HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.5 TriVlyTranspDevFee
--CT'TY- C-l-E R K
File # [Z]lQJ~[Q]-[QJ[QJ
AGENDA STATEMENT
._~.~. ~- -~.. ,-~~............---._-
---------- '-.--. ClTY COUNCIL:-MEETING-'-oATE~Utfe1S;-1998---~' ~- .---_-_c=_ ~----. ~.. n:e-c.
SUBJECT:
EXHfBITS ATTACHED:
'~-
EXHIBITS AVAILABLE
AT PUBLIC HEARING:
':RECOl\i!MENl)ATION:'(ljvif I.'
.' '. .. .~. 2.
-- ."
". - - ~
PUBLIC F:u::~A.RING: TIi- Valley Transportation Development Fee
Report prepared by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director
1.
Proposed Resolution Establishing a T ri- Valley
Transportation Development Fee for Future Developments
within the City of Dublin
Attachments to Draft Resolution:_
Attachment A Tri- V alley Transportation Plan! Action
Plan for Routes of Regional Significance
Attachment B. Tri:" V alley Combined Study/I echnical
Report: Status andFunding of High Priority Projects
Attachment C. Map of"Tri Valley Development Area"
.. Attachment D. Fee Amounts
Written Comments Received (if any).
2.
1.
2.
Dublin General Plan -
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Negative DeclarationlFinding of No Significant Impact!
Interstate 580/680 Interchange Direct Connector Project _
"
.:J.
"
.:J.
". . Open Public Hearing .
'. Receive Staff Report and public comment
Close Public Hearing
Dehberate
Adopt "Resolution Establishing a Tri-ValleyTransportation
-- .. Development Fee for Future Developments within the City of
.. Dublin'~
4.
5.
There will be nominal Staff costs associated with the collection
of the fee. . Fees collected will be assigned to and will fund Regional
TranSportation Improvements Projects listed. in the Fee Resolution,-
with the 1-580/I-680 Flyover designated as..first priority:. ..
. . -
FINANOAL STATEMENT:
,-;--- ,.. .
- --.. ..
-~-------_-.:._--------.:.-:..._------~-_.:..~..;.:~-~----~--~-~~--~~--...-~---~~-:-~-----....;~~(
. COPIES TO: .. ... : ... ..
.b..,
g:ag=isc\tvtdf2doc
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION: At the May 5, 1998 City Council Meeting, the Council approved
~ _~~__~_ .."_ _ . __ ._. __ ___ 'M~~ _~_ ~ ___.. _ ..I.
the J oint Exercise of the Powers Agreement (JEPA) for -the' T n-Valley Transportation Developmem- F ee--
(TVTD Fee). Adoption of the TV1D Fee is the ne),.'t step required to implement the IEP A. The JEP A
requires the TVTD Fee to become effective. by Septembe,r 1, 1998. Because ofa 60-day waiting period
required by State law, the City needs to adopt the fee no later that July 1, 1998, to meet this deadline.
California Government Code sections 66000 to 66018 and Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.82 provide
the authority for adoption of the TVTD Fee.
ConsistenCY with General Plan
Adoption of the TV'Ip Fee is consistent with both the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. Both the General Plan and .the Specific Plan contemplate a significant increase inhbusing and
employment in Dublin in the next coming years. The General Plan states the City's goal of providing
"a street network. . . designed to accommodate peak: period traffic demands and minimize excessive
delays and congested conditions during peak hours" that could result, in part, from this growth. The
Transportation hnprovement Projects funded by the TVTC would help achieve this goal. The TVTD Fee
would also advance specific goals of the General Plan by providing financing for projects identified in the
Circulation Element. For example, the TV1D Fee would help finance improvements to the 1:"680/ Alcosta
Boulevard interchange; General Plan Circulation Element Implementing Policy E specifically calls for an
increase "in the capacity of the Alcosta Boulevard interchange."
. Proiects to be Funded
The purpose of the TVTD Fee is to finance transportation improvement projects needed to reduce traffic-
related impacts caused by future development in the Tri-Valley Development Area, including Dublin. The
.' ..
. TVTD Fee will be used to partiallyfinance the following eleven (11) projects ("Transportation
ImProvement Projects"): .
1. Improvements to the 1-580/1-680 interchange: construct a southbound 1-680 to eastbound
1-580 flyover and associated improvements (not to exceed $5,548,300),
,.
2. Improvements to State Route 84 between 1-580 and I-680,
3. Auxiliary lanes along I-680 from Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Road,
4. West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station,
5. 1-580 ROV lanes between Santa Rita Road and Greenville Road,
6. 1':;680 HOV lanes 'frorn the State Route 84/I-68 0 interchange -to the top oftheSuri61 (Jiade,' ..
. 7.' Improvements to the I-580lFoothiHRoad/San Ramon Boulevard interchange,
8. Improvements to I-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange,
T'1.__~ ..,
_ _ __ _~..:__ _ ___f:1.".~\IV Can~~n Road safety improvement west of Bollinger Canyon Road,
.___ ...n_~.:.....-:-~_.. .._."_:_, ".~",:_' _,__. :.,.~:..:._~::.:---_.- -',_--~-:n-:-'----'~ _.__~,~_._.~...............n\>...... .._...:-;:;-.;-....,.." ~.~~ =-:-._.:"".__~,_-::..:..J
10. Vasco Road safety improvements north ofT-580 within .Alameda CoUnty, and
-11. .... Express bus service in the Tri-Valley area- - - -
The total cost of these Improvements is $535 million, $166 million of which the TVTC has already
secured.
The Transportation Improvement Projects are all necessary to accommodate new development projected
within the Tri -Valley Development Area by the year 2010, including development within Dublin.
Reauired Findiu2's
Two reports have been prepared that support the establishment of the TV1D Fee. The:first report was
prepared for the TVTC in a document dated July 1995 and entitled "Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action
Plan for Routes of Regional Significance" ("'Plan"). (Attaclunent A to the resolution.) A second report
was prepared for the TVTC and Dowling Associates by CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc. in a document
dated December 6, 1996 entitled "Tri- V alley Combined StudyIT echnical Report:. Status and Funding of
High Priority Projects" which includes a 13-page report entitled "Tri- Valley Regional Transportation
Improvement Fee Program! Nexus Analysis" prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (together the
"Study"). (Attachment B to the resolution.)
The Pl.B.n andSiudy provide substantial evidence for the required finding that there is.a reasonable
relationship between the need for the Transportation Improvement Projects and the types of development
for which' the corresponding fee is charged. The Study details ABAG' sprojections that from 1997 to 20 I 0
households in the Tri-Valley will increase by 48.9% and employment will increase by 57.2%. In the same
time period, the Study estimates that households in Dublin will increase 122.8% and employment will
increase 113.8%. The Study uses average density factors to convert the increase in employment to .
projected increases in square footage of retail, office and industrial space.. The Study, in.turn, converts the
projected increases in households and non-residential square footage into new trip generation based upon
rates detennmed by the Institute of Trafiic Engineers (ITE). Based on these calculations the Study.
estimates that from 1997 to 2010 there will be a 39.6% increase in a.m~.peak hour trip ends_in the Tri- -.
Valley Area and a 86.7% increase in a.m. peak hour trip ends in Dublin. If 110t addressed by circulation - .
improvements, these increases could significantly worsen traffic in the Tri-Valley Area andDublin~
Circulation improvements are needed, and both residential. and non-residential development in Dublin
contribute to this need. The Study finds that the Transportation Improvement Projects are the 11 projects
that will achieve the best level of service within the Tri- Valley Area given financial Qonstraints, physical
limitations and development patterns. - - .:.- -
The Study provides substaIl-b3J evidence for therequin~dfindmg that there isa:'reasiJnablerelationship~: ...- -
.berween the TVTD Fee's use (to pay for the construction of the Transportation Improvement Projects) and'
the type of development on which the TVTD Fee is charged.- As the Studymdicates;.alldevelopment; both.
residential and non-residential, generates or contributes to the need for the Transportation Improvement
Projects. The Study concludes that the eleven (11) Transportation Iniprovement Projects will meet the
cir;;ulation needs of the T ri- Valley iuea by increasing the Area's capacity for vehic1einiles of travel (VMT)
by almost 21 %. Imposing a development fee to help pay for these Improvements is justified because new
T"\....~~ ...,.
development will increase the number of_VJvIT us_ing !~is c_a..p_a.ci1J.by_ ~8%, tl1::~ ~~s_,?rbi::~ ,aEn. o,_st 9. 90_Yo..~f
- - --"-:Uie' new'- capacItf n'Of tlie totaJ154 ,i81- in'crease in VMT ill the T ri-V alley,. new-development will account~_:,
for 90% of the increase. Since Dublin's household and employment growth rates are higher than those of
the Tri-Valley, it i~ estimated that new development in Dublin would also account for at least ~O% of the .
increase in VMT in Dublin. The Study, therefore, correctly concludes that these re;;ults would justify the
TVTe allocating 90% of the costs of the Transportation Improvement Projects to new development.
Fortunately, however, as noted above the TVTC has secured $166 million of the total $535 million needed
to fund these Projects, leaving $368 to be funded by the TVTD Fee.
The Study provides substantial evidence for the required finding that the cost estimates set forth in the
Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Transportation Improvement Projects and TVTD
Fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the projected costs of constructing
the Transportation Improvement Projects, as estimated in the Study. The Study calculates the total
amount of the TVfD Fees by dividing the estimated increase of non-exempt a.m. peak hour trip ends by
the $386 million needed for the Transportation Improvement Projects. Therefore, the funds expected to be
generated by the TVTD Fee will not exceed the projected cost of the Improvements.
The Study also provides substantial evidence for the required finding that the method of allocation of the
TVID 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 TVID Fee.
The Study calculates individual TVID Fee amounts by multiplying the cost per a.m. peak hour trip by the
number of trips generated by a particular land use, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers trip
generation rates forthe identified categories ofland use. Based on these calculations, the Study proposes a
fee schedule (Study page 12), which includes a $5,421 Single Family Residential fee and a $9.74 Office per
square foot fee. These amounts are justified based on the impacts of development. Nevertheless, after
extensive negotiations With stake holders~ the TVTC decided to propose a much lower fee schedule,
Attachment D to the draft Resolution.
" Amount of Fees-
The final proposed fee would be $1,500 per Single Family Residential, $1,050 for Multi Family Residential
unit, $1.00 per square foot for office, retail and industrial. These fees would automatically be adjusted each
March 1 by the increase or decrease in the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index for the San
Francisco Bay Area. The fees are estimated to collect $20.8 million in Dublin and $65 million from all
seven jurisdictions.
The resolution would provide seven categories of development exempt from the TVID Fee: (1) alterations
to existing structures, (2) replacement of residential buildings, (3) replacement of non-residential buildings,
(4) public schools, (5) subsidized housing developments, (6) government buildings, and (7) developments
subject to a development agreement.
rh~ 58.0/680 InterchangeProject isalr~ady included in the City's CIP and the other 10 projects are
recommended for inclusion iri next year's CIP (the Council will consider the eIP on June 29, 1998).
Therefore, the fees would be payable at the time a building permit is issued.
---
T>
Annual Renorts
The City Manager and the TVTC Fee Treasurer would prepare annual reports for the City Council
regarding, respectively, the TVTD Fees retained by the City and TVTD FeestrarlSmitted to the Treasurer.
The Annual Reports would include the amount of fees collected and interest earned, the amount spent on
individual Improvements including the percentage of the cost of the Improvement funded and other
information required by Government Code section 66006.
Environmental Review
The TV1D Fee complies with CEQA. Adoption of the TVTD fee is not a "project" under section 15378,
subdivision (b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines. That section provides the "creation of government funding
mechanisms or other government fiscal activities which do not involve the commitment of any specific
project which may result in a potentially sieniiicant impact on the environment" are not projects under
CEQAWhile 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." With one exception, it is not known at this stage which regional traffic improvements will
be funded with such proceeds. The only improvement for which the proceeds of the TVTD Fee are being
committed is the improvement of the I.,.580/I-680 Interchange, for which the California Department of
Transportation/California Transportation Commission approved a Negative Declaration (SCH# 96042087)
i,. on September 19, 1996 @xhibit C). Because a negative declaration has been adopted for this project, it
cannot be said that the interchange improvement "may result in a potentially significant physical impact on
the environment." In any event, under section 15096, subdivision (f) of the CEQA Guidelines,. this Council
has reviewed the negative declaration, and the environmental effects identified in the negative declaration.
None of the mitigation measures identified in the negative declaration are within the jurisdiction of the
C. '
rry.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council conduct a public hearing and adopt the draft resolution (Exhibit 1 ) .
imposing the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee.
._.---~~. I
Page 5
- ,
..
-.
.
.
/~ b7
RESOLUTION NO. - 98
A.RESOLUTION OF THE CJTX_C9!l:NCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
ESTABLISHING A TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE
FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN
WHEREAS, Chapter 7,82 of the Dublin'Municipal Code creates and establishes the authority for
imposing and charging transportation impact fees; and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan outlines future land uses within the City and within the
Extended Planning Areas; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ("SP") provides more specific detailed goals,
policies and action programs for approximately 3313 acres within the City; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan, the SP, the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report (SCH
#91103604) and Addenda describe the freeway, freeway interchange and road improvements necessary
for implementation of the General Plan and the SP; and
WHEREAS, the "Tri-Valley Transportation Council" ("TVTC") consists of one representative
of each of the following entities: County of Alameda, County of Contra Costa, City of Dublin, City of
Livermore, City of Pleasant on, City of San Ramon and Town ofDanville; and
WHEREAS, a report was prepared for the TVTC by Barton-Aschman Associates Inc" in a
document dated July 1995 entitled "Tri- V alley Transportation Plan! Action Plan for Routes of Regional
Significance" (hereafter "Plan"), which is incorporated herein as Attachment A;, and
WHEREAS, a second report was prepared for the TVTC and Dowling Associates by CCS
Planning and Engineering, Inc, in a document dated December 6, 1996 entitled "Tri- V alley Combined
Study/Technical Report: Status and Funding of High Priority Projects" (hereafter "Study"), which is
incorporated herein as Attachment B; and
WHEREAS, the Study includes a 13-page report entitled "Tri-Valley Regional Transportation
Improvement Fee Program! Nexus Analysis" prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the Plan and Study describe the impacts of contemplated future development on
existing public facilities in the Tri- Valley Development Area, which includes the incorporated and
unincorporated portions of Alameda County and Contra Costa County on the map attached hereto as
Attachment C and which includes Dublin, through the year 2010, and contain an analysis ofthe need for
new public facilities and improvements required by future development within the Tri- Valley
Development Area, including Dublin; and
...,--,." - -'" ,..'.,.. '~,'..' ,."',''''-,,' ..L
~_" ,_ .... ~-::._..r
L,: \~ ~.~"f'~;'~' ~ .
W\:~' ~;rSJi!:fi f .' -
- ~- I&a:i _~~ab ~
".
~ ~,t7
'WHEREAS, the County of Alameda, County of Contra Costa, City of Dublin, City of Livermore,
City of Pleasant on, City of San Ramon and Town ofDanville are parties to an agreement entitled "Joint
Exercise-of Powers Agreement.Pertaining-to Tri-Valley Transportation-Development Fees for Traffic .
Mitigation," dated April 22, 1998 ("JP A"); and
, WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation/California Transportation Commission
approved a Negative Declaration (SCH# 96042087) on September 19, 1996 for the 1-580/680
Interchange Project ("580/680 Interchange Negative Declaration"); and
WHEREAS, the Plan and Study" set forth the relationship between future development in Dublin,
the needed improvements and facilities, and the estimated costs of those improvements and facilities; and
'WHEREAS, the Plan and Study were available for public inspection and review for ten (10) days
prior to this public hearing; and
'WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The purpose of the Tri. Valley Transportation Development Fee (hereafter "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. With the exception of "Ramp
Metering" which is not a Transportation Improvement Project, the Transportation Improvement
Projects are listed in the Plan in Table 8-3 and consist of the following eleven (11) projects which are
hereafter defined and referred to as "Transportation Improvement Projects".
