HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee AdoptionSTAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
Page 1 of 7
Agenda Item 6.1
DATE:June 21, 2022
TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT:Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee AdoptionPreparedby:Sai Midididdi,Associate Civil (Traffic)Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:The City Council will consider adopting the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee pursuant to the requirements of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Conduct a public hearing, deliberate, and adopt the Resolution Adopting the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Pursuant to the Requirements of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:The Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee is used to finance public facilities and improvements needed to serve the demand generated by new development in the Tri-Valley area jurisdictions. The fee would be charged to new development of all types located in the geographic area covered by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council.
DESCRIPTION:BackgroundOn October 13, 2013,the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa County, the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) in order to establish the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC), as a separate agency. The TVTC jointly coordinates transportation planning efforts within the Tri-Valley area. It also collects and administers the Tri-Valley Transportation Development (TVTD)Fee to facilitate the implementation of transportation improvement projects identified in the TVTC strategic expenditure plan (SEP).
401
Page 2 of 7
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the JEPA, TVTC shall through resolution, based on the findings of a nexus study, recommend regional impact fee amounts for categories of land use entitlements within the Tri-Valley Area for purposes of funding a portion of transportation improvement projects identified in the TVTC SEP. In addition, pursuant to Section 6(c) of the JEPA, if the TVTD Fee is recommended for amendment, each member agency shall consider the adoption (by ordinance or resolution) of the TVTD Fee in the amounts recommended by TVTC. In accordance with Section 7(b) of the JEPA, member agencies are only eligible to receive TVTD Fee allocations if they have adopted the uniform TVTD Fee as recommended by the TVTC. DiscussionOn April 18, 2022, TVTC held a public hearing to consider adoption of the TVTD Fee, adoption of new Strategic Expenditure Plan Prioritization of Projects and Funding Plan, and adoption of theAssembly Bill (AB) 602 Supplemental Analysis. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the TVTC adopted Resolution No. 2022-07 approving a new Transportation Development Fee, adopting thenew Strategic Expenditure Plan Prioritization of Projects and Funding Plan, and adopting theAssembly Bill (AB) 602 Supplemental Analysis. Prior to the adoption of TVTC Resolution No. 2022-07, the TVTC adopted a Nexus Study in August 2021. (Attachment 2)Nexus Study RequirementsThe California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §66001) requires jurisdictions to identify certain information and make certain statutory findings when establishing, increasing, or imposing a development impact fee. TVTC made these findings as part of its adoption of the TVTD Fee, and these findings are included in the resolution for City Council consideration. Specifically, the findings jurisdictions are required to make are as follows:1. Identify the purpose for collecting development impact fees;2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put, including identifying the facilities to be built if applicable;3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed;4. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; and5. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.Summary of Nexus StudyThere have been significant changes in the funding, planning, and traffic conditions under which the TVTD Fee was originally developed. In addition, many of the original 22 projects identified in the previous SEP have been completed and the TVTC identified 23 new projects (List C of the Nexus Study, Attachment 2) to be considered. Based on these factors, an updated nexus study
402
Page 3 of 7
was prepared to support updates to the TVTD Fee. The 2020 Nexus Study was adopted by the TVTC on August 16, 2021.Since adopting the Nexus Study in August 2021, Assembly Bill (AB) 602 was approved by the Governor of California and includes additional requirements for nexus fee studies adopted after January 1, 2022. Although TVTC’s Nexus Fee Study was not required to consider AB 602 given its adoption date, TVTC retained Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to complete an AB 602 supplemental analysis to (1) understand the future implications of AB 602 and (2) to proactively define the methodologies of future Nexus Fee Study updates such that they will be compliant with AB 602. This AB 602 Supplemental Analysis was adopted by TVTC as part of the April 18, 2022 adoption of the TVTD Fee (Attachment 3). A summary of the 2020 Nexus Study is as follows:Forecast GrowthNew development within the Tri-Valley Area is forecast to add 33,312 households and 63,947 jobs between 2018 and 2040. This growth will produce an increase of 57,596 average AM/PM peak hour trips.Project BenefitsBased on forecast projections, the vehicle hours of delay is expected to increase by 60 percent during the AM peak and 88 percent during the PM peak. With the 38 improvement projects, this delay is expected to decrease by 15 percent during the AM peak and 23 percent during the PM peak when compared to the 2040 No-Build Scenario, as shown in the following figure. In addition, these projects will result in other benefits to the Tri-Valley Area including improving roadway safety, improving roadway operations, improving public transit, and increasing bicycle ridership.
403
Page 4 of 7
Figure 1: Future Build vs No Build Scenario Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD)
Note: Hours of delay are based on trips with origin or destination in the TVTC region.Nexus Study – Proposed Updated FeeThe total investment for projects eligible to receive TVTD Fee funding is estimated to be $4.573 billion, where $3.702 billion is unfunded. An additional reduction was applied to account for external “cut-though” trips on roadway congestion projects. Future development within the Tri-Valley Area is not responsible to pay for these cut-through trips since these trips are caused by growth outside of the Tri-Valley Area. This reduces the total unfunded cost to be covered by the maximum TVTD Fee to $2.698 billion. Note that this did not change the overall project costs.The $2.698 billion of unfunded costs were allocated across future development by land use type based on the proportion of forecast peak-hour trips to determine the Total Fee per Land Use. Then, the maximum fee schedule was determined by dividing the Total Fee per Land Use by the 2020-2040 Growth as shown in the following table.Table 1: Maximum Fee by Land Use CategoryLand Use Type Growth Maximum FeeSingle-Family Residential 15,857 DU $40,250 per DUMulti-Family Residential 17,456 DU $23,890 per DURetail5,117,500 SF $77.88 per SFOffice6,796,800 SF $54.10 per SFIndustrial9,289,800 SF $31.15 per SFOther12,441 trips*$46,844 per trip** Average AM/PM trip The maximum fee schedule shown in Table 1 would generate sufficient revenues to fund the total unfunded cost of all selected projects, however, TVTC was not obligated to apply this fee schedule.
24,718
15,613
39,570
29,376
35,852
25,813
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour
Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD)
2020 2040 No-Build 2040 Build
404
Page 5 of 7
For instance, the past practice of TVTC has been to set rates at approximately one-third of the maximum fee calculated in the 1995 and 2008 Nexus Studies to help foster growth within the Tri-Valley Area, while providing a regional funding source that could be used to match and help compete for Federal and State transportation grants and funding programs.Summary of Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP)In January 2015, the TVTC adopted Resolution No. 2015-01 adopting the updated TVTD Fee Schedule as a two-year phase-in plan, with no change during the initial year (FY 2014-15), an increase to 25% of the maximum allowable rate by the fee nexus study in the second year (FY 2015-16) and a final increase to 35% of the maximum allowable rate by the third year (FY 2016-17). That fee was based on the Fee Nexus Study adopted in 2008.In January 2017, the TVTC approved the 2008 TVTC Nexus Study Validation Review and adopted the 2017 Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP) Update. At that time, the TVTC elected to maintain the current fee rate (only annual Construction Cost Index (CCI) adjustment). The 2017 SEP Update incorporated and built upon the updated project descriptions, funding programs, and progression of the TVTD Fee over the previous years. Some of the transportation improvement projects on the original list were completed and schedules and funding for others have changed. The JEPA, adopted in 2013, required approval of the SEP by a supermajority of the TVTC – six members.2022 Strategic Expenditure PlanThe proposed 2022 rate adjustments are presented in the following table. The TVTC adopted a rate adjustment reflecting 15% of the maximum fee rate for the duration of the SEP for all uses except retail and “other” land uses.Table 2: FY 2022-23 Rate Adjustment
Like the prior SEP, it is proposed that retail continue to have a lower cap to help encourage retail growth, given that local retail has been greatly impacted by the global pandemic.Retail is proposed to initially be established at 6% and then increase to 7% in funding year 2023-24. In the “Other” land uses category, which consist of developments that do not fall into the other five land use categories such as theaters, motel/hotels, day care facilities, and gas stations, it is recommended that the rate be set at 12% of the maximum fee rate for the duration of the SEP.
405
Page 6 of 7
It is also proposed that the TVTD Fee rate continue to increase on an annual basis based on the annual CCI adjustment to reflect changes in regional construction costs. Similarly, to how the SEP has been implemented in the past, the CCI adjustment will not be applied for years when there is a prescribed rate increase planned. Essentially this means that the CCI adjustment would not be applied for any use in FY 2022-23 and not to retail in FY 2023-24.A draft SEP Funding Plan was presented to the TVTC Board at the December 13, 2021 study session. Following the study session, the TVTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) held two community meetings and received feedback from the community on the draft SEP. Subsequently, revisions were made to the draft plan. The SEP subcommittee recommended TVTC adopt the revised SEP Funding Plan. The recommended SEP Funding Plan proposed funding for 22 projects (16 from List C of the Nexus Study, Attachment 2, and 6 priority projects from previous SEP lists) over a 10-year horizon (Attachment 4).Public OutreachAs referenced above, to provide the public with information related to the TVTC SEP, the TVTC TAC held two community outreach information sessions. The information sessions were held via teleconferencing (i.e. Zoom). A flyer was created for both sessions and circulated to members of the Bay Area Building Industry Association (BIA), the BIA External Affairs Director, members of the development community, advocacy groups and posted to the TVTC website.TVTC Member Agencies and Recommended ActionThe TVTC unanimously adopted a new Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee, a new Strategic Expenditure Plan Prioritization of Projects and Funding Plan, and adopted the AB 602 Supplemental Analysis.Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the JEPA, if the TVTC recommends new TVTD Fee rates, each member agency shall consider the adoption (by ordinance or resolution) of the TVTD Fee in the amounts recommended by TVTC. Pursuant to Section 7(b) of the JEPA, member agencies are only eligible to receive TVTD Fee allocations in accordance with the TVTC SEP if they have adopted the uniform TVTD Fee as recommended by the TVTC.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:A notice was placed in the East Bay Times on June 10, 2022and June 16, 2022 notifying the community of the City Council’s consideration of the proposed fee revisions, TVTD Fee updates, and that all the relevant materials are on file with the City Clerk for public review for a 10-day period prior to the City Council’s consideration of the fee update. Additionally, the City Council Agenda was posted.
406
Page 7 of 7
ATTACHMENTS:1) Resolution Adopting the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Pursuant to the Requirements of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement2) Exhibit A to the Resolution – TVTC Resolution No. 2021-10 and 2020 Nexus Study3) Exhibit B to the Resolution – AB 602 Supplemental Analysis4) Exhibit C to the Resolution – TVTC Resolution No. 2022-07 and 2022 Strategic Expenditure Plan Prioritization of Projects, and Funding Plan
407
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 1 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. XX – 22
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING THE TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE PURSUANT TO
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2013, the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, the Cities
of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville entered into a Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) in order to establish the Tri-Valley Transportation Council
(TVTC), as a separate agency, to jointly coordinate transportation planning efforts within the Tri-
Valley Area through collecting and administering the Tri-Valley Development Fee (TVTD Fee) to
facilitate the implementation of transportation improvement projects identified in the TVTC
Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP); and
WHEREAS, the 2013 JEPA replaced the previous JEPA, adopted in 1998, pursuant to
which the member agencies previously collected the TVTD Fee; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6(b) of the JEPA, TVTC shall through resolution, based
on the findings of a nexus study, recommend regional impact fee amounts for categories of land
use entitlements within the Tri-Valley Area for purposes of funding a portion of transportation
improvement projects identified in the TVTC SEP; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6(c) of the JEPA, if the TVTD Fee is recommended for
amendment, each member agency shall consider the adoption (by ordinance or resolution) of the
TVTD Fee in the amounts recommended by TVTC; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7(b) of the JEPA, member agencies are only eligible to
receive the TVTD Fee in accordance with the TVTC SEP if they have adopted the uniform TVTD
Fee as recommended by the TVTC; and
WHEREAS, there have been significant changes in the funding, planning, and traffic
conditions under which the TVTD Fee was originally developed. In addition, many of the original
22 projects identified in the previous SEP have been completed and the TVTC has identified 23
new projects (List C of the Nexus Study) to be considered; and
WHEREAS, TVTC entered into a contract with Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc.
(“Consultant”) to complete the 2020 TVTC Nexus Study and Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP) in
accordance with the requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act; and
WHEREAS, the 2020 Nexus Study (“Study”) considered the following new projects
(“Projects”) and the number of trips generated by the anticipated development of each land use
type and determined a Maximum Fee Rate for each of the land uses from Appendix B of the
Study. The Projects considered in the Study include the remaining projects from List A and List
B, as well as the following new projects:
C-1 Tesla Road Safety Improvement,
C-2 Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement Project,
C-3 Dublin Boulevard-North Canyons Parkway Extension,
408
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 2 of 5
C-4 Vasco Road at Dalton Avenue Intersection Improvements,
C-5 El Charro Road Widening,
C-6 Sunol/680 Interchange Improvements,
C-7 I-680 Express Lanes-Hwy 84 to Alcosta,
C-8 Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange,
C-9 Stoneridge/I-680 Interchange,
C-10 Innovate 680,
C-11A Iron Horse Trail Bicycle Pedestrian Overcrossing-City of San Ramon,
C-11B Iron Horse Trail Bicycle Pedestrian Overcrossing-City of San Ramon,
C-11C Iron Horse Trail Crossing at Dublin Boulevard,
C-11D Iron Horse Trail,
C-11E Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs Connection,
C-11F Iron Horse Trail Connection Improvements at Santa Rita Road,
C-11G Iron Horse Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing-Town of Danville,
C-11H Iron Horse Trail System-Wide Improvements,
C-12 I-680 Interchange Improvements at Hacienda Drive,
C-13 Fallon/El Charro Interchange,
C-14 Valley Link Rail (Phase 1),
C-15 Technology Enhancements,
C-16 I-680 Express Bus Service; and
WHEREAS, the TVTC Technical Advisory Committee and Consultant reviewed forecasts
of new development in the Tri-Valley Area, and outlined the status, scope, costs, and anticipated
funding for the Projects; and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2021, the TVTC adopted the Tri-Valley Transportation Council
2020 Nexus Study Fee Update attached hereto as Exhibit A, pursuant to TVTC Resolution No.
2021-10; and
WHEREAS, since adopting the 2020 Nexus Study in August 2021, Assembly Bill (AB)
602 was approved by the Governor of California and includes additional requirements for nexus
fee studies adopted after January 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, while the 2020 Nexus Fee Study was not required to incorporate AB 602 given
its adoption date, TVTC retained Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to complete an AB 602
supplemental analysis to (1) outline the future implications of AB 602 and (2) to proactively define
the methodologies of future Nexus Fee Study updates such that they will be compliant with AB
602; and
WHEREAS, the AB 602 Supplemental Analysis, attached hereto and incorporated herein
as Exhibit B, was adopted by the TVTC on April 18, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2022, by TVTC Resolution No. 2022-07, the TVTC adopted and
recommended, by a vote of all 7 member agencies, the new TVTD Fee rates shown in the table
below, which are effective July 1, 2022 (“2022 TVTD Fee rates”); and
FY2022/2023 Rate Adjustment
Land Use Current % of FY 2022/23 Change from % Change
409
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 3 of 5
2021
Rate
Maximum Rates 2021 Rates
Single Family (DU)$5,057 15%$6,596.40 $1,539.40 30.4%
Multi-Family (DU)$3,484 15%$3,889.20 $405.20 11.6%
Retail (SF)$3.74 6%$5.07 $1.33 35.6%
Office (SF)$8.59 15%$8.81 $0.22 2.5%
Industrial (SF)$5.00 15%$4.97 -$0.03 -0.6%
Other (avg AM/PM
trips)
$5,620 12%$6,100.68 $480.68 8.6%
DU = Dwelling Units; SF=Square Feet
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code § 66001(a)) requires
jurisdictions to make certain statutory findings prior to any action establishing, increasing, or
imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project and TVTC made such findings
as part of its adoption of the 2022 TVTD Fee rates; and
WHEREAS, the recommended fee rate is 15% of the Maximum Fee Rate for the duration
of the SEP for all uses except retail and “other” land uses, which are recommended to be set at
6% and 12% of the Maximum Fee Rates, respectively; and
WHEREAS, Transit-oriented housing development projects satisfying the criteria in
Government Code Section 66005.1 may conduct a project-level transportation analysis and a
smaller proportion of the applicable fee may be imposed; and
WHEREAS, the 2022 TVTD Fee recommended retail rate is $5.07 for FY 2022-23 and
increased to $5.92 (7% of the maximum) effective July 1, 2023. All other rates for remaining land
uses will be adjusted per Construction Cost Index (CCI) as of July 1
st of each year consistent with
current practice; and
WHEREAS, the TVTC adopted the SEP and Prioritization of Projects and Funding Plan,
which proposes funding for 22 projects (16 projectsfrom New List C and 6 prioritylist from previous
project lists) over the next 10 years, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, (1) a public
hearing notice was published in the newspaper and interested persons were notified 30 days in
advance of the April 18, 2022 TVTC meeting of the TVTC’s proposed action on the 2022 TVTD
Fee, (2) notices were sent to any individuals requesting notices pertaining to fee increases by the
TVTC 14 days in advance of the meeting at which the new 2022 TVTD Fee is proposed for
adoption, (3) the 2020 Nexus Study, AB 602 Supplemental Analysis, and the draft SEP Funding
Plan were available for public review on the TVTC Board’s website 10 days in advance of the
meeting at which the new 2022 TVTD Fee, 2020 Nexus Study, SEP, and AB 602 Supplemental
Analysis was proposed for adoption, and (4) a public notice was posted 10 days in advance of the
meeting.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Dublin, in
accordance with Government Code § 66001(a) and based on the information presented in the
2020 Nexus Study, adopts and approves the 2022 TVTD Fee rates shown in the table above and
makes the following findings:
1. Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put. Response: TVTC policy, as
410
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 4 of 5
expressed through the TVTC Action Plan, is that new development shall contribute for the
mitigation of their impacts on Routes of Regional Significance and that the cost-sharing of
recommended improvements will be implemented through the Tri-Valley Transportation
Development Fee regional impact fee program. The fee advances a legitimate public interest by
enabling the TVTC to fund improvements to transportation infrastructure required to
accommodate and mitigate the impacts of new development. This finding is documented by the
analysis of the projected increase in future travel generated by the new development that is
projected to occur in the Tri-Valley. Growth in new residents and employees is projected to
increase the cumulative average daily delay on the Tri-Valley regional roadways in the morning
and evening peak hours, excluding effects from more cut-through traffic.
2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. Response: The TVTD Fee will be used to
fund projects to expand capacity, traffic signal coordination, and other traffic improvements,
improve safety, improve regional transit, improve active transportation/bicycle options, and
mitigate the impacts of additional congestion on Routes of Regional Significance to serve new
development as designated in the Strategic Expenditure Plan. The projects/public facilities to be
funded by the fee are identified in the 2020 Nexus Study and the SEP and the Prioritization of
Projects and Funding Plan.
3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type
of development project upon which the fee is imposed. Response: Based on the analysis in the
2020 Nexus Study, the new development projects within the Tri-Valley will generate additional
trips which will impact the transportation system in the region, including on Routes of Regional
Significance. As illustrated in the 2020 Nexus Study, the planned projects will expand and
improve capacity on the Routes of Regional Significance and alleviate congestion to
accommodate the increased trips generated by new development. Thus, there is a reasonable
relationship between the use of the fee for these projects and the new development generating
these additional trips on which the fee will be imposed.
4. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public
facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. Response: The need
for the planned projects is based on the forecasted increase in congestion on Routes of
Regional Significance, as well as other transportation impacts resulting from new development.
The 2020 Nexus Study analyzed the contribution by each land use based on the proportion of
average AM/PM trips generated by each land use. As demonstrated in the Study, there is a
reasonable relationship between the need for the planned projects and the types of
development upon which the fee is imposed because the planned projects will mitigate the
transportation impacts generated by new development.
5. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and
the cost of public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development on
which the fee is imposed. Response: The 2020 Nexus Study demonstrates that there is a
reasonable relationship between the amount of the proposed fee and the cost or portion of the
cost of the public facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed because
each land use category’s share of the total trips generated was multiplied by the applicable
project costs and then divided by the total number of units, square feet or trips that will occur
within the development horizon. In this way, there is a reasonable relationship between the
amount of the fee and the cost attributable to each land use type because the fee applicable to
each land use type is based on the number of trips generated by that applicable land use type.
Furthermore, the 2022 TVTD Fee is proposed to be set at between 6% to 15% of the justified
411
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 5 of 5
maximum fee rate and thus, the amount of the fee is lower than the actual costs attributable to
new development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin will:
1. Require each project developer to pay the TVTD Fee prior to issuance of building
permits for the project, or no later than occupancy, and to the extent permitted by law.
