HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.1 SB 45 Bridge Toll Increase t } p � w.1.f.Yi f ....�' ••,...'YrsliKSU`s7.4'4'Y:.f-y!.rf�.,t.".b'µ -re4
' .. • r • ...,u vdY ..♦ .•.Y.L��� ...YhY.,(.�,L.iJ...'e.CY.Y.,,v 3.,..i..tA'.Z iNY�... ....¢/ � { i. .. ....w... ♦ f... .
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 22, 1988
SUBJECT Letter from State Senator Bill Lockyer regarding SB 45
EXHIBITS ATTACHED Letter dated July 25 , 1988; Copy of Bill
RECOMMENDATION Review proposal and consider impacts
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The Bill proposes an increase in bridge tolls from 75¢
to $1 .00
DESCRIPTION Senator Lockyer has written to elected officials in
the area requesting that they review the language contained in SB 45. The
bill would increase the bridge tolls to $1.00 for passenger vehicles and a
50% increase would be imposed on commercial vehicles . Senator Lockyer has
noted that commercial vehicle tolls were not raised when passenger tolls
last increased.
The bill , as described in Senator Lockyer ' s letter, is anticipated to raise
$40 ,000,000 for bridge improvements in the first year, and one and one-half
billion dollars over a 20 year period. Included in the proposed projects
are the development of a new Benicia Bridge , replacement of the Carquinez
Span, the widening of both the San Mateo Bridge and the western approach to
the Dumbarton Bridge , improvements to the Richmond Bridge , and
reconstruction of major interchanges and access corridors. Attached to
Senator Lockyer ' s letter is a complete listing of the various projects which
would be anticipated.
The bill also requires that a minimum of 90% of the revenues derived from
the toll increase for Class I vehicles on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay
Bridge shall be restricted for a special purpose. These funds shall be
reserved exclusively for rail transit capital improvements , designed to
reduce vehicular traffic on the Bay Bridge. Seventy percent of these funds
shall be used for projects in Alameda and Contra Costa County. The
Bayfair-Livermore rail transit corridor has been included.
The bill will require that the measure be placed before voters in the Bay
Area in the General Election to be conducted in November of this year.
Staff has been informed by the League of California Cities that the measure
has been signed by the Governor and will be included on the ballot . The
increased toll legislation will provide funding for various transportation
related projects throughout the Bay Area.
Staff recommends that the City Council review the proposal and provide any
appropriate comments .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: Claudia McCormick, Senator
5 -1 Lockyer ' s Office
ITEM N0. 6
CALAA, ORNIA STATE SE , - AiTE
SACRAMENTO OFFICE BILL LOCKYER COMMITTEES
STATE CAPITOL
C
SACRAMENTO.CA 95814 MAIRMA!1.JUDICIARY
(916)445-6671 TENTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT ELECTIONS
DISTRICT OFFICES:
SOUTHERN ALAMEDA COUNTY HnSINCAHouREIANAFFA:RS
❑ 22300 FOOTHILL BLVD..SUITE 415 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
HAYWARD.CALIFORNIA 94541 REVENUE AND TAXATION
(415)562.8800 �.*. RE C E I Y ED TOYIcs AND P:Buc SAFETI
,y�.,a s 'J:ki`:. % MANAGEMENT
❑ 6140 STONERICGE MALL ROAD 1T,T5.;.• •\;`a.
SITE FO JUL 27 1988
PLEASANTON.CALIFORNIA 94566 -.r.-yt" 5
s�
❑ 4725 THORNTON AVE.0104
FREMONT.CALIFORNIA 94536,E,4 fnn
(415)790.3605 A31, (11r n
' h'N
July 25, 1988
Honorable Linda Jeffery
Mayor, City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Blvd .
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Linda,
As you may be aware, I ' ve been an opponent of bridge
collr, . I 've always argued that the bridges should be free
once their bonds are payed . That was our original promise .
But it has become increasingly clear to me that our local
transportation needs simply cannot be met under the current
revenue structure .
The problem is serious . Caltrans estimates that over
$1 billion will be needed in the next 20 years to pay for
essential improvements on our bridges. The General Fund of
the State cannot cover the tab.
