: The utility relocation phase of this project has been completed. Construction of the realignment project was completed November 2009. Installatiori of the median barriers is expected by 2011 with the needed shoulder and striping modifications to be completed by 2014. PHASING AND SCHEDULE: The project is scheduled to be constructed in several stages and is part of a two phase project. The final stage of Phase 1, installation of inedian barriers, shoulder improvements and striping modifications is expected to be completed by 2014. Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 17 Rev+sed: 03/15/11 ~ / (~ ~~ TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final iZeport COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING SOURCES: r. r. ,~ '~r'r3? "`a w.~;f~.~' _` . y.~ .. ~._. ~-„~y, ys .~a ~ ar e,~ ~~.~ _ "".F~ '+~7a? ~ '~,e f~Cost' ` ill~ons; 2009 ~~~ `~ .,~ ~t ~g~. ~ ~_ ~~ ~- ~~ , r -~ ~~ ;~` ~ ~~ ~ ~ s~~.~~~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~'~' -~: 1 ~. 3~ ~.,.°'~,,,.7_ $30 26~ :~~. ~.~ ~:w ; ~ „ ,_ . ~ t ,~ .,: . ~w.,. . .~. .z .. _.~. . u . _ _ : illions, 2009 Fundin Measure B $1.50 STIP $4.60 TCRP $6.50 . Local Alameda Coun $2•81 STP/ CMAQ $3.90 Pro 1-B $6.00 Fed demo ' $0.80 s ~-~ ~ ~ ~~. ~ _~.~~, ~ ~.~ _- ~ ~ .~ t - ~"a- 'T~. ~. "~'~ ~'' ~ ~ ~ " ~"~ 'r"~ ,~~~~"7~"~ z~ r, r.,a ~F~undin ~. illions~20 ~Tota1~ ~.~~ ~ ~ -~`~~~~~~~~ ~~"~:~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~'_~ '~~ ~ ~ -, fi ~~.. a' #"'~,~" ~ir.~ r, $2~'~.~1~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ' , , . _ ... . > ~. ~ ~ ;~ ~- ~ ~ ~~ ~~- ,~z ns`;~~2009: ~~ ~ ~ t£alt~ 1VT lli ~ ~~~`~~~ ~~ ~ ~ .:~ ~ d n~ Shor ~~ u . , ~ ~ ~~~ ~~# ~$4~15 . ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ,, i ~ , .. ~ .~. ~.~ _. x . ~ o ,, ~, ~.~ ~,, . ~ ~. Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 18 _ Revised: 03/15/11 , ~y i~ ~~~ { TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report A-10b. Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 Consaicci Vauo Rd. ~ ImprovemeMs TVTC PROTECT SPONSOR: Alameda County LEAD AGENCY: Alameda County ~~ ~~„D~- u~~roonrU~~ PROTECT DESCRIPTION: ~ ~~ This project is part of a two phase ~ro~~ ~ $~ f~.~ safety improvement project along ti~ Vasco Road. This second phase of the ~-~`" Vasco Road project includes roadway ~ ~ ~ ~$. i~ realignment, shoulder widening, and ~ installation of inedian barriers: This ~~ ~ phase of the project will install ""m~`°'° median barriers along Vasco Road within Alameda Counry on portions of the roadway not covered by Phase 1. In addition, this phase will include shoulder widening and curve modificatioris, as needed. This Phase II of Vasco Road will provide continuous median barrier protection between Contra Costa Counfy and the City of Livermore. The installation of niedian barriera will eliminate cross-over-type collisions that resulted in fatalities in the past. STATUS: The Phase 2 project is in the scoping stage. PHASING A1~ID SCHEDULE: The Phase 2 project is expected to begin by 2015. Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 19 Revised: 03/15/11 COST ESTIMATES AIVD FUNDING.SOURCES: ~~~ ~ Io~ 'I'VTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report - A-11. Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit - Phase 2 J~"c a or~ t~,,e ,~,,~'~,'~.-~.. ~~ ",;`k"~t~~ 1; t l. ; ~ i~ y~., ; e t~,, e~' _. ~ t. ~ ~+.^^ 7 Dubim `~;~:~` , ~ ~ ik ` 4 ~dr.u~y ~'' ~~Ulmar iE b'r~r,?~ ~ ~ -~„""""'~'cd~tFP Mip~wMemar~aj,ywy "4~` r~ '2~` ~ >- ,/ i ' sBra~drJi+F"~ „~ ~ i '~, ~. s~~`< < '~'~~1+,~ ~ ~A~`"N~° ~. ~~ , ,, .,. ~ r ~ y{r ~ 't ~ + s . ~~.~.:~.~ ~ „ ~ .o~ ~.~ ~ , y~~ ~` ~~~ ~~r ,~i' .-_ -- ~--- + - ~~ ~+~~~; ~ i .~rg ' ~~,"...~ ~'~ (r ~`~, i ~s i .~ ~ .~~iL~vermo e f '`~p ` Aae' ..~-i ~'~~- >T ~ ~ ...~ s v'~- ." ,~. ~ -~ ~u ~ ~~? ~ i'* t i W1uRICi AI l~l OFt ~~ I ~~4 a~ ~ t~ d r ~ ~ _. ~ ~ ~ }.. ~ ~ t -~~-.,~`m`~r ~' .~.' `~ ~ P fA ,~~ x3 ~mb.~, '` ` _,_,_La-~`TiCV8~fn0;..,1t s ~.~,~ .F ~ t .. : -~:: - .. ' ~, ^,~F ..4 '~;"' Y l45C0 ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~p.VR ~, t"~ 1 1 " tY"F 3 . ~~:fy ~ -. .' :i~ ~~i~ ~':c ~~ F : ~• ~}~~y ~ t n;"~P` { .Llvermore_ _ _ ~.,.~astrwe `, . ~ :•d.,.r_ ~ ~`"''` , i ~ai-~' ;t ~E851~f# ' ~ 6N,~"~ «.rr,,., ~ + !? ~F-i"~'-Yn.~:: ~ ~' TVTC PROTECT SPONSOR: City of Dublin LEAD AGENCY: Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority OTHER INVOLVED PARTIES: Cities of Pleasanton and Livermore PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ~ The deployment of LAVTA's Route 10 Rapid Bus Program is underway. The program will implement express bus/bus rapid transit service along the I-580 corridor between Lawrence Livermore Lab, Livermore Transit Center, Dublin-Pleasanton BART via Dublin Boulevard, and to Stoneridge Iv1a11. The proposed bus rapid transit service is termed RAPID. Additionally, transit signal priority will be installed at signalized intersections traversed by Route 10 between downtown Pleasanton and the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART stat'ion, referred to as the Pleasanton Speed and Efficiency Alignment. Improvements include bus stop upgrades and amenities; passenger information systems; new hybrid, low-floor vehicles; roadway, intersection, and signalization rnodifications to construct queue jump lanes and provide transit. priority at key intersections. Construction and initial implementation ("Phase 1") is fully funded and expected to be completed in 2010. ~ Phase 2 of LAVTA's express bus/bus rapid transit project includes upgrades to and expansion of the initial program, including the following potential elements in order of prioritization: 1. Completion of the "Rapidizatiori' of buses on the Pleasanton Speed and Efficiency Alignment 2. Addition of more bus queue jump lanes 3. Construction of Park and Ride lots 4. Installation of off-board fare collection equipment at RAPID stops. 1: - Completion of the "Rapidization" of buses on the Pleasanton Speed and Efficiency Alignrnent - This project element would retrofit 11 existing buses with optical emitters so that the transit signal priority (TSP) equ'ipment installed along the Pleasanton Speed and Effic'iency Alignment as part of Phase 1 can be utilized by the existing bus fleet. Such a retrofit would Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 20 Revised: 03/l5/11 ~~~ ~ TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update ` Draft Final Report expedite bus service by allowing buses to obtain signal priority. The total cost for the retrofit is $33,000. , This project element would also include the installation of bus stop amenities at up to 16 locations along the Pleasanton Speed and Efficiency Alignment. The amenities might include bus shelters, benches, real-time information signs, bus stop flag signs, wayfinding signs, decorative concrete paving and trash and recycle receptacles. These improvements would enhance the passenger experience and potentially attract more riders. The total cost for the bus stop improvements is $5,400,000. 