HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.1 Amend Alameda Co Transport Expend Plan CITY OF DUBLIN 0� Q
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: . July 28, 1986
SUBJECT Written Communications regarding Amended Alameda
County Transportation Expenditure Plan
EXHIBITS ATTACHED Resolution; Expenditure Plan dated July 18, 1986
RECOMMENDATION Consider request to approve the amended Expenditure
Plan
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The proposal would allow voters to approve a 1/2�
increase in the sales tax throughout Alameda County to
fund necessary transportation improvements . The
supplemental tax would be levied for fifteen years .
Local maintenance contributions to City of Dublin are
estimated at $99, 788 annually .
DESCRIPTION At the regular City Council meeting on July 14 , 1986 ,
the City Council approved the transportation expenditure plan contingent on
successful negotiation between LAVTA and BART.
Subsequent to that action, the Alameda County-wide Transportation Committee
has taken action on an amended Transportation Plan. The amended plan
includes an agreement worked out between BART and LAVTA representatives on
the sponsorship of the Dublin Canyon Rail Extension project . In addition,
an amendment was made to the distribution of local maintenance funds . Some
of the North County cities felt that a disproportionate amount of the funds
were being provided to projects in other parts of the County . The greatest
unmet needs in the North County area were local streets . Therefore, the
formula for the distribution of funds was modified. The revised formula
will provide for the City of Dublin an estimated $99 , 788 per year for local
streets- and roads . The amended plan addresses the need for the inclusion of
projects throughout the County in order to provide a consensus .
Councilmember Jeffery was the City ' s representative on the County-wide
Transportation Committee and may provide additional information on the
amendment. Staff recommends that the City Council consider the amended plan
and if appropriate, adopt the Resolution.
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO.
RESOLUTION NO. - 86
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING THE TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN
DATED JULY 18, 1986 AND
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 64-86
WHEREAS, Alameda County has continued to grow and
prosper; and
WHEREAS, with that growth has come increased traffic
congestion; and
WHEREAS, State and Federal sources of transportation
improvement funds have been continually reduced over the past
several years ; and
WHEREAS, the dwindling funds have caused necessary
transportation projects to go unfunded; and
WHEREAS, the approval of this resolution shall rescind
the action taken in Resolution No. 64-86 .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin
does hereby approve the attached Transportation Expenditure Plan
recommendation, as approved by the Alameda Countywide
Transportation Committee . The Expenditure Plan includes , but is
not limited to, the cost estimates and project list, the
recommendation regarding administration of the sales tax, and the
makeup of the administering authority; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is directed
to forward Resolutions to the Alameda Countywide Transportation
Committee .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of July,
1986 .
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
° COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
.-----� 399 Elmhurst Street • Hayward. CA 94544-139: ^
(415) 881-6443
I
July 18, 1986
City of Dublin
P. 0. Box 2340
Dublin CA 94568
TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN
Enclosed is the Expenditure Plan recommendation for the proposed 2¢ sales tax for
transportation. This plan was approved by the Alameda County-wide Transportation
Committee at a special meeting on July 17, 1986. In order for the Board of Super-
visors to consider putting this matter on the ballot, it is necessary that your
city council take formal approval action no later than July 30, 1986. In order
for the proposal to be put on the ballot, the enabling legislation (Senate Bill
878) requires that the plan be approved by a majority of the cities containing a
majority of the population within the County, as well as the Board of Supervisors.
Therefore, the approval of each city is critical . I request that you have the
formal resolution expressing your city's action on this plan delivered to my
office not later than the close of business on July 30, 1986.
Pursuant to Senate Bill 878, the enclosed, recommended Transportation Expenditure
Plan includes the following elements:
• a recommendation as to the amount of the tax and the length of the time it will
be in effect
a recommendation regarding who should administer the tax and the make-up of the
administering body
• a recommendation as to project priority
• a recommendation as to the bonding authority
• a list of essential transportation projects in prioritized groupings with their
respective sponsoring agencies
• an estimate of the cost of each project
• an estimate of the current sources of state and federal assistance available to
complete these projects
• an estimate of anticipated short-funding indicating that there is likely to be
a serious short-fall of federal and state assistance available to fund these
projects
City of Dublin
July 18, 1986
Page 2
In addition, a funding breakout is provided indicating the amount of funds which
each city will receive for local street maintenance.
Passage of this 2¢ sales tax could help alleviate some of the serious transporta-
tion problems facing Alameda County. I urge speedy approval by your city council .
