The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 8.1 Mid-State Tollway CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT City Council Meeting Date: July 27, 1992 SUBJECT: Mid-State Tollway Report by: Public Works Director Lee Thompson EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Regional Location Map RECOMMENDATION: Receive report and consider suggested City position: 1. Recognize the principle that publicJprivate partnerships are a valuable tool for extending lv local governmental services, including transportation in times of financial constraint. 2. Encourage the Sponsor to proceed with an Environmental Impact Report (EIR/EIS) as the appropriate means for identifying and disclosing all major project alternatives, their environmental impacts, and measures for mitigation. 3. Request involvement in the EIR process to review and comment for adequacy with respect to matters of City concern. 4. Reserve judgment until the facts are determined and the consequences of all project alternatives are fully understood. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The total project cost estimate is $1.2 billion. The cost of constructing the road between I-580 and I-680 is approximately $215 million. DESCRIPTION: Highway 84 was considered a high priority need in the Measure "B" sales tax for transportation funding program. Twenty million dollars of Measure "B" money was set aside for a portion of this facility through Livermore. Another $25 million was proposed as local (non-mandatory) match; however, it is not programmed until 15 years in the future. The total project from I-580 to I-680 is estimated to cost $215 million. The funded Measure "B" portion is being designed and contracted by the City of Livermore and is called the Isabel Extension. Environmental documents are to be released later this summer with approval in the fall. The project provides only a two-lane roadway (one in each direction) and funds are inadequate to connect this portion of the proposed six-lane expressway to either Vallecitos Road (Highway 84 on the south) or to I-580 on the north. The northern connection requires an interchange. The $20 million existing Measure "B" funding is far short of the need for a six-lane expressway. The City of Livermore strongly opposes a toll road. Livermore, in their North Livermore Plan, also does not recognize any direct connection or improvement to Vasco Road for a future State highway extension toward Antioch. Caltrans, due to the action of the State legislature franchising the Mid-State Toll Road to proceed with feasibility studies, has no plans for funding Highway 84 capital improvements and has turned the design of the Isabel Extension over to Livermore. Caltrans has not identified the Isabel Extension alignment to be the Highway 84 alignment as no connections are being made to the State facilities on either end; .i.e. , I-580 or Highway 84/Vallecitos Road. --------- -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------ ITEM NO. COPIES TO: City of Livermore City of Pleasanton Dennis Parker, CTRC Millie Greenberg, TVTC f Dennis Parker of the California Toll Road Company (CTRC) indicates that feasibility studies which look at the projections of traffic volumes indicate a high usage of that portion of Highway 84 between I-580 and I-680. There also seems to be some strong justification for an improved facility connecting the truck distribution points in Tracy with the Antioch Bridge area. These segments appear to be high priority segments. Extension north of Antioch does not appear to be feasible due to low volume and high construction costs. However, phasing of this project or eliminating any portion of the project depends on the Environmental Impact Report. MTC is currently holding hearings regarding the toll road in an effort to develop a posture regarding toll roads that would help them in their review of environmental documents and any funding requests. Testimony to date is related to environmental concerns vs. economic needs. To date, no MTC position has been taken. Their study concludes this fall. Dennis Parker and Mark Herron of the CTRC have stated that, pending a favorable MTC report that allows continuation, they will begin environmental documentation in January of 1993. Staff has some concern regarding lack of an identified funding source for Freeway 84 construction. While Freeway 84 is determined to be a major transportation need for a six-lane freeway-type facility between I-580 and I-680, funding for this facility is uncertain at this date even though Planning Area 4 of Alameda County CMA has shown this is a high priority need. Discussions on funding of the Alameda County Transportation Plan continue; however, the funding sources being discussed include future new regional gas tax, extension of the Measure "B" sales tax, future Congestion Management funds, and federal ISTEA dollars. The timing on all of this funding appears to be at least five to, ten years in the future and would require numerous votes by the electorate to enact such new taxes. At this time, it appears that the City of Livermore does not have any financial mechanism to fund this project as a freeway or expressway, except from Measure "B" and some minor improvements from private developers. According to Dennis Parker, CTRC can finance the project from I-580 to I-680. However, CTRC most likely is going to need public financial support for the rest of the project north of I-580. Senate Bill 144, which would not allow public financial participation in Bay Area toll road projects, remains on the inactive list in the State Assembly. The CTRC-suggested City position regarding this project is as follows: ■ Recognize the principle that public/private partnerships are a valuable tool for extending local governmental services, including transportation in times of financial constraint. ■ Encourage the Sponsor to proceed with an Environmental Impact Report (EIR/EIS) as the appropriate means for identifying and disclosing all major project alternatives, their environmental impacts, and measures for mitigation. ■ Request involvement in the EIR process to review and comment for adequacy with respect to matters of City concern. ■ Reserve judgment until the facts are determined and the consequences of all project alternatives are fully understood. Staff recommends that the City Council review the report and consider the suggested City position. Staff has notified the City of Livermore, City of Pleasanton, Tri- Valley Council Chair, and the CTRC of this meeting. a: (9293)\ju1y\agstto12 Page 2 YOLO w Sacramento .. go \ Ito �� l\ 1-505 v to Ws v.cnni. \� \ NAPA 160 a — SACRAMENTO ELMIRA TRAVIS siA FONC!BASS SOLANO t 0o`; ti P.trONd 4 / Wliun Clq 12 12 ' ' SR 12 100 � Me Vim S \ rd.Landing 12 12 ' COLLINSVILLE MARIN 8g1e,. SR 160 SAN PASLO BAY ` �ets0ur0 ; n.a 880 A Anti Concord- O.AN1 SAN JOADUIN SR 4 / ISO stookmn ri 1 )r' ' 680 CONTRA COSTA 6eo LONE TREE BALFOUR` .✓ SR 4 CONNECTION wT OIABLO ,ate i B.rkOlty STATi PARK WALNUT 1 380 L�.-1 ' I s so 1 o.kl.�d 040 ` eeo VASCO 1-205/1.580 'nn eilcleco\ get,L...dre H580 seo Tner g �''•s seo � sao Heyward STANLEY ' 101 � 0 S R 84 e2 Ba } � s 2BO aeo X680 ALAMEDA 1 � 101 68O STANISLAUS SANTA CLARA SA L 280 °°0 LEGEND 1 San Jose ®® MID-STATE TOLLWAY 84 200 101 TOILWAY INTERCHANGES SAN MATEO Attachment 1 NORTH NOT TO SCALE CALIFORNIA TOLL ROAD DEVELOPMENT GROUP REGIONAL LOCATION