2. - Addition of More Bus Queue Jump Lanes - With initial deployment of the RAPID and the Pleasanton Speed and Efficiency Alignment, improvements are being completed at three intersections to provide a bus queue jump lane. Phase 2 would install improvements at up to an additional 111ocations: 5 in Pleasanton along the Pleasanton Speed and Efficiency Alignment, 4 in Livermore along the RAPID route, and 2 in Dublin along the RAPID route. Providing queue jump lanes allows for.buses to pass through these intersections quicker.. The total cost of the bus queue jump improvements is $9,740,000. 3. - Construction of Park and Ride Lots - Two sites have been identified, one in Livermore and one in Pleasanton, as potential fizture park-and-ride lots. Further study and coordination with each agency is ~still required. The estimated cost for land acquisition and construction of both lots is $1,300,000. 4. - Installation o£ Off-Board Fare Collection Equipment at RAPID Stops - Off-board fare collection systems provide for faster boarding times, an iinproved customer experience, and enhanced service branding. Four locations along the RAPID route have been identified as candidate locations for the installation of such a system, including the Livermore Transit Center, Downtown Livermore, East Dublin/Pleasanton BART, and Downtown Dublin/West Dubliri BART. The total cost to install the system at four locations is $140,000 (with annual operations and maintenance around $87,000). ~ Alternatively, installing the off-board fare collection system at all RAPID and Pleasanton Speed and Efficiency Alignment bus stops would cost $1,900,000. STATUS: Construction of initial RAPID improvements is expected to be completed in 2010, and is fully funded. PHASING AND SCHEDULE: Phase 2, to include Pleasanton Speed and Efficiency Alignment "Rapidization" and additional improvements along the RAPID route, is in the plarming stage with actual scope, schedule, cost and funding unkriown at this time. Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 21 Revised:,03/15/11 TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update ~.~ 1~5 . ~ Draft Final Repor Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 22 Revised: 03/1 S/11 COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING SOURCES: ~ ~ ~.~~+~ TVTC Strategic Expenditure I'lan 2011 Update Draft Final Report B-1. I-580/I-680 Interchange (Westbound to Southbound) TVTC PROTECT SPONSOR: City of Dublin LEAD AGENCY: ~ Alameda County Transportation Commission OTHER INVOLVED PARTIES: Caltrans, City of Pleasanton PROTECT DESCRIPTION: The project is located at the I-580/I- 680 Interchange in Alameda County. The proposed project limits are from 1700 feet east of the Hacienda Drive Overcrossing (PM 18.50) to 2000 feet west of the San Ramon Road Overcrossing (PM 21.81) along I-580, and from the Amador Valley Boulevard Undercrossing (PM 20.73) to 3400 LF south of the Stoneridge Drive Overcrossing (PM 19.94) along I-680. Three project alternatives have been identified as discussed below. Alternative 1. This alternative would provide a mixed-flow lane direct connection from westbound I-580 to southbound I-680 and a coinbined westbound I-580 to southbound I-680 and northbound I-680 to eastbound I-580 HOV lane direct connection. It would also construct an express bus lane from,the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station to eastbound I-580. The estimated cost for this alternative in current 2008 dollars is $760 million. Alternative 2. This alternative would provide a combined mixed-flow lane and HOV lane direct conriection from westbound I-580 to southbound I-680 and a northbound I-680 to eastbound I-580 HOV lane direct connection. It would also construct an express bus lane from the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station to eastbound I-580. The estimated cost for this alternative in current 2008 dollars is $640 million. _ Alternative 3. This alternative would provide a mixed-flow lane direct connection from northbound I-680 to westbound I-580, and remove the northbound I-680 to westbound I-580 loop ramp connection. It would also construct an express bus lane from the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station to eastbound I 580: Alternative 3 would provide a potentially fundable early phase to planned ultimate improvements to the I-580/I-680 interchange within the foreseeable future. The estimated cost for this alternative in current 2008 dollars is $400 million. Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 23 Revised: 03/1 S/11 ' ~ i~~ ~ T'VTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report STATUS: A Project Study Report (PSR) was completed and approved by Caltrans in 2009. 'The next steps toward completion of the project include: ~ • Project Approval & Environmental Documentation (PA&ED) • Plans, Specifications & Estimates (PS&E) • Right of Way Certification • Construction Upon final approval of the PSR, funds can be programmed for support costs totaling $95-100 million (based on most expensive Alternative 1 costs in escalated dollars). The next step, PA&ED, will cost ari estimated $17 million (in escalated dollars). PHASING AIVD SCHEDULE: The phasing and schedule for this project have not been defined. Chapter 2` Project Descriptions Page 24 Revised: 03/15/11 COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING SOURCES: ~d~~ I ~ ~'VTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update I~raft Final Report B-2. Fifth Eastbound Lane on I-580 (Santa Rita to Vasco Road) ~ ~ ; Y, ~ ~ _ i e~~~ ~~e~~ ~, 1_ :. ._.._-' k ~ '.ar.rn.,i: ;~' 1...'~` . i .. ~, ~ ~ ~ , ,, `~ - ~~ ~ ~ , _ ~~ ~ , f r ..., ,. u _,~ . ,, . 3 --- '; ~~~~ ' , ss~ '~ ~ } f ~ 1 ~ g r k ~4 t ) ~ ^', ,i i I I :t. ' `~ ~,, -~ ; ~ . , ~ ,~ ,~;; ~~, ~ ~ ~ b..[ }.S ~ 3 1+ ~ ~ " _ ~ (~ , ~ : , ~ -~ .~- ~~--- ~ ~ ~ . ~y . . ~ ~.., I f ?ow w~ ~ g~ z~` ~ r' .~ i ~F{~ i( t. c ~ 'F ~~ Y :7^ j~t yJ~ ~„ ~ '"~~~ ~ ~ i 4 i } ' ~.,~u ~~i ~` ~ , , .~ ,~f ,,,, ~ }r ~ ° ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'~S 1~. ' ' .~~'. Qk t~. t~ • ~ t ~~ ; ~ ~k ~ ~ ~~ • iy;5 ~,, ,~ '.~, ~ ' - r . ~ 7` # 7:.. 1 ,a x - . ~., ,~ J ~1 a ~- ,'.