HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.4 AlaCntywideTranspPln
..
.
.
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 10, 1995
SUBJECT:
Alameda Countywide Long Range Transportation Plan
Report by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1. / Resolution
2. Alameda Countywide Long Range Transportation Plan
Executive Swnmary
3. / May 23, 1994, CMAlMTC Plan Council Agenda Statement,
including written comments regarding the Draft Plan
4. / Comparison of the CMA project priorities in Area 4 vs. the
Final Plan priorities and the MTC priorities for the Tri-
Valley Area
5. A representative from the CMA will be present at the
/J ~ meeting to explain the elements of the Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: "(-V'{ Adopt Resolution
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
The major impact of the Alameda County-Wide Transportation Plan
will be on future funding for regional transportation projects.
DESCRIPTION: The Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan Vision 2010 and
Beyond has been prepared by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA). The Plan
sets out the goals for the transportation system, investment and management policies, and specific capital
projects for Alameda County. This Countywide Transportation Plan will serve as the basis for future
funding decisions by the CMA and be used as a recommendation to the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC), which controls the purse strings on much of the regional funding. A copy of this
Plan will be available at this meeting and for public review in the Public Works Department.
The CMA is a joint powers authority and an agency unto itself. As such, the Agency does not need
approval of this Plan by the individual cities as does the TVTC for its plan. The Agency is primarily
advisory in nature and monitors levels of service on Routes of Regional Significance (primarily
freeways). The CMA recommends transportation funding priorities for Alameda County and will
require that Deficiency Plans be prepared for Routes of Regional Significance when levels of service drop
to level "F". By adopting this Plan, Dublin will be committing to consulting the Plan in future
transportation improvement decisions within Dublin.
The Dublin City Council heard a presentation of the proposed regional transportation project priorities on
May 23, 1994, and transmitted the City's priorities to MTC. These priorities were slightly different from
the CMA's in that Dublin had recommended Highway 84 improvements as a higher priority than the west
Dublin BART station.
The CMA Board adopted this Plan on May 12, 1994. The CMA Board requested that each jurisdiction
within Alameda County adopt this Plan. The Plan generally supports the needs of Dublin in terms of the
current transportation system needs, how'to fund the system, current transportation trends and future
transportation needs. The plan also addresses regional transportation and recognizes the need for major
improvements in the Tri-Valley area, including improvements to 1-58011-680 flyover (with hook ramps to
downtown Dublin). This Plan also supports the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and
improvements to 1-580/SR 84 interchange.
-_._--~1t~"'---1C:1t;1E:1Ft~---
FILE ~
----~----------_.*-----------~---_.-------~----_.------~----_.------~-----~-----------_.
ITEMNO. ~ COPIES TO: DennisFay,CMA
Jean Hart, CMA
.
.
Other highway and transit improvements are recommended to be made that would integrate and
compliment various community needs. Based on a coordinated planning effort, East Bay trolley service
may be restored in selected urban areas where such a service would aid in neighborhood renewal. Where
rail transit would be uneconomical or unfeasible, intercity bus service is recommended.
The CMA Board has adopted policies aimed at efficient management of the countywide transportation
system. A priority is to secure additional funding to enable investment programs that serve priority needs
as cost effectively as possible. Following are the policies included in the Plan:
CMA's Revenue Policies
1) The CMA supports the establishment of stable revenue sources which will sustain the transit
service identified in this plan.
2) The CMA supports the establishment of stable revenue sources for maintenance and rehabilitation
of local streets and roads as identified in this plan.
3) The CMA supports increased flexibility in the use of existing revenues to apply funds for capital,
operating or maintenance as the need dictates.
4) The CMA supports increased revenues for transportation purposes that include one or a
combination of the following sources:
Extension of the half-cent sales tax
A countywide or regional gas tax
Development impact fees
Incremental increases in the State fuel tax
5) Seismic retrofit of the transportation system is a critical priority and should be funded from a
statewide funding source.
6) The CMA endorses the concept of a State constitutional amendment that would enable the voters
of Alameda County and other counties to approve transportation sales tax measures by a simple
majority.
CMA's Investment Policies
1) The CMA's investment program shall be balanced in a manner consistent with its adopted funding
equity formula.
2) The CMA' s investment program shall be tailored to meet local needs of each corridor and
coordinated to ensure the safe and efficient movement of people and goods.
3) The CMA shall make every effort to secure the additional revenues necessary to fund an
investment program which gives appropriate balanced emphasis to:
o The safe and efficient operation of the existing transportation system.
o The maintenance and rehabilitation of existing facilities and services.
o The implementation of those projects that are ready for implementation and for which
funding has been committed in the CMP.
o Those improvements necessary to enhance the safety and operating efficiency of Critical
Freight Routes.
o Those improvements necessary to enhance transit service.
o Those major investments that are identified through the Corridor Management Planning
process.
Manaiement Strate~ies and Policies
1) Secure funding sufficient to eliminate the maintenance backlog within 20 years.
Page 2
.
.
2) Focus investment and system management to ensure that congestion does not impair operation of
critical freight routes during mid-day hours.
3) Implement the Work Program for Corridor Management Planning.
4) Improve system performance throughout the coordination and the development of major freight
and passenger hubs.
5) Manage gateways to ensure balanced highway operation.
6) Encourage the development of home-based telecommuting programs in the public and private
sector.
7) Endorse a gradual increase in the fuel tax and fuel sales tax which have the flexibility to be used
for transit improvement and local street and road maintenance.
8) Endorse the development of statewide policies which 1) provide favorable tax treatment for
workers who use alternative modes to commute, and 2) provide financial incentives for the
scrapping of vehicles without adequate emission controls.
9) Endorse further study of gateway pricing including an analysis of the economic impacts of
congestion pricing and the collection of pre-paid tolls for the subscription use of HOV lanes by
two-axle commercial vehicles. The toll revenues will be reserved to finance the operation of
HOV -lane bus service.
Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution. Council should note that the resolution states the
City of Dublin will use the Transportation Plan as a document to be consulted in future transportation
decisions in Dublin. The Cities of Pleasanton and Livermore have adopted resolutions with similar
wording.
g:agenmisclcmatrans
Page 3
_." '" "'d,'
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. -95
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
AS A CITY POLICY DOCUMENT
WHEREAS, a Joint Powers Agreement, which became effective in May 1991, entered
into by Alameda County, ("County"), and the fourteen cities within Alameda County formed the Alameda
County Congestion Management Agency and gave the Congestion Management Agency the
responsibility to develop, adopt and update the Alameda Countywide Transportation plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 66531, as amended, of the Government Code authorizes each
county, together with the cities and transit operators within the County to develop a countywide
transportation plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 66531 requires that the county transportation plan shall include
recommended transportation improvements for the succeeding 10- and 20-year periods; and
WHEREAS, Alameda County Congestion Management Agency prepared the Alameda
County Long Range Transportation Plan in cooperation with representatives from the fourteen cities,
Alameda County, BART, AC Transit and other transit operators and public entities; and
WHEREAS, there were opportunities throughout the development of the plan for public
input, the Draft Plan was circulated for written comments from April 8, 1994 through May 5, 1994 and
oral puhlic testimony was taken on April 28, 1994 and May 12, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin did submit written comments regarding the Draft Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan meets the requirements of
Section 66531 of the Government Code, and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
adopted the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan on May 12, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan sets forth transportation goals,
policies and implementation measures which address the needs of Alameda County residents; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan sets forth policies and
investments that apply to, or are located within the City of Dublin or are of countywide or regional
significance; and
~l1~~~f?;~T
tc" -4 ,,;1.., '" i;' 'i' ~
!,'-: "C\!""""~ o. :l-'" ,.
~ l!J. ~;:. "it C,: '
~lI.._,"f' :- ni:",.,>""
Iiii:&4ir .. ~ ~ .
I.
..
.
.
WHEREAS, the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan will serve as the basis for
future transportation funding decisions by the Congestion Management Agency; and
WHEREAS, it is recognized that in order to maintain or improve the existing
transportation system a cooperative effort from all Alameda County jurisdictions is required; and
WHEREAS, the goals, policies and implementation measures identified in the Alameda
Countywide Transportation Plan can be used as a mechanism for addressing cumulative impacts on the
transportation system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin adopts the Alameda
Countywide Transportation Plan for use as a document to be consulted in future transportation
improvement decisions in the City of Dublin; and
BE IT FURTHER RESO L VED that the City of Dublin acknowledges that the Alameda
Countywide Transportation Plan will serve as the basis for future funding decisions by the Alameda
County Congestion Management Agency.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of April, 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
g: lagenmisclresotrns
.
.
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
A Diversified Strategy of Transportation Improvement
for Alameda County
The preparation of this report has been financed through a grant from the U.s. Department of Transportation and the
Federal Highway Administration under the Intermodal Surface Transportation EfIldeuc::y Ad of 1991.
Content of this report docs not necessari1 reflect the official views or
of the u.s.
cot of
'on.
8"'''~~~.T
;:, ;,y~; ,!, ;:i:',ft1 ~
(,w :',-~~ '~~~; I
~ . "~---k
-
.
.
PREFACE
Transponaticn VISion 2010 and Beyond, the Alameda countywide long range transportation plan, is
the result of a lengthy process conducted under the auspices of the Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency (CMA). The plan was developed by the CMA, and reviewed by the Alameda
County Transportation Adwory Committee (ACTAC), local jurisdictions, transit operators, state and
regional agencies and the general public.