1, Improvements to the 1-580/I-680 interchange: construct a southbound 1-680 to
eastbound 1-580 flyover and associated improvements (not to exceed $5,548,300)
.
2, Improvements to State Route 84 between 1-580 and 1-680
3, Auxiliary lanes along 1-680 from Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Road
4. West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
5, 1-580 HOV lanes between Santa Rita Road and Greenville Road
6, 1-680 HOV lanes from the State Route 84/I-680 interchange to the top of the Sunol
Grade
7, Improvements to the 1-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon Boulevard interchange
8. Improvements to 1-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange
9, Crow Canyon Road safety improvement west of Bollinger Canyon Road
10,
Vasco Road safety improvements north ofl-580 within Alameda County
.
2
3~'c;
11, Express bus service in the Tri-Valley area
.._ T-he Transportation Improvement Projects are all necessary to accommodate new-development projected
within the Tri -Valley Development Area by the year 2010, including development within Dublin.
.
.
B. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to :finance the Transportation
Improvement Projects,
C. After considering the Plan, the Study, the Agenda Statement, the General Plan, the SP, the
580/680 Interchange Negative Declaration, all correspondence received anq the testimony received at the
noticed public hearing held on June 16, 1998 (hereafter the "record"), the Council approves and adopts
the Plan and Study and incorporates them herein, and further 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 Sp,
D. For the purposes ofCEQA, the Council finds that the adoption of the TVTD Fee is not a
"project" under section 15378, subdivision (b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines. 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," and, with one
exception, it is not known at this stage which regional traffic improvements will be funded with such
proceeds. The only improvement for which the proceeds of the TVTD Fee are being committed is the
improvement of the 1-58011-680 Interchange, for which the California Department of
Transportation/California Transportation Commission approved a Negative Declaration (SCH#
96042087) on September 19, 1996. Because a negative declaration has been adopted for this project, it
cannot be said that the interchange improvement "may result in a potentially significant physical impact
on the environment," In any event, pursuant to section 15096, subdivision (f), this Council has reviewed
said negative declaration, and the environmental effects identified in said negative declaration. Pursuant
to section 15096, subdivision (g)(l), the Council finds that none of the mitigation measures identified in
said negative declaration are within the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin.
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 Plan and Study are reasonable cost
estimates for constructing the Transportation Improvement Projects, and the TVTD Fees expected to be
3
'L/ d-67'"
generated by future development will not exceed the projected costs of constructing the Transportation
Improvement Projects; and
.-4~. -- The method of allocation of the TVro Fee to a p~i~cl~ 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, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOL VB as follows:
1. Definitions
a, "Gross Floor Area" refers to the sum of the area at each floor level,
including, but not limited to, cellars, basements, mezzanines, penthouses,
corridors, lobbies, stores, and offices, that are included within the principal
outside faces of exterior walls, not including architectural setbacks or projections,
Included are all stories or areas that have floor surfaces with clear standing head
room (six feet, six inches minimum) regardless of their use. Where a ground level
area, or part thereof: within the principal outside faces of the exterior walls is left
unenclosed, the gross area of the unenclosed portion is to be considered as a part
of the overall square footage of the building, All unroofed areas and unenclosed
roofed-over spaces, except as defined above, are to be excluded from area
calculations, The gross area of any parking garages within the building shall not
be included within the gross area of the entire building,
.
b, "Industrial" refers to developments for the purpose of manufacture or
fabrication of products, the processing of materials, the warehousing of
merchandise for sale or distribution, research and development of industrial
products and processes, and the wholesaling of merchandise,
c, "Land Use Entitlement" means a permit or approval granted for a
development project as that term is defined in Government Code ~66000,
d, "Multi Family Residential" refers to buildings or parts thereof designed and
used exclusively as a dwelling unit among other dwelling units, either on the same
parcel (e.g., apartments and mobile home parks) or under separate ownership (e,g"
condominiums, townhomes, duplexes, or duets),
e, "Office" refers to developments for the purpose of housing non-
commercial, non-manufacturing businesses,
f. "Other Uses" refers to land use categories not implicitly included within
the land use categories of" Single Family Residential", "Multi Family Residential",
"Retail" "Office" or "Industrial" and for which alternative rates can be found in
" ,
the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual or in a list of .
peak-hour trip rates that the Tri- Valley Transportation Council has explicitly
approved,
4
r
5 o.J 6 r,
.' - - ,
g, "Retail" refers to developments for the purpose of the retail sale of
merchandise and services.
.'.___ _,_., _"_ _'_H __ -~,- ~- -
h, "Single Family Residential" refers to detached buildings designed for
occupation as the residence of one family,
i. "Subsidized Housing Development" refers to housing facilities
developed by public agencies, limited dividend housing corporations, or non-
profit corporations, and maintained exclusively for persons or families of very
low, low or moderate i~come, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and
Safety Code,
j. "Transportation Improvement Projects" shall include the following public
improvements required to mitigate the regional traffic impacts of development
within the Tri- Valley Development Area:
(1) Improvements to the 1-580/I-680 interchange: construct a
southbound 1-680 to eastbound 1-580 flyover and associated
improvements (not to exceed $5,548,300)
(2) Improvements to State Route 84 between 1-580 and 1-680
.
(3) Auxiliary lanes along 1-680 from Diablo Road to Bollinger
Canyon Road
(4) West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
(5) 1-580 HOVlanes between Santa Rita Road and Greenville Road
(6) 1-680 HOV lanes from the State Route 84/I-680 interchange to
the top of the Sunol Grade
(7) Improvements to the 1-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon Boulevard
interchange
(8) Improvements to 1-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange
(9) Crow Canyon Road safety improvement west of Bollinger
Canyon Road
(10) Vasco Road safety improvements north ofI-S80 within Alameda
County
.
(11) Express bus service in the Tri-Valley area
5
/ ..1"'/-0"
(0 ~ 0/ '
V
k. "Treasurer" refers to the Finance Director of the city or county designated
by the TVTC to act as treasurer pursuant to the JP A.
L "Tri- Valley Development Area" refers to the incorporated and
unincorporated portions -of Alameda County and Contra Costa County shown on
the map attached as Attachment C,"
.
2, TVTD Fee Imposed.
a. A Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fee ("TVTD Fee") shall be charged and
paid for each Land Use Entitlement granted for each Single Family Residential unit and each Multi Family
Residential Unit within Dublin by the date that the building permit is issued for any such residential
building or structure.
b. A TVTD Fee shall be charged and paid for each Land Use Entitlement granted for
Industrial, Office, Retail and Other Uses within Dublin by the date that the building permit is issued for
any building or structure which fits within the definition of Industrial, Office, Retail or Other Uses,
3, Amount ofTVTD Fee.
a, The amount of the TVTD Fee shall be as set forth on Attachment D attached
hereto and incorporated herein,
4,
Exemptions From TVTD Fee,
.
The TVTD Fee shall not be imposed on any of the following:
a. Any alteration or addition to a residential structure, except to the extent that a
residential unit is added to a single family residential unit or another unit is added to an existing multi-
family residential unit.
b. Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing residential structure that has been
destroyed or demolished provided that the building permit for reconstruction is obtained within one year
after the building was destroyed or demolished unless the replacement or reconstruction increases the
square footage of the structure :fifty percent or more.
c. Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-residential structure that has
been destroyed or demolished provided that the building permit for new reconstruction is obtained within
one year after the building was destroyed or demolished and the reconstructed building would not
increase the destroyed or demolished building's fee based on Attachment D,
d, Public schools,
e, Subsidized Housing Developments.
f Governmental buildings owned by any public entity unless a development
agreement provides for payment of the TVTD Fee for a governmental building.
.
6
-.
.
.
J'
? /67
./
g, Development projects which are subject to a development agreement except that
the-fee shall be.applicable -to any "significant?' changes to any -development -agreement-adopted after
January 1, 1998. As used herein, "significant" means any of the following: (i) change in land use type
(e.g., office to retail); (ii) intensification of land use types (e.g., increases in square footage of
approved Office); {iiir extension of term of development agreements; and (iv) reduction or removal
of project mitigation requirements or conditions of approval.
5. TVTD Fee Adlustments.
a. The TVTD Fee shall be adjusted automatically each March 1 by the increase or
decrease in the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area for
the period ending December 31 of the preceding calendar year.
b. In addition to the automatic adjustment of subsection (a) above, the City may
amend this resolution to adjust the TVTD Fee to reflect revisions in the Transportation Improvement
Projects, increases in land values over the inflationary increase or other factors,
6, Use ofTVTD Fee Revenues.
a, The TVTD Fees shall be placed in the Capital Project Fund, Separate and special
accounts within the Capital Project Fund shall be used to account for such revenues, along with any
interest earnings on each account.
b. Within 30 days ofthe end of each quarter, the Finance Director shall transmit not
less than 80% of all TVTD Fees collected during the quarter, and any interest or income generated on
such 80% amount, to the Treasurer, along with a statement setting forth the Transportation Improvement
Project that the City intends to fund with the retained portion of the TVTD Fees.
c. The Finance Director shall maintain a record of all TVTD Fees retained, together
with interest or income on such retained fees, and annually shall furnish the Treasurer an accounting of
such monies for inclusion in any audit ofTVTD Fees prepared by or at the request of the Treasurer.
The TVTD Fees (and interest or income generated on such fee revenues) shall be
used for the foIl wing purposes:
(1) To pay for design, engineering, right-of-way acquisition and construction
of the Transportation Improvement Projects;
(2) To satisfy the City's obligation to the Alameda County Transportation
Authority ("ACTA") pursuant to the "Local Match Agreement" between
the City and ACTA for funding for the 1-580/680 Interchange project (see
Section 7 of the JPA);
(3)
To reimburse Dublin or any of the parties to the JP A for contributions to
ACTA for the 1-580/680 Interchange Project made prior to September 1,
7
~
:6 ~ b-7 .
VI
.
1998 if such contributions qualify for reimbursement pursuant to Section
7(d) of the JP~
.
(4)
-- -'- - --.- .~_._--_.. ..- -
._- - --,. - ---- ~. ----- -' - --'
To reimburse Dublin or any of the parties to the JPA for contributions to
ACTA for the 1-580/680 Interchange Project made on or after September
1, 1998 if such contributions qualify for reimbursement pursuant to
Section 7(e) of the JPA;
(5) To reimburse developers who have constructed all or a portion of any of
the Transportation Improvement Pr~jects if such reimbursement qualifies
for reimbursement pursuant to Section 7 of this resolution and Section 15
of the JP A;
(6) To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and ongoing
administration of the TVTD Fee program.
7. Credit of Reimbursement for Developer-Constructed Proiects.
A developer may be entitled to credit against the TVTD Fee or to reimbursement from
TVTD Fees if the developer constructs all or a portion of one of the Transportation Improvement
Projects, Credit or reimbursement shall be provided in the manner set forth in Section 15 of the JPA,
provided that the City Manager has approved the construction by the developer of all or a portion of the
Transportation Improvement Project,
8, Miscellaneous
.
a, The standards upon which the needs for the Transportation Improvement Projects
are based are the standards of the parties to the JPA, the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District,
b, The Council determines that the need for the Transportation Improvement Projects
is generated by new development within Dublin and within other jurisdictions in the Tri- Valley
Development Area; therefore, the Plan and Study have determined the proportionate share of the cost of
the Transportation Improvement Projects for which development within Dublin is responsible,
9. Periodic Review,
a, During each fiscal year, the City Manager shall prepare a report for the City
Council, pursuant to Government Code section 66006, for those TVTD Fees retained by the City,
b. During each fiscal year, the Treasurer shall prepare a report for the City Council,
pursuant to Government Code section 66006, for those TVTD Fees transmitted to the Treasurer.
c, Pursuant to Government Code section 66002, the City Council shall review, as
part of any adopted Capital Improvement Program each year, the approximate location, size, time of .
availability and estimates of cost for all Transportation Improvement Projects to be financed with the
TVTD Fee, The City Council shall make findings identifying the purpose to which the existing TVTD
8
n.
.
.
j'i? G'l
Fee balances are to be put and demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the TVTD Fee and the
purpose for which it is charged,
10. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee,
The Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (Resolution No, 41-96) includes improvements which are
listed as either Section I, Section IT or Section ill improvements, Four improvements are listed as
Section ill improvements, The four Section ill improvements are as follows: (1) 1-580/680 Interchange
Project; (2) 1-580 Auxiliary Lanes; (3) State Route 84; and (4) Improve Transit Service. These
improvement~ are the same as the Transportation Improvement Projects listed in Section l(i) of this
resolution,
Upon the effective date of the TVTD Fee and so long as the TVTD Fee
remains in effect, the portion of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee attributable to the Section ill
improvements shall be suspended and shall not be collected. However, if the TVTD Fee becomes
ineffective for any reason before the Section ill improvements have been constructed, the portion of the
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee attributable to the Section ill improvements shall thereafter be
collected,
11, Effective Date.
This resolution shall become effective immediately. The TVTD Fee shall be effective on
September 1, 1998, provided that a similar fee is adopted by the County of Alameda, the County of
Contra Costa, the Cities of Pleasant on, San Ramon and Livermore and the Town ofDanville to be
effective on September 1, 1998. If such jurisdictions have not all adopted similar fees to be effective
September 1, 1998, then the TVTD Fee shall be effective when the similar TVTD Fee becomes effective
in all of such six jurisdictions,
12. Severability.
Each component of the TVTD Fee and all portions of this resolution are severable.
Should any individual component ofthe TVTD Fee or other provision of this resolution be adjudged to
be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the
TVTD Fee shall be fully effective except as to that portion that has been judged to be invalid,
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June, 1998.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
9
-' ' ,,- City-Clerk-. , ---
Iv / b;
i/
g:agcnmisclrestVldf,doc,
10
.
.
.
-e-
e
e
'/1 /' /.q
#I 'U tCJ!
'.
ATTACHMENT AU
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ACTION
PLAN FOR ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE PUBLIC WORKS COUNTER
PRIOR TO AND AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 16, 1998
1
ij
'-1 -, ,
I'.. ,,:,..',
.t>. .,"
~t.~~..;,:.: .', ',:' .
."'. '.
~ .>.~ . '
,;:
1:
g.~
1
...... .
..
t..
~,
~......
~': ,
0"
~;.,
r:
, ,
...... .
b-~'.: _.: ;' - - ." ~"q':'- .
'~,r,~.":.::,",?,'~,' ' 'c.', ~ ',:./:<:~,~: :
:,..:......;.. ':.'
.....:. :-. .".
...~.... ~-~._..
~....
~.t .
~'
.': ""~'- ,'-', ,:., . .:~," .- '
1>,' ,~::;:::-:,:(, ''- ,.;'i" H, " '
. .~:. .:.--...-.... " - :. "- --".
~.' "'-', ~.:5~ '"<'_:": ~.'- " . ....-.~~;~ ~:'~:. .'
,:.' ..;,' .;;::' , , ,,:': ,;~: f '",,:,. .
: :. ~ ~ . - - - . . p' -....
" ._ "'._":'.' _u ',... ,_', ::...;:' ....:-..: _ '. ."
. .. '. '~'.' .
r ,.~'
~
~
,
~
. ;:.;'; ....,.
" .:: -. .
~
.'~ ,_.'
:: :", --, .
. ;....- .'