~ ~, ~ ' a -~ ~ ~~ ~~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ",. '~ -.., ;f , ~~ ~ ~ ~ r - . ,~:k, ~ ~, ,r TVTC LEAD SPONSOI2: City of Pleasanton LEAD AGENCY: Caltrans PROTECT DESCRIPTION: The existing mairi line lane drop on eastbound I-580 at Santa Rita Road is a bottleneck that causes sigruficant peak-hour congestion, and results in level of service "F" conditions during the PM peak hour, with queuing that often extends back to I 680 and beyond. The project would construct a fifth eastbound lane on I-580'between Santa Rita Road and Vasco Road, eliminating the lane drop at Santa Rita Road. This project may be constructed in stages. Completion of eastbound auxiliary lanes between Fallon Road and Vasco Road may be an initial stage. STATUS: The auxiliary lane components of this project between Fallon Road and Isabel Avenue and between First Street and Vasco Road are funded and will be constructed in conjunction with the I-580 Eastbound HOV Lane project (Project A-5A). The remaining components of the project have not begun. PHASING AND SCHEDULE: A portion of this project will be constructed in conjunction with the I-580 eastbound HOV lane project. The Phasing and Schedule for the remaining components is not available at this time. FUNDING SOURCES: Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 25 Revised: 03/15/11 8~ lo~ ~ TVTC Strategic Expenditure P1an 2011 Update Draft Final Report B-3. I-580/First Street Interchange Modification TVTC LEAD SPONSOR: City of Livermore LEAD AGENCY: Caltrans PROTECT DESCRIPTION: This project will modify the I-580/First Street interchange, including widening the overcrossingto provide six lanes, and reco'nstructing the ramps to achieve a partial cloverleaf interchange design. The project would also construct segmenfs of awciliary lanes in the vicinity of the interchange. STATUS: A Project Study Report has been completed. PHASING A1VD SCHEDULE: The project schedule and phasing is not available at this time. COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING SOURCES: Local funding will be provided through the City of Livermore Traffic Impact Fee program. Funding shorffall represents the proportion of project cost related to forecasted regional traffic using the interchange: , Chapter 2: Project D.escriptions Page 26 . Re~ised: 03/15/11 (/~ 1.L/ ~~ 'I'VTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report B-4.. I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification -,~,:_.- _ ,. ~ ° ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ f ~~ - ~ ~ r i trl~- J~ y~ . F - ~ r .. / ~. , \ : 1 ~ .J C / ~ Ci ' ~ . ~ : r f t \/ .J :. . {~ ~~'~~ t~;/, kl .T;~~ \ f ..., ~ ~ .'" .~ ~ -: ~ S E- ~\ ~ il ~ tfTdL ' ~ ~ ~ ~G ~ ~ _ . . _ . ._ _ " _ ., - ' .. . . ~_ . . ... _. .~ " '' " ""_ .~ _ _ _.:' .r_.-~~t ...si> _ _ :_ . . ~_ _ . ...»,~~:~~ . ~..,: -: _ ~ '. _ ~ ; _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~; t ; l 1.~~~ \ ~.r`~ ~-~--~-~n ;- r - ~~ _'`~~ t. ~ :~ ~i ~.,~ ty~ , ~ ~ ~_~ a~~ _ a~f,~ J I 1 C ~~ =~,,.~~ ~ ;_ -_. ,~ d? 1 , i ~ . ~ ; ~ ' o ~~~n , , F ~- ' ` ~ J ~ F ~ ~~ (I : ..}~.~ ~° : PRELIMINARY j : l , , , , ~ ' ~ ( ps' ~ - ' I~1 ~ ~ ~ ( I~C~O YA/CO PO~D IMT[PCM ANO! p ~ ~. ,~~`LbG ' ~ L-~ ' ~t' i #; :; ~ ~: ~: U ~.:'-- p ~ ~ : L ~ _ 7 r of auxiliary lanes in the vicinity of the interchange. TVTC Lead Sponsor: City of Livermore LEAD AGENCY: Caltrans PROTECT DESCRIPTION: . This project will modify the I- 580/Vasco Road interchange, including widening the overcrossing to provide eight lanes, and reconstructing the ramps to achieve a modified partial cloverleaf iriterchange design. The ~ project would also construct segments STATUS: A Project Study Report has been completed. A programmatic environmental impact report for right-of-way protection has been completed. Right-of-way acquisition is underway. PHASING AND SCHEDULE: The project phasing and schedule is unavailable. COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING SOURCES: ~t~"-+ +~i ,~y 7 ~'~ *"'- " F,vr.c~ ~,,,~r~_c ~r' ~u"~..'i"~.'~ "*.`"?~ t F ~`~ '~"%~T` ~`3~r ~~~~~^~ '~~~ :5 ~a.~ ~~ ~ -~` "r~ `~2~~9~ ~ ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A r~ t w 4~'9. 'z {f; S d~`*, ?' `'~~5 ~G3 ' ~ ~ " . -¢ . r sr . ~n 10~.5 -~~~.51.,~ ~~ ~vAS'~.. #:,;'a~.~"'~~~ 'F'~i„.~~~~s ~' ~.F:... , .c. .M.(,_ :~,..L.....c4 .. .~.~ _~3.,vu rY~-~,_,e~'.uy~..s_~. `.~`'~'. 4 ~ ' ~ ~` ' Y ~ ,p~ i .,:~ w Fundin illions, 2009 Livermore TIF $40.24 Fed HEP $2.60 i r, ~• ~F i Xti~~ +~.& w'~^ ' .#~~ ~- 5~„ '~rr,y~ ~`' sst~ e x ,.a-'t " F.n ,~, ~ ~ - J.:~-n { ~^ v~. ~ otal~F und ~ ~1lions=~2009 ~~,~=~ 3 ~ -~~ vn: ~~~~ ~ " `~ ~" s~ '~` ~~~~~~ -~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~T ~ ~` ix ~ ~ ~ 2~s. ~`~ .~~~ ,~~tr ~;; ~$4284:~~ ~~ ~, . , ~ ~ T , h ~~ , ~~ ;~w ~ v ~ A~IICx ~'.~k~°' ~;-..~k` ~"S" 'r-' -~ " ~`~~$' ''~F sa;TM ~.,-„~+ m{,,~ y'~a~. ~a ~.. ,~t ` ~~ ll~~ ll ~2009~ ~F Sh f d _~~~ .~ ~r ~ ~' ~~ '~~~~~~~ ' r ,~ n 1 ~. "zu~ C ~1~136~@~~~~~~~ , ~ ions ui o rt a ; un ~~ m>. . ~~ ' ~~ ]e ~...,, /. . i Yn. .it~. .~,~-..~ ~u.[,. 5 1',F '~'„~ s ~.~o- r'".TG~. ~~~ ~~ ~ i~t3w¢°+$4v /.+v_ ,rvf°~r`a~'f .~ Local funding is provided through the City of Livermore Traffic Impact Fee program. Funding shortfall represents the proportion of project cost related to forecast regional traffic using the interchange. Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 27 Revised: 03/15/11 . ~ ~~ TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report B-5. I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ ~' , ~~, , t w~,~~~~,, ~;;3e;,~`", , ,~„~ ~ ~•'„ ~ ~ ~ , , ~;, , «.,~.~ ~~ 'ny ' ~ ~ r ` ' hj~ ~ 1~~ , ~ , ~ ~ ~o , , , . ~,. , ' , ~ , . ~ ; ,~N fiiti~ `,. r , tt' , , , ', ~~~ ~~~' ~~ ~ ' ~ ~. ' y , { . f .~~~~. J .~ :T ~ : ~ ^s L~~-~ -r-y , ~ ~ i; . ~ - r r _ r: ~ ~f",: ' ~ t} ~ ' e~se~ a ~ . /r ~,. _ ;; ~ ~ ~ ~ , ;_~. a e i .: c ~ e ~';+:.. C ~~ ~ ~,~ fi~ ~. ~ ::';i , °. ~ ~ ~ , - ~,:1:;: , , ':. ~ // i q'r, ~ r ~ ~ \. ,I;~' ~r;',l r `+` ;ri;J' ,,.. ~ _ ~~°: ^;~~ f ~ +; ; , iu:i;uw"~+a:n ~w;.p ~ ( P ; ~,~' f ~ ~, , ; , ,;;~ ::~ ~„ ~ , , , : - ,~ 'f r;~~ ';~y; ,~,',/r ~r ~ '~i . ~ ~ , , ;~ ,~ ,~ , ~ ~'' ,~. ~ ~' ~ ,~~~, , ,y~~~~fj, ~. _. _. , ~ ~°!Tq ~ t r ~-_: U ~ ' ~ .+'~ ,\. . 6.~~ ~. • / r~ ~ . ~: -~ ~) ~~?4~--. ~ ~ r l~ ~ - .. . _ F'" ~i _ ~ ~.'`"`~'~.~,=-s ... -- , , , 'o- ' , , ~ -- r ~ ~ ~ ,_~~ . ' , ,; ~ , °~:__-~ ` ~ ,~ ~~. ~ ~ ' ~ - ~ , , , ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~i , , ~, , ~ }'~ ~ . 7:.~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ' <,,.,. , ,- , ~.r - ~ ~ , , ~.' , .: ;~.. , ~.~ , ; 1 ~ t , ' ,~_ ~ ~. ~.'.~ ~~ ~~'~. L ;'i , ~~ ,~; ~: ~: - , ','j~i'~~~,+ ~~r '~~ i , ~'~ t ~',''4~;>.