2. Levy the TVTD Fee on all development projects not exempt from payment of the fee.
3. Apply the TVTD Fee on all significant changes to existing development agreements
adopted after the effective date of the JEPA. The TVTD Fee shall be applied to all components
of a project that are subject to an amended or renewed development agreement. As used
herein, “significant” means any of the following: (a) change in land use type (e.g., office to retail);
(b) intensification of land use types (e.g., increases in square footage of approved Office); (c)
extension of the term of development agreements; and (d) reduction or removal of project
mitigation requirements or conditions of approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Dublin finds that the
foregoing recitals are true.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of June 2022,by the following
votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
412
Attachment 2
Exhibit A to Resolution
TVTC Resolution 2021-10 and 2020 Nexus Study
41
3
41
4
Tri-Valley Transportation Council
2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
TVTC MEMBER AGENCIES
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
AUGUST 2021 | FINAL
Prepared By:
415
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final i
CONTENTS
Acronym List .............................................................................................................................. iv
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... i
1 Introduction and Background ........................................................................................... 1
2 Forecast of New Development and Travel Demand ......................................................... 4
3 Improvement Projects and Cost Estimates .................................................................... 19
4 Nexus Findings .............................................................................................................. 22
5 Next Steps ..................................................................................................................... 33
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................ 34
Appendix A – Existing TVTC Projects ....................................................................................... 35
Appendix B – Additional TVTC Projects .................................................................................... 52
Appendix C – Project Improvement Categories ......................................................................... 66
416
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final ii
TABLES
Table 1: Total Household Forecasts by Agency ......................................................................... 5
Table 2: Projected Dwelling Unit Growth, 2020-2040 ................................................................. 6
Table 3: Single Family Household Forecasts by Agency ............................................................ 6
Table 4: Multifamily Household Forecasts by Agency ................................................................ 7
Table 5: Total Employment Forecasts by Agency ...................................................................... 8
Table 6: Total Employment Forecasts by Employment Type ...................................................... 9
Table 7: Employment Growth Converted to Square Commercial Building Space ......................13
Table 8: Overall Growth Comparison ........................................................................................13
Table 9: Household Growth Comparison ...................................................................................15
Table 10: Actual Versus Projected 2020 Household Values ......................................................15
Table 11: Employment Growth Comparison ..............................................................................18
Table 12: Actual Versus Projected 2020 Employment Values ...................................................18
Table 13: Existing Projects – List A& B .....................................................................................20
Table 14: New Selected Projects – List C .................................................................................21
Table 15: Methodology and Improvements ...............................................................................24
Table 16: Future Build vs No Build Scenario Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) .............................25
Table 17: HSIP Crash Saving Dollar Amounts ..........................................................................27
Table 18: Future Safety Benefits with Project Improvements ....................................................27
Table 19: Future Project Induced Daily Bicycle Demand ...........................................................27
Table 20: Safety Benefits with Project C-11 ..............................................................................28
Table 21: AM/PM Peak-Hour Average Trip Rate Comparison Between 7th Edition and 10th
Edition .......................................................................................................................................29
Table 22: Total Trip Ends by Land Use Category ......................................................................30
Table 23: Total Fee by Land Use Category ...............................................................................31
Table 24: Total Cost and Maximum Fee by Land Use Category ...............................................32
417
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final iii
FIGURES
Figure 1:Total Household Forecasts by Agency ......................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Single Family Household Forecasts by Agency ........................................................... 7
Figure 3: Multifamily Household Forecasts by Agency ............................................................... 8
Figure 4: Total Employment Forecasts by Agency ..................................................................... 9
Figure 5: Retail Employment Forecasts by Agency ...................................................................10
Figure 6: Service Employment Forecasts by Agency ................................................................10
Figure 7: Other Employment Forecasts by Agency ...................................................................11
Figure 9: Manufacturing Employment Forecasts by Agency ......................................................12
Figure 10: Trade/Wholesale Employment Forecasts .................................................................12
Figure 11: 2008 Nexus and 2020 Refined Dwelling Unit Forecast .............................................14
Figure 12: 2008 Nexus Study and 2020 Nexus Study Employment Forecast (Retail, Service,
Other) .......................................................................................................................................16
Figure 13: 2008 Nexus Study and 2020 Nexus Study Employment Forecast (Agriculture,
Manufacturing, Trading) ............................................................................................................17
Figure 14: Future Build vs No Build Scenario Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) ............................25
418
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final iv
ACRONYM LIST
ACTC Alameda County Transportation Commission
ATP Active Transportation Program
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority
CHP California Highway Patrol
CMF Crash Modification Factors
CPM County Program Manager
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FHWA Federal Highway Authority
HOV High Occupancy Vehicle
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
I-580 Interstate 580
I-680 Interstate 680
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
JEPA Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
JPA Joint Power Agreement
LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority
LRSM Local Roadway Safety Manual
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG One Bay Area Grant Program
OTS Office of Traffic Safety
PM Post Mile
PSR Project Study Report
PSR-PDS Project Study Report-Project Development Support
RRS Routes of Regional Significance
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SAV Shared Autonomous Vehicle
SB 1 Senate Bill 1
SEP Strategic Expenditure Plan
SR 84 State Route 84
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TBD To Be Determined
TDM Travel Demand Model
419
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final v
TEP Transportation Expenditure Plan
TFCA Transportation Fund for Clean Air
TIF Transportation Improvement Fee
TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership and Cooperation
TSP Transit Signal Priority
TVTC Tri-Valley Transportation Council
TVTDF Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee
TVTP/AP Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan
VHD Vehicle Hours of Delay
420
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Completed and adopted in early 2008, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) Nexus Study: Fee
Update (“2008 Nexus Study”) identified 22 projects that the TVTC elected for eligibility to receive funding
from the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF). The first 11 projects (List A, Table 13) were
adopted into the original program in 1995. The second set of 11 (List B, Table 13), were new projects that
were included in the 2008 Nexus Study. The travel demand modeling documented in the 2008 Nexus Study
projected that these projects would reduce the congestion created by new development within the Tri-
Valley.
Since 2008, there have been changes in the funding, planning and traffic conditions under which the TVTDF
was originally developed. In addition, many of the 27 original projects have been completed and the TVTC
has identified 23 new projects (List C, Table 14) to be considered. Based on these factors an updated nexus
study is needed to support updates to the TVTDF.
FORECAST GROWTH
New development within the Tri-Valley is forecast to add 33,312 household and 63,947 jobs between 2018
and 2040. This growth will produce an increase of 57,596 average AM/PM peak hour trips.
PROJECT BENEFITS
Based on forecast projection, the vehicle hour of delay is expected to increase by 60 percent during the
AM and 88 percent during the PM peak. With the construction remaining improvement projects, this delay
is expected to decrease by 15 percent during the AM peak and 23 percent during the PM peak when
compared to the 2040 No-Build Scenario. In addition, these projects will result in other benefits to the Tri-
Valley Area including improving roadway safety, improving roadway operations, and increasing bicycle
ridership.
Figure E-1: Future Build vs No Build Scenario Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD)
24,718
15,613
39,570
29,376
35,852
25,813
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
H
o
u
r
s
o
f
D
e
l
a
y
(
V
H
D
)
2020 2040 No-Build 2040 Build
421
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final ii
Note: Hours of delay are based on trips with origin or destination in the TVTC region.
UPDATED FEE
The total investment for projects eligible to receive TVTDF funding is estimated to be $4.470 billion, where
$3.677 Billion is unfunded. An additional reduction was applied to account for external “cut-though” trips on
roadway congestion projects. Future development within the Tri-Valley area is not responsible to pay for
these trips since these trips are caused by growth outside of the Tri-Valley area. This reduces the total
unfunded cost to be covered by the maximum TVTDF to $2.928 billion. Note that this does not change the
overall project costs.
The $2.928 billion unfunded cost was allocated across future development land use type based on the
proportion of forecast peak-hour trips to determine the Total Fee per Land Use. Then the maximum fee
schedule was determined by dividing Total Fee per Land Use by the 2020-2040 Growth as shown in Table
E-1 below.
Table E-1: Maximum Fee by Land Use Category
Land Use Type Growth Maximum Fee
Single-Family Residential 15,857 DU $43,976 per DU
Multi-Family Residential 17,456 DU $25,928 per DU
Retail 5,117,500 SF $84.52 per SF
Office 6,796,800 SF $58.72 per SF
Industrial 9,289,800 SF $33.81 per SF
Other 12,441 trips* $50,839 per trip*
* Average AM/PM trip
The maximum fee schedule shown in in Table E-1 would generate sufficient revenues to fund the total
unfunded cost of all selected projects, however TVTC jurisdictions are not obligated to apply this fee
schedule. For instance, the TVTC jurisdiction set rates at approximate 1/3 of the maximum fee calculated
in the 1995 and 2008 Nexus studies to help foster growth within the Tri-Valley area, while providing a
regional funding source that could be used to match and help compete for Federal and State transportation
grants and funding programs.
422
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 1
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
In 1991, the seven jurisdictions of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore,
Danville, and San Ramon signed a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) that established the Tri-Valley
Transportation Council (TVTC). The purpose of the JPA was for the joint preparation of a Tri-Valley
Transportation Plan/Action Plan (TVTP/AP) for Routes of Regional Significance (RRS) and cost sharing of
recommended improvements. The TVTP/AP was prepared and presented to all member jurisdictions in
April 1995 and updated in 2000. The TVTP/AP created a common understanding and agreement on the
Tri-Valley’s transportation concerns regarding prioritizing projects for funding and implementation.
In addition to the project priorities, the TVTP/AP also recommended the development of a TVTDF to allocate
a fair share of regional infrastructure cost to go towards new development. The nexus study for the fee
program, completed in 1995, justified allocating the unfunded cost needed to complete all of the 11 projects
identified in the TVTP/AP to new development. The TVTC, however, recommended scaling back by roughly
two-thirds the total amount the fee program would collect from the maximum funding needed. The TVTC
and its member jurisdictions subsequently created and adopted the TVTDF in 1998 through a Joint Exercise
of Powers Agreement (JEPA). The original Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP) was adopted in 1999.
The JEPA called for a periodic update of the fee program to reflect any significant changes in population
growth, project status, and other conditions that would require revisions to the fee program. Since 1995,
there have been substantial changes in the funding, planning, and traffic setting in which the TVTDF was
originally developed. New funding sources were established; the TVTP/AP was updated in 2000; projects
were completed; project schedules and/or funding plans shifted; traffic patterns changed; and new regional
transportation projects were identified through various traffic studies. The TVTC responded to these
changes by directing the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to conduct its first update to the fee nexus
study to update the fee and project list.
Completed and adopted in early 2008, the first update to the TVTC Nexus Study: Fee Update (“2008 Nexus
Study”) identified 22 projects that the TVTC elected for eligibility to receive funding from the TVTDF. The
first 11 projects (List A, Table 13) were adopted into the original program in 1995. The second set of 11
(List B, Table 13), were new projects that were included in the 2008 Nexus Study. The travel demand
modeling documented in the 2008 Nexus Study projected that these projects would further reduce
congestion created by new development within the Tri-Valley. A revised fee structure was released by
TVTC for consideration by each member agency in late 2008. While each member agency communicated
support for the revised fee structure, it was not approved by all member agencies pending preparation and
approval of a corresponding SEP. A TVTC SEP Subcommittee was therefore formed to commence
preparation of an SEP.
To facilitate the progress of existing projects while an update to the SEP was underway, an Interim Funding
Plan was approved by TVTC in April 2010. The Interim Funding Plan matched the programmed amounts
and priorities established in the 2004 SEP Update. It also included a revised disbursement timeline to reflect
the current Joint TVTDF account balance and projected fee collections over the next five years.
With respect to the TVTC JEPA, in October 2013 TVTC entered into a new Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement (JEPA) comprised of seven member agencies: the County of Alameda, the County of Contra
Costa, the City of Livermore, the City of Pleasanton, the City of San Ramon, the City of Dublin, and the
Town of Danville. The purpose of the new JEPA agreement was to establish the TVTC as a
separate agency responsible for planning, coordinating, and receiving disbursement of traffic impact fee
423
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 2
revenues from member agencies to help implement transportation improvement projects within the Tri-
Valley Area.
Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP)
In January 2015, the TVTC adopted Resolution No. 2015-01 – Adopting the updated Tri-Valley
Transportation Development Fee Schedule as a two-year phase-in plan, with no change during the initial
year (FY 14-15), an increase to 25% of the maximum allowable rate by the fee nexus study in the second
year (FY 15-16) and a final increase to 35% of the maximum allowable rate by the third year (FY 16-17).
The new fee was based on the Fee Nexus Study adopted in 2008.
In November 2015, a review of the 2008 Nexus Study was conducted to determine if the analysis
establishing a reasonable relationship between the unexpended fees and the purpose for which those fees
were collected remained valid. This review analyzed the 2008 Nexus Study Fee Update with current traffic
conditions, forecasted growth, and project updates and found that the analysis establishing a reasonable
relationship between the unexpended fees and the purpose of which those fees were collected was still
valid. The review also identified a number of conditions that had changed since the completion of the 2008
Nexus Study, such as growth projections were lower in the more recent forecasts than at the time of the
2008 Nexus Study. This translated to lower trip generation rate from new development. In addition, a
number of the projects in the Nexus Study had been completed or had a change in project description or
cost estimate. However, due to inflation and updated cost estimates, the total unfunded project cost had
only decreased by 9 percent. The minor decrease in unfunded cost, paired with a decrease in expected
new peak hour trips to which the fee would be applied, meant that the maximum fee identified in the 2008
Nexus Study would be higher in an updated calculation.
In January 2017, the TVTC approved the 2008 TVTC Nexus Study Validation Review and adopted the
2017 Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP)* Update. At that time, the TVTC elected to maintain the current fee
rate, with exception of the annual Construction Cost Index (CCI) adjustment. The 2017 SEP update
incorporated and built upon the updated project descriptions, funding programs, and progression of the
TVTDF over the previous six years. Some of the transportation improvement projects on the original list
were completed and schedules and funding for others had changed. The JEPA, adopted in 2013, required
approval for the SEP, by a supermajority of the TVTC – six members.
Since 2008, there have been changes in the funding, planning and traffic conditions under which the TVTDF
was originally developed. In addition, many of the 22 projects have been completed and the TVTC has
identified 16 new projects (List C, Table 14) to be considered. Based on these factors the 2020 updated
nexus study was undertaken.
On August 16, 2021, the TVTC approved Resolution No. 2021-10 Adopting the Tri-Valley Transportation
Council 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study.
424
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 3
1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The remainder of the report is divided into the following chapters:
• Chapter 2 - Forecast of New Development and Travel Demand: Describes the methodology,
assumption, and results used to determine future development forecast
• Chapter 3 - Improvement Projects and Cost Estimates: Presents list of improvement projects the
TVTC elected to receive funding from the TVTDF. Detailed project descriptions are provided in
Appendix A and Appendix B.
• Chapter 4 - Nexus Findings: Describes relevant findings for the imposition of development impact
fees,
• Chapter 5 - Next Steps: Identifies next steps for adopting the updated fee schedule.
425
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 4
2 FORECAST OF NEW DEVELOPMENT AND TRAVEL DEMAND
This chapter describes the methodology, assumption, and results for travel demand forecasting.
2.1 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH
Travel demand forecasting was conducted using the current version of Contra Costa Transportation
Authority Travel Demand Model (CCTA TDM). The use of the CCTA TDM is consistent with the previous
2008 Nexus Study. Based on the outcome of initial discussions with the TAC, the following steps were
taken regarding the development of travel demand forecasts:
• Travel demand forecasting was reaffirmed to be based on the latest version of CCTA TDM. In 2019,
the CCTA TDM was updated to incorporate assumptions consistent with the current (as of 2017)
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). A 2018 base
year validation was also completed as part of that update. The growth projections were based on
a base year of 2020 and a horizon year of 2040. Note that the CCTA TDM base year was updated
to reflect 2020 conditions and that the 2040 horizon year was also modified to address the specific
needs of this study.
• Land use assumptions for households and employment were broken down for the 2020 base and
2040 horizon years by jurisdiction and were distributed to member agencies for review. Detailed
data submitted to each jurisdiction included household and employment data at the traffic analysis
zone (TAZ) level. In addition, supplemental data from the Alameda County Transportation
Commission (ACTC) travel demand model was also provided to member agencies within Alameda
County. Kimley Horn worked closely with the individual agencies to appropriately finalize growth
forecasts prior to their use in the final modeling for this study.
Given that a recent land use forecast for the Tri-Valley region already exists as incorporated into the 2019
update of the CCTA Model, it is important to provide a context for the basis of this forecast. Specifically, the
focus of this effort, unlike the more recent application of the CCTA model which was in support of a Region‐
Wide RTP, is confined to a limited area that primarily includes City of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore,
Danville, and San Ramon and parts of unincorporated Contra Costa and Alameda counties. As this
constitutes sub‐area analysis (although the entirety of the model will be used during analysis), the typical
best practice includes carefully assessing land use within the study area to make sure that it is prepared in
a manner consistent with the specific goals of the study for which the TDM will be applied. It is important to
note that TDMs used in support of RTPs are prepared in accordance with strict control totals and, as such,
their land use forecasts do not necessarily reflect certainty as to whether a given development will occur,
rather they are more akin to a process of prioritization (the forecaster determines the magnitude and
location of development that is most likely to occur rather than determining whether something will NOT
occur). Not surprisingly, local jurisdictions sometimes have more detailed perspectives on whether certain
concentrations of development within their communities will occur before the RTP planning horizon. A land
use assessment, such as that carried out as part of a typical sub‐area analysis, is often an opportunity to
reconsider jurisdictional land use input without the necessary limitations that an RTP puts on land use
forecasting.
Based on these considerations and information shared by the TAC members, as well as input from staff
from the member agencies at several individual agency meetings, it was determined that the 2040 land use
forecast for the study area as included in the 2019 version of the CCTA TDM had unlikely development
patterns in several locations within the study area as compared to the collective perspectives of member
426
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 5
agencies. Accordingly, it was agreed that a process to refine the existing CCTA forecast in a manner that
could be reasonably justified based on readily available information and data would be undertaken.
Specifically, this forecast is intended to reflect both realistic and achievable 2040 growth within the study
area, and not necessarily circumstances that would be reflective of the full potential of the study area or an
overly conservative approach such as a “worst‐case” scenario.
2.2 TRAVEL DEMAND FORECAST
This section presents the growth forecast based on feedback from member agencies.
2.2.1 HOUSEHOLD GROWTH
Table 1 and Figure 1 summaries the estimated household growth between 2020 and 2040 the resulted
from the process described in the prior section. Between 2020 and 2040 there is an expected total growth
of 33,312 households within the Tri-Valley Area. This equates to a 24 percent change or an annual growth
rate of 1.09%.
Table 1: Total Household Forecasts by Agency
Agency 2020 2040 2020-2040
Growth
Percent
Change
Annual
Growth
Rate
Danville 15,564 16,557 993 6% 0.31%
Dublin 21,708 29,105 7,397 34% 1.48%
Livermore 30,685 39,759 9,074 30% 1.30%
Pleasanton 27,783 34,099 6,316 23% 1.03%
San Ramon 27,624 36,638 9,014 33% 1.42%
Alameda Unincorporated 2,108 2,362 254 12% 0.57%
Contra Costa Unincorporated 11,921 12,185 264 2% 0.11%
Total Tri-Valley 137,393 170,705 33,312 24% 1.09%
427
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 6
Figure 1:Total Household Forecasts by Agency
Table 2 presents the overall change based on dwelling type. As shown, it is expected that single family
units will grow by 15,856 units at an annual growth rate of 0.69%. It is expected that multi-family units will
go by 17,456 units at an annual growth rate of 2.35%. Table 3 and Figure 2 summarizes growth for single
family household by agency. Table 4 and Figure 3 summarizes the growth for multifamily households by
agency.
Table 2: Projected Dwelling Unit Growth, 2020-2040
Dwelling Type 2020 2040 2020-2040
Growth
Percent
Change
Annual
Growth
Rate
Single Family 107,944 123,800 15,856 15% 0.69%
Multifamily 29,449 46,905 17,456 59% 2.35%
Total 137,393 170,705 33,312 24% 1.09%
Table 3: Single Family Household Forecasts by Agency
Agency 2020 2040 2020-2040
Growth
Percent
Change
Annual
Growth
Rate
Danville 14,346 14,882 536 4% 0.18%
Dublin 14,579 17,506 2,927 20% 0.92%
Livermore 23,631 29,091 5,460 23% 1.04%
Pleasanton 20,689 24,202 3,513 17% 0.79%
San Ramon 21,704 24,821 3,117 14% 0.67%
Alameda Unincorporated 1,767 1,953 186 11% 0.50%
Contra Costa Unincorporated 11,228 11,345 117 1% 0.05%
Total Tri-Valley 107,944 123,800 15,856 15% 0.69%
6%, 993
34%, 7,397
30%, 9,074
23%, 6,316 33%, 9,014
12%, 254
2%, 264
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Danville Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Alameda
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
Unincorporated
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Existing Total Household Total Household Growth
428
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 7
Figure 2: Single Family Household Forecasts by Agency
Table 4: Multifamily Household Forecasts by Agency
Agency 2020 2040 2020-2040
Growth
Percent
Change
Annual
Growth
Rate
Danville 1,218 1,675 457 38% 1.61%
Dublin 7,129 11,599 4,470 63% 2.46%
Livermore 7,054 10,668 3,614 51% 2.09%
Pleasanton 7,094 9,897 2,803 40% 1.68%
San Ramon 5,920 11,817 5,897 100% 3.52%
Alameda Unincorporated 341 409 68 20% 0.91%
Contra Costa Unincorporated 693 840 147 21% 0.97%
Total Tri-Valley 29,449 46,905 17,456 59% 2.35%
4%, 536 20%, 2,927
23%, 5,460
17%, 3,513 14%, 3,117
11%, 186
1%, 117
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Danville Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Alameda
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
Unincorporated
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Existing Single Family Single Family Growth
429
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 8
Figure 3: Multifamily Household Forecasts by Agency
2.2.2 EMPLOYMENT GROWTH
Table 5 and Figure 4 summarizes the estimated employment growth between 2020 and 2040. Between
2020 and 2040 there is an expected total growth of 63,947 jobs within the Tri-Valley Area. This equates to
an approximate 30% change or an annual growth rate of 1.34%. Detailed information for specific Traffic
Analysis Zones (TAZ) are included in Attachment B and C.
Table 5: Total Employment Forecasts by Agency
Agency 2020 2040 2020-2040
Growth
Percent
Change
Annual
Growth
Rate
Danville 19,330 19,519 189 1% 0.05%
Dublin 23,402 32,716 9,314 40% 1.69%
Livermore 46,038 66,795 20,757 45% 1.88%
Pleasanton 62,196 86,489 24,293 39% 1.66%
San Ramon 50,539 59,027 8,488 17% 0.78%
Alameda Unincorporated 4,358 4,913 555 13% 0.60%
Contra Costa Unincorporated 4,460 4,811 351 8% 0.38%
Total Tri-Valley 210,323 274,270 63,947 30% 1.34%
38%, 457
63%, 4,470 51%, 3,614 40%, 2,803 100%, 5,897
20%, 68 21%, 147
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Danville Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Alameda
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
Unincorporated
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Existing Multifamily MultiFamily Growth
430
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 9
Figure 4: Total Employment Forecasts by Agency
Table 6 presents the estimate growth between the base year of 2020 and the 2040 horizon year by
employment type. Manufacturing, Service, and Other-type employment are forecasted to have the highest
growth with a 60%, 33%, and 31% change, respectively. Retail and Trade/Wholesale-type employment are
forecasted to have the smaller growth with a 20% and 19% change respectively. Agricultural-type employee
is expected to have very little change. Figure 5 through Figure 10 summarizes the growth for each
employment type by agency.
Table 6: Total Employment Forecasts by Employment Type
Employment Type 2020 2040 2020-2040
Growth
Percent
Change
Annual
Growth
Rate
Retail 50,168 60,403 10,235 20% 0.93%
Service 69,029 91,685 22,656 33% 1.43%
Other 67,621 88,356 20,735 31% 1.35%
Agricultural 1,225 1,224 -1 0% 0.00%
Manufacturing 14,942 23,842 8,900 60% 2.36%
Trade/Wholesale 7,338 8,760 1,422 19% 0.89%
Total Employment 210,323 274,270 63,947 30% 1.34%
Note:
Service employment includes professional services/offices, public administration, health services, educational services, hotel, etc.