Transportation VISion 2010 and Beyond meets the statutory requirements for a long range
transportation plan. California Government Code Section 66531 authorizes each Bay Area county
together with the cities within the county to develop a county wide transportation plan that includes
recommended transportation improvements for the succeeding 10- and 20-year periods. According to
the statute, the long range plan is to serve as the primary basis for the Regional Transportation Plan
prepared by Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
This plan will serve as the policy document for transportation planning and investment for Alameda
county and the Congestion Management Agency. The CMA, established by State Propositions 108
and 111 in June 1990, is responsible for development and update of the Congestion Management
Program (CMP) including the development of a 7~year investment strategy, Capital Improvement
Program (OP). Thus, the long range transportation plan will be implemented through the Congestion
Management Program-ClP. It is the intent of the CMA that Alameda County and the 14 cities will
adopt the plan or portions thereof as part of their respective general plans.
Alameda County extends from the urban core of the Bay Area to its rural periphery, incorporating land
uses that range from intensely urban to suburban and rural The County contains four transportation
planning areas, three of which are located along the heavily populated western corridor running from
Berkeley in the north to Fremont in the south. Planning Area 1 includes Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville,
Oakland, Piedmont and Alameda; Planning Area 2 includes Hayward, San Leandro, San Lorenzo and
Castro Valley; Planning Area 3 includes Fremont, Union City and Newark and Planning Area 4
includes Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore and unincorporated east Alameda County. As of 1990, the
population of the county was 1,279,182. There are about 622,230 jobs located in Alameda County.
The Plan recognizes that the Countys diversity in geography and patterns of land development leads to
a variety of transportation needs within each community. This Plan provides a framework for policy
and investment decisions that are most immediately DeCeS';3ry to enhance the countys quality of life
and its prospects for economic growth. At the same time, the Plan meets the diverse needs of the
communities and matches local conditions. The Plan has been developed in a cooperative, multi-
agency basis in accordance with the common good and the needs of future generations.
The document is organized in three major sections. The Executive Summary provides an overview of
the Plan, including abbreviated technical information, identifies policy &ues and choices, and outlines
policies of the transportation plan. The middle section contains eight chapters which describe in detail
the elements of the plan. The Appendices, the last section, provide background information or technical
support for the plan.
.
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
Title
Page
Preface
Executive Summary
1
Chapter 1 A Vision of the Future
29
Chapter 2 Existing and Future Conditions
4S
Chapter 3 A Diversified Strategy
63
Chapter 4 Management Strategies
67
Chapter S Revenue
7S
Chapter 6 Investment
87
Chapter 7 Monitoring and Evaluation
107
Chapter 8 Implementation Issues
111
Appendix A Supplement to Existing and Future Conditions
Al
Appendix B Pricing Strategies Paper
B.1
Appendix C Overview of Historical Transportation Fund Sources
C.1
Appendix D Glossary
D.1
Appendix E Acronyms
E.1
Appendix F Comparison of CMA Tier 1 and MI'C Track I
F.!
Acknowledgements
The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency wisbm to acknowledge the efb1s of the Alameda County
Technical Advisory Committee, the Citizens Advisory Group, CMA S~ David Jones, Barbera Neustadtcr and Barton
Asclunan Associatcs, Ine. in the development of this plan.
ii
.
.
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Table Title Page
E.! Goals, Requirements and Key Priorities 2
E.2 Ten Strategic Choices 5
E.3 Continuing Employment and Population Growth and 7
The Performance of the Tramportation System
E.4 Corridor/Area Management Planning 10
E.5 Management Strategies 11
E.6 Future Revenue Needs and Future Revenue Sources (1994-2014) 16
E.7 Future Revenue Sources 17
E.8 Baseline Projects 19
E.9 Tier 1 Project List 20
E.10 Tier 2 Project List 21
E.ll Changes in Afternoon Peak Hour Tramportation Pedbrmance 23
E.12 Goals, Performance Expectations and Performance Measures 25&26
1.1 Goals, Requirements and Key Priorities 37
1.2 Ten Strategic Choices 43
21 Roadway Maintenance Needs 49
2.2 Summary of Future Transportation Improvement Scenarios 55
23 Changes in Morning Peak Hour Transportation Pedbrmance 58
2.4 Changes in Afternoon Peak Hour Transportation Pedbrmance 59
4.1 Corridor/Area Management Planning . 71
5.1 Tier 1 Available Revenue (1994-2014) 76
5.2 Future Revenue Sources 83
6.1 Baseline Projects 89
6.2 Tier 1 Investment Program 9O~94
6.3 Policy Goals Met By Baseline and Tier 1 Projects %&97
6.4 Tier 2 Investment Program 99 - 104
7.1 Goals, Performance Expectations and Performance Measures 108 & 109
Figure Title Page
E.1 Fuel Taxes and Inflation (1970 -1993) 13
1.1 Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) 38
Streets and Highway System in Alameda County
1.2 Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) 39
Transit Corridors
21 Demographic Projections 52
22 Growth Increment in Alameda County (1990 ~ 201 0) 53
5.1 Fuel Taxes and Inflation (1970 ~ 1993) 79
ill
.
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
This document-Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond, prepared by the Alameda County
Congestion Management Agency (CMA)-is the CMA's 10ng~range countywide transportation
plan. It sets out the CMA's vision for meeting future transportation needs, including the Agency's
goals for Alameda County's transportation system, its investment and management policies, and
the specific projects needed to provide a balanced transportation system through the year 2010
and beyond.
This plan is complemented by the CMA's other major policy document, the Congestion
Management Program, which presents short~range transportation plans.
CRAFTING AN APPROACH
The Philosophy Behind This Plan
This region has enjoyed a first-class transportation system because each generation has invested in
providing mobility for the next. BART and the region's freeway system are just two examples of
this logic in action. The present generation must carry on this work, creating a plan that fits
present circumstances and meets the needs of future generations.
Our vision of future transportation needs is based on five fundamental principles:
1. We should leave the next generation with a transportation system that creates economic
opportunities, not economic burdens. We must not leave a legacy of poorly maintained
facilities, underfunded services and unsettled debts.
2. Alameda County is racially, ethnically, socially and geographically diverse. The mix of
transportation improvements proposed in our plan should reflect the diversity of our
population and the geographic diversity of our communities.
3. The transportation system must be designed to accommodate future growth, so that the next
generation will have the job opportunities, the employment choices and the housing options
they deserve.
4. Transportation plans must recognize that both suburban development and urban
redevelopment will be necessary to accommodate the level of population and employment
growth projected for Alameda County, and to provide the next generation with choices of
where to live and where to work.
5. As part of our responsibility to future generations, we must ensure that transportation
improvements are coupled with a commitment to conserve resources and preserve Alameda
County's environmental heritage.
Goals and Performance Objectives
Consistent with oJr stated philosophy, the CMA's overall goal is to create a balanced
transportation system which is designed to meet the needs of future generations, tailored to
accommodate the diversity of community needs, and coordinated to ensure efficient countywide
operation.
,
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12, 1994
Page 1
.
.
Table E.! lists the CMA's adopted goals, requirements, and priorities. This listing is intended to
be a frame of reference for identifying our long-term investment needs, as well as a guide for
strategic decision-making. It sums up our vision of Alameda County's most important
transportation needs.
Table E.!: GOAlS, REQUIREMENTS AND KEY PRIORITIES
POLICY GOALS
KEY PRIORITIES
Improve mobility.
Improve transit access
and increase transit use.
Improve air quality.
Enhance transportation's
contribution to the econo-
mic vitality of Alameda
County
Ensure serviceable operation
of existing facilities and
services.
Coordinate transportation
and land-use planning.
FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
A balanced transportation system
that employs a continuous network
of freeways, parkways, major arterials
and transit services to move people
and goods as eftlciently as possible.
A service-oriented transit system that
that provides frequent, convenient
and reliable service to the major
activity centers in each of the county's
major transportation corridors.
A transportation system that rewards
those who share rides, tele<:ommute,
use transit and/or adopt" zero-
emission" vehicles.
A transportation system that Is de--
signed to expedite the movement of
urban goods and global freight.
A transportation system in wblch
maintenance is fuDy funded so as
to avoid unreliable service and
deferred expenses.
A transportation system that supports
orderly growth and counterpart
land-use pollcles which enable
the eftlclent provision of
transportation.
A reUable and flexible source
of funding for street, blghway
and transit improvements.
A reliable source of funding for
transit investment and operations
Incentives for telecommuting,
ridesharing, transit use and the
early retirement of blgb-emlssion
vehicles.
Operating, maintenance and
Investment poUdes wblch ensure
that the emciency of freight
movement is not impaired by
midday congestion and maintain
an iDfrastruaure capable of
hand1iDg freigbt vehicles.
Reliable source of funds and
timetable for eliminating the
deferred maiDteD8Dce of local
streets and transit systems.
The creation of an etrec:dve
partnership that involves local
aovemments as full partners in
the process of corridor manage-
mellt planDing.
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12,1994
Page 2
"
.
.
U~E~TMIDmGTIrnCO~E~
The Transportation System We Need
To meet future transportation requirements, Alameda County must have a transportation system
with elements that are tailored to local needs, and also coordinated to create an efficient
countywide system.
Highway and transit improvements would be made in each part of the county, with the mix
of improvements determined by local needs. These improvements would be designed to
complement each other.
Transportation improvements would also be coordinated with local planning for community
development and environmental conservation. For example, the freeway system would be
designed and operated to protect local communities from excessive through traffic. Both rail
and bus transit hubs would serve as nuclei for development and redevelopmenL
Based on this coordinated planning of transportation and land use, East Bay trolley service
would be restored in selected urban areas, targeting those where such service would
significantly aid in neighborhood renewal and reinvigoration.
BART tennination points would be sited in locations convenient to both the freeway system
and interregional rail lines. BART stations would be designed with efficient coordination of
bus and rail service in mind.
Where rail transit would be uneconomical or infeasible due to funding delays. intercity bus
service would be provided. Bus schedules would be orchestrated to enable convenient
transfers from rail systems.
Ways to expedite the peak-hour movement of buses and carpools along freeways would be
emphasized. Commute travel would be given priority during peak commute hours. with
high.occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and express bus service helping to speed commuters
to and from the county's major activity centers. During midday hours, HOV lanes would be
opened to general traffic service, in order to provide the highway capacity necessary for
efficient trucking operations.
