Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 146-09 Tri-Valley Trans Fee SchdlRESOLUTION NO. 146 - 09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT (TVTD) FEE WHEREAS, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) consists of one representative of each of the following entities: County of Alameda, County of Contra Costa, City of Dublin, City of Livermore, City of Pleasanton, City of San Ramon and Town of Danville; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has joined with the other TVTC jurisdictions to participate in the development and adoption of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (TVTP/AP} for Routes of Regional Significance; and WHEREAS, the TVTP/AP identified 11 high priority transportation improvements to the regional transportation system necessary to accommodate traffic growth from ongoing development in the Tri-Valley area and elsewhere; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement ("JEPA") in 1998 with other Tri-Valley jurisdictions to implement aTri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTD Fee) to fund all or part of the $763 million cost of these 11 original high priority projects in the TVTP/AP; and WHEREAS, a report was prepared for the TVTC by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., in a document dated July 1995, entitled, "Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance" (hereafter "Plan"); and WHEREAS, a second report was prepared for the TVTC and Dowling Associates by CCS Planning and Engineering., Inc., in a document dated December 6, 1996, entitled, "Tri-Valley Combined Study/Technical Report: Status and Funding of High Priority Projects" (hereafter "Study"), which is incorporated herein as Exhibit A: and WHEREAS, the Study includes a 13-page report entitled, "Tri-Valley Regional Transportation Improvement Fee Program/Nexus Analysis" prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the County of Alameda, County of Contra Costa, City of Dublin, City of Livermore, City of Pleasanton, City of San Ramon and Town of Danville are parties to an Agreement entitled, "Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Pertaining to Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fees for Traffic Mitigation," dated April 22, 1998 ("JEPA"}; and WHEREAS, the Plan and Study set forth the relationship between future development in Dublin, the needed improvements and facilities, and the estimated costs of those improvements and facilities; and WHEREAS, in 1998, the City of Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 89-98 approving and adopting the Plan and Study, finding that future development in Dublin will generate the need for the TVTD Fee, and adopting said TVTD Fee; and Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS, in 2003, the City of Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 87-03 revising the TVTD Fee to address rising construction costs; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin granted authorization on May 19, 2009, for the City of Dublin's representative to endorse certain JEPA amendments, including a modification of the fee schedule for the TVTD fee to modify the amount of the fee for the "Other Uses" category; and WHEREAS, the TVTC member jurisdictions on July 20, 2009, agreed to the endorsed modification of the fee schedule; and WHEREAS, the modification of the fee schedule is consistent with the conclusions and calculations contained in the original Study; and WHEREAS, the Study was available for public inspection and review for ten (10) days prior to this public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows: A. The purpose of the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (hereafter "TVTD Fee") is to finance Transportation Improvement Projects needed to reduce the traffic-related impacts caused by future development in the Tri-Valley Development Area, including Dublin. The Transportation Improvement Projects are all necessary to accommodate new development projected within the Tri-Valley Development Area by the year 2010, including development within Dublin; and B. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the Transportation Improvement Projects; and C. After considering this Study, the Council finds that future development in Dublin will generate the need for the Transportation Improvement Projects and the Transportation Improvement Projects are consistent with the City's General Plan and the Specific Plan; and D. For the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Council finds that the adoption of the TVTD fee is not a "project" under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4). While the TVTD fee is intended to offset development impacts on regional traffic facilities by funding improvements to those facilities, the proceeds of the TVTD fee are not, at this time, being committed to any specific project which "may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment;" and E. The record establishes: 1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the Transportation Improvement Projects and the impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding fee is charged in that new development in the City of Dublin -- both residential and non-residential -- will generate traffic which generates or contributes to the need for the Transportation Improvement Projects; and Page2of4 2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the TVTD Fee's use (to pay for the construction of the Transportation Improvement Projects) and the type of development for which the TVTD Fee is charged in that all development in Dublin -- both residential and non- residential -- generates or contributes to the need for the Transportation Improvement Projects; and 3. That the cost estimates set forth in the Plan and Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Transportation Improvement Projects, and the TVTD Fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the projected costs of constructing the Transportation Improvement Projects; and 4. The method of allocation of the TVTD Fee to a particular development bears a fair and reasonable relationship to each development's burden on, and benefit from, the Transportation Improvement Projects to be funded by the TVTD Fee, in that the TVTD Fee is calculated based on the number of automobile trips each particular development will generate. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE as follows: Resolution 87-03 is hereby amended as follows to reflect the adjusted fee rate for the "Other Uses" Land Use Type: Land Use Type Fee Per Unit Other Uses $2,181 Average a.m./p.m. peak hour trip* * Note: Peak-hour trips will be determined from the latest revision to the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual or other rate schedule as agreed to by the TVTC. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties may provide in their implementing ordinance or resolution that an applicant for a Land Use Entitlement who is dissatisfied with the number of peak-hour trips, as calculated by the Party, may appeal the determination to the Party's legislative body. If such an appeal is granted by the Party, and the Party adjusts the number of peak-hour trips, the Party shall have such decision ratified by five members of the TVTC. Absent such ratification, the Party shall pay the difference between the actual fee imposed and the fee set forth in this Section 9 or the Party shall notify the applicant that the full amount of the fee must be paid by the applicant. 2. This Resolution shall become effective sixty (60) days from the date it is adopted, provided that a similar fee is adopted by the County of Alameda, the County of Contra Costa, the Cities of Pleasanton, San Ramon and Livermore and the Town of Danville, and that said fees are also effective at that time. If such jurisdictions have not all adopted a similar fee to be effective within sixty (60) days from the date this Resolution is adopted, then this Resolution shall be effective when the similar TVTD Fee becomes effective in all six jurisdictions. Page 3 of 4 vote PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of October, 2009, by the following AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, Scholz, and Mayor Sbranti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None /v r.,,.. Mayor ATTES t ~ ~~+-(/ City Clerk Reso No. 146-09, Adopted 10-6-09, Item 7.1 Page 4 of 4 ~;.c 4 i i ._ Prepared For Dowling Associates . and Tri-Valley Transportation Council . CCS Planning and Engineering, Inca . . 42080 Osgood Raad, Suite 1 Fremont, CA 94539 December 6, 1996 Status and Funding of High Priority Projects; EXHIBIT A. e 0 1 i.`~ ~ M1~ ~i/' TA.)