Should any of your councilmembers have questions, I would be pleased to discuss
the proposal with them. My telephone number is 874 7681 .
Robert G. Knox
Supervisor,
District 4
RGK:HAF:ams
Enclosure
r
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
,
_— --� 399 Elmhurst Street a Hayward.CA 94544-1395
�u (415) 881-6443
RDA �vt�
EXPENDITURE PLAN RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation for Sales Tax
The Countywide Transportation Committee has found that a retail transactions
and use tax ordinance would be necessary to fund the attached priority list of
essential transportation projects.
Therefore, the Committee recommends:
1) That a 1/2¢ sales tax be placed on the ballot to last for a period of
15 years to finance needed transportation projects in Alameda County; and.
2) That the Board of Supervisors request the voters to authorize that a new
County Transportation Authority be formed to administer the funds. Addition-
ally, it is recommended that the make-up of the authority be as follows:*
5 members of the Board of Supervisors
2 representatives appointed by the Mayors Conference from the
cities of Hayward, Fremont, Newark, Union City, Pleasanton,
Livermore, and Dublin
1 representative appointed by the Mayors Conference from the
cities of San Leandro, Oakland, Alameda, Albany, Berkeley,
Emeryville, & Piedmont
1 representative designated by the Mayor- of Oakland
The City representatives shall be elected officials.
3) All projects will carry a Number 1 priority within the expenditure plan.
4) That the new County Transportation Authority be authorized to bond for the
purposes of building transportation projects. The bond shall be for the
amount of the project only and will be paid with the proceeds of the retail
transactions and use tax. The authority may not bond for the annual incre-
ments given to local entities, A.C. Transit, or Paratransit.
July 18, 1986
r,
July 18, 1986
Essential Transportation Projects List
Pursuant to SB 878, below is the recommended list of projects which_ the
Transportation Committee has approved for distribution to the cities.
Project: Nimitz Freeway
Cost $220 million Sales tax contribution: $220 million
Sponsor: Caltrans
Description: This project will widen the Nimitz Freeway, Route 880, to eight
lanes from Alvarado-Niles Road to Route 262 and to ten lanes from
Route 262 to the Santa Clara County line, add auxillary lanes and
upgrade interchanges. The project will also include the modification
of the interchanges at Hegenberger Road, 98th Avenue, and Route 92
in Hayward. (1)
Project: Route 238 and Route 84
Cost $154 million Sales tax contribution: $134 million
Sponsor: Caltrans
Description: Route 238 will be built as a six lane freeway/expressway along
Foothill and Mission Boulevard to Industrial Parkway. From there to
Route 84 near Decoto Road, existing Mission Blvd. will be widened to
six lanes to existing Route 84. Route 84 will then be built along a
previously adopted alignment where rights of way have been acquired
to intersect with 880.
Note: Although the new route 84 will likely intersect Route 238 somewhere
north of Peralta Avenue, the six lane conventional road is intended to
extend to Peralta Avenue. The remaining $20 million to complete the
Route will come from other sources; i.e. , local assessment districts, thus
providing leveraging for sales tax funds. The project is contingent upon
receipt of the $20 million. If it is not forthcoming, the project will
not be built. (2)
Project: Airport Roadway
Cost $77 million Sales tax contribution: $60 million
Sponsor: Port of Oakland
Description: This six lane roadway would be built from Harbor Bay/Maitland in Alameda
to Airport Drive and intersect with 880 at the 98th Avenue interchange.
Note: The $17 million dollar difference is expected to be made up by
local sources such as assessment districts in order to leverage sales tax
money. This project is contingent upon receipt of the $17 million. If it
is not forthcoming, the project will not be built.
(The primary reason the project is so expensive is that a taxiway
undercrossing must be constructed.)
Essential Transportation Projects List
Page 2
• July 18, 1986
Project: Route 13/Route_ 24 interchange
Cost $11 million Sales tax contribution: $11 million
Sponsor: Caltrans
Description: The current Route 13/24 interchange does not have full freeway to
freeway connections. This project would build the missing connections.