In the growing suburbs of South and East County, transportation investments would be
made in anticipation of orderly growth.
In North and Central County, improvements would be made in concert with local efforts to
revitalize urban neighborhoods, improve passenger and freight access to the urban industrial
zone, and facilitate economic conversion and reuse. Funding adequate to operate existing
transit services and maintain streets and roads would be set aside to ensure reliable transit
operations and efficiently maintained streets and roads.
Bridging the Resources Gap
Alameda County currently does not have enough revenue to create the kind of transportation
system we need for the future. To reconcile our needs with our resources, a two-step approach is
needed:
Adopt policies aimed at the most efficient possible management of the countywide
transportation system.
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12,1994
Page 3
"':~." -
.
.
t
Secure additional funding to enable an investment program that serves priority needs as cost-
effectively as possible.
To accomplish our goals, we must be prepared to make strategic choices about which investments
we need most, which investments we can afford, and ways we can alleviate our financial shortfall.
Current Transportation Trends
Table E.2 outlines the ten most critical transportation choices facing Alameda County. To make
those choices, we must first consider the current transportation trends at work in Alameda
County, as well as the forces that will shape future needs.
It is clear that traffic congestion has increased significantly over the past decade:
The miles of the countywide freeway system subject to daily congestion have almost doubled
since 1980.
The daily vehicle hours of freeway delay have increased almost four-fold since 1980.
Even with this increase in traffic, however, 60 percent of the county's workforce can still
commute to or from work in less than half an hour, and only 8 percent of commute trips take
longer than an hour. Urban mobility and job access have been only marginally impaired by traffic
congestion because:
Commuters have rearranged their schedules to avoid the rush-hour peak.
Judicious investment has confined congestion to a relatively narrow peak period.
Suburban employment growth has brought jobs closer to housing.
The growing number of workers in the typical household has increased the size of the labor
force without a commensurate increase in housing requirements or long-distance commuting.
Carpools, which have been encouraged by HOV lanes, are serving as a form of transit for
many of those workers who do commute long distances.
Those who work in the urban core have access to workable transit options.
The personal computer and telecommunications are enabling more of us to work at home.
Up to this point, chan$es in the way we live, work, and travel have enabled us to maintain
mobility despite increasmg transportation demand. To preserve mobility in the future, we must
make the transportation investments necessary to keep pace with continuing population and
employment growth and reinforce such positive trends as transit use and carpooling. With
continuing investment and an increasing emphasis on transit improvement, we can limit
congestion levels and prevent the commute peaks from growing in length.
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12, 1994
Page 4
.
.
Table E.2:
Ten Strategic Choices
1. How much funding should be guaranteed tor the operation and maintenance ot
existing facilities and services versus that committed to capital investment in new
facilities.
2. Should the CMA's investment program emphasize transit improvement or highway
improvement? Or should it emphasize street, highway and transit improvements where
each is most appropriate.
3. Should transit improvement emphasize the improvement of existing bus service and
the restoration of electric trolley service in the county's urban core, or, should it
emphasize the development of long"distance rail and bus service.
4. How can the service provided by BART, buses, light rail and interregional rail be
coordinated most effectively and expanded most efficiently?
S. What are the respective roles of ramp metering and HOV lanes in the county's primary
freeway corridors? How can the freeway system be operated more efficiently without
burdening local arterials with additional congestion and heavy traffic?
6. How can transportation investment decisions be coupled more effectively with
planning for economic growth and community development?
7. How can the movement of passengers and freight be reconciled most effectively? What
investments are specifically needed for efficient goods movement?
8. What pricing measures would be most productive in improving air quality and
reducing congestion-and which of these would be most acceptable to the public?
9. How much additional revenue is necessary to meet the county's transportation needs
and how much are its residents prepared to pay?
10. What revenue contribution should be sought from fuel taxes, sales taxes, bridge and
highway tolls and development impact fees?
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:'
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12. 1994
Page 5
.
.
Looking Ahead
While the goal of this place is to reduce or limit congestion, analyses prepared for this plan
indicate that congestion will, in fact, continue to increase as the county's population and
workforce growth.
Table E.3 shows how our countywide transportation system is likely to perform in the year 2010,
taking both projected growth and planned transportation improvements into account, based on
two different levels of investment:
A "baseline program" that includes funded projects for which planning and design arc
essentially complete.
A "Tier 1 Program", which includes a broader array of hi~way and transit improvements.
Financing the Tier 1 Program would cost $1.15 billion, which would require all the funding
expected to be available through the year 2010.
The individual projects included in the baseline and Tier 1 programs are itemized in the
Investment section of this document.
Analysis indicates that planned investment will slow the growth of congestion, but will not reverse
it. Just as important, however, it shows that a well-conceived investment program can prevent
average journey times from increasing significantly. As shown in Table E.3, under either
transportation improvement scenario, the average commute time is expected to increase by less
than three minutes over the next 20 years, despite an expected 22 percent increase in population
and 33 percent increase in employment
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12, 1994
Page 6
.
.
Table E.3:.
Continuing Employment and Population Growth and
The Performance of the Countywide Transportation System
1990 to 2010 Absolute Increase Percent Increase
Projected Increase in Population 295,600 residents 24%
Projected Increase in Employment 203,900 jobs 33%
Increase iIi countywide 287 miles 91%
roadway mileage subject to
congestion with "Baseline
Program"
Increase in countywide 245 miles 78%
roadway mileage subject to
congestion with "Tier 1
Program"
Increase in the average 2.9 minutes 22%
journey time with
"Baseline Program"
Increase in average 2.3 minutes 17%
journey time with
"Tier 1 Program"
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond;
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12, 1994
Page 7
.
.
Conclusions
The following conclusions provide the basis for the action element of the Plan:
Alameda County will continue to grow: It needs continuing investment in transportation
facilities to keep pace with the growth of population and employment
Alameda County encompasses diverse communities, which have diverse transportation needs
requiring different kinds of improvements.
Alameda County's investment needs are greater than the. funding presently available, and
additional resources are required.
The gap between available revenues and our transportation requirements can be bridged most
effectively if additional investment can be combined with management policies that encourage
transit use, ride sharing and coordinated planning for transportation and land.use.
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12, 1994
Page 8
.
.
TAKING ACTION
Management Strategies
The Countywide Transportation System is a multimodal system under multi-agency management.
That means we need multimodal planning. to ensure that the components of the system work
together; cooperative planning, to ensure that transportation and land-use planning is effectively
coordinated; and coordinated management, to ensure that the system can be maintained and
operated efficiently. Our management program was developed with these needs in mind.
As key elements of its management program, the CMA will:
Give priority to the maintenance and operation of existing facilities. The maintenance backlog
will be eliminated in 20 years.
Give critical Freight Routes priority for intennodal funding under ISTEA, especially
improvements which prevent mid-day congestion. The Critical Freight Routes are: Interstate
80, Interstate 880, Interstate 238 from 1-880 to 1-580, 1-580 from 1-238 to the county line and
Route 84 from 1-880 to the Dumbarton Bridge.
Give funding consideration to Major Freight Routes-those important to the movement of
goods, namely: Interstate 680, Interstate 980, Mission Boulevard between 1-880 and 1-680,
Route 92 from 1-880 to the San Mateo Bridge, Route 84 from 1-880 to the Dumbarton Bridge
and Hegenberger Road from 1-880 to the Oakland International Airport.
Support intermodal terminal improvements to enhance freight movement and economic
development.
Involve local governments and transit agencies as full partners in the process of corridor
traffic management. A work program for Corridor/Area Management Planning is outlined in
Table EA.
Take steps to ensure that all major transit improvements include transit hubs, in order to
encourage transit use and convenient connections.
Manage transportation "gateways" to balance the demands on the transportation system,
shelter congested corridors from additional congestion and, where appropriate, provide
priority for buses, carpools and vehicles engaged in commercial service. These gateways are:
Altamont Pass, Vasco Road, Caldecott Tunnel, 1-580 through Dublin Canyon, the Albany
Narrows, the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge and the Dumbarton and Hayward-San
Mateo Bridges.
Support public policies that will enable and encourage more job holders to work at home
regularly.
Support increased fuel taxes, both to create an incentive for fuel conservation and to provide
additional revenue for transportation improvements.
These management strategies are summarized in Table B.S.
,
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12, 1994
Page 9
.
.
Table E.4: Conidor/Area Mana2ement Plann1n2
PRINCIPLES AND GOALS
1. Land.use planning Is solely the purview of local governments.
2. Concurrent planning of transportation and land use is not intended to usurp or preempt localland.use control.
3. The goal of Corridor/Area Management Planning is to ensure that local governments are mvolved as run
partners in planning for corridor/area traf'ftc management.
4. Local governments, the CMA, MTC, Caltrans, ABAG and transit agencies have a shared interest in more efTective
communication about transportation and land use.
5. A cooperative planning eITort is necessary to ensure effective management of the transportation syatem and
coordination with land use planning.
6. Cooperative planning of transportation and land-use is intended to ensure that cumulative/regional transportation
impacts of local development can be mitigated through local and regional investment and sustBJned through
eITective management.
7. Corridor/Area Management Planning should be reached by consensus. A COnsensus is considered to indude local
approval of the corridor/area plan even though a local jurisdiction may not subscribe to sped.Oc: aspects of the plan.
A TIlREE-PHASE WORK PROGRAM FOR CORRIDOR/AREA MANAGEMENT PLANNlNG
Phase.One Work ProlD"8m
1. With the participation of local governments and other pubUc agencies, Idendf'y the boundaries of the county's
primary transportation corridors and the jurisdictions which should be involved in the development of. tnmc
management strategy for each corridor/area.