Working together with other Bay Area legislators, we
have devised a new approach to bridge tolls we believe will
work, imposing a minimal burden on cur commuters . In SB 45,
we propose a $ 1 dollar- toll on our bridges for passenger
vehicles, and up tc a 500 increase for commercial vehicles .
(Commercial tolls were not raised when passenger tolls last
increased . `
This is hardly a radical move. The tolls on the Bay
Bridge have increased only 25� since 1569 . Adjusting the
current 754 toll to 1936 dollars, the year the bridge
opened, the cost of crossing woulc be a mere 7 . 5� . That
first year, a $ 1 . 30 toll was charged . If we ' d kept current
with inflation, the fee would now be 513 . 00 !
No one is wild about increasing these tolls. In the
best of worlds, the burden would be supported by gas taxes
-- like any other highway . But I am convinced the time has
come to bite the bullet . And I 'm impressed by the public
benefits of this modest revenue increase .
SB 45 will raise an additional $40 million for bridge
improvements in the first year, and $1 . 5 billion over a 20
year period . With the bonds that can be supported by that
revenue, vie will build a new Benicia Bridge, replace the old
Carquinez span, widen the San Mateo bridge and the western
approach to the Dumbarton, improve the Richmond, and
reconstruct major interchanges and access corridors . For
the Bay Bridge itself, adding extra capacity is simply not
feasible . Instead, we propose to dedicate revenues from the
increase on that span to mass transit extensions (70% East
Bay, 30% West Bay) to relieve congestion . A schedule of
proposed projects and expenditures is enclosed for your
reference .
I 'm proud of the work we 've done on this measure, and
I 'm especially appreciative of the dedication of our Bay
Area legislators who put together this bi -partisan package--
Senators Becky Morgan, and Quentin Kopp; Assemblymembers
Bill Baker, Bob Campbell , and Delaine Eastin. We 've worked
long and hard to create a responsible approach to our
transportation problems . We hope to put this proposal to a
public vote in November.
That ' s why I 'm viriting to solicit your help. As an
elected official , you are particularly attune to the needs
and sensibilities of your constituents . Does SB 45 make
sense? Does it sufficiently address your budget-related
transportation problems? Will you join us in presenting
this balanced program of improvements on the November
ballot?
We 'd appreciate your advice and comment . Feel free to
contact me, or Michelle Robrahn on my staff, with your
reactions .
Let ' s work together -- now -- to create again a Bay
Area transportation system we can be proud of.
e s t w ' shes,
i
BILL LOCKYER
BL/mer
enclosures
r� 10_ye OAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS*
ANTIOCH AND CARQUINEZ STRAITS BRIDGES
Protect Type Escalated Costs
Rehabilitation S 15 Million
Safety Improvements 1 Million
Operational Improvements 9 Million
Capacity Enhancements
Widen existing Benicia Bridge - 31 Million —
New Parallel Benicia Bridge 230 Million —
Replacement Southbound Carquinez Bridige 194 Million
TOTAL $480 M•111lon
SAN FRANCISCO BAY BRIDGES
Protect Type Escalated Costs
I Rehabilitation $100 Million
Safety Improvements 1 Million
Operational Improvements 20 Million
Capacity Enhancements
Widen Dumbarton Westerly Approach 3 Million
Widen San Mateo Bridge to 6 Lanes 87 Million
Reconstruct 92/880 Interchange 140 Million
Grand Ave Connector 32 Million
Off-Deck Maintenance Travelway 146 Million
TOTAL $529 Million
RICHMOND-SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE
Project Type Escalated Costs
Rehabilitation $14 Million
Safety Improvements 1 Million
Operational Improvements 1 Million
TOTAL $16 Million
' Costs do not Include project support or right-of-way
April 15, 1988
Bay Area Council
Poll on Bridge Tolls - REVISED
October 1987
1. A proposal has been made recently to establish a minimum bridge
toll for all bridges crossing the San Francisco Bay. The extra
money raised would go for bridge repairs, improvements and
expansion. If a proposal like this were on the ballot in your
county, would you favor or oppose it?