Project: I 580-680 interchange modification
Cost $54 million Sales tax contribution: $44 million
Sponsor: Caltrans
Description: This interchange modification would provide for a freeway to freeway
connection from southbound 680 to eastbound 580. The ramp connecting
westbound 580 to northbound 680 will be improved as well . The remaining
$10 million will come from local assessment districts in order to
leverage sales tax funds. The project will be contingent upon receipt
of the $10 million. It it is not forthcoming, the project will not be
built. (3)
project: Route 84
Cost $45 million Sales tax contribution: E20 million
Sponsor: City of Livermore, Caltrans
Description: Route 84 currently runs along Vallecitos Road from Scotts Corner
to Route 580 in Livermore. This project would build a new
alignment roadway - initially two lanes - along Isabel Avenue
to Route 580. Depending on the amount of private contributions,
the road will eventually be a six lane expressway.
Project: Dublin Canyon Rail Extension/Warm Springs BART Extension
Cost $565 million Sales tax contribution: $170 million
Sponsor: BART/LAVTA (4)
Description: This project includes two parts: the Dublin Canyon Rail extension
and the Warm Springs BART extension. Dublin Canyon will consist
of a rail line from the Bayfair BART station along the I-580 corridor.
Whether this line will be light or heavy rail will depend on the outcome
of a locally produced Alternatives Analysis addressing this corridor.
The Warm Springs BART extension is planned to extend from the Fremont
BART station to Warm Springs.
Dublin Canyon is expected to cost $220 million in a heavy rail con-
figuraton, and Warms Springs $345 million. A total of $170 million
is to be allocated from sales tax revenues for the Dublin Canyon
portion of this project. No sales tax revenue will be allocated to
the Warm Springs extension until the Dublin Canyon extension is fully
funded--and ready for implementation. (5) - - -
Essential Transportation Pr__.:cts List Page 3
July 18, 1986
Project: AC Transit
Cost $115 million
Sponsor: AC Transit
Description: Annually, 11.617% of the total tax revenue generated will be allocated
for operations and maintenance. This percentage will allow AC to
realize both inflation and real economic growth. Any real growth
beyond the 2.3% predicted will also be shared with AC to a cap of
$20 million.
This money will be subject to performance criteria established
along the lines of the current MTC requirements. (6)
Project: Paratransit Funding
Cost $15 million
Sponsor: Alameda County
Description: This 1.515% annual supplement to paratransit services will be
administered by Alameda County. The allocation will be adjusted
in accordance with inflation. Alameda County will work with MTC
in determining the distribution of funds. (7)
Project: Local Streets and Roads
Cost $183 million
Sponsor: Cities & County
Description: Annually, 17.78% - 18.9% of the revenue generated by the sales tax
will be allocated to the fourteen cities and the County for the
improvement of local transportation including streets and roads. The
distribution of the funds will be based on utilization of the
Mayors Conference Formula for gas tax and the following: (8, 9 & 10)
A. Years 1-5
1) 10.3% of the annual revenue will be allocated to all the Cities
and the County.
2) 7.48% of the annual revenue will be allocated to the North County
cities only. (11)
B. Years 6-15
1) 10.3% of the annual revenue will be allocated to all the Cities
and the County.
2) 8.6% of the annual revenues will be allocated to the North County
Cities until the North Cities have reached a ceiling of $159
million. When that point is reached, the allocation will return
to its original 7.48%.
Essential Transportation P, !cts List Page 4
July 18, 1986
Project: Marina Boulevard/Fairway Drive Circulation Improvements
Cost $13.5 million
Sponsor: City of San Leandro - -
Description: This project includes 1 ) the widening of Marina Boulevard between
I 880 and San Leandro Boulevard ($8 million) , 2) constructing an
overcrossing across I 880 to connect Fairway Drive with 'Aladdin
Avenue ($5 million) , and 3) extending Teagarden Street between
Monague Avenue and Aladdin Avenue ($0.5 million) .
Total = $ 985,500,000
+ administration (12) = 4,500,000
Total = $ 990,000,000
Revenue Generation* _ $ 990,000,000
* Revenue Projections
The Committee' s projections are based on $56 million annual sales tax
revenue (1986 dollars) plus 2.3% real growth. All costs are in 1986
dollars. (Figures provided by MTC and the State Board of Equalization.)
FOOTNOTES
(1) - A series of locally funded"interchange modifications are programme or
the Fremont area. If the widening of the Nimitz necessitates additional
work on these interchanges, the work will be paid for with sales tax revenues.
(2) Cost break-out is as follows:
A) Rte. 238 Hayward Bypass - 6 lane freeway/expressway '
(includes sale of excess right of way) $ 70M
B) Rte. 238 through Union City
widening existing Mission Blvd. to 6 lanes 15M
C) Rte 84 - 4 lane freeway 55M
D) Engineering/Design 14M
$154M
(3) The remaining connections of this interchange will be built when and if
needed from traditional funding sources.