2. Develop a program that recognizes the limitations of local stafT resources.
3. With the participation of local governments and other public agencies, Idendf'y those tramc management issues that
could be subject to early resolution, some eumples might be:
o The development of a program of short.range operational improvements needed to expedite freight
movement
o The development of a coordinated approach to signal timing on miVor arterials that crossjurlsdlctioDal
boundaries.
o The development of guidelines within which localities would be prepared to consider the implementation of
ramp metering.
o The integration of bus service in plans for HOV lanes, ramp metering and arterial street operation.
o The Implementation of design guidelines that support alternative modes of travel.
4. With the participation of local governments and other pubnc agencies, select one or two strategies for
implementation in Phase Two.
Decision Point to Move to Phase Two
PHASE-TWO WORK PROGRAM
1. Develop initial implementation plan based on the recommendations from Phase One
2. Work with local governments and other pubUc agencies On developing goals and objectives for the Phase III
program.
3. Reach corridor/area consensus on . Phase-Three Work Program for transportatioD/land-use coordination. Pbase
Three is subject to the limitations of local staff resources.
Decision Point to Move to Phase Three
PHASE.1l!REE WORK PROGRAM
1. Based OD the consensus reached on the goals and objectlvll for Phase Ill, develop a fnmework and provide support
that anows eacb community within the conidor/ana to demonstrate bow the community'. share of
cumulative/regional transportation impacts could be mltipted tbroup cooperative planning and IIIvlltment.
2. Support, wben appropriate, local plans to enhance the prodUdlvtty oftranslt lDvlltment throqb supportive
zoning, urban design planning and development approvals.
3. IncorpDl1lte conidor/area management plan lllto Ioc:al plans wben appropriate.
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:'
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12. 1994
Page 10
.'
.
.
Table E.5:
Management Strategies
The CMA will pursue the following strategies:
1.1 Secure funding sufficient to ellminate the maintenance backlog within 20
years.
1.2 Focus investment and system management to ensure that congestion does not
impair operation of critical freight routes during mid-day hours.
1.3 Implement the Work Program for Corridor Management Planning
1.4 Improve system performance throughout the coordination and the
development of major freight and passenger hubs.
1.5 Manage gateways to ensure balanced highway operation.
1.6 Encourage the development of home.based telecommuting programs in the
public and private sector.
1. 7 Endorse a gradual increase in the fuel tax and fuel sales tax which have the
flexibility to be used for transit improvement and local street and road
maintenance.
1.8 Endorse the development of statewide policies which 1) provide favorable tax
treatment for workers who use alternative modes to commute. and, 2)
provide financial incentives for the scrapping of vehicles without adequate
emission controls.
1.9 Endorse further study of gateway pricing including an analysis of the
economic impacts of congestion pricing and the collection of pre"paid tolls for
the subscription use of BOV lanes by two axle commercial vehicles. The toll
revenues will be reserved to finance the operation of BOV"lane bus service.
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12.1994
Page 11
.
.
Financing the Plan
To meet the future transportation needs identified in this plan, Alameda O:>unty requires more
reliable funding streams as well as greater flexibility in how funding can be spent. More reliable
funding is needed for transit operations and maintenance, local street and road maintenance, and
arterial improvements. More flexible funding is needed to carry out the balanced investment
program proposed in this plan.
Present Funding Arrangements
With the sunset of the Interstate construction program came many changes in state and local
procedures for funding transportation. These changes represent a profound shift in the way
transportation decisions are made and transportation projects are funded. Sales taxes, bridge
tolls, and development impact fees have become more important sources of revenue. The share of
federal funds which can be used for either highway or transit projects has increased. Local and
metropolitan agencies such as the CMA and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
have gained decision-making responsibility.
At the same time:
The buying power of the fuel tax has been eroded by inflation, limiting the improvements that
can be made with presently available gas tax funds (See Figure E.1).
The potential for transit investment has been limited by the shortage of transit operating funds.
Fuel tax revenues have been needed to maintain state highways, limiting the fuel tax funding
available for new facilities.
Proposition 13 -the property tax rollback of 1978~ has constrained the local funding available
for street and road maintenance, forcing local governments to defer needed maintenance and
rehabilitation.
The California recession has dampened the revenues generated by sales taxes.
These realities require that the CMA work to establish more revenue mechanisms that can be used
to fund the prioritIes identified in this plan.
I
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12, 1994
Page 12
.
.
Figure E.1:
Fuel Taxes and Inflation, 1970 .. 1993
18e
17e
......-m..............-.............._..__......__..____.____._....mm..___...................._.._.__.__.._.._.._........___._.._16~..
15e
14e '..................'............................................-.........-...--..-..-..................................,..........-.....-..................~.~~_
.__._.--..-~n.--.n..........U....h...n_..__.__u_....__....__.._........................_._..~.....*._.._.._.._...u..+_++.n.n.........__.......n...........__u....................
ge
1 Oe .m..._................................._............_....._._....._____...__.._.........................................._..................._.....
7e
....__..u......... ono ... .'UA .__ U.n._.._n..._n..._n......__n_.n.___~......-.._nn_..._~.....+h...n___.
6e
2e
70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93
Legend:
_ Actual Tax Value
_ Inflation Adjusted Value
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12.1994
Page 13
.
.
Revenue Estimates
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission has identified $1.15 billion dollars that will be
available to meet Alameda County's transportation needs over the next 20 years (1994-2014).
These are the funds that will be available from presently existing state, federal and regional
programs. This plan commits these funds to the CMA's Tier 1 program.
There are important gaps in the Tier 1 program, but these can be filled if the CMA secures
revenue sources more flexible than those presently available. This additional, flexible funding is
needed to:
Meet a projected transit operating shortfall.
Meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Eliminate deferred maintenance of local streets and roads.
Complete seismic retrofit of bridges and structures on the countywide transportation system.
Table E.6 shows MTC's estimates of the cost of meeting these obligations, and compares these
costs with the additional revenues that would be generated by extending the present countywide
transportation sales tax and imposing a 10 cent regional tax on gasoline.
As the table shows, these revenue sources could generate sufficient additional revenue to maintain
and operate existing facilities and services, with some funds left over to meet the investment
requirements associated with suburban growth and urban revitalization. Seismic retrofit would
need to be fully funded by statewide revenue sources.
Options for Increasing Revenue
The CMA has considered numerous potential sources of additional revenue. As shown in Table
E. 7, each potential source involves opportunities and uncertainties that must be resolved before a
final revenue~raising strategy can be adopted.
While this analysis underscores the importance of developing a strategic plan for financing
transportation improvement, that task cannot be accomplished in the framework of this plan. A
follow-up effort will be necessary to develop a more detailed strategy for financing the
implementation of the Tier 2 Program.
The CMA's Revenue Policies
The following policies shall apply to the investment program:
2.1 The CMA supports the establishment of stable revenue sources which will sustain the transit
service identified in this plan.
2.2 The CMA supports the establishment of stable revenue sources for maintenance and
rehabilitation of local streets and roads as identified in this plan.
2.3 The CMA supports increased flexibility in the use of existing revenues to apply funds for
capital, operating or maintenance as the need dictates.
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12, 1994
Page 14
.
.
2.4 The CMA supports increased revenues for transportation purposes that may include one or
a combination of the following sources: -
Extension of the half-cent sales tax
A countywide or regional gas tax
Development impact fees
Incremental increases in the state fuel tax
2.5 Seismic retrofit of the transportation system is a critical priority and should be funded from
a statewide funding source.
2.6 The CMA endorses the concept of a state constitutional amendment that would enable the
voters of Alameda County and other counties to approve transportation sales tax measures
by a simple majority.
,
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12, 1994
Page 15'
.
.
Table E.6:
Future Revenue Needs and Future Revenue Sources
(1994 . 2014)
NEEDS:
Revenues required to eliminate
the maintenance backlog on
streets and roads
$1.1 billion
Revenues required to operate
and maintain existing and committed
. transit service
$1.03 billion
Revenues required to meet ADA
standards for accessibility
$.065 billion
Revenues required for seismic
retrofit of bridges and structures
Unknown
TOTAL (rounded)
$2.2 billion
ADDITIONAL REVENUES
Additional revenues that would
be generated by the extension of the
countywide transportation sales tax
$1.71 billion
Post 1997 CMAQ Funds
$.096 billion
Additional revenues that would be
generated for Alameda County by
the imposition of a 10 cent regional
tax on gasoline and diesel fuel.
$1.52 billion
SB 602
$.147 billion
TOTAL (rounded)
$3.5 billion
RESIDUAL FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR CAPITAL PROJECfS
Combined additional revenues less
projected obligations for operations,
maintenance and ADA accessibility
$1.3 billion
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12, 1994
Page 16
.
.
Table E.7:
Future Revenue Sources
The CMA will develop a strategic flDandal plan to assess the feaslhllity ~ new rewnue _hAnlcm.. The foUowlDg
identifies issues fOl" some candidate revenues SOW'CleS. It is not upected that aD of tbese potendal reveoue sources wtII
be implemented nOl" that it includes aD future revenue SOW'CleS.