~LE OF CONTENTS PAGE PROJECT FUNDIl~IG STA'I'tJS ......................................................................................2 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS .......................:.......................:............................................2 PROJECT PRIORTI'IES ................................................ ~ .................5 APPENDIX A: PROJECT SUMMARIES 1 I-580/I-680 Direct Connector and Widening ........................... ...._..7 2 SR 84 Comdor Improvements: I-580 to I-680 .............................................................. ....8 2a New I-580/Lsabel Avenue (Northside) Interchange with Four-Lane Isabel Parkway.... ....9 2b I-580/Airvvay Boulevard Interchange Modifications and Two-lane Isabel Avenue Extension: Jack London Boulevard to Concannon Boulevard ....................... ..10 2c Two-lane Isabel Avenue Extension: Concannon Boulevard to Vineyard Avenue..._.__ ...............................................................................11. 2d Two-Lane Isabel Avenue Extension. Vineyard Avenue to Vallecitos Road ....................12 2e Interim Two-Lane SR 84 on New Alignment from VaIIecitos Road to I-680 ............... .13 2f Four-Lane SR 84 on New Aignment from Vatlecitos Road to I-680 ............................ .14 2g SR 84: Widen to Four-Six Lanes from Vallecitos Road to I-580 ................................... . I S 3 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes from Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Boulevard ..................... .16 4 West Dublin BART Station Access Improvements ........:............................................... .17 5 I-580 HOV Lanes from Tassajara Road to N. Livemore Avenue Interchange ............... .18 6 I-680 HOV Lanes from SR 84 to Top of SunoI Grade .................................................. .19 ' 7 I-580/Foothill Boulevard Interchange Modifications ...................................................... .20 8 I-680/Aicosta Boulevard Interchange Modifications and Widening of ' San Ramon Valley Road Approaches .............................................................................21 9 Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements ...................................................................... 22 - 10 Vasco Road Safety Improvements .-• ...................................................•-•--......_,............... 23 I I Express Bus Service ...........................................................................................•---........ 24 APPENDIX B: TVTC MODEL FORECASTS .........................................:..... . ff 960441rvtetech.doc TVTC Combined Study 1 Project Status Rcport Zo~~ This report describes the eleven high priority projects identified in the 1995 Tri-Valley Transportation Action Plan, presents their estimated costs and funding status, and discusses priorities for completion of the projects. PROJECT FUNDING STATUS Table I on the next pages summarizes the estimated costs and funding status of the eleven high priority projects. .The engineering and construction costs were obtained from available agencies and were supplemented by ~e consultant's estimated costs as of July 31, 1996. The costs are presented in 1996 dollars. These estimated costs can vary 25 percent from the actual cost. The actual cost cannot be determined until the design plans, specifications, and estimates are completed for each project Five major funding sources aze shown in the table: i • Measure B -Funding from Alameda County's Measure B program based on the 1996 third quarter report by Alameda County Traffic Authority. . • Measure C -Funding from Contra Costa County's Measure C program based on the 1995 Strategic Plan and input from Pau] Maxwell, Deputy Executive Duector of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. • SLTPP - State Local Transportation Partnership Program matching fund from the State. • Development fees and contributions (including Southern Contra Costa JEPA) • Other funding sources such as local jurisdictions. _ PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS In Appendix A, the following information is presented for each of the eleven high priority projects: • Project Title • Lead Agency -Current or potential Lead agencies for the project • Project Description - Sturuuarizing the improvement items included in the project Total Engineering and Construction Cost -Mostly obtained from the various agencies. Otherwise, the estimates reported in the 1995 Tri-Valley Transportation Action Plan were used. . ~, NTC Combined Studv ~ 1 ~... N O m d N Lil U 0 _Z Z LL ~"' s- ~"~ Ll! m O a 0 0 0 ~ N N N ~~ f~ m ~ ~ !!. z m C ~ ~ O rn 0 0 0 tD O O st 0 l7 W O O ~ ~ ~ N N ~ ~ O ~ N 1~ . ~ N , m t9 3 ~ ~ ~ N ~ ' C ~ ~ ,r ~' r- O O d' e7 N r- m C r ~ to t') . tp . N r- h ~ m ~., ~ . ~ . N . O i m r H ~ ° = O th CD `~ ~ D O rn ` ° ~ O t? O O 0 st +~+ O ° ° tp ~n O to ea e~ o a n o h p N m ~ to m ° > ~ ti o N O O N E as to r- v E ~- ~ ~ `oi cn i 0 . a U O O N '' ~ m p n ~ ~ C m ` 7 m ° ~ I U [n to O O m , O ~ N N r'i ~ c m i i ~ ~ c a N O O O 0 0 0 0 00 0 o a o m o 0 o N ~+ c O p a r- N tj ~•- O d' N c~ ~ f ~ t0 N 10 t N W '7 C d t+j ~ O ~ d' •- N rn m .- lA N ID ~ M o U - F- ~ r N M o `° ._ i n ` ° co 0 m ' -o ° m - d• m « 0 ~ 0 © Q o E t L~ O m ~ 3 N •° ~ C W 0 ~, m C a7 0 .. U m ~- m m y p~ p= h O Y M ° T7 c v O C m 11 7 p ~ V o m E m c m E X m N m V i t Y ° c ~ ~ ~ ~ m > C m- > O 2 c O c m O m p C C T ~ V > « C C H ~ ~ p « ~ ~ .Y 7 [fl J O m m J .°r ° O m ~ r ~ C = U b U . . QI D !~ 1L l~D V C ° C ~ m V C m > N 0 d O . " . ~ d C m C O o FOF ~' C .-1- _ ~ E m ~ E C _ ; ° « ~ ° ° m C e ~ m m W ' c o = o m m «> m c o m m n n c~ 0 W o 0 o C y O 2 m ~ o ~ m tt E p c m > am+ . o c o ~ o ; O « ~ C m « •? m p C <O B O O (` O ° ~ ' ~ M q i ` a 1~ ~ C c p~ G c v N ~ m .... ~ p }- m w v c Z 3 ~ - _ o ~ „ „ > w « o ~ r ~ ° O H ~ C> m ~~ O Z C 'Q ° A c ~° m° m ~ a c O h U ~ ~ C E¢ ° y V t7 m = > O s V = ~ ~ J m m c ~ p - m C p m ~ V y+ m $ m 0 ~ 0 m t: .~ c t m `° 0 O c L N p ~ m i ~ O O •• ~3; U>_ E a J C m C o E ~~ i7 ° a m ~ ~ a t ID ° „ ° to E "' c ti ; d I m E ~ X Q ' " ~~ C - p 3 ~ O ¢ 3° O m> a u, mm a ~ 0 ~. 0 Q ~o m m ~ V p m r 9 ~ > i a ~ " m W c ~ et p ~ "'W ~~n a~ a• m av wm m m ac m'~ ° t''' ° s m °O O ~ c v c ca E ° ° ~ E . , ° .c ° 3 Q ~ !- tt 3 _ m m to D ;.a Q > m 1 m m m m ~O > p ° ~ . , a ~ ~ x 7 ~ a O !A y o m Z q m a ~ m ttlt Ntn ~ ° ~ ID E c0 p - - - ~ S~U LL. (A > tL to W a rn F^ ~ ° i ~` O O E C j C m ° C 7 3 i Ca Q > ~ c O U O U u m ~ o O m° O O E E W C m F- a = L b 'O ° O '4 m ° J m O m E m a m r r O T a q m> >! m ~ m 6J Q ~ _ ~ 07 7 ~ m O ~ [ V > U~ J~ U UU U tY1 UU ^ Zn Q Q > ~ .S] _ _ 2~~~~. J X N U W N E m m 0 L a C m c C i C D O `o a ~ , _m A U .J = J ° D Q O ~ O u J ~n ;m ~~ i° D Q 0 ~ D ° ~ m - p U i W ~ c 0 0 ~ U a o t i °i ~ C i ~ c i m 3 d LL . « ~ U m a i ~ 0 s `m ' •n O ~ m ~ > ~ 0 ', u • 1° m m m c ~ LL ~ i m m L • ~ p' C . W i ~ ~ C m ~ i m c ~ ~ c D t 0 i U a ~ i f.. U m .n U N • o N m ~ m l0 ~ N a m .~ • c ~ O ~ O r .~. ~ C U m ~ "' t A V ~ v 7 C H m m m m N 7 ` m c m m m o H m ` c ~ Q ~ c c v 0 `o~N m 0 ~ ~ a m H o a w r d c E !O m o m ca a C O p c ~E a to ~ C > '~ m j m ~ ~ j •- .m.. ~ •a °' .: U ~ ? C~ m~ m H m n o ~ m E m ~' Q ~ m m c ~ m ~ m .- ~ a m o cn uai ° ~' o m _>• ~ ~ o c c m~ rn ~ m ? V o m _ ~° m ~ ~_; a~ c o m m a cn C o m c~ o m U g > ~ m m ~ m o v m C ~ m ~ m ~ ~ r m C 7 X G '7 - m C~ ~ ~ O C C O m p 111 m `p t 1q O m ~. C E y ~ .A O m m m G U m r C '~ ~ >~ 0 0 m H U N O ~ G7 p ~ ~ _ m W n> ^ E ~ U m o j, 7 m m m m ~ .r .. m m~ F- L N O ~ m y= _~ - j b ~ tf O U IA - Q O O L m ~ V G y ~ m p ~ ~ r m° m~ m C p c •D a o r m m c~ ~ ~ m m~ m m m ~ ,~ ~ 3 0 0 a ~~ ° m ~Q_'c > mm c v > $ ' ~ jom U N fn 1~ > m O ~ ~ ~ _ F•- Y C O] ~ _ m y ~ ~ m C O d d 0~~ Q (n S i m d C ~ j U O m y~dja ~ ~ 0 ~ m 1 N O ~ F- m `O ~ 7 O ; m '~ ` O a N G O ~ m ~ Lr ~ " " H m ~ ~ N- m ro O~ O O ~ C ~ d m o m 0 f0 C ~~ ~ H Q ip ~ m Q to C m E •a m _ p v, o~ ~° rn° E p ° N .~, a m Q N .gym, s io ~ U c U ei o X m o a s in d °' ~ m o m w v v ~ n o 3 y 0 .. Q 3 rn Q -p C m w w m W c m C m ~ U 0 O N~ v °~ m m° E '~ a rn ~ E c N g y m LL ~ - ~ O .o V! a~ O d en ~ ~ ~ m u ~ : GO U U h •=p Fa.• N p ~, ~ ~ ~ C a m N O O) ),• O ~ E m (n C C 7 0 >• m U m p V- 4 ~ m n ~ ' " a 0 in [t 7 O. d U x m o o m a ~ ¢ E o m f g o=i ~~pCDi w Y m ~~ ~ ~ ~ o c oN m g m; 5 rn nm ~ O O m G m m ~ O ~ ~ m ~ m ~ h m Q ~ 0 b b .... .. L i m ~ ~ m h V m a m ~ o `° m » E ~ m K av ~ m ~~ E ~ n m ~ m o ~ v ~ m ~ o g 7 m o o ~~ ' ° O 1O m o~ a .°r° m E o m c m ~ ~ Q m c m o .~. c °' v ~ > o ~ ~U °-a > 3` ¢ `D~ a m G' ~ E .G~.. ~ q m _ O ~ m v ~ 0 .~ C _ ~ ~ C C C Q U L L O L > ' b ~ L m V N d U m m ~ w 7 H t m U w 7 ~ N m Ql U b~ ~ , ~ ` 01 h v L ` f " ° 0 0~ = a a ~in~! ~~m m off' ° ~c ~o a m N N N ~ 'd i~ ~ O) ~ O C D O LL ~2~~~-, N X N U F- rn rn N C .~ L .m L w a c m C C C 4 U U ~?~ t~~?