(4) BART would be solely responsible for any portion of the project utilizing
BART technology. Implementation of other alternative modes would be through
mutual agreement of joint sponsors; i .e. , BART and LAVTA.
(5) BART' s Financial Plan has tentatively indicated a commitment of $40 million
to this corridor, $20 million of which has been identified.
(6) It is the goal of the Committee that this money assist AC 'Transit in the
implementation of their Comprehensive Plan.
(7) The Paratransit allocation will be primarily an operations subsidy with
discretion to provide maintenance or capital money as needed.
(8) These funds will be available to jurisdictions for street and road maintenance
as well as other transportation projects. This is meant to include transit
projects. One particular project has been raised for consideration:
(A) The LAVTA Bus Terminal Facility. This facility is expected to cost
approximately $4 million to complete. The only sales tax money usable on
this project would be that allocated to the cities & county for local
projects.
July 18, 1986
Footnotes
Page Two
(9) Section 4 of Proposition 13 requires that substantial new tax revenues not
replace property taxes cut back because of Proposition 13. Since under the
Expenditure Plan substantial revenues will flow to local governments and
jurisdictions, the County' s Special Counsel has advised that the Expenditure
Plan include language similar to that included in Section 142257 {b) of
Senate Bill 878 regarding Fresno County. To that end, prior to the authority
allocating funds, each local government shall certify to the authority that
the funds will not be substituted for property tax funds which are currently
utilized to fund existing local transportation programs. If the local
government is unable to segregate property tax revenues from other general
fund revenues which cannot be so distinguished, substitution of funds from
the authority for general funds is also prohibited.
(10) The Mayors Conference Formula for gas tax divides the money based 50% on
population and 50% on road miles.
(11) North Cities include Albany, Alameda, Oakland, Piedmont, Berkeley, Emeryville and
San Leandro. South Cities include Hayward, Newark, Union City, Fremont,
Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin.
(12) SB 878 allows for this amount to be up to 1% of the total revenue generated.
The Authority may chose to use the full amount.
July 18, 1986
°; COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
399 Elmhurst Street • Hayward. CA 94.544-1395
(415) 881-6443
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT FUNDING SHORTFALLS
PROJECT COST 1124 FUNDS STIP FONDS LOCAL*
Ca-11 $ in hundred thousands )
Nimitz $270 (2 ) . $220 $50 $0
238/84 $154 $134 $20
13/24 $11 $11 $0
Cross Airport $77 $65 $12
580/680 $54 $44 $10
Rte. 84 $46 .8 (2 ) $20 $1 .8 $25
Dublin Canyon/
Warm Springs **
Extension $566 (2 ) $170 $1 $395
A C Transit - ( 1) $75 (1 )
Paratransit - ( 1) $15
Local allocations - (1 ) $20
Marina Blvd./
Fairway Drive
Circulation
Improvements $13 .5 $13 .5 $0
*Local match money will come from local sources, not State or Federal
money, except in the case of BART.
** Some of this money will come from BART, other money will come from
Federal sources.
(1 ) Not applicable
(2) Costs include STIP money programmed for 1986-1991 . Other P7/1�/86
have no STIP money allocated.
n
`., °= COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
399 Elmhurst Street •Hayward. CA 94544-139:1
'u (415) 881-6443
1��I► �Ut,
LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING SHORTFALL ESTIMATES
MTC has provided the Transportation Committee with funding estimates for the
next 15 years. They are divided into transit and highway categories. The first
column indicates large scale, complete projects Alameda County feels might be
necessary over the next 15 years. The second column indicates the amount of funding
programmed to be spent by the State for the next 5 year period. The figures at the
bottom of each category show the estimated shortfall .
These calculations show that even with somewhat liberal estimates of funding,
there will be substantial shortfalls over the next 15 years, especially in the
highway category.
Highway projects Cost (in millions) Current Sources of Funds
Nimitz Freeway $385 $50
Route 238 $280 $ 0*
Route 61 $150 $ 0*
13/24 Interchange $ 11 $ 0
Route 84 $160 $1.8
Route 80 $ 65 $26
Route 262 $ 29 $ 0
Route 680 $ 52 $40
Route 580/680
Interchange $250 $ 0
TOTAL $1.382 billion $117.8 million
Additionally possible from State (over 15 years) $257.2
($ in hundred thousands)
Total cost $1.382
-Total Revenue $ 375
Shortfall $1 .007 billion
*Some money• al located- for non-capaci-ty. improvements such as dr.ai.nage. _._ ..