Other employment includes car washes, repair-maintenance services, personal care services, civic and social organization etc.
1%, 189 40%, 9,314
45%, 20,757
39%, 24,293
17%, 8,488
13%, 555 8%, 351
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
Danville Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Alameda
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
Unincorporated
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Existing Total Employment Total Employment Growth
431
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 10
Figure 5: Retail Employment Forecasts by Agency
Figure 6: Service Employment Forecasts by Agency
4%, 166
9%, 711 50%, 3,468
19%, 3,864
25%, 1,817
8%, 85 10%, 124
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Danville Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Alameda
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
Unincorporated
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Existing Retail Employment Retail Employment Growth
0%, 3
57%, 3,770
28%, 3,900
57%, 10,666
20%, 3,958
20%, 270 5%, 89
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Danville Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Alameda
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
Unincorporated
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Existing Service Employment Service Employment Growth
432
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 11
Figure 7: Other Employment Forecasts by Agency
2%, 128 56%, 3,762
41%, 7,083
44%, 6,952 14%, 2,521
13%, 159 10%, 130
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Danville Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Alameda
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
Unincorporated
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Existing Other Employment Other Employment Growth
-71%, -90
6%, 3
16%, 37
3%, 4
6%, 38
10%, 7
0%, 0
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
Danville Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Alameda
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
Unincorporated
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Existing Agriculture Employment Agriculture Employment Growth
433
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 12
Figure 8: Manufacturing Employment Forecasts by Agency
Figure 9: Trade/Wholesale Employment Forecasts
-1%, -3
85%, 903
130%, 5,472 43%, 2,358
4%, 147
7%, 16 7%, 7
-2,000
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
Danville Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Alameda
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
Unincorporated
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Existing Manufacturing Employment Manufacturing Employment Growth
-4%, -15
24%, 165
23%, 797
36%, 449 1%, 7
6%, 18 1%, 1
-1,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Danville Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Alameda
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
Unincorporated
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Existing Trade/Wholesale Employment Trade/Wholesale Employment Growth
434
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 13
Employment growth was converted to square feet of commercial building space based on employee density
assumed from the 2008 Nexus Study. These conversions are shown in Table 7 below.
Table 7: Employment Growth Converted to Square Commercial Building Space
Land Use
Type
Employee Growth
2020-2040
Employee Density
(SF/Employee)
In Building Square
Footage 2020-2040
Retail 10,235 500 5,117,572
Office/Service 22,656 300 6,796,911
Industrial1 10,321 900 9,289,204
Other 20,735 600 12,440,969
Total 63,947 - 33,644,656
1 Industrial includes agriculture, manufacturing, and trading employment-types.
2.2.3 COMPARISON WITH 2008 NEXUS STUDY
A comparison of the total growth (base year to horizon year) and the annual growth rates between the 2008
Nexus Study and the 2020 Nexus Study forecast is presented in Table 8. The household growth estimated
in the current 2020 Nexus Study is approximately half as much as estimated in the 2008 Nexus Study. The
employment growth is estimated to be slightly lower than the 2008 Nexus Study. A slower build-out results
in smaller amount of development being available to pay towards improvement projects.
Table 8: Overall Growth Comparison
Total Growth Annual Growth
Household Employment Household Employment
2008 Nexus Study
(2007 to 2030 Growth) 51% 42% 1.81% 1.54%
2020 Nexus Study
(2020 to 2040 Growth) 24% 30% 1.09% 1.34%
Detailed comparison household and employment are discussed in the following sections.
2.2.3.1 Household
Table 9, Table 10 and Figure 11 presents a comparison of the household growth between 2008 Nexus
Study and the 2020 refined growth forecast. Single family housing experienced 4% less growth than
anticipated in the 2008 Nexus Study. Multifamily housing experienced 10% less growth than anticipated in
the 2008 Nexus Study. The multifamily growth trend is similar between the 2008 and 2020 Nexus Study.
435
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 14
Figure 10: 2008 Nexus and 2020 Refined Dwelling Unit Forecast
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
2008 Nexus - Single Family 2020 Update - Single Family
2008 Nexus - Multifamily 2020 Update - Multifamily
436
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 15
Table 9: Household Growth Comparison
Dwelling Type
2008 Nexus Study 2020 Nexus Study
2007 2030
2007-
2030
Growth
Percent
Change
Annual
Growth 2018 2040
2020-
2040
Growth
Percent
Change
Annual
Growth
Single Family 91,136 129,818 38,682 42% 1.55% 107,944 123,800 15,856 15% 0.69%
Multifamily 21,959 41,042 19,083 87% 2.76% 29,449 46,905 17,456 59% 2.35%
Total 113,095 170,860 57,765 51% 1.81% 137,393 170,705 33,312 24% 1.09%
Table 10: Actual Versus Projected 2020 Household Values
Dwelling Type 2020
Projected
2020
Actual Difference Percent
Difference
Single Family 113,000 107,944 -5,056 -4%
Multifamily 32,745 29,449 -3,296 -10%
Total 145,745 137,393 -8,352 -6%
Note: 2020 Projected assumes linear growth based on 2007-2030 growth assumed in 2008 Nexus Study
437
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 16
2.2.3.2 Employment
Table 11, Table 12, Figure 12, and Figure 13 presents a comparison of the employment growth between
2008 Nexus Study and the 2020 Nexus Study. All employment types except for Other are forecast to
experience less growth than anticipated in the 2008 Nexus Study. Retail and Other employment experience
higher growth at 15% and 8% more than 2020 estimate. For Agriculture employment, there was a -7%
difference. Service, manufacturing, and trading employment experienced the greatest difference, ranging
from -37% to -43% compared to employment numbers anticipated for 2020 in 2008 Nexus Study. While the
actual numbers differ from the anticipated growth assumed in 2008 Nexus Study, the 2020 Nexus Study is
anticipating similar growth trends as the previous study for all employment types.
Figure 11: 2008 Nexus Study and 2020 Nexus Study Employment Forecast (Retail, Service, Other)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
2008 Nexus - Retail 2020 Update - Retail
2008 Nexus - Service 2020 Update - Service
2008 Nexus - Other 2020 Update - Other
438
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 17
Figure 12: 2008 Nexus Study and 2020 Nexus Study Employment Forecast (Agriculture, Manufacturing, Trading)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
2008 Nexus Agriculture 2020 Update - Agriculture
2008 Nexus - Manufacturing 2020 Update - Manufacturing
2008 Nexus - Trading 2020 Update - Trading
439
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 18
Table 11: Employment Growth Comparison
Employment
Type
2008 Nexus Study 2020 Nexus Study
2007 2030
2007-
2030
Growth
Percent
Change
Annual
Growth 2020 2040
2020-
2040
Growth
Percent
Change
Annual
Growth
Retail 36,806 48,927 12,121 33% 1.25% 50,168 60,403 10,235 20% 0.93%
Service 83,608 129,427 45,819 55% 1.92% 69,029 91,685 22,656 33% 1.43%
Other 54,076 69,459 15,383 28% 1.09% 67,621 88,356 20,735 31% 1.35%
Agriculture 1,483 1,182 -301 -20% -0.98% 1,225 1,224 -1 0% 0.00%
Manufacturing 20,048 30,895 10,847 54% 1.90% 14,942 23,842 8,900 60% 2.36%
Trading 10,986 14,371 3,385 31% 1.17% 7,338 8,760 1,422 19% 0.89%
Total 207,007 294,261 87,254 42% 1.54% 210,323 274,270 63,947 30% 1.34%
Table 12: Actual Versus Projected 2020 Employment Values
Employment
Type
2020
Projected
2020
Actual Difference Percent
Difference
Retail 42,603 42,603 7,565 15%
Service 105,521 105,521 -36,492 -37%
Other 61,433 61,433 6,188 8%
Agriculture 1,339 1,339 -114 -7%
Manufacturing 25,236 25,236 -10,294 -43%
Trading 12,605 12,605 -5,267 -43%
Total 248,737 248,737 -38,414 -18%
Note: 2020 Projected assumes linear growth based on 2007-2030 growth assumed in 2008 Nexus Study
440
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 19
3 IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND COST ESTIMATES
This chapter presents the 38 improvement projects included as part of the 2020 Nexus Updates.
3.1 IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
There are 38 improvement projects that the TVTC has included in the Tri-Valley Transportation
Development Fee (TVTDF) for the 2020 Nexus Study. Of those projects, 15 projects exist in the current
TVTDF and 23 that are to be considered as part of this nexus update study.
3.1.1 CURRENT PROJECT LIST
Current projects are divided into two lists. The first list, List A, includes 7 projects that were included in the
original program adopted in 1995. The second list, List B, includes 8 projects that were included in the 2008
Nexus Study.
Out of the 27 existing projects, 10 projects have been completed and are no longer considered for further
funding. In addition, two projects (B-9 Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road I-680 Intersection and B-11a
I-680 HOV Direct Access Ramps) have been removed from the project list and are no longer being
considered for funding (for a total of 12 projects removed from the prior lists). The remaining projects have
not been fully completed. Table 13 summaries the projects in List A and B along with their total project
costs and their remaining unfunded cost. Detailed description of projects in Lists A and B are provided in
Appendix A.
3.1.2 NEW SELECTED PROJECT LIST
With almost half of the current project list completed and no longer receiving funding, TVTC reviewed and
selected additional projects to be considered for receiving funding from the TVTDF. This selection process
involved a comprehensive planning process to develop a project list that mitigates the impacts of new
development based on feasibility and stakeholder support. From this process, 23 additional projects (List
C) were identified to receive funding from the TVTDF. List C projects, along with their total project costs
and their remaining unfunded costs are listed in Table 14. Detailed descriptions of projects in List C are
provided in Appendix B.
3.2 UNFUNDED COST
Tables 13 and 14 presents total project cost and their remaining unfunded cost. The total investment for
projects eligible to receive TVTDF funding is estimated to be $4.470 billion, where $3.677 billion is
unfunded. An additional reduction was applied to account for external “cut-though” trips on roadway
congestion projects. Future development within the Tri-Valley area is not responsible to pay for these trips
since these trips are caused by growth outside of the Tri-Valley area. This reduces the total unfunded
cost to be covered by the maximum TVTDF to $2.928 billion. Note that this does not change the overall
project costs.
The funded amount includes the current TVTDF amount currently allocated toward projects as well as
additional federal, state, regional, or local funding sources. Based on input received from member
441
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 20
jurisdictions, it is anticipated that approximately $793.24 million of funding has been identified for the current
project list. Appendices A and B include a cost estimate and a portfolio of likely funding sources.
Table 13: Existing Projects – List A& B
Project
Total Cost
(2021
$Millions)
Unfunded
Cost
(2021
$Millions)
A-1 Interstate 580 (I-580)/Interstate 680 (I-680) Interchange
(southbound to eastbound) - -
A-2a State Route 84 (SR 84) Expressway (I-580 to I-680) $325.4 -
A-2b SR 84/I-580 Interchange $22.7 $6.42
A-3 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Segment 2) - -
A-4 West Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
Station - -
A-5a I-580 Eastbound Auxiliary Lane - -
A-5b I-580 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Westbound - -
A-6 I-680 HOV Lanes, SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade - -
A-7 I-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon Road Interchange
Modifications - -
A-8 I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange - -
A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 $10.87 $8.42
A-9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2 $58.77 $57.08
A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 $40.57 $11.14
A-10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 $31.20 $28.62
A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – Phase 2 $22.35 $21.21
B-1 I-580/I-680 Interchange (westbound to southbound) $1,785.65 $1,746.65
B-2 Fifth Eastbound Lane on I-580 from Santa Rita Road to
Vasco Road - -
B-3 I-580/First Street Interchange Modification $61.00 $7.93
B-4 I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification $85.65 $16.61
B-5 I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification $86.00 $18.92
B-6 Jack London Boulevard Extension $28.16 $10.08
B-7 El Charro Road Extension (Stoneridge Drive/Jack London
Boulevard to Stanley Boulevard) $72.48 $72.48
B-8 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project (East of
Blackhawk Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive) $88.08 $54.55
B-9 Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road I-680 Interchange
Improvements - -
B-10 I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Gap Closure (North Main Street
to Rudgear Road)
-
-
B-11a I-680 HOV Direct Access Ramps - -
B-11b I-680 Transit Corridor Improvements $277.85 $274.85
Note: Completed or removed projects that are no longer considered for further funding are shaded.
442
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 21
Table 14: New Selected Projects – List C
Project Total Cost
(Millions)
Unfunded Cost
(Millions)
C-1 Tesla Road Safety Improvements $13.19 $13.19
C-2 Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement $24.49 $18.49
C-3 Dublin Boulevard – North Canyons Parkway Extensions $160.39 $134.91
C-4 Vasco Road at Dalton Avenue Intersection Improvements $3.39 $3.39
C-5 El Charro Road Widening $68.09 $38.09
C-6 Sunol/680 Interchange Improvements $16.60 $7.60
C-7 I-680 Express Lanes – Hwy 84 to Alcosta $527.57 $507.57
C-8 Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange $10.33 $2.63
C-9 Stoneridge/I-680 Interchange $11.98 $4.08
C-10 Innovate 680 $57.21 $54.66
C-11a Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Bollinger
Canyon Road $22.88 $8.58
C-11b Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Crow
Canyon Road $19.69 $19.69
C-11c Iron Horse Trail – Dublin $11.60 -
C-11d Iron Horse Trail – Livermore $26.99 $26.99
C-11e Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs $1.65 $0.30
C-11f Iron House Trail Connection Improvements at Santa Rita
Road $0.87 $0.48
C-11g Iron Horse Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing –
Sycamore Valley Road $19.78 $19.78
C-11h Iron Horse Trail Safety Improvements $85.60 $85.60
C-12 Hacienda/I-580 Interchange Improvements $39.13 $34.50
C-13 Fallon/El Charro Interchange Improvements $34.51 $19.96
C-14 Valley Link Rail (Phase 1) $258.25 $258.25
C-15 Technology Enhancements $0.33 $0.33
C-16 I-680 Express Bus Service $59.35 $59.35
443
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 22
4 NEXUS FINDINGS
This chapter presents the relationship of between the increase travel demand from new development, the
cost of improvements needed to accommodate that growth, and the impact fee to fund those investments.
4.1 OVERALL METHODOLOGY
Impact fees may be calculated using a purely technical method that would fund the cost of facilities required
to accommodate growth. The four steps followed in any development impact fee study include the following:
1. Prepare growth projections;
2. Identify facility standards;
3. Determine the amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate new development based on
facility standards and growth projections; and
4. Calculate the public facilities fee by allocating the total cost of facilities per unit of development.
This nexus study results in a calculation of the maximum fee based on the list of projects identified in
Chapter 3 (and described in Appendices A and B) to the greatest extent technically defensible under the
Mitigation Fee Act. Consistent with the TVTC’s directions, the full cost of funding these improvements is
used to calculate the maximum fee rates the TVTC could apply to all new residential and non-residential
development in the Tri-Valley between 2020 and 2040.
4.2 MITIGATION FEE AC T FINDINGS
Development impact fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on
development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide
the widespread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (Act)
with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government
Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and
administration of fee programs. The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting
a fee.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the TVTC updated impact fee were adopted when the
first TVTC fee was adopted in 1995 and subsequently again when the Nexus Study was updated in 2008
and 2017. They are presented here and supported by the Nexus Analysis section (Chapter 2) of this report.
All statutory references below are to the Act. This sample framework for the Mitigation Fee Act findings is
only to provide local agencies with guidance and is not a substitute for legal advice. Local agencies will
customize the findings for their jurisdiction and consult with their legal counsel prior to adoption of the
updated TVTDF.
4.2.1 PURPOSE OF FEE
For the first finding, the local agency must identify the purpose of the fee (Section 66001(a)(1)). The TVTC
policy, as expressed through the TVTC Action Plan, is that new development shall contribute for mitigation
of their impacts on the Routes of Regional Significance, and that the cost sharing of recommended
improvements will be implemented through the TVTDF regional impact fee program. This is administered
by the seven jurisdictions of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore,
Danville, and San Ramon, which all signed a joint powers authority (JPA). The fee advances a legitimate
444
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 23
public interest by enabling the TVTC to fund improvements to transportation infrastructure required to
accommodate new development.
4.2.2 USE OF FEE REVENUES
For the second finding, the local agency must identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is
financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by
reference to a capital improvement plan, as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable
general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public
facilities for which the fee is charged (Section 66001(a)(2)). The TVTDF will fund expanded facilities on the
Routes of Regional Significance to serve new development. These facilities include the following:
• Roadway widening;
• Roadway extension;
• Traffic signal coordination and other traffic improvements;
• Freeway interchanges and related freeway improvements;
• Active transportation (pedestrian/bicycle) improvements;
• Safety improvements needed to mitigate the higher volume of traffic generated by new
development on a major arterial or other regional facility; and
• Improvements required for regional express bus and rail transit.
4.3 BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP
The nexus must show a reasonable benefit relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development
project upon which the fee is imposed. In other words, the nexus must demonstrate that the improvement
projects will mitigate the impacts of new development upon which the fee is imposed. This section describes
the methodology and results for establishing the benefit relationship.
4.3.1 METHODOLOGY
The previous 2008 Nexus Study used a model-based delay methodology to determine how List A and List
B would mitigate the impacts of new development by comparing vehicle hours of delay (VHD) from the
2005 base year with the Future 2030 No-build and Future 2030 Build scenarios. Given that some of the
new recommended projects cannot be effectively analyzed using this same methodology, additional
methodologies are being introduced as part of this update to appropriately assess the benefits of some
select projects.
To facilitate this approach, projects were aggregated into different improvement categories. These
categories include roadway capacity, transit, safety, pedestrian/bicycle, intersection, and technology. If the
project’s benefit could not be sufficiently analyzed based on model-delay, either because the project could
not be reflected in the model or that the model is insensitive to the benefits associated with a specific project,
the project was categorized as a safety, pedestrian/bicycle, intersection, or technology improvement and
accordingly analyzed using off-model techniques. Since these improvement categories improve different
aspects of the transportation system, differing methodologies and measures of effectiveness (MOEs) are
necessary to appropriately evaluate their anticipated benefit to the transportation system. It should be noted
some projects could be categorized into multiple improvement types; however, projects were limited to the
category which best reflects their primary benefit for the purposes of supporting this Nexus Study. Table
445
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 24
15 summarizes the different methodology and MOEs that are proposed for this evaluation. A full list of how
each project was categorized is included in Appendix C.
Table 15: Methodology and Improvements
Improvement
Type Methodology MOE/Benefit
Roadway
Capacity Model-based Delay
• AM and PM Peak Hour Delay (combined
with Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle
Improvement Categories)
Transit Model-based Delay
• AM and PM Peak Hour Delay (combined
with Capacity and Pedestrian/Bicycle
Improvement Categories)
Safety Crash Reduction Factors
• Crash Reduction Estimates
• Qualitative Assessment of Resultant Delay
Reduction
Pedestrian/
Bicycle
Planning-level Assessment
Based on NCHRP 552
• Delay Based on the Conversion of
Estimated Commuter Usage of Proposed
Facilities (combined with Capacity
• and Transit Improvement Categories)
• Crash Reduction Estimates
Intersection Planning-level Assessment • Qualitative Assessment of Resultant Delay
Reduction
Technology Planning-level Assessment • Qualitative Assessment of Resultant Delay
Reduction
4.3.2 ROADWAY CAPACITY AND TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
Roadway capacity projects include improvements that involve increasing capacity such as widening a
roadway to add additional through lanes or extending existing roadways. Transit projects include
improvements that upgrade or expand existing transit service or assist with the implementation of new
transit routes and services. Both roadway capacity and transit improvement projects were evaluated based
on region wide delay derived using the CCTA travel demand model. Morning and evening region wide peak
hours of delay from the two future scenarios, 2040 No-Build (without improvement projects) and 2040 Build
(with improvement projects), were compared to the 2020 base year conditions.
The 2040 No-Build scenario is based on a year 2040 transportation network that will carry all of the locally
produced or attracted new trips, but that only includes improvements that are expected to be funded under
the financially-constrained RTP without the proposed Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee projects
(List A, B, and C). The 2040 Build scenario is based on a year 2040 transportation network that includes
all the additional improvements that are expected to be funded with the updated Tri-Valley Transportation
Development Fee. Both the 2040 No-Build and 2040 Build project scenarios include all of the travel
associated with new development within the Tri-Valley. Under both scenarios, travel associated with
through trips was excluded from the resultant delay summary (i.e., trips that have origins and destinations
outside the Tri-Valley). Excluding through trips is common practice for this analysis given that the impact of
this travel is not generated by land uses within the Tri-Valley area and therefor assessing a fee is
impractical.
The improvement projects were evaluated using the aggregate regional peak-hour average weekday VHD
delay on all the significant roadways (includes freeways, expressways arterials, and major collectors) in the
446
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 25
Tri-Valley on the 2020 Base Year networks and the 2040 No-Build and Build networks. The aggregate VHD
provide a reasonable system wide measure of the impact of new development on congestion and mobility.
According to the CCTA travel demand model, between 2020 and 2040, if no projects are undertaken, the
number of AM peak hours of delay is expected to increase 60 percent from 24,718 to 39,570 hours, while
the number of PM peak hours of delay is expected to escalate 88 percent from 15,613 to 29,376 hours. If
the projects are undertaken, the number of AM peak hours of delay would decrease 15 percent compared
to the 2040 No-Build scenario, whereas, the number of PM peak hour of delay would decrease 23 percent.
This modest improvement demonstrates that the proposed improvement projects only partially mitigate
future congestion by ne w development. Table 16 and Figure 14 show the comparison between the Future
2040 Build and Future 2040 No-Build scenarios.
In the aggregate, the comparison between the three scenarios showed that: 1) the 2020 Base Year
conditions are better than the Future 2040 No-Build conditions; 2) the Future 2040 Build conditions are
better than the Future 2040 No-Build; and 3) the Future 2040 Build conditions are not better than the 2020
Base Year conditions. These comparisons demonstrated that, in the aggregate, new development does not
fund infrastructure needed to address existing deficiency caused by existing development.
Table 16: Future Build vs No Build Scenario Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD)
Peak Period 2020 Base
Year
Future 2040 Difference
No-Build Build No-Build Build
AM Peak Hour 24,718 39,570 35,852 60% 45%
PM Peak Hour 15,613 29,376 25,813 88% 65%
Note: Hours of delay are based on trips with origin or destination in the TVTC region.