Tri-VaIley Combined Study
Technical Report:
;'7 -" L::.-
'I 0) ~ I
Status and Funding of High Priority Projects
Prepared For
Dowling Associates
and
Tri-Valley Transportation Council
By
, CCS Planning and En,eineering, Inc.
42080 Osgood Road, Suite 1
Fremont, CA 94539
December 6, 1996
" ...., ",=-",~, ~ -, -, ~,'
," """"---g--' n~-
;;. ~ ~' ~,,: ' 'H'"
:,...,. ....... i
f\ i 11\11
ENT B~
.
.
.
-'00' _4!"
[I
.,
-
-
,
-
-
t
.
,
I
I
,
I
,
..
,
1
/::; ./ /:;)
~ d', ~ (
.,./
TABLE OF CO~7EN:rS
PAGE
PROJECT FrJNDIN'G ST ATIJS .... ....... .............. .... ....... .............. .... .......... ......... ..... ........ 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS ........... ............ .............. ........ ....... .... ................. ...................2
PROJECT PRIODT"T"T1:::'S .' .....:.......................5
. '.l'-J..J..J..J:::, ............_...........__.........____...................___......_............................... ---....
APPENDIX A: PROJECT SUMMARIES
1 1-58011-680 Direct Connector and Widening..................................................................... 7
2 SR 84 Corridor Improvements: 1-580 to 1-680..................................................................8
2a New 1-580/Isabel Avenue (Northside) Interchange with Four-Lane Isabel Parkway........9
2b 1-580/Airway Boulevard Interchange Modi:.fications and Two-Lane Isabel
Avenue Extension: Jack London Boulevard to Concannon Boulevard .........................10
2c Two-Lane Isabel AvenueE>>."tension: Concannon
Boulevard to Vineyard Avenue ......_...............................................................................11
2d Two-Lane Isabel Avenue E>>."tension: Vineyard Avenue to Vallecitos Road.................... 12
2e Interim Two-Lane SR 84 on New Alignment from Vallecitos Road to 1-680................13
2f Four-Lane SR 84 on New Aignment from Vallecitos Road to 1-680 .............................14
2g SR 84: Widen to Four-Six Lanes from Vallecitos Road to 1-580....................................15
3 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes from Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Boulevard..uu.......__............16
4 West Dublin BART Station Access Improvements........................................................,17
5 1-580 HOV Lanes from Tassajara Road to N, Livemore Avenue Interchange................ 18
6 1-680 HOV Lanes from SR 84 to Top ofSunol Grade ...................................................19
7 1-5 80/Foo1hill Boulevard Interchange Modifications .......................................................20
8 1-680/ Alcosta Boulevard Interchange Modifications and Widening of
San Ramon Valley Road Approaches .............................................................................21
9 Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements ......................................................................22
1 0 Vasco Road Safety Improvements ............ ............................... ....... ............................ ....23
11 Express Bus Service ...................................................... .................................. ........ ......,24
~.u>PENDIX B: TVTC MODEL FORECASTS ................................................ :ff
96044lNrclech.aoc
TVTC Combined Study
Phase ill: Regional Tnrliic Impact Fee
Project Status Report
Revised -D--=mber6, 1996
1
II
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
,
,
,
I
1
,
,
,
,
,
1
;1./ ~
/ 'S'
<::> I
This report describes the eleven high pnonty projects identified in the 1995 Tri-VaIley
Transportation Action Plan, presents their estimated costs and funding status. and discusses
priorities for completion of the projects.
PROJECT FUNDING STATUS
Table 1 on the next pages summarizes the estimated costs and funding status of the eleven high
priority projects. The engineering and construction costs were obtained from available agencies
and were supplemented by the consultant's estimated costs as of July 31, 1996, The costs are
presented in 1996 dollars. These estimated costs can vary 25 percent from the actual cost. The
a...'"tual cost cannot be determined until the design plans, specifications, and estimates are completed
for each project
Five major fimding sources are shown in the table:
. Measure B - Funding from Alameda County's Measure B program based on the 1996 third
quarter report by Alameda County Traffic Authority.
. Measure C - Funding from Contra Costa County's Measure C program based on the 1995
Strategic Plan and input from Paul Maxwell. Deputy Executive Director of the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority.
. SLTPP - State Local Transportation Partnership Program matching fund from the State.
. Development fees and contributions (including Southern Contra Costa JEP A)
· Other funding sources such as local jurisdictions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
In Appendix A., the following information is presented for each of the eleven high priority projects:
· Project Title
. Lead Agency - Current or potential lead agencies for the project
. Project Description - Summarizing the improvement items included in the project
. Total Engineering and Construction Cost - Mostly obtained from the various agencies,
Otherwise, the estimates reported in the 1995 Tn-Valley Transportation Action Plan were
used.
2
Project Status Report
R~.sed - December 6, 1996
TVTC Combined Study
Phase ill: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
.. '
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-,-
-
Table 1
pnOJECT FUNDING SOUnCES
.
.
.'012
.- --.- ~.- - -.-.-,..---.-- .. -, _ . __u.. __" ~_.___ - .-. . ,-, , .- . Programmed. by Source I$Mllllonsl
Tolal Funding Currently
i
Cost Dev. Unfunded Foot-
No. lead Agency Project DescrIption $Mllllons Meas. B Meas. C SlTPP Fees Other Total $MlllJons Nohul-
- ~~.- -.- - 121.2
1 Caltrens 1-680/1-680 IIC SB to EB F1yover 103.6 3.2 4.3 111.1 10.1 1 '
2 Various sn B4 Improvements: 1-680 to 1.680 213.0 27.0 0.0 1.0 7.5 0.6 36.1 176.9
2e Caltrans, LIvermore New 1-580Ilsabellntarchanoe; Isebell'kwv @ 4 lanes 40.0 . 40.0 !
2b LIvermore Isebel Ex!. (J, london to Concennonl @ 2 lenes, end 32.0 27,0 1.0 0.1 28,1 3,9 2b'
1-580/Alrwev Bvd. Interchanae Modlllcetlon -
2c LIvermore Isabel Ex!. (Concannon to Vlnevardl @ 2 lanes 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 . 2c;
2d LIvermore Isabel Ex!. IVlnevard to Vallecltos) @ 2 lanes 7.0 7.0 7.0 . ,
2a Caltrans sn 84 Interim: New 2-lane roed, Vallecltos to I-B80 25.0 . 25.0 2e
2f Caltrans sn 84 Completion: Widen to 4 lanes. Vallecitos to I-B80 25.0 . 25.0
20 Caltrans sn 84: Widen to 4-B lanes from Vallacltos to 1-580 83.0 . 83.0
3 Caltrons 1-680 Aux Lones fro 111 Diablo to Bollinger 40.0 7,9 8.5 16.4 23.6 3
4 BAnT West Dublin BART Slatlon and Access 43.0 0.0 . 43.0 4"
BAnT Stetlon plus additlonel parking and other .
mitigation measures Including laurel Creek Wey signal, . .
new perellel connector to Dublin Blvd. end ,
Dublin Blvd. wldenlna i
.
5 Caltrans 1-580 TassaJera to N. L1vermora: HOV lanas 40.0 . 40.0
6 Caltrans 1-680 Ria. 84 to Sunol: 'IOV lanas 14.4 . 14.4
7 Dublin 1-5801 FoothlllllC Modification. for W. Dublin BART 2,0 0.0 . 2,0 7
8 Son namon I-B80/Alcosts Blvd. IIC Modification 9.8 2.3 2.3 7.3 8
Mova southbound onloff romps to north; .
Widen San nomon Valley nd approaches .
9 Alameda County Crow Canyon nd. Safaty Improvemants. 18.0 0.2 0.2 17.8 9
From County L1na to 1 m!. north 01 No!rls Canyon nd.; - . I
Stralghton. shoulders .. no wldanlng from extg. . .
10 Alameda County Vasco Rd. Safetv lmorovements 25.0 . 2S.0
.'
From LIvermore Cltv limits to Countv LIne; . . I
i
Strelahten, shoulders.. no wldenlna from exta. . .
11 Various Exoress Bus Service 8.0 . ' 8.0 11
Purchase two vehicles for each of the maximum of . .
9 new Express Routes for Intercity services . . i
534.2 130.6 i
TOTAL 8.1 4.2 lB.3 4.9 166.1 368.1
. -
Funding Sources: Mees, B ." Alameda Measure B: Meas. C ." Contra Costa County Meesure C: Sl TPP ." Stete Local Transportation Partnership Progrem;
Dev. Fees." Developer Impact Fees lIncludlng South Contra Costa JEPAI: Other'" locel Agencies.
Teble 1 (Cont'dl
'-
V)
\-\
G"
, I)
CCS Plennlng end Engineering
12/919BTVTC2,XLS
aaa
aiL
aIL
a
. . Ii a 'a . . i. . \Iii
PIl~1l 201 2
i
Foolnol98:
1
Olher funds (H,3MI are Federal. (Sourca: ACTA Measure B Capllal ProJecls. July-September, 1996 Quarterly RapOlt.1
2b
Other IUl1ds lite hom Alameda County Flood Conhol Dlshlct tZone 71. Unlunded alTlounl Is 9nllclpalad 10 Include a combination of lVlC.
City 01 Liver mora and developar contributions. (Source: Dan Smith, L1verrnorel
2c
Includes O.SM nssessmenllo Ruby 1111I development. !Inti $0,5M City 01 Livermore funds ISource: Sus!ln Frost, 11119/961
29
Docs not Include safety Improvements to the existing route, previously estimated et $15M. Exlsllhg route would be used lor local access,
3 Prolect 3 Is a committed Measule C project lSource: TVTP/AP 01 1/95, page 1491: however, no specific funding amount Is progremmed.
Measure C amount shown In tabla Is estimated as follows: Southwast Alea allocation Is $18.4M 188$1. Aftal proglammlng $12.2M 18a $1 In tha 1996
Strategic Plan. tha lemalnlng $6M la8$' was escaleted to $7 .9M 196$1 using CCTA factor of 1.3131 pel 1995 Strategic Plan,
\Source: Paul Maxwell, 911 8/961 Daveloper fees represent an allocation of $8,5M from Southern Contra Costa JEPA, (Source: Brian Welch, City of Danvllle, 12/5/96).
4 $29M have been progratllmed thru FY 99 Intha 9/96 MTC RTIP; however, BART CIP shows $33M.
Cost shown Includes $33M lor the station and $1 OM lor a palklng garage end other mitigations,
Because 01 the uncertainty 01 the programmed amount from any sources, all costs were conservatlvaly assumed to be unlunded In this table.
7 BART FEIR requires BART to fund 32% of total cost, assuming matching by others. However, table conservetlvely llSsumes costs ale'unfunded,
8 01 the $9,6M total estimated construction cost, $2,3M would be lunded by developer lees from the Southern Contra Costa JEPA.
(Source: John Dillon. City of San Remon)
.''.,
9 $O.239M programmed Irom Measure C uSouthwes Area allocalion ISource: Paul Maxwell 9/1 B/96),
11 TVTC Action Plan's proposed 9 express bus routes, at 2 buses per route, would require apprOldmately $8 million In capital purchases,
Cost estimate assumes CNG-powered buses with ADA 1111 @ $375.000 each, plus 20% contingency,
0,239 M 195$1 ale programmed In CCTA's 1995 StrategIc Plan lor bus projects, However, no funding hes been assumed In this table,
CCS PIAllnlll.Engilleerlllg
.
121919~.'XlS
,
.
"-
~
~\
G'"
'U
,.
~--
I
I
.,.
,
~.
~
~
~
l'
,
t
,
,
,
,
-
,
-
,"
/7/
~
/J
~I
- -- ---~---- -- -.- - ~ -
-- -- ._--- --- - -- - -- ----~~.-~
. Planning and Approval Status - Indicating whether the prOject is included in the MTC Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) or any other local improvement plans,
. FlIDding - Indicating available amoun:ts and the associated funding sources for the project
. Schedule - Indicating planned implementation schedule for the project
. Project Need - Based primarily on 2010 traffic projections from the updated TVTC model with
gateway constraints applied TVTC traffic projections are provided in Appendix B.
PROJECT PRIORITIES
The Tri-Valley Transportation Commission (TVTC) has selected the following top four projects to
be funded by the proposed regional traffic impact fee:
. Southbound 1-580 to EastbolIDd 1-680 Direct Connector (project No.1)
. Two-Lane Route 84 Corridor hnprovement between 1-580 and 1-680
(project Nos. 2a, 2b, 2c, 2ei, 2e)
. HOV Lanes between Diablo Road and Bollinger Canyon Boulevard (project No, 3)
. BART West Dublin Station (Project No, 4)
The remaining seven high priority projects were qualitatively assessed to help prioritize them for
funding, as follows:
. 1-580 is currently being widened from the interchange with 1-680 to the Tassajara (Santa Rita
Road) interchange to provide HOV lanes in conjlIDction with Project No.1 (I-580/680 direct
connector), Project No.5 (1-580 HOV lanes from Tassajara to N. Livermore Avenue) will
function as an extension of Project No.1. To avoid a bottleneck where HOV lanes end at the 1-
580IN, Livermore Avenue interchange, Project No.5 should have higher priority than the other
projects.
. Project No. 7 (I-580IFootb.ill Boulevard interchange modification) will be required to
accommodate Project No.4 (BART West Dublin Station), Therefore, 1his project should be
given the same priority and be grouped with Project No.4,
. The 1-680 HOV lane project from Route 84 to SlIDol Grade (Project No, 6) has been identified
as the eA"teIlSion of the Route 84 improvement (Project No, 2), Therefore, 1his project should
have the same priority as Project No.2. However, a bottleneck may occur at the SlIDol Grnde
unless the 1-680 HOV lanes can be further eA1:ended to Santa Clara COlIDty.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase ill: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
Project Status Report
Revised - Decemb=r 6, 1996
5
.."
~'
,-
II
II
--
~
,
,
~
I
'I
~
1
I
,
,
I
I
~
/?
/r,~.1
../ '
"-. "
.-- ---- -
Project No: '8 (I-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange) is located be~een two of the top four,_
- projects- (Project'No: 1: 1-'680/5'80 DirecfConnector and Project No.3: 1-680 Auxiliary Lane
between Diablo Road and Bollinger Canyon Road), It would be desirable to construct this
project in conjunction with the other two projects to avoid a bottleneck in the intervening
segment between them.
.
. Project No.9 (Crow Canyon Road Safety hnprovement Program) and Project 10 (Vasco Road
Safety hnprovement Program) are both s!3fety improvement projects to the existing two-lane
winding roadway. They may be prioritized based on the accident rates and the existing and
2010 traffic demand. Accident data for these two roadways are not available; therefore, it is
not possible to set priorities between these two projects.
.
.
TVTC Combined study
Pbase ill: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
6
Project Status Report
Revised -Decembcr6, 1996
.'~
--J
. ...
.~~-
,'~- ~~~:"'x~...'
......;_.
. .... --- "--.-----,--
" ..........
;~}..:~
-- .~:_'t.
" '; ~':" :';.
._:......." .
~:..~.::~...1. -, ~.:>~.~...~;~:;:;-..
'~.ir.}~~',~~~)~~f;~::
~.." ~ .... .'
. ... .-
~..
'-
I
.J
~
:-- ".-
.----:.-,--.--- -------------~
.-~. ........
APPENDIX A
PROJECT SUMMARIEs
/e> /' 6 ~
,/ all
J .
-'
-'
.
_.- -----
.
II
.'
II
-
--
~
--
--
~
--
--
~
~
II
II
-1
a1I
'1--'
PROJECT
Lead Agencies
Description
Total Eng.&
Const. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
/}D /'
0' ,;;
1-5801I-680 DIRECT CONNECTOR & 'WIDENING
Alameda County Transportation Authority ~ 310)
Caltrans (B.A 233921)
Reconstruction of the 1-580/l-680 interchange. The major work is building
a new two-lane flyover ramp from southbound 1-680 to eastbound 1-580 to
replace the existing loop ramp.