July 18, 1986
n
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
399 Elmhurst Street a Hayward.CA 94544-139:
'u (415) 881-6443 _
Transit projects Cost (in millions) Allocated funds
BART Extensions:
Warm Springs $345 51*
Dublin $220 $0
Pleasanton $ 80 50
Livermore $200 $0
Oakland Airport
Connector Line $ 95 $0
TOTAL $940 $1
Possible from Federal funding $1-200
Total cost $940 Total revenue $1-200
Shortfall = $739-939 million
*Funding allocated for Alternatives analysis study.
Local Projects
Alameda County is estimated to have $120M in backlogged maintenance needs. An
allocation of 17.78% - 18.9% of the annual sales tax revenues will begin to address
the more serious problems; however, a shortfall will still exist.
July 18, 1986
U
• � .i��. � .�,+1••' � INTERCHANGE
INTERCHANGE V�
Ci
c �
.,.. --• h ._.gyp._.. . -.__ h�e _. ------ --- ., . __ _. . _ ._
Sout.fn, ` n0tta ypiTw/w
��
2~`� ; '�
01 R
5
\ 10 LANE
EIGHT-LANE FREEWAY FREEWAY
LOCATION MAP
*** ROUTE 880 (NIMITZ) WIDENING ***
PROJECT SCOPE AND ESTIMATE OF COST
Project estimated cost and Description - This $220 million dollar project
will widen Route 880 to eight-lanes from Alvarado Niles Road to Route 262
and to 10 lanes from Route 262 to the Santa Clara County line, add
auxiliary lanes and upgrade interchanges and overcrossings to meet in-
terstate standards. The proposed work will also involve the modification
of the interchanges at Hegenberger Road and 98th Avenue in Oakland, and at
Route 92 in Hayward.
Project_justification - The Fremont/Hayward area is heavily 'industrialized
with large amounts of truck traffic. The heaviest use is by commute
traffic. The burgeoning employment opportunities in Santa Clara County
are creating a heavy demand on the freeway system. When demand is at its
greatest, the interchanges along this segment are heavily congested and
numerous accidents occur. Ramp traffic frequently backs up onto the
freeway. This project would allow for smoother traffic flow and reduce
grid lock conditions on the local arterials leading the freeway.
Additional funding - Funding is currently programmed for the following
projects:
o Widen Route 880 to six-lanes from Alameda County line in the north to
Route 262.
o Modifications to interchange of Route 880 and Route 262 (interim) .
o Modification of Durham Road, Paseo Padre, Fremont Blvd. and Dixon
Landing Road overcrossings.
o Widen Route 880 to eight-lanes from Davis Street to Alvarado-Niles
Road.
_ _-�--- rev. 7/16/86
ESTIMATE OF COST
Route 880 in Ala . Co.
From Alvarado-Niles Rd to SCI Co. Line
. Fwy widening )
. Central Ave. & Paseo Padre O.C. )
** )
. Dixon Landing Rd, Rte 262 (Mission Blvd) , ** ) $145 million
Stevenson Blvd, Mowry, Thornton Ave. , )
Alvarado/Fremont Blvd, & Alvarado-Niles I/C ' s )
I/C Modifications North of Alvarado-Niles Rd
. Route 92 )
98th Ave. ) $. 75 million
Hegenberger Rd )
* $220 million
* Includes preliminary and construction engineering
** Additional work above specially funded project in STIP
SIX-LANE HIGHWAY `�. •
Q P
SIX-LANE ----
EXPRESSWAY/ FREEWAY P
/SIX-LANE /.
