HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 MTC Regnl&AlaCntyCMA TrnsptPln
"
.
.
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
City Council Meeting Date: May 23, 1994
SUBJECT :
MTC's Regional Transportation Plan and the Alameda county
CMA's Transportation Plan
Report by: Public Works Director Lee Thompson
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1) /comparison of the CMA Tier 1 and 2 Projects List to
the proposed MTC Track 1 and 2 project List
2) /' Draft letter
3) / Excerpt from MTC' s Resolution 1876
4) ./ August 23, 1993, Agenda Statement and Letter to MTC
RECOMMENDATION:
~~ransmit letter to MTC recommending:
~ 1) That funding be increased in the Tri-Valley area to an
amount based on the proportionate share of the Bay
Area population for Track 1 and Track 2; and
2) That Dublin does support the need for the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station but requests that the
additional monies above be assigned to the Route 84
project subject to the improvements being designed to
be part of a future highway or expressway between I-
580 and I-680.
FIHlUICIAL STATEMENT:
There is no direct fiscal impact to the City of Dublin from
these studies and repOrts; however, the studies and reports
provide an opportunity to secure the best priorities for
regional funding sources, thereby minimizing the necessity
for higher local development fees.
DESCRIP':rION:
the public on
Transportation
Transportation
The purpose of this report is to update the City Council
the Alameda County Congestion Management Authority's (CMA)
Plan and to compare this plan to and comment on the Metropolitan
Commission's (MTC) proposed Transportation Plan.
and
CMA PLAN
The CMA has developed a County-wide traffic model and, for the last 3 to 4 years,
has been working toward a plan which matches needed major transportation
improvements (freeway and mass transit) to projected land use growth. This plan has
just been approved by the CMA.
For the study, the county was split into four regions, the Tri-Va11ey area being
Area 4. Recommended improvements were then categorized into two tiers, Tier 1 being
those projects that are projected to be funded from expected regional funding
sources such as future ISTEA monies and extended Proposition 111 gas tax, up through
the Year 2010. Tier 2 projects are those regional projects that are needed, but
there are no identified funding sources.
By spreading the Tier 1 monies by population, Area 4 was projected to receive
approximately $72 million. The CMA has adopted the following project funding for
its Plan, as well as for recommending this list of projects to MTC for inCOrPOration
into MTC's Bay Area-wide Transportation Plan:
Tier 1:
1) $17 million for completing the I-580/I-680 flyover and hook ramps
project
2) $27.5 million for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. &2
COPIES TO:
John McCallum, MTC
Roger Henderson, CMA
City of Livermore
City of Pleasanton
CITY CLERK
FILE ~
.
.
3) $20 million for the 1-580/Hwy 84 interchange
4) $5 million for enhanced bus services
5) $2.2 million for the Altamont Rail Service Demonstration project that
will connect Sacramento County, San Joaquin County, Alameda County and
Santa Clara County
Tier 2:
1) $6 million to complete the 1-580/1-680 flyover project that will provide
access to Hopyard Road.
2) $180 million for Route 84
3) $23 million for enhanced bus services
4) $16 million for Vasco Road safety improvements
MTC PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION PLAN
MTC has been preparing a Bay Area-wide Transportation Plan similar to the Alameda
County Plan and is in the process of holding hearings to obtain public input to this
Plan, as well as the related environmental document. MTC has broken the projects
into funding categories called "Track 1" and "Track 2," but the categories are
essentially defined the same as the CMA "Tier 1" and "Tier 2" categories. MTC's
preliminary lists are, however, somewhat different than the CMA's list. Exhibit 1
shows a comparison between the lists. MTC's list is as follows:
Track 1:
1) $16 million for the 1-580/1-680 flyover and hook ramps
2) $20 million for the 1-580/Hwy 84 interchange
3) $7 million for the 1-580 truck/auto separation on the westbound Altamont
Pass
Track 2:
1) $28 million for the West Dublin BART Station
2) Approximately $5 million for local LAVTA transit operations
The major differences between the two Plans are: (1) the MTC Plan has designated
substantially less monies to the Tri-Valley area than the CMA Plan and (2) the CMA
has shown the West DUblin/Pleasanton BART Station in the Tier 1 funding, while MTC
has included it in the MTC Track 2 project list.
