HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.2 Transportation Sales Tax Expend Plan 10&0 — q0
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 14, 1986
SUBJECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Regarding - Alameda County
Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan
EXHIBITS ATTACHED 1 ) Resolution
2 ) Letter dated July 1, 1986 from Bob Knox, Chair,
Alameda County Transportation Committee
3 ) Expenditure Plan Proposal
4 ) Letter dated July 8, 1986 from J. Lemm, President
of Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce
RECOMMENDATION Consider Request to Approve the Plan
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
DESCRIPTION For several months the Alameda Countywide
Transportation Committee has been working to develop an expenditure plan .
Councilmember Jeffery has been the City ' s participant on the committee .
Attached is a written request from the Chairman of the Alameda County
Transportation Committee, requesting that the City Council consider the
Expenditure Plan.
The State Legislature has approved SB 878, which will allow authorized
counties to increase their local sales tax in order to pay for
transportation improvements . Pursuant to the legislation an expenditure
plan must be developed and approved by 50 percent of. the cities in the
county. The cities approving the plan must represent 50 percent of the
population. The plan must than be sent to Board of Supervisors for approval
prior to August 8th. Provided that the plan receives the necessary
approvals it will be placed on the ballot for the November General Election.
At its July meeting the Alameda County Mayor ' s Conference supported the
basic expenditure plan with the latitude to negotiate adjustments which will
be amenable to cities supporting the funding of additional local street
projects .
The proposal will provide for an additional 1/2 cent sales tax which will be
levied countywide . The special tax levy will continue for 15 years . As
proposed the funds would be administered by a newly created County
Transportaion Authority . The membership of the Authority would be as
follows :
5 Members of the Board of Supervisors
2 Representatives from the Cities of Hayward, Fremont, Newark, Union
City, Pleasanton, Livermore and Dublin
2 Representatives from the Cities of San Leandro, Oakland, Alameda,
Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville and Piedmont
The City Representatives will be elected officials appointed by the Mayors '
Conference .
The expenditure plan outlines -10 specific projects throughout the County,
which could be funded through the special tax revenue . The plan includes
interchange improvements at the intersection of I-580 and _I-680 . A rail
extension from BART Bayfair Station to the Dublin/Pleasanton area. In
addition to the specific projects , $1 million each year will be provided to
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO. •
AGENDA STATEMENT: Alameda County Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan
Page 2
supplement existing paratransit funding. The expenditure plan also provides
for 20 percent of the funds to be utilized for local transportation
improvements . The funds will be provided to the cities on the basis of a
formula utilizing population and number of road miles within the
jurisdiction.
Action was taken by the BART Board regarding the sponsorship of. the rail
extension to the Dublin/Pleasanton area. The BART Board of Directors agreed
at their meeting on July 10 , 1986, to enter into a sponsorship agreement .
The agreement provides for BART to be the sponsor of the project, and
before implementing the project, BART will conduct a study to determine the
most appropriate technology. The study will determine whether light rail or
heavy rail would be the most effective mode of operation. BART staff has
indicated that their usual policy is to utilize a control board with local
representation during studies of this nature. The approved agreement will
require BART to coordinate the extension with local transit planning.
Staff would recommend that the City Council review the Expenditure Plan and
consider adoption of the Resolution supporting the plan. If any adjustments
as a result of ongoing negotiations are made to the plan after the City.
Council adopts the resolution, it may be necessary to adopt the amended plan
at the next regular City Council meeting.
RESOLUTION NO. - 86 IN
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
**************************
APPROVING THE ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE SALES TAX
EXPENDITURE PLAN
WHEREAS, the SB 878 authorizes the County of Alameda to
place a ballot measure before the voters in November of 1986 ; and
WHEREAS, approval of the ballot measure by the voters
will provide for an increase in the local sales tax to provide for
transportation improvements throughdut the County; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Transportation Committee has
prepared a Tax Expenditure Plan which outlines eligible projects ;
and
WHEREAS, the Tax Expenditure Plan must be approved by a
majority of the cities in the County and the Board of Supervisors
before it can be placed on the ballot.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Dublin does hereby approve the Transportation Sales
Tax Expenditure Plan .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the
City of Dublin urges approval by the Board of Supervisors to allow
the electorate an opportunity to vote on the measure .