Figure 13: Future Build vs No Build Scenario Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD)
Note: Hours of delay are based on trips with origin or destination in the TVTC region.
24,718
15,613
39,570
29,376
35,852
25,813
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
H
o
u
r
s
o
f
D
e
l
a
y
(
V
H
D
)
2020 2040 No-Build 2040 Build
447
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 26
In addition to reducing VHD, many roadway capacity and transit projects include additional secondary
benefits to the transportation system. Many of these projects will result in safety benefits, as congestion
can often exacerbate unsafe motoring conditions. Additionally, specific project attributes such as modifying
interchanges or widening roadways to provide additional lanes so vehicles can safely maneuver along the
roadway or provide space for slower moving vehicles during peak times can also improve safety. Other
common project benefits may include pedestrian and bicycle improvements either directly or indirectly. For
example, interchange can often be barriers for bicycles and pedestrian, however several of the interchange
projects (e.g. C-12: Hacienda/I-580 Interchange Improvements and C-13: Fallon/El Charro Interchange
Improvements) include bicycle and pedestrian improvements which close existing gaps and encourage
more pedestrian and bicycle activity.
Based on this analysis it is determined that the planned projects identified in this report will expand the
capacity of the Routes of Regional Significance to accommodate the increased trips generated by new
development and thus, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee for these projects and
the new development on which the fee will be imposed.
4.3.3 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Safety projects involves safety-related improvements such as shoulder widening, installing guardrail,
installing median barriers, or realigning roadway. For these projects, a crash reduction factor was calculated
based on each safety improvements being implemented. The crash reductions were subsequently applied
to crash forecasts for the purpose of identifying future benefits. The safety improvements considered in the
evaluation are listed below:
• California Highway Patrol (CHP)
Enforcement Area
• Intersection
Improvement • Shoulder Widening
• Guard Rail Update • Roadway Median Barrier • Signal Timing Optimization
• Guardrails • Roadway Realignment • Speed Feedback Signs
• High Friction Pavement • Retaining Walls • Increased Super elevation
• Additional Turn Lanes
Each of the safety elements for the proposed improvements were converted to a total number of annual
crash savings in the region based on the Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) and Federal
Highway Authority’s (FHWA) Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearing House guide. CMFs are based on
before and after research of safety improvement implementations. They indicate the proportion of future
crashes that may be prevented by implementing a given countermeasure, reducing the crash frequency for
an intersection or roadway segment. In other words, a CMF is a multiplicative factor used to compute the
expected number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site.
The CMF was applied to a crash forecast which was based on 5-years of historical crash data which
resulted in fatality or injury. The reduction in crashes was then then converted to annual crash saving based
on Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) crash saving dollar amounts shown in
Table 17.
448
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 27
Table 17: HSIP Crash Saving Dollar Amounts
Severity Crash Savings
(per crash)
Fatal $2,190,000
Serious $2,190,000
Moderate $142,300
Minor $80,900
Table 18 shows the overall annual crashes saving from traffic injuries that were potentially eliminated. Note
that this analysis excludes property costs and as such should be conservative. Also note that the forecast
only considers the effect of new traffic impacts and excludes the effect of existing conditions for the
purposes of establishing Nexus.
Table 18: Future Safety Benefits with Project Improvements
Safety Benefits Total Fatal Serious Moderate Minor
5-Years Reduction
in Crashes 153.0 2.5 14.1 45.3 91.0
1-Year Reduction
in Crashes 30.6 0.5 2.8 9.1 18.2
Value per Annum
(2019 Dollars) $10,048,590 $1,092,810 $6,192,599 $1,290,003 $1,473,178
As shown in Table 19, there is a direct cost benefit to the investments made for roadway safety
improvements in the region. While it is difficult to estimate an absolute percentage in reduced peak hour
delays, the expected reductions in crashes will also enhance system reliability and resilience.
4.3.4 PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS
While projects may include pedestrian and/or bicycle improvements, out of the 38 projects, project C-11
Iron Horse Trail Improvements is the only project that predominantly focuses on pedestrian and bicycle
improvements. Project C-11 consists of various improvements to the Iron Horse Trail within the TVTC
boundaries including overcrossing construction, closing existing gaps, and adding safety improvements
through the trail system. Pedestrian and bicycle improvement were evaluated based on NCHRP 552
Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. This approach relies on spatial analysis
techniques to determine the likely number of new active transportation users resulting from the introduction
of a new pedestrian/bicycle improvement. Table 19 shows the comparison between the Future 2040 Build
and Future 2040 No-Build scenarios.
Table 19: Future Project Induced Daily Bicycle Demand
Total Induced Demand 2020 Base Year Future 2040
No- Build
Future 2040
Build
Adult Bicyclists 1,275 1,778 3,338
Child Bicyclists 731 1,038 2,077
Total Facility Users 2,006 2,817 5,415
449
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 28
As shown in Table 19, Project C-11 could add over 2,500 bicycle trips per day on the Iron Horse Trail by
2040 which will provide an alternative to congested vehicular travel as well as significant health and
recreational value. Closing existing gaps in the trail will also encourage bicycle trips for other trip purposes
beyond just commute trips, including school, commercial and recreational trips.
Project C-11 improvements will result in additional secondary operational and safety benefits. Currently
many at-grade crossings are located at intersections with high vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volumes
which are regularly disrupted by conflicting at-grade operations given required traffic signal phasing. These
improvements will help improve vehicular traffic operations by relocating pedestrian and bicycle traffic away
from vehicular traffic helping to offset the transportation impacts associated with future development. These
improvements will also provide safety benefits by reducing the potential for vehicle-bicycle and vehicle-
pedestrian conflicts. Using the same methodology described in the previous section, a separate safety
analysis was conducted to quantify the safety benefits of all the C-11 project. Table 20 summarizes the
safety benefit for Project C-11.
Table 20: Safety Benefits with Project C-11
Safety Benefits Total Fatal Serious Moderate Minor
Annual Reduction
in Crashes 7 2 1 4 0
Value per Annum
(2019 Dollars) $7,166,200 $4,380,000 $2,190,000 $596,200 -
4.3.5 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
There are two projects in List C with intersection improvements. Project C-4: Vasco Road & Dalton Avenue
intersection Improvements, includes the addition of a traffic lane, signal optimization, and other
improvements such as shoulder widening and roadway alignment to improve safety. Vasco Road is a major
commute corridor connecting the City of Livermore and City of Brentwood. The intersection at Dalton
Avenue provides access to the communities in the San Ramon Valley. With the planned and anticipated
residential and industrial development along the corridor, this intersection is expected to have significant
delays during the peak hours of commute.
Project C-8: Santa Rita and I-580 Interchange, will construct a second southbound left turn lane from Santa
Rita onto Pimilico Drive. The City of Pleasanton General Plan has identified this intersection to have a
reduced Level of Service under build out conditions.
4.3.6 TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS
There are two technology projects in List C. While Project C-10: Innovate 680 consist of multiple
components including transit infrastructure and service improvements, roadway improvements, and
technology enhancement, this project has been categorized as a technology improvement because TVTDF
funding is being requested only for the Advance Technology component of the project. Other project
components are expected to be funded through alternative sources. The Advance Technology component
consist of implementing three technology-related strategies to improve operation along the I-680 corridor.
Strategies include providing an enhanced 511 mobile app and implementing a shared autonomous vehicles
(SAV) program to shift travel away from single occupant vehicles by providing travelers with better
information about mode choice opportunities, resultant travel time, cost per trip, and the availability of
450
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 29
transit. Other technology strategies include integrating adaptive ramp metering and/or corridor/incident
management systems which can help improve the efficiency and safety of the transportation system.
Project C-15: Technology Enhancements proposes to provide connectivity for transit and vehicles between
local arterials and regional facilities. The project is expected to be completed in three phases - Feasibility,
Design, and Construction. The TVTDF will help fund the feasibility study phase of the study, since the
details of the design and construction phase are unknown at this time. The feasibility study will focus on the
first and last mile connectivity opportunities at key transit hubs and along major transit routes in the Tri-
Valley area. Leveraging existing and emerging technology, such as connected and autonomous vehicles,
may help increase safety and mobility for all modes. These technologies may also help with increasing
transit ridership or expanding transit service to less-served areas, especially for communities that currently
lack service. Given that the resultant projects are intended to offset the impacts of future development, the
feasibility study is appropriate to include in the TVTC project list.
4.4 BURDEN RELATIONSHIP
The need for the TVTDF is based on the forecasted increase in congestion on routes of regional significance
as well as other transportation impacts resulting from new development. Consistent with the methodology
from the 2008, the contribution by each land use was based on the proportion of average AM/PM trips
generated by each land use. As demonstrated in this Study, there is a reasonable relationship between the
need for the planned projects and the types of development upon which the fee is imposed because the
planned projects will mitigate the transportation impacts of said new development.
4.4.1 TRIP RATE
The 2008 Nexus Study used the 7th Edition of Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)’s Trip Generation
Handbook to develop the trip rates for each land use category. Since then, three additional editions of the
Trip Generation Handbook have been published for use, ending with the most recent 10th Edition. It was
determined that for all categories except the ‘Other’ category, the trip rates would be developed using the
10th Edition rather than the 7th Edition for this update. In addition, consistent with the 2008 Nexus Study,
the trip rates were developed based on adjacent street traffic rather than peak -hour of generator. A 30-
percent reduction was also taken for retail trips to account for pass-by trips, consistent with the 2008 Nexus
Study. Table 21 below summarizes the comparison in average AM and PM peak-hour trip rates by land
use type. As shown in Table 21, every land use category results in a lower trip rate using the 10th Edition
when compared to the 7th Edition.
Table 21: AM/PM Peak-Hour Average Trip Rate Comparison Between 7th Edition and 10th Edition
Land Use Type 7th Edition Average
Trip Rate
10th Edition Average
Trip Rate Difference
Single-Family Residential 0.90 0.87 -0.03
Multi-Family Residential 0.62 0.51 -0.11
Retail 1.67 1.66 -0.01
Office 1.53 1.16 -0.37
Industrial 0.89 0.67 -0.22
Other 1.00 1.00 0.00
451
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 30
4.4.2 TOTAL TRIPS BY LAND USE
The total number of trips generated by the growth in either dwelling units or square-feet for each land use
category are shown in Table 22. As shown in Table 22, a total of 57,596 trip ends are generated by the
land use growth between 2020 and 2040. The growth attributable to single-family residential units generates
the largest number of trips, 13,716, or almost 25-percent of the total trips. The growth attributable to
industrial employment or industrial buildings generates the fewest number of trips, 6,178, or just over 10-
percent of the total trips.
Table 22: Total Trip Ends by Land Use Category
Land Use Type Growth
(HH or Sq. Ft) Trip Rate Forecast Trips
Single-Family Residential 15,857 0.87 13,716
Multi-Family Residential 17,456 0.51 8,903
Retail 5,117,500 1.66 8,508
Office 6,796,800 1.16 7,850
Industrial 9,289,800 0.67 6,178
Other 12,441,000 1.00 12,441
4.5 FEE ESTIMATION
As required by the Mitigation Fee Act, the following section outlines the methodology for calculating the
proposed fee and demonstrates how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the proposed
fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which
the fees will be imposed.
The following steps were taken to determine the fee for each land use type:
1. Determine total unfunded cost.
2. Determine average AM/PM forecast peak-hour trips generated
3. Determine Fee per Land Use Category
4. Determine Maximum Fee
4.5.1 TOTAL UNFUNDED COST
The total investment for projects eligible to receive TVTDF funding is estimated to be $4.470 billion,
where $3.677 billion is unfunded. An additional reduction was applied to account for external “cut-though”
trips on roadway congestion projects. Future development within the Tri-Valley area is not responsible to
pay for these trips since these trips are caused by growth outside of the Tri-Valley area. This reduces the
total unfunded cost to be covered by the maximum TVTDF to $2.928 billion. Note that this not change the
overall project costs.
4.5.2 PEAK-HOUR TRIP FORECAST
Section 4.4.2. describes how the peak hour forecast was determined. Based on Table 22, an average of
57,596 AM/PM peak hour trips are generated by the land use growth between 2020 and 2040.
452
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 31
4.5.3 FEE PER LAND USE CATEGORY
To determine the total project cost by category, each land use category’s share of the total trips generated
by land use growth was multiplied by the total cost. An example calculation is shown below: 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹 𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑆=$𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋 𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆 × 13,716 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹 𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅57,596 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑆 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅 =$𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋 𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆
The total cost by land use category is shown in Table 23. As shown in Table 23, the total cost ranges from
$396.27 million for industrial uses to $879.78 million for single-family residential uses.
Table 23: Total Fee by Land Use Category
Land Use Type Forecast Trips*
Total Fee by Land
Use
(Millions)
Single-Family Residential 13,716 $697.31
Multi-Family Residential 8,903 $452.62
Retail 8,508 $432.54
Office 7,850 $399.09
Industrial 6,178 $314.08
Other 12,441 $632.49
* Average AM/PM trip
4.5.4 MAXIMUM FEE
To determine the maximum fee per dwelling unit, square-foot, or trip depending on the land use category,
the total cost per category was divided by the total number of units, square-feet, or trips that occur between
2020 and 2040. An example calculation is shown below 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹 𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑆=$𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋 𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆15,857 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑈𝑈𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅 =$𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋 𝑝𝑝𝑆𝑆𝑝𝑝 𝑅𝑅𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑢𝑢𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅
The maximum fees are summarized in Table 24. As shown in Table 24, the maximum fee for a single-
family residential unit is $43,397 while the maximum fee for one square-foot of retail use is $84.52.
Historically the TVTC has not applied the maximum fee schedule. For both the 1995 and 2008 nexus
studies, the TVTC jurisdiction set rates at approximate one-third of the maximum fee calculated in the 1995
and 2008 Nexus studies to help foster growth within the Tri-Valley area, while providing a regional funding
source that could be used to match and help compete for Federal and State transportation grants and
funding programs.
453
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 32
Table 24: Total Cost and Maximum Fee by Land Use Category
Land Use Type Growth Maximum Fee
Single-Family Residential 15,857 DU $43,976 per DU
Multi-Family Residential 17,456 DU $25,928 per DU
Retail 5,117,500 SF $84.52 per SF
Office 6,796,800 SF $58.72 per SF
Industrial 9,289,800 SF $33.81 per SF
Other 12,441 trips* $50,839 per trip*
Note: Reduction cost is only provided for comparison purposes and should not be seen as the preferred fees.* Average AM/PM trip
454
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 33
5 NEXT STEPS
This report documents the findings needed to adopt a fee schedule to fund the improvements projects
elected to receive funding from the TVTDF. Below are next steps needed for the TVTC to adopt a fee
schedule that is most appreciate for their needs.
5.1 ADJUSTMENT TO MAXIMUM FEE CALCULATION
As previously discussed, the maximum fee would generate sufficient revenues to fund the total unfunded
cost of all selected projects. However, if the TVTC adopts fee schedule below the maximum, this would
result in revenue shortfall and TVTC would need to take one or both of the following actions:
• Increase funding from other sources
• Fund selected projects or project phases
5.1.1 INCREASE FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
TVTC could reduce the funding shortfall for specific projects by increasing funding form other federal,
state, regional, and local fund sources. Some potential funding sources as listed below:
• Federal
o One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG)
• State
o State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
o Senate Bill 1 (SB 1)
o Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant
o Active Transportation Program (ATP)
• Regional
o Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) County Program Manager (CPM) Fund Local
o Measure B & Measure BB
o Measure J
• Local
o Traffic Impact/Mitigation Fees
o Development Fees
o General Purpose Funds
5.1.2 FUND SELECTED PROJECTS OR PROJECT PHASES
TVTC could determine to fund the full amount for selected projects or fund certain phases of the project
such as the planning or design phase of a project.
5.2 UPDATE STRATEGIC EXPENDITURE PLAN (SEP)
Once the final fee schedule has been adopted TVTC should update the SEP to set priority for which
projects should be funded first.
455
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 34
APPENDIX
A – Existing TVTC Projects
B – Additional TVTC Projects
C – Project Improvement Category
456
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 35
APPENDIX A – EXISTING TVTC PROJECTS
A -1. I-580/I-680 INTERCHANGE (SOUTHBOUND TO EASTBOUND)
TVTC Project Sponsor: Alameda County
Lead Agency: Caltrans
Project Description: Project A-1 was located at the I-580 and I-680 interchange. The project constructed
the southbound to eastbound flyover, northbound to eastbound direct connector, southbound on- and off-
loop ramps, and a northbound on-ramp.
The project was needed to improve safety and reduce congestion on southbound and northbound I-680
near I-580, and mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment. This project
was approved by the voters of Alameda County, as a portion of the Measure B sales tax program.
Status: This project has been completed.
A -2A. SR 84 EXPRESSWAY (I-580 TO I-680)
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Livermore, City of Pleasanton
Lead Agency: Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC)
Project Description: Project A-2a is located along SR 84 between I-580 and I-680 in Livermore and
Pleasanton. The project will widen and reconstruct SR 84 to expressway standards. The ultimate
configuration is expected to consist of six lanes from I-580 to Stanley Boulevard and four lanes from Stanley
Boulevard to I-680.
The project has been segmented into five primary sections:
• Segment 1 (I-580 to Jack London Boulevard) – widening and Phase I of the I-580/SR 84
Interchange project (Project A-2b).
• Segment 2 (Jack London Boulevard to a point roughly halfway between Concannon Boulevard
and Stanley Boulevard) – widening existing configuration from two lanes to four lanes and from
four lanes to six lanes.
• Segment 3 (Halfway between Concannon Boulevard and Stanley Boulevard to Ruby Hill Drive) –
widening from two lanes to four lanes.
• Segment 4 (Ruby Hill Drive to Pigeon Pass) – straightening the roadway alignments and adding
truck climbing lanes.
• Segment 5 (Pigeon Pass to I-680) – widening the roadway from two lanes to four lanes and
improvements at the SR 84/I-680 interchange.
Status: Below is the status of the project.
• Final design and right-of-way acquisition was completed in September 2020.
• Construction began in May 2021.
• Completion of construction is anticipated in spring 2024.
457
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 36
Cost Estimate and Funding Sources
Segment 3:
Cost (Millions) $105.40
Funding (Millions)
Measure B $34.87
Measure BB $10.00
State $47.03
Local (CMA-TIP) $2.00
Local (City) $1.50
TVTDF $10.00
Total Funding (Millions) $105.40
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $0.00
Segment 5:
Cost (Millions) $244.10
Funding (Millions)
Measure B $1.05
Measure BB $123.40
State (SB 1 LPP) $8.60
Regional Improvement Program (RIP) $11.11
Regional Measure 3 (RM 3) $85.00
TVTDF $14.94
Total Funding (Millions) $244.10
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $0.00
A -2B. SR 84/I-580 INTERCHANGE
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Livermore
Lead Agency: Caltrans and City of Livermore
Project Description: Project A-2b is located in Livermore, at the intersection of I-580 and Isabel Avenue
including Portal Avenue.
The project consists of two phases:
• Phase 1 – The Isabel Avenue Interchange project which included replacing the I-580/Portola
Avenue interchange with the I-580/Isabel Avenue-SR 84 interchange. Phase I also included
realignment of Isabel Avenue and the realignment and extension of Portola Avenue from East
Airway Boulevard to Isabel Avenue.
• Phase 2 – The ultimate improvements at the I-580/Isabel Avenue-SR 84 Interchange are to provide
six lanes over I-580 at the Isabel Avenue-SR 84 Interchange and four lanes over I-580 at the Portola
Avenue overcrossing.
Status: A programmatic environmental assessment and right-of-way acquisition is complete.
458
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 37
• Phase 1 – Construction of Phase I of the project was completed in March 2012.
• Phase 2 – Conceptual design is approved. Project development activities are anticipated to begin
in 2023.
Cost Estimate and Funding Sources
Phase 2:
A -3. I-680 AUXILIARY LANES (SEGMENT 2)
TVTC Project Sponsor: Town of Danville
Lead Agency: Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)
Project Description: Project A-3 was located along I-680 in Danville and constructed auxiliary lanes in
both directions between Crow Canyon Road in San Ramon and Sycamore Valley Road in Danville. The
project was the last segment of auxiliary lanes in both directions of I-680 between Bollinger Canyon Road
in San Ramon and Diablo Road in Danville.
Status: This project has been completed.
A -4. WEST DUBLIN/PLEASANTON BART STATION
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Dublin, City of Pleasanton
Lead Agency: BART
Project Description: Project A-4 was located in Dublin and Pleasanton and constructed the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and related transit improvements. The project was a joint public and
private venture to build a station on the active BART line in the median of I-580. The related transit
improvements were located on both the north (Dublin) and south (Pleasanton) sides of the freeway on
property owned by BART and included patron parking garages, passenger pick-up and drop-offs, and bus
drop-offs.
Status: This project has been completed.
Cost (Millions) $22.00
Funding (Millions)
Livermore Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) $16.28
TVTDF $5.15
Total Funding (Millions) $21.43
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $0.57
459
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 38
A -5A. I-580 EASTBOUND AUXILIARY LANE
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Pleasanton
Lead Agency: Alameda CTC
Project Description: Project A-5a was located along eastbound I-580 from Hacienda Drive in Pleasanton
and Greenville Road in Livermore. The project constructed eastbound auxiliary lanes between Isabel
Avenue and North Livermore Avenue and between North Livermore Avenue and First Street in Livermore.
In addition, the project included widening two eastbound bridges at Arroyo-Los Positas Road and adding
final asphalt concrete pavement across all lanes in the eastbound direction from Hacienda Drive to
Greenville Road.
Status: This project has been completed.
A -5B. I-580 HOV LANE WESTBOUND
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Pleasanton
Lead Agency: Alameda CTC
Project Description: Project A-5b was located along westbound I-580 from Greenville Road in Livermore
to Foothill Road overcrossing in Dublin and Pleasanton. The project constructed westbound HOV lanes
and rehabilitated existing pavement.
The project increased capacity, safety, and efficiency for commuters and freight along the primary trade
corridor connecting the Bay Area with the Central Valley.
The project was completed in two segments:
• East Segment – Greenville Road overcrossing to Isabel Avenue in Livermore
• West Segment – Isabel Avenue to Foothill Road overcrossing
Status: This project has been completed.
A -6. I-680 HOV LANES, SR 84 TO TOP OF SUNOL GRADE
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Pleasanton
Lead Agency: Caltrans and Alameda CTC
Project Description: Project A-6 was located along southbound I-680 between SR-84 and the top of the
Sunol Grade. The project constructed HOV lanes along approximately a 3.5-mile segment of I-680.
Status: This project has been completed.