MTC's reason for not including the BART Station in the Track 1 projects is that MTC
has previously passed a resolution (Resolution No. 1876 - see Exhibit 3), in which
the Warm Springs BART Extension would be funded after the two-station
Dublin/Pleasanton Extension.
Since the time the MTC document was published, it appears that $75.5 million in
Traffic Operations study funds will be reassigned to other projects, and the Tri-
Valley area will receive $29.5 million of these funds (not indicated in the above
Track l/Track 2 funding list).
The Alameda County CMA has taken the position that the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station should be funded; however, it seems clear that MTC is unwilling to put the
BART Station in their Track 1 p~iorities. This would not preclude finding some, as
yet unknown, funding source to complete the station.
The next best place to assign the additional monies would be into Highway 84,
assuming that Highway 84 becomes either an expressway or highway between 1-580 and
1-680. The regional benefit of this connection is to draw off traffic between the
Page 2
.
.
East and South legs of the 1-580/1-680 interchange. In order to make the Highway 84
connection work, significant additional funds need to be found and allocated to this
project. Funding Sources could include making this segment a toll road (either
public or private) or obtaining future specific Federal legislative funding.
The Dublin City Council has been consistent in the position that the major Tri-
Valley transportation needs include (see Exhibit 4):
1) The 1-580/1-680 flyover, including the hook ramps from 1-680;
2) Highway 84 between 1-580 and 1-680; and
3) The completion of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
Staff recommends that the City Council transmit the following requests to MTC:
1) That funding be increased in the Tri-Valley area to an amount based on
the proportionate share of the Bay Area population for Track 1 and
Track 2; and
2) That Dublin does support the need for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station but requests that the additional monies above be assigned to the
Route 84 project subject to the improvements being designed to be part
of a future highway or expressway between 1-580 and 1-680.
a:agenda94\m~c-cma
Page 3
.
Draft PJrot
.
Altamont Rail Service - Funding fur initial stage planned by
-+ Demonstration Project San Joaquin Co. M1'C s1aff'stated
(project 508) they will include a fuotnote in the
RTP stating support, if San Joaquin
County allocates funds to the project.
Enhanced Bus Service 0 5.0 to serve Planning Area 4
---to (project 412, formerly
Project 502)
1-5801I-680 SB to EB 16.0 17.0 Pending review of 1-580/1-680
fl~, hook ramps & inkzchange funding program.
--. complete ramp braid to Construction scheduled to begin 'CJ7.
retain Hopyard Rd. access
(project 401)
West Dublin I Pleasanton 0 Zl.5 BART extension to be completed by
BART Station '95, will build shcll fur W. Dublin
---. (Project 402) station. Propa;ed fur TIadc II by
MrC statE If defern:d by MrC
Board to Track IT, reallocate rn.5 m
to the IDe 841I-58O interchange and
approaches.
.-+ New Route 841I-580 20.0 20.0 Project Study Report bcing devclopcd
interchange (Project 403b)
1-580 trudr/auto 7.0 0 Safety-operntional improvements to
--. separation on WB 1-205 at interdlange. Dependent on San
1-580 (Prqcct 407a) Joaquin Countyprovision of $5 m.
Subtotal fur planning area 71.7 Original TIer 1 funding equity targets
projects were: PAl $296 m, PA 2 $153 m,
PA3 $138 m, and PA4 m m.
Original targets were based on MrC
estimate of $1,145 m in total
revenue. SuOOequently, MI'C added
$5 m to AC Transit Centas. Other
minor differences due to rounding.
Grand Totals - countywide
set-asides and planning
area projecls.