Results :
Favor Oppose No Opinion
Overall: 57% 38% 5%
Alameda Co. 63% 30% 7%
Coco 6 836 27% 5y,
SF 50% 46% 4%
San Mateo 55% 38% 77.
S. Clara 54% 41% 57.
North Bay* 50% 47% 3%
2. If the increased bridge toll were used for rail transit, would
you favor or oppose it?
Results:
Favor Oppose No Opinion
Overall: 653'0 32% 37.
Alameda Co. 65% 327, 3°/
Coco 6536 33% 2q,
SF 66% 29% 5%
San Mateo 66% 29% 5y,
S. Clara 657. 33% 2q,
North Bay* 63% 36% 2%
*North Bav includes Marin, Napa, Sonoma, & Solano Counties.
REVISED DRAFT OF BALLOT QUESTION
Shall the California Transportation Commission and
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission be authorized to
undertake a revenue bond program to finance major bridge
improvements, the construction of new bridges, and mass transit
extensions designed to reduce bridge traffic in the Bay Area,
to be financed by bridge tolls which shall not exceed one dollar
($1) for passenger vehicles?
{ i i
c
PROPOSED.CONFERENCE REPORT NO. 1 i.
AUGUST 4, 1988 -
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY,11, 1987, I
SENATE BILL `' No. .45.
Introduced by Senator Lockyer
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Eaves)
December 2; 1986 . j
;i
An,-'act to add,Section 30113 to, and to add Chapter 4 I
(commencing with Section 30910) 'to -Division 17 of, the
Streets and Highways Code, relating to bridge tolls, and !
declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect_immediately. j
C ` LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST I
SB 45, as amer'ded, Lock y er. Toll bridge revenues.
Under . '.egg Iav�, the Trreftspertet
• Peres bilge'tebe aed has geee� adwApAstTative
stitherity 44th regafd to teb�idges,t�e4€er ies;and teb reads. j
Pis b H add a4itherize the te• titihze met
rev erties teb bridges in er-der to €>rianee researek ear
high tee metier eel deNiees to be used em the
.bridges. .,The b4 'would graftt 949 atttheAty to the
€er bridges ift its
jurisdieti
(1) Existing law provides for the construction, operation,
maintenance, toll rates, and use of toll revenues of the
Antioch, Benicia-Martinez; Carquinez, Dumbarton,
Richmond-San .Rafael, San Francisco-Oakland, and San i
Mateo-Hayward Bridges.
This bill would classify the'Antioch,. Benicia-Martinez,•
Carquinez, and Richmond-San Rafael Bridges as the northern
bridge unit, and would classify the other bridges as the
southern bridge unit. The bill would require toll revenues
97 so
i
SB 45 —2— —3— S11 45
from the bridges in each unit to be kept in separate accounts, congestion on that bridge.
which the bill would create. The bill would authorize toll `-' The bill would authorize the issuance of revenue bonds,
revenues from all bridges in abridge unit to be expended on secured by revenues available for allocation by the
any bridge in that unit for safety and operational costs, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, to finance transit
including toll collection and insurance, and the payment of capital improvement projects.
p]'inCipol and interest on bonds issued for the construction (2) The California Constitution requires the state to
and improvement ofbridgesin that unit,and would authorize reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs
specked major bridge projects to be funded from toll mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish
revenues. The bill would authorize up to 39 of toll revenues procedures for making that reimbursement, including the
to be allocated by the Metropolitan Transportation creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of
Commission for other transportation projects to reduce mandates which do not exceed $500,000 statewide and other
vehicular traffic on bridges. procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $500,000.