1986 . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of July,
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
oA All"-1-80
(0
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ,
----- 399 Elmhurst Street • Hayward. CA 9.1544-1393
(415) 881-6443
�,aEl3A COV���
July 1 , 1986
V
'JUL
Richard Ambrose
Manager
City of Dublin
P. 0. Box 2340
Dublin CA 94568
Dear Mr. Ambrose:
As you are no doubt aware, the Alameda Countywide Transportation Committee
has been working on a 1/2¢ transportation sales tax expenditure plan for several
months. The proposed tax will have to be approved by at least 50% of the cities
representing 50% of the population. Then it will be sen't to the Board of Supervisors.
If they concur, the measure will be placed on the ballot for November.
The Transportation Committee held several public hearings and meetings to
gather testimony, and approved the attached recommended plan only after many hours
of discussion.
Because we are approaching deadlines established by the enabling legislation
and the Registrar of Voters, .the Committee is asking that the cities take approval
action by July 25th. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission will have taken
action by that time and the plan will be ready for County Counsel analysis and
forwarding to the Board of Supervisors. The Board is expected to take action on
August 5 as the ballot deadline is Friday, August 8.
I am fully aware that this is a serious matter to undertake in so short a
time. I hope you will feel free to contact either me at 874-7681 or Mary Kittleson,
the Committee Consultant, with any questions you may have. Additionally, the Council
representatives from the cities were very interested and will be an invaluable resource
as you proceed with your deliberations.
Again, I stand ready to respond to questions.
aSincerely,
G� Bob Kno
Chair, Alameda County Transportation Committee
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
-------� 399 Elmhurst Street • Hayward. CA 94544-1395
(415) 881-6443
July 3, 1986
To: All interested parties
From: Robert G. Knox, Chairman
Alameda Countywide Transportation Committee
Re: Attached expenditure plan proposal .
On Monday, June 30, 1986, a preliminary copy of the recommended expenditure
plan was released to the City Councilmembers who sit on the Transportation
Committee. Since that time, staff has refined the plan and it now is in
final form. The only remaining details involve the sponsorship of the
Dublin Canyon rail extension and the CrossAirport Roadway. These will be
resolved by the agencies involved and formalized by July 11 , 1986.
Additionally, signatures verifying the scope statements and cost estimates
are being collected from the various sponsoring agencies. These will be sub-
mitted to MTC for their review on July 18, 1986.
I hope that all those interested will continue to follow this process as the
Cities undertake to approve the attached expenditure plan.
Cities must approve the plan by resolution and it will then be sent to the
Board of Supervisors. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to
contact me.
0
t .9;� ' COUNTY OF ALAMEDA �
-----� 399 Elmhurst Street • Hayward. CA 94544-1395
(415) 881-6443
n
To Whom it may Concern:
As you are no doubt aware, the Alameda Countywide Transportation Committee
has been working on a 1/20 transportation sales tax expenditure plan for several
months. The proposed tax will have to be approved by at least 50% of the cities
representing 50% of the population. Then it will be sent-to the Board of Supervisors.
If they concur, the measure will be placed on the ballot for November.
The Transportation Committee held several public hearings and meetings to
gather testimony, and approved the attached recommended plan only after many hours
of discussion.
Because we are approaching deadlines established by the enabling legislation
and the Registrar of Voters, .the Committee is asking that the cities take approval
action by July 25th. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission will have taken
action by that time and the plan will be ready for County Counsel analysis and
forwarding to the Board of Supervisors. The Board is expected to take action on
August 5 as the ballot deadline is Friday, August 8.
I am fully aware that this is a serious matter to undertake in so short a
time. I hope you will feel free to contact either me at 874-7681 or Mary Kittleson,
the Committee Consultant, with any questions you may have. Additionally, the Council
representatives from the cities were very interested and will be an invaluable resource
as you proceed with your deliberations.
Again, I stand ready to respond to questions.