Planning Area (p A) 1 includes Oakland, Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville, Alameda, and Piedmont.
Planning Area (p A) 2 includes San Leandro, San Lorenzo, Hayward, ~tro Valley.
Planning Area (p A) 3 includes Fremont, Newark, and Union Qty.
Planning Area (PA) 4 includes Pleasanton, Uvermore, Dublin, and unincorporated portions of East County.
r r
Transporlation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
~.....s..~,...~. ~,.l"'.'.'.~....~.. ...~.. ~ 1-
..~ .';';$ ~ ~ ~~~ -b'~" ti
~.. 't\. ll.~.i....: c',; !".".'>'" .;~ .~
r;.v f ~~ i: ~';--~' ~~.;;1
"'J ~. .~.~ j
E)<~~'~A-i7~raium
-:Pi a<'\
/
Fremont South Bay Rail
(project 506)
.
.
DraftPJan
~
Streets!Road Maintenance, 0 30.0
Rehabilitation, and
Construction - Planning
l Area specific (Project
512b)
I
! \VIden 1-880 from Rt. 262 CMA proposes this project for Tier 1
to Santa Qara Co. line
(Project 301)
Build new Rt. 84 from 35.0 Upgrade Measure B project to 6
Mission to 1-880 (Project lanes, indudes local match.
302a)
75.0 Provides new fucility to reduce
congestion on parallel arterials.
Right-of-way acquisition in Tier 1.
0 15.0
----..
Local Transit Operations-
lAvrAand Union City
Transit (projectS18)
Altamont Pass Rail
-.... Service - DemOllltration
Project (project 5(8)
23
4.7 MrC amount indudes $20 million
for capilal, $20 million for opernting
to be split between the two operators;
plus $23 specifically identified for
Union City Transit ADAshortfull.
CMA allocation is for ADA shortfall
as follows: $4.7 m for lA VI'A and
$23 m for Union City Transit.
Pending corridor study results. CMA
recommends funding Alameda Co.
share of demo service in Tier I
Planning Areal indudes Oakland, Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville, Alameda, and Piedmont.
Planning Area 2 indudes San Leandro, San Lorenzo. Hayward, ~tro Valley.
Planning Area 3 indudes Fremont, Newark, and Union City.
Planning Area4 indudes Pleasanton, Iivennore, Dublin, and unincorporated portions of East County.
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda ColBty Long Range Transportation Plan
April 8, 1994
Page 100
1-5801I-680 second
flyover, complete hook
ramps to Dublin, &
-.. complete ramp braid to
retain Hopyard Rd. access
(project 401)
1-580 HOV lane
-+
(Project 408)
West Dublin BART 28.0
--... Station (Project 402)
.
.
\
Drat'tPlan
~
To be. determined, pending review of
1-58OII-680 ink'zCbange funding
program.
To be detmnincd, pending outcome
of corridor study
Route 84
Freeway/Expresswayand
complete Rt 841I-58O
Interchange (Project 403)
Enhanced Bus Service
(project 412, formerly
Project 502a)
Vasco Road Safety
-.. Improvements
o
180.0
CMA recommends project fur
Tier 1 and Trade L
Reallocate W.5 m of the $180 m to
project 402 ifMrC adopts RTP with
Project 402 in TIadc II.
-.
o
23.0
to serve PA 4.
-..
o
16.0
(Project 411)
Subtotal for Planning
Area projects
940
486
4373 129.7 Remainder ofMrC's TIackII list to
be determined. Tier 2 funding equity
targets are: PAl $939, P A 2 $486,
PA3$437, PA4$230.
MrC Track n is a partial list only.
MrC is not expected to complete its
work on Track n \D1til L95. CMA
grand tolal is based on MfC funding
target for Track II.
Grand Totals
Planning Area 1 includes Oakland, Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville, Alameda, and Piedmont.
Planning Area 2 includes San Leandro, San Lorenzo, Hayward, Castro Valley.