Approximately $121 million in 1996 dollars,
(Source: Alameda County Transportation Authority Measure B Capital
Projects, July-September, 1996 Quarterly Report)
Adopted by Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the
Regional Transportation Planning (RIP) for completion by 2005.
All but $10 million have be<>..Il funded from various sources including
Alameda County Measure B~ Federal and State Local Transportation
Par1nership Program (SLIPP). See Table 1.
TIlls Project will be advertised in 1997 for construction to begin in early
1998 and be completed by March, 2002,
Needed for capacity, Projected 2010 AM and PM peak hour traffic
volumes on the direct connector from southbound 1-680 to eastbound 1-580
are 2,100 vehicles per hour (vph), which exceeds existing ramp capacity,
TVTC Combined Smdy
Phase ill: Regional Traffic lmpact Fee
7
Project Status Report
Revised -December 6, 1996
4,
/ :j ,
0/.
.
.
.
--
~,- ,n-i-
.
-
--
.
R
--
~
.
II
~
~
II
II
iI
~
,
'I
"
PROJECT
Lead Agencies
Description
Total Eng. &
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
;1./ /
..J
, -
. .-
b I
STATE ROUTE 84 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS:
1-580 TO 1-680
VariOllS, see Subproject descriptions on following pages.
Cmrently, two lanes exist only from Livermore Mtmicipal Airport to Jack
London Boulevard, and there is no 1-580/Isabel Avenue Interchange or
direct road connection between 1-580 and SR 84, Project would ultimately
build 6-1ane arterial from 1-580 to Vineyard Avenue and fom-lane arterial
on new alignment from Vineyard Avenue to 1-680. Total length ofproject
is about 10 miles,
$213 million, For details, see Subprojects 2a through 2g.
TwcrLane Isabel Avenue from 1-580 to SR 84 is in the RIP for 2005.
PrQiects lb, 2c and 2d are largely ftmded from Measme B~ developer fees
and other somces, $177 million unfunded. For detail, see separate
Subprojects below.
Subproject 2b is currently under design and is scheduled to begin
construction in 1997.
Project would provide improved access to/from southwest portion of
Livermore, including Ruby Hill development, and would also relieve traffic
congestion on portions ofI-680 and 1-580. Projected 2010 PM peak hom
volumes (one-way) range from 2,000 to 3,200 vph, which well exceeds the
capacity of the existing two-lane roadway,
TVTC Combined Study
Phase ill: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
8
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 19%
.
.'
.
.
.
.
II
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
II
.
.
-, - 2--
a
PROJECT
Lead Agencies
Description
Total Eng &
Const. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
"
c?J. q('b7
./
.
NEW I-580IISABEL A VENUE (NORTHSIDE)
INTERCHANGE WITH FOUR-LANE ISABEL PARKWAY
Caltrans and the Citv of Livermore,
~ ,
Construction of a new partial cloverleaf (par-Clo) Interchange at 1-
580 with the following access roadway improvements:
. L25-mile (6,600 feet), four-lane lsabel Parkway from Jack
London Boulevard to 1-580
. 0.5] -mile, two-lane extension ofN. Canyons Park-way
. 0.57-mile (3,000 feet), two-lane Portela Avenue Extension to
N. Canyon Parkway
· 750-foot re-alignment of Arroyo Las Positas
. Traffic signals & lighting at Jack London Boulevard, the
proposed interchange, and N. Canyons Parkway,
Approximately $40 million for full width right-of-way, one of the two
bridge structures over 1-580, modification to the existing I-5801P0rtola
Avenue interchange, relocation of an overhead electrical line and gas line,
as well as the above roadway improvements. (Note: the cost estimate
assumes 1he Chabot alignment)
.
$27.8 million
$ 3.2 million
$ L 0 million
$ 8,0 million
$40.0 million
Initial Interchange as in the PSR (Oct 3, 1995)
Portela Avenue Extension to N, Canyons Pkwy
Additional widening on Isabel Pkwy
25% Engineering
Isabel Parkway from 1-580 to SR 84 is in 1he MfC RTPfor 2005,
Interchange would need FEIRI EIS and to be found in conformity by MTC.
Not currently funded,
Not scheduled, but assumed to be built in TVTC 2010 forecasts,
Project would relieve traffic congestion on Airway Boulevard and o1her
existing routes in the vicinity, Six-lane Isabel Parkway south ofI-S80 is
projected to carry up to 3,200 vph in peak direction by 2010. Traffic
projections not a....-ailable for four lane alternative, but would be lower but
still anticipated to well exceed capacity of existing roadways and
interchange.
.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase ill: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
9
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
I.' '
I, . ..
-."-2b'-
.--> -- -- --- ..-- ._----~-
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
Ie
I
1
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
, ,
PROJECT
Lead Agency
Description
Total Eng. &
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
....7 ~
P. ./
/" --.:/
~~ 6/
/,
iJ
I-580/AIRW A Y BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE
MODIFICATIONS AND TWO-LANE ISABEL AVENUE
EXTENSION: JACK LONDON BOULEVARD TO
CONCANNON BOULEVARD
City of Livennore
Construction of a new Isabel Avenue extension, consisting of a two-lane
arterial with 70 foot landscape buffer from Jack London Boulevard to
Concannon Boulevard. To provide interim access to 1-580 tmtil Subproject
2a is built, modifications to the existing I-580/Airway Boulevard
Interchange are also included in this Subproject, consisting of a new
northbotmd to westhotmd loop on-ramp. The project includes improvement
to the Jack London Boulevard intersection and an tmder-crossing (O/C) of
the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, with a 'jug-handle' intersection
at Stanley Boulevard, southeast of the tmdercrossing. The new road would
have a minimum 70-foot landscaped shoulder on west, with an earth
berm(s) adequate as a visual/sound barrier. A lO-footpaved
pedesttianlbike path is also included for the new portion.
Total $31 million. (Isabel Extension SR 84 Project, Additional Studies
Report, July 1996)
Isabel Avenue from 1-580 to SR 84 is in the MTC RTP for 2005.
A Measure B project up to $23,8 million, with an additional $1.2 million
proposed for SLTPP, $2,6 million from the Ci1y of Livermore, and $0.1
million from the Alameda County Flood Control (Zone 7), Project is
unfunded by $3.3 million,
EIR Addendum has been certified, and PR and PS&E are tmderway.
Construction scheduled for 1997 and has been assumed built in MTC RTP
by 2005 and in TVTC 2010 forecast-.s,
Needed for improved north-south access and capacity, and for interim
capacity improvement at I-S80/Airway prior to completion of Subproject
2a Tne TVTC model projects up to 2,900 vph (one-way) in 2010 for 6
lane Isabel Avenue eh.1:ension. Projections for interim two lane Isabel
Avenue, not available from TVTC Model, would be lower but would still
likely exceed capacity of interim roadway,
TVTC Combined Study
Phase ill: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
10
Project Status Report
Revised -December 6, 1996
~
- .-'
-
~
-
,
-
2c-' ''--
PROJECT
Lead(s)
Description
Total Eng. &
Constr. Cost
-
-
-
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
,
~
-
~
Project Need
~
,
~
-
..-: :' I
/.1
'/
~
!../
TWO-LANE ISABEL A VENUE UPGRADING:
CONCANNON BOULEVARD TO VINEYARD A VENUE
City of Livermore
A 0.6 mi, rehabilitation of Isabel Avenue, to upgrade 1:his road to a two-
lane undivided state highway between the end of Project 2b at Concannon
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue,
$1 million.
Project is a condition to the Ruby Hill residential development
and is in the MfC RTP for 2005,
$0.5 million of developer contributions; another $0.5 million City of
Livermore funds.
To be determined.
Required as mitigation for Ruby Hill residential development 2010 PM
peak hour projection is 2,000 vph in peak direction based on a fom-lane
highway. Projections for interim two-lane upgrading, not available from
TVTC Model, would be lower but are still likely to exceed capacity of the
two-lane roadway.
1
TVTC Combined Snuiy
Phase ill: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
11
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
.'
61'.
.
.
.
.
.
r:'"
.
.
II
II
.
.
...
II
e:or
II
II
II
-
II
II
all
-2d --''
PROJECT
Lead Agency
Description
Total Eng. &
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
'" ~
/ ,
{7..-'
, b7
vr(
;./
TWO-LANE ISABEL A VENUE EXTENSION:
VINEYARD A VENUE TO VALLECITOS ROAD
City of Livermore
Construction of a new two-lane undivided highway approximately 1.2
miles long, from the existing Isabel A venueNineyard Avenue intersection
to a new intersection with SR 84 .
$ 7 million.
Approved as condition to the Ruby Hill residential development.
Project is in the MTC 2005 KfP.
Fully funded by developer contributions.
Unlmown.
Required for mitigation of Ruby Hill residential development and to
provide north-south outlet TVTC's 2010 PM forecasts show a peak hour
demand of2,000 vph in peak direction based on the ultimate four-lane
highway, Projections for a two-lane road, not available from TVTC
ModeL would be lower but are still likely to exceed the capacity of the
two-lane arterial road to be built by this project,
TVTC Combined Study
Phase ill: Regicmal Traffic lmpact Fee
12
Project Status Report
Revised -December 6, 1996
I
I
I
I
I
2e
PROJECT
Lead Agency
I
Description
I
I
I
I
Total Eng. &
Const. Cost
I
I
I
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
I
I
I
I
I
::XiS
~~l t;:(4
....I
.
INTERIM'IWO-LANE SR84 ON NEW ALIGNMENT
FROM V ALLECITOS ROAD TO 1-680
Caltrans
. Construction ora two-lane highway on a new alignment from
Vallecitos Road to 1-680, a distance of approximately five
miles. 1bis project is proposed as an interim stage of the
ultimate four-lane highway (Subproject 2f) pending availability
of sufficient funding for the ultimate project
Existing two-lane roadway would continue to sexve local access needs,
Caltrans previously approved a PSR for safety improvements to the
existing roadway (November 1985), but that project was put on hold due to
lack of funding, and is not included in the current project proposal,
Approximately $25 million, based on comparison to Vasco Road
realignment project (Source: Bill van Gelder, City of Pleasant on, 11/27/96)
.
Not yet approved in State or MfC Plans orprograIDS.
Not funded,
To be determined,
TVTC's 2010 constrained traffic forecasts show a peak hour demand of
3,200 vph in the peak direction for the ultimate four-lane highway,
Projections for the interim two-lane project, not available from the TVTC
Model, would be lower. Adequacy of new facility will depend on how
much traffic uses the existing roadway.
.
I
TVTC Combined study
P"MSe ill: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
13
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
.
I
'i/J
C<, '/
/ 6 ~
rt'
J
2f
.
~:r
II
..
!
.-
.
I -
ill
"
II
II!!'<
III
!
III
-
II
,-
II
III
PROJECT
FOUR-LANE STATE ROUTE 84 ON NEW ALIGNMENT
FROM V ALLECITOS ROAD TO 1-680
Lead Agency
Caltrans
Description
. Wi~ening of the interim two-lane SR 84 on new alignment (Subproject 2e)
:from Vallecitos Road to 1-680, a diStance of approximately five miles.
Total Eng. &
Const. Cost
Approximately $25 million (assuming prior completion of interim project)
Planning &
Approval Status
Not yet approved in State or MTC Plans or programs.
Funding
Not funded,
Schedule
To be determined,
Project Need
Needed for traffic capacity, TVTC model's 2010 constrained traffic
forecasts show a peak hour demand of up to 3,200 vph in peak direction,
vvhich exceeds the capacity of the existing two lnne roadway in conjunction
with a new parallel two-lane roadway (Subproject 2e).
iI
TVTC Combined,Study
Phase Ill: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
14
Project Status Report
Revised - D-...cember 6, 1996
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
2g
PROJECT
Lead AgenC)'
Description
Total Eng.&
Const. Cost
Plannino &
." ,
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
,..,/7
'x
c:>;;..;
,-
.:r'
-'
/ -
, "-'
:::; I
_ _BU.
STATE ROUTE 84: "WEN TO 4-6 LANES FROM V ALLECITOS
ROAD TO 1-580
Caltrans
Widen and upgrade SR 84 to the ultimate project (6,8 miles) including:
. Ultimate Interchange at 1-580/lsabel Avenue (Northside)
. Vlidening of Isabel Parkway from four to six lanes between 1- 580 and
Jack London Boulevard
. 'Widening of Isabel Avenue from two to six lanes from Jack London
Boulevard to Vineyard Avenue
. \Videning of Isabel Avenue from two to four lanes from Vineyard
Avenue to Vallecitos Road
. Widening of Port 01 a Avenue from two to four lanes over new bridge
$10 million
$10 million
$22 million
$13 million
$ 5 million
$60 million
Complete 1-580 Interchange
Isabel Parkway widening
Jack London to Concannon
Concannon to Vineyard
Vineyard to Vallecitos
.
However, $83 million is shown in Table 1 to provide contingency fund to
all Subprojects,
Not yet approved in State or MJC Plans or programs,
Not funded,
To be determined,
TVTC's 2010 constrained traffic forecasts show a range of demand from
2,000 vph to 3,200 vph in the peak direction, requiring full capacity of a 4-
6 lane &"1eriaL
.
TVTC Combined Smdy
Phase ill: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
15
Project Status Report
Revised - v_--emDer 6, 1996
.
II
II
.
~
I .
~
~
.
I
~
III
~
r
.
t,.r
III
!
i_
.
II
.-
.
.
,.
.
.
3
PROJECT
Lead Agency
Description
Total Eng. &
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
cJ.=t /
./
/ -
61
, '
1-680 AUXILIARY L,4.NES FROM DIABLO ROAD
TO BOLLINGER CANYON BOULEVARD
CaltraIlS, Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)
Construction of one auxiliary lane between interchanges in each direction
ofl-680 from the Diablo Road interchange to the Bollinger Canyon
Interchange. The centerline lengths of the auxiliary lanes in one direction
are about 2.8 miles,
$40 million (estimated by CCTA)
In the adopted RTP by 2015,
Allocation for the southwest area from Measure C funds in 1988 value is
$18.4 million. $12.2 million in 1988 value has been programmed in the
1995 Strategic Plan by CCTA. Theremaining $6.2 million can be
escalated to approximately $7.9 million in 1996 value based on a 3131 %
of escalation factor used by CCTA The $7.9 million can be used for this
project TVTC should make such recommendation to CCTA to be
included in the forthcoming 1997 Strategic Plan.
To be determined,
Needed for additional capacity in 2010 and to facilitate on/off traffic at
intervening interchanges. The highest 2010 PM peak hour main line
demand (1VTC constrained model) occurs betweo...n Diablo Road and
Sycamore Avenue interchanges, with 8,800 vph in peak direction, which
exceeds existing capacity.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase ill: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
16
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 19%
.
,,-- -----, ---,--
. 4
--,
.
,.
.
. '
.
PROJECT
Lead Agencies
Description
II
.
1 ~....
.
III
.
II
~
II
II
.
-
.
,,'
II
II
.
II
Total Eng. and
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
36
;t,:;,
~ ~ I
..J
.
'WEST DUBLIN BART STATION AND ACCESS
IMPROVEME~'TS
B.A.RT
Completion ofW. Dublin BART station, access, parking, and mitigations
as identified in the FEIR including:
· Additional parking facility
· Laurel Creek 'Way traffic signal
· Dublin Boulevard widening
· New parallel connector to Dublin Boulevard
$43 million, including $33 million estimated in the 1996 BART Capital
Improvement Program for the stations, and $10 million for mitigation
measures,
In both MTC RIP for 2005 and the iuameda County Tier 1
.