Sincerely,
G� Bob Kno
Chair, Alameda County Transportation Committee
t
or
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA �
-----� 399 Elmhurst Street • Hayward. CA 94544-139:
�u (415) 881-6443
*Z�
EXPENDITURE PLAN RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to SB 878, the attached recommended expenditure plan includes the
following elements:
'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 funding indicating that there is likely to be a
serious shortfall of Federal and State assistance available to fund these
projects.
'A recommendation as to the amount of the tax and length of time it will be
imposed for.
'A recommendation regarding who should administer the tax and the makeup of
the administering body.
'A recommendation as to whether bonding authority will be given.
July 3, 1986
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
------ 399 Elmhurst Street • Hayward. CA 94544-139.5
(415) 881-6443
f
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 a new County Transportation Authority be formed to administer the funds.
Additionally, it is recommended that the make-up of the authority be as
follows:*
5 members of the Board of Supervisors
2 representatives from the cities of Hayward,
Fremont, Newark, Union City, Pleasanton,
Livermore, and Dublin
2 representatives from the cities of San Leandro,
Oakland, Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville,
& Piedmont
The City representatives shall be elected officials appointed by the Mayor' s
Conference.
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 increments
given to local entities, A.C. Transit, or Paratransit.
*Per recommendation of sub-committee 7-2-86.
July 3, 1986
July 3, 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.
Project: Route 238
Cost $154 million Sales tax contribution: $134 million
Sponsor: Caltrans
Description: Route 238 will be built as a six lane expressway along Foothill and
Mission Boulevard to Industrial Parkway. From there to Route 84 near
Decoto Road a six lane conventional road will be constructed. Route 84
will then be built along a new, as yet undetermined alignment 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.
Project: Cross-Airport Roadway
Cost $77 million Sales tax contribution: $65 million
Sponsor: City of Alameda, Port of Oakland, City 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 $12 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 $12 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, 3, 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.
Project: Route 84
Cost $45 million Sales tax contribution: $20 million
Sponsor: City of Livermore, Alameda County
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 $180-220 million Sales tax contribution: $170 million
Sponsor: BART/LAVTA (To be finalized by July 11 , 1986.)
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 the study to be issued by the LAVTA/BART Joint Powers Agreement
regarding 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.
Essential Transportation PrL,._,:ts List Page 3
July 3, 1986
Project: AC Transit
Cost $75 million (5 million annual )
Sponsor: AC Transit
Description: Operations and maintenance money will be allocated to AC Transit.
The initial allocation will be $5 million annually, but will grow
with inflation (not real economic growth) .
This money will be subject to performance criteria established
along the lines of the current MTC requirements.
Project: Paratransit Funding
Cost $15 million ($1 million annual )
Sponsor: Alameda County '
Description: This $1 million 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.
Project: Transportation Planning
Cost $10 million -
Sponsor: Alameda County
Description: Current Caltrans Policy stipulates that planning can not be done on
highways that do not have funds allocated for their development.
Because of this policy, most long lead time projects cannot be studied.
Thus, this money would be used for feasiblity studies and coordinated
transportation planning efforts throughout the County.
Project: Local Streets and Roads
Cost $200 million
Sponsor: Cities & County
Description: Annually, 20% 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 the following:
-95% of the funds will be divided between the fifteen jurisdictions
according to the Mayor' s Conference Formula for gas tax; i .e. , 50%
based on percent of road miles and 50% based on percent of population.
-The remaining 5% will be allocated to those jurisdictions whose
percentage of the total County backlogged maintenance needs exceeds
their average percentage of population and road miles by more than 2%.
The initial maintenance backlog distribution will be based on findings
made in the 1982 MTC deficiency study. Following that, the new
County Transportation authority will prepare a deficiency study
biannually. These new figures will then be used to allocate funds.
The County will not share in the backlog distribution until completion
of the new deficiency study.
Please note the attached legal opinion on substitution of sales tax
funds for property tax on general funds.
Essential Transportation Projects List Page 4�
July 3, 1986
Local Streets and Roads continued.
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 = $ 979,500,000
+ 1% for administration = 9,795,000
Total = $ 989,295,000
Revenue Generation = $ 990,000,000
9
LEGAL OPINION
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, the County' s
Special Counsel has advised that the Expenditure Plan should include language
similar to that included in Section 142257 (b) of Senate Bill 878 regarding
Fresno County. Section 142257 (b) states that:
"Prior to the authority allocating funds, each local government
shall certify to the authority that the funds will not be sub-
stituted for property tax funds which are currently utliized 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,
substituion of funds from the authority for general funds is
also prohibited."