~;±.,:~ : ,fi ' ~ ~~',; Ii ~ 5~i I~ ~' ~` ~ +1 3-~1... .;~i,~ , ~. , ~ ~; ` r~ ,'~' `:'d., , ;~~ . . ~. * ~ .; ;. ': .. „,, „, TVTC LEAD SPONSOR: City of Livermore LEAD AGENCY: Caltrans PROTECT DESCRIPTION: This project will modify the I-580/Greenville Road interchange, including widening the izndercrossing to provide six lanes, and reconstructing the ramps to achieve a modified partial cloverleaf interchange design. The project would also construct segments of auxiliary lanes in the vicinity of the interchange. STATUS A Project Study Report has been completed. A programmatic environmental impact report for right-of-way protection has been completed. Right-of-way acquisition is underway. PHASING AND SCHEDULE Project Phasing and Schedule is unavailable Local funding is provided through the City of Livermore Traffic Impact Fee program. ~ Funding shortfall represents the proportion of project cost related to iorecast regional traffic using the interchange. Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 28 Revised: 03/15/11 COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING SOURCES: ~ ~ . ~~~ ~ TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report B-6. Jack London Boulevard Extension T'VTC LEAD SPONSOR: City of Livermore LEAD AGENCY: City of Livermore PROTECT DESCRIPTION: • This project will extend Jack London Boulevard to El Charro Road as a four-lane arterial roadway. The project will be constructed in stages. The initial stage will be a two-lane extension. Future stages will relocate a portion of the roadway away from the Livermore Airport to its ultimate alignment on lands currently being mined for aggregate, after the quarry operations have been completed. STATUS: An environmental impact report has been completed. Design and right-of-way acquisition is underway. Construction of the ttivo-lane extension is scheduled to be completed in 2011. PHASING AND SCHEDULE: The project is expected to be constructed in several phases. The initial stage is expected to be completed in 2011. The ultimate 4-lane widening will not commence until after the quarries have completed mining operations. COST ESTIMATES AI~TD FUNDING SOURCES: w a~«:c.fi r°' .~""`w"~. ,~'~"aY~'s... t'. ~~~7 ro ~g,~ ~~i '~a~4 5~~~~ C '4 ,~,,. ~'7~ z"-'zs ~~ CY~"c, ,"~eost Milhons 2~~9~ ~x ~~ '~+ L r-"~`ri~` ~r~3U' 3~.. ~.~ :'~~"''n~`~t ~~~~ ~ `~"`~ ?~,r'^~'~3 ~ ~ r ~~, ~~°s~~~.~~~an~~:~t ~.~~:~.~~, w_~ lz~a:_~~~st... _.~t.a~.~.,~.'~~' :~_:~'a ~~ 3° ,~. ~+'~x,w.~3' r?~ t . ;~ r 3 ;r,~ ~29 47 ~~"b'.~?''~3„~;~r Fundin illions, 2009 Livermore TIF $24.24 ~ ya~, v((i A S 'NrJ 'F~ ~'f ~{. ~f'-31 y~iF ~ r+! ~ .. Ya ~` ? 3~- ~ '~''~ ~. ~W'?" t tFS. "F& ~y' `ti ~~i~t ~'~ ~'i'i`~'s ~g Fundui'~' Millions ~2009 ~I'otal ~~~,.~~;~; ~~~ k ~ ~~~°'~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~'~ ~`~ ~`~ ~ ~~ ~ JT ~ 2 ~ ~'1'vv'~_fF kKt ia~~t ~, '~i... :$24 24 a~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ , , , ~ _ , ~.- ~ , , ~ ~. ~ . P ~ ., N . , ~ ~ 9 ,~~E~~n ~~ ~` `~ ~~ Slio~ffal~~~ ~11 n~` 20 ~~~~ ~F n d n~ ~ `~ ~ ~~Z ; ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~', ~~ ~ ~$5 23~~~~ ~ io s 0 u ~ i ; . . ~ . ~ ,, ~ , - - ~ _..: Local funding provided through the City of Livermore Traffic Impact Fee program. Funding. shortfall represents the proportion of project cost related to forecasted regional traffic .using the project. Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 29 Revised: 03/15/11 / ~ ~I~~ TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report B-7. El Charro Road Extension (Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard to Stanley Boulevard) ~ :~:r ~ ..; . ~ ~ , __. TVTC LEAD SPONSOR: City of Pleasanton LEAD AGENCY: City of Pleasanton PROTECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Pleasanton is linked to the City of Livermore by I-580, Stanley Boulevard, and Vineyard Avenue. Currently, any connection between I- 580 and Stanley Boulevard must use Santa Rita Road through Pleasanton, which is very congested in the peak hours. The construction of El Charro Road connecting I-580 and Stanley Bouleyard through Pleasanton will relieve congestion along Santa Rita Road, and provide.greater mobility between the two Livermore/Pleasanton east-west connecting roadways. This project relates to the constnzction of the second Phase of El Charro Road extension between I-580 and Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard and Stanley Boulevard as a 4-lane divided road. This portion is estimated to be about 1.7 miles in length. STATUS: • The southern portion of El Charro Road will continue to serve private access only, until the City of Pleasanton completes an East Side Specific Plan (began in 2010). It is anticipated that the project will be constructed with the first stages of the East Side Specific Plan development. PHASING AND SCHEDULE: El Charro Road is currently a private roadway. The El Charro Extension project will be completed in two phases. There are development plans approved to construct the northern segment of this roadway (between I-580 and Stoneridge Drive f Jack London Boulevard). Construction of the northern segment of El Charro Road is anticipated to begin in 2011. The 2009 SEP Update, however, only includes the second Phase, which would extend El Charro Road from Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard to Stanley Boulevard. The timeline for this Phase is dependent on the status an East Side Specific Plan. This plan will identify the land use and circulat'ion along the Future.El Charro Road and may identify a timeline for opening of this roadway for public use. It is anticipated that the project will be constructed with the first stages of the East Side Specific Plan development. Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 30 ReVised: 03/15/11 . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ 'TVTC Strategic ~xpenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING SOURCES: Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 31 Revised: 03/15/11 i ~,~l~ T'VTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report B-8. Camino Tassajara Widening (East Blackhawk Drive to Count y Line) TM~~~~ Fx ~.r~,.-v..a~6 .; _ CountrY:Club ~ ~ t~ ' ~ + ~ S~m~ ~ ~Blackhawk Cami o e ~ ~ , & ,,,~, ~ Tassa~ara : ~,.~ F ~a ~ ~"i ,o ~^i~~ ~ ~~ ~ ry L ~ ~ A~ - .: 's J s~ •sy , r k'~ '^.~, ` s. 6 ~ ~µ . Si,; ~~~F . ~ i S . * ~ ~ 5.. I "~`Yr ~ .. T~~ ! ' 9 ~~. ; . `~ ~~„,,,}, ~ Carn~~o T~gsafare 1 f ~ ~ - Gammo 7assajara = . ~y.