FEIR recommends 29% of Laurel Creek Signal and 40% of new parallel
connector to Dublin Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard widening to be
contributed by BART. Since no funding is committed by BART at the
present time, no available funding is assumed in Table 1.
To be determined
Construction of access, safety, parking and traffic improvements at the W,
Dublin BART station are needed to ensure that this station is accessible
and convenient for riders, so that the ridership forecasts for this station can
be achieved, This project has been incorporated in the 2010 TVTC model.
If the ridership forecast for this B.A.RT station is not achieved, traffic
volumes could increase from forecast levels on the highway and Streets of
the T ri- Valley .Area
.
TVTC Combined Smdy
Phase ill: Regional Traffic .Impact Fee
17
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
I
..--- - - ------~---
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
t
I
,..
~,
PROJECT
Lead Agency
Description
Total Eng.and
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
2/
c=--' '
vi
.)
/:J
:.::/
1-580 HOV LANES FROM TASSAJARA ROAD TO
N. LIVERMORE A VENUE INTERCHANGE'
Caltrans
Construction of approximately 5,5 miles ofROV lanes on 1-580 from
Tass~araRoad to N. Livermore Avenue. After addition of these lanes, 1-
580 would have a total offoUT mixed lanes and one HOV lane in each
direction in this segment Widening on-S80 and additional right-of-,"-'aY
may be required.
$40 million
This project is in the adopted MTC RTP for year 2015,
In the long range RTP, this project is not presently ftmded
Completion date to be determined, but prior to 2015.
Needed for overall person-trip capacity in the freeway corridor, TVTC's
2010 constrained traffic forecasts show a demand for travel on 1-580 of up
to approximately 10,600 vph in the peak direction. This is the highest
directional volume on all the roadways in the RTIF project list, and exceeds
existing capacity. Added lanes would encourage HOV's, potentially
reducing SOY trips as well as increasing overall capacity, Added capacity
would also complement added capacity of direct ramp connectors at 1-
580/I-680 interchange.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase ill: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
18
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
I
I
----. - --
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
-----6- '
PROJECT
Lead Agency
Description
Total Eng. &
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
/,-1
.Jer
/.:::>
~ :.:: /
~
1-680 HOV LANES FROM STATE ROUTE 84 TO TOP OF
SUNOL GR.4.DE
Caltrans
Construction of approximately 3.5 miles (seven totallane-miles)ofHOV
lanes on 1-680 from 'the SR 84 ramps to 'the top of SUllol Grade at Mission
Pass, After adding 'these lanes, 1-680 would have three mixed lanes and
one HOV lane in each direction in this segment.
$14,4 million. This section ofI-680 has been designed to accommodate the
addition ofHOV lanes, Construction cost is mainly for the pavement
widening.
This projectis not in the adopted MTC RIP through the year 2015. Not
currently approved .
This project is not presently fimded.
To be determined.
Needed for overall person-trip capacity in the corridor. TVTC's 20] 0
constrained traffic forecasts show a peak hour, peak direction demand of
approximately 7,100 vph on 1-680 between SR 84 and the top of Sunol
Grade, which exceeds existing capacity,
TVTC Combined Study
Phase ill: Regional Tmfiic Impact Fee
19
Project Status Report
Revised -Deccmber6, 19%
-" -.'
.
.
I
,.' ,,-' ,- -
.. - ---.--.--
I 7
I
i
I
I
I
~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
.
II
.
>
II
1';1';
,.. I'j
./-"
;~
- I
- I
~
-'
PROJECT
1-5801FOOTHILL BOULEVARD Th'TERCHANGE
MODIFICA nONS
Lead Agenq'
Caltrans, BART
Description
To accommodate the W. Dublin BART station, the design of1he 1-
580IFoothill Road cloverleaf Interchange will be modified, replacing 1he
westbound and eastbound offloops wi1h diagonal ramps,
Total Eng &
Constr. Cost
$2.0 million.
Planning &
Approval Status
Included in the BART Dublin! Pleasanton E:x.'1ension project as approved in
the MTC RIP for 2005.
Funding
BART FEIR requires that B.I\RT cover 32% of1he costs of this project,
However, no funding source was assumed for this project in this study,
Schedule
Same as W, Dublin Station
Project Need
Needed to ensure adequate access tolfrom W. Dublin BART station, and
as mitigation ror the added traffic as a result or the station,
TVTC Combined Study
P"nase ill: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
20
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
-
1- _,,' ---g
- .
i
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...
~
I
PROJECT
Lead Agencies
Description
Total Eng.
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
/ ,/
,;,..-' ~
....,.. i J
::.>
t-,
- I
- ~ .
1-680/ALCOSTA BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE
MODIFICATIONS AND WIDENING OF SAN RAMON
Y ALLEY ROAD APPROACHES
Caltrans, San Ramon
Project in study phase. No design selected. Reconstruct the southbOlmd on
and off ramps at the 1-680 Alcosta Boulevard interchange to improve
operations at these ramps. This project includes closing the southbound off
ramp, building a new southbound onIoff ramp to the north of Alcosta
Boulevard, and widening San Ramon Valley Drive from two to four lanes
in the vicinity of the interchange,
$9,6 million. (Estimated by City of San Ramon)
Not in MTC RIP, Not currently approved in a regional transportation plan
or program.
.
$2.3 Million identified in Southern Contra Costa JEP A
To be determined,
Needed to improve traffic operations and capacity at the interchange,
TVTC's 2010 constrained traffic forecasts for all ramps are about 2,800
vph.
.
TVTC Combined study
P-lJaSe ill: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
21
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 19%
I
1.---
I 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
~
I
\
r
,
!~
~
I
f
~
t
~
,-
:;:;
rf"
J
,/ .:;,
~ I
-~_._-- -- --_,'.__.____..__._ ___..n _~.~_ _.___'>____... __
PROJECT
CROW CANYON ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Lead Agency
Alameda C01.mty
Description
Safety improvements on approximately 44 miles of Crow Canyon Road
from Bollinger Canyon Road in Contra Costa County to one mile north of
Noms Canyon Road. Realign roadway for a 50 mph design speed and
widen shoulders, but no new lanes. Add climbing lanes on 'the twcrlane
segments, and twcrway left-turn lanes to provide adequate access to
residential properties
Total Eng. &
Constr. Cost
$18 million (Estimated by Alameda County Public Works Agency)
Planning &
Approval Status
None, Not currently approved in a regional transponarion plan or program,
Funding
$239,000 has been programmed for Crow Canyon Road in 2001 as shown
in 'the 1995 CCTA Strategic Plan. This fimd can be used for safety
improvements. This leaves $17.8 million unfimded.
Schedule
To be determined.
Project Need
Needed as a safety improvement. (Projected 2010 PM peak hour volume
exceeds desirable capacity of existing and planned roadway two lane
road-way; however, project is not intended to address 'the potential capacity
deficiency. )
TVTC Combined Study
P"nase ill: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
Pioject Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
22
I '
i-
i,
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/'/ I
./::::> 6-{
,,;
/'.::f
C I
----..- --.-.- ------ -_.~- ---- ~ ---
--,-, --..
10'--
PROJECT
VASCO ROAD SAFETY IM:PROVEMENTS
Lead Agency
Alameda COlIDty
Description
From Livermore City limits to County Line; straighten, add shoulders, no
additional lanes from existing two-lane highway section.
Total Eng. &
Constr. Cost
$25 million (Estimated by Alameda County)
Planning &
Approval Status
Adopted in Alameda County Strategic Plan as a Tiertwo.(unfunded)
project
Funding
Unfunded.
Schedule
To be determined,
.
Project Need
Needed as a safety improvement (Projected 2010 volumes exceed
desirable capacity of existing and planned two lane roadway; however,
project is not intended to address the potential capacity deficiency.
.
TVTC Combined Study
P"lll!Se ill: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
23
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
i.
1.'--11--.
i
I
j
i
I
I
I
-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
'___, f
PROJECT
Lead Agencies
Description
Total Eng. &
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
"/j
j/
,;'/
,;)
, .-.,
I ~
c /
-- .. --, ..-_..... -
."- -- -_.._-~. .--" -- --- .,- --- ----
EXPRESS BUS SERVICE
Various.
Provide capital equipment in order to provide new E"--press bus service for
the nine express bus routes as proposed in the 1995 Tn-Valley
Transportation Action Plan.
$8 million assuming two buses per route based on $375,000 for each CNG
bus. (Unit price provided by Maria Marinos, assistant to Go-..neral Manager
of Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District)
None.
Unfunded,
To be determined,
Needed to accommodate projected rideship increase due to residential and
employment growth in the area In the absence of transit rideship growth,
traffic increases in the area would be greater than projected.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase ill: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
24
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
\.
, ,
"'''1
./z,
/
I
I
~
1.;1
-' '
~'
_--0.. ,+.--. ,--~-- -...." --- -- _. - -:
___.~.___ __ ~.:--__ _'0
.'
_ r
_u.__ __.__._ .-.- ___.~
_'H.__~.__-_"_ -- -,,--_._-'-:-~-~'---
I
APPENDIX B
TVTC 2010 MODEL FORECASTS
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
.
I
.
BASE
e 2
.. L1NKSl
Inodeob
<v,,"29 !
. THRESHOLD:
lO\4ER: -99999
UPPER: 9999S3
,:
!
!
I
1
1
I
I
I,
l;:!:3 ~~
t.\ -- -:1
','
",">
... ~ 1-
~ ~ 'g
~ -
~~
E!\fIE/2 Pl'\OJECT:
SCENARIO 300:
Trl-Vallev 2010 Model Update '9&
PM Pe"~ Hour. Ye"r 2010 (ABAO'S4). Constraln~d
ees PlannIng & EngIneering
I
~ I NDO\l :',
583931 39&&0 \.n
&4&&81 4&3&7 '~)
9&-12-0& 17:31
HODUL E : ~ . 1 3
eCS_EI~G , .. oS!!
\ \\.
I~ '
\) ,
'-.'-.l
::;=~:=.:.-"'-._~=~=:::'==--- __~~~....=:-==,:=,.:;.r---=.-= "..,-"",......'~=I:;.=..,..~~.":"~:::~-="":'--;--:~~;~t ;',
--..........- .
':.k.':~: . ...,':-','t r~'.\ " ..~ ~.;;~... ~ . "\:/.;.:.).:'J 1:,,::";' '~:.'.": ; " ".?;~ = .It ! -':~f.' f:dt';>.',.: <' .: :.' 'f ~ '.';; ;[ '.. ...' ;'~"~~ :
BASE NETWOI~K
LINK !JAm
~2
LINKS;
iTlode"b
8.1 t YP"29
HlRESHOLb:
LOIIER: -99999
UPPEn: 999999
~N
le2
~5_",
8 f
E 8
W
(/5
~~
'^'"
~o
,I'
\II NDO \I : ; "'--
58393/ 39&&0 ~
64(,&8/ 443&7
Ell~lE/2 PROJECT:
SCENRRIO 100:
Trl-V"lley 2010 Hodel Update '96
RM p~o~ Hour. Year 2010 (R8RO'9.), Constrained
ecs P\annlng 8. Engineering
%-12-0& 1 ~: 30
HODUL E : 2 . 1 3
CCS ENG" , ,:05 e
I
\
" \,
G'-
--Q
"...
H'
-~~,-,.:_,-, -',~-- ........" ".. ",-..-
.
I.
BASE
NO, OF LANES I VOLUME-OELnv FUNCTION
, ,0/21
~211 I 0/21:" :"
1.01 ' ~ '"
r. 0/21 r. O/EJj ~
I. 012' t. 0121
"''''
?;~
~~
~~
':-' '" 1.
'" '" t;
ty, ~,
~Q
t:V!
EIIlIE/2 PROJECT:
sCEt'lnn I 0 300 :
Trl-Vall~y 2010 Model Update '96
PH r~a~ Hour, Year 2010 (n8AC'9~), Constrained
CCS Plonnlng & Engineering
-~...:::::~:.;:::::,.-=-:::::...:.=..:::.:.=.-:,,~-==::;:-,=~=:""'--::-=-.:!-"'~':"';. -.,..-,~
i
,
,\
errmV2
LINKS:
modmob
&Ityp"29
I
I
\
\
I
\
I
I
\
\/1 NOD\!: i
593931 39~bO
G4GG91 4&367
9G-12-0G 17',:33
nOOUl E : 2 . 1 3
CCS_ENG, . . ,bse
--t:.::.
------
~,
U',.
-0
IES2
cC66
El1l1E/2 PROJECT:
SCElmn I 0 300 :
.
BASE NETWORK
USER DEFINED LINK ORTn 1
~~
6el9
e;g
'" -
J CitlO
I0J83
~~
34
12
>-
(j
3
"'f\l
~ ~~
t"l",
'<-
13
639
Trl-Valley 2010 Model Update '96
PH Peo~ Hour" ~eor 2010 [R8RO'S.), Constrained
eJI11192
27
682
-<\I
u,,,,
"'-
"""
,~ t-.
~~
&&
454
o
o
CCS Plannln; & Engineering
.
LINKS:! ,
mod"'ob
THRESHOLD:
LOWER: -99999
UPPER: 899999
I
,
'>.92
:::~
\/INDO\/:
G1G9('1 43(,13
62S22/ 4:1,233
91;-12-06 17:12
HOOUL E : 2 . 1 ;]
CCS_ENG, , , ,on
~
l"
~-\,'
I)' .
,,!..)
I,
.
C'34S
Ih6
Et1flE/2 pnOJECT:
sCEtlnn I 0 100 :
BASE
USEn DEFINED LINK DnTn 1
\~
,.-.flHSS SI,
~ ----
~
"'"
0) r.,
-u;
1., s f:'.'..~'
~~---
Jl, ~, 54;}
,~~
tl
3
'-
"l
4
23
D'~
r" '"
"'<:;
e51J
55
Irl-Vatt..y,2010 tlodet Update '96
Fill P",aI, 1'lou';:>,'Yeor 2010 (nBAG'94). Constrained
"-
~~
eIJ3
60
~~
!:\)\(j
~ t:,
o
o
CCS Ptannlng & Engineering
TIIRESHOLlJ:
LOWER: -99999
UPPER: 99999~
WINDO\!:
61696/ 43613
62522/ 1,4233
96-12-06 17:10
HOOUL E : ;: . 1 3
CCS ENG... :a9,"
-',\:.
\,~\,
\ !\
(j,
'--I, '
3,0/83
3,0/83
EtlllE/2 PROJECT:
SeEr-inn I 0 300:
BASE NETWORK
110, or- LnllES / VOLUtIE-DELnY rUNe r ION
(0) 0)
~IN
"'~
0)' 0;
~r\i
'-'S~
".io,j
~, 0/75
~~
"''''
~,o/ 5
&;1;;
~~
...:,.: 9,O~
~/29
'-
~J _-..
::-\ '00
~{ ~ ~
0'0,
~~
";0;
1.0/81
1,018/
(
~'"
"
;~.:"
Tri-Voll~y ~010 Mod~l Updat~ '96
Pit P..al, IIour, Y"or 2010 U1BAQ'9lo) , Congtroln..d
...,,=,=-==-~==".~~~=,="=,=<==::-'_u, '_: ~-"'~.<=-;'~~~
1 ..r;'ti,)
I. 0181
,0181
1.0/81
I. 0/9'
&s&:l
~~
..;..;
'" '"
QC:,
\]\]
9.0/29
9,0129
ees Planning a Engln~~rln9
",:,--r. r
-a
er\11l92
LIIlKS:
mod"ob
\/1 NOOI,I : i
G1GSGI 1,3G13
G25221 1,1,233
9G-12-0G 17:'13
1100ULE: 2,13
CCS ENG,., ,~se
"--l '
'\::--
\\
u - .'