EXTENSION OF HALF.CENT SALES TAX (MEASURE B)
'an extension of local sales tax would generate $1.71 blllioa over 20 years iD Alameda County
'requires voter approval and may require a two-thirds lDl\Iority wte
'requires determination of. who controls the development of the ezpenditure plan
'uses to be speclDed In measure (road, transit, pantnmsit capital prqjects and operating sublidies) as
determined by CMA and loca1jurisdictioos
'generates slightly more than lQ..cent gas tax
'subject to fluctuating economic conditioos (revenue may not be generated as prqJected)
REGIONAL GAS TAX
'1().cent gas tax would generate $1.52 billion over 20 yean In AJlImeda County
'voter approval needed for 9 Bay Area County tax and expenditure p1an
'regional gas tax expenditure plan developed by MTC In contuJtatioo with CMA
'uses to be speclfted In measure (road, transit, paratnmsit capital prqlects and openting suhsldles)
'revenue estimate tied to fuel use; Including estimate of revenue generated by aro-emIssIoa fuels
'Inflation impact (project costs may escalate above revenue geuenated)
COUN1Y GAS TAX
'1lkent gas tax would generate $1.52 billion over 20 years In AJlImeda County
'with enabling legislatioo, CMA (and aCUoinina counties) cou1d develop pi tax prc:lplB8l and
expenditure plan for voter approval
'uses to be speclfted In measure (road, transit, paratransit capital prqjects and operating IUbddies) as
determined by CMA and loca1jurisdictioos
'revenue estimate tied to fuel use; including estimate of revenue generated by arooemissioo fuels
'inflation impact (project costs may escalate above revenue pnerated)
INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN FUEL TAX
'1 ~nt per gallon increase in the gas tax per year would generate $1.6 bIUioo over 20 )'8IIlS in Alameda County
'under existing legislatioo, CMA (and other Bay Area counties) oould c:oIlect lID additiooal penny per pUoo per
year
'uses include road, transit, paratransit capital projects and operatiDg subsidies
'revenue estimate tied to fuel use; Including estimate of revenue generated byaro-emllsloo fuels
'Inflation impact (project costs may escalate above revenue ....tecI)
'subject to fluctuating economic conditioos
DEVELOPMENT IMPACf FEES
'specUled project Ust detennines amount of reftllue required to be paerated
'impact fee calculated based on projected resideDdal and c:ommerdaI dewIopment
'nuus between fee and projects must be eslabllsbed
'agreement on fee program 8IDOII& localjurisdictioos and CMA must be ..~
'only local jurisdictioos can adopt fee structure IIDd coIJect rewa...
'not used for maintenance
'are dJft1cu1t to use for traDsit capital projects and almost imp8lble for trmIit opentlDalllJlllOl't (a
shuttle bus might be required of a developer as a cooditioo of dneIopDeDt approva1 bat Dot lDduded
In the determinatioo of the impact fee)
'applies only to new development, minimal revenue generated ill baDt,.out 8I'I8S
'subject to fluctuatina economic CODditioos
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12, 1994
Page 17
.
.
Investment Program
The CMA's investment program consists of a series of projects and programs designed to respond
to local, countywide, regional and interregional transportation needs. The program includes
highway and transit projects approved by the voters of Alameda County in the Measure B sales
tax program, projects incorporated in the CMA's Congestion Management Program, and
additional projects and programs that could be funded if the CMA is successful in securing the
additional revenues necessary to implement the plan.
The investment program has been designed to balance both local and regional needs. The
inventory of projects has been tailored to meet the expressed needs of local communities; it has
been adjusted to reflect regional concerns and the requirements of interregional movement; it has
been balanced to ensure funding equity among the county's four subregional planning areas, based
on extensive public comment and vigorous discussion by the CMA Board and technical advisory
committee.
The CMA's adopted investment program has been divided into three segments:
The "Baseline Program" includes projects that are planned, funded, and in the process of being
delivered. (fable E.B)
"Tier I" includes projects that can be delivered by committing the remainder of the state,
federal and regional funds expected to be available from existing funding sources through the
year 2013. (Table E.9)
"Tier 2" includes additional projects for which funding will be available only if additional
revenue sources can be secured. (fable E.IO) This program does, however, protect the
investment already made in the existing system by including maintenance funds for local
streets and roads and operating funds for transit.
I
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12. 1994
Page 18
.
.
Table E.8:
Baseline Projects
The baseline project Ust Includes:
- Fully funded projects In the Draft 1994 TnuasporltItion Improvement Program (l1P)
-Transit capital programs fundable with proJeded local, state and federal dedicated traDsit funding soun:es
(20.year costs based on 1992 SRTPs and MTC transit finance model)
-Other fully.funded projects not using state or federal funds, and assumed to be buDt before year 2013
HIGHWAY/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS
- 1.580/1.680 Interchange: construct Dyover southbound 680 to eastbound S80
- Route 24/Ro~te 13 Interchange: construct connectors eastbound 24 to southbound 13 and northbound to
westbound 24
-New Route 84 (LIvermore): construct 2.lanc roadway on Isabel Avenue alignment
- New Route 61 Oakland International Airport Roadway: construct 4-lane cross-airport roadway between
Maitland Drive and 98th Avenue
- Local streets and roads maintenance and rehabilitation
- New Route 84 roadway between MIssion and 1-880 In Fremont and Union City
- Route 238 Hayward Bypass expressway between 1.580 and Harder
- New Mission Boulevard widening: Industrial Parkway to southerly of Decoto Road
-San Leandro local improvements: widen Marina Blvd; construct 1-880 overcrossing at
Fairway Dr., extend Teagarden Street (completed)
-I-SO Widening to add HOV lanes between Contra Costa County line and PoweD Street (WB HOV lane
extends toTolI Plaza) and Interchange Improvements
-1-880 Widening to add HOV lanes between Alvarado/NDes Road and Santa Clara County line
-1.880 Interchange improvements (e.g. Thornton, Mowry Avenue, Alvarado/Fremont, Alvarado-NOes,
Stevenson Boulevard, Auto MaD Parkway, Route 2621M1ssioD, Fremont Cushlna, Di:lon Landlna Road)
-1.880 Reconstruction of Cypress freeway and interchange Improvements
-1.880 Interchange Improvements in Hayward (Route 92) and Oakland (98th Avenue
and Hegenberger Road)
-1.580 Construction of connections to new Route 238 Hayward Bypass and Intercbup Improvements
- 1-680 Widening to 8 lanes between Contra Costa County line and 1.580 (including 2 HOV lanes)
- 1.580/1.680 Interchange: construct Dyover southbound 680 to eastbound 580
-Route 61 Widening between Harbor Bay Parkway and Island Drive (completed)
-Widen Route 9 San Mateo Bridge approach to 6 lanes between 1-880 and toO plaza
-Redwood Road widening and signal timing coordination project in Castro Valley
TRANSIT
- BART DubUD/Pleasaoton Extension (Castro Valley aDd East DubUalPleasantoD statioDS)
-Amtrak Capitol Corridor RaD Service (currendy 3 round trips per day)
-Transit Operator 10.year Capital Improvement Programs for
BART
AC Transit
LAVTA
Union City Transit
OTIIER
- Intermodal Container Transfer FaciUty at Port of Oakland (preliminary engiDeering only)
-Various signal timing and bikeway projects
Source: MTC Draft RTP
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12, 1994
Page 19
.
.
Table E.9:
Tier 1 Project List
BART Capital Improvements (including AID Car Rehahilitation)
MTS Streets/Roads Maintenance/Rehabilitation
MTS Street/Road ConstnJcUon
Intermodal Transit Centers
Pedestrian including local ADA, and Bicycle Projects
Seismic Retrofit of Bridges
Fremont South Bay Rail
AC Transit/Union City Transit Capital Costs
AC Transit Centers
AC Transit Enhanced Trolley Bus - Telegraph Corridor
1-880 Corridor Modernization, including access Improvements to Alameda
Transit Improvements in Trans bay Corridor
HOVaccess ramp to 1.80 at University Avenue
Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing of 1.86 near University Avenue
Intermodal Container Transfer Facility at Port of Oakland
BART/Oakland International Airport Intermodal Connector
Mandela Pkwy. ExtensloD/Shellmound Connection
AC Transit Trolley Bus . San Pablo & E.14th S1. Corridor.
environmental/engineering work
Non MTS StreetslRoads Maintenance/Rehabilitation. North and South
County
Build new Rt. 238 Hayward Bypass (4-lane expressway)
Widen 1.238 Freeway
Hesperian Blvd. Transportation Improvements
Rt. 92 Interchange Improvements at Clawiter/WbiteseU
Widen 1.880 to 10 lanes (R1. 262/Mission Blvd. to Santa Clara Co. Une)
Build new R1. 84 . South County
Operational Improvements R1. 84 (1.880 to ToU Bridge)
1-880/1.680 Connector (acquire right-of-way)
Weigh.in.Motion Truck Station on {.88O in Fremont
AMTRAK Capitol Corridor rail connection to Union City BART
Altamont Rail Service. Demonstration Project
Enhanced Bus Service. East County
1.580/1-680 southbound to eastbound Dyover, hook ramps and ramp braid for Hop)'U'd
Road access
West DubUnlPleasanton BART Station
New R1. 84/1.586 Interchange - Eat County
TOTAL
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
'.
:::'::i:::':$:(iID"::::,;(
i::::IH~lJi::':'::
34.0
45.1
10.0
10.0
3.0
25.8
410.5
109.0
10.0
61.0
20.0
20.0
5.0
3.0
20.0
22.0
5.0
24.0
50.0
70.0
30.0
5.0
26.0
10.0
5.0
5.5
5.5
1.0
12.0
3.2
5.0
17.0
17.5
10.0
1151.1
May 12, 1994
Page 20
.'
.
.
Table E.I0:
Tier 2 Project List
.,.,u...,..,..,...' u"
1~..:~~~II'~30~<::
BART Capital Improvements
BART Operating and Maintenance Program ShortfaU
ADA ShortfaU for BART
MTS Local Streets/Roads Maintenance/Rehabilitation
Capitol Conidor Commuter Rail Service: Upgrade from state fuDded (>> tnUns
AC Transit Comprehensive Service Plan
AC Transit Operating Shortfall
AC Transit Enhanced Trolley Bus - Foothill/Bancroft Corridor
AC Transit Enbanced Trolley Bus - Broadway/CoUegeAve. Corridor
AC Transit Trolley Bus - MacArtbur Blvd. Conidor
BART Urban Core Service Upgrade - North County
1-880 Conidor Modernization, including access Improvements to Alameda
AC Transit Transbay Bus Service .