FOUR -
�•`•C z FREEWAY �•'
,..... / k
A (APPROXIMATE
r� LOCATION) ,.• `�
Cr1
LOCATION MAP
*** CONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 238 AND ROUTE 84
PROJECT SCOPE AND ESTIMATE OF COST
Protect estimated cost and description - This $154 million dollar project
(Sales tax contribution of $134 million dollars) will construct that
portion of Route 238 from Route 580 along Mission Boulevard to Route 84
near Decoto Road and then down along Route 84 to the interchange with
Route 880 (Nimitz Freeway) . The work will consist of constructing a six-
lane freeway/expressway from Route 580 to Industrial Boulevard in Hayward,
the widening of existing Mission Blvd. to six lanes to existing Route 84,
and finally constructing an initial four, ultimate six-lane freeway
through to Route 880. The new alignment of Route 84 is generally along
the previously adopted alignment where rights-of-way have been acquired.
pj�c�oi justification - The southern part of Alameda County is served by only
one north-south freeway corridor, Route 880. This area is expected to be
one of the fastest growing areas of the county and will need an alter-
native to this existing corridor in the future. Route 238/84 will
immediately provide relief to congested Foothill Boulevard and Mission
Boulevard and is likely to relieve some traffic loads on Route 880 .
Additionally, Route 238 can be built in a short time frame.
rev. 7/16/86
ESTIMATE OF COST
Route 238 in Hayward and Union City and Route 84 in Fremont
Route 238 in Hayward $ 70 million
Route 238 in Union City $ 18 million
Route 84 in Fremont $ 66 million
* $154 million,
* Includes preliminary and construction engineering.
INTERCHANGE -
�_ N
BAY F.RA ISLAND
LAX ,
IR
y1 «dBV 1 f
- IMIER +• ' 112 185
rr.
-7 ` 580
Castro'Valley
•�: ' .. '•';.•• SAN EANDRO � .;•�`����. r �c
` .
SIX—LANE
\ X—LANE DIVIDED ROADWAY Son
.-
Lorenzo
� _ - ^cam
LOCATION MAP
** AIRPORT ROADWAY ***
PROJECT SCOPE AND ESTIMATE OF COST
Project cost and description - This $77 million dollar project (Sales tax
contribution of $60 million dollars) would build a new six-lane divided
roadway from Bay Farm Island through the Oakland International Airport to
the Nimitz Freeway (Route 880) . Additionally, a taxiway undercrossing
will be built. The roadway would begin at the intersection of Harbor
Bay/Maitland in Alameda and extend southerly parallel to the north airport
runway where it would then proceed easterly along Airport Drive and 98th
Avenue to the Route 880/98th Avenue interchange.
Project justification - The project would provide traffic benefits for air
passengers, commuters, and businesses at Oakland International Airport,
and industrial areas east of the Airport. This roadway will meet the
projected growth in East Bay air passenger and air cargo demand for access
to Oakland Airport. The roadway will provide an excellent alternative
regional expressway for traffic to the airport and industrial areas from
the Nimitz Freeway. This traffic diversion would improve the levels of
service for local intersections and arterials.
Project note - There will be an interchange modification at 98th avenue and
Route 880 as part of the Route 880 improvements.
" Addi'tional - funding - The right -of way -for this project will be provided--in- .- ---. _ .
part by the Port of Oakland.
tJr inoo
\\(I)2131
BERKELEY
`-
°� EMERYVILLE
24 `� INTERCHANGE �" 1
177 • `\' / I
PIEDMONT \ " 1�^ �� `` ;!�MORAGA ;
/ice• � 1. �. �' '
L 580 1
us
'•r -_ Ill/, ii i ,e.: .
Y �u �� OAKLAND �\ I �„ /
2 0;LOCATION MAP
*** ROUTE 13 AND ROUTE 24 INTERCHANGE **
(Warren Freeway and Grove Shafter Freeway)
PROJECT SCOPE AND ESTIMATE OF COST
Protect cost and description - This $11 million dollar project will provide _
the missing ramps for freeway to freeway travel at the existing
interchange.
Project justification - Currently, traffic at this intersection must use city
streets to go from Highway 13 to 24 and vice versa. Additional time for
each trip is approximately five minutes. This project will reduce both
congestion on city streets and the traffic accident rate.
rev. 7/16/81
j" -- - --- - - - rl-- - ----- - -
DA CO
i Ij I I
\ \Son Roinoq -'�IN.E . I li
`— V Iloge ! A, I RGt.Crrc
INTERCHANGE
rL 'P LIBLN , II r 1. i 1 LAS 'I Fcs ;.s _.
.:.:.•�
RA^.�NG' J $G�,'? RIIA lry(R4.iR!VJNi:!nr. 84
\ \\\ 0l1 y i. \ PRIOR: J \�• .,
1\ f `� �' / LIVERMOR
r:f' y �
iAYWARD L
PLEASANTON ! --
LOCATION MAP
* ROUTE 580 AND ROUTE 680 INTERCHANGE *
PROJECT SCOPE AND ESTIMATE OF COST
Proiect cost and description - This $54 million dollar project (Sales tax
contribution of $44 million dollars) will provide a portion of a full
directional interchange to replace the existing cloverleaf loops with one
freeway-to-freeway direct connection in the southbound to eastbound direc-
tion (portions) . The westbound to northbound ramp will also be improved.