This language will be a part of the Expeniture Plan as it is finally approved.
June 27, 1986
Sf: ; COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
------� 399 Elmhurst Street • Hayward. CA 94544-1395
(415) 881-6443
ybE�
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 projects Alameda County feels will likely 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) - Allocated 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 $1.563 billion $117.9
Additionally possible from State $257.2
Total cost $1.563 Total revenue $375
Shortfall = $1.188 billion
*Some money allocated for non-capacity improvements such as drainage.
May 29, 1986
• a
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
399 Elmhurst Street Hayward. CA 94544-1395 ,
(415) 881-6443
DA I
Transit projects Cost (in millions) Allocated funds
BART Extensions:
Warm Springs $345 $1*
Dublin $220 $0
Pleasanton $ 80 $0
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 10% of the annual sales tax revenues will begin to address the
more serious problems; however, a shortfall will still exist.
Planning Projects
Caltrans current policy is to begin planning a project; i.e. , doing route
studies and environmental work, only when funds will be available to build the
project. Because funds are currently so scarce, it is increasingly difficult to
find long lead time projects. Given that, it is necessary to set aside some
funds to assist in the planning of those as yet unfunded projects which Alameda
County considers a high priority.
May 29, 1986 .
.
INTERCHANGE INTERCHANGE
—10 LANEA
-LANE FREEWAY FREEW
EIGHT REEWAY
LOCATION 0� � ��
"°" �� "
*** R["]TE 080 (NIMITZ) WIDENING ***
Prgject estimated cost ana description ~
- This $230 million dollar project
will widen Route 880 to eight-lanes from Alvarado Niles Road to Route 262
and to IO lanes from Route 282 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 Ma8enbergar Road and 98th Avenue In Oakland, and at
Route 92 in Hayward.
Froject 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
Qreatest^ 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:
• Widen Route 880 to six-Janes from Alameda County lino In the north to
Route 262.
• Modifications to interchange of Route 880 and Route 262 (interim) .
• Modification of Durham Road, paseo Padre, Fremmnt*B' vd. and Dixon
Landing Road ovmrcrmssings.
• Widen Route 880 to eight-lanes from Davis Street to Alvarado-Niles
Road.
• Modification of Qecoto Road Interchange. ~ 6-30-86
INTERCHANGE ~• II 1 �• \\
\\ I N •
••�� St � CM.:bV F
s n;<<•,.. tT � 117 185
Y
•^C 1
r C \ 580 -Castro Volley c'l
SAN o'EANDRO I ,t.,�JL , o
._S%'1,::•.o• \ 580
\ =
D6C.a,.,
` • SIX--LANE DIVIDED-ROADWAY Son
Lorenzo
- - - -- - -- Lorenzo\
~: Y
LOCATION MAP
* * CROSS-AIRPORT ROADWAY PR' cCT *
Project cost and description - This $77 million dollar project (Sales tax
contribution of $65 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.
Additional funding - The right of way for this project will be provided in
part by the Port of Oakland.
vrInca
-
BERKELEY
1 ,I
o\ EMERYVILLE
24 �` INTERCHANGE
QY
PIEDMONT ``• =� MORAGA
TREES'. ISLS'r0
•'I \ I
OAKLAND
` .. 260
LOCATION MAP
* ROUTE 13 AND ROUTE 24 INTERCHANGE * *
(Warren Freeway and Grove Shafter Freeway)
Protect cost and escrip on - 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.
_ \ C O
C0t1tR0 j C0 �, ( I I I
i
RANCHO
INTERCHANGE IF
—..—. l
��• \ .II )'II r C.._.. r. .� it 1
D\IN t' I i I I � �.•I LAS'/ FOSITAS /.
RANCH � SANTA RITA I IY \tvt 84
•.tIY[N AIRFORIUNICIVFI:
LIVERMOR
PLEASANTON
LOCATION MAP
ROUTE 580 AND ROUTE 680 INTERCHANGE ***
Project 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 connection 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.