BART/Oakland Alrport Intermodal Connector
Enhanced Ferry Service(ferminals - North County
1-80 Cleveland Avenue off-ramp
Feeder Bus to Rail Stations & Ferry Terminals - North and Central County
Pedestrian including local ADA, and Bicycle Projects - North and Central Co.
AC Transit Enhanced Trolley Bus - San Pablo/E.14th St./Mlssion Blvd.
Rt. 238 Hayward Bypass (4.lane freeway)
Widen 1-238 Freeway
Rt. 92 Interchange Improvements at Clawlter/WbiteseU
Upgrade Industrial Boulevard
Widen Route 92 (San Mateo Bridge approach)
San Mateo Bridge Conidor Analysis and Transit Improvements
1-880 Auxiliary Lanes - SR 92 to Alvarado-Niles Road
1-880 Conidor Modernization Improvements primarily iD San Lamdro
Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements
Intermodal Transit Centers - Central County
AC Transit Centers - Central County
Tramc Management Actions. Central County
Fremont Soutb Bay Rail
Streets/Roads Maintenancf/RebabilitatioD/CoDstruction - South County
Build new Rt. 84 from Mission to 1-880
1-880/1-680 Connector
Union City/Arden wood Blvd. Trame Improvements
Local Transit Operations - lA VTA and Union City Trauslt
1.580/1-680 Interchange
Route 84 Facility and complete Rt. 84/1-580 Interchange
Enhanced Bus Service. East County
Vasco Road Safety Improvements
TOTAL
40.0
179.0
65.0
1,100.0
103.0
85.0
318.1
67.0
90.0
65.0
16.0
80.0
14.0
20.0
40.0
12.0
50.0
50.0
203.0
77.0
66.0
5.0
10.0
26.0
W.O
40.0
55.0
18.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
173.0
30.0
35.0
75.0
15.0
7.0
6.0
180.0
318.1
16.0
3477.1
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12, 1994
Page 21
.
.
Effects of the Overall Investment Pro~am
Analysis shows that afternoon peak hour travel conditions would improve under both the Tier 1
and Tier 2 investment programs (see Table E.ll).
Compared with conditions under the Baseline Program, the Tier 1 Program would result in less
time spent in congestion, increased average overall travel speed, a decreased average trip
duration, and no change in the average trip length.
The higher level of investment under the Tier 2 Program would be expected to I?roduce even
greater improvements over Baseline program result, with no change in the average tnp length.
Implementation of the Tier 2 Program is essential to maintain the serviceability of the existing
transportation system, but it should not be expected to reduce congestion levels from what they
are today.
A significant portion of the Tier 2 Program is dedicated to maintenance of the existing
transportation system; thereby reducing the amount of revenues available for service expansion.
The performance of the overall investment program is most effective when coupled with
telecommuting and financed with fuel taxes that provide an incentive for increased ridesharing and
transit use.
The CMA's Investment Policies
The Investment Policies included in this plan are as follows:
3.1 The CMA's investment program shall be balanced in a manner consistent with its adopted
funding equity formula.
3.2 The CMA's investment program shall be tailored to meet local needs of each corridor and
coordinated to ensure the safe and efficient movement of people and goods.
3.3 The CMA shall make every effort to secure the additional revenues necessary to fund an
investment program which gives appropriate balanced emphasis to:
o The safe and efficient operation of the existing transportation system.
o The maintenance and rehabilitation of existing facilities and services.
o The implementation of those projects that are ready for implementation
and for which funding has been committed in the CMP
o Those improvements necessary to enhance the safety and operating
efficiency of Critical Freight Routes.
o Those improvements necessary to enhance transit service.
o Those major investments that are identified through the Corridor
Management Planning process.
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12. 1994
Page 22
.
.
Table E.ll:
Changes in Afternoon Peak Hour Transportation Performance
Po ulation
Em 10 ment
Vehicle.Miles
Traveled
Time Spent in
Congestion
Percentage of
Roadway System
in Con estion
Average Overall
Travel S eed
Average Trip
Duration (in
minutes
Average Trip
Len th in miles
Vehicle Emissions
1,234,800 1,344,200 1,530,400 1 530,400 1,530,400 1,530,400 1,530400 1,530,400
614 000 743 800 817,900 817 900 817 900 817 900 817 900 817,900
2,115,600 2,574,800 860 200 2,911,300 2,877.400
30,300 50,600 75,000 74,200 72,000
person- person-hrs ptrson- person- person-
hours hours hOurs hours
17% 20% 31 % 27% 28% 27% 26% 26%
33.9 30.3
m h mh
13.4 15.5
minutes minutes
7.6 8.0 8.0 7.9 7.9 7.8
miles miles miles miles miles miles
39.7 t CO nla 36.0 t CO 35.1 t CO 34.8 t CO 34.6 t CO
2.3tHC 1.5tHC 1.5tHC 1.5tHC 1.5tHC
4.4 t NOs 3.8 t NOs 3.8 t NOs 3.8 t NOs 3.8 t NOs
0.4 t S02 0.6 t S02 0.6 t SO 0.6 t SO 0.6 t SO
Source: Barton-Aschman Associates and the Alameda CountyWide Travel Demand Model
N/A denotes information is not available. Vehicle emissions are expressed in tons (t) of carbon monoxide (CO),
hydrocarbons (HC). nitrous oxides (NOs) and sulfur dioxides (502 ).
Scenario One represents Year 2000 with transportation improvements !bat have committed funding.
Scenario Two represents Year 2010 with transportation improvements !bat have committed funding.
Scenario Three represents Year 2010 with committed improvements and MTC Track I projects.
Scenario Four represents Year 2010 with committed improvements and the CMA's ner 1 projects.
Scenario Five represents Year 2010 with committed improvements, the CMA's Tier 1, a $0.25 incrcae in the gas
tax (pricing) and a one percent reduction in vehicle trips created by an inCTCMe in telecommuting.
Scenario Six represents Year 2010 with committed improvements, the CMA's Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects.
Scenario Seven represents Year 2010 with committed improvements, the CMA's Tier 1 and 2 projects, a $0.25
increase in the gas tax (pricing) and a one percent reduction in vehicle trips created by an increase in
telecommuting.
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12, 1994
Page 23
.
.
Monitoring and Performance Evaluation
The CMA's Congestion Management Program employs Level of Service measures to assess the
performance of individual routes in the Countywide Transportation System. The Countywide
Plan has a broader purview and a longer-range perspective. It employs additional performance
measures which reflect the CMA's broader concerns with environmental quality, economic growth
and the reconciliation of freight and passenger transportation needs.
The goal of monitoring is threefold:
· To ensure that the plan is implemented
· To ensure that the plan is producing the cost-effective results that are expected,
and,
· To inform needed adjustments in the plan or the CMA's funding strategy.
The additional performance measures used to track the performance of the countywide system
provide a portrait of the quality of service that users can obtain from the system, its energy
efficiency, its contribution to air quality, its contribution to the county's economy and the
productivity with which it delivers service. The Plan s quality-of-service measures will be
consumer-oriented rather than facility-oriented and are designed to avoid modal bias.
The performance measures that will be used to assess the plan's impacts are shown in Table E.12.
They include the use of survey techniques to determine whether commuters and shippers are
satisfied with the system's performance. These systemwide measures will supplement the route-
specific analysis employed in the CMF. The CMA will also monitor and report progress in the
development of a strategic financing plan and its success in securing legislation necessary for the
implementation of the plan.
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12, 1994
Page 24
.
TABLE E.12:
Goals, Performance Expectations and Performance Measures
.
POLICY GOALS
PERFORMANCE EXPECfATIONS
PERFORMANCE MFASURES
Improve mobiUty
The time that each of us has to spend
commuting should not be allowed to
trend steadily upward
Average rom mute-trip journey
time from the CMA model and
Biennial Survey.
Highway rongestion should be contained Average speed on Critical
to a relatively brief peak period so that Freight Routes at 9:30 a.m. and
goods movement Is not impaired dl1lin2 3:00 p.m. from floating car
midday hours studies.
Improve transit access
and increase transit use
Transit should provide a hlgh~uaUty
commute alternative that Is not
compromised by exasive crowding or
higbway congestion
Transit sbould provide reUable county-
wide service for those unable to drive
Improve Air Quality
Bay Area residents should bave an
Incentive to replace motor vebicles
witbout adequate emissions COntrols.
Map showing the boundary and
connectivity of the transit system
that provides commute service on
a~d~separatedore~nu
bask.
Map sbowing the boundary and
connectivity of the transit system
that provides service at
headways of 30 minutes or less.
Total vebicular emissions from
CMA model and contribution of
emission controls and Deet turn-
over to emissions reduction from
Air ResouralS Board.
Bay Area commuters sbould be offered BleDDial survey of resident
a mix of transportation and tel~ worken to determine commute
communication services that provide a mode, satisfaction with commute
compelUng alternative to tbe drive-alone arrangements, journey time and
commute. per'Cdved severity of congestion.
Improve safety
A system with an improving safety
record for vehicles, passengen and
pedestrians.
The aDDuaJ trend of bUuries and
fataUtles by type and causative
facton.
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12. 1994
Page 25
.
TABLE E.12 (Continued):.
Goals, Performance Expectations and Performance Measurts
.
POUCY GOALS
PERFORMANCE MFASURES
Enhance transportation's
contribution to the economic
vitality of Alameda County
Ensure the serviceability of
existing facilities and services
Coordinate transportation and
land-use planning
PERFORMANCE EXPECI'ATIONS
The transportation system should
provide those high-qnaUty, high-
reUability services neassary for the
growth of high-value Industries and
the creation of high-wage Jobs.
Biennial survey of mtUor
shippen and manufacturers to
determined perceived quaUty of
service and trend of service
quaUty.