460
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 39
A -7. I-580/FOOTHILL ROAD/SAN RAMON ROAD INTERCHANGE
MODIFICATIONS
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Pleasanton
Lead Agency: Caltrans
Project Description: Project A-7 was located at the intersection of the I-580 ramps and Foothill Road in
Pleasanton. The project constructed improvements to improve intersection operations and safety. The
project modified the intersection to remove the direct eastbound to southbound connection and eastbound
to northbound loop connection so that it terminates into a “T” style signalized intersection at Foothill Road
just south of the Foothill Road Bridge.
Status: This project has been completed.
A -8. I-680/ALCOSTA BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of San Ramon
Lead Agency: Caltrans
Project Description: Project A-8 was located at the I-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange in San Ramon.
The project reconstructed the southbound off-ramp and added a new on-ramp to improve operations at the
interchange. This project closed the southbound off-ramp and built new on- and off-ramps north of Alcosta
Boulevard.
Status: This project has been completed.
A -9 A. CROW CANYON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 1
TVTC Project Sponsor: Alameda County
Lead Agency: Alameda County
Project Description: Project A-9a is located along Crow Canyon Road between E. Castro Valley
Boulevard and the Alameda/Contra Costa County line.
Project A-9a is Phase 1 of a two-phase safety improvement project along Crow Canyon Road. Please refer
to Project A-9b for details on Phase 2.
Phase 1 safety improvements include speed feedback signs, shoulder widening, California Highway Patrol
(CHP) enforcement areas, and guard rail modifications.
Overall, the short-term safety improvements will facilitate traffic safety and operations, while reducing
congestion for residents traveling between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
Status: The project is currently in the Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Studies stage. Construction
of Phase 1 is to be determined.
461
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 40
Cost and Funding Source
Cost (Millions) $18.87
Funding (Millions)
CMA TIP $0.45
Local Alameda County $0.45
TVTDF $1.55
Total Funding (Millions) $2.45
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $8.42
A -9B. CROW CANYON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 2
TVTC Project Sponsor: Alameda County
Lead Agency: Alameda County
Project Description: Project A-9b is located along Crow Canyon Road between E. Castro Valley
Boulevard and the Alameda/Contra Costa County Line.
Project A-9b is Phase 2 of the two-phase safety improvement project along Crow Canyon Road. Please
refer to Project A-9a for details on Phase 1.
Phase 2 safety improvements include roadway realignment, shoulder widening, roundabouts, two-way left
turn lanes (as needed), and tunnels at post mile (PM) 2.15.
This project will increase safety for motorists traveling along this major arterial roadway between Castro
Valley in Alameda County and San Ramon in Contra Costa County. The realignment of various curves,
shoulder widening, and tunnels at PM 2.15 will facilitate improved traffic operations and reduce congestion
for residents traveling between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
Status: This project is in the scoping stage. Construction is expected to begin after completion of Phase 1
(Project A-9a). Phasing and schedule have not yet been determined.
Cost and Funding Source
Cost (Millions) $58.77
Funding (Millions)
TVTDF $1.69
Total Funding (Millions) $1.69
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions, 2015) $57.08
A -10A. VASCO ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 1
TVTC Project Sponsor: Alameda County
Lead Agency: Alameda County
462
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 41
Project Description: Project A-10a is located along Vasco Road in Alameda County.
Project A-10a is Phase 1 of the Vasco Road Safety Improvements, a two-phase safety improvement project
along Vasco Road. The project includes roadway realignment, shoulder widening, and installment of
median barriers along Vasco Road. Please refer to Project A-10b for details on Phase 2.
Roadway realignments have been completed and consisted of straightening the alignment of Vasco Road
at about 1.8-miles north of the Livermore city limits to the Alameda/Contra Costa county line. A median
barrier has been installed between the Contra Costa County line and about 1.8-miles north of the Livermore
city limits. The installation of median barriers eliminates crossover-type collisions that resulted in fatalities
in the past. The realignment of tight curves facilitates Tri Delta bus services between Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties.
The remaining components of Phase 1 includes sub-standard shoulder modifications.
Status: The utility relocation phase of this project has been completed. Construction of the realignment
project was completed in November 2009. Installation of the median barriers was also completed. The
Vasco Road Safety Improvement Project is scheduled to be constructed in two stages. Shoulder
improvements for Phase 1 are expected to be completed by 2020.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $40.57
Funding (Millions)
Measure B $1.50
STIP $4.60
TCRP $6.50
Local Alameda County $2.81
STP/CMAQ $3.90
Prop 1-B $6.00
Fed demo $0.80
TVTDF $3.32
Total Funding (Millions) $29.43
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions, 2015) $11.14
A -10B. VASCO ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 2
TVTC Project Sponsor: Alameda County
Lead Agency: Alameda County
Project Description: Project A-10b is located along Vasco Road in Alameda County. Project A-10b is
Phase 2 of the Vasco Road Safety Improvements, a two-phase safety improvement project along Vasco
Road. Please refer to Project A-10a for details on Phase 1.
Phase 2 includes roadway realignment, shoulder widening, and installation of median barriers. This phase
of the project will install median barriers along Vasco Road within Alameda County on portions of the
roadway not covered by Phase 1. In addition, this phase will include shoulder widening and curve
modifications, as needed. Phase 2 of Vasco Road will provide continuous median barrier protection
463
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 42
between Contra Costa County and the City of Livermore. The installation of median barriers will eliminate
crossover-type collisions that resulted in fatalities in the past.
Status: The Phase 2 project is in the scoping stage. The Phase 2 project includes the PSR to be done by
Alameda County.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $31.20
Funding (Millions)
TVTDF $2.58
Total Funding (Millions) $2.58
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions, 2015) $28.62
A -11. EXPRESS BUS/BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) – PHASE 2
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Dublin
Lead Agency: Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA)
Project Description: Project A-11 is Phase 2 of the Express Bus/BRT, which consists of two phases. The
express bus route associated with Phase 1 of the project has been operating since January 2011.
Phase 2 includes upgrades to and expansion of the initial Rapid Project, as well as some project
refinements, updates, and maintenance/replacement of original project elements and equipment based on
evaluation of the existing components and conditions at the time of funding. The transit system priorities
include the following elements:
• A technologically advanced transit system
• A multi-modal transportation system that supports the local economy
• Prioritized regional transfers and connections
• Reliability and efficiency that maximizes value to taxpayers and the community
Phase 2 will consist of five key potential elements (based upon conditions at time of funding):
1. Advanced Technology – Design and installation of advanced technologies and road features
allowing rapid transit to operate quickly and efficiently, and help to mitigate delay in dwell times,
boardings, and travel times. Some of the advanced technologies and road features that LAVTA is
considering for Phase 2 are: transit signal priority (TSP), enhanced stations, queue jumps,
environmentally friendly coaches and advanced onboard technology, advanced fare collection
systems, level boarding, dedicated travel lanes, and better integrated park and ride facilities and
transit centers. Element 1 is currently budgeted at $2 Million.
2. North/South Express Bus/Rapid Service – In keeping with the Alameda Countywide Transit
Plan, and in order to provide a strong foundation for LAVTA’s System, I-680 service expansion,
North/South Express Bus/BRT service, and other Express/Rapid service options, will be explored
and considered. Element 2 is currently budgeted at $6.5 Million.
3. Dublin Extension – Continued study and planning will be done on how best to integrate the
planned extension of Dublin Boulevard and the planned Livermore BART Extension into LAVTA’s
Express Bus/BRT service. Element 3 is currently budgeted at $6.5 Million.
464
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 43
4. Pleasanton Alignment – Complete “Rapidization,” of the Livermore to Pleasanton alignment will
be evaluated, with advanced technology and improved service elements planned for the south side
of I-580, and possible connection to the existing Rapid service. Element 4 is currently budgeted at
$1.5 Million.
5. Park and Ride Lots – In working with local cities and Alameda County, LAVTA will consider
improved park and ride elements to support bus, biking, and walking access in the Tri-Valley, and
to improve the accessibility of transportation alternatives that would ease congestion on I-580.
These options might include: construction of new lots, smart signage, improved bicycle storage,
increased pedestrian accessibility and safety, enhanced multi-modal elements on coaches, and
increased or revised bus service to rail stations and regional transit connections. Element 5 is
currently budgeted at $2 Million.
Status: Phase 1 is fully completed and operational, as of January 2011. Phase 2 is in the research, design,
and planning stage. In August 2016, LAVTA realigned the Express Bus/BRT Route (Route 30R) to serve
Las Positas College, and transformed existing Route 10 into an Express Bus/BRT (Route 10R) operating
through Pleasanton to BART. The transformation of Route 10 into Route 10R was the first step in
implementation of the Phase 2 Pleasanton Alignment. LAVTA intends to implement additional items from
Phase 2 (Advanced Technology) to both Routes 10R and 30R in 2017, which includes upgrading the traffic
signal priority onboard the buses and at key intersections along both Rapid routes. Costs for Phase 2 have
been updated to reflect current pricing for the project elements listed above. Phase 2 Scope of work,
schedule, and full funding parameters are not known at this time.
Cost and Funding Sources
Phase 2:
Cost (Millions) $22.35
Funding (Millions)
TVTDF $1.14
Total Funding (Millions) $1.14
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $21.21
B -1. I-580/I-680 INTERCHANGE (WESTBOUND TO SOUTHBOUND)
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Dublin
Lead Agency: Alameda CTC
Project Description: Project B-1 is located at the I-580/I-680 Interchange in Alameda County. The
proposed project limits are from 1,700 feet east of the Hacienda Drive Overcrossing to 2,000 feet west of
the San Ramon Road Overcrossing along I-580, and from the Amador Valley Boulevard Undercrossing to
3,400 feet south of the Stoneridge Drive Overcrossing along I-680.
Status: A Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) was completed and approved
by Caltrans in 2009.
The next steps in project development will be to:
• Review the existing PSR-PDS to validate the information
465
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 44
• Identify the need for updates/revisions to identify financially feasible improvements to address the
latest safety, operational, and congestion issues
The Alameda CTC’s 2014 Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP), approved as part of Measure BB,
includes $20 Million in funding for I-580/I-680 Interchange improvements. Further project development is
being explored. Alameda CTC is working with local, regional, and state agencies in identifying funding.
The Alameda CTC’s 2020 Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) split this project into two phases. Phase
1 is part of the County’s 10-year priory project list, while Phase 2 is listed under 30-Year project list.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions, 2015) $1,785.65
Funding (Millions, 2015)
Measure BB $20.00
TVTDF $1.00
Total Funding (Millions, 2015) $21.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions, 2015) $1,764.65
B -2. FIFTH EASTBOUND LANE ON I-580 (SANTA RITA ROAD TO VASCO
ROAD)
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Pleasanton, City of Livermore
Lead Agency: Alameda CTC
Project Description: Project B-2 is located along eastbound I-580 between Santa Rita Road and Vasco
Road. The project would construct a fifth eastbound mixed flow lane and would eliminate the lane drop at
Santa Rita Road.
Status: This project has been completed.
B -3. I-580/FIRST STREET INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Livermore
Lead Agency: Caltrans
Project Description: Project B-3 is located at the I-580/First Street interchange in Livermore. The project
would modify the interchange by widening the overcrossing to six lanes and reconstructing the ramps to
achieve a partial cloverleaf interchange design.
Status: A PSR has been completed. The project schedule and phasing are not available at this time.
466
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 45
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $61.00
Funding (Millions)
Livermore TIF $53.07
Total Funding (Millions) $53.07
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $7.93
B -4. I-580/VASCO ROAD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Livermore
Lead Agency: Caltrans
Project Description: Project B-4 is located at the I-580/Vasco Road interchange in Livermore. The project
would modify the interchange by widening the overcrossing to eight lanes and reconstructing the ramps to
achieve a modified partial cloverleaf interchange design.
Status: A PSR and programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for right-of-way protection has been
completed. Right-of-way acquisition is underway. Environmental assessment, project development
activities, and design are anticipated to begin in 2018.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $85.65
Funding (Millions)
Livermore TIF $67.66
Measure BB $1.38
TVTDF $6.80
Total Funding (Millions) $75.84
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $9.81
B -5. I-580/GREENVILLE ROAD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Livermore
Lead Agency: Caltrans
Project Description: Project B-5 is located at the I-580/Greenville Road interchange in Livermore. The
project would modify the interchange by widening the undercrossing to six lanes and reconstructing the
ramps to achieve a modified partial cloverleaf interchange design. The project would also construct
segments of auxiliary lanes in the vicinity of the interchange.
Status: A PSR and programmatic EIR for right-of-way protection has been completed. Right-of-way
acquisition is underway. The project phasing and schedule is unavailable.
467
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 46
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $86.00
Funding (Millions)
Livermore TIF $67.08
Total Funding (Millions) $67.08
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $18.92
B -6. JACK LONDON BOULEVARD EXTENSION
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Livermore
Lead Agency: City of Livermore
Project Description: Project B-6 is located along Jack London Boulevard in Livermore. The project would
widen Jack London Boulevard to El Charro Road as a four-lane arterial roadway.
The project will be constructed in two phases.
• Phase 1 - two lane extension
• Phase 2 – relocate a portion of the roadway south of the Livermore Airport to its ultimate
alignment
Status: An EIR, design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of the two-lane extension (Phase 1)
has been completed.
The project is expected to be constructed in two phases.
• Phase 1 – Completed 2009.
• Phase 2 - Will not commence until after the quarries have completed mining operations.
Cost and Funding Sources
Phase 2:
Cost (Millions) $28.16
Funding (Millions)
Livermore TIF $18.08
Total Funding (Millions) $18.08
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $10.08
B -7. EL CHARRO ROAD EXTENSION (STONERIDGE DRIVE/JACK LONDON
BOULEVARD TO STANLEY BOULEVARD)
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Pleasanton
Lead Agency: City of Pleasanton
468
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 47
Project Description: Project B-7 is located along El Charro Road in Pleasanton. The project would extend
El Charro Road south from its current terminus at Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard to connect with
Stanley Boulevard. Currently, this section of El Charro Road is a private roadway, but the El Charro
extension will be open for public use.
The El Charro Road Extension project consists of two phases.
• Phase 1 – between I-580 and Stoneridge Drive-Jack London Boulevard
• Phase 2 – between Stoneridge Drive-Jack London Boulevard and Stanley Boulevard,
approximately 1.7 miles
Status: Phase 1 was completed and open for public use in 2012 with the construction of the Livermore
Outlets. Phase 2 is dependent on the status/development of the East Pleasanton Specific Plan. This plan
will identify the land use and circulation along the future El Charro Road and will identify a timeline for
opening of this roadway for public use. It is anticipated that the project will be constructed with the first
stages of the East Side Specific Plan development. The City of Pleasanton began the East Pleasanton
Specific Plan in 2013 and the Pleasanton City Council, in 2015, determined that the completion of the Plan
would occur at a later date and the Plan adoption was placed on hold.
The project is expected to be constructed in several stages.
• Phase 1 – Completed and opened to traffic in 2012.
• Phase 2 – Schedule is undetermined at this time.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $72.48
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $72.48
B -8. CAMINO TASSAJARA/TASSAJARA ROAD WIDENING PROJECT (EAST
OF BLACKHAWK DRIVE TO NORTH DUBLIN RANCH DRIVE)
TVTC Project Sponsor: Contra Costa County, City of Dublin
Lead Agency: Contra Costa County, City of Dublin
Project Description: Project B-8 is located along Camino Tassajara-Tassajara Road. This project
consists of two project phases:
Safety Improvement Project – Blackhawk Drive in Contra Costa County to Moller Ranch (Palisades Drive)
in the City of Dublin
• The safety improvement project will widen Camino Tassajara from two to four lanes from East of
Blackhawk Drive to Moller Ranch (Palisades Drive) in the City of Dublin. The project may also
include realignment of various horizontal curves along the roadway. Interim improvements may
include roadway widening to meet two-lane rural road standards with sufficient lane width and
469
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 48
shoulder width to improve safety and allow for future bike lanes. The project will improve safety for
motorists and create bicycle facilities consistent with the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan and the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The ultimate
improvements will increase capacity along Camino Tassajara to help mitigate the impacts of local
and regional growth in housing and employment within the Tri-Valley.
Roadway Widening Project – Windemere Parkway to County Line (Contra Costa County) and Quarry Lane
School/Wallis Ranch Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive (City of Dublin)
• The roadway widening project consist of two segments:
o Segment A – Windemere Parkway to County line
Segment A will widen and realign Camino Tassajara from two to four lanes. The
horizontal curves at the Contra Costa/Alameda County Line will be realigned to
increase safety along the roadway. Roadway shoulders will be widened to create
bicycle facilities consistent with the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan. The ultimate improvements will increase capacity along Camino
Tassajara/Tassajara Road to help mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth
in housing and employment within the Tri-Valley.
o Segment B – Quarry Lane School/ Wallis Ranch Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive
Segment B will widen Tassajara Road from two to four lanes and will improve
safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, by providing sidewalks, bike lanes,
and widening from two to four lanes. Roadway improvements will be consistent
with the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The ultimate
improvements will increase capacity along Tassajara Road to help mitigate the
impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment within the Tri-
Valley.
The segment of Tassajara Road from the County line to North Dublin Ranch Drive in the City of Dublin is a
RRS and was modeled in the 2008 Nexus Study. However, the segment was not included in previous
TVTDF funding plans to receive funding. By identifying this segment of the project in the project description,
this will enable the City of Dublin to utilize various revenue sources, including the 20% TVTDF return-to-
source funds on this segment. This will not impact the projected revenue allocation or resulting benefit of
the 2008 Nexus Study.
Status:
Safety Improvement Project: The PSR for the project has been completed. The City of Dublin and Contra
Costa County are coordinating on various aspects of the Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road safety
improvements near the Contra Costa/Alameda County line. Contra Costa County and the City of Dublin are
beginning design of Phase 1 improvements of the safety project limits from Windermere Parkway to Moller
Ranch (Palisades Drive).
Roadway Widening Project: The PSR for the project has been completed. The City of Dublin and Contra
Costa County are coordinating on various aspects of the Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road widening
phase. Contra Costa County and the City of Dublin are conducting initial preliminary engineering for the
Segment A and B roadway widening project within their respective jurisdictions.
470
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 49
Cost and Funding Sources
Safety Improvement Project
Contra Costa County:
Cost (Millions) $20.54
Funding (Millions)
Contra Costa Traffic Mitigation Fees $4.25
TVTDF $3.70*
Total Funding (Millions) $7.95
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $12.59
City of Dublin:
Cost (Millions) $34.55
Funding (Millions, 2015)
Dublin EDTIF $2.49
Dublin Dougherty Valley Contributions $0.50
TVTD (City of Dublin 20% Local Funding) $1.00
TVTDF $0.00*
Total Funding (Millions) $3.99
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $30.56
*The City of Dublin and Contra Costa to share $2.0 Million from the 2017 SEP Update for project segment
between Windermere Parkway and Moller Ranch (Palisades Drive). Remaining $1.70 Million to be used in
Contra Costa County.
Roadway Widening Project
Segment A: County
Cost (Millions) $17.65
Funding (Millions)
Contra Costa Traffic Mitigation Fees $14.48
TVTDF $2.68**
Total Funding (Millions) $17.16
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions, 2021) $0.49
Segment B: City of Dublin
Cost (Millions) $15.34
Funding (Millions)
Dublin Transportation Improvement Fee (TIF)
Program
$1.00
Dublin Dougherty Valley Contributions $1.63
TVTD (City of Dublin 20% Local Funding) $1.80
Total Funding (Millions) $4.43
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $10.91
**$2.68 Million to be used in Contra Costa County.
471
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 50
B -10. I -680 SOUTHBOUND HOV LANE GAP CLOSURE (NORTH MAIN STREET
TO RUDGEAR ROAD)
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of San Ramon
Lead Agency: CCTA
Lead Agency: Project B-10 is located along southbound I-680 between North Main Street and Rudgear
Road. The project would close the HOV lane gap along this segment of I-680 and provide a continuous
HOV lane from the Benicia-Martinez Bridge to the Contra Costa/Alameda County line.
The project is necessary to encourage carpooling, vanpooling, and transit; while providing the necessary
infrastructure for express buses in the corridor. When completed, the HOV lane is planned to be converted
to an Express Lane as part of the I-680 Express Lanes Project.
Status: This project has been completed.
Cost and Funding Sources
B -11A. I-680 HOV DIRECT ACCESS RAMPS
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of San Ramon
Lead Agency: CCTA
Project Description: Project B-11a is located along I-680 in San Ramon. The project would construct
dedicated HOV on- and off-ramps in the median of I-680, in both the northbound and southbound directions
at Norris Canyon Road or at Executive Parkway in San Ramon. The project received a high level of
community interest, with a number of local residents voicing strong oppositions about the direct HOV ramps
at Norris Canyon. An alternative location for the direct ramps is also being evaluated at Executive Parkway.
Status: March 2016, a letter from the City of San Ramon to CCTA was submitted and stated that the City
of San Ramon withdrew support for the project. Subsequently, the CCTA has suspended work on the
project. The project has been removed from the project list and is no longer considered for funding.
Cost (Millions) $98.70
Funding (Millions)
RM2 $14.1
Measure J $30.4
STIP/RP $15.6
BAIFA $15.1
TVTDF $6.49
Total Funding (Millions) $81.69
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $17.01
472
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 51
B -11B. I-680 TRANSIT CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of San Ramon
Lead Agency: CCTA
Other Involved Parties: Caltrans, Southwest Area Transportation (SWAT) Committee, Transportation
Partnership and Cooperation (TRANSPAC)
Project Description: Project B.11b is located along I-680 in San Ramon Valley. The project would fund a
corridor express lane and operational improvements to facilitate carpools, vanpools and increase transit
use in the corridor as an alternative to single occupant vehicle travel. Funding may also be used to
implement high capacity transit improvements along I-680. These improvements may include an express
lane, relevant transit projects, advanced traffic management programs, and/or autonomous or connected
vehicles.
Status: A Project Study “I-680 Transit Investment Congestion Relief Study” was completed in 2015 with
Measure J funds. Specific details for this project will be further developed when additional funding is
identified. Phasing and schedule are unavailable at this time.