]n• O l.ns.L.n 0 1 Q� �
-TWO-LANE ROAD .
o
TTT � -
Cr
LLJ
LOCATION MAP
* ROUTE 84 EXPRESSWAY **
Project cost and description - This $45 million dollar project (Sales tax
contribution of $20 million dollars) proposes to construct a two lane road
f rom Val l ecitos Road to 580 at Col l ier Canyon Road. Right of way requi red
to make this alignment into a six-lane expressway will be acquired at this
ti me.
Project justification Route 84 has been projected to be at capacity in the
near future. The major problems are this routes 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.
! SAN KuMUN
IAMADORI_C
G
COSI R O
�
' Son ,omo Co�t0.M��C
villop• J ► ,CA.P POO
C RECICNAL PA
RAIL LINE r s'
185 r, WITH DIRECT B.A.R.T. CONNECTION
e .
ib +
C„l,C-1 u b i n
580 II o., C, �
BAY FAIR ( C�volley J
vu Ev i
RANCH
238 S �+
Lorenzo HAYWARD
LOCATION MAP
*** DUBLIN CANYON RAIL-EXTENSION **
Proj ect cost and d .scri pti on - This $180 to $220 million dollar project
(Sales tax contribution of $170 million dollars) 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 approximately $180 million dollars; however, the light
rail estimate is pending a cost study.
Project _ification_ificatinn - 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 di rect 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.
`
'NI
WIDE N
NKI
ON
SAN
LEANDRO
"51
LOCATION M A P
~
***
MARINA BOULEVARD/FAIRWAY DRIVE CIROUL8TIDN IMPROVEMENTS ***
Project - This $l].S million dollar project
---------includes three elements: I) the widening of Marina Boulevard between I-880
and San Leandro Boulevard ($8 million), 3) constructing an overorossinQ
across I-800 to connect Fairway Drive with Aladdin Avenue ($5 million),
and 3} extending Tmagarden Street between Montague Avenue and Aladdin
Avenue ($^5 million) .
- Marina Boulevard is presently a narrow 4-lane
arterial street carrying 23 ,000 vehicles per day, including a high
percentage of truohs. 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 capacitv needed for the future projected traffic volume of
3»000 vehicles. - The Fairway Drive mverorossing is proposed to be a 2-
lane facilitv projected to carry a future daily traffic volume of 1Iv000
vehicles. ' his 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 6,000 vehicles per day. The combined effect of these
three improvements will be improved circulation between industrial areas
in San Leandro and relief for the oonYastion on Marina Boulevard and at
the Marina Boulovard/I-880 interchange. The project will provide improved
access to I-080^ improved traffic operations at the Marina Boulevard/I-880
interchange* and improved local circulation.
--
SIX—LANE HIGHWAY °
SIX—LANE
EXPRESSWAY/ FREEWAY P P
;•/r--- = _.�, � � J` it V ti�.�, 1�.'� I•II m
FOUR/SIX—LANE
FREEWAY
•' / '' �� e �� a� (APPROXIMATE
LOCATION) �j O
_V _
'7l'lwrp., (``� i.OJST Pi:I Q.., i7'i_rs•
? i
LOCATION MAP
*** CONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 238 AND ROUTE 84 ***
Project estimated cost and description - This $155 million dollar project
(Sales tax contribution of $135 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 expressway
through to Route 880 . The new alignment of Route 84 is generally along
the previously adopted alignment where rights-of-way have been acquired.
Project 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 1 ikel y to rel ieve some traffic loads on Route 880 .
Additionally, Route 238 can be built in a short time frame.
JUL
THE PLEASANTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE • 411 MAIN STREET • PLEASANTON, CA 94566 • 846-5858
July 8, 1986
Alameda County
Transportation Advisory Committee
County of Alameda
399 Elmhurst Street
Hayward, CA 94544 1395
Enclosure ( 1 ) Testimony of Mr. Keith Bernard, General Manager of the
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) to
the Alameda County Transportation Advisory Committee
Hearing on Essential Transportation projects , May 28 , 1986
Enclosure ( 2 ) Essential Transportation Projects List of the Alameda
County Transportation Advisory Committee for SB878 Funding
(Half Cents Sales Tax)
Enclosure ( 1 ) states that BART will not be able to generate the $110
million matching funds for the Dublin Canyon Rail Extension listed in
Enclosure ( 2 ) as required by SB878 Legislation (halfcent sales tax bill) .