The system should enhance the county's Container cargo market shares
competitive position as a global gateway. for the Port of Oakland, Los
Angeles, Seattle, Long Beach and
Tacoma.
A transportation system In which maiot-
enance and operations are fuUy funded
In order to avoid unreliable service and
deferred expenses.
Number of containers handled
annuaUy.
Maintenance backlog by Juris-
diction from Pavement Maoage-
ment System.
Annual Income from passenger
fares as a percentage of the
revenue required for operations,
maintenance and oeet
replacement. To be provided by
traDslt operators.
A transportation system tbat encourages To be developed in concert with
supportive land-use plaonlog to enable local government in the context
the efficient promion oftraosportation of corridor planning studies.
services
,
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12, 1994
Page 26
.
.
Implementation Issues
The following implementation issues will require further action by the CMA or may require
legislative action. The issues are divided into three categories, short-term, long-term and on-
going. Short-term should be resolved during fiscal rears 1994-1996; long-term issues will be
considered during the 1996 update of this plan. On-golDg issues have no time limitation.
Short Term
· Refine project descriptions for all projects identified in this plan.
· Work with MfC to reconcile differences, between CMA priorities and MTC Regional
Transportation Plan priorities, including: CMA priorities should be included in the fmal RTF;
incorporating provisIOns of state statute 66531 in determining priorities; and TOS/IVHS.
· It is the intent of the CMA to have appropriate portions of the Plan incorporated into the
General Plans of local agencies within Alameda County. The CMA will work with staff from
each local agency to assist in this process.
· More effective means of coordinating land use and transportation, will be explored. Phases 1,
2 and 3 of the Corridor Management Planning Strategy will be implemented.
· The CMA will host a symposium in 1994 to bring together experts to discuss the
transportation land use connection.
· Update Countywide Model to reflect ABAG s Projections 1994 as well as the 1990 U.S.
Census transportation survey results, both of which are due to be released in 1994. The model
will be recalibrated to reflect current conditions since the model was last recalibrated in 1990.
At the same time, the roadway and transit networks will be expanded and the size of traffic
zones in Alameda County reduced in order to provide a higher level of accuracy in the model
results.
· Prepare Countywide Freight Movement Strategy in conjunction with the 1-880 Intermodal
Corridor Study. The Plan identifies critical freight routes; a comprehensive strategy for
providing priority treatment for freight movement is also needed.
· Develop a process for applying the results of the 5-year check of the Funding Equity Formula.
Consider the following issues: Adopted funding equity formula is based on current
population. Determine if future allocations should be based on current or future projected
population. Future revenue sources include extension of the sales tax which is not population
based. Allocation based on sales tax expenditures, i.e., by return to source, should be
investigated.
· Elimination of the maintenance backlog is deferred to Tier 2 and is thus contingent on new
revenue sources. The CMA may wish to consider a local sales tax extension for service!
facility expansion and pursue a state gas tax increase or some other statewide program for
maintenance.
· Long Term
· The CMA will refine and pursue those pricin$ measures included in the Countywide Plan.
These may include one or more of the followlDg:
· seek a sponsor for statewide legislation for fuel-tax reapportionment to decrease
maintenance backlog
I
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12, 1994
Page 27
.
.
.
sponsor an HOV lane demonstration project fOJ pre-paid reservation use by
two-axle trucks
study gateway pricing, including the Bay Bridge - Congestion Pricing
Demonstration Project.
Monitor the effectiveness of the Plan using the adopted performance measures. Some of the
performance measures may need further refinement in order to be quantified and monitored.
.
.
Update the Countywide Plan every two years in the off year from the CMP update.
Develop criteria for when and how the plan will be amended.
Develop criteria for classifying key transit hubs. Identify hubs that are to be included in the
update of the Countywide Plan.
Ongoing
.
.
.
.
New revenue sources will be needed to fund the shortfall in transportation improvements
identified by the Plan. The Alameda County CMA will continue to advocate new
transportation revenue sources including, but not limited to, a regional gas tax, an extension
of Measure B, federal congestion management/air quality funds, increased bridge tolls, and
development impact fees.
A new reliable source of funding is needed for operating and maintaining existing roadways
and transit systems. The CMA will provide ongoing advocacy for new reliable sources of
revenue for operations and maintenance.
.
.
Corridor studies will be prepared, where appropriate, to consider improvements to enhance
mobility. Using current ABAG-based land use projections, a multi-modal analysis will be
conducted to determine the appropriate mode and/or operational strategy for investment
purposes. Costs will be estimated and responsibilities determined based on the appropriate
land use assumptions.
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12. 1994
Page 28
.
.
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEHEN'l'
city council Heeting Dace: May 23, 1994
SUBJECT:
MTC's Regional Transpo:tation Plan and the Alameda County
CHA's Transportation Plan
Report by: Public WCT ',:s Director Lee Thompson
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1)
comparison of tr.e CMA Tier 1 and 2 Projects List to
the proposed HTC Track 1 and 2 Project List
Draft letter
Excerpt from MTC's Reso1~tion 1876
August 23, 1993, Agenda Statement and Letter to KTC
2)
3)
4)
REcoMMENDATION:
~~ransmit letter to HTC recommending:
\ 1) That funding be increased in the Tri-Valley area to an
amount based on the proportionate share of the Bay
Area population for Track 1 and Track 2; and
2) That Dublin doe~ suppor.~ the need for the West
Oub1injPleasantcn BAR~ Station but requests that the
additional moni~s ato~e be assigned to the Route 84
project subject to t~e improvements being designed to
be part of a future highway or expressway between 1-
580 and 1-680.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
There is no direct fi,-".~al impact to the City of Oublin from
these studies and re~o=ts; however, the studies and reports
provide an opportunity to secure the best priorities for
regional funding sources, thereby minimi~ing the necessity
for higher local devel'pme~~ f~es.
DESCRIPTION:
the public on
Transportation
Transportation
The purpose of this report is ~o update the City Council
the Alameda County Congestion Management Authority's (~~)
Plan and to compare this plan to and comment on the Metropolitan
Commission's (MTC) proposed Tr~nsportation Plan.
and
CMA PLAN
The CHA has developed a County-wide traffic model and, for the last 3 to 4 years,
has been working toward a plan which matches needed major transportation
improvements (freeway and mass transit) to projected land use growth. This plan has
just been approved by the CHA.
For the study, the County was split into four regions, the Tri-Valley area being
Area 4, Recommended improvements were then c~tegorized into two tiers, Tier 1 being
those projects that are projected to be funded from expected regional funding
soueces such as future ISTEA monies and extended Proposition 111 gas tax, up through
the Year 2010. Tier 2 peojects are those re~~?na1 projects that are needed, but
there are no identified funding sources.
By spreading the Tier 1 monies by population, Area 4 v~s projected to receive
approximately $72 million. The CHA has adopt~d tne to~lowing project funding for
its Plan, as well as for recommending this list of projects to MTC for incorporation
into MTC's Bay Area-wide Transp~rtation Plan:
Tier 1:
1) $17 million for completing the I-.;~lO/I-680 flyover and hook ramps
project
2) $27.5 million for the West Dublin,Pleasanton BART Station
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. M COPIES TO:
Joh"l McCallum, MTC~ EX' !.=l~IT
R~9'!r Hen~er3on, CMA" ii~i~i)
Cloty of Llovermore Ii lili1'l
31
.
.
3) $20 million for the I-580/H'dY 84 interchange
4) $5 million for enhanced bus services
5) $2.2 million for the Altamont Rail Service Demonstration Project that
will connect Sacramento County, San Joaquin County, Alameda County and
Santa Clara County
Tier 2:
1) $6 million to complete the I-580/I-680 flyover project that will provide
access to Hopyard Road.
2) $180 million for Route 84
3) $23 million for enhanced bus services
4) $16 million for Vasco Road safety improvements
MTC PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION PLAN
MTC has been preparing a Bay Area-wide Transportation Plan similar to the Alameda
County Plan and is in the process of holding hearings to obtain public input to this
Plan, as well as the related environmental document. MTC has broken the projects
into funding categories called "Track 1" and "Track 2," but the categories are
essentially defined the same as the CMA "Tier 1" and "Tier 2" categories. HTC'S
preliminary lists are, however, somewhat different than the CMA's list. Exhibit 1
shows a comparison between the lists. HTC'S list is as follows:
Track 1:
1) $16 million for the I-580/I-680 flyover and hook ramps
2) $20 million for the 1-580/Hwy 84 in~erchange
3) $7 million for the I-580 truck/auto separation on the westbound Altamont
Pass
Track 2;
1) $28 million for the West Dublin BART Station
2) Approximately S5 million for local L}.VTA transit operations
The major differences between the two Plans are: (1) the HTC Plan has designated
substantially less monies to the Tri-Valley area than the CMA plan and (2) the CMA
has shown the West Dublin/pleasanton BART Station in the Tier 1 funding, while ~TC
has included it in the MTC Track 2 project list.
MTC's reason for not including the BART Station in the Track 1 projects is that MTC
has previously passed a resolution (Resolution No. 1876 - see Exhibit 3), in which
the Warm Springs BART Extension would be funded after the two-station
Dublin/Pleasanton Extension.
Since the time the MTC dcc~~ent was published, it appears that SiS.5 million in
Traffic Operations Study funds will be reassigned to other projects, and the Tri-
Valley area will receive 529.5 million of these funds (not indicated in the above
Track 1/Track 2 funding list).
The Alameda county CXA has taken the position that the west Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station should be funded; howeve~, it seems clear that MTC is unwilling to put the
BART Station in their Track 1 p~iorities. This would not preclude finding some, as
yet unknown, funding source to complete the station.
The next best place to assign the additional monies would be into Highway 84,
assuming that Highway 84 becomes either an expressway or highway between 1-580 and
I-680. The regional benefit of this connection is to draw off traffic between the
Page 2
.
.