Cost Estimate and Funding Sources:
Cost (Millions) $277.85
Funding (Millions)
Measure J $1.00
TVTDF $2.00
Total Funding (Millions) $3.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $274.85
473
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 52
APPENDIX B – ADDITIONAL TVTC PROJECTS
C-1 TESLA ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT
TVTC Project Sponsor: Alameda County
Project Description: This project along Tesla Road from Greenville Road to South Livermore Avenue in
rural Unincorporated Alameda County includes shoulder widening, turn lanes to access wineries and
residences, pavement rehabilitation, and utilities undergrounding. This safety improvements project will
address rear end type collisions, improve access to wineries, and improve goods movements as well as
commute traffic issues. Proposed improvements will reduce queues along this congested rural roadway
connecting Unincorporated areas of Alameda County to City of Livermore.
Status: This project is in the scoping phase and is expected to be completed by 2024.
Cost and Funding Sources:
Cost (Millions) $13.19
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $13.19
C- 2 NORRIS CANYON ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
TVTC Project Sponsors: Contra Costa County, Department of Public Works & Alameda County,
Department of Public Works
Project Description: The proposed project for Norris Canyon Road includes countermeasures that will
increase safety on a regional route that connects San Ramon to Alameda County. The proposed project
includes the following road segments:
• Segment 1 (Norris Canyon Road from San Ramon City Limits to 300 feet west of Ashbourne Drive)
– this segment has experienced an increase in run off the road collisions and is slated for
countermeasures such as guardrails and other safety countermeasures.
• Segment 2 (Norris Canyon Road from 300 feet west of Ashbourne Drive to Alameda County limits)
– this segment currently has a 20’ pavement width and no road shoulders. This segment has also
experienced an increase in run off the road collisions. Countermeasures include shoulder widening,
installation of a retaining wall, and installation of a guardrail.
• Segment 3 (Norris Canyon Road from the Alameda County limit line to Crow Canyon Road) – the
narrow rural road continues west into Alameda County where the road pavement continues to be
narrow with approximately 20’ existing pavement width and no road shoulders. The proposed
project would include shoulder widening and guardrail installation to reduce serious injury collisions.
For each phase of this project, there will be a project scope and cost estimate, environmental
documentation, preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E), Right of Way Acquisition,
Construction, and Construction Inspection.
Status: The Project is in the preliminary engineering phase for Segments 1 and 2 as other funding is sought
in order to continue planning studies and further design efforts.
474
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 53
Cost and Funding Sources:
Contra Costa County (Segment 1 & 2):
Cost (Millions) $8.00**
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $8.00
**Segment 1: $2 million, Segment 2: $6 million
Alameda County (Segment 3):
Cost (Millions) $16.49
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $16.49
C- 3 DUBLIN BOULEVARD – NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY EXTENSION
TVTC Project Sponsor: Dublin and Livermore
Project Description: This project will construct the street extension to connect Dublin Blvd at Fallon Road
in Dublin with North Canyons Parkway in Livermore at Doolan Road. The preliminary phase (currently
underway) of this planned project will update the project by incorporating multimodal travel, and the current
State, regional, and local priorities.
Dublin Boulevard - North Canyons Parkway Extension project would extend Dublin Boulevard in Dublin at
its current terminus at Fallon Road to North Canyons Parkway in Livermore. The new extended street is
planned to have 4 to 6 travel lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, curb and gutter, traffic signals/roundabouts, a
raised median, bus stops, and all street utilities. This project will consider the provision of dedicated transit
lanes in addition to the mixed flow travel lanes for higher level of transit service with 10 to 20-minute
headways during appropriate peak demand periods. This project will also require enhanced multimodal
connectivity to various land uses along its stretch and at its terminus, including connectivity to 5 PDAs.
While addressing Sustainable Communities Strategies, circulation inside and outside the PDAs will be
incorporated as part of the design. This project is currently in Preliminary Design Phase (funded by local
monies) including the environmental analysis for the project. It will require design and construction funding.
Status: Environmental phase is complete. Currently in design phase. Anticipated to complete design in
2023. Subsequent milestones are TBD.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $160.39
Funding (Millions)
Measure BB $7.75
Federal $0.54
Local $17.20
Total Funding (Millions) $25.49
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $134.91
475
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 54
C-4 VASCO ROAD AT DALTON AVENUE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
TVTC Project Sponsor: Alameda County/City of Livermore
Project Description: The project along Vasco Road at Dalton Avenue includes the addition of a traffic
lane, traffic signal modification, shoulder widening, and utility adjustments as needed.
This project is a continuation of the safety improvements project along Vasco Road that included a roadway
realignment and other safety improvements north of the Livermore city limits to the Alameda/Contra Costa
county line.
Status: This project is in the scoping phase and is expected to be completed by 2023.
Cost and Funding Sources:
Cost (Millions) $3.39
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $3.39
C-5 EL CHARRO ROAD WIDENING
TVTC Project Sponsor: Pleasanton
Project Description: Construct 1.7 miles of 4-lane divided road with Class I and Class IV bike facilities,
including a bridge over the Arroyo Mocho and a grade separation.
Status: This project has not been started.
Cost and Funding Sources:
Cost (Millions) $68.09
Funding (Millions)
Pleasanton TIF $30.00
Total Funding (Millions) $30.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $38.09
476
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 55
C-6 SUNOL/680 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
TVTC Project Sponsor: Pleasanton
Project Description: This project will fund the design of the I-680 at Sunol Boulevard interchange
improvement. This will include a Project Study Report (PSR) to establish a project scope and cost estimate,
environmental documentation, and the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E).
Status: Currently in PSR-PDS, PA&ED Phase anticipated Spring/Summer 2019
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $16.60
Funding (Millions)
Pleasanton TIF $2.00
Total Funding (Millions) $2.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $14.60
C-7 I-680 EXPRESS LANES – HWY 84 TO ALCOSTA
TVTC Project Sponsor: Pleasanton/ACTC
Project Description: This project will close the gap between existing and in-progress high-occupancy
vehicle (HOV)/express lane projects to the north and south. The project extends for approximately nine
miles on northbound I-680 through Sunol, Pleasanton, Dublin, and San Ramon.
Status: Design and construction of this project is being rolled out in two phases—southbound (Phase 1)
and northbound (Phase 2). Environmental and preliminary engineering studies are complete. Phase 1
final design work was initiated in February 2020 and construction for Phase 1 is anticipated to start in
2022.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $527.57
Funding (Millions)
Measures BB $20.00
Total Funding (Millions) $20.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $507.57
C-8 SANTA RITA/I-580 INTERCHANGE
TVTC Project Sponsor: Pleasanton
Project Description: This project will construct a 2nd southbound left turn lane from Santa Rita onto
Pimilico Drive. The left turn vehicle queue length exceeds the length of the left turn pocket and blocks the
#1 southbound lane, thus reducing the Level of Service.
Status: This project has not been started.
477
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 56
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $10.33
Funding (Millions)
Pleasanton TIF $7.70
Total Funding (Millions) $7.70
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $2.63
C-9 STONERIDGE/I-680 INTERCHANGE
TVTC Project Sponsor: Pleasanton
Project Description: This project will make modifications to the Stoneridge Drive Interchange to allow four
westbound through lanes. This project will modify the northbound I-680 on ramp by one lane to provide
two northbound ramp lanes. The widening will include the widening of the bridge structure as well as
widening on Stoneridge Drive and safety improvements on the pedestrian and bicycle crossing.
Status: PS&E
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $11.98
Funding (Millions)
2014 MBB (TEPO – 26) from Alameda
CTC
$5.20
Developer $2.70
Total Funding (Millions) $7.70
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $2.63
C-10 INNOVATE 680
TVTC Project Sponsor: CCTA/Danville/San Ramon/CCC
Project Description: Implement the following strategies in the I-680 corridor:
Strategy No. 1: Complete HOV/Express Lanes
Eliminate the gap in existing carpool lanes in the NB direction and convert to an express lane to increase
efficiency.
Strategy No. 2: Cool Corridor “Hot Spots”
Improve congestion “hot spots” caused by high-volume weaving areas around N. Main Street, Lawrence
Way, Treat Blvd, and other locations south of SR 24 (Livorna Road, etc.). This strategy will be completed
with Strategy 1 since they are interdependent.
Strategy No. 3: Increase Efficiency of Bus Service
Increase bus service efficiency by improving express bus service, implementing bus operations on shoulder
(BOS), and increasing technology-based intermodal transit centers/managed park and ride lots.
Strategy No. 4: Enhance TDM Strategies
478
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 57
Provide enhanced 511 mobile app providing options to make informed decisions about mode choice, travel
time, and cost per trip.
Strategy No. 5: Provide First Mile/Last Mile Connections
Implement Shared Autonomous Vehicles (SAVs) to improve transit connectivity and to shift travelers from
Single Occupant Vehicles (SOVs).
Strategy No. 6: Innovative Operational Strategies
Deploy a suite of technology-based solutions to maximize the efficiency of the roadway system integrating
adaptive ramp metering, integrated corridor management, incident management, and decision support
systems.
Strategy No. 7: Prepare Corridor for the Future
Prepare corridor to accommodate the evolution of CV applications and AV technologies for improved traffic
flow by building new and upgraded vehicle-to-infrastructure and vehicle-to-vehicle communications.
TVTDF would go towards Advance Technology portions of the project.
Status: Currently in Planning, PA&ED
Cost and Funding Sources:
Advance Technologies:
Cost (Millions) $57.21
Funding (Millions)
Measure J $0.55
STMP $2.00
Total Funding (Millions) $2.55
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $54.66
C-11A IRON HORSE TRAIL BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING – CITY
OF SAN RAMON
TVTC Project Sponsor: CCTA/San Ramon/CCC
Project Description: The Iron Horse Trail (IHT) is an 18-mile regional non-motorized trail that runs
north/south through the San Ramon Valley providing critical access to adjacent land uses. The construction
of overcrossings at key locations will develop attractive travel alternatives for congestion relief for commute
trips as well as enhanced facilities for school, shopping, and recreation trips. For the scope of this project,
the proposed overcrossing location is Bollinger Canyon Road. At this location, the overcrossing will provide
substantial benefits including:
1. Improve safety by eliminating conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists;
2. Improve motor vehicle circulation by removing the at-grade crossings;
3. Reduce and eliminate unsafe crossing maneuvers by pedestrians and bicyclists;
4. Enhance safety by providing an environment that encourages walking and bicycling along the
Iron Horse Regional Trail; and
5. Increase trail usage by improving the connectivity at the Bollinger Canyon Road and Crow
Canyon Road crossings.
Status: Currently in PA&ED, CEQA Completed. Design Underway. Construction anticipated 2022.
479
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 58
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $22.88
Funding (Millions)
OBAG2 $4.80
Measure J (Transportation for Livable
Communities) $2.51
Measure J (TLC future year pre-
commitment) $4.98
San Ramon General Fund $2.00
Total Funding (Millions) $14.30
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $8.58
C-11B IRON HORSE TRAIL BICYCLE PEDESTRI AN OVERCROSSING – CITY
OF SAN RAMON
TVTC Project Sponsor: CCTA/San Ramon/CCC
Project Description: The Iron Horse Trail (IHT) is an 18-mile regional non-motorized trail that runs
north/south through the San Ramon Valley providing critical access to adjacent land uses. The construction
of overcrossings at key locations will develop attractive travel alternatives for congestion relief for commute
trips as well as better facilities for school, shopping, and recreations trips. For the scope of this project, the
proposed overcrossing location is Bollinger Canyon Road. At this location, the overcrossing will provide
substantial benefits including:
1. Improve safety by eliminating conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists;
2. Improve motor vehicle circulation by removing the at-grade crossings;
3. Reduce and eliminate unsafe crossing maneuvers by pedestrians and bicyclists;
4. Enhance safety by providing an environment that encourages walking and bicycling along the
Iron Horse Regional Trail; and
5. Increase trail usage by improving the connectivity at the Bollinger Canyon Road and Crow
Canyon Road crossings.
Status: Currently in PA&ED, CEQA Completed
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $19.69
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $19.69
480
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 59
C-11C IRON HORSE TRAIL CROSSING AT DUBLIN BOULEVARD
TVTC Project Sponsor: Dublin
Project Description: This project will build a bicycle and pedestrian bridge over Dublin Boulevard in order
to connect two segments of the Iron Horse Trail. This bridge will create a total separation between vehicles
and bicyclists/pedestrians. This will eliminate the possibility of motorized vehicles and pedestrians having
a collision, making this segment of the road safer for all users. Along with this, congestion will be reduced
as cars will no longer have to wait for pedestrians. This reduction of congestion will also allow for the transit
to operate more efficiently. Pedestrians and bicyclists will also not have to wait for a walk signal since they
will be able to continue their walk or ride without stopping.
The bridge will follow ADA requirements so that disabled people will be able to use it as well. This bridge
will also be aesthetically pleasing in order to attract users and improve the user’s experience. The bridge
will also connect BART to Dublin in a safe manner, encouraging recreational user of the Iron Horse Trail
and the opening of local businesses. This safe and fast route of crossing the Iron Horse Trail will promote
walking and bicycling for both recreational and commuting purposes in Dublin, this encouraging the shift
from motorized vehicles to alternative forms of transportation.
Status: The project is currently in the final design phase. Additionally, Environmental Analysis of the
project is currently in-progress.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $11.60
Funding (Millions)
2014 MBB $6.05
TFCA $0.86
Local $0.23
Private $1.00
Total Funding (Millions) $11.60
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) -
C-11D IRON HORSE TRAIL
TVTC Project Sponsor: Livermore
Project Description: This project will extend existing trail and provide gap closures.
Status: Feasibility Study/Environmental Complete
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $26.99
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $26.99
481
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 60
C-11E IRON HORSE TRAIL TO SHADOW CLIFFS CONNECTION
TVTC Project Sponsor: Pleasanton, Alameda County
Project Description: Currently, the Iron Horse Trail (IHT) ends as a narrow-paved path to the overcrossing
bridge of the regional railway on the east side of Valley Avenue, where there is a flat, paved spaced under
the railroad bridge that could accommodate the trail.
This project would construct a continuous Class I trail, at least 10 feet wide, and would include protected
intersection improvements and additional crossing improvements of Valley/Bernal and Stanley to improve
pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
Status: This project has not started.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $1.65
Funding (Millions)
Pleasanton TIF $0.60
Direct Developer Fee $0.75
Total Funding (Millions) $1.35
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $0.30
C-11F IRON HORSE TRAIL CONNECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT SANTA RITA
ROAD
TVTC Project Sponsor: Pleasanton
Project Description: The Iron Horse Trail (IHT) is a major north-south regional route for bicyclists and
cyclists. The Arroyo Mocho Trail (AMT) is an important east-west route for bicyclists and pedestrians
extending to Livermore that bypasses many busy streets.
This project would improve connections from the IHT on Santa Rita Road to the AMT. The AMT would
receive an improved Class I Pathway. A new pedestrian bridge would be constructed over the Arroyo
Mocho to connect the southern Arroyo Mocho Class I pathway to the IHT to the north. The IHT then
connects to the north and provides access to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.
Status: This project has not started. TBD
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $0.87
Funding (Millions)
Pleasanton TIF $0.40
Total Funding (Millions) $0.40
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $0.48
482
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 61
C-11G IRON HORSE TRAIL BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING –
TOWN OF DANVILLE
TVTC Project Sponsor: Danville/CCC/CCTA
Project Description: The Iron Horse Trail (IHT) is an 18-mile regional non-motorized trail that runs
north/south through the San Ramon Valley providing critical access to adjacent land uses. The construction
of overcrossings at key locations will develop attractive travel alternatives for congestion relief for commute
trips as well as better facilities for school, shopping, and recreations trips. For the scope of this project, the
proposed overcrossing location is Bollinger Canyon Road. At this location, the overcrossing will provide
substantial benefits including:
1. Improve safety by eliminating conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists;
2. Improve motor vehicle circulation by removing the at-grade crossings;
3. Reduce and eliminate unsafe crossing maneuvers by pedestrians and bicyclists;
4. Enhance safety by providing an environment that encourages walking and bicycling along the
Iron Horse Regional Trail; and
5. Increase trail usage by improving the connectivity at the Bollinger Canyon Road and Crow
Canyon Road crossings.
Status: PSR (Feasibility Study) completed. Project will require coordination, permitting, and agreements
with Contra Costa County. East Bay Regional Parks Direct and various utilities.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $19.78
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $19.78
C-11H IRON HORSE TRAIL SYSTEM-WIDE IMPROVEMENTS
TVTC Project Sponsor: Contra Costa County, Town of Danville, City of San Ramon, Alameda County,
City of Dublin, City of Livermore, and City of Pleasanton
Project Description: As the primary regional multi-modal corridor between Contra Costa and Alameda
County, the Iron Horse Trail is the spine for active modes of travel in the East Bay. The proposed project
for the Iron Horse Trail includes safety, operational, and capacity improvements within the TVTC boundary
from Alamo to Livermore. The proposed project and associated cost estimate includes safety improvements
at roadway crossings, a proposed parallel path to separate users according to speed, and a buffer between
users traveling at high or low speed. The improvements would include features such as passive detection
at road crossings, actuated flashers or warning signals at roadway crossings, high visibility markings, minor
grading, construction of a new 10 foot wide parallel asphalt path with shoulders, and a buffer between high
and low speed corridors which may include vegetation or fencing to maintain safe separation. Other safety
improvements may be necessary to fit site conditions and as determined through additional study.
Separated grade crossings or bridges that have already been identified as critical for improved vehicle
traffic flow at current at grade crossings and to improve safety for trail users are listed as separate projects
483
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 62
within the TVTC program. The cost and context for each bridge site warrants a specific project identification
rather than to be included within the system-wide improvements under this project.
Status: A phasing plan has not yet been developed.
Cost and Funding Sources:
Cost (Millions) $85.60
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $85.60
C-12 I -680 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS AT H ACIENDA DRIVE
TVTC Project Sponsor: Dublin and Pleasanton
Project Description: Implement I-580 Hacienda Drive Interchange Improvements, which includes
reconstructing the overcrossing to add lanes.
I-580/Hacienda Drive interchange Improvements will include; reconstruction of overcrossing to provide
additional northbound lane; widening of the eastbound off-ramp to include an additional lane to be used as
a combined left and right turn lane; modifying signal and striping, modifying the westbound loop on-ramp;
and widening of the westbound off-ramp to include a third left-turn lane.
Status: The project is currently in Preliminary Engineering phase and an EIR is currently underway.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $39.13
Funding (Millions)
Dublin TIF $4.95
Pleasanton TIF $0.04
Total Funding (Millions) $4.63
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $34.50
C-13 FALLON/EL CHARRO INTERCHANGE
TVTC Project Sponsor: Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore
Project Description: I-580/El Charro Road Interchange Improvements (Phase 2): reconstruction of
overcrossing to provide four-lanes in each direction with bike lanes; reconstruction of the southbound to
eastbound loop on-ramp; widening of the eastbound off-ramp to provide two exit lanes with two left turn
and two right tum lanes; widening of the eastbound on-ramp; widening of the westbound off-ramp to provide
two left tum and two right tum lanes; and widening of the westbound on-ramp.
Status: The project has not yet started.
484
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 63
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $34.51
Funding (Millions)
Dublin TIF $4.05
Pleasanton TIF $4.10
Livermore TIF $6.40
Total Funding (Millions) $14.55
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $19.96
C-1 4 VALLEY LINK RAIL (PHASE 1)
TVTC Project Sponsor: Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore, Alameda County
Project Description: This project will connect Northern San Joaquin County communities to the Tri-Valley
and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) through 41 miles of rail and 7 stations. The project will extend from
the planned ACE N. Lathrop Station in the San Joaquin Valley through the Altamont Pass, then readily
connect with the Dublin/Pleasanton BART terminus. The TVTDF would go towards construction cost and
access improvement for three stations in Tri-Valley Area (Dublin/Pleasanton, Isabel, and Greenville).
Status: 2018-2020 Design/Environmental, 2019-2023 Procurement, 2020-2026 Design/Construction.
Cost and Funding Sources:
Cost (Millions) $258.25
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $258.25
C-15 TECHNOLOGY ENHANCEMENTS
TVTC Project Sponsor: Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore
Project Description: Provide connectivity for transit and vehicles between local arterials and regional
facilities. This project will also focus on the first and last mile connectivity at key transit hubs and along
major transit routes.
A. Support expansion and facilitate interoperability among partner agencies of existing and future
intelligent transportation system deployments, including connected/autonomous vehicles,
integrated corridor management, transit vehicle operations, and emergency vehicle operations,
among other uses.
B. Plan and implement connected and autonomous vehicle access in a seamless manner across Tri-
Valley jurisdictions’ boundaries including arterial access to freeways. This requires a continued
emphasis on sharing communication infrastructure, field equipment at jurisdictional boundaries,
and data.
C. Update the existing communication links and enhance the existing connectivity of all Tri-Valley
Traffic Operations Centers for on-going data and comm unication sharing.
485
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 64
D. Prepare corridors around transit centers and BART stations to implement Shared Autonomous
Vehicles (SAVs) to improve transit connectivity to shift travelers from Single Occupancy Vehicles
(SOVs) to transit.
E. Prepare intersections around transit center and ABRT stations to accommodate the evolution of
Connected Vehicle applications and Autonomous Vehicle technologies for improved traffic flow by
building new and upgraded vehicle-to-infrastructure and vehicle-to-vehicle communications.
F. Test and develop standard/protocol at the intersections, through existing and new Vehicle-to-
Everything (V2X) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) technologies as a regional standard to be
adopted by the local agencies among the Tri-Valley Jurisdictions. These technologies will allow a
vehicle to communicate in real time with its surroundings.
G. Work with regional agencies in incorporating signal and vehicle communications in day to day
operations. This would include sharing of equipment and data for seamless integration of
connected and autonomous vehicle access across Tri-Valley Jurisdictions and freeway
infrastructure including express lanes.
The project will be implemented in phases. Phase 1 of the proposed project will comprise of a feasibility
study to identify potential locations, improvements, and develop cost estimates at key transit hubs,
along major transit routes, and at freeway access locations in tri-valley area. Phase 2 of the project will
further the development of the project with completion of design and Phase 3 will compete the
construction/implementation and operation of the proposed project.
Status: The project is currently not yet started.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $0.33
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $0.33
C-16 I -680 EXPRESS BUS SERVICE
TVTC Project Sponsor: Alameda CTC, in partnership with CCTA
Project Description: This project proposes to construct capital improvements and purchase buses in order
to establish an express bus service on I-680. This project requires the construction of the I-680 Express
Lane Gap Closure project, closing the gap in the express lanes between Alcosta Blvd and State Route 84,
in order to utilize the express lanes to avoid congestion, reduce travel time, and improve reliably, as part of
an express bus service between the Tri-Valley communities and Silicon Valley. This express bus service
would likely be combined with and become part of similar efforts by Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(CCTA) and their Innovate 680 program, with the intent to serve the entire I-680 corridor extending from
Martinez to San Jose, utilizing buses to provide access to additional commute options, including BART,
Amtrak, Caltrain, VTA light rail, local bus service, and Greyhound, for those living along the corridor.