Planning Area 3 includes Fremont, Newark:, and Union aty.
Planning Area 4 includes Pleasanton, llvermore, Dublin, and unincorporated portions of East County
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
April 8, 1994
Page 101
.
.
DRAFT
=
May 19, 1994
Chairperson and Members
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
101 8th Street
Oakland CA 94607
SUBJECT:
Comments on MTC's Proposed Transportation Plan
Honorable Board Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your proposed Transportation Plan. The
Dublin City Council reviewed your proposed Track 1 and Track 2 funding lists on May
23rd. Following are our recommendations:
1) That funding be increased in the Tri-Valley area to an amount based on
the proportionate share of the Bay Area population for Track 1 and
Track 2; and
2) That Dublin does support the need for the west Dublin/pleasanton BART
Station but requests that the additional monies above be assigned to the
Route 84 project subject to the improvements being designed to be part
of a future freeway or expressway between 1-580 and 1-680.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 833-6605.
Sincerely,
Peter w. Snyder
Mayor
PWS/LST!gr
a:\agenda\m~cmal~r
F ~~\ :?
q! ~;; ~~:-- ~ ~
~
~~ :~7:~\ ~~ ~~ '-.- ,-. ~ J ~
~~ui' ..~S;; ~'~'.. :: ~
'Draft Giiir-
.
.
Attachment A
Resolution No. 1876
Page 5 of 5
E. Related Understandinas
1.
l-
i
For Santa Clara Co~nty:
The Tasman Corridor Project is the county1s highest priority. Santa
Clara County1s high reaiona1 priorities are the extension of SART to:
Harm Springs at the earliest feasible date, and prograu~}ng or .fuii
funding for the CalTrain rights-of-way acquisition in accordance with
recommendations of the JPS.
~2.
For the Dublin Extension:
HTC is committed to a rl'io station extension (Castro Valley and Hest
Dublin). The next Alameda County priority is the Harm Springs
extension. Ultimately, the Dublin line is expected to be Extended
further east, '!'ihich would eliminate the need for a $49 million
parking structure at West Dublin. 8ART and Alameda County are
encouraged to seek private funding, impact fees, or other funds not
available to the Harm Sarinas project in order to fund the additionai
cost of the East Dubl in' Station. In th; s event, the $49 mi 11 ion
parking structure should not be built a.nd the revenues freed up to
assist in the easterly extension. Alternatively, HTC could ca.p its
regional fundina commit:;:ent to $531.3 miliion as shown in Table 1. .
3. Federal eariiiarks.'I'I'ill be deteriilined as Dart or HlCs annual Ca.pital
Grant Strategy Program. Project expend1tuie ne~ds will guide HTe i~
. developi!lg a Capital Gra.nt Strategy.
.4. See Appendix 1 for documenta.tion 0 HlCs understa.nding rega.rding 1.11:
BART/SamTrans agreement and the in egra..tion of the Tasman ~orridor
proj ect.
~7 :~ ~2 :,ll .~:. ~'?~ .~; {'1
J i !;
~_~~~ ;i ~ _.~
fS(~rPt ~Y"Y1 fYl"TC 'Ke=o-# I '07Co
-:~'-
~:
~/
.
.
.
.
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
city Council Meeting Date: August 23, 1993
SUBJECT:
Comments on MTC's Regional Transportation Plan Alternatives
to be Evaluated in the Environmental Documents
Report by: Public Works Director Lee Thompson
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
Draft letter to Lawrence Dahms, MTC
RECOMMENDATION:~ . ~ support the request to add Tri-Valley projects to the RTP
~.- and authorize Mayor to sign the attached letter to MTC
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
If MTC includes projects in the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) , Dublin can request Federal funding for regional
projects.