East and South legs of the 1-580/1-680 interchange. In order to make the Highway 84
connection work, significant additional funds need to be found and allocated to this
project. Funding sources could include making this segment a toll road (either
public or private) Or obtaining future specific Federal legislative funding.
The Dublin City Council has been consistent in the position that the major Tri-
Valley transportation needs include (see Exhibit 4):
1) The 1-580/1-680 flyover, including the hook ramps from 1-680;
2) Highway 84 between I-S80 and 1-680; and
3) The completion of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
Staff recommends that the City Council transmit the following requests to MTC:
1) That funding be increased in the Tri-Valley area to an amount based on
the proportionate share of the Bay ~ea population for Track 1 and
Track 2; and
2) That Dublin does support the need for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station but requests that the additional monies above be assigned to the
Route 84 project subject to the improvements being designed to be part
of a future highway or expressway between I-S80 and 1-680.
a:agenda94\mtc-cma
Page 3
/
. 'ilii&~~~\\~~\
(Ill\~ ~~!
~~">. ~ /J))
'f "Itif-~~:'\:-; ,
'- ~._-~..;.._-~..
. ...... ,
.
,
CITY OF DlJBLIN
- ---_.......----~-------_..._-------._.._-- ._~_.....---- ~~
PO, Box 2340. Dublin, California 9456~
.
City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza. Dublin, California 94568
May 24, 1994
Chairperson and Members
'METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
101 8th Street
Oakland CA 94607
SUBJECT:
Comments on MTC's proposed Transportation Plan
Honorable Board Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment ,In your proposed Transportation Plan. The
Dublin City Council reviewed your propos~d,Track 1 and Track 2 funding lists on May
23rd. Following are our recommendations(
1) That funding be increased in L1e Tri-valley area to an amount based on
the proportionate share of th(: Bay Area population for Track 1 and
Track 2; and
2) That Dublin does support the need fo~ the West DublinjPleasanton BART
Station but requests that t.h(.~ additione 1 monies above be assigned to the
Route 84 project subject to t?e improvements being designed to be part
of a future freeway or expressway between 1-580 and 1-680.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 833-6605.
Sincerely
~,~.
Peter W. snyder
Mayor
PWSjLSTjgr
a:\agenda\mtcmaltr
Administration (415) 833.6650 . Cily Council (415) 833.660e ~ F'nance (415) 833-6640 · Building Insoection (415) 833.6620
Code Enforcement (415) 833.6620 · Engineering (415) 833.6630 · Planning (415) 833-6610
............ _........1""1 ~ ~~_. _.: _ _ ,,,.,.., ""..,..., ,... tr'
COMPARIS<alF MTC PRIORITIES
AND C~PRIORITIES
.
Tri-Valley Area
Altamont Rail Service.
Demonstration Project
(Project 508)
Enhanced Bus Service
(project 412, formerly
Project 502)
I.58OfI-680 SB to EB
flyover. hook ramps &
complete ramp braid to
retain Hopyard Rd. access
(project 401)
West Dublin / Pleasanton
BART Station
(Project 402)
New Route 84fI.580
interchange (Project 403b)
1.580 truck/auto
separation on \VB 1.205 at
1-580 (project 407a)
Subtotal for planning area
projects
Grand Totals - countywide
set.asides and planning
area projects.
~
ililiii'i2fJlli
1.0 22 Funding for initial stage planned by
San Joaquin Co. MTC staff stated
they will include a footnote in the
RTP stating support, if San Joaquin
County allocates funds to the project.
o 5.0 to serve Planning Area 4
17.0 Pending review ofI.580fI$)
intctd1ange funding program.
Construction scheduled to begin 'f17.
o
27.5 BART extension to be rompleted by
'95, will build shell for W. Dublin
station. Proposed for Tra.c.k IT by
MI'C staff. If deferred by MTC
Board to Tra.c.k IT, reallocate $27.5 m
to the Rte 84/I-580 interchange and
approaches.
20.0 Project Study &:port being developed
7.0
o Safety-operational improvements to
intercbange. Dependent on San
Joaquin County provision of $5 In.
299.3 154.0 139.7 71.7 Original Tier 1 funding equity targets
were: P A 1 $296 In, P A 2 $153 m,
PA3$138 In, and PA4 S72 In.
Original targets were based on MrC
cstimale of $1,145 m in total
rCValue. SuOOequently, MTC added
$5 m to AC Transit Centern. Other
minor differalces due to rounding.
1149.9:11S-l.AJ
--
..n_...............
.....................'......-.........
..............,.......,............'..
,"," ..-,.,.,.,.,.~,...~,...~n..,
..,.........,'.....'~...',.............
: 1~~f~~ i~:!;j1~~~~f: :j~~~ii~~rt~~~~ i
Planning Area (PA) 1 includes Oakland, Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville, Alameda, and Piedmont
Planning Area (PA) 2 incl.udes San Leandro, San Lorenzo, Hayward, Cmtro Valley.
Planning Area (p A) 3 includes Fremont, Newark, and Union aty.
Planning Area (p A) 4 includes Plemanton, Uvermore, Dublin, and uninrorporated portions of East County.
Lt,
May 12, 1994
Page 94
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
i
1
j
&
COMPARISON fAMTC PRIORITIES
AND CMA .ORITIES
.
Tri-Valley Area
:'i:':l:'_':'-,:,::;"'_~~'IT;~i'-:!';;:-;:,\';:;;:':i::;::':j'"
Fremont South Bay Rail TBD
(project 506)
............. ..'..............,...
i(~~;~tI~1 ,Pi!
173.0
Streets/Road Maintenance, 0
Rehabili tarion, and
Consrruction - Planning
Area specific (project
512b)
Widen 1-880 from RL 262
to Santa Qara Co. line
(project 301)
Build new Rt 84 from
Mission to 1-880 (project
3023)
1.880/1-680 Connector
(project 303)
55.0
30.0
300.0
Union City/Ardenwood
Blvd. Traffic
Improvements (Project
304)
o
Local Trartsit Operations -
1A VfA and Union City
Trartsit (project 518)
423
Allamont Pass Rail
Service - Demonstration
Project (project 508)
TBD
30.0
M!'C's position on this project is
pending the outcome of Fremont-
South Bay Corridor Study. If BART
is the preferred mode, CMA amount
intended to fully fund short:full based
on one-station extension under
Central Park.
to serve Planning Area 3
CMA proposes this project for Tier 1
35.0
upgrnaeM~meBpr~ectt06
lanes, includes local match.
75.0
Provides new facility to reduce
congestion on parallel arterials.
Right-of-way acquisi tion in Tier 1.
15.0
23
4.7
Mre amount includes S20 million
for capital, S20 million for operating
to be split between the two operators;
plus S23 specifically identified for
Union City Transit ADA shortfall.
CMA allocation is for ADA shortfall
as follOM: S4. 7 m for lA vrA and
$23 m for Union City Transit.
Pending COIridor study results.. CMA
recommends funding Alameda Co.
share of demo service in TIer I
Planning Area 1 includes Oakland, Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville, Alameda, and Piedmont.
Planning Area 2 includes San Leandro, San Lorenzo, Hayward, Castro Valley.
Planning Area 3 includes Fremont, Newark, and Union City.
Planning Area 4 inclucles Pleasanton, livermore, Dublin, and unincorporated portions ofEsst County.
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyorid:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12.1994
Page 103
I
, I.
1/
I
I
1
I
. .
.
COMP ARISO~ MTC PRIORITIES
AND CMA~ORITIES
1-580/1-680 second
fl~ver, complete hook
ramps to Dublin, &
complete ramp braid to
retain Hopyard Rd. access
(project 401)
1-580 HaV lane,
(Project 408)
West Dublin BART
Station (project 4(2)
Route 84
Freeway/Expresswayand
complete Rt 84/1-580
Interchange (project 403)
Enhanced Bus Service
(project 412, formerly
Project 502a)
Vasco Road Safety
Improvements
(project 411)
Subtotal for Planning
Area projects
Grand Totals
Tri- Valley Area
j~;il~~~'~~rjj"..
,.. $:' . :......$:, . ,"tWi.'i:.fi ",;';:';. ih' '},:i:ii:~.:. .~i;:;;:~'~,t: .. "'''.f'::.,,': N,:'"~e;""~~'" :',,:,
:~'CiC '.I . '-: :/.. -'J'\~~/:: ':,ULI.t'~J.~ :-:.\~'~/" :>\WJJ:~J:' "~~r.=::'.....-'''?~t:'k:~~W.~~ . ,'",
iBO 6.0 To be deteml.ined, pending review of
1-580/1-680 interchange funding
program.
To be determined, pending outcome
of corridor study
28,0
CMA recommends project for
Tier 1 and Track L
180.0 Reallocate $27.5 m of the $180 m to
project 402 ifMTC adopts RTP with
Project 402 in Track n.
o
o
23.0 to serve P A 4.
o
16.0
940
486
437.3 229.7 Remainder ofMTC's Trac.k IT list to
be determined.. Tier 2 funding equity
targets are: PA 15939, PA 2 $486,
PA 35437, PA 4 $230.
MTC Track n is a partial list only.
MTC is not apec:ted to complete its
work on Track n unti11t95. CMA
grand total is based on MTC funding
target for Track IT.
Planning Area 1 includes Oakland., Berkeley, Albany, Emcryvi11e, Alameda, and Pic:dri:1onL
Planning Area 2 includes San Leandro, San Lorarz.o, Hayward., Cmtro Valley.
Planning Area 3 includes Fremont, Newark, and Union City.
Planning Area 4 includes Pleasanton, Uvermore, Dub1in, and unincorporated portions of East County
Transportation Vision 2010 and Beyond:
Alameda County Long Range Transportation Plan
May 12, 1994
Page 104
....-
.,
,
,
,
,
I
I
a
I
J
I
I'
I
I
I
I
-
-
.
":1