Project justification - Commercial and residential growth in the cities of
Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore, and San Ramon has been increasing rapidly.
This recent growth is creating a cumulative impact which will cause a
breakdown of the Route 580/680 Interchange before the freeways themselves
reach capacity. Congestion during weekends caused by recreational traffic
is as bad as the weekday commuter congestion . The interchange
modification will allow a freer flow of vehicles through this interchange.
\
J
--`�— I _E - { - o
I g Im , ��1 111 :
I. s,
1 J.
Z �• /
--���`1— Z.• � 11`� TWO—LANE ROAD
am mom
TI s.. ..0 _
Z Q
LU
III I Z
LOCATION MAP
*** ROUTE 84 EXPRESSWAY
PROJECT SCOPE AND ESTIMATE OF COST
Protect cost and description - This $45 million dollar project (Sales tax
contribution of $20 million dollars) proposes to construct a two lane road
from Vallecitos Road to 580 at Collier Canyon Road. Right of way required
to make this alignment into a six-lane expressway will be acquired at this
time.
Protect Justification - Route 84 has been projected to be at capacity in the
near future. The major problems are this route' s present alignment and
intersections along the existing alignment. This proposed work would
provide an alignment for Route 84 which would allow a safer corridor for
anticipated traffic loads as well as allow future growth in capacity along
this alignment.
Additional Funding - Additional funding may be available for up to a six-lane
expressway from Route 580 south to at least Stanley Boulevard in addition
to the two lane road proposed in this project. Additional funding will be
from other than the State.
7/16/86
r '
colt I
'5 vi.11096
RAIL LINE
les ��• �l 9 WITH DIRECT B.A.R.T. CONNECTION
\SAY FAIR seo: Costr,,Volley �'' �� • �� '
238
Lorenzo\` HAYWARD
�• i
z.
LOCATION MAP
DUBLIN CANYON RAIL-EXTENSION *
PROJECT SCOPE AND ESTIMATE OF COST
Project cost and description This $565 million dollar project is comprised
of two parts: a rail transit extension from BART, s Bay Fair Station to
Dublin, with an additional station in Castro Valley; and another extension
from BART's Fremont Station to Warm Springs, with an additional station in
Irvington.
The Dublin Canyon Extension proposes to construct a rail line from the
Bayfai r BART station along the Route 580 corridor to Dublin. Heavy rail
would cost $220 million dollars, and light rail is expected to cost ap-
proximately $180 million dollars; however, the light rail estimate is
pending a cost study.
The proposed sales tax will provide $170 million toward this project. No
new sales tax revenue will be allocated to the Warm Springs Extension
until the Dublin Canyon portion of the project is fully funded and ready
for implementation.
Project Justification - Several transportation studies have shown a tremen-
dous need for transit to and from the Tri-Valley area. The geography of
the Dublin Canyon makes the continued widening of existing freeways
impossible. It will be necessary to construct a rail line through this
corridor to augment the freeway system that is now in place and allow for
a direct BART connection using rail vehicles to the valley. The existing
freeways have rights-of -way- -which provide for this.alternative and its
early construction will add much to provide efficient and needed
transportation.
-/� i
N /' \/
WIDENING _
EXTENSION
�. SAN
OVERCROSSING LEANDRO
LOCATION MAP
*** MARINA BOULEVARD/FAIRWAY DRIVE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS **
PROJECT SCOPE AND ESTIMATE OF COST
project estimated rest and description - This $13 .5 million dollar project
includes three elements: 1) the widening of Marina Boulevard between I-880
and San Leandro Boulevard ($8 million) , 2) constructing an overcrossing
across I-880 to connect Fairway Drive with Aladdin Avenue (35 million) ,
and 3) extending Teagarden Street between Montague Avenue and Aladdin
Avenue ,($.5 million) .
Project justification - Marina Boulevard is presently a narrow 4-lane ar-
terial street carrying 23,000 vehicles per day, including a high percentage
of trucks. The widened street is proposed to be 5 lanes (3 eastbound, 2
westbound, plus bike lanes and a median turn lane) and will provide the
capacity needed for the future projected traffic volume of 33,000 vehicles.