~_ ~ ~ _~ ~ - a 1' , ~ ra iF ~ alleY ' ~ i1,t ~ ~ ,,,r„'~C"' `k.y Irt k . ~` x..' ~sna ~l' . ~ S .: 4 ~ ~ t~ ; _.., ~ ~-~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ S i ~ ~'#~~t ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ . ~R ~ ~ ;;~a:~ - blo ' ~~ ' ~~ ~ ~:Di ~ , a ~ ~ . ~qa `Vis~ Perk . g ~ ~°ti„ ~V~. ~'~~~~+,1`. . t~ . . ~ ~ ,~ib `+..C~y , ' -~'~ a . ' ~ ~ ~'~ ~~~~~~i~' ~ ~ ~p` ~ .- ' l y , . `.:' .J,. ~.4+Li' ~~BfIdJ..e,,.s~a~'} . . Golf Course H,~~ ~" , ~t~ r. t., i n~+..~~ i+k _ [7d ,". _ .._ . ~, ~.. . .. . - ~~~ ~ t~ ~ ~~!"xA - A W S d -e. ~s,~r ~ . . 0 5 ~ .-n'n a . ~ ' }. ' . - 1 ~'°', "cj 4 .._ 1~~ - ~ ._,-. ~ ; ma : ~ ~ ~ :.~~. m~ ~ .. ~ ~` ~ ~ , ~ i . E' ~ ~~~~ 4 ~ ~ °'~a .;~~.. i , ~ ~ , ~'~'`s'-` ~ 3 L ~ ;'`, ~: . . ' ' : ~= ~ s _ , `~~ ~ ~' . , ~ mg ~~ ~ ~ ;< ~ ~a ^g ~b, ''•.~ k ~t fi < u p~,~ ~ }~ 'E'da 5 ~~ ~ ' BRLK` ~~'ry k"-M"3,G . ~ L ~~.~.t~~~,~., ~~ . ':a_ ...~~ _ _ . o ~ i ~ .. _ 'B1pe _..~'.. ..:"~. , '.i- 14 N+ ~ ~ro ~ g ~ ;U TVTC LEAD SPONSOR: Contra Costa County LEAD AGENCY: Contra Costa County SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PHASE DESCRIPTION: This phase will widen Camino Tassajara to meet two lane rural road standards with sufficient lane width and shoulder width to improve safety and allow for future bike lanes. The , improvements will also include realignment of a horizontal curve approximately 0.5 miles north of Windemere Parkway and another curve just north of the Contra Costa/ Alameda County line. This phase will improve safety on Camino Tassajara. The realigrunent of the two horizontal curves a~d provision for addition of standard paved shoulders will improve safety for motorists and facilitate motorists and bicyclists to share the roadway. These improvements are consistent with the Countywide Bicycle Plan. STATUS: Planning Phase with completion of an internal document, Project Study Report. PHASING AlVD SCHEDULE: Phasing and Scheduling for this project is unavailable pending completion of the project study report. Chapter 2: Project Descriptions . Page 32 Revised: 03/1 Sl11 q~ ,~~ Is ~ TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report COST ESTIMATES AND RUNDING SOURCES (SAFETY PHASE): ROADWAY WIDENING PHASE DESCRIP'TION: This phase will widen Camino Tassajara from two to four lanes from approximately 2,000 feet east of Blackhawk Drive to Windemere Parkway and from two to six lanes from Windemere Parkway to the Contra Costa/Alameda County line. This widening phase of the project will mitigate capacity demands along Camino Tassajara. These improvements will mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment within tlie Tri-Valley. An increase in the average daily traffic on Camino Tassajara is anticipated due to improvements on Dougherty Road, Windemere Parkway, ' Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road. STATUS: Planning Phase with completion of an internal docurnent, Project Study Report. PHASING AND SCHEDULE: Phasing and Scheduling for this phase is unavailable pending completion of the project study report. COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING SOURCES (WIDENING PHASE): Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 33 Revised: 03/15/11 ~ q"~ 1~~ . ~~ TVTC Strategic Expenditure 1'lan 2011 Update Draft Final Report B-10. I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Gap Closure (North Main to Livorna) TVTC LEAD SPONSOR: City of San Ramon LEAD AGENCY: TRANSPAC OTHER INVOLVED PARTIES: Caltrans/CCTA PROTECT DESCRIPTION: Close the High"Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane gap along Interstate 680 between North Main Street and Livorna Road in the southbound direction. Closing this gap will provide a continuous HOV lane from the Benicia-Martinez Bridge to the Contra Costa/Alameda County line. Projeet is necessary to encourage carpooling, vanpooling, transit, and provide the necessary infrastructure for . express buses in the corridor: STATUS: A PSR was completed by Caltrans in May2009. PR/ED will begin in 2011 and construction is planned for 2013 and 2015 timeframe. PHASING AND SCHEDULE: Construction is expected to start in 2013 and completed in 2015. COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING SOURCES: Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 34 Revised: 03l15/11 ~ ~~'~~~~ TVTC Strategic Expendit~r~ Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report B-11a. I-680/Norris Canyon Express Bus/Carpool On- and Off-Ramps ~ TVTC LEAD SPONSOR: City of Sari Ramon LEAD AGENCY: Contra Costa Transportation Authority OTHER INVOLVED PARTIES: Caltrans, County Connection, Southwest Area Transportation Committee (SWAT), CCTA PROTECT DESCRIPTION: This project would provide exclusive Bus/HOV ramps from the median of 1-680 onto Norris Canyon Road in both directions. It will serve the San Ramon Transit Center and the Park & Ride Lot near Bishop Ranch. The project aims to improve travel times for buses, carpoolers, and vanpoolers. This is one of multiple projects intended to provide the infrastructure for enhanced express bus service in the 1-680 corridor, as recommended by the I-680 Investment Options Analysis Study (2003). The PSR was approved by Caltrans on March 16; 2010. One build alternative and the "no-build° alternative were evaluated in the PSR. The build alternative proposes to construct on- and off-ramps connecting to the 1-680 median HOV lanes, in both the northbound and southbound directions, and replace the Norris Canyon Road overcrossing. The direct ramps are assumed to operate as bus-only ramps at all tirnes with HOVs allowed during peak periods when the mainline HOV lanes are in operation. Alternatives to this assumption may be examined during the environmental clearance phase. The proposed on- and off- xamps and the associated auxiliary lanes would be added in the median, and therefore the 1-680 mainline lanes would need to be shifted to the outside between Fostoria Way overcrossing and just north of Bollinger Canyon Road overcrossing. STATUS: A PSR was approved by Caltrans in March 2010. CCTA is utilizing. consultant support for preparing a Project.Report/Environmental Document (PR/ED) in 2011. Construction is planned to begin in 2015. PHASING AND SCHEDULE: Construction of this project is expected to begin in 2015. Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page35 Revised: 03/15f11 ~ 1,~~ ` t ~ ~ TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update I3raft Final Report COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING SOURCES: Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 36 Revised: 03/15/11 I~ W ~) TV'I'C Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report B-11b. I-680 Transit Corridor Improvements f w'~'_; ~ ~, t'`~4 ~a _~en pace ~r; q~a~~y?- 4e~~` .