. The bill would impose a state-mandated local program by This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State
requiring the City and County of Sim Thincisco and the Mandates determines that this bill contains costs mandated by
Counties ofAlanneda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Mateo, Santa the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made
Clara, and Solano to conduct special elections on a proposed pursuant to those statutory procedures and, if the statewide
toll schedule recommended by the Metropolitan cost does not exceed $500,000, shall be made from the State
Transportation Commission for each of the bridges,providing Mandates Claims Fund
for a uniform ,$1 toll for Class I vehicles and an amount up to (3) The bill would declare that it is to take effect
1% times the toll on the Spun Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in immediately as an urgency statute.
effect on Jwnuary 1, 1969,for all other vehicles. The bill would _i Vote: majerity%.Appropriation:no. Fiscal committee:yes.
prohibit any increase of the bridge tolls until .the results of ! State-mandated local program: tie yes.
those elections are available. If a majority of all the voters.
voting on the question approve a toll increase, the California The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
Transportation Commission would be required to adopt the
schedule recommended by the Metropolitan Transportation i 1 SECTION 1. Section 30113 is added to the Streets and
Commission as the toll schedule for those bridges. The bill 2 ' Highways Code, to read:
would prohibit changing those rates without further 3 30113. . (a) The commission may utilize net revenues
authorization by the Legislature, except that the California 4 from toll bridges in order to finance research on high
Transportation Commissionn would be authorized to revise 5 technology motion control devices to be used on the
those rates as may be necessary to meet bond obligations.'The 6 bridges.
bill would declare the Legislature's intent to maintain tolls at 7 (b) If the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
rates sufficient to meet bridge bond obligations. 8 allocates toll bridge net revenues pursuant to Section
The bill's provisions would be repealed if the toll increase 9 30886,it may utilize net revenues from the bridges under
is rejected by a majority of the voters voting on the measure. `-' 10 its jurisdiction to finance the research referred to in
The bill would impose a state tax for purposes ofArticle XIII 11 subdivision (a).
B of the California Constitution by requiring that revenues 12 SEC, 2. Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 30910)
from an increase in the tolls for the San Francisco-Oakland 13 is added to Division 17 of the Streets and Highways Code,
Bay Bridge be used exclusively for transit capital 14 to read:
improvements designed to reduce vehicular traffic
97 70 97 110
SB 45 —4— i —5— SB 45
1 CHAPTER 4. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA BRIDGES j 1 specked in Sections 30913 and 30914,including payments
2 2 into a sinking fund maintained for that purpose, and
3 30910. (a) For purposes of ' this chapter, the i 3 repayment of any advances made for that purpose. No
4 state-owned toll bridges in the region under the 4 additional bonds secured by the revenues of any bridge
5 jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Transportation 5 specified in Section 30910 shall be issued without the
6 Commission are classified as being in the northern bridge 6 further approval of the Legislature, except to finance, in
7 unit or the southern bridge unit. 7 whole or in part, the projects authorized by this chapter
8 (b) The northern -bridge unit is comprised of the '� I ' 8 or to refund bonds issued to finance those projects, if, in
9 following bridges, which shall be operated and financed 9 the opinion of the California Transportation Commission,
10 as a single unit: 10 a saving in interest costs can be achieved by such
11 (1) Antioch Bridge. 11 refunding.
12 (2) Benicia-Martinez Bridge. 12 (b) However, not less than 90 percent of the revenue
13 .(3) Carquinez Bridges. • 13 derived from the toll increase for Class I vehicles on the
14 (4) Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. 14 San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge shall be used for
15 (c) The southern bridge unit is comprised of the 15 payment of principal of, and interest on, bonds issued
16 following bridges, which shall be operated and financed 16 for the construction of rail extensions and improvement
17 as a single unit: 17 projects specified in Section 30914, including payments
18 (1) Dumbarton Bridge. 18 into a sinking fund maintained for that purpose.
19 (2) San Mateo-Hayward Bridge. 19 (c) Maintenance of the bridges specified in Section
20 (3) San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. 20 30910 shall be funded in accordance with procedures for
21 . 30911. (a) Toll revenues -from : the bridges `/ �✓ 21 funding maintenance of the southern bridge unit during
22 comprising the northern bridge unit shall be deposited in 22 the 1986-87 fiscal year.
23 as the San Fran cisco BayBridges-Northern Unit Account, 23 30913. (a) In addition to any other authorized
24 which is hereby created in the State "Transportation 24. expenditure of toll bridge revenues, the following major
25 Fund. 25 projects may be funded from toll revenues of all bridges
26 (b) Toll revenues from the bridges. comprising the 26 in the northern bridge unit.