The Fairway Drive overcrossing is proposed to be a 2-lane facility projected
to carry a future daily traffic volume of 11,000 vehicles. This facility
will provide an alternative to Marina Boulevard, where congestion is
increasing rapidly. The Teagarden extension provides the critical connection
between Marina Boulevard and Fairway Drive on the east side of I-880. It
will be a 2-lane industrial roadway and is projected to carry 6400 vehicles
per day. The combined effect of these three improvements will be improved
circulation between industrial areas in San Leandro and rel ief for the con-
jestion on Marina Boulevard and at the Marina Boulevard/I-880 interchange..
The project will provide improved access to I-880 , improved traffic
operations at the Marina Boulevard/I-880 interchange, and improved local
circulation.
FUND. DISTRIBUTION TO CITIES FOR LOCAL STREET REPAIR
ANNUAL REVENUE
County-wide = 56,800,000 (10.3% of $990 millions/16 years or $102 millions/16 years)
North 1-6 yrs $4,933,333 (7.47% of $990 millions/16 years or $74 millions/16 yours)
North 6-15 $6,666,667 (8.6% of $990 millions/16 years or $05 millions/16 years)
-------- --------------------------
Jan 84 % Miles % Ave. I North % I County-Wide lat to 6th Total ! 6th to 16th Total
Pop. Pop. Road Road % I County Funds Year Funds I Year Funds
----------------------------------•-----------------------------------------------------------------------7----------------------------------
Alameda • 74,900 6.39% 96 3.18% 4.79% I 4.79% 9.05% 1 $325,462 $475,821 $901,283 1 $646,661 $872,013
Albany 16,300 1.31% 27 0.90% 1.10% 1 1.10% 2.23% 1 $76,136 $109,847 $184,983 1 •$126,176 $201,312
Berkeley 106,600 9.08% 221 7.41% 8.26% 1 8.26% 16.62% 1 $560,671 $819,694 $1,380,305 : •• $941,640 $1,502,211
Dublin 18,660 1.33% 40 1.61% 1.47% : 0.00% 0.00% : $90,788 $0 $99,788 1 . t0 $99,788
Emeryville 3,970 0.34% 18 0.60% 0.47% 1 0.47% 0.95% 1 $32,023 $46,817 $78,840 $53,776 $85,799
Fremont 143,200 12.21% 371 12.43% 12.32% 1 0.00% 0.00% 1 $838,017 $0 $838,017 : 10 $830,017
Hayward 98,700 8.42% 217 7.27X 7.66% : 0.00% 0.00% 1 $533,493 00 $533,493 1 00 $533,493
Livermore 61,900 -4.43% 174 6.83% 5.13% 1 0.00% 0.00% 1 $340,773 $0 $340,773 1 $0 $348,773
Newark 36,600 3.04% 94 3.15% 3.09% 1 0.00% 0.00% 1 $210,348 00 $210,348 : $0 $210,348
Obkland 361,600 29.99% 702 26.21% 20.104 : 28.10% 68.62% 1. $1,910,697 $2,793,413 $4,704,110 ! $3,208,660 $6,119,847
Piedmont 10,660 0.90% 43 1.44% 1.17% 1 1.17% 2.36% 1 $79,691 $110,361 $196,951 1 $133,658 $213,213
Pleasanton 38,350 3.27% 112 3.76% 3.61% 1 0.00X 0.00% : $238.833 $0 $238,833 $0 $238,033
San Leandro 66,400 5.66% 174 6.83% 6.76% 1 5.76% 11.68% 1 $390,825 $671,380 $962,206 $656,316 $L,047,140
Union City 46,950 3.92% 112 3.76% 3.04% 1 0.00% 0.00% 1 $260,874 $0 $260,974 1 $0 $260,874
Unincorporated 113,900 9.72% 496 16.62% 13.17% : --0_00% 0.00% 1-----$896,470 --$0 $896,470 ! -------$0 - $898,470
--------------------------------------------------------- --------- --------------- ------------- -----------
Total 1,172,370 100.00% 2,984 100.00%100.00% 49.62% 100.00% $6,600,000 $4,933.333 $11,733,333 $5,666,667 $12,466,667
------------------------------------------------------------------------••--
15 Years $102,000.000
5 Tears : $24.666,667
10 Tears $66,660,667
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 1 $102,000,000 $24,666,667 $60,668,667 $183,333,333
July 18, 1986