BART states that even a light rail system for the Dublin Canyon Project
needs at least $180 million of SB878 funds . Enclosure ( 1 ) then proposes
that the Warm Springs Extension Project in Fremont be introduced and
that the Dublin Canyon and Warm Springs Projects be considered as a
"package" to get SB878 funds , even though the Warm Springs Project is
not presently in Enclosure ( 2 ) . BART claims in the table in Enclosure
( 1 ) that the Warm Springs project can receive $257 million of federal
funds during the next 15 years . BART then states that assuming their
prediction is correct about obtaining such federal funds , they will be
able to use the federal funds to satisfy the SB878 matching fund require
ment because $259 million of federal funds is more than 50% of the total
cost of the Dublin Canyon plus Warm Springs Projects as shown in the
above mentioned table .
We believe that any transit extension project in Alameda County that is
dependent for most of its funds from the Federal Government during the
next 15 years has essentially zero probability of ever being built be-
cause of the Federal Government ' s drastic cutbacks in mass transit exten-
sion funds during the past 7 years and probably also in the foreseeable
future . Compounding this almost hopeless Federal funding situation are
the very low priorities of such transit extensions within Alameda County
relative to the numerous other proposed competing projects throughout
the United States .
County of Alameda
July 8 , 1986
Page two
Therefore, the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce strongly supports the
I 580/680 Flyover ( interchange modification ) , Route 84 (Scott 's Corner
to Route I 580 ) Road Projects and the Dublin Canyon Rail Extension
Transit Project along with the corresponding sponsors and funding as
listed in Enclosure ( 2 ) without change. It is our understanding that a
LAVTA maintenance facility can be funded under the Local Street and Road
category in Enclosure ( 2 ) if the local cities decide to spend such funds
for this facility.
Sincerely yours ,
J. L. Lemm
President
cc: Mr. K. Bernard, General Manager of BART
Mr. H. Goode, Planning Director of BART
Mr. R. Allen, Director of BART
Mr. E. Campbell, Supervisor of Alameda County
Dublin City Council
Livermore City Council
Pleasanton City Council
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority
Dublin Chamber of Commerce
Livermore Chamber of Commerce
am
Enclosure ( 1 )
a
ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
HEARING ON ESSENTIAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
MAY 28, 1986
TESTIMONY OF KEITH BERNARD, GENERAL MANAGER
OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
YOUR COMMITTEE IS EVALUATING A LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY, INCLUDING A RAIL EXTENSION THROUGH DUBLIN
CANYON TO SERVE THE LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY AREA. THE PROGRAM
AS CURRENTLY DRAWN IS NOT ADEQUATE TO DELIVER THE DUBLIN
CANYON PROJECT ,
THE CURRENT LIST PROVIDES $110 MILLION FOR A DUBLIN CANYON RAIL
PROJECT FROM NEW SALES TAX FUNDS, WHICH IS TO BE MATCHED WITH
AN EQUAL AMOUNT FROM OTHER SOURCES TO BE OBTAINED BY BART , AS A
SINGLE PROJECT, BART WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GENERATE THE NEEDED
MATCHING FUNDS , BARTIS EXTENSION PROGRAM FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