~ ! ^ (`. :.) • Planning and Approval Status -Indicating whether the project is included-in the MTC Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) or any other local improvement plans. • Funding -Indicating available amounts and the associated funding sources for the project • Schedule -Indicating planned implementation schedule for the project • Project Need -Based primarily on 2010 traffic projections from the updated TVTC model with gateway constraints applied. TVTC traffic projections are provided in Appendix B. PROJECT PRIORITIES The Tri-Valley Transportation Commission (TVTC) has selected the foIlowing top four projects to be funded by the proposed regional traffic impact fee: . • Southbound I-580 to Eastbound I-680 Direct Connector (Project No. 1) • Two-Lane Route 84 Comdor Improvement between I-580 and I-680 (ProjectNos. 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e) • HOV Lanes between Diablo Road and Bollinger Carryon Boulevard (Project No. 3) u • BART West Dublin Station (Project No. 4) ` The remaining seven high priority projects were qualitatively assessed to help prioritize them for funding, as follows: • I-580 is currently being widened from the interchange with I-680 to the Tassajara (Santa Rita Road) interchange to provide HOV lanes in conjunction with Project No.l (I-580/680 direct connector). Project No. 5 (I-580 HOV lanes from Tassajara to N. Livermore Avenue) will function as an extension of Project No. 1. To avoid a bottleneck where HOV lanes end at the I- 580/N. Livermore Avenue interchange, Project No. 5 should have higher priority than the other projects. . • Project No. 7 (I-580/Foothill Boulevard interchange modification) will be required to accommodate Project No. 4 (BART West Dublin Station). Therefore, this project should be given the same priority and be grouped with Project No. 4. ~-- The I-680 HOV lane project from Route 84 to Sunol Grade (Project No. 6) has been identified as the extension of the Route 84 improvement (Project No. 2). Therefore, this project should have the. same priority as Project No. 2. However, a bottleneck may occur at ~e Sunol Grade ~- unless the I-680 HOV lanes can be further extended to Santa Claza County. ~a TVTC Combined Study 5 Proiect Statua RrMx,rr q 1 Project No. 8 (I-680/Alcasta Boulevard interchange) is locateri between two of the top four projects (Project No. l: I 680/580 Direct Connector and Project No. 3: I-680 Auxiliary Lane between Diablo Road and Bollinger Canyon Road). It would be desirable to construct this project in conjunction with the other two projects to avoid a bottleneck ~in the intervening segment between them_ • Project No. 9 (Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvement Program) and Project I O (Vasco Road Safety improvemern Program) are both safety improvement projects to the existing two-lane winding raadway. They may be prioritized based on the accident rates and the existing and 2010 traffic demand Accident data for these two roadways are not available; therefore, it is not possible to set priorities between these two projects. TVTC Combined Study 6 Proieci Status Rrnn,-r a,~, ., _:.. r^.`, Y z..; -. . •. j+ L'l ~ ~ 2c~o~ ~~~ 1 ~ . PROJECT I-580/I-680 DIRECT CONNECTOR & WIDENING Lead Agencies Alameda County Transportation Authority (MB 310) Caltrans (E.A 233921) Description Reconstruction of the I-580/I-680 interchange. The major work is building anew two-lane flyover ramp from southbound 1-680 to eastbound I-580 to replace ~e existing Ioop ramp. Total Eng.& Approximately $121 million in 1996 dollars. Const. Cost (Source: Alameda County Transportation Authority Measure B Capital Projects, 7uly-September, 1996 Quarterly Report) Planning & Adopted by Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the Approval Status .Regional Transportation Punning (RTP) for completion by 2005. Funding All but $10 million have been funded from various sources including Alameda County Measure B~, Federal and Stale Local Transportation Partnership Program (SLTPP}. See Table 1. Schedule This Project will be advertised in 1997 for construction to begin in ear3y 1998 and be completed by Mazch, 2002. Project Need Needed for capacity. Projected 2010 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes on the direct connector from southbound I-680 to eastbound I-580 are 2,100 vehicles per hour (vph), vihich exceeds existing ramp capacity. e A -, 4 w 2 PROJECT STATE ROUTE 84 CORRIDOR IlVIl'ROVEMENI'S: I-580..T0 I 680 L d ea Agencies Various, see Subproject descri Lions on followin P g pages. Description Currently, two Lanes exist only from Livermore Municipal Airport to Jack London Boulevard, and there is no I-580/Isabel Avenue Interchange or . direct road connection between I 580 and SR 84. Project would ultimately b ild u 6-Iane arterial from I-580 to Vineyazd Avenue and four-Iane arterial on new alignment from Vineyard Avenue to I-680. Totat length of project is about 10 miles. Total Eng. & $213 million. For details see Sub projects 2a through 2g. Constr. Cost Planning & Two-Lane Isabel Avenue fr om I-580 to SR 84 is nn the RTP for 2005 Approvat Status . Funding Projects 2b 2c and 2d are 1 azgely fimded from Measure B, developer fees and other sources. $177 million unfunded. For detail, see separate Subprojects below Schedule Subproject 2b is cunently under design and is scheduled to begin construction in 1997 . Project Need Project would provide improved access to/from southwest portion of . Li i vermore, ncluding Ruby Hill development, and would also relieve traffic congestion on portions of I-680 and I-580. Projected 2010 PM peak hour volumes (one-way) range from 2,000 to 3,200 vph, which well exceeds the capacity of the existing two-Lane roadway. J*• .. ~- ~-~ NTC Combined Study g n,~.,;..~.* e..,...- n ~~ ;~~~ ~~-, Za PROJECT NEW I-580/ISABEL A`~ENUE (NORTHSIDE) INTERCHANGE WITH FOUR-LANE ISABEL PARKR'AY r Lead Agencies Caltrans and the City of Livermore. Description Construction of a new partial cloverleaf (Par-Clo) Interchange at I- 580 with the following access roadway improvements: • 1.25-mile (6,600 feet), four-lane Isabel Parkway from Jack London Boulevard to I-580 r,. 0.51-mile, two-lane extension of N. Canyons Pazkway • 0.57-mile (3,000 feet), two-lane Portola Avenue Extension to N. Canyon Parkway • 750-foot re-alignment of Arroyo Las Positas • Traff c signals & Lighting at Sack London Boulevard, the proposed interchange, and N. Canyons Parkway. Total Eng & Approximately $40 million for full width right-of-way, one of the two Coast. Cost bridge structures over I-580, modification to the existing I-580/Portola ~- Avenue interchange, relocation of an overhead electrical line and gas line, . as well as the above roadway improvements. (Note: the cost estima#e assumes the Chabot alignment) $27.8 million Initial Interchange as in the PSR (Oct. 3, 1995) _ $ 3.2 million Portola Avenue Extension to N. Canyons Pkwy $ 1.0 million Additional widening on Isabel Pkwy $ 8.0 million 25% Engineering $40 0 million . Planning & Approval Status Isabel Pazkway from I 580 to SR 84 is in the MTC RTP for 2005. Interchange would need FEIR/ EIS and to be found in conformity by IvITC . Funding Not currently funded Schedule Not scheduled, but assumed to be built in TVTC 2010 forecasts. Project Need Project would relieve traffic congestion on Airway Boulevard and other existing routes in the vicinity. Six-lane Isabel Parkway south of I 580 is projected to carry up to 3,200 vph in peak direction by 2010. Traff c projections not available for four Iane alternative, but would be Lower but still anticipated to well exceed capacity of existing roadways and `- interchange.- „~„ TVTC Combined Study 9 Project Status Report Gr ' fl ~ .. 