~ ~ ~, ~` '{~ ~ ~"` 1.leadow ~ ~ y 3,k}~;`~Y'~`~'~ti~''~ ~~L''~~~F ¢-"' ~e~t ~~ ti ~Walnut ~, ,c.~k~~-~. t ~. ti , ~ ~ ~z ~~;r "~*~-~n~ar~n ~ r> ~ ~" ~ ~~. ~ S" i t , C~eek e"~. ~'~"~.t ~`x'7~~'i. '"~ 4 '~, '~ ~ .~.~„ ~. i~ ~k a M1~ e~ v ,~ ~ A y~d' *s. ~ ~~~~,~ iz~~.~dfQGK~fE2...-.'.~".~,.' vrrfn,t` ~'~ `~r"=, t-. t ~lt ~'t ~,~ r ~l.-. ~:-~~g ° ~ ~~`y~"~2~~YR ~r ~ ~v''~, `~'~ ~t i}I ' ~¢ Somerset ~ r ~'~« e~~'~ ;~t ~~.;,;s t r ^' ~ i~~~~} $'A } `a ~ ~',,,n. z',~,. ~ ~~..FHMt [71ab10? ~ n Pallos ~ t ~ ~: f~~~~~y `~'"~ 8tate Park~y r:, urton ~ ~ ~ . ~,~ ~ ~~'~c ~ ~;~,a~'`~~~vi. ~z „ auey ~' ~~~~ ._`.'~,..,~'"~, ~ }~~ R ck'~Clty ~~` ,y' ;: ` Alamo ~.~ ~' ~~~3• ~ ~ , Alarrto Oaks '~.~ ~ ~r x.-e~~~-.~ '` ,~"n~ ~~ ~ ~. ' i ~' Diabla ~~`~~~~ ~x-~ ~~ ~'~~~'~ ' ~ .~~~ LEis TrAmpR's'~~.~~~ r\ a-~.< -~~' ~ " ~ '~~ °~ "''E'~ 'i fiz~~~~ Reg~orm~~~~,,~.~ ,Danvdle, 4B~acicriawic~Csm~no~~~~~~~ W~cleme4s , x~~;~. "€~~„ ~ ' '~ ,4 ~ ~ Tassa~ara ~ ~ *~~ ,r .' ~ ~i F ~'~~ ' ~ ~ '~ ,~ .~, ~a~`;rassa~ara ~ ~'"~- ,:~~ ~~~, r~ ,*,~ ~ ~ >r Tassaja San Ramon ~-~ -- "~ ~ *~ ~;. ~~ ~~,~~, t ~. ~i z.. • r,~ ~ .. ~- ~ ~ ; ~ Broaksh'ire , ~ ~, " ,j - E}. ' R~ , i^~ ~ .4, .'1 ~ ~~~t~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~"~~ t ~ i ~ ~~ ~ ~i5~.', ~ .~ 1 ~ t ~ ~ „ ~. - rs p ~~, ~a ~ ~ + ~ ~ Jy~ pp,,c,,~~. .~{ % , - ~~.,y~`- '~i ~rS . . C~. 5 i m `~~ t `.. A ~y~~p~ ~ t _ ,~ ~, ~ ; ~ ii Camp Parks + y ~ ` + 4' k ,,,{~y„~ei 1k; ~p ~~ii'i _ ~ ~CAi;r ;j#~:~ --w~~.y"r~ 's F+W ~ ~f ' ~ ~~ ^~.. ( i x~i~~s~i ~J astro ..~i ;~~ - . Dubl~, « ~ _ ~Valley~ ~ ,~~,`~°.` ~-~ ;~~--~'~~-,; ]ii ..R~'iRl. , . ~+~`~µ EE~ d ~q YrvG'C+. r k ~" h ~#'~ "`; 41 '+ ~~ hw B~`~6 , r .~ i . ~ c ~ ~, ~,~ . „!,A ~ r ~, Asco ~ t'~d~~y;.. '~ FAIMBW a~ ~'c,~tt ~~ .. 't} ~ ~~,_ . ^~, ird*w. Pt ~eRflv '` t - ,G<z -.~ ~ ~~ v~. ~'n 5 ~ ` ~ ~`r Hayward '~~ ,~.~. ~ ~~~~~~~w ~ ~~Pleasantan f~ ~ ~i~i:~.' _ L. ,n ~ $ ,~'-F, r~ i~ , II . {t"d.:$'_;~5't yr.:; PHASING AND SCHEDULE: Phasing and Schedule are unavailable at this time. COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING SOURCES: , TVTC LEAD SPONSOR: City of San Ramon LEAD AGENCY: Central Contra Costa Transit Authority OTHER IIWOLVED PARTIES: Caltrans, Southwest Area Transportation Committee (SWAT), TRANSPAC, CCTA PROTECT DESCRIPTION: The project will provide improvements to address congestion and/or increase person throughput along the I-680 corridor. Improvements could include additional express bus service on I-680, necessary infrastructure to encourage use of transit and reduce transit travel time, and expansion of park-and-ride IOtS. STATUS: This project has not started. Chapter 2: Project Descriptions Page 37 Revised: 03/15/11 ~~ 1~ ~? 'TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report 2004 SEP Funding Plan ~ In determining the potential allocation'of TVTDF funding in this SEP update, the 2004 SEP . update was reviewed to understand funding levels for specific projects. Table 1 provides an overview of the original projects ineluded in the 2004 SEP, including total estimated construction costs and fund allocations. TABLE 1- 2004 SEP UPDATE SUMMARY Project Total Project Cost Pro~rammed Fund (in $ millions) (in $ millions) 1. I-580/I-680 Local Share $120 $5.6 . 2a. SR 84 - I-580 to I-680 Ex resswa $254 $24.0 2b. SR 84 - Isabel Rte 84/I-580 Interchan e $98 $0.0 3. I-680 Auxilia Lanes $55.6 $12.0 4. West DPX BART Station $53 $4.0 5. I-580 HOV Lanes $80 (Alt 1)/ $127.8 Alt 2 / $200.5 Alt 3 $S.0 6. I-680 HOV Lanes $90 (or $29 for Tri-Valle ortion $0.0 7. I-580/Foothill/SR Rd Interchan e $4 $1.6 8. I-680/Alcosta Blvd Interchan e $9.6 $1.6 9. Crow Can on Road Im rovements $25 $0.0 10. Vasco Road Safe Im rovements $40 $0.0 11. Ex ress Bus Service $2.5 ca ital onl $0.0 Source: Tri-Valley Transportation Council Strategic Expenditure Plan 2004 Update The projects included in the 2004 Funding Plan were funded between a range of 5%(I-580/ I- 680 - total project cost of $120 million) and 40% (I-580/Foothill/San Ramon - total project cost of $4 million) of the total project cost. A total of five projects received no TVTDF funding. Chapter 3: Project Funding Page 38 Revised: 03%15/11 Ib~~ ~~ 'TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report Estimation of Developer Fee Revenues To best understand the available revenue to fund the 22 projects identified in the Nexus Study, fee estimates were developed based on the most current land use projections of the TVTC member agencies. Land use forecast data and opinions were sought and obtained from member agencies and were utilized to derive a composite land use forecast. In addition, the land use information provided was compared to developer fee collections from the agencies for years 1998 through 2008. Based on these two datasets, land. use projections were adjusted to estimate potential developer fee revenues for the 10-year period starting FY 10/11. It should be noted that the TVTC has agreed to phase in the new Nexus Study fees, at maximum caps below the new maximum fee amounts. These fee reductions below the allowable Nexus Study maximum embody the judgment of the Tri-Valley agencies to help foster development growth within the Tri-Val.l:ey. Therefore, based on TVTC guidance, the development fee will remain at the current rates through December 31, 2011. Between January 1 and December 31, 2012 the development fee will be 25 % of the maximum new rate. Starting january 1, 2012 the development fee will be 35 % of the maacimum new rate. Therefore, Table 2 summarizes the estimated developer fee revenues, developed based on the afoxementioned phase~in as well as a retail cap of 15% of the new gross retail fee, also agreed on by.the TVTC. TABLE 2- ESTIMATE OF DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUE Fiscal 10 1 1 12 ~ 13 4 ~ 15 6 16 7 17 8 18/19 19 0 Ye~r Mixed Mixed . ~% New Total Fee Current Curren Rate Rate 25% New Rat New Rate @35% Rate 35% New Rate Sub- Total of $3.54 $7.76 $8.75 $11.08 $7.43 $5.57 $6.22 $6.76 $7.49 $8.16 $72.75 Revenue Return to $~0.71) $(1.55) $(1.75) $(222) $(1.49) $(1.11) $(1.24) $(1.35) $(1.50) $(1.63) $(14.55) Source 20% Revenue Before $2 84 $6.21 $7.00 $8.87 $5.94 $4.46 $4.97 $5.41 $5.99 $6.53 $58.20 Admin 80% All revenue calculations shown in Millions of dollars and rounded to nearest hundredth decimal point. Rounding may result in some values not calculating accurately in Table 2. 1"Current Rate" refers to the current FY 09/ 10 TVTDF rate being assessed to development projects. This rate is a reduced rate based on the maximum fee allowed in the 1995 Nexus Study. 