DESCRIPTION: MTC is in the process of updating its Regional
Transportation Plan and requesting comments on this Plan. On Thursday, August 5,
1993, Boardmembers of Tri-Valley's Alameda county congestion Management Agency (CMA)
held a meeting to discuss MTC's updated plan. In attendance were Mayor Pete Snyder,
Mayor Ben Tarver from Pleasanton, councilmember Ayn Wieskamp from Livermore, and
County Supervisor Ed Campbell. The members of the Tri-Va11ey CMA Board recommended
that all cities in the Tri-Valley area, Alameda County, and Livermore-Amador Valley
Transit Authority (LAVTA) should support the inclusion of the following projects
into MTC's Regional Transportation Plan. Projects that are part of the RTP program
are eligible to request Federal funding. It should be mentioned that Short-Term
Projects (Track 1) are on the Tri-valley Transportation Council's high priority
list. Each agency's Councilor Board is to send a letter to MTC to show support of
the following projects:
SHORT-TERM PROJECTS (TRACK 1):
1) West Dub1in/Pleasanton BART Station Construction
2) Environmental Study for BART Extension to Livermore
3) Environmental Study for Route 84 and completion of Isabel Expressway
(Route 84)
4) Alameda County's share of the Altamont Rail project
LONG-TERM PROJECTS (TRACK 2):
Construction of BART from eastern Dublin/pleasanton to Livermore
RTP projects have been divided into two "tracks": Short term RTP projects are in
Track 1, and long term projects are in Track 2. It is hoped that Track 1 projects
would be constructed by the Year 2010. Because of the time frame, the Tri-Valley
agencies will have time to further address the Long-Term projects (Track 2). At
this time, the Track 2 recommendation is preliminary.
Staff recommends including an additional project to the list for Track 2: the
construction of Light Rail/transit between Walnut Creek and Dublin/Pleasanton area.
The 1-580/680 project is already part of the RTP, and staff is recommending that the
request to MTC include that th~ 1-580/1-680 remain in the RTP.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve or modify the attached letter and
authorize the Mayor to sign it and send it on to MTC.
a:agendalmtcrtp
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. 8. Z
~7\-;:~"',""!'>..~ ~
'."!.. .c, 'j '.; -:'t.., ,:-.). ,I;" .-:. a
~c: ;~\ rcZ(]f'S ~
g~~A~~~Jl5~
COPIES TO: Bill Van Gelder, PIe
Dan smith, Livermore
/'
,-
"
.
.
-~
..
August 31, 1993
Mr. Lawrence D. Dahms
Executive Director
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607
SUBJECT: Comments on the Regional Transportation Plan
Dear Mr. Dahms:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with comments on the Draft 1994 Regional
Transportation Plan. The City of Dublin, other Tri-Valley cities, and Alameda County
have jointly prioritized this area's regional facilities. This consensus has been
agreed upon through the Alameda County long range transportation Plan Area 4 and
through the Tri-Valley Traisportation Plan process.
The City of Dublin would like to request the following projects to be included in the
Track 1 Regional Transportation Plan if they aren't already included:
1. I-580/1-680 flyover with Dublin hook ramps
2. West Dublin/pleasanton BART station
3. Environmental study for Route 84 and completion of Isabel Expressway
(Highway 84)
4. Environmental study for BART Extension to Livermore
5. Alameda county's share of the Altamont Rail project.
These are the priorities that the Tri-Valley cities see as fitting our area's needs.
For Track 2, the City of Dublin requests that the following two projects be included in
the RTP if they are not already included:
1. BART Extension to Livermore
2. Light Rail/Transit between Walnut Creek and the Dublin/pleasanton area
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Peter W. Snyder
Mayor
PS/mb
cc: Bill Withrow, Chairperson, CMA Ben Tarver, Mayor, Pleasanton
Cathie Brown, Mayor, Livermore Ayn Wieskamp, Councilmember, Livermore
Dennis Fay, Executive Director, CMA Dan Smith, Traffic Engineer, Livermore
Bill van Gelder, Traffic Engineer, Pleasanton
a:aug\17r~pl~r