27 southern bridge unit shall be deposited•in the San 27 (1) Benicia-Martinez Bridge: Widening of the existing
28 Francisco Bay Bridges-Southern Unit Account; which is I 28 bridge.
29 hereby created in the State Transportation Fund. 29 (2) Benicia-Martinez Bridge: Construction of an
30 (c) Revenues in each of the accounts created by this 30 additional span parallel to the existing bridge.
31 section shall be kept segregated and set apart from other 31 (3) Carquinez Bridge: Replacement of the existing
32 funds. 32 western span.
33 30912. (a) Revenue derived from tolls on all bridges 33 (4) Richmond-San Rafael Bridge:Major rehabilitation
34 in a bridge unit may be expended on any bridge and its 34 of the bridge, and development of a new easterly
35 approaches in that unit for any of the following purposes: U `°"' 35 approach between the toll plaza and Route 80, near
36 (1) Safety and operational costs, including toll 36 Pinole.
37. collection and insurance. 37 (b) Up to 3 percent of the revenues derived from the '
38 (2) Payment of the principal of,and interest on, bonds 38 toll,increase on all bridges in the northern bridge unit
39 to be issued by the California Transportation Commission ! 39 may be allocated by the Metropolitan Transportation
40 for the bridge construction•and improvement projects j �� 40 Commission for transportation projects, other than those
97 130 97 150
" i
SB 45 —6— —7— SB 45
I
1 specified in Sections 30912, 30913, and 30914, which are + , 1 bridge unit may be allocated by the Metropolitan
2 designed to reduce vehicular traffic congestion on any ! 2 Transportation Commission for transportation projects
3 bridge in that group. The plans for the projects may also 3 other than those specified in Sections 30912, 30913, and
4 be funded by these moneys. 4 30914, which are designed to reduce vehicular traffic
5 (c) The department shall not include, in the plans for 5 congestion on any bridge in that group. The plans for the
.6 the new Benicia-Martinez Bridge, toll plazas, highways, 6 projects may also be funded by these moneys.
. 7. or other facilities leading to or from the Benicia-Martin ez 7 30915. With respect to all construction and
8 Bridge, any construction Which would result in the net J `-' 8 improvement projects specified in Sections 30913 and
9 loss of any wetland acreage. 9 30914, the department shall seek funding from all other
10 ' (d) With respect to - the Benicia-Martinez and 10 potential sources, including, but not limited to, the State
11 Carquinez bridges, the department shall consider the 11 Highway Account and federal matching funds.
12 . potential for rail transit as part of the plans for the new -12 30916. (a) The Metropolitan Transportation
13 structures specified in paragraphs (2) and (3) . of 13 Commission may adopt a proposed toll schedule, subject
14 subdivision (a). 14 to Section 30888, for each of,the bridges within its
15 30914. (a) In .addition to any other authorized 15 jurisdiction. The proposed schedules shall provide for a
16 expenditures of toll bridge revenues, the following major ( 16 uniform toll for all bridges of one dollar ($1) for Class I
17 projects may be funded from toll revenues of all bridges 17 vehicles. For other,vehicles, the proposed schedule for
18 in the southern bridge unit: 18 any bridge may provide for a toll not exceeding an
19 (1) Dumbarton Bridge: Improvement of the western 19 amount equal to one and one-half times the toll rate in
20. approaches from Route 101.if affected local governments 20 effect for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge on
21 are involved in the planning. 21 September 1, 1969,and may provide for reduced rates for
22 (2) San Mateo-Hayward Bridge and approaches: 22 commercial traffic during noppeak traffic hours. If the
23 Widening of the bridge to sixlanes, and improvements to 23 proposed increase in the toll for any type of non-Class I
24 the Route 92 1Route 880 interchange. 24 vehicle exceeds, by more than 50 percent, the toll in
25 '(3) Construction of West Grand connector or an J t 25 .effect on July 1, 1988, for that vehicle on that bridge, that
26 alternate project designed to provide comparable benefit 26 toll shall be increased by not more than one-fourth of the
27 by reducing vehicular traffic congestion on the eastern 27 total increase proposed, during each of the four
28 approaches to the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. 28 succeeding years. For purposes of this section, a Class I
29 -Affected local governments shall be involved in the 29 vehicle means any motor vehicle with not more than two
30 planning. 30 axles and four wheels and not drawing a trailer.