2"New Rate" refers to the maximum fee permitted in the 2008 Nexus Study, adjusted for affordable housing and a retail rate cap. ' - ' 3 Fiscal:Year 11/12 "Mixed Current/25% New Rate" refers to the Current Rate utilized July-December 2011, and the New RateQ25% utilized January-June 2012 for revenue estimation. 4 Fiscal Year 12/14 "Mixed 25% new Rate/35% New Rate" refers to the New RateQ25% utilized July-December 2012, and the New RateQ35 % utilized January-June 2013 for revenue estimation. Chapter 3: Project Funding Page 39 Revised: 03/15/11 _, lo:~ ~~n~ TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report ' 2011 SEP Funding Plan - The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) states that funding priorities should be guided by three criteria: Project Readiness, or the ability of the project to move directly to final design and ca~struction; Project Funding, or the project's ability to leverage outside funding; and Project Effectiveness, or the ability of the project to address congestion and/or safety concerns. Aside from these three prioritization criteria,, there are no documented guidelines or standards for determining funding amounts. The topic of prioritizing projects was discussed with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the SEP Subcommittee throughout the SEP update process. The feedback received resulted in an overall Project Score for each project based on the equal weighting of Project Readiness, Project Funding; and Project Effectiveness. As discussed below, this project score, as well as other factors, such as the timing of funding needs, were included in the project funding philosophy that resulted in the SEP Update funding table. Historically, the TAC and TVTC has considered the use of TVTD Fee funds for leveraging other federal or state funds and to move the project to the next stage rather than to fully fund any single pro}ect frorn start to finish. For example, the funds could be used as the local match for other grant money.. Or, the money could be used to fund the next project development phase, such as a Project Study Report (PSR), which is typically assumed to cost 5% of the total project cost, or the project design phase (PS&E), which is typically assumed to cost about 10% of the total project cost. Chapter 3: Project Funding Page40 Revised: 03/15/1.1 ~~a~~~o~ TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report The TVTC's 2011 SEP Draft Punding Table sets forward a recommendation for funding allocations throughout the next ten fiscal years. Funds were anticipated to vary by year for a total of $60.35 Million .available between FY 10/ 11 and FY 19/ 20 (wlZich includes $2.15 Million in the TVTC account at the start of FY 10/11). $582,000 (or 1%) was then set aside for administrative/treasurer/consultant costs, averaged annually over the 10 years. The remaining funds were then allocated toward projects in three steps: 1. Fund remaining projects listed in the 2010 Interim Funding Plan previously adopted by TVTC 2. Fund List A projects in the TVTC 2011 Strategic Expenditure Plan to move the project to the next stage or to facilitate completion of construction 3. Fund some List B projects in the TVTC 2011 Strategic Expenditure Plan Consistent with the TVTC's historical perspective of utilizing the TVTD Fee to attract federal or state funds, or to move the project to the next stage, the recommended funding allocation typically covers the estimated cost to prepare the PS&E or to pay a portion of the estimated consfruction cost. In some cases, the allocation covered the remaining unfur~ded balance for construction or another stage of the project, such as preparation of a PSR. Timing of,funding allocation was principally dependent on priority score and timing of when funds were needed to allow projects to keep moving forward toward completion. In general, the funds were prioritized to move each project to the next step in the proeess rather than fully fund one or two projects on the List A or List B project listing. ~ A more detailed description of the funding allocation by project follows. The descriptions are listed in funding strategy order rather than by project number. INTERIM FUNDING PLAN: Three projects on the TVTC adopted Interim Funding P1an had funding commitments. carried forward frozn the 2004 Strategic Expenditure Plan. They include; Project A-7 I-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road Interchange ($0.75 Million in FY 10/11). Project A=5a I-580 HOV Lane Eastbound ($1.10 Million in PY 10/11). Project A-2a Route 84 Expressyvay I-580 to I-b80 ($12.90 Million from FY 10/11 through- FY 12/13). , Chapter3: Project Funding Page41 Revised:03/15/11 , ~ ~ I~D3 ~I~oS _ ~ TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft.Final Report TABLE 3- LIST A PROJECTS IN TVTC 2011 SEP Pro~ect Recommended Funding° Funding_ StrateQy A-3 Project I-680 Auxiliary Lanes Funding was programmed to help complete construction (Segment 2) at 20% of unfunded balance or 13% of the total project cost. Funding was needed earlier in the 10-year horizon. $3.23 Million in FY 12/13 to keep the project moving forward. A recent $2.65 Million in FY 13/14 commitment by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to fund PS&E, in conjunction with anticipated construction cost reductions to align with the current economic climate; the funding gap has been significantly reduced. The project is expected to be "shovel ready' by 2012. A-2a Route 84 Expressway I-580 to I-680 This funding was in addition to the $12.90 previously allocated as part of the 2004 Strategic Expenditure Plan $2.83 Million in FY 13/14 and the Interim Funding Plan commitment. Funding $4.34 Million in FY 14/ 15 was programmed to get Phase 3 through PS&E. $2.83 Million in FY 15/16 A-10a Vasco Rd Safety Improvements The project only needs funding for the construction Phase 1 phase. ' Funding was therefore programmed at 80% of the unfunded balance, or 11% of the total project cost. $1.66 Million in FY 13/14 Funds for the construction phase are not needed until $1.66 Million in FY 14/ 15 2014. A-9a Crow Canyon Rd Improvements Funding was programmed for the estunated cost to Phase 1 prepare the PSR. $1.55 Million in FY 13/ 14 A-2b Isabel Route 84/I-580 Interchange Funds for the next stage are not needed until after 2015. $1.57 Million in FY 15/16 $3.58 Million in FY 16/17 A-9b Crow Canyon Road.Improvements Funding was programmed for tlie estimated cost to Phase 2 prepare the PSR. $1.69 Million in FY 17/18 A- Vasco Rd Safety Improvements Funding was prograinr~ied for the estimated costs to 10b Phase 2 prepare the I'S&E (10% of total project cost). $1.33 Million in FY 16/ 17 $1.25 Million in FY 17 18 A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit Additional funding may be considered with the next SEP Phase 2 Update upon review of the success of the BRT service ~ (Phasel). $0.14 Million in FY 19/20 ' Chapter 3: Project Funding Page42 Revised: 03/15/11 I~!