2b PROJECT I-580/AIRWAY BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS AND TWO-LANE ISABEL AVENUE EXTENSION: JACK LONDON BOULEVARD TO CONCANNON BOULEVARD Lead Agency City of Livermore Description Construction of a new Isabel Avenue extension, consisting of a two-lane arterial with 70 foot landscape buffer. from Jack London Boulevard to Concannon Boulevard To provide interim access to I 580 until Subproject 2a is built, modifications to the existing I-580/Airway Boulevard Interchange are also included in this Subproject, consisting of a new northbound to westbound loop on-ramp. The project includes improvement to the lack London Boulevard intersection and anunder-crossing (UIC) of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, with a `jug-handle' intersection a# Stanley Boulevard, southeast of the undercrossing. The new road would have a minimum 70-foot landscaped shoulder on west, with an earth berms) adequate as a visuaUsound barrier. A 10-foot paved pedestrian/bike path is also included for the new portion. Total Eng. & Total $3I million. (Isabel Extension SR 84 Project, Additional Studies Constr. Cost Report, July 1996) Planning & ~ Isabel Avenue from I-580 to SR 84 is in the MTC RTP for 2005. Approval Status Funding A Measure B project up to $23.8 million, with an additional $I.2 mullion proposed for SLTPP, $2.6 million from the City of Livermore, and $0.1 million from the Alameda County Flood Control (Zone 7). Project is unfunded by $3.3 million. • Schedule EIR Addendum has been certified, and PR and PS&E are underway. Construction scheduled for 1997 and has been assumed built in MTC RTP by 2005 and in TVTC 2010 forecasts. Project Need Needed for improved north-south access and capacity, and for interim capacity improvement at I-580/Airway prior to completion of Subproject 2a. The TVTC model projects up to 2,900 vph (one-way) in 2010 for 6 lane Isabel Avenue extension. Projections for interim two lane Isabel Avenue, not available from TVTC Model, would be lower but would still likely exceed capacity of interim roadway. NTC Combined Study 10 Project Status Report w i 1 1 1 2c PROJECT TWO-LANE ISABEL AVENUE UPGRADING: CONCANNON BOULEVARD TO VINEYARD AVENUE Lead(s) City of Livermore Description A 0.6 mi. rehabilitation of Isabel Avenue; to upgrade this road to a two- . lane undivided state highway between the end of Project 2b at Concannon Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. Total Eng. & $1 million. Constr. Cost Planning & Project is a condition to the Ruby Hill residential development Approval Status and is in the MTC RTP for 2005. Funding $0.5 million of developer contributions; another $0.5 million City of Livermore funds. Schedule To be determined Project Need Required as mitigation for Ruby Hill residential development. 2010 PM • peak hour projection is 2,000 vph in peak direction based on a four-lane highway. Projections for interim two-lane upgrading, nat available from TVTC Model, would be lower but are still likely to exceed capacity of the two-lane roadway. ~,~,-, ,._--L~--~ ~__s M r r r J 2d PROJECT TWO-LANE ISABEL AVENUE EXTENSION: VIl~TEYARD AVENUE TO VALLECITOS ROAD Lead Agency City of Livermore Description Construction of a new two-lane undivided highway approximately 1.2 miles long, from the existing Isabel AvenuelVineyard Avenue intersection to a new intersection with SR 84 . Total Eng. & $ 7 million. Constr. Cost Planning & Approved as condition to the Ruby Hill residential development Approval Status Project is in the MTC 2005 RTP. Funding Fully funded by developer contributions. Schedule Unknown. Project Need Required for mitigation of Ruby Bill residential developmem and to provide north-south outlet. TVTC's 2010 PM forecasts show a peak hour ~~ demand of 2,000 vph in peak direction based on the ultimate four-lane highway. Projections for a two-lane road, not available from TVTC Model, would be lower but aze still likely to exceed the capacity of the two-lane arterial road to be built by this project M r r ~4~.t ' 1 Z. ~-ti'.: r. j:_~,~~ TVTC Combined Study 12 Project Status Report r ,,. .t,. ... ..~ ,.. ... 3~~+~, ~ 2e PROJECT INTERIM TWO-LANE SR 84 ON NEW .ALIGNMENT FROM VALLECITOS 120AD TO I-S80 Lead Agency Caltrans Description Construction of a two-lane highway on a new alignment from Vallecitos Road to I-680, a distance of approximately five miles. This project is proposed as an interim stage of the ultimate four-lane highway (Subproject 2f) pending availability of sufficient funding for the ultimate projeck Existing two-lane roadway would continue to serve local access needs. Caltrans previously approved a PSR for safety improvements to the existing raadway (Noveanber I985), but that project was put on hold due to lack of funding, and is not included in the current project proposal. Total Eng. & Approximately $25 million, based on comparison to Vasco Road Coast. Cost realignment project (Source: BiII van Gelder, City of Pleasanton, I I/27/96) Planning & Not yet approved in State or MTC Plans or programs. Approval Status Funding Not funded Schedule To be determined Project Need TVTC's 2010 constrained traffic forecasts show a peak hour demand of 3,200 vph in the peak direction for the ultimate four-lane highway. Projections for the interim two-lane project, not available from the TVTC Model, would be lower. Adequacy of new facility wiiI depend on how much traffic uses the existing roadway. G ~f PROJECT FOUR-LANE STATE ROUTE 84 ON NEW ALIGNMENT FROM VALLECTTOS ROAD TO I-680 ~. Lead Agency Caltrans Description Widening of the interim two-lane SR 84 on new alignment (Subproject 2e) from Vallecitos Road to I-680, a distance of approximately five miles. Total Eng. & Approximately $25 million (assuming prior completion of interim project) ~, Coast Cost Planning & Not yet approved in State or MTC Plans or programs. r ~ Approval Status Funding Not funded Schedule To be determined Project Need Needed for traffic capacity. TVTC model's 2010 constrained traffic forecasts show a peak hour demand of up to 3,200 vph in peak direction, which exceeds the capacity of the existing two lane roadway in conjunction with a new parallel two-lane roadway (Subproject 2e). ,,,.. r s+ .- Z g PROJECT STATE ROUTE 84: WIDEN TO 4-6 LANES FROM VALLECITOS ROAD TO I-580 - Lead Agency Caltrans Description Widen and upgrade SR 84 to the ultimate project (6.8 miles) including: • Ultimate Interchange at I-580/Isabel Avenue (Northside) • Widening of Isabel Parkway from four to six lanes between I-580 and Jack London Boulevard • .Widening of Isabel Avenue from two to six Ianes from lack London Boulevard to Vineyard Avenue • Widening of Isabel Avenue from two to four lanes from Vineyard Avenue to Vallecitos Road • Widening of Portola Avenue from two to four lanes over new bridge Total Eng.& $10 million Complete I 580 Interchange Const Cost $10 million Isabel Parkway widening Planning & $22 million Jack London to Concannon $ I3 million Concannon to Vineyard $ 5 million Vineyard to ValIecitos $60 million However, $83 million is shown in Table 1 to provide contingency fund to all Subprojects. Approval Status Not yet approved in State or MTC Plans or programs. Funding Not funded. ~~ Schedule To be determined. Project Need TVTC's 2010 constrained traffic forecasts show a range of demand from 2,000 vph to 3,200 vph in the peak direction, requiring full capacity of a 4- 6Lane arterial. _ 3 . PROJECT I-680 AUXII~IARY LANES FROM DIABLO ROAD TO BOLLINGER CANYON BOULEVARD ' Lead Agency Caltrans, Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Description Construction of one auxiliary lane between interchanges in each direction of I-680 from the Diablo Road interchange to the Bollinger Carryon Interchange. The centerline lengths of the auxiliary lanes m one direction are about 2. S miles. Total Eng. & $40 million (estimated by CCTA) Constr. Cost Planning & In the adopted RTP by 201 S. Approval Status Funding Allocation for the southwest area from Measure C fiords in 1988 value is $18.4 million. $12.2 million in 1988 value has been programmed in the 1995 Strategic Plan by CCTA. Tie remaining $6.2 million can be escalated to approximately $7.9 million in 1996 value based on a 31.31 of escalation factor used by CCTA. The $7.9 million can be used for this project TVTC should make such recommendation to CCTA to be included in the forthcoming 1997 Strategic Plan. Schedule ~ To be determined Project Need Needed for additional capacity in 2010 and to facilitate on/offtraffic at intervening interchanges. The highest 2010 PM peak hour mainline ~.. demand {T'VTC constrained model) occurs between Diablo Road and Sycaznore Avenue interchanges, with 8,800 vph in peak direction, which ,~ exceeds existing capacity. ..,... .~ ~, 4.. 4 ' PROJECT WEST DUBLIN BART STATION AND ACCESS IlVIPROVEMENTS . Lead Agencies BART ~ - ' Description Completion of W. Dublin BART station, access, pazking, and mitigations • Additional parking facility ~ • Laurel Creek Way traffic signal Dublin Boulevard widening • New parallel connector to Dublin Boulevard ,J Total Eng. and $43 million, including $33 million estimated in the 1996 BART Capital Constr. Cost Improvement Program for the stations, and $ I 0 million for mitigation measures. Planning & In both MTC RTP for 2005 and the Alameda County Tier 1 Approval Status Funding FEIR recommends 29% of Laurel Creek Signal and 4Q% of new parallel ~e• connector to Dublin Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard widening to be contributed by BART. Since no finding is committed by BART at the present time, no available funding is assumed in Table 1. «.