--Q
.
.
BASE NETWORK
USER DEFINED LINK onrn 1
Z596_
30(4
227
499
E1111E/2 PROJECT:
SCHIRf\ I 0 300 :
Tri-Valley 2010 l10del Update '96
1"11 Peal, Hour. Year 2010 {RBRG'9~J. Con..trolned
CCS,Plannlng & Engineering
-,
8003
clOf
c6l9
-,
__I
-\}\
~-
-\1'1
0641
227
499
652
1036
-,
L IHKS: :
mod"Clb
THRESHOLD :,
LOWER: -99999
UPPER: 889988
IIINOOI,/:
5aS121 ~3;i34
59260/ 410291.
96-12-01; \ 7 :',20
110DULE: 2,113
ceS_EtIG. , , . cis"
~1 .
'! '
2
I
. I
't::::
\J\
\:\
"
G'"
'-'J~'
BASE NET,^,OI~K
USER DEFINED LINK DATn 1
3Z01.:..-
i'?983
4'8
81
H1I1E/2 rI1UJECT:
sCEtlAn I 0 100 :
'rl-Vall~y 2010 Hodel Updote 'S6
All Peal, Hour, Year 2010 (R8RG'St,), Congtrolnad
ees Planning & Engineering
"O"~-'"-',--",,-,--,--',=~" .~,-',.,'--'-'-'-'" =c.. ~ ,~'
, "~~~==~~:=~~~~~7"'~'-."~~------
26/S
1796
/O~6'
669'
418
81
2610
1808
e~2
ru-
t.>-
~8
LINKS :\
mOc/"Clb ,I
mRESHOllD :
LO\(ER: -99999
UPPER: 999999
I
I
I'
;
lOJ
l?48
I
\/1 NDO\l : \
sa5121 "3,73/,
592601 1,1,291,
j
96-12-0(, 17'17
110DULE: 2,13
CCS_ENG, , , :Cl~e
'~
G",
'-,
("
~,
.
NO. Or-
FUNCTION
'"
4_0L.19-
~G,O:13 '"
t" V.
,~\''J,'' " v,......
1.0/21
1.0/21
!"!"
00
~~
EtlHE/2 PROJECT:
SCHlnn I 0 300:
'?l
Trl-Vattey 2010 Ilod..\ Updot.. '96
PI! Peal, "our, Year 2010 (nsnO'Sl\), Conslroln..d
ces Plonnlng & Engln....rlng
.. ~.. . .,' ..
-.. -" --- ._--
.'-... ----::.=.- .:..;:--=:.....::...-;~_::..-:;=;..-....: :~~:~.::::- "~=:~~-;=~=~_"':..::..:..:.:=;.=~:.=..::-.:=,::~-:~...::-~.:.;;..;::=:~:...-=:",::. .
3,0/113
3. Or83
4.0/19
-
~C's
v, o-<~ S
9,
1.01C:1
, ,0121
3.0183
3.0183
4,0119
emn~2
LINr.S:
modBob
~,~
00
~a
\
0-
r:>
S.0/29
8.0/2
\/INOO\J:
58512/ 1,3731,
592GOI (,(,291,
-,(
" \
9!;-12-0G 17:22
I-lOOUL E : 2 , 1 3
CCS_ENG. , . ,tis"
\\
\
IS"
'I,)
- -~ _ ~__u__ __ _______. _ ~ _._ __ ~ ~ ~
1% ?J t:~
.---
--'--- ' Tri-ValleyI{egionalTransporlatian
Improvement Fee Program
Nexus Anc.Zysis
. Introduction
.
In July 1995, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) adopted the Tri-VaIle1) Action
Plan as its blueprint for transportation planning through the year 2010. The Plan
acknowledges that financial constraints played a critical role in selecting an optimal level
of service and identifying only the most critical improvement to regional roadways and
transit facilities. As an integral component of the Plan's financial strategy, TVTC will
leverage over $162 million in federal, state, and local (ie., Measure Cand Measure B sales
tax funding) provided it can raise matching funds from other IOea! sources.
The TVTC selected 11 improvements that will require over $534 million, leaving $368
million of the plan CUITently unfunded. .In order to fund this gap, the TVTC has
undertaken a study of a Regional Transportation Improvement Fee (RTIF). The RTIF
would charge a fee on new development to augment other funding for projects on routes
of regional significance. The purpose of this report is to document the technical analysis
necessary for the implementation of the Rill traffic fee.
. Methodology
An area-wide fee progTam must conform to the requirements of Government Code 66000
et seq. and subsequent opinions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court, California Supreme
Court, and lower courts. While the statutes and court decisions provide general
guidelines, the design and implementation of multi-jurisdictional impact fees is not as
tightly c:iIrumscribed as other local revenue measures (e.g., assessment districts, local
sales tax measures, subdivision map/ developer exactions). Nevertheless, the statutory
requirements and judicial guidance behooves the TVrC to follow a basic five step process
to design its regional fee:
.
1. Convert New Development Into A Net Increment of New Trips. ABAG's Projections
94 provides the forecast of new residents and employees moving into the Tri-Valley
area over the next 20 years. Tnis projection of residential and employment growth in
each jurisdiction must be converted to a 13 year increment of new trip generation
(1997 to 2010). Tnis increment must then be reduced by the number of trips
associated with eLP11Zpt development Exempt development has already received a
vesting tentative map or has a development agTeement excluding assessment of
additional fees.
Ozmbridge sYSL.'711Iltics, inc.
1
Ual' ,,,#!? /'::=-
7~; IC> /
'Z:'~- Spec:ify''theTransportation Improvements Needed to-Growth:---The law allows the ... .
TVTC to require new development to mitigate its full impact on the Tri-Valley routes
of regional significance [i.e., maintain current levels of service (LOS)]. The TVTC,
however, has limited the maximum cost to new development to the unfunded portion
of the Action Plan's eleven projects, approximately $368 million. This is substantially
below the threshold of new development's full responsibility.
3. Eva~uate the Relationship Between the Improvements, the Share of Funding from
New Development, and the Impact of New Trip Generation. The improvements
must providebc...nefits that are in reasonable proportion to the amount of the impacts
fees paid by new development. Thus, if TVTC imposes a uniform fee, it must reach a
consensus that new development in all parts of the Tri-Valley area will receive
roughly proportional benefits from the improvements.
4. Allocate Costs Across Land Use Types. Fee amounts should be fairly distributed
among residential, retail, office, and industrial) development. This distribution is
based on the trip generation characteristics of each land use type. Nevertheless, the
TVTC may reduce the fees for some types of land use if the foregone revenue is
replaced with some other funding source (e.g., federal and state) and the RTIF-funded
projects are eventually built.
5. Prepare Fee Schedules and Implementation Ordinances. Each local jurisdiction,
through their exercise of their police power" must adopt an ordinance imposing the .
fee on development within their jurisdiction. The TVTC may adjust a uniform fee
schedule for specific land use conditions or circumstances, including the effects of
household income on trip generation, the land use's proximity to transit stations, and
the effects of jobs-housing balance on travel behavior.
The remainder of this report explains the calculations and presents the results of each of
the five steps described above. Supporting documentation regarding transportation
analysis and computer modeling is available from TVTC.
. New Development and Incremental Trip Generation
From 1997 through 2010, new development in the Tri-Valley area will generate 56,907
additional a.m. peak hour trips on the area's routes of regional significance, a 40 percent
increase over the next 14 years. The following sections explain the origins of this increase.
Population, Employment, and Land Use Growth
The fee is based on the projected growth in Tri-Valley households and employment
forecast by ABAG (Projections 94). The figures for 1997 are estimated by straight line
interpolation betw~...n the years 1990 and 2000. Households, which are occupied dwelling
units, are used as a pro)..)' for dwelling units and adjusted for an area-wide vacancy rate. .
Table 1 presents the population and employment projections.
Camirridge Systematics, Inc.
2
.
r - ::;.
:5' D .::-r: &:: /
-./
-,e_-
- -'-~-TabIeT:'-c-A_.sAG Forecast'of Tri;..VcrHey Households -~--~'- -
Jurisdiction 1997 2010 Increment Shares Growth
Alamo/Blackhawk 7,148 7,906 758 1.7% 10.6<;~
Danville 12,943 14,790 1,847 4.0% 14.3%
Dougherty 2,224 10,356 8,132 17.8% 365,6%
Tassajara 168 280 112 0"0' 67,1%
._/0
San Ramon 15,077 18,411 3,334 7.3% 22.1%
Other Contra Costa Co. 697 845 148 0"'0' 21.3%
.::> /0
Total Contra Costa Co. 38,256 52.588 14,332 31.3% 37.5~;'
Livermore 24,291 34,997 10,706 :s <1 0' 44.1%
.... 10
Pleasanton 21,277 30,151 8,874 19,4% 41.7%
Dublin 9~72 20,880 11,508 25 ')0' 122,8 %
.._10
Other Alameda Co. 240 549 309 0.7% .129.1 %
Total Alameda Co. 55,180 86,577 31,397 68.7% 56.9%
Total Tri-Valley 93,436 139,165 45,729 100.0% 48.9%
.
As shown in Table 1, residential development in Alameda Caunty will accommadate aver
two-thirds of the area's residential development. Daugherty Valley, the area's fastest
grawing community, will accaunt for almast 18 percent of the area's new residents.
Dublin and the unincorparated area of Alameda County are the new twO' most rapidly
developing jurisdictions and will accaunt for 26 percent af the grawth.
Table 2 shows that the three jurisdictians in Alameda Caunty will accammodate mare
than three-quarters of the Tri-Valley's employment grawth. Tatal employment for the
region is expected to' increase by aver 57 percent, ,,,.rith total jobs in the Contra Costa
County increasing by more than A.? percent and in AJameda Caunty by 64 percent.
Table 2. ABAG Forecast af Tri- Valley Emplayment Growth fram 1997 to' 2010
Jurisdiction 1997 2010 Increment Shares Growth
Alamo /Blackhawk 2,072 .., .,-.., 200 0.3~~ 9'"'0'
_,--1 _ ./ 10
Danville 6,960 7,226 266 0.3% 3~8%
Dougherty 765 5,365 4,600 6.0% 601.3%
Tassajara 31 32 1 0.0% '"' ,.,01
:;'.._/0
San Ramon 32,397 45,204 12,807 16.7% 39.5%
Other Contra Costa Co. 91 92 1 0,0% 1,1 ~~
T ota] Contra Costa Co. 42,315 60,191 17,876 23,4% _.., "'0'
"'::____/0
Livermore 33,811 51,815 18,004 23.5% 53.2~~
Pleasanton 40,137 61,476 21,339 ..,-; QOI --. ~O'
_, _"- 10 :J.;)._ 10
. Dublin 16,836 36,000 19,164 25.0~~ 113.8~~
Other Alameda Co. 791 943 1-" 0.2% 19..2~~
:J_
Total Alameda Co. 91,576 150,234 58,658 76.6% 64,1 ~~
Total Tri-Valley 133,891 210,425 76,534- 100.0% --.. '101
:J/ .';"/0
Cambridge Systematics, Inc,
3
~/ ~ b;
;../
Population and employment growth will generate and attract new trips on the area's .
regional-ioaav.'ays: Thes-oclo.;;ecohorrUt'projections snc5-v.i:fillTciblesl'and 2 are useain a -.-'-'
transportation demand forecasting model developed specifically for the Tri-Valley area to
forecast the increase in travel. The results of the modeling are sho'wn in Table 3.
Trip Generation
Table 3. presents the a.m, peak hou! traffic volumes for the years 1997, 2010, and the
growth vdthin the 14 year increment The projections assume all 11 Action Plan projects
are built.
Table 3. Growth in AM Peak Hour Trip Ends From 1997 to 2010
1997 2010 Increment Share Growth
Alamo jBlackhawk 6,857 7,609 753 1.3% 11.0%
Danville 15,518 16,471 o-~ 1.7% 6.1%
",,:J.:>
Dougherty 3,572 11,683 8,111 14.3% 227.1 %
Tassajara 160 233 73 0.1% 45.4%
San Ramon 23,336 :5 ,179 1,843 ~ ?Ol 7.9%
;)._10
Other Contra Costa C~ty 519 60- 176 0.3% 34,0%
,:>
Total Contra Costa County 49,962 61,870 11,908 20.9% 23.8% .
Livermore 37,874 52,917 15,043 26.4% 39.7%
Pleasanton 36,369 49,684 13,315 23,4% 36.6%
Dublin 18,822 35,145 16,323 28.7% 86.7~~
Other .LlJameda County 575 893 318 0.6% -- ....01
:> :>..J 10
Total Alameda County 93,640 138,639 44.999 79.1% 48.1%
.
Total Tri-Valley 143,602 200,509 56,907 100.0% 39,6%
The total increment of 56,907 new trips encompass all trips that either originate or
terminate in the Tri-Valley area. In addition, the area "",ill accommodate roughly 5,530
new through trip ends (external- external), or roughly 10 percent of the total increase,
Exempt Development
The total increment of new trip generation (from 1997 to 2010) includes trips from new
development that will be exempt from paying a fee, Their exemption is due to either one
of two legal criteria applying to a development project that has (1) been issued a vested
tentative map or (2) completed a development agreement that explicitly excludes assess-
ment of any additional fees.1 If either of these criteria apply to a development project as
of the official date that the jurisdiction's council or board adopts the RTIF, the developer
may pull the proscribed number of building permits v.rithout paying a fee.
1 If for any reason the vesting tentative map or development agreement of an exempt development
expires or must be re-negotiated, the jurisdiction may impose the fee.
.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
4
_'I -< I Of
~~ .:/;) b I
.,..
- ,~'l1il~, the ):r~Eortation impacts of exempt development will be as real as the impacts
tram non-exempfQevel6pment;1:heTVT~-cannet impese a-fee..and therefor cannot collect
fee revenues for the proposed projects. Thus, we must subtract the number of new trips
generated by exempt development from the total increment of new trips, The result is the
net amount of new trips over which we can allocated the unfunded cost of the selected
improvements.
Table 4 shows the exempt development in the Tri-Valley area.
Table 4. Exempt Development By Jurisdiction
Residential Retail Square Office Square Industrial
Jurisdiction Dwelling Units Feet Feet Square Feet
Alamo/Blackhawk
Danville
Dougherty
TVPOA
San Ramon 650 2,123,600
Other Tri-Valley CC County
Total Contra Costa Co. 650 2.1::.3,600
Live..-more 1,414 4,961,000
Pleasanton 2,790
. Dublin 172
Other T ri- Valley Alameda County
Total Alameda Co, 4,376 4,961,000
Total Tri-Valley 5,026 2,123,600 4,961,000
lhe exempt development 5ho"'11 in Table 4 is subtracted from the total 1997 to .2010
increment of new development in Trr-VaTIey. The projection of new development for Tri-
Valley is a rough estimate based on the ABAG socia-economic forecasts, Average
vacancy rates are used to convert households to dwelling units. Average density factors
are used to covert employees to square feet of retail, office and industrial space. The
results are shown in Table 5.
.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
5
<' ,. ..-P /':::>-
.-/ :;.::::; iC I
Table-5.--- "Estimates of New Developm~ntJo.~ ~r:i.:YalIeJ(~~9~_-..20~O)
u.
Land Use Cate~ories
Single Family Dwelling Units
Multi Family Dwelling Units
Small Retail Square Feet (<200,000 sq, ft.)
Large Retail Square Feet (>200,000 sq. ft.)
Office Square Feet
Industrial Square Feet
1997 - 2010
Increment --
34,597
6,105
8,848,040
2,949,347
9,152,200
5,396,500
For each category of land use exempt development was converted into trips and the
amount deducted ITom the total number of trips for that land use. For example, a vested
project with twenty dwelling units of single family residential would generate 0.74 a.m,
peak hour trips per unit or a total of 14.8 a.In- peak hour trips. The results of this
adjustment process are presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Total, Exempt, and Net AM Peak Hour Trip Ends From 1997 to 2010
Total Trip Ends Exempt Trip Ends Net Trip Ends .