The service would operate weekdays only, with proposed 20-minute headways during peak periods and
one-hour headways during off-peak hours. The service would be bi-directional to avoid substantial
deadhead time and to maintain a high level of service. New electric buses would be purchased as part of
this project.
486
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 65
The project proposes to place express bus stops in the Tri-Valley area at the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station and at a future park and ride to be constructed at the Bernal Avenue interchange in Pleasanton.
Understanding that the express buses must merge across all lanes of traffic to access the express lane,
these stop locations are spaced to efficiently serve the Tri-Valley area while also maximizing the express
lane distance the bus is able to utilize in-between bus stops.
The estimated costs below assume that at each bus stop location there would be construction of roadway
and bus stop improvements, including installation of transit amenities such as shelters, bike lockers,
lighting, and real time information signs.
Status: A project schedule has not yet been developed.
Cost and Funding Sources:
Cost (Millions) $59.35
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $59.35
487
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 66
APPENDIX C – PROJECT IMPROVEMENT CATEGORIES
Project Improvement
Category*
A-2a State Route 84 (SR 84) Expressway (I-580 to I-680) Roadway Capacity
A-2b SR 84/I-580 Interchange Roadway Capacity
A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 Safety
A-9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2 Safety
A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 Safety
A-10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 Safety
A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – Phase 2 Safety
B-1 I-580/I-680 Interchange (westbound to southbound) Roadway Capacity
B-3 I-580/First Street Interchange Modification Roadway Capacity
B-4 I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification Roadway Capacity
B-5 I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification Roadway Capacity
B-6 Jack London Boulevard Extension Roadway Capacity
B-7 El Charro Road Extension (Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard
to Stanley Boulevard) Roadway Capacity
B-8 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project (East of
Blackhawk Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive)
Roadway Capacity
Safety
B-10 I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Gap Closure (North Main Street to
Rudgear Road) Roadway Capacity
B-11b I-680 Transit Corridor Improvements Transit
C-1 Tesla Road Safety Improvements Safety
C-2 Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement Safety
C-3 Dublin Boulevard – North Canyons Parkway Extensions Roadway Capacity
C-4 Vasco Road at Dalton Avenue Intersection Improvements Intersection
C-5 El Charro Road Widening Roadway Capacity
C-6 Sunol/680 Interchange Improvements Roadway Capacity
C-7 I-680 Express Lanes – Hwy 84 to Alcosta Roadway Capacity
C-8 Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange Intersection
C-9 Stoneridge/I-680 Interchange Roadway Capacity
C-10 Innovate 680 Technology
C-11a Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Bollinger Canyon
Road Pedestrian/Bicycle
C-11b Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Crow Canyon
Road Pedestrian/Bicycle
C-11c Iron Horse Trail – Dublin Pedestrian/Bicycle
C-11d Iron Horse Trail – Livermore Pedestrian/Bicycle
C-11e Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs Pedestrian/Bicycle
C-11f Iron House Trail Connection Improvements at Santa Rita Road Pedestrian/Bicycle
C-11g Iron Horse Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing – Sycamore Valley
Road Pedestrian/Bicycle
488
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 67
Project Improvement
Category*
C-11h Iron Horse Trail Safety Improvements Pedestrian/Bicycle
C-12 Hacienda/I-580 Interchange Improvements Roadway Capacity
C-13 Fallon/El Charro Interchange Improvements Roadway Capacity
C-14 Valley Link Rail (Phase 1) Transit
C-15 Technology Enhancements Technology
C-16 I-680 Express Bus Service Transit
Note: Table only includes projects that have not been fully completed.
* Improvement category used to determine project benefit for Nexus. Projects may also project additional benefits to the
system.
489
Page 1
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Technical Advisory Committee (TVTC TAC)
Michael Schmitt, AICP CTP, PTP, RSP1
Elizabeth Chau, P.E.
May 5, 2022
Subject: TVTC SEP 2021 Update – AB 602 Supplemental Analysis
As the 2020 TVTC Nexus Study was adopted in August of 2021, prior to the implementation of
Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602), the Nexus Study and its resultant fee program is not subject to its
requirements. However, TVTC has undertaken this supplemental analysis to guide future analysis
requirements and to help inform the TVTC how AB 602 may impact the program when the next Nexus
Study update1 is completed. This analysis was approved by TVTC Board on April 18, 2022.
Background
Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602)
Assembly Bill 602 was approved and signed into law on September 28, 2021. Among other things,
this bill requires that impact fee nexus studies adopted on and after January 1, 2022 must, as
appropriate, identify the existing level of service, the new level of service, and include an explanation
as to why the new level of service is necessary for each public facility included in an impact fee
program. It should be noted that the basis for the required level of service analyses is not specifically
defined in AB 602 and that as a practical matter, level of service methods applied to various public
facilities need to vary depending on the type of facility being analyzed and the information available.
AB 602 also requires that studies adopted after July 1, 2022 either calculate a fee levied or imposed
on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units, or
make specified findings explaining why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate the
fee.
2020 Nexus Study
The performance analysis conducted in support of the 2020 TVTC Nexus Study analyzed the benefits
of proposed projects in the aggregate based on specific improvement categories. This aggregate
approach is an industry-accepted method when evaluating project impacts on a regional, system-
wide basis. This method is especially appropriate where a fee program is targeted to regional
improvements, as is the case with TVTC’s fee program. These categories included roadway
capacity, transit, safety, pedestrian/bicycle, intersection, and technology. Since these improvement
1 The next nexus study is required to be completed within 8 years (2029).
Attachment 3
Exhibit B to Resolution
AB 602 Supplemental Analysis
490
Page 2
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
categories improve different aspects of the transportation system, differing methodologies and
measures of effectiveness (MOEs) were necessary to appropriately evaluate their anticipated benefit
to the transportation system. It should be noted that some projects have multiple beneficial project
elements and thus could be analyzed using more than one analysis technique (i.e., a project can
have both a congestion benefit and a safety benefit). However, for the purposes of this analysis,
project analysis was limited to the basis which best reflects the primary benefit and/or purpose of the
project.
Level of Service Analysis
Methodology
Table 1 summarizes the methodology and measure of effectiveness (MOE) that was used to evaluate
existing and future conditions for public facilities included within the 2020 TVTC Nexus Study. As
described in the prior section, the methodology and MOE selected were dependent on the type of public
facility being analyzed and the data available.
Table 1: Methodology and Measure of Effectiveness
Improvement
Type Facility Type Methodology Measure of Effectiveness
Roadway Capacity
Freeway HCM Freeway LOS (Density)
State Route HCM Highway LOS (Density)
Arterial ACTC Roadway Segment LOS (V/C)
Interchanges HCM Intersection LOS (Delay)
Transit All Facility Type TCQSM Service Frequency LOS
Safety All Facility Type HSM Safety Performance
Functions Crash Rate
Pedestrian/
Bicycle All Facility Type Montgomery County Level of
Traffic Stress Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
Intersection -HCM Intersection LOS (Delay)
Technology All Facility Type Qualitative Assessment Resultant Delay/Congestion
Reduction
Note: HCM = Highway Capacity Manual, ACTC = Alameda County Transportation Commission, LOS = Level of Service,
TCQSM = Transit Quality of Service Manual, HSM = Highway Safety Manual
Roadway Capacity
Analysis of roadway capacity projects was completed based on the HCM concept of Level of Service
(LOS). The HCM LOS for a roadway facility is a qualitative measure used to describe operational
conditions. LOS ranges from LOS A (free flow traffic with minimal delay) to LOS F (heavy congestion
operating near or over capacity). As discussed in the following sections, Freeway, State Route, and
Interchange projects were evaluated using methodologies defined in the HCM 6th Edition, while
arterial roadway analyses were completed based on a volume/capacity (V/C) methodology commonly
applied for project analyses undertaken by the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC).
491
Page 3
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
For existing conditions, AM (7-9) and PM (4-6) peak period traffic volumes were obtained from the
Caltrans Traffic Census Program2 or recent publicly accessible traffic studies conducted within the
Tri-Valley area. These traffic counts were then evaluated to determine the highest AM and PM peak
hours of traffic which is the basis of the analysis contained herein. Future 2040 No Build and 2040
Build peak hour volumes were developed using post-processed data from a version of the CCTA
travel demand model updated to reflect input from the TVTC member jurisdictions. Further
information on the travel demand model’s development is provided within the 2020 TVTC Nexus
Study. Generally speaking, forecast volumes were developed using the “difference method”, which
involves adding forecasted traffic growth (future minus existing estimated traffic volumes from the
travel demand model) to an existing count.
In cases where a project is proposing a new roadway segment (C-4 Dublin Boulevard – North
Canyons Parkway Extension and C-5 El Charro Road Widening), a parallel roadway segment was
used as the basis for evaluating project need.
A minimum level of service standard of LOS F was used for roadway analyses.
Freeway
Freeway facilities were analyzed using the HCM 6th edition methodology for basic freeway segments.
As shown in Table 2, LOS is determined based on the density of traffic flow.
Table 2: Freeway Facility Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service (LOS)Density (pc/mi/ln)
A ≤ 11
B > 11 – 18
C > 18 – 26
D > 26 – 35
E > 35 – 45
F > 45 or v/c > 1.0
pc/mi/ln = passenger car per mile per lane; v/c = volume-to-capacity
Source:Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition
State Route
State Route facilities were analyzed using the HCM 6th edition methodology for multi-lane roadway
segments. As shown in Table 3, LOS is determined based on density of traffic flow.
2 Caltrans,https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census, Accessed March 2022.
492
Page 4
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
Table 3: Multilane Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service (LOS)
Density (pc/mi/ln)
FFS: 45 mph FFS: 50 mph FFS: 55 mph FFS: 60 mph
A ≤ 11 ≤ 11 ≤ 11 ≤ 11
B > 11 – 18 > 11 – 18 > 11 – 18 > 11 – 18
C > 18 – 26 > 18 – 26 > 18 – 26 > 18 – 26
D > 26 – 35 > 26 – 35 > 26 – 35 > 26 – 35
E > 35 – 45 > 35 – 43 > 35 – 41 > 35 – 40
F > 45 > 43 > 41 > 40
Source:Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition
Arterial
Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(CCTA) evaluate arterials using different methodologies. ACTC’s methodology is based on volume-
to-capacity (v/c) ratios while CCTA evaluates arterials based on intersection level of service. This
analysis was evaluated based on the ACTC methodology given the nature of the analysis
requirements. During the design phase of a project, it is anticipated that more detailed operational
analysis will be completed.
Arterial level of service analysis assumed a per-lane capacity of 800 vehicles per hour. The LOS
criteria shown in Table 4.
Table 4: ACTC Rodway Segment Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service (LOS)V/C
A 0.35
B 0.58
C 0.75
D 0.90
E 1.00
F > 1.00
Source:Alameda Congestion Management Program 2019
Interchange
Interchanges were analyzed based on HCM intersection methodologies. The basis of the LOS criteria
is shown in Table 5.
493
Page 5
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
Table 5: Intersection Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service (LOS)
Signalized Unsignalized1
Delay (sec/veh)Delay (sec/veh)
A ≤ 10 ≤ 10
B > 10.0 – 20.0 > 10.0 – 15.0
C > 20.0 – 35.0 > 15.0 – 25.0
D > 35.0 – 55.0 > 25.0 – 35.0
E > 55.0 – 80.0 > 35.0 – 50.0
F > 80.0 > 50.0
1 For All-way stop-control intersection (AWSC), LOS is defined based on average intersection delay. For side-street stop-
controlled intersections (SSSC), LOS is defined based on the worst movement delay.
Source:Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition
Transit
Transit projects were evaluated based on service frequency LOS from the Transit Capacity and
Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM)under which LOS criteria varies depending on the type of transit
service. As shown in Table 6, LOS for urban scheduled transit service3 is determined on headway or
the time between buses/trains. For intercity schedule transit services, commuter or express buses,
LOS is determined on the number of trips provided each day.
For this analysis, all transit projects were evaluated on the basis of the urban scheduled transit
service LOS criterion as the projects are anticipated to operate throughout the day on a fixed
schedule. A level of service standard of LOS F was used for this analysis. In addition, other benefits
such as increases in ridership, as well as resultant system-wide VMT reductions may also be
evaluated.
Safety
The number of crashes per million vehicle miles travelled (crash/M-VMT) were calculated for the
project segment based on the observed number of crashes within 5 years. The number of crashes for
the future no build conditions were estimated based on the Safety Performance Functions (SPF)
described in Highway Safety Manual (HSM) 2010. SPFs are regression equations that estimate the
average crash frequency for a specific site type as a function of annual average daily traffic and the
segment length. The reduction in crashes in the Future 2040 Build scenario were calculated by
applying Crash Modification Factors (CMF) based on proposed safety improvements for each project.
For the purposes of this study and based on the observed data reviewed, a threshold designation
was established for crashes per million-VMT of more than 1.
3 Urban schedule transit service includes all scheduled service within a city, as well as service
between cities within a larger metropolitan area.
494
Page 6
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
Table 6: Transit Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service (LOS)
Urban Scheduled Transit Service Intercity Scheduled Transit
Service
Headway (min)Veh/hr Trips/Day
A < 10 > 6 > 15
B 10-14 5-6 12-15
C 15-20 3-4 8-11
D 21-30 2 4-7
E 31-60 1 2-3
F > 60 < 1 0-1
Source:Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual
Pedestrian / Bicycle
Pedestrian / Bicycle improvements were evaluated using the modified level of traffic stress (LTS)
methodology used in the Montgomery County Bicycle Master Plan4 in Maryland. This methodology is
based on the original LTS methodology developed in 2012 by the Mineta Transportation Institute and
San Jose State University5. Both methodologies assign a traffic stress level base on street/traffic
attributes (e.g. traffic speed, traffic volume, number of lanes, etc.). As shown in Table 7, the original
LTS has four stress levels, while the Montgomery County methodology provides three additional
stress levels. The Montgomery County methodology also includes criteria for separated bikeways,
two-lane roads, and industrial streets. For the purpose of this analysis, a threshold of LTS 4 was
used.
Table 7: Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) categories
Original LTS Montgomery County LTS
LTS 1 – Very Low LTS 0 – None
LTS 1 – Very Low
LTS 2 – Low LTS 2 – Low
LTS 3 – Moderate LTS 2.5 – Moderate Low
LTS 3 – Moderate High
LTS 4- High LTS 4 – High
LTS 5 – Very High
Source: Montgomery County, MD.The Bicycle Master Plan Appendix D, 2018
4 Montgomery County, MD The Bicycle Master Plan Appendix D, 2018
5 Mekuria, Maaza, Peter G. Furth, and Hilary Nixon, Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity,
San Jose, CA: Mineta Transportation Institute, 2012
495
Page 7
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
Crossings were evaluated based on the criteria summarized in Table 8, which is based on posted
speed limit, if there is a median refuge, and the number of lanes of the street being crossed.
Table 8: Level of Traffic Stress Criteria - Crossing
Posted Speed
Limit on Street
being Crossed
(mph)
# Lanes of Street Being Crossed
No Median Refuge Median Refuge (≥ 6 ft wide)
2-3 4-5 6+2-3 4-5 6+
≤ 25 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 4 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
30 LTS 2 LTS 2.5 LTS 4 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2.5
35 LTS 2.5 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 1 LTS 2.5 LTS 3
≥ 40 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 2 LTS 2.5 LTS 4
Source: Montgomery County, MD.The Bicycle Master Plan Appendix D, 2018
Segments were evaluated based on criteria summarized in Table 9, which is based on posted speed
limit and the type of buffer between the shared path and adjacent roadways.
Table 9: Level of Traffic Stress Criteria - Segment
Posted
Speed
Limit
(mph)
Shared Use Path
Side path w/ Buffer < 5ft
(and no railing OR many
driveways)
Side path w/ Buffer ≥ 5ft
(and no railing OR many
driveways)
Independent Right-of-
Way
≤ 25 LTS 1A or LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS 0
30 LTS 1A or LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS 0
35 LTS 1A or LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS 0
40 LTS 2 LTS 1B or LTS 2 LTS 0
≥ 45 LTS 2 LTS 1B or LTS 2 LTS 0
Note:
A LTS 1 is given if the road is residential and buffer is at last 5 feet wide.
B LTS 1 is given if the buffer is wide.
Source: Montgomery County, MD.The Bicycle Master Plan Appendix D, 2018
Intersection
Intersection improvements were evaluated using the HCM intersection methodology. As shown in
Table 5, intersection LOS is based on delay. Existing AM (7-9) and PM (4-6) traffic volumes were
obtained from recent publicly accessible traffic studies. Future 2040 No Build and 2040 Build volumes
were developed based on the “difference method” previously described. A level of service standard of
LOS F was used for this analysis.
Technology
Technology projects included in the 2020 TVTC Nexus Study include studies to evaluate and identify
potential technology-based solutions. Since these are studies and not public facilities, no MOE or
496
Page 8
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
thresholds were established at this time. AB 602 acknowledges that level of service analysis is not
possible for certain types of projects. However, a qualitative assessment was conducted to determine
how the technology being studies may result in delay or congestion reduction to offset the impacts
related to future growth.
Results
This section presents a summary of results for each project.
Roadway Capacity
Freeway
Freeway analysis was used to evaluate the following projects:
· B-1 I-580/I-680 Interchange (westbound to southbound)
· C-3 Dublin Boulevard – North Canyons Parkway Extensions
· C-7 I-680 Express Lanes – Hwy 84 to Alcosta
Project B-1 evaluated multiple segments along I-580 and I-680. In the existing conditions, these
segments operated at LOS D or LOS F. Even though some segments continue to operate at LOS F
with the Project in 2040, there will be a reduction in volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c).
Even though Project C-3 is a local roadway, the I-580 segment between Fallon Road and Airway
Boulevard was analyzed because the Dublin Boulevard-North Canyon Parkway extension would
divert local traffic from this freeway segment. In existing condition, the I-580 segment between Fallon
Road and Airway Boulevard operates at an unacceptable LOS F. Even though some segments
continue to operate at LOS F with the Project in 2040, there will be a reduction in v/c.
For Project C-7, future development will increase congestion along I-680 and will improve with the
construction of the project.
State Route
State Route analysis was used to evaluate the state route portion (SR-84/Isabella Avenue) of
Projects A-2b SR 84/I-580 Interchange.Future development will change the LOS from LOS B or
better in existing condition to LOS C through LOS E in 2040 No Build condition. Project A-2b will
improve LOS to LOS B or better.
Arterial
Arterial analysis was used to evaluate the following projects:
· A-2b SR 84/I-580 Interchange
· B-6 Jack London Boulevard Extension
· C-5 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project (East of Blackhawk Drive to North
Dublin Ranch Drive)
· Roadway capacity portion of Project B-8 El Charro Road Widening
497
Page 9
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
Project A-2b evaluated Portola Avenue along the I-580 overpass. This segment operates at LOS F in
existing and 2040 No Build conditions. Project A-2b will improve operations to acceptable levels of
service.
Project B-6 evaluated Jack London Boulevard, east of El Charro Road. This segment operates at
LOS F in the existing and 2040 No Build conditions. With the project, Jack London Boulevard may
continue to operate at LOS F; however, there will be a reduction in v/c.
For Project B-8, future development will increase congestion along Camino Tassajara and will cause
the roadway to operation at LOS F in 2040 No Build conditions. Project B-8 will improve operations to
acceptable levels.
Since Project C-5 will extend El Charro Road south of Stoneridge Road/Jack London Boulevard, a
parallel route along Santa Rita Road was analyzed. Future development will increase congestion
along Santa Rita Road and will cause the roadway to operate at LOS F. Project C-5 will improve
operations to acceptable levels.
Interchange
Interchange analysis was used to evaluate the following projects:
· B-3 I-580/First Street Interchange Modification
· B-4 I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification
· B-5 I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification
· C-6 Sunol/680 Interchange Improvements
· C-9 Stoneridge/I-680 Interchange
· C-12 Hacienda/I-580 Interchange Improvements
· C-13 Fallon/El Charro Interchange Improvements
For Project B-3, the I-580/First Street interchange operates at LOS C or better in the existing
condition. Future development will increase the delay at the interchange. Project B-3 will reduce delay
compared to 2040 No Build conditions.
For Project B-4, the I-580/Vasco Road interchange operates at LOS E or better in the existing
condition. Future development will cause this interchange to operation at LOS F in the PM peak.
Project B-4 will improve operations to acceptable levels of LOS C or better.
For Project B-5, the I-580/Greenville Road interchange operates at LOS E or better in the existing
condition. Future development will cause this interchange to operate at LOS F in PM peak. Project B-
5 will improve operations to acceptable levels of LOS E or better.
For Project C-6, the I-680/Sunol Boulevard interchange operate at LOS F in the existing and 2040 No
Build conditions. Project C-6 will improve operations to acceptable levels of LOS B or better.
498
Page 10
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
For Project C-9, the I-680/Stoneridge Drive interchange operates at LOS B in the existing condition.
Future development will increase delay at the interchange. Project C-9 will reduce delay compared to
2040 No Build conditions.
For Project C-12, the I-580/Hacienda Drive interchange operates at LOS C or better in the existing
condition. Future development will increase delay at the interchange. Project C-12 will improve
operations compared to 2040 No Build conditions.
For Project C-13, the I-580/Fallon Road interchange operates at LOS A or better in the existing
condition. Future development will increase delay at the interchange. Project C-13 will improve
operations compared to 2040 No Build conditions.
Transit
Transit projects include the following projects:
· A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – Phase 2
· C-14 Valley Link Rail (Phase 1
· C-16 I-680 Express Bus Service
For Project A-11, both 10R and 30R routes have 15-minute headways (LOS C) in the existing
condition. Without the improvements proposed in Project A-11, congestion from future development
may increase the headway for these routes. Improvements proposed in Project A-11, such as transit
signal priority, queue jumps, dedicated travel lanes may allow 10R and 30R to operate more quickly
and efficiently.
Project C-14 would construct new stations and a transit line, so there is no LOS for existing or 2040
No Project conditions. It is anticipated that Valley Link would operate on similar headways as BART
which is 15 minutes in the AM peak and 20 minutes in the PM peak, which equates to LOS C. In
addition, the Valley Link EIR reports a 0.3% reduction in average weekday VMT between No Build
and Build condition.