~. Schedule To be determined Pro'ect Need Construction of access saf azkin and traffic im rovements at the W. ~Y, P g P Dublin BART station aze needed to ensure that this station is accessible and convenient for riders, so that the ridership forecasts for this station can '' be achieved This project has been incorporated in the 2010 TVTC model. - If the ridership forecast for this BART station is not achieved, traffic volumes could increase from forecast levels on the highway and streets of ` ~ the Tri-Valley Area. r as idealised in the F'EIR including: ~~' ~,`~ ~ i i n C s 5 PROJECT I 580 HOV LANES FROM TASSAJARA ROAD TO N. LIVERMORE AVENUE INTERCHANGE ' Lead Agency Caltrans Description Construction of approximately 5.5 miles of HOV Ianes on I-580 from Tassajara Road to N. Livermore Avenue. After addition of these lanes, I- 580 would have a total of four mixed lanes and one HOV lane in each direction in this segment Widening of I-580 and additional right-of-way maybe required Total Eng. and $40 million Constr. Cost planning & This project is in the adopted MTC RTP for year 2015. Approval Status Funding In the long range RIP, this project is not presently funded. Schedule Completion date to be deternuned, but prior to 2015. Project Need Needed for overall person-trip capacity in the freeway comdor. TVTC's 2010 constrained traffic forecasts show a demand for travel on I-580 of up to approximately 10,600 vph in the peak direction. This is the highest directional volume on all the roadways in the RTIF project list, and exceeds existing capacity. Added lanes would encourage HOV's, potentially reducing SOV trips as well as increasing overall capacity. Added capacity would also complement added capacity of direct ramp connectors at I- ' S80/I 680 interchange. i t t r r i i i i 1 1 1 1 .-, 6 PROJECT Lead Agency Description .. 3~~~ ~~., y ~ ~~ I-b80 HOV LANES FROM STATE ROUTE 84 TO TOP OF SUNOL GRADE Caltrans Construction of approximately 3.5 miles (seven total lane-miles)of HOV lanes on I-680 from the SR 84 ramps to the top of Sunol Grade at I~ssion Pass. After adding these lanes, I-680 would have three mixed lanes and one HOV lane in each direction in this segment Total Eng. & $14.4 million. This section of I-680 has been designed to accommodate the Constr. Cost addition of HOV lanes. Construction cost is mainly for the pavement widening. Planning & This project is not in the adopted MTC RTP through the year 2015. Not Approval Status currently approved . Funding This project is not presently funded Schedule To be determined Project Need Needed for overall person-trip capacity in the corridor. TVTC's 2010 constrained traffic forecasts show a peak hour, peak direction demand of approximately 7,100 vph on I-680 between SR 84 and the top of Sunol Grade, which exceeds existing capacity. .~ i i i i i i 1 i i r~ PROJECT I-580/FOOTBII.L BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS bead Agency Caltrans, BART . Description To accommodate the W. Dublin.BART station, the design of the I- 580/Foothill Road cloverleaf Interchange will be modified, replacing the westbound and eastbound off loops with diagonal ramps. Total Eng & $2.0 million. Constr. Cost Planning & Included in the BART Dublin/ Pleasanton Extension project as approved in Approval Status the MTC RTP for 2005. g~~g BART FEIR requires that BART cover 32% of the costs of this project ' However, no funding source was assumed for this project in this study. Schedule Same as W. Dublin Station Project Need Needed to ensure adequate access toffrom W. Dublin BART station, and as mitigation for the added traffic as a result of the station. i 1 1 1 i 1 r ~~_ E'~ :r;~ ~ t , PROJECT I 680/ALCOSTA BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS AND WIDENING OF SAN RAMON VALLEY ROAD APPROACHES Lead Agencies ~ Caltrans, San Ramon Description Project in study phase. No design selected Reconstruct the southbound on and off ramps at the I-680 Alcosta Boulevard interchange to improve operations at ~ese ramps. This project includes closing the southbound off ramp, building a new southbound on/off ramp to the north of Alcosta Boulevard, and widening San Ramon Valley Drive from two to four lanes . in the vicinity of the interchange. Total Eng. $9.6 million. (Estimated by City of San Ramon) Constr. Cost Planning & Not in MTC RTP. Not currently approved in a regional transportation plan Approval Status or program. Funding $2.3 Million ideniiSed in Southern Contra Costa JEPA. Schedule To be determined Project Need Needed to improve traffic operations and capacity at the interchange. TVTC's 2010 constrained traffic forecasts for all ramps are about 2, 800 .~,ph r.. ~~~ ' MENTS CROW CANYON ROAD SAFETY IlVIPROVE pgO~C r • Lead Agency' Alameda County roximately 44 miles of Crow Canyon Road a t Descri tion P pp s on Safety improvemen from Bollinger Canyon Road in Contra Costa county to one mile north o Norris Canyon Road Realign roadway fora 50 mph design speed and • widen shoulders, but no new lanes. Add climbing lanes on the two-lane segments, andtwo-way left turn lanes to provide adequate access to residential properties • Total Eng. & $18 million (Estimated. by Alameda County Public Works Agency) Constr. Cost Plann~g & None. Not currently approved in a regional transportation plan or program. Approval Status • Funding $239,000 has been programmed for Crow Canyon Road in 2001 as shown. d can be used for safety f Thi un s in the 1995 CCTA Strategic Plan. ' improvements. This leaves $I7.8 million unfunded. Schedule To be determined • Project Need Needed as a safety improvement. (Projected 2010 PM peak hour volume exceeds desirable capacity of existing and planned roadway two lane roadway; however, project is not intended to address the potential capacity deficiency.) ~-2 ~ ~G . 10 PROJECT Lead Agency Description Total Eng. & Constr. Cost Planning & Approval Status FetndinQ Schedule VASCO ROAD SAFETY IlVIPROVEMENTS Alameda County From Livermore City limits to County Line; straighten, add shoulders, no additional lanes from existing two-lane highway section. $25 million (Estimated by Alameda County) Adopted in Alameda County Strategic Plan as a Tier two (unfunded) project Unfimded. To be determined. Project Need Needed as a safety improvement. (Projected 2010 volumes exceed desirable capacity of existing and planned two lane roadway; however, project is~not intended to address the potential capacity deficiency. ~, ,. 11 PROTECT EXPRESS BUS SERVICE bead Agencies Various. Description Provide capital equipment in order to provide new Express bias service for the nine express bus routes as proposed in the 1995 Tri-Valley Transportation Action Plan. Total Eng. & $8 aniIlion assuming two buses per route based on $375,000 for each CNG Constr. Cost bus. (iJnit price provided by Maria 1Viarinos, assistant to General Manager of Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District) Planning & None. Approval Status Funding Unfunded Schedule ~ To be determined. Project Need Needed to accommodate projected rideship increase due to residential and employment growth in the azea In the absence of transit rideship growth, traffic increases in the area would be greater than projected TVTC Combinrrl 4t,~r1„ ~ e r,__ ~ _ _. e.. _ ~_ _ ,. ~. ~ {~ ;~ `js .Pr t ~ J r '' .. ~~~,~,~: \:f ~~ i1~ iV1/1~ C ~ O~j Jmm y o m a~ Z p yl~ J•~p ~Q~c e ~oa J~ r~ c~ c~ C~7 v 3 v v O~\ O~DN =t~DN °`N° o cv o .- .- n ^ N ~ ~ ~D O••C~ NJ W .c°o~ 6~EU t~ s~ b} B ~ "~ •` ~ L8 -~2~ ~t 5CZ1 ~ 81L1 $ CZ c ~ ~ Z f m N.. o o ~ ^~ oo C o ~ Of 4. S~ 1d ' `9 C ~ c~ W m N ~n f852 L 9014. t C O 4 N U U ~• N~ `, Y Q ••_ ~ Q ti: ~ j { 3 u Bs9` ~~ ~ z „ ., c J L1! °~ '~ N >e O z W ,~6 S z 43R [ W ~- ~ ~ o °' y LL ~ Y N ~ v ~ aN C 7 s ct +~ m 59dt dOS OES OSZ 2<S a ~. • >6f LB 62 ~ g2 ~ o ~17(1)Jfy' p s s .. m N ~ T' N •O ~ ~ . O E O !!St K ~ ^,~ m. or !9s N/ ~ ~ O ~ = I N ~ ~ S ~ ~ N a •~ U 0 i > m'r ~ a i • ~~i ~--•.¢/ F- O V O W ~- O OC M ~ 4 O tiff NtL \ 2 W z E W ~ U W (n ~, ~~ ~~~~ ~-, ~l~~~s ~~\ ~~ ~~ (~ 1 V Q> o~ .. lA to O~IA N O Q) Qj X~ ~ I lT7 ?~ w••.. J~ 17C 6L L'C p SWW E -- =O d JO - v v c~ m n N ~ v = v v E N O ?~~.p ~`mONi to LJ1 t~ c"~ o ~ r- e .. p n N O•• U 1 WZ ~jW tD O U [n~U 1103 2376 o , w _ ~ 4 b ~ C~ 5 ~o m 9 Y ~ ti C Ct Z ~ l e l~ ~~, c C P C ~. h ~ W u m e i e0 N ~ m ^4 0° 8 0 1 66 C C C ~ ~ 87 ° 9S' ~ ~ 186 v s , S~ ¢ ~ B!S Q `o. ' 1 ~~ ° ~r 0 o a j 5318 ~° $ o ~- ~ 0 3191 c W J ~°' ~° z w 0 ~ a86 ~ , , ~ c c" o .. ~ v , ^ ,~1 w LL ~ '9~' ~ ~~ S 351 ~ O ~ wo ~0 82B U 258 m ~ 1 9l5 ? 5` Z?6 222 m m ~ ~ 9 ~o , ~ r,~ S<b ~ ~ N ~ o ¢ ~ o y ~ o ¢ N~ ~ti ii U O N `g 17 ,n ^^~} NZ`! ,~ 17 i~ N L 9~ ~ of ~ ~ ~ O - =r o 6~ 2~D ~ ~ m ~ 9 < ~' O ~ ~ 1 v 26 ~• ^ m 1 .< `` s N ~ 4 .- 71 3, ~g J= ~~ r 2 12 a 555 ~ ~ ~ ~l ~ ... 0 0 ~~ 6~' 9 ~~ 1 16 3 o 6~ ~- ~ 36 . m 0 „ U O w '- ~ ' ~ 95 ° ° s ` 95 ~" 12~ a , $ p r ` ~ ~ o 0 6 5 ~; 66 0 ° 235 i 3 w z 5 ° ~ s ~ • ~ ~ w ° 32 ~ e 1685 I ~.. ,.`O~0 w cUn ~~G~~S ~\ 1 ~ u.o Z 0 ~ J E ~ - v v (7 v ~ v v o~~ ONO Z .- tD UfN Z~~ t!1 in N e7 0 - n N ~ O•• O 1 tL Z NJl3i ~ O I O U tD O U O L U °' °' 3. D/e3 4. q 3.0/83 c c ~ , ti oa of ~ \ ~' ~ ° ~ o, ~ o 0/~ 99~ ` o0 m 0 0 , "i ay 0 C d2i0 •/ Ogg ~ a 2~0 .l 9. 0/Zg .•~ c° 9• ` P C 1 W ri ri c ni N N ~ ry ~ o o ~\ ~ . 1~ , D/Zt C . n •.~ ~ C O ri cj 1.0/2t a ~- j Z9 .moo `! g9 pfd 3.0/9 rn cUi u• N N ° 0 f~~O 2 Y- m ~ _ i W ~ oti ~2~ ~ o z o ~ 0 ti z~ ~ a1 y 0 3 ~~9 Z• ~ o 1 W \ 0 2~ 8 g,0/19 c y ~ ~1 2,0/21 U ~ ¢ g plZ~g t /0'! 