Alamo /Blackhawk 753 0 753
Danville 953 0 0-'"
...::J':>
Dou o-hertv 8,111 0 8,111
o _
T assajara 73 0 -..,
I::>
San Ramon 1,843 689 1,154
Other Contra Costa Co. 176 0 176
LivermOTe &. North Livermore 15,043 3,/:>7 11,286
Pleasanton 13,315 2.093 11,122
Dublin &. East Dublin 16,323 122 16,201
Other Alameda Co, 318 0 318
Total 56,907 6,661 50,246
Tne appropriate trip generation rates are applied to the exempt development in order to
estimate the number of new trips that must be deducted from the total increment.: Tne
total number of trips from exempt residential development equals roughly 3,500 a,m,
peak trips, or about 56 percent of the total 6,661 exempt trips. Non-residential develoF-
ment will generate the remaining 44 percent. These estimates are deducted ITom the total
: The trip generation rates are determined from the Trip Generators, 5th Edition, Institute of Traffic .
Engineers (IrE) and modified according to special Tri-Valley conditions as determined from the
updated traffic model. Tnese rates are shown in Table 11,
Cambridge Systematics, inc,
6
,e-u
.
.
.
'.
c-d ~ ~ 7
--- ./
----.........---......--...
increme.."1t at 56,9'07new tripS: proQuting'IoughJy'50,246 net trips that may be.a~signed, a
share at the cost of improvements.
. Transportation Improvements
In July of 1~95, TVTC adopted the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan faT Ralites of
Regional Significance (Action Plan). The Action Plan identifies 11 projects that will achieve
the best level of service within the Tri-Valley given financial constraints, physicallimita-
hons within corridors, and development patterns. The Plan integrates enhancements to
roadway capacity, increased transit service, control of demand (grov.rth management and
TDM), and acceptance of congestion in locations where it carmot be avoided (see TIze
Action Plan, pages 117to 123).
Table 7 identifies the 11 major projects on routes of regional significance within the Tri-
Valley. The TV"TC selected this set of actions - as well as other programs and measures
described in the Plan - to mitigate congestion and achieve a specific set of Traffic Service
Objectives. These results assume that future traffic \'\Till be constrained by the limited
capacities of highway facilities serving the Tri-Valley Gateways (see The Action Plan,
Chapter 5, "Gateway Constraints").
Table 7. Action Plan Projects and Available Funding
Project
1-580/1-680 Interchange
Route 84 (includes interchanges at 1-580 and Stanley)
1-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon)
BART Extension: West Dublin station
1-580 Tassajara to N, Livermore: HOV Lanes
1-680 Rte 84 to Sunol: HOV Lanes
I-58D/Foothill Interchange modifications for W, Dublin BART
1-680/ Alcosta Interchange modifications
Crow Canyon Rd Safety Improvement
Vasco Road Realignment
Express Bus Service
Total Action Plan
Funding Unfunded
Total Cost Available Amount
$10.1
5176,9
523,6
5111.2
5213.0
540,0
543,0
540,0
514.4
$2.0
$9.6
$18.0
525.0
$8.0
5534.2
$111.1
$36.1
S16.4
SO.O
SO.O
SO.O
SO,O
S2.3
$0.2
50.0
50.0
5166.1
543,0
540,0
$14.4
52.0
$7.3
$17.8
525.0
$8,0
S368.1
The unru..."1ded cost of all 11 Action Plan projects equals roughly $368 million in 1997 dol-
lars, or about 70 percent of the total cost.
luter co:nsiderable technical analvsis and careful consideration, the TV"TC has determined
that a fee program designed t~ fund the full 5)368 million shortfall would place an
excessive financial burden on new development. This burden would be most severe on
low-income housincr and commercial development. For exarrmle, hea,.'v fees on
o ~ J
Cambridge Systematics, Inc,
7
5S -:f c:" i
-- ~--unnmercial"Ci~velopment-, would- -hav~-the"" probable- ~,and ' counterpmductil'.e-
consequence of driving some job-creating development outside the Tri-VaDey, thus
exacerbating the region's jobs/housing imbalance.
--.
Given these objectives, the TV1C ranked the 11 projects according to their affect of con-
gestion and the amount of state and federal funding that could be leveraged using fee
revenues as a local match, In order to facilitate this ranking, Route 84 was divided into six
separate projects. Each was then evaluated on.its own merits and compared to the other
10 Action Plan projects. Table 8 presents the six highest-ranked projects.
Table 8. Selected Action Plan Projects and Available Funding
Funding Unfunded
Project Total Cost Available Amount
1-58011-680 Interchange
Rte 84: 1-5801Isabel Ext. new II C; Isabel at 41anes
Rte 84/Isabel Ext.: J. London to Concannon & 1-580/..o\.irway
Rte 84: 1-580 to Vineyard: widen to 4 lanes
J-68o Auxiliary Lanes (Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon)
BART Extension: West Dublin station
Total For All Six Projects
51212
$40,0
$32.0
$25.0
$40.0
$43.0
$309.2
5111.1
50.0
$28.1
50.0
$16.4
$0.0
5163.6
$10.1
$40,0
53.9
525.0
$23.6.
543,0.
5144,6
.
As shown in Table 8, this short list of the highest ranked projects totals $309 million in
cost of which roughly $145.6 million - or about half - is unfunded. Thus, this short list
represents a 65 percent reduction in the unfunded cost TVTC intends to cover with the
impact fee.
Existing Local Impact Fees for Action Plan
Some Tri-Valley jurisdictions require new development to mitigate their impacts on the
same sections of regional routes that will be improved by one of the Action Plan projects,
Developers either pay local impact fees, dedicate right-oi-way, or construct transportation
facilities. Some jurisdiction's include funding for one or more of the six projects in their
local fee programs. h1 these cases, the TVTC will work with local jurisdictions to reduce
the local fee by the amount of the regional component and new development will pay the
full regional fee. Thus, the total amonnt being funded by the RTIF fee must be increased
by the amount of funding from local fees.
Table 9 presents an initial L-Lventory of each jili-isdiction's locally funded (or required)
improvements to the six highest-ranked projects,
.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc,
8
<-
.:;; i,;
-': / ;:;a
~ b /
..;
~..-,-,---.,:rable3.__,L.Q,c;:aLEunc!ing for Selected Projects
~ -----~~._---..~~ -.-.-.- ,.--- --~"-"._---_.......-..-~--- .---~'"-~-,"-""-..-- --...'-.,..'---- -- -.~- --
Jurisdiction
Millions of 199i
Dollars
Alamo/Blackhawk
Danville
Dougherty
Tassajara
San Ramon
Other TV Contra Costa County
Total Contra Costa Co,
(estimate)
(estimate)
S 0,7
5 6.2
(estima te)
(estimate)
51.4
5 0.1
$8.5
Livermore
Pleasanton
Dublin
Other TV Alameda County
Total Alameda Co.
57.5
57.5
Total Tri-Valley
S 16.0
.
The amounts shown in Table 9 for the four jurisdictions in CDntra CDsta County are
estimates Df the Southern CDntra Costa Fee for Traffic Mitigation. The estimates assume
roughly proportional to the trip generation estimated from each jurisdiction. As noted
above, the S16 million total in local fee revenue must be added to the $145.6 million in
wll~lded cost. Tne total amount to be funded v.it..'1 the RTIF, therefore, eauals 5161.6
..
million.
.
N cXllS ~4.nalysis
Tne im:Dact of new Tri-Valley development on recional transportation facilities is based
.. .. 0
on an update Df the Tri-Valley Model completed by Dowling Associates (Tn'- Valley Re-
Validation Report, June 1997). Tnis computer model simulates current and future traffic
flows on the roadway network under a wide range of user-specified conditions, The
model is extremely useful for determining the impact of new development on roadway
levels-of-service. In particular, the model estimates new development's fair share of the
Action Plan improvements by isolating the effects of new development from those of
existing development, through (exterr.aJ-externaI) trips, and existing deficiencies.
Tnis analvsis i.."1.dicated that this development will cause levels-of-service to decline
- .
despite all of the improvements proposed in MTCs short and long range improvement
plan. Nor lVW the improvements to be funded as part of the Action Plan prevent
degr-adation's in levels-of-se..-vice.
.
As pfu-t of its Action Plan, the T\7TC has evaluated the impact of new development on its
subregional system a-Tld identified numerous improvements. These improvements - if all
were coumleted bv L'1e Year 2010 - will iJ.,crease the area' 5 capacity for vehicle miles of
J.. _ .... ... ~
Cambridge Systematics, Ir.::,
9
T? c:f 6;
, ,_ rraveL(VMT) by alr;r1Qst 21 per;:enj:._ 1:J.e~c:le:v~~opme~ will increase t.I1e number of VJvIT .
using t.I1is capacity by 48 percent, thus absorbing almosT-99-percenCofEhe-new capa-cit:\':"-- -. '
VM1' from through trips (i.e., trips travel through the area but not stopping) will increase
16 percent Of the total 254,281 increase in VMT, new development will account for 90
percent of the increase. Table 10 presents the results of the VMT analysis in more detail.
Table 10. VMT Analysis from 1997 to 2010
1997 2010 Increment Chan~e
VMT for.till Tri-VaIley 632,756 887,037 254281 40.2%
VMT for Through Trips 151.987 176,167 24,180 15,9%
VMT for Internal Tri-Valley 480,769 710,870 230,101 47.9%
VMT Capacity 1,117,059 1,350.559 233,500 20.9%
The results shov."Il in Table 10 would justify the TVTC allocating 90 percent of the Action
Plan's total cost - roughly 5535 million - to new development in the Tri-Valley area, For-
tunately, TVTC has secured 5166 million (or 30 percent of the total) from other sources,
leaving 5368 million still unfunded. VVhile the TVTC could require new development to
fund the entire ~ded balance, it has selected six projects it believes are most needed.
These projects, however, will not prevent some degradation in the regional network' s .
level of service.
. Fee Calculations
Fee calculations involve four steps:
. Step 1- Allocation of Costs: DeteTIIrine if the total share of unfunded costs should be
allocated uniformly to all new development in the Tri-Valley area, regardless of juris-
diction, or if a t.I1e fees must be determined on a jurisdiction-by-juri..sdiction basis.
. Step 2 - Cost per Peak hour a Trip End: Calculate three per trip amounts and t.I1ree
fee schedules based generating sufficient revenues to fund the $368 million unfunded
balance for all 11 Action Plan Projects and the 5161.6 million for the selected projects.
. Step 3 - Preliminary Fee Schedules: Apply the three costs per peak hour trip end to
the trip generation characteristics of different types of land use to create three pre-
limina.")' fee schedules.
. Step 4 - Final Fee Schedule: As an altemative to the three fee schedules in Step 3, cre-
ate a discounted fee schedule which reduces the financial burden placed on new
development by collecting less than the full, unfunded amount.
.
CamDndgc Systematics, Inc.
10
'.'
.
.
......' "- ~ ,.! -
Allocation -of ~Costs -' _.
,,- -+."- -- ~-.,---- -.-- .-
The fee revenue generated by each jurisdiction should be rough proportion to the benefits
each jurisdiction receives from the Action Plan improvements. Tnis balance, however, is
difficult to quantify given the complexity of travel patterns in the Tri-Valley. As an alter-
native to a quantitative analysis, the TVTC's Technical Advisory Committee has recom-
mended six projects it believes represent a reasonable balance of benefits to all
jurisdictions. Given. the extensive experience of the TAC's membership, this qualitative
approach is a satisfactory alternative to a qualitative analysis using the transportation
model (i.e., select-link analysis of all proposed projects3). Thus, TVTC has decided to
apply a uniform cost per peak hour trip end across all TVTC ju.risdictions.
Costs Per Peak Hour Trip End
A uniform cost per peak nour trip end is calculated by dividing the net increase of 50,246
new a.m. peak hour trip ends by the three revenue targets: $368 million ior all 11 Action
Plan Projects and $161.6 million for six selected projects.. Table 11 presents the two costs
per peak hour trip end.
Table 11. Alternative Funding Amounts and Corresponding Costs Per Peak
Hour Trip End.
Full Action Plan (11 Projects)
Selected Projects
Revenue Targets
(Sl,OOO,OOO's)
$368,1
$161.6
440'
. /0
Per Peak Hour
Trip End
$7,362
S3.216
Share of
Action Plan
Preliminat-y Fee Schedules
The fee amounts are determined by multiplying the cost per a.m. peak hour trip end by
the number of trips generated by a particular land use. For purposes of efficiency and
consistency, TVTC has limited its fee schedule to two types of residential development
(i.e., single and multi-family dwelling units) and four types of commercial space (large
and small retail, office, and industrial). Table 12 shows the Institute of Traffic Engineers
trip generation rates for each of these land use, In addition, it shows the adjustments for
average trip length, trip diversion, and the final adjusted trip length.
:; For each segment of regional roadway that will be improved using fee revenues, select lillk allalysis
shows the origins and destinations of future trips. Tnus, the results help allocate the benefit of the
improved roadway according to the amount of new development in each jurisdiction,
Cambridge Systrnzatics, inc.
11
c:::"""7
./{
'- <>:f t: '7
...
------ __T~Qle_1),_,_,b..M:. r_e~k liour 1!ip.s;~~~r~tion J3,ates and Adjustments
-- ....:.-. -.---- ..,...."'_. -.:._,-......-,.-.- -.... -
-.
Trip Diversion Trip Length Adjusted A.M
Land Use Categories Base Rates Ad iustmentFactor Adjustment Factor Peak Hour Trip Rate
Single Family Residential 0.74 1.00 1.00 0.74
Multi Family Residential 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.47
Retail per sq. It. (<200 ksf) 1.60 0.20 0.50 0.16
Retail per sq. It. (>200 ksf) 0.80 OA5 0.50 0.18
Office per sq. ft. 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.33
Industrial per sq, It. 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90
Trip diversion factors indicate the percentage of trips for each land use category that are
part of a longer trip but divert less than two miles out of the way to stop at the land use,
Trip length adjusts for trip shorter than the home-based work trips. The rates shov.rn in
Table 13 are multiplied by the cost per peak hour trip end pTOduce the three preliminary
fee schedules shov.rn below. The bottom row shows the estimated amounted of revenue
each fee schedule should collect over the next 13 years.
Table 13. Preliminary Fee Schedules (1997 - 2010)
Land Use Categ-ories
Single Family Residential
Multi Family Residential
Retail per square foot (<200 ksf)
Retail per square foot (>220 ksf)
Office per square foot
Ind ustrial per square foot,
Total Revenues (51,000,000)
Full Action Plan
(II-Projects)
$5,421
$3,443
$1.17
$1.32
$9.74
$6.59
5368.1
Selected
Proiects
.
52,380
$1,512
$0.51
SO .58
54.28
$2.89
5161.6
.
Ca7llnridgc Systematics, inc,
"')
l~
/' /'. ' i-51
cL/ !C IC/
--.-"--- -
.
.
13
Cmni:1rUige Systerruztics, inc.
--.'-
. ,,' " , , ----~,-'~-'-,--"~-'
. . - ...-----.-- _._- -- -
----,..... -- -----,,----,-..,...,.-- ---
Tri-VaIley Combined Study
. : ~
Technical Report:
"
Status and Funding of High ,Priority Projects
,..i
~
';'.'i
-. .,
-:1
, ,
.. '!