~. ~~5 ~ TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan 2011 Update Draft Final Report Starting in FY 17/18 it is projected that all List A projects will be partially funded and many are unavailable to fund at an additional level based on their anticipated construction schedules. Some List A projects could receive additional funds but some List B projects also received relatively higher priority ranking scores. Therefore, for the preliminary recommendation List B projects were partially funded in the later fiscal years of the SEP Update. TABLE 4- LIST B PROJECTS IN TVTC 2011 SEP Pro~ect Recommended Fundin Fundin Strate B-10 I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Gap Funding for B-10 was programmed for partial payment Closure (North Main to Livorna) towards unfunded construction costs (20% of unfunded balance). ~ $2.41 Million in FY 17/18 $3.08 Million in FY 18/ 19 B-4 I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Funding for B-3, B-4, and B-5 was progr~uned for Modification partial payment towards unfunded construction costs (20% of unfunded balance). Livermore Staff were $2.85 Million in FY 18/19 consulted whether funds should be separate bet~veen the $1.95 Million in FY 19/20 three interchange projects and Staff requested all funds to . be allocated to the I-580/ Vasco Road Interchange Modification as the riori ro'ect. B-8 Project B-8 (SAFETY) Camino Funding for B-8 was programrned for the estimated costs Tassajara Widening (East tb prepare the PS&E (10% of total cost). Blackhawk Drive to County Line) $1.70 Million in FY 19/20 B-8 Project B-8 (WIDENING) Camino Funding for B-8 was programmed for the estimated costs Tassajara Widening (East to prepare the PS&E (10% of total cost). The full $3.24 Blackhawk Drive to County Line) Million of estimated PS&E cost was not.available from development fee revenue estimate, but the remaining $2.68 Million in FY 19/20 $2.68 Million projected revenue was programmed for this ro~ect. Table 5 provides a summary of estimated TVTDF revenues throughout the 10-year SEP horizon, project funding allocations, and the overall fund balance to prevent overdrawing the account. The funding plan balances the Project Readiness, Project Funding, and Project Effectiveness to prioritize projects to attract federal or state funds, or to move the project to the next stage. ~ Chapter 3: Project Funding Page43 Revised: 03/15/11 , ' - - : _ ' , _ .. . .; . _ + . _ , _ . ,. ., _, . . - . ~. . . M... A-2a Route 84 Expiessway (I-580 to I-680) TABLE 5- 2011 TVTDF F . . ,,, . . . , < . . . . . ~. . ~ a~ ~ . ,. ivermore/Alameda CTC LJNDIN ~ _ .. . ~. € 2.94 G PLAN - ~ , . 5.00 . . ~ SI 33 ; .. ~ ~ `~ s , ' ~~ 5.00 , ~ 7~~ , ~ ~ 4~ ~ y - -- : ~ - ~ ~: r ~ .. ~~~ ~9~` _ , , . r,~... '"~ _ ~. $ 2.83 $ 4.34 $ 2.83 , -' ~ ~ ~ m , ~ . , ~ g - .~ ~ ~o.~~ v ,, : ~ ~ $ 22.94 -2b Isabel Route 84/I-580 Interchange Livermore/Alameda CTC $ 1.57 $ 3.58 ~ $ 5.15 A-3 I-680 Auxiliary Laoes (Segment_2) Danville/CCTA $ 3.23 $ 2.65 $ 5.88 -Sa I-580 HOV Lane Eastbound Pleasanton/Alameda CTC $ 1.10 $ 1.10 A-Sb I-580 HOV Lane Westbound Pleasanton/Alameda CTC $ _ -7 I-580/FoothilUSan Ramon Road Interchange Pleasanton/Calffans $ 0.75 $ 0.75 -9a Crow Canyon Road Tmprovements Phase 1 Alameda Cty/same $ I.55 $ 1.55 -9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2 Alazneda Cty/sazne $ 1.69 $ 1.69 A-IOa Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 Alameda Cty/same $ 1.66 $ 1.66 $ 332 ~ A-lOb Vasco Road Safety Improvemen[s Phase 2 Alameda Cty/same $ 133 $ 125 $ 2.58 A-I 1 Express BusBus Rapid Transit Phase 2 .., ~,-, . . . . ~.: ~ ~- , ..y. -x.w ~:~-.,x<;-~ x -~~-y:,, „u z:~.. '~ ~~' ' ~ .k. . , ~ 5'" . 3,. . ~.. ~ . a - ~~~~ ~ ... ~ . 'Y; .. .,..,. 6 ,,. a. ~ ~"i;~;: . T ; ~t~' ~-`~ ~.`'~~ `~~ b.e ?% ~T?~' , '~`r ~ ~~«~~~w..~...~ .~ ~....'~~S& r ~.fi1,s: Dublin/LAVTA ,:.- ,-..a«-. ... ... . , ., ~ ~ ~ . , t.. ~,: 5 , S,~ ^f,~L§,~ .,`"~ ..~'O / ~, : ,. . • , ,Sub Total.A ~?kr~t,,~.~~„"~'~.'.~ss'~`~'a. e..,M,. . _~_ . =r~.... .. .~ ;, . ... ,, ~`".'-i~, , ~~~.~~"~i3e, . ", - ~ > y . '~' a ,., 4 79;. ~$._~~~,_„<».u _ ,.:.:... y, . ~ ~ 5-OOu ~~~r".,..~_r. .:~,.c, . . ~.n Y . Y 8 23 ~+$~"~ _.~.,.~ .. ;.....Y.,. - Fa !t8 69.g ~`~'~,A. ,_..r, :.. ~; ;; t $~tt6.00'^ s~.~.t„ _ . , ,~,_. .. ~o ~z .q'40 x-~~._ ..~v e , .>:x . :. ~..i .. r~ , $p6p~A 91~ .. ... . ., . , ~ ~?'-. E 4Y $„ 7~ 9 v .~.. .,~*, ~:,: ~ ~ : ~ _ $~,~~ ._ ~ $ 0.14 .. ~' .: T F'w ~,' "F" „ E,$1t,t~'0 14 . .._ $ 0.14 .. ~.-..-s;~n« ~ w p€ ,~$°45.1 -_~,. -1 I-580/I-680 Interchange (Westbound to Southbound) Dublin/ACTA $ _: e' -2 Fifth Eastbound Lane on I-580 (Santa Rita to Vasco Road) Pleasaoton/Caltrans $ - -3 I-5801First Street In[ercbange Modification Livermore/Caltrans $ - -4 I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modificalion Livermore/Caltrans $ 2.85 $ 1.95 $ 4.80 -5 I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification Liveimore/Caltrans $ - -6 Jack London Boulevazd Extension Livermore/same $ - B-7 El Chanro Road Extension Pleasanton/same $ - -8 (SAFET~ Camino Tassajaza Widening (East Blackhawk [o County Line) Contra Costa Cty/same $ 1.70 $ 1.70 -8 (WIDENING) Catnino Tassajara Widening (East Blackhawk to Counry Line) Contra Costa Cty/satne $ 2.68 $ 2.68 -10 I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Gap Closure (North Main tq Livorna) San RamonlCCTA $ 2.41' $ 3.08 $ 5.49 -lla I-680 Express Bus/HOV On- and Off-Ramps San Ramon/CCTA $ - -1 Ib I-680 Traosit Comdor Improvements . . ~ ..-~ .,~ _q. ~, . . . ~ f+. ,tf! _. ,~. 8'~-.° et~v ~ . ~-~ s , '.,y '"d R '~Z ~v. , , ~-~'s ~ sr + __ .~~ . ~:u~ *~ r,:r.~,,;~.~~.~'~:~.xa.. San Ramon/CCTA . . ,.,.--cn r rr,+ ,~":s (, ~ 1. ~" '~ ~ S Sub Total B ...~;,,h ....,~~-~,~,~.._.,_~_.._... .,~-, - .~' `~. ~~'.'s~°,~,<~~ r..ry, ,ix ' at. 'a,$;~z > -.'~ . Y y. ~. ~,~ $s~.~,, <;.. . .p,.,. . ~ r. ~i: .~. -,~ ~ , "~ ~.~.; $ ,, ~ :t.~ -;:~we~+ ~ t~ ~ $~.,.,,:~„~ ~:. zA ~ 1.,,, :, k . $~#,~c.~ '3,: `~'~' . ~$ri~as,~ ri~-' r {r ~ .t3 ~ ~^si ~.~~ :. ~' . ~Er. ~ s+$~241~ +-... . ~.~ ;. { :$,~593~ ~,. ~'~ '°~ ,~$~a6"_33~ $ - ~ ~"'r"' . v': ~$~1467~ Adminis[ative Costs (averaged) - , , , ., , • , ~ • . . . -. . , ~ : . _ . ~, ~ ~ ~ nos $ 0.06 ~ - ..~.~ . $ 0.06 . ~ , ~ tl~.~ $. 0 06 ,. , ..~9~ ~ ~' $ 0.06 " .. . _. $ 0.06 6 _:' . ~ '$ ~,Q~ $ 0.06 ~$ $ 0.06 $ 0.06 ~ $ 0.06 $ 0.06 ~~,r. 9 $ 0.58 6~ ..,,~ ~,3'1 ~ (~~ ~"