2, 2.0/21 v m --I g~ g 3 Of ~ 6'2i oto~`Z~ ~ m m 0 1 ,2.0/80 0 . S~0 6 2 N ~' •o o° ~ ai°' 0 0: Z _ ~cf = _ tiff Q.. = °° oo ~ O c°'., ~ 1 ~ ° ~ ti 9.0/29 29 e N v • 0~ 9.0/ \ N O ~ `~ o ~- W,~`g ~ m oR' °' 9 2' m ~ ~ ~ ~'o. ' o N 9 • Q~2 c o ° ° i° j g• 1 c~ 2 ~~1 m cQ'.+ .~ ~, 2.0/21 ~ _ ~ • m 0 °~° o ~ ~ 29 °' g• > s ~ ~y 0 0 m I a g ti ~~ c• ~_ g. 8.0/29 9. OjZ9 .... D/~ g• v o ~ g, ~ t'~ o° 9~ ~9 .a ~"' 0 X0.6 ~ L 01~ o m N 9 °~ °' t 0~2 c-~ m N o ~0 61 ~ ~~ . 3.0/84 a o 0 . 22 1.0/22 m 'o ~ ~ s ~ " - ~ /~ ~m r, ~.0/2 0/2`~ 9 0 o ~: m ` Z 84 2 ~ ~ w 0~ 1. ~. 0 c °'9. 9 w 1• 2• t ~ ~ 0~ ~ Q, ~ 2 00 2• .0/2 ~ o~~ wv i ~ ~-. r ~ 7 Tri-Valley Ke~ional. Transportafien Improvement Fee Program Nexus Anc:lysis ^ Introduction In July 1995, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council ('TVTC) adopted the Tri-Valley Action plan as its blueprint for transportation planning through the yeaz 2010. The Plan acknowledges that financial constraints played a critical role in selecting an optimal level of service and identifying only the most critical improvement to regional roadways and transit facilities. As an integral component of the Plan's financial strategy, TVTC will leverage over $162 million in federal, state, and local (i.e., Measure C and Measure B sales tax funding) Provided it can raise matching funds from other local sources. The TVTC selected 11 improvements that will require over $534 million, leaving $368 million of the plan currently unfunded. In order to fond this gap, the TVTC has undertaken a study of a Regional Transportation Improvement Fee (RTIF)• The RTIF would charge a fee on new development to augment other funding for projects on routes of regional significance. Thebpurp~OS~e R rfr~~ f~ d°cument the technical analysis necessary for the unplementa ^ Methodology An area-wide fee program must conform to the requrrements of Government Code 66000 et seq. and subsequent opinions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court, California Supreme Court, and lower courts. While the statutes and ~ court decisions provide general guidelines, the design and implementation of multi-jurisdictional impact fees is not as tightly circumscribed as other' local revenue measures (e.g., assessment districts, local sales tax measures, subdivision map/developer exactions). Nevertheless, the statutory requirements and judicial guidance behooves the TV'I'C to follow a basic five step process to design its regional fee: 1. Convert New Development Into A Net Increment of New Trigs. ABAG's Projections 94 provides the forecast of new residents and employees moving into the Tri-Valley area over the next 20 years. This projection of residential and employment growth in each jurisdiction must be converted to a 13 yeaz increment of new trip generation (1997 to' 2010). This increment must then be reduced by the number of trips associated with exempt develo amenvelo went agreement~excludingaassessmentof vesting tentative map or has p additional fees. t .._. - --- - -- -- ... ~-~ e fhe TaiisparEation Iarprflveme=Zt3 3~T~ed~d tD.~rowtlz--~e'la~v- allox~s the _- - - 1VrC to require new development to mitigate its full impact ~nn the Tri-VaIley routes . The TVI'C, of regional significance lie., maintain current levels of service (LOSS] hoK*ever,.has lim?ted the maxiu'ium cost to new development to the unfunded porrion - ~ of the Action Plan's eleven projects, approximately X368 m~I.ion. This is substantially . below the threshold of new development's full responsibility. 3. Evaluate the Relationship Between the Imprvvemeats; the Share of Funding from New Develapment, and the Iuzpact of New Trip Generation. The improvements must provi.clQ ~bA,.nedits that aze in reasonable proportion tD the amount of the impacts. fees paid by new development. Thus. if TVTC imposes a uniform fee, it must reach a consensus that new development in aIl parts of the Tri Valley area will receive - roughly propbrtianal benefits from the improvements. _ . -_ _. _ 4:- Allocate Costs A.csoss-Land Use Tppes.. Fee amounts should be fairly distributed among residential, retail,.. office, .and industrial) .development. This distrr~ution is based on the trip geneSation rha~rteri~-cs of each land use type. Nevertheless, the TVTC may reduce the fees for some types of land use if tine foregone revenue is replaced with some other funding source .(e.g., fedeial and state) and the RTff-funded projects are eventually built. . 5. Prepare Fee Schedules and Implementation prdiuances. Each local jurisdiction, th=ough then exercise of their police power„ must adopt an ordatance iarposing the ' ' .fee on development within their jurisdiction- The 'I'VTC may adjust a unifona fee schedule for specdfic land use conditions or ~r~„r~nces, including the effects of household income on trip generation, the land use's pra~mity to transit stations, and the effects ofjobs-housing balance on travel behavior. 'fie rPT„a~nder of this report explains the calculations and presents the results of each of the five steps descn`bed above. Supporting documeru'ation regarding transportation .analysis and ctrmpntaz modeling is available from TVTG . ~ ~ New .~eVelopn1en~ aid ~ncremen~al~T'rip Generation enerate 50,907 From 199.7 through 2010, new development in the Tri Valley azea ~ Q' a ~~ ercent .additional a.m. peak hour trips on the area's routes of regional signifi P increase over the next 1" years. The following sections explain the oria~ins of tiffs increase. Popjzlation, Employment, and Land Use Growth The fee is based on the .projected growth in TrJ'VaIIey hot=Beholds and employment ectiarzs 94 The figures far 1997 are estimated by straight lme forecast bg AsAG (Proj ). intrrpolatioaibetweeu the years 1990 and 2000: Households or an areaewloc~vaa~c3' mt°- units, are used as a proxy far dwelling unitB and aa~d l Table 1 presents the population and ..-IlLployment PrOle~ons. 5(0~~~ Table Z. ABAG Forecast of Tri-Valley Households 1997 ZO10 Increment Shares Growth Jurisdiction 758 ?% 1 10.6% Alamo/Blackhawk 7,148 7,906 790 14 847 1 . 4.0% 14.3% Danville 12,943 2 ~4 , 10,356 , 8,132 17.8% 365.6°ro Dougherty , 168 280 112 0.2% 67.1 % Tassajara 077 15 18,411 3,334. 7.3% 72.1 % San Ramon , 697 845 148 0.3 °k 21.3 % Other Contra Costa Co. 256 38 52,588 14,332 31.3% 37.5% Total Contra Costa Co. , 291 24 34,997 10,706 23.4°0 ~•1 Livermore , 277 21 30,151 8,874 19.4% 41.7% Pleasanton , 372 9 20,880 11,508 25.2% 122.8% Dublin , 240 549 309 0.7% •129.1 % Other Alameda Co. 180 55 86,577 31,397 b8.7% 56.9% Total Alameda Co. , 436 93 139,165 45,729 100.0% 48.9% Total Tri-Valley , As shown in Table 1, residential development in Alameda County will accommodate over the area's fastest two-thirds of the area's residential development. Dougherty Valley, growing community, will account for almost 18 percent of the area's new residents. Dublin and the unincorporated area of o~6 erCcent of the growth. two most rapidly developing jurisdictions and will accoun p Table 2 shows that the three jurisdictions in Alameda County will accommodate more than three-quarters of the Tri-Valley's employment growth. Total employment for the region. is expected to increase by over 57 percent, with total jobs in the Contra Costa County increasing by more than 42 percent and in Alameda County by 64 percent Table 2 ABAG Forecast of Tri-Valley Employment Growth from 1997 to 2010 1997 2010 Increment Shares Growth Jurisdiction 072 2 272 2 200 0.3°6 9.7% Alamo/Blackhawk , 960 6 , 7,226 266 0.3% 3.8 %° Danville , 765 5,365 4,600 6.0% 603 2 ro Dougherty 31 32 1 0.09'° Tassajara 397 32 45,204 12,807 16.7°,6 39.5% San Ramon , 91 92 1 0.0% 1.1 % Other Contra Costa Co. 315 42 60,191 17,876 23.4% 422% Total Contra Costa Co. ., 811 33 51,815 18,004 23.5% 53.2 Livermore , 137 40 61,476 X1,339 27.9% 532% Pleasanton , 836 16 36,000 19,164 25.0 % 113.8° ' Dublin , 791 943 152 0.29'0 0 19.2° Other Alameda Co. 81 576 150,234 58,658 76.6 % ~•1 % Total Alameda Co. , Total Tri-Valley 133,891 210,425 76,534 ~ 100.0% 57.2 % ~owth will generate and atuact new trips on ti,e area's _ _ _ _ _ _ Population and emplo3Znent o o --- -regional roaak-a~~s: ~'he soao-economic piojecti~ns"shoK~n ~i `TaJbles-Z"and ?are use3 i*i a -- transportation demand forecasting model developed spedfically for the Tri-Valley area to forecast the ina~ease in travel. The results of the modeling are shox*n in Table 3. Trip Generation Table 3, presents ti--e a.m. p..ak hour traffic volumes for the years 1997, ?010, and the 0 ov~rth K~tizin tine 14 year increment The projections assume aIl 11 Action Plan projects are built. Table 3. Growth in AM Peak Hour Trip Ends From 1997 to 2010 1997 2010 TnQement Share Growth Alamo/Blaclhar~*k 6,SS7 7,609 753 13 ~ 11.0° Danville 13,618 16,471 9~3 2.7°~ 6.1 °~ Dougherty ~ 3,0-72 11,683 8,131 14.3 ~ "%?7.1 °~ Tassajara 160 233 i3 O.I ~ 45.4° San Ramon '3,336 ^5,179 1,843 3? ~ 7.9°~ Other Contra Costa Canty 519 695 176 03 ~ 34.0 °~ Total Contra Costa County 49,%2 61,870 11,908 30.9 ~ 23.8 Livermore ~ 37,874 52,917 15,043 26.4 ro 39.7° Pleasanton ~ 36,369 49,684 13,315 3.4 ro 36.6 Dublin 1S,8Z~ 35,145 16,323 28.7 ro 86.7 p Other Alameda County 0?0 893 318 0.6 m 55-.3 °~ Total Alameda County 93 640. 