, "
.
dJlb
,F
.
prepared for
Dowling Associates
and
TIi-Valley Transponation Council
By
ccs
Planning and Engineering'
Incorporated
December 6, 1996
c;/ ff(b'l
,,' ,
- ; '7 ,,:;;f 6 /C:
c,er- z/ '.
'" T --'V" -" II "'C. b - d S t' -d" ,- --, -'---- '"
rI- a ey' om 'iIfe" Ii y
.
-
','
Technical Report:
Status and Funding of High Priority Projects
Prepared For
Dowling Associates
.
and
Tri-Valley Transportation Council
By
CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
42080 Osgood Road, Suite 1
Fremont, CA 94539
December 6, 1996
.
-"'.--~
,--- -
.
.
b ~ -r.'" (., c>.7
./ C/'!; b
v'
- --=;-_..,.. --~~._..~_.- - .~---., -- .;.
This report describes the eleven high priority projects identified in the 1995 Tri- Valley
T ransportaIion Action Plan, presen'lS their estimated costs andfimding status, and discusses
priorities for completion of the projects.
PROJECT FUNDING STATUS
Table 1 on the next pages summarizes the estimated costs and fimding status of the eleven high
priority projects. The engineering and construction costs were obtained from available agencies
and were supplemented by the consultant's estimated costs as of July 31, 1996, The costs are
presented in 1996 dollars. These estimated costs can vaxy 25 percent from the actual cost The
&.'"tUal cost cannot be determined tmril the design plans, specifications, and estimates are completed
for each project.
Five major funding sources are shown in the table:
· Measure B - Ftmding from Alameda C01mty's Measure B program based on the 1996 third
quarter report by Alameda County Traffic Authority.
· Measure C - Ftmding from Contra Costa COUIlty'S Measure C program based on the 1995
Strategic Plan and input from Paul Maxwell, Deputy Executive Director of the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority.
· SLTPP - State Local Transportation Partnership Program matching fimd from the State.
· Development fees and contributions (including Southern Contra Costa JEP A)
· Other fimding sources such as local jurisdictions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
In Appendix A., the following information is presented ror each of the eleven high priority projects:
· Project Title
· Lead Agency - Current or potential lead agencies ror the project
· Project Description - Summarizing the improvement items included in the project
· Total Engineering and Construction Cost - Mostly obtained from the various agenCIes.
Otherwi.se, the estimates reported in the 1995 Tri-Valley Transportation Action Plan were
used.
7VTC Combined Study
:)nase ill: Rel!iona] Traffic Imnact Fee
2
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6. 1996
::','.;'.:.
.' .....
.'....
, ,
I::'. .'
Table 1
PIlOJECT rUNDING SOUIlCES
Project Doscrlptlon
1-680/1,680 iic SB to EB Flyover
SA 84 hnprovornents: 1-680 to 1-680
New 1-580/lsabellnterchanga: Isebal Pkwy @ 4 lanes
Isabel Ex!. (J. London to Concannonl @ 2 lones, and
1-580/Alrwey Bvd. Interchenge Modification
Isebel Ext. (Concennon to Vlneysrd! @ 2 lenes
Isabel Ext. (Vlneyerd to Vallecltosl @ 2 lanes
sn 84 Interim: Naw 2-lene roed. Vallecltos to 1-680
~n 84 COl!!pletlon: Widen to 4 lones. Vellecltos to 1-680
sn 84: Wldonto 4-8 lanas Irom Vallecltos to 1-580
1-680 Aux lones from Diablo to Bollinger
W99t Dublin BART Stotlon ond Access
BAnT Stotlon plus eddltlonal porklng and other
mitigation l110asures Including Lourel Creek Way signal,
naw parallel connector to Dublin Blvd. and
Dublin Blvd, widening
1,680 T08so)oro to N. Livermore: IIOV lanes
1-880 RIo. 84 to Sunol: HOV lanes
1-500/ FoothlllllC Modlllcallon. lor W. Dublin BAnt
1-680/Alcosto Blvd. IIC Modlllcetlon
Move southbound on/oil remps to nOlth;
Widen San nalllon Vollay nd approaches
Crow Canyon nd. Solety Irnprovamonts,
From Counly LIne 10 1 mi. norlh 01 Norris Conyon nd,;
Strolghten, shoulders.. no widening !rom extg.
Vasco nd, Solety Improvoments
From LIvermore City limits to County LIne;
Strelghten. shoulders.. no widening !rom extg,
ElIprass Bus Service
Purchase two vehicles lor each 01 the rnaxlrnurn 01
9 new Express noules lor Inlerclty servlcas
TOTAL 634.2 130.6 8.1 4.2 18.3 4.9
Funding Sources: Meos, B .. AiBmeda Measure B: Moas, C .. Contra Costa County Measure C; SL TPP .. State Local Transportatioh Partnership Program;
Dev, Fees.. Devalopar Impact Fees lIncludlng South Contra Costa JEPAI: Other.. Local Agancles,
:No.
1
Z
2a
2b
lend Agency
Collrans
Various
Caltrons, L1varmore
Livermore
2c LIvermore
2d Livermore
2e Caltrans
21 Caltrarrs
1L Callrans
3 Collrons
4 BART
LCtlllrens
o Callrens
7 Dublin
o Son nomon
9
Alllll1etla County
10 Alol11edo County
11
Vorlous
Toblo 1 ICon!'d)
CCS Plllnlllng.nOlnocrlng
'loiollr.lintllrlticlirrontiy'jirour'riiin,;iid."y' SOlirc'e 'j $ iviiliiUllsi'
Cost Delf.
$Mllllons Meos. B Meas. C SL TPP Fees
121.2 103.6 3.2
213.0 27.0 0.0 1.0
40,0
32,0
,. .. "
: .:,: <'::,
.' '. .'
. '. ','.
.,'.' ,,:
.':. .
.......
'. ".
7.6
27.0
1.0
1.0
7,0
25.0
25.0
83.0
40.0
43.0
0.5
7.0
7.9
B.6
40.0
14,4
2,0
9.8
2.3
10.0
0.2
26.0
8.0
.
.-' ',:.;':,1
. : '. ", ':': . : ~
Other
4.3
0.6
0,1
0.5
0.0
0,0
Total
111.1
36.1
20.1
1.0
7.0
16.4
2,3
0.2
166.1
0" ',.'
,'. '...,
:-":'\ .
.\
I'nyo 101 2
,
""~~.
Unlunded Foot-
$Mllllons Notes
10.1 1 !
176.9 "
,
40.0
3.9 2b;
i
2ei
-
25.0 2e
25.0
83,0
23.6 I
3,
43.0 4
t
.
I
40,0
1.,.4
2.0
7.3
,
,
7
B
17.8 9
25,0
8.0
11
368,1 I
, (\"
,
i .. --c::.
:
., "~\
~
""~'
12/9/.2.XI.S
.....,:
.
Foolnol09:
1
lb
.... .'
-
'.
'::;:"::i
'.;'<:': '}
'",,'.',:,':,
'':','1:::.:'
" , ,
, ,'.:'
:". ','
.......'
Olhol fUlnl9 1$" .3MI D/O Fedolol. (Sourco: ^CT^ MeosulD 0 Copltol Prolncts, July.Seplember, 199G aue/lerly neporl.l
01110/ lund9 010 frOIll ^lomlldo Counly Flood CunllollJl911lct IZono 71. UnlulHllld "mounl Is onllclpolod 10 Includo 0 cUlnblnollofl 01 lVle,
City or Livermore om) developer cont/lbutlons. (Sou/co: Don Smllh, L1vorll1orcl
2c Includes O,5M nssessll1enlto nuby Hili development, nnd $O,6M City 01 L1ve/mo/e lunds (Sou/ce: Susan F/ost, 11/19/961
3
2e Does nol Include solely Improvernenls to the oxlsting route, previously estimated 01 $15M. Existing /oule would be used for local access.
4
7
8
:+,,:,:
I
I
~
P/olect 3 Is n committed Measure C project (Source: TVTP/AP of 1195, page 149): however, no speclilc lunding amount Is progralllmed.
Measure C nll10unt shown In table Is estimated es follows: Southwesl Area allocallonls $18.4M 188$1. Aller programming $12,2M (88$lln tho 1995
Strategic Plan, the remaining $6M IB8$1 wes escalaled to $7,9M 196$1 using CCTA faclor of 1.3131 per 1995 StrRleglc Plan.
(Source: Paul Mexwell, 9116/961 Daveloper fees rep/esenl an ellocatlon of $8,5M Irom Southern Contro Costa JEPA. (Source: Brian Welch, City of Donvlllo.
$ 29M hnvo boen progremmed thru FY 99 In the 9/96 MTC nTlp; however, BAnT CIP shows $33M,
Cost shown Includes $33M lor tho slatlon end $1 OM for a po/king gorage and olher mitigations.
Becauso 01 the uncerlalnty of Iha programmcd otnount from any sources, ell cosls were conservatively assumad 10 be unlunded In this toble.
BAnT FEin requires BAnT to lund 32% of totol cost, essumlng Illolchlng by others. However, toblo conservotlvely assumos costs ore unfundod,
9 $0.239M progrommed from Measure C ..Soutllwes ^reo DllocDtlon (Source: PDul Maxwoll 9/18/961.
"',
01 the $9,6M total estimated construcllon cost, $2,3M would be fundod by developer lees from the Southern Contre Costa JEPA.
(Source: John Dillon, City of San nall10nl
11 lVrC Acllon Plen's proposod 9 express bus /outes, at 2 buses per route, would require approximately $8 million In capital purchases,
Cost asthnDte assumes CNG.powercd buses with ADA 11ft @ $376,000 each, plus 20% contlngoncy,
0,239 M 195$1 ere programmed In CCTA's 1995 St/ateglc Plan for bus projects. However, no funding hes been assumed In Ihis table,
CCS Plolmlno and Engineering
1(2/5/961.
I
12I9/96TVTC2.XLS
, I,
v,
~
\.1\
..
"
t:"- \.
\I-
,.......~\
~ & 6f~
iC-:
b;
_ __ _ ___ . ~ Planning and'Approval-Status-;: indicating'whether the project is included in the MTC Regional .
T ra..~or..ation Plan (RTP) or any other local improvement plans.
. Funding - Indicating available amounts and the associated funding sources for the project
. Schedule - Indicating planned implementation schedule ror the project
. Project Need - Based primarily on 2010 traffic projections from the updated TVTC model with
gateway constraints applied TV'TC traffic projections are provided in Appendix B.
PROJECT PRIORITIES
Tne Tri- Valley Transportation Commission (TVTC) has selected the rollowing top four projects to
be funded by the proposed regional rraffic impact fee:
. Southbound 1-580 to Eastbound 1-680 Direct Cormector (project No.1)
. Two-Lane Route 84 Corridor Improvement between 1-580 and 1-680
(project Nos, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2ei, 2e)
. HOV Lanes between Diablo Road and Bollinger Canyon Boulevard (Project No, 3)
.
. BART West Dublin Station (project No.4)
The remaining seven high priority projects were qualitatively assessed to help prioritize them for
funding, as follows:
. 1-580 is currently being widened from the interchange with 1-680 to the Tassajara (Santa Rita
Road) interchange to provide HOV lanes in conjunction with Project NO.1 (I-580/680 direct
connector), Project No.5 (I-580 HOV lanes from Tassajara to N. Livermore Avenue) will
function as an eh1:ension of Project No, 1. To avoid a bottleneck where HOV lanes end at the 1-
5801N. Livermore Avenue interchange, Project No, 5 should have higher priority than the other
projects.
. Project No. 7 (I-580/Foothill Boulevard interchange modification) will be required to
accommodate Project No, 4 (B_..\RT West Dublin Station). Therefore, this project should be.
given the same priority and be grouped with Project No, 4,
. The 1-680 HOY lane project from Route 84 to Sunol Grade (project No.6) has be"'...D. identified
as the e).,1:ension of the Route 84 improvement (Project No.2). Therefore, this project should
have the same priority as Project NO.2. However, a bottleneck may occur at the Sunol Grade .
unless the 1-680 HOY lanes can be further extended to Santa Clara County,
TVTC Combined study
Phase ill: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
5
Project StatuS Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
, '.
...'
,,'
, -
~.
.
/ ()""1i b '1
o v
. Project No, 8 (I-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange) is located between two of the top four
" _ _'___,j)rojeC!S_'(Project No.....lJ-.680/580 .Direct,.connector, ,and -P-rojectNo;--3-:--I-680-Auxiliary Lane --.
between Diablo Road and Bollinger Canyon Road). It would be desirable to construct this
project in conjunction with the other two projects to avoid a bottleneck in the intervening
segment betwe--..D them.
. Project No.9 (Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvement Program) and Project 1 0 (Vasco Road
Safety Improvement Program) are both safety improvement projects to the existing two-lane
winding roadway. They miy be prioritized based on the accident rates and the exis1ing and
201 0 traffic demand.. Accident data ror these two roadways are not available; thererore, it is
not possible to set priorities between these two projects.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase ill: Rcgicmal Traffic Impact Fee
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
6
"''', '.,".~I"",
l.".
(, r-I~ '
) '~,'~;,;,',~'
'\'m~\'!l'
~,
r, :J::-
~ c-:a
i :c:
~iI:
i- ...,
:;r:
~,~,~-.I
n
f
~\ll\~
\ I.uJJ.O t.
'- '''-\.J--:>
?-.(,.' ~\ IJIHLO
~ '------.. '
L ", .~ L I
--,/'.:''''-.
~,,,. -~~I: (
1 p'.\tMLU: "''-'~-!''1-=- .'1.' --.
LU~:;t-TLI 11
\~\ \f~; \ /
,/'-- -~itAH h(',i~\ lI.!So\JI.'IA j,
I -....... __..\ .~ I'"
If 't,ff;> \"') " -
l) }~~ <> \ ____~
I ---..,.... '.
I ' " G ,
I ---J \ \ DUIlUh l ~
fJ.' -_..t:'w__~__ J; J'~ I-SSQ =t=-~"
A.-r= - ~ ['~ Umll,\OAll .-l
f E.\SAI.n 0 I~ " , J
r-'~ r_. ~
j"Wt>-,L ~~ ~..z . j
~ ~~~U
U,llctt 0I'l' j,rt
;/'
rRt.'~Cllr
".
III
~ g
a \..
:I J
"
D-
o ~
~ :l
C ~
:3
~ !
~,
I
, I
T'VTC Joint Exercise
of Powers Agl'eC1l1Cllt
Exhibit CIA"
· W\UnllkrM<<O County. 1.,l,Jon'lol UfO' on
"~""rerceIU"ntd",..,..lIta~ 100 alN!""'~d.
.'
MlIp cl>lrhsy of ,(/bn.c'-a COlMly CllmlNlnly ".rrrllp",~
110 Sc.,
"'.
. \ .!
.
.
.
, I (..?
f:-71 bJ
Single Family Residential
Multi Family Residential
Office
$1,500
$1,050
$1.00
Dwelling unit
Dwelling unit
Square foot of gross floor area
Retail
$1.00
$0.75
Square foot of gross floor area
Square foot of gross floor area
Industrial
Other Uses
$1,500
Average a.m./p.m. peak hour trip*
* Peak-hour trips will be determined from the latest revision to the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual or other rate schedule as agreed
to by the TVTC. Notwithstanding the foregoing an applicant for a Land Use
Entitlement who is' dissatisfied with the number of peak-hour trips, as calculated by
the Public Works Director, may appeal the determination to the Council. If such
an appeal is granted by the Council, and the Council adjusts the number of peak-
hour trips, the City shall have such decision ratified by five members of the TVTC.
Absent such ratification, the full amount of the fee must be paid by the applicant.
1
ATTACHMENT ~
f I -... .
y I/' 0 /~AJ~r, I -i... ;_- / :
L0 L--:t....._ t ' ...._._--'/!._: L J:"'h,-'