31 (4) Not less than 90 percent of the revenues derived :I 31 (b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to
32 from the toll increase for Class I vehicles on the San 32 prohibit the adoption of either a discounted commute
33 Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge shall be used exclusively 33 rate for Class I vehicles or of special provisions for
34 for rail transit capital improvements designed to reduce 34 high-occupancy vehicles under terms and conditions
35 vehicular traffic congestion- on the San U 4"' 35 prescribed by the California Transportation Commission.
36 Francisco-Oaklarid Bay Bridge. The remaining revenues 36 30917. (a) The tolls on any of the bridges specified in
37 shall be used to fund the projects specified in paragraphs I 37 Section 30910 shall not be increased prior to the
'38 (1), (2), and (3) of this subdivision. i 38 availability of the results of a special election to be held
39 (b) Up to 3 percent of the additional revenue derived I 39 in the City and County of San Francisco and the Counties
40 pursuant to Section 30915from all bridgesm the southern U u 40 of Alameda, Contra Costa,Marin,San Mateo,Santa Clara,
i
97 170 I 97 190
SB 45 .-8— —9— SB 45
1 and Solano to determine whether the residents of those 1 chapter shall be repealed on the day following the day on
2 counties approve a uniform toll of one dollar ($I) for `G 2 which the election results are certified.
3 Class I vehicles. •The revenue derived from the toll 3 (e) Except as provided in Section 30918, the toll rates
4' increase shall be used to finance capital outlay for bridge 4 contained in a toll schedule adopted by the California
5 .construction And major bridge improvement projects as• 5 Transportation Commission pursuant to this section shall
6 is fiscally practicable. Not less than 90 percent of the I 6 not be changed without further authorization by the
7 increase in revenue derived only from the Class]vehicles i 7 Legislature.
8 - on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge shall be used to 8 30918. (a) It is the intention of the Legislature to
9 ! finance rail extensions and improvement projects I 9 maintain tolls on all of the bridges specified in Section
110 designed to reduce vehicular traffic congestion on that 10 30910 at rates sufficient to meet any obligation to the
11 bridge and.its approaches, as specified in Section 30914. 11 holders of bonds secured by the bridge toll revenues. The
12 (b) Notwithstanding any provision of the Elections 12 California Transportation Commission shall retain
13 Code, the board ofsupervisors of each of the counties and 13 authority to set the toll schedule only as may be necessary
14 the city and county specified in subdivision (a) shall call ! 14 to meet those bond obligations.
15 a special election .to be .conducted in each of those 15 (b) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to
16 , counties. and the city and county, .which shall be j 16 prevent the California Transportation Commission from
17 consolidated, with the —November: 8, 1988,- general 17 complying with the provisions of any bond resolution in
18 election. The following question shall be presented to the i 18 effect on July 1, 1988.
19 voters of each of the counties as Regional Measure 1 to 19 30919. (a) Consistent with its adopted regional
20 be stated in the ballot. separately from state and local 20 transportation plan, .after the requirements for debt
21 measures: 21 service on the outstanding revenue bonds have been
22 `Shall the California,Transportation Commission and 22 met, the Metropolitan Transportation 'Commission shall
23 the - Metropolitan Transportation • Commission • be 23 allocate the revenues identified in subdivision (b) of
24. authorized-to undertake a revenue bond program to 24 Sections 30913 and 30914 to eligible public entities and to
25 finance major bridge improvements, the construction of �; 25 the department.
26 new bridges, and mass -transit extensions designed to 26 (b) The revenues expended pursuant to paragraph
27 reduce bridge traffic in the bay area, to be'financed b 27 (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 30914 shall be expended
28 bridge tolls which shall not exceed one dollar ($1) for 28 on'rail extension and improvement projects designed to
29 passenger vehicles?" 29 reduce vehicular traffic congestion on the San
30 (c) The results of the special election shall be reported 30 Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. Seventy percent of the .