138.639 44~999 79.1 A 48.1 °~ Total Tri-Valley 143,603 200,509 56,907 I00.0°~ 39.6 The total ~a~ement of 56,907 new trips encompass aIl trips that either ori:~iriate or terrunmate in the Tri-Valley area_ In addition, the area ~du accommodate roug~Iy 5,530 new through trip ends .(ex~..znal - ex~...rna1), or roughly 10 percent of the total inQease_ Exempt Development The total increment of new trip generation (from I°97 to 2010) inciuds trips from new development that will be exempt from payirig a fee. Their exemption is due to either one of two legal criteria applying to a development project that has (1) been issued a vested tentative map or (?) completed a deveopment ao eeaient that explidtly excludes assess- ment of any adaiiaonal fees? If either of these criteria apply to a development project as of the. offiral date that.the jilrisdiciion's coun~l or board adopts the RTIF, the developer may- pull the proscribed numb-..r of binding p~iits without payn~g a few i If for any reason the vesring tentative map or development ~aa e~,..ment of an exempt development emirs or must be re-negotiated, the jurisdiction may impose the fee. ~O ~~ ~. t~Thile the transportation ~~{c~ef,~.rC Perot lunpose a fee and therefor cannot=collect from non-exempt develop fee revenues for the pro e14 dIIp nt from the otal increment of new tripsmThe~ esult is the generated by exempt de p net amount of new trips over which we can allocated the unfunded cost of the selecte improvements. Table 4 shows the exempt development in the Tri-Valley area. Table 4. Exempt Development By Jurisdiction Residential Retail Square Office Square Industrial Feet Square Feet ,. _~: __ DwelIin~ Units Feet cuzsuic~u~,~. Aiamo/ Blackhawk - - Danville _ - - Dougherty _ _ _ ~ - 'I'VPOA b50 - 2,123,600 - San Ramon _ _ - Other Tri-Valley CC County 0 600 - 2 123 Total Contra Costa Co. 65 _ , , _ 4,961,000 Livermore 1,414 - - _ 2,790 - Pleasanton - _ 172 Dublin - - Other Tri-Valley Alameda County - 4,961,000 Total Alameda Co. 4,37b - 4,961,000 600 12.1 2 Total Tri-Valley , , 5,026 - The exempt development shown in `able ~ The uro'ection of ew deve opment for Tn0 increment of new development ut Trr ally P J Valley is a rough estimate based on the ABAG socio-economic forecasts- Average vacancy rates are used to cony ~ Soup feet tofdreta~office and industrial spaceact~e are used to covert employees q results are shown in Table 5. ---~ TabI~e-3.--- -Estimates of New DeveIopment_for Tri-valley (199? - ?010) __- . ' 1997 -2010 . Land Use Cate~orles ~ ~ _ _.:. - Inerement- Single Family Dwelling Units 34,97 Multi Fam~y Dwelluig Units 6;105 Small Retail Square Feet (<200,000 sq. ft.) ~ S,£-45,040 Large Retail Square Feet (>200,000 sq. ft) 3,449,347 Office Square i-eet 4,1~?,200 Industrial Square Feet 5,3%,500 For each category of land use exempt development was converted into trips. and the amount deducted from the total numb~.s of trips for that land use. For example, a vested project u*ith twenty dwelling units of single family residential would. generate 0.74 a.rrL peal: hour trips per- unit or a total of 14.8 .a.m. p,_al: hour trigs:. The results of this adjustment process are presented in Table 6. Table 6. Total, Exempt, and Net Aivl Peak Hour Trip Ends From 1997 to 2Q10 Total Trip Ends Exempt Trip Ends Net Trip Ends Alamo/Blaclhawh T3 0 To3 Danvill° 453 0 °53 Dougherty 8,111 0 S,I11 Tassajara ~ 0 : ~ San Ramon 1,843 689 1,154 Otleer Conti a Costa Co. ~ 170 0 I7o Livermore ~ North Livermore 15,043 ~ 3,T i 11,?Bo Plezsanton 13,31 '-,093 11 ',?"' Dublin d: East Dublin 16,3?3 1?~ 16,301 Oth_r Alameda Co. 318 .0 31S Total 56,907 6,b61 X0,246 Tee appropriate trip generation rates are applied to the exempt development in order to estimate the number of nDw trips that must be deducted from the total incremPnt.= Tne total numb-.s of trips from exempt residential development equals rou~hiy 3;500 a.m. p._ai: u.ips, or about 30 percent of the total b,o61 exempt trips: Non-residential develop- rnent will generate tha remaining ~ percent. Tl7°s°_ stimates .are deducted from the total =The trip generation rats are determuied from the Trip GPn.°rato.-s, 5~ Edition, Institute of Traffic ~~ neOrs (ITS) and modiaed accorriing to special Tri-~%aIley condiizons as determined from the updated trafnc model T'nse rats are shown in Table IL increment of 56,907 new trips, producing roughly 50,246 net trips that may be assigned a share of the cost of improvements. ^ Transportation Improvements In July of 1995, TVTC adopted the Tri-VatIey Transporfation Plan/Action Plan for Rnufes of RegiorrnI Sigrrifecnnce (Action Plan). The Action Plan identifies 11 projects that will achieve the best level of service within the Tri-Valley given financial constraints, physical limita- tions within corridors, and development patterns. The Plan integrates enhancements to roadway capacity, increased transit service, control of demand (growth management and TDM), and acceptance of congestion in locations where it cannot be avoided (see Tire Action PIan, pages 117 to 123). Table 7 identifies the 11 major projects on routes of regional significance within the Tri- Valley. The TVTC selected this set of actions - as well as other programs and measures described in the Plan - to mitigate congestion and achieve a specific set of Traffic Service Objectives. These results assume that futcue traffic will be constrained by the limited capacities of highway facilities serving the Tri-Valley Gateways (see Tire Action Plnrt, Chapter 5, "Gateway Constraints"). Table 7. Action Plan Projects and Available Funding o c I-580/I-680 Interchange $121.2 0 $213 $111.1 1 $36 $10.1 $176.9 Route 84 (includes interchanges at I-~80 and Stanley) . . . 6 $Z3 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon) $40.0 $16.4 . BART Extension: West Dublin station $43.0 $0.0 $43.0 I-580 Tassajara to N. Livermore: HOV Lanes $40.0 $0.0 $40.0 I-b80 Rte 84 to Sunol: HOV Lanes $14.4 $0.0 $14.4 I-580/Foothill Interchange modifications for W. Dublin BART $2.0 $0.0 $2.0 I-680/Alcosta Interchange modifications $9.6 X2.3 $~•3 Crow Canyon Rd Safety Improvement $18.0 $0.2 $17.8 $25.0 $0.0 $25.0 Vasco Road Realignment $8.0 $0.0 $8.0 Express Bus Service $534.2 $166.1 $368.1 l A lion Plan T t a Funding Unfunded Pro~ect Total Cost Available Amount The unfunded cost of all 11 Action Plan projects equals roughly $368 million in 1997 doI- lars, or about 70 percent of the total cost. After considerable technical analysis and careful consideration, the TVTC has determined that a fee program designed to fund the full $368 million shortfall would place an excessive financial burden on new development. This burden would be most severe on low-income housing and commercial development. For example, • heavy fees on c~~~, -_ -- -- ~----cvmrrrercial -•-d~ve}opment^-~-woui-d_- have--t13e M :probable----and-- counterp:~oducdi~.e :- _._ ~ consequ°nce of driving ,some job-creating development outside the Tri-Valley, thLs exacerbating the region's jobs/housing imbalance. Given these objectives, the TV~'C ranked the 11 project according to their affect of con- gestion and .the amount of state and federal funding t}-at ,could be leveraged using fee revenues as a local match..1n order to fadlitate this ranking, Route 84 w as divided into six separate projects. Each was then evaluated on.its own merits and compazed to the other 10 Action Plan projects. Table S presents the six highes*_-ranked projects. Table 8. Selected Action PIan Projects anci Available Funding . ~ .Funding Unfunded Total Cost Available Amount Project I-S80/I-680 Interchange 51213 5121.1 510.1 Rte 84: I-S80/IsabelExt: new I/C: Isabel at 4 lanes 540.0 50.0 .540.0. Rte 84/Isabel Ext: J. London to Concannon cC I-580/Airway 5;2.0 528.1 53.9 " Rte 84: I-SBO to Vineyard.: widen to 4 lanes 52S_0 50.0 5 '...5.0 ' I-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon) 540.0 516.4 5 'x•6 . BA1ZT Extension: West Dublin station 543.0 50.0 543.0 Total ror AIl Six Projects 53093 SI63.6 S1a-?