Project C-16 would establish a new express bus service, so there is no LOS for existing or 2040 No
Project conditions. It is currently proposed that the bus would run on 20-minute headways during the
peak period, which equates to LOS C.
Safety
Safety analysis evaluate the following projects:
· A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1
· A-9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2
· A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1
· A-10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2
· C-1 Tesla Road Safety Improvements
· C-2 Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement
499
Page 11
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
· Safety component for Project B-8 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project (East
of Blackhawk Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive)
Project A-9a and A-9b were analyzed together because both projects are difference project phases
within the same project limits. In existing conditions, the project segment along Crow Canyon has a
crash rate of 0.59 and future development is anticipated to increase the crash rate to 0.62. It is
anticipated that the safety improvements proposed in Projects A-9a and A-9b will reduce the crash
rate to 0.06.
Project A-10a and A-10b were analyzed together because both projects are difference project
phases within the same project limits. In existing conditions, the project segment along Vasco Road
has a crash rate of 0.68 and future development is anticipated to increase the crash rate to 0.98. It is
anticipated that the safety improvements proposed in Projects A-10a and A-10b will reduce the crash
rate to 0.53.
For Project B-8, the project segment along Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road has a crash rate of
0.83 in the existing condition and future development is anticipated to increase the crash rate over the
threshold to 1.04. It is anticipated that the safety improvements proposed in Projects C-1 will reduce
the crash rate to 0.76.
For Project C-1, the project segment along Tesla Road has a crash rate of 0.86 in the existing
condition and future development is anticipated increase the crash rate over the threshold to 1.11. It
is anticipated that the safety improvements proposed in Projects C-1 will reduce the crash rate to
0.62.
For Project C-2, the project segment along Norris Canyon Road exceeds the crash rate threshold in
the existing condition with a rate of 1.20. Future development is anticipated to increase the rate to
1.63. It is anticipated that the safety improvements proposed in Projects C-2 will reduce the crash rate
to 0.20.
Pedestrian / Bicycle
Pedestrian / Bicycle analysis was conducted for all of the Iron Horse Trail projects which include the
following:
· C-11a Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Bollinger Canyon Road
· C-11b Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Crow Canyon Road
· C-11c Iron Horse Trail – Dublin
· C-11d Iron Horse Trail – Livermore
· C-11e Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs
· C-11f Iron House Trail Connection Improvements at Santa Rita Road
· C-11g Iron Horse Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing – Sycamore Valley Road
· C-11h Iron Horse Trail System-wide Improvements
500
Page 12
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
The crossing at Bollinger Canyon Road (Project C-11a)has a LTS of 4 in the existing condition . The
crossing will continue to have a LTS of 4 in the future conditions. Project C-11a will construct an
overcrossing which will improve the LTS to LTS 0.
The crossing at Crow Canyon Road (Project C-11b)has a LTS of 4 in the existing condition. The
crossing will continue to have a LTS of 4 in the future conditions. Project C-11b will construct an
overcrossing which will improve the LTS to LTS 0.
The crossing at Dublin Road (Project C-11c)has a LTS of 4 in the existing condition. The crossing
will continue to have a LTS of 4 in the future conditions. Project C-11c will construct an
bicycle/pedestrian bridge which will improve the LTS to LTS 0.
Project C-11d will construct new trail segments, so there are no LTS for existing or 2040 No project
conditions. Project C-11d will construct LTS 1 trail segment.
Project C-11e will construct new trail segments, so there are no LTS for existing or 2040 No project
conditions. Project C-11e will construct LTS 1 trail segment.
Project C-11f will construct new trail segments, so there are no LTS for existing or 2040 No project
conditions. Project C-11e will construct LTS 1 trail segment.
The crossing at Sycamore Valley Road (Project C-11g)has a LTS of 4 in the existing condition. The
crossing will continue to have a LTS of 4 in the future conditions. Project C-11g will construct an
overcrossing which will improve the LTS to LTS 0.
Project C-11h will provide system-wide improvements, such as closing existing gaps in the trail
system, therefore it was assumed that there is no LTS for existing or 2040 No project conditions.
Project C-11h will construct LTS 1 trail segment to fill in existing gaps and other improvements.
Intersection
Intersection analysis evaluate the following projects:
· C-4 Vasco Road at Dalton Avenue Intersection Improvements
· C-8 Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange
Project C-4 evaluated Vasco Road and Dalton Avenue intersection. This intersection operates at
LOS F in existing and 2040 No Build conditions. Project C-4 will improve operations to acceptable
levels.
Project C-8 evaluated Santa Rita Road and I-580 EB Ramps/Pimilico Drive intersection. This
intersection operated at LOS D or better in existing conditions. Future development will increase
congestion at this intersection. The project will improve operation compared to 2040 No Build
conditions.
501
Page 13
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
Technology
There are two technology projects: C-10 Innovate 680 and C-15 Technology Enhancements. Since
these are studies and not public facilities, no MOE or thresholds were established at this time. However,
a qualitative assessment was conducted to determine how the technology being studied may result in
delay or congestion reductions or other benefits.
Project C-10 Innovate 680 consists of multiple components including transit infrastructure and service
improvements, roadway improvements, and technology enhancement, this project has been
categorized as a technology improvement because TVTDF funding is being requested only for the
Advance Technology component of the project. Other project components are expected to be funded
through alternative sources. The Advance Technology component consists of implementing three
technology-related strategies to improve operation along the I-680 corridor. Strategies include providing
an enhanced 511 mobile app and implementing a shared autonomous vehicles (SAV) program for first
and last mile connectivity and access at Mobility Hubs, to shift travel away from single occupant vehicles
by providing travelers with better information about mode choice opportunities, resultant travel time,
cost per trip, and the availability of transit. Other technology strategies include integrating adaptive
ramp metering and/or corridor/incident management systems which can help improve the efficiency
and safety of the transportation system.
Project C-15 Technology Enhancements proposes to provide connectivity for transit and vehicles
between local arterials and regional facilities. The project is expected to be completed in three phases
- Feasibility, Design & Construction. The TVTDF will help fund the feasibility study phase of the study,
since the details of the design and construction phase are unknown at this time. The feasibility study
will focus on the first and last mile connectivity opportunities at key transit hubs and along major transit
routes in the Tri-Valley area. Leveraging existing and emerging technology, such as connected and
autonomous vehicles, may help increase safety and mobility for all modes. These technologies may
also help with increasing transit ridership or expanding transit service to less-served areas, especially
for communities that currently lack service. Given that the resultant projects are intended to offset the
impacts of future development, the feasibility study is appropriate to include in the TVTC project list.
AB 602 Proportional Allocation
Future development is responsible for paying for its proportional use of public facilities, rather than
the full unfunded cost of projects. Under AB 602s project-specific analysis methods , the proportional
allocation of costs for certain projects under the 2020 TVTC Nexus Study would be lower.ܣܤ 602 ܲݎݎݐ݈݅݊ܽ ܣ݈݈ܿܽݐ݅݊ %=2040 ܰ ܤݑ݈݅݀ ܩݎݓݐℎܧݔ݅ݏݐ݅݊݃ ܸ݈ݑ݉݁
AB 602 proportional allocation calculations are included in Attachment A.
AB 602 Analysis Maximum Fee Rate
Table 10 presents the AB 602 maximum fee. Historically, TVTC jurisdictions have not applied the
maximum fee schedule, therefore Table 10 also presents the rate being proposed as part of the 2022
502
Page 14
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
SEP update. As shown, in Table 11, the proposed 2022 SEP rates are less than the adjusted
maximum fee rate under the AB 602 analysis methods. Maximum rate adjustment calculations are
included in Attachment B.
Table 10: 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study Maximum Fee
Land Use
AB 602
Maximum Fee
Rate
2022 SEP
Proposed
Rates
Single Family (DU)$18,752 $6,596.40
Multi-Family (DU)$11,056 $3,889.20
Retail (SF)$36.04 $5.92
Office (SF)$25.04 $8.81
Industrial (SF)$14.42 $4.97
Other (avg AM/PM trips)$21,679 $6,100.68
DU = Dwelling Units; SF = Square Feet
Attachment A – AB 602 Proportional Allocation Calculations
Attachment B – AB 602 Maximum Rate Adjustment Calculations
503
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
Attachment A – AB 602 Proportional Allocation Calculations
504
Project Methodology Existing
Volume
Future
Volume Growth
AB 602
Proportion
Allocation%
A-1 Interstate 580 (I-580)/Interstate 680 (I-680) Interchange (southbound to eastbound)----
A-2a State Route 84 (SR 84) Expressway (I-580 to I-680)----
A-2b SR 84/I-580 Interchange Roadway Capacity – State Route
Roadway Capacity - Arterial 12,800 22,100 9,300 73%
A-3 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Segment 2)----
A-4 West Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station ----
A-5a I-580 Eastbound Auxiliary Lane ----
A-5b I-580 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Westbound ----
A-6 I-680 HOV Lanes, SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade ----
A-7 I-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon Road Interchange Modifications ----
A-8 I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange ----
A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 Safety ---100%
A-9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2 Safety ---100%
A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 Safety ---100%
A-10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 Safety ---100%
A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – Phase 2 Transit ---100%
B-1 I-580/I-680 Interchange (westbound to southbound)Roadway Capacity - Freeway 54,000 55,500 1,500 3%
B-2 Fifth Eastbound Lane on I-580 from Santa Rita Road to Vasco Road -
B-3 I-580/First Street Interchange Modification Roadway Capacity - Interchange ---100%
B-4 I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification Roadway Capacity - Interchange ---100%
B-5 I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification Roadway Capacity - Interchange ---100%
B-6 Jack London Boulevard Extension Roadway Capacity - Arterial 3,300 7,600 4,300 100%
B-7 El Charro Road Extension (Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard to Stanley Boulevard)----
B-8 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project (East of Blackhawk Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive)Roadway Capacity - Arterial
Safety ---100%
B-9 Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road I-680 Interchange Improvements ----
B-10 I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Gap Closure (North Main Street to Rudgear Road)----
B-11a I-680 HOV Direct Access Ramps ----
B-11b I-680 Transit Corridor Improvements ----
C-1 Tesla Road Safety Improvements Safety ---100%
C-2 Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement Safety ---99%
C-3 Dublin Boulevard – North Canyons Parkway Extensions Roadway Capacity - Freeway 28,400 37,700 9,300 33%
C-4 Vasco Road at Dalton Avenue Intersection Improvements Intersection 4,400 5,500 1,100 25%
C-5 El Charro Road Widening Roadway Capacity - Arterial ---100%
C-6 Sunol/680 Interchange Improvements Roadway Capacity - Interchange 9,400 11,100 1,700 18%
C-7 I-680 Express Lanes – Hwy 84 to Alcosta Roadway Capacity - Freeway ---100%
C-8 Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange Intersection ---100%
C-9 Stoneridge/I-680 Interchange Roadway Capacity - Interchange ---100%
C-10 Innovate 680 Technology --- 100%
C-11a Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Bollinger Canyon Road Pedestrian/Bicycle 5,500 6,000 500 9%
C-11b Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Crow Canyon Road Pedestrian/Bicycle 5,600 6,400 800 14%
C-11c Iron Horse Trail – Dublin Pedestrian/Bicycle 7,600 8,300 700 9%
C-11d Iron Horse Trail – Livermore Pedestrian/Bicycle ---100%
Project Completed
Project Fully Funded
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Removed
Project Removed - Incorporated into
Project C-10
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Completed
Project Removed - Incorporated into
Project C-5
Project Completed
505
Project Methodology Existing
Volume
Future
Volume Growth
AB 602
Proportion
Allocation%
C-11e Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs Pedestrian/Bicycle ---100%
C-11f Iron House Trail Connection Improvements at Santa Rita Road Pedestrian/Bicycle ---100%
C-11g Iron Horse Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing – Sycamore Valley Road Pedestrian/Bicycle 4,000 6,000 2,000 50%
C-11h Iron Horse Trail System-wide Improvements Pedestrian/Bicycle ---100%
C-12 Hacienda/I-580 Interchange Improvements Roadway Capacity - Interchange ---100%
C-13 Fallon/El Charro Interchange Improvements Roadway Capacity - Interchange ---100%
C-14 Valley Link Rail (Phase 1)Transit ---100%
C-15 Technology Enhancements Technology --- 100%
C-16 I-680 Express Bus Service Transit ---100%
Project C-2: Growth is based on the percentages of TVTC road users along project corridor.
Note
Project B-6: Growth exceed 100%, therefore AB 602 proportion allocation was assumed to be 100%
506
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840
Attachment B – AB 602 Maximum Rate Adjustment Calculations
507
Project Total Cost
(2021$ Million)
AB 602
Proportion
Allocation%
AB 602 TVTDF
Eligible Cost
(2021$ Million)*
A-1 Interstate 580 (I-580)/Interstate 680 (I-680) Interchange (southbound to eastbound)---
A-2a State Route 84 (SR 84) Expressway (I-580 to I-680)$325.40 --
A-2b SR 84/I-580 Interchange $22.70 73%$4.58
A-3 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Segment 2)---
A-4 West Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station ---
A-5a I-580 Eastbound Auxiliary Lane ---
A-5b I-580 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Westbound ---
A-6 I-680 HOV Lanes, SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade ---
A-7 I-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon Road Interchange Modifications ---
A-8 I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange ---
A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 $10.87 100%$8.42
A-9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2 $58.77 100%$57.08
A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 $40.57 100%$11.14
A-10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 $31.20 100%$28.62
A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – Phase 2 $22.35 100%$21.21
B-1 I-580/I-680 Interchange (westbound to southbound)$1,785.65 3%$34.69
B-2 Fifth Eastbound Lane on I-580 from Santa Rita Road to Vasco Road ---
B-3 I-580/First Street Interchange Modification $61.00 100%$7.93
B-4 I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification $85.65 100%$16.61
B-5 I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification $86.00 100%$18.92
B-6 Jack London Boulevard Extension $28.16 100%$10.08
B-7 El Charro Road Extension (Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard to Stanley Boulevard)$72.48 --
B-8 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project (East of Blackhawk Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive)$88.08 100%$54.55
B-9 Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road I-680 Interchange Improvements ---
B-10 I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Gap Closure (North Main Street to Rudgear Road)---
B-11a I-680 HOV Direct Access Ramps ---
B-11b I-680 Transit Corridor Improvements $277.85 --
C-1 Tesla Road Safety Improvements $13.19 100%$13.19
C-2 Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement $24.49 99%$24.24
C-3 Dublin Boulevard – North Canyons Parkway Extensions $160.39 33%$35.72
C-4 Vasco Road at Dalton Avenue Intersection Improvements $3.39 25%$0.85
C-5 El Charro Road Widening $68.09 100%$38.09
C-6 Sunol/680 Interchange Improvements $16.60 18%$1.37
C-7 I-680 Express Lanes – Hwy 84 to Alcosta $527.57 100%$300.72
508
Project Total Cost
(2021$ Million)
AB 602
Proportion
Allocation%
AB 602 TVTDF
Eligible Cost
(2021$ Million)*
C-8 Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange $10.33 100%$2.63
C-9 Stoneridge/I-680 Interchange $11.98 100%$4.08
C-10 Innovate 680 $57.21 100%$54.66
C-11a Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Bollinger Canyon Road $22.88 9%$0.78
C-11b Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Crow Canyon Road $19.69 14%$2.81
C-11c Iron Horse Trail – Dublin $11.60 9%$0.00
C-11d Iron Horse Trail – Livermore $26.99 100%$26.99
C-11e Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs $1.65 100%$0.30
C-11f Iron House Trail Connection Improvements at Santa Rita Road $0.87 100%$0.48
C-11g Iron Horse Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing – Sycamore Valley Road $19.78 50%$9.89
C-11h Iron Horse Trail System-wide Improvements $85.60 100%$85.60
C-12 Hacienda/I-580 Interchange Improvements $39.13 100%$34.50
C-13 Fallon/El Charro Interchange Improvements $34.51 100%$19.96
C-14 Valley Link Rail (Phase 1)$258.25 100%$258.25
C-15 Technology Enhancements $0.33 100%$0.33
C-16 I-680 Express Bus Service $59.35 100%$59.35
TOTAL $4,470.60 $1,248.62
*AB 602 TVTDF Eligible Cost also includes reduction in cost to account for external "cut-through" trips that is generated by growth outside the Tri-Valley area.
509
Attachment 4Exhibit C to Resolution
TVTC Resolution 2022-07 and 2022 Strategic Expenditure
Plan Prioritization of Projects and Funding Plan 51
0
51
1
51
2
51
3
Tri‐Valley Transportation Council
2022 Strategic Expenditure Plan
Approved Funding Plan
April 18, 2022
Total
$17,000,000 $22,469,002 $13,981,855 $6,057,276 $2,042,094 $5,064,310 $1,473,440 $7,628,993 $8,024,183 $22,944,751
$14,577,263 $16,331,555 $14,584,716 $13,862,627 $14,130,377 $12,945,760 $15,598,510 $12,953,043 $33,769,769 $13,979,792 $162,733,410
$2,915,453 $3,266,311 $2,916,943 $2,772,525 $2,826,075 $2,589,152 $3,119,702 $2,590,609 $6,753,954 $2,795,958 $32,546,682
$116,618 $130,652 $116,678 $110,901 $113,043 $103,566 $124,788 $103,624 $270,158 $111,838 $1,301,867
$28,545,192 $35,403,594 $25,532,950 $17,036,476 $13,233,353 $15,317,352 $13,827,460 $17,887,802 $34,769,840 $34,016,746 $128,884,861
22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 22-32 Total
Disbursed $6,076,190 $21,421,738 $19,475,674 $14,994,382 $8,169,043 $13,843,912 $6,198,467 $9,863,619 $11,825,089 $10,419,955 $122,288,069
Remainder $22,469,002 $13,981,855 $6,057,276 $2,042,094 $5,064,310 $1,473,440 $7,628,993 $8,024,183 $22,944,751 $23,596,791 $23,596,791
A-2b $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,650,000 $5,150,000
A-9a $1,550,000 $1,550,000
A-9b $1,690,000 $1,690,000
A-10a $500,000 $2,820,000 $3,320,000
A-10b $2,580,000 $2,580,000
A-11 $800,000 $800,000
B-4 $5,139,000 $3,426,000 $8,565,000
B-5 $5,160,000 $3,440,000 $8,600,000
B-8a $4,380,000 $2,000,000 $6,380,000
B-8b $1,450,000 $1,450,000
C-2 $538,561 $538,561
C-3 $16,039,300 $16,039,300
C-6 $2,650,000 $2,650,000
C-7b $3,298,382 $5,298,382 $5,298,382 $7,298,382 $21,193,529
C-8 $1,033,378 $1,033,378
C-10 $3,432,438 $2,288,292 $5,720,730
C-11a $2,287,629 $2,287,629
C-11c $600,000 $600,000
C-11d $2,698,530 $2,698,530
C-11e $164,866 $164,866
C-13 $2,070,661 $1,380,440 $3,451,101
C-14 $5,165,089 $5,165,089 $5,165,089 $5,165,089 $5,165,089 $25,825,445
Revenue Forecast ($)
Return to Local Source - 20% ($)
Admin Fee -0.8% ($)
Revenue for TVTDF Allocation ($)
ID
Project
July 1st FY Balance ($)
I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification
Projected Disbursement - 2022 SEP Update
SR 84 / I-580 Interchange - Phase 2
Crow Canyon Improvements Phase 1
Crow Canyon Improvements Phase 2
Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1
Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2
Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - Phase 2
Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange
I-580/Greenville Rd Interchange Modification
Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Rd Widening Project (Contra Costa County
Segment)
Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Rd Widening Project (Dublin Segment)
Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement - Segment 1
Dublin Boulevard - North Canyons Parkway Extension
Sunol/680 Widening
I-680 Express Lanes - Hwy 84 to Alcosta (Northbound)
Valley Link Rail (Phase 1)
Innovate 680
Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Bollinger Canyon Road
Iron Horse Trail – Dublin
Iron Horse Trail – Livermore
Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs
Fallon/El Charro Interchange
51
4
6.1 - Tri-Valley Transportation
Development Fee Adoption
City Council
June 21, 2022
515
Agenda
•Nexus Study and SEP Process
•Recommended Rate Adjustments
•SEP Revenue
•Dublin Funded Projects
516
•Nexus Study
–Considers 20 years
–Updated every 8 years
–Considers all projects
–Determines MAXIMUM Fee
–Complies with:
•AB 1600
•AB 602
–TVTC Adopted August 2021
•Strategic Expenditure Plan
–Considers 10 years
–Updated every 5 years
–Considers funded projects
–Determines ACTUAL Fee
–Considers:
•Project prioritization
•Annual growth forecast
–TVTC Adopted in April 2022
Studies
517
Strategic Expenditure Plan and Recommended Rate Adjustments
• Establishes funding level and allocation of TVTDF
Land Use Current 2021
Rate
% of
Maximum
Recommended
2022 Rates
Change
from 2021
Rates
% Change
Single Family (DU) $5,057 15% $6,596.40 $1,539.40 30.4%
Multi-Family (DU) $3,484 15% $3,889.20 $405.20 11.6%
Retail (SF) $3.74 6% $5.07 $1.33 35.6%
Office (SF) $8.59 15% $8.81 $0.22 2.5%
Industrial (SF) $5.00 15% $4.97 -$0.03 -0.6%
Other (avg AM/PM trips) $5,620 12% $6,100.68 $480.68 8.6%
DU = Dwelling Units; SF = Square Feet
518
Resulting Revenue of
Recommendation
*Estimated total revenue does not account for CCI rate adjustments
** 20% must be used for SEP projects, but at local agency/sponsor discretion
***Project cost are in 2021$ and may increase over time
Estimated Total Revenue*$162,733,410
Return to Local Source (20%)**$32,546,682
Admin Fee (0.8%)$1,301,867
Revenue for TVTDF Allocation $128,884,861
Top 15 Total Project Cost ( 2021 $)***$1,058,477,852
Remaining 2017 SEP Commitments $14,290,000
519
Dublin Funded Projects
ID Project Funding Years 22-32 Total
B-8b Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Rd Widening Project
(Dublin Segment)23/24 $1,450,000
C-3 Dublin Boulevard - North Canyons Parkway Extension 23/24 $16,039,300
C-11c Iron Horse Trail – Dublin 22-23 $600,000
C-13 Fallon/El Charro Interchange 26/27-27/28 $3,451,101
C-14 Valley Link Rail (Phase 1) 27/28-30/31 $25,825,445
520
Recommendation
•Conduct a public hearing, deliberate, and adopt
the Resolution Adopting the Tri-Valley
Transportation Development Fee Pursuant to
the requirements of the Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement
521
Thank You
522