31 by the county clerks to the California. Transpor ation 31 revenues shall be expended on rail extensions and
32. Commission and the Metropolitan Transportation 32 improvement projects in the Counties of Alameda and
33 Commission.If majorityofall of the voters voting on the 33 Contra Costa,including, but not limited to,extending the
34 :question at-the special election vote affirmative] the - ` 34 regional rail system in the. Concord-Antioch,
35 California Transportation Commission shall adopt the toll 35 Fremont-San Jose, and the Bayfair-Livermore rail transit
36 schedule proposed by the Metropolitan Transportation 36 corridors. The remaining 30 percent shall be expended
37 Commission which shall become effective January 1,• 37 on rail extensions and improvement projects in the City
38 1989. ( 38 and County of San Francisco and the Counties of San
39 (d) If a majority of all of the voters voting on the 39 Mateo and Santa Clara.
40 question at the special election vote negatively, this 40 (c) The department shall update the point of origin"
230
97 210 I
I
SB 45 _ 10—
— 11— SB 45
1 study related to the Eastbay/Westbay origin of commute J 1 1985-86 Regular Session.
2.`'trips on the' 'San Francisco-Oakland Bay'Bridge and 2 • (b) As part of its plans for constructing a new bridge
`3 report its findings'to the Legislature by January 1, 1990. 3 or bridge widening in the San Francisco Bay area, the
4 30920.` ` (a) - (1) The -' California Transportation 4 department shall include an evaluation of whether there
5 ''Commission• may, notwithstanding 'subdivision (c) of 5 will be a balanced design between the bridge and its
6 Section 30102.5,issue revenue bonds under the California 6 approaches as a result of the construction.
7 (c) The department shall transmit the results of its
7 Toll,Bridge Authority Act to finance any or all of the �• �
8 'projects cified in 30913 and 30914. g study to the Legislature by January 1,.1990, and, as part
spe
9 (2) The California Transportation Commission shall 9 of that transmittal, shall include its recommendations for
10 mitigating any problems identified as part of the study.
10"hot•`-authorize the ''issuance of 'bonds pursuant to 11 SEC. 2. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the
11'' paragraph (1) unless it has authorized the issuance of 12 Government Code,if the Commission on State Mandates
12 bonds'to finance rail extension upon the request of the
13 Metropolihin Transportation Commission pursuant to 13 determines that this act contains costs mandated by the
14 subdivision (b). 14 state, reimbursement to local agencies and school
15 (b)'Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of .Section 15 districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7
16 30102.5, with respect to any of the bridge toll revenues 16 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title
17 which are' otherwise' available for allocation by the 17 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the
18 -'Metropolitan Transportation Commission pursuant to 18 claim for reimbursement does not exceed five hundred
19 Section' 30892, the Metropolitan Transportation 19 thousand dollars ($500,000), reimbursement shall be
20 Commission may request the-California Transportation 20 made from the State Mandates Claims Fund.
21' Commission to -issue bonds, 'secured solely by those 21 SEC. 3. This act is an urgency statute necessary for
22 -revenues to finance the rail extension and improvement 22 the immediate preservation of the public peace, health,
23 projects specked in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of 2244 within the meaning of Article IV of the shall go into immediate-effect. The facts
24 'Section 30914: The expenses of•issuance of those bonds, .
25 including,•but not limited to, fees of financial and other 25 constituting the necessity are:
26-,, consultan ts; bond counsel, printing, and personnel costs, 26 In order for necessary bridge improvements in the San
27,"the cost ofinsurance, and all other costs required only to 27 Francisco Bay Area to be commenced as soon as possible,
28 comply with I the'- requirements -of the resolution 28 this act must take effect immediately.
29 authorizing the issuance of those bonds, may be paid
30 either from bond'proceeds or from any revenues
31 available to the Metropolitan Tranpsortation
32 Commission for that purpose.
33 30921. (a) The department shall prepare, or cause to
34 be prepared, a detailed traffic engineering study which
35 evaluates the existing bridge and approach limits of the
36 seven bridges specified in Section 30910. The study shall
37 include an evaluation of the ability of these approaches to
38 accommodate the carrying capacity of these bridges,
39 including any planned lane additions identified by the
40 department pursuant to Senate Resolution 46 of the J) U
97 Z50 97 270