-6 As shown ~in Table 8, this short 'fist of the highest ranked. projects toils 5309 million in cost of which roughly ~14~.6 miIlzon - or about half - is unfunded.. Thus, this short last represents a 63 percent reduction in the unfunded cost TVTC intends to cover with the impact fee. Existins Local.Impact Feesfor Action Plan Some Tr-VaIle3~ jurisdictions require new development to mitigate their impacts on the same sections of regional routes that will be improved by one of the Action Plan projects. Develop°`Ts either pay local impacE fees, dedicate right of-way, or construct transportation facilities. Some jurisdiction's include funding for one or more of the six projects in their local fee programs:- In these czses, the TVTC will wozk ~~th Iocal jurisdictions to reduce the local fee by the amount of the regional component and new development will pay the full regional fee. Thus, the total amount being funded by the RTIF fe4 must be increzsed by the amount of funding from local fees. Table 9 presents an initial i--venrory of each ju~-sdiction's Io: ally landed (or required) improvements to the six highest-ranked projects. Table 9: Local Funding for Selected Projects urisdiction Millions of 1497 J Dollars Alamo/Blacichawic ~ 0 ~ Danville (estimate) Dougherty (estimate) $ 6.2 Tassajara ~ 1.4 San Ramon (estate) Other TV Contra Costa County (estimate) $ 0.1 Total Contra Costa Co. $ 8.5 $7.~ Livermore _ Pleasanton ~ _ Dublin - Other TV Alameda County ~ 7 ~ Total Alameda Co. Total Tri-Valley ~ 16.0 The amounts shown in Table 9 for the four jurisdictions in Contra Costa County are estimates of the Southern Contra Costa Fee for Traffic Mitigation. The estimates assume roughly proportional to the trip generation estimated from each jurisdiction. As noted above, the X16 million total in Iocal fee revenue must be added to the $145.6 million in unfa-zded cost. The total amount to be funded with the RTIF, therefore, equals 5161.6 million. - ^ Nexus r'~ialysis The impact of new Tri-Valley development on regional transportation facilities is based on an update of the Tri-Valley Model completed by Dowling Associates (Tri-Va1Iey Re- Validation Report, June 199. This computer model simulates current and future traffic flows on the roadway network under a wide range of user-specified conditions. The model is extremely useful for determining the impact of new development on roadway levels-of-service. In particular, the model estimates new development's fair share of the Action Plan improvements by isolating the effects of new development from those of existing development, through (external-external) trips, and existing deficiencies. This analysis indicated that this development will cause levels-of-service to decline despite all of the improvements proposed in MTC's short and Long range improvement plan. Nor will the improvements to be funded as part of the Action Plan prevent degradation's in levels-of-service. As part of its Action Plan, the TVTC has evaluated the impact of new development on its subregional system and identified numerous improvements. These improvements - if all were completed by the year 2010 -will increase the area's capacity for vehicle miles of 9 . --: - .. - ._._ . - :.... _ .. .. ~ _ _ . _ _:.. .. - ~3~.~~' .. ,__, .. _ __. tmvel~~?~'~1 }_by almost ?I._percent New_develo_pment•w_iIl increase t*~e number of VI~~ .. - ~ using this capacity-~y: ~S percent, thus absorbing almost °9 percent ~oft~ie riew capacih~: ~-" ~jMT from thi-oug~- trips (i.e., tips travel through the area but not stopping) will increase _ _ 16 percent Of the total x,381 increase in STMT, new development will account for 90 percerit~of the increase: Table 20 presents the results of the VIvIT analysis in more detail. Table I0. ~-MT Analysis from 1997 to 20I0 1997 2010 Increment Change VMT for AII Tri-Valley 632,T6 Ss7,D37 ?54,..51 4D?°o VMT for Through Trips 131,467 176,267 ~?4,180 I5.° o VMT for Internal Tri-~%alley -X50,769 710,670 ?30,101 4?.9 ro VMT Capacity 1,I17,D~9 1,30.334 ?33,3D0 2D.4°~ The results shov~Tn in Table 10 ~n7ould ju-~Y the TVTC allocating 90 percent of the Action Plan's total cost -roughly X333 million - to new development nn the Tri Valley area. For- tunately, T~~I'C has secured 5166 aiiLTion (or 30 percent of the total) from other sources, leavinj. 5368 uullion still zir~funded. While the TVTC could require new development to fund the entire i,nfL'yided balance, it has selected six projects it believes are most needed. inese projects, however, will not. prevent some de~eradation in the regional network°s level of service. iE Fee Calculai-iorts Fee calculations involve four steps: • Step 1:- :4llocation of Costs: Dete~znine if the total share of tmfimded costs s'nould be allocated uniformly to .all new development in the Tri-ti'alley area, rejardless of juris- c't_icrion, or if a the fees must be det~~Tned on a jurisdiciiort=by-jurisdiction baste. • Step 2 -Cost per Peal: hour a Trip End: Calculate three per trip amounts and three fee schedules based venerating sufficient revenues to fund the X308 m;iTiori unfunded balance for aIl 1Y Action Plan Projects and the 5161..6 million for the selected projects. • Step 3 - Pr~Iiminary roe Sch°dulPs: Apply the three costs per peak hour tip end to the trip generation ['tta; acte~~:stics of different types of land use to create three pre- linvnary fee srhedul~s. • Step Q -Final F°e Schedule: As an alteriative to the three fee schedules in Step ~, Qe- ate a d;scounted fPe schedule u*hich reduces the finandal burden placed on neu7 development bt• coIlectino less than the full, unfunded amount . Allocation of Costs The fee revenue generated by each jurisdiction should be rough proportion to the benefits each jurisdiction receives from the Action Plan improvements. This balance, however, is difficult to quantify given the complexity of travel patterns in the Tri-Valley. As an alter- native to a quantitative analysis, the TVTC's Technical Advisory Committee has recom- mended six projects it believes represent a reasonable balance of benefits to all jurisdictions. Given the extensive experience of the TAC's membership, this qualitative approach is a satisfactory alternative to a qualitative analysis using the transportation model (i.e., select-link analysis of all proposed projects3). Thus, TVTC has derided to apply a uniform cost per peak hour trip end across all TVTC jurisdictions. Costs Per Peak Hour Trip End A uniform cost per peak hour trip end is calculated by dividing the net increase of 50,24b new a.m. peak hour trip ends by the three revenue tazgets: $368 million for all 11 Action Plan Projects and $161.6 million for six selected projects.. Table 11 presents the two costs per peak hour trip end. Table 11. Alternative Funding Amounts and Corresponding Costs Per Peak Hour Trip End. Revenue Targets Per Peak Hour Share of ($1,000,000's) Trip End Action Plan FuIl Action Plan (11 Projects) $368.1 $7,362 Selected Projects $161.6 $3,216 44 Preliminary Fee Schedules The fee amounts are determined by multiplying the cost per a.m. peak hour trip end by the number of trips generated by a pazticular land use. For purposes of effidency and consistency, TVTC has limited its fee schedule to two types of residential development (i.e., single and multi-family dwelling units) and four types of commercial space (large and small retail, office, and industrial). Table 12 shows the Institute of Traffic Engineers trip generation rates for each of these land use. In addition, it shows the adjustments for average trip length, trip diversion, and the final adjusted trip length. 3 For each sega-ent of regional roadway that will be improved using fee revenues, select link analysis shows the origins and destinations of future trips. Thus, the results help allocate the benefit of the improved roadway according to the amount of new development in each jurisdiction. .-~' ,.,~ __ Table 1?_::q-M-.Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates ar:d Adjustments ~` Trip Diversion Trip Z,ength Adjusted A.M land lise Categories -Base Rates Adiustment.Factar Adiustment Factor Peak dour Trip hate Single Family Residential 0.74 LDD ~ ~ 1.00 OJ4 - Multi r'amily Residential 0.47 1.00 1.00 - 0.47 Retail per sq. ft (<ZDO ksf) 1.60 0.2D DaD 0.16 Retail per sq. ft (>2D0 Isf) O.SO 0.45 0.30 0.15 Office per sq. ft 133 1.00 1.00 1.33 Industrial ner sq. ft. 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90 Trip diversion factors indicate the percentage of trips for each land use category that are "part of. a longer trip- but divert less than two n~iies out of the way to stop at the Land use. Trip length adjusts for trip shorter than the home=based work trips. The rates sho~~n in Table 13 are multiplied by the cost per peak hour trip end produce the three preliminary fee schedules shouTn belox*. The bottom row shows the estimated autounted of revenue each fee schedule should collect over the next 13 years. Table I3. Preliminary Fee Schedules (I997 - 2D10) . FuI1.Action PIan Selected (. Land lise Categories (I1-Projects) Projects Sinnie Family Residential ~~ Q?I S2.3S0 Ivlulti Family Residential - ~,~ ~1,5I3 Retail per square foot (<200 ksf) 31.17 50.31 Retail per square foot (>?'0 l:sf) 51.3' 30.55 OfncP uer square foot 5°-74 ~ ~g lndvstrial per square foot ~ $6.59 S? S9 Total Revenues (52,000,000) S3oE1 Slo1.5