DEPEND UPON FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THE WARM SPRINGS LINE WHILE
THE DUBLIN ROUTE DEPENDS UPON A MIX OF LOCAL FUNDS,
WHILE THE BART PLAN FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY AS A WHOLE CONTEMPLATES
A MATCH TO SB 878 FUNDS OF IN EXCESS OF 50% FOR THE TOTAL
PROGRAM, APPLICATION OF THIS REQUIREMENT TO THE DUBLIN PROJECT
ALONE WILL NOT ONLY UNDERMINE THE WHOLE PROGRAM, IT WILL ALSO
UNDERMINE THE DUBLIN LINE, AS A BART PROJECT ,
IF THE COMMITTEE DETERMINES THAT THE DUBLIN CANYON PROJECT IS
TO BE A BART CONSTRUCTED AND OPERATED LINE, EITHER LIGHT OR
HEAVY RAIL, I URGE YOU TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT TO BE PROVIDED
FROM THE SALES TAX FOR TWO IMPORTANT REASONS,
1 ,
-2-
. 1 , PROJECT DELIVERY THE FINANCING PLAN IN YOUR CURRENT LIST
IS NOT ADEQUATE TO DELIVER THE PROJECT, EVEN AS A LIGHT
RAIL LINE, LET ALONE AS A BART EXTENSION WITH HIGHER
SPEEDS ' ND DIRECT CONNECTION TO THE BART NETWORK,
2 , . PROGRAM BALANCE : A LARGER LOCAL COMMITMENT TO THE DUBLIN
CANYON. PROJECT WILL ACTUALLY ENHANCE THE FEASIBILITY OF
THE TOTAL ALAMEDA COUNTY BART PROGRAM,
THE ATTACHED TABLE SETS FORTH A POSSIBLE FINANCIAL PLAN WHICH
ILLUSTRATES A COMBINATION OF FEDERAL, SB 878, AND OTHER STATE
AND LOCAL MONIES TO ACCOMPLISH BART' S EXTENSION PROGRAM IN YOUR
COUNTY , I URGE YOU TO INCREASE THE SB 878 COMMITMENT TO THE
BART PROGRAM, YOUR ACTION IS A CRITICAL PIECE IN MAKING THIS
PROGRAM A REALITY ,
ATTACHMENT
ALAMEDA COUNTY BART PROGRAM
(POSSIBLE FINANCIAL PLAN)
PROJECT CONSTRU�IION FUNDING SOURCES
COST J (MILLIONS Ot DOLLARS)
SB 878
FEDERAL2) SALES TAX OTHERS)
DUBLIN EXTENSION 220 180 40
WARM SPRINGS EXTENSION 345 259 86
565 25,9 180 126
NOTES
1) ESTIMATED IN 1985 DOLLARS
2) 75%
3) STATE, ANNEXING COUNTIES, OTHER BART FUNDS
($26M ALREADY COMMITTED IN ALAMEDA COUNTY)
Enclodure ( 2 ) as of 6/12/86
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
_.———-- 399 Elmhurst Street a Hayward.CA 94544-1395
(415) 881-6443
Essential Transportation
Projects List
Cost
Priority Project Sponsor (Millions) Participation
ROAD
Nimitz Freeway - I-880 - 8 b 10 Caltrans $220
Lanes w/some Interchanges -
(Hegenberger, Rte. 92, 98th Ave.)
Rte. 238 - 580 to Fremont, Caltrans $155
Rte. 84 - 238 to 880
Cross-Airport Roadway City of Oakland, $ 65 $ 12 .
City of Alameda b
Port of Oakland
Rte. 13/24 Interchange Caltrans $ 11
I-580/680 Flyover Caltrans $ 54
(Interchange Modification)
Rte. 84 - Scott's Corner to Rte. 580 City of Livermore $ 20 $ 25
4-lane Expressway (6-lane R/W) b Alameda County
$525 $ 37
Dublin Canyon Rail-Extension OPEN $110 $110
(BART, LAVTA,
Alameda Co.)
A.C. Transit A.C. Transit $ 75
Paratransit (Elderly b Handicapped) Alameda County 3 7.5
$192.5 $147M
Cost
Priority Project Sponsor (Millions) Participation
PLANNING Alameda County $ 10
STREET ROADS
Improvement of local transportation Cities & County $104
including street & roads.
• Includes 10% annually to locals for
maintenance and construction.
• Marina Blvd. widening in San Leandro
• Consideration of light rail line down
Broadway in Oakland. No money allocated
for this project. Council approval pending.
NOTE: Funds to AC Transit, Paratransit and local streets and roads (with the
exception of thLspecified San Leandro projects) would increase proportionately
as the sales tax revenue generated increases.
ADMINISTRATION
Administration of new county authority not to $ 8,4
exceed 1% of revenues generated annually.
TOTAL