HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.5 EDublinTrffcImpctFee (2)
. ..~: (' ..'. ~/,;,';,A ~~ :S:'/. ~",'..
""":'" .......
SUBJECT:
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
-fI
*'
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
city Council Meeting Date: December 12, 1994
proposed Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
Report by: Public Works Director Lee Thompson
l)~raffic Impact Fee Report by Barton-Aschman
2) /Report of Roadway Costs by santina & Thompson
3) ~mpact fees for other cities within the Tri-valley
A representative of Barton-Aschman will be available at the
meeting to explain the elements of the study.
Area
RECOMMEHDAT~.;:
3)
4)
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
open Public Hearing
Receive Staff presentation and public comment
Question Staff and the public
Continue Public Hearing to City Council meeting of
December 27th
The cost of preparing the Traffic Impact Fee Study will be
recovered by fees collected from property owners applying for
approval of developments.
DESCRIPTION: The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and the Specific Plan
were adopted by the City Council in 1993. These Plans required that the Eastern Dublin
developers be responsible for the full cost .of transportation needs for their
cumulative projects. One method for developers to pay their fair share of these
transportation impacts is through a Traffic Impact Fee (TIll') based on a proportionate
share of traffic generation from new development.
On October 24, 1994, the City Council authorized Staff to have a consultant prepare
a Traffic Impact Fee Study for the Eastern Dublin General plan area. Barton-Aschman
was subsequently hired to prepare this Study. The Study is now complete and ready for
review by the City Council and the public.
The Study covers three categories of transportation improvements:
Category 1)
category 2)
Category 3)
Developers within the Eastern General Plan and Specific Plan areas
will be required to construct one half of the street fronting their
development. All two-lane streets and the outside two lanes of all
streets wider than two lanes will be funded directly by developers.
The improvements in category 1 are the additional two or four lanes
of four- or six-lane roads within the General Plan and Specific Plan
areas (Tassajara Road, Hacienda Drive, Dublin Boulevard, transit
spine, Gleason Drive and Fallon Road). Also included in this
. ,
category are improvements to the Hacienda/I-SSO Interchange~ the
Tassajara/I-580 Interchange, a bicycle path along Tassajara Creek,
and the cost of the TIll' and street alignment studies.
category 2 improvements are improvements
Dublin but outside the Specific Plan and
required for development of these areas.
should be partially responsible based on
which are within the City of
General plan area which are
Eastern Dublin Developers
their new traffic impacts.
Regional transportation improvements which are common to other
jurisdictions within the Tri-Valley area for which Eastern Dublin
developers would be partially responsible based on their new regional
traffic impacts.
The cost of the category 1 improvements was calculated by santina & Thompson to be
$69,688,000. The total cost of the category 2 improvements for Eastern Dublin was
~;;~-;~~-~-------~;~;~-;;~--~:~;-:;-~:::~~:--------
City of San Ramon
City of Livermore
Town of Danville
CITY CLERK
FILE ~
~
-~
,
.
calculated by Santina & Thompson to be $19,118,740. Barton-Aschman calculated the
total cost of the Category 3 improvements for Eastern Dublin to be $10,414,000. The
total of these three categories is $99,220,740. The specific improvements in each
category are listed in the Barton-Aschman Study. The assumptions used in calculating
the costs for category 1 and 2 improvements are set forth in the Santina & Thompson
report.
The improvements in categories 1, 2 and 3 are either required for the development of
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan areas, assumed in the EIR, or serve
as mitigation measures of the EIR.
Barton-Aschman has determined that the total cost of the improvements be apportioned to
new development on the basis of trips generated by different types of development. The
proposed fees for these three categories of improvements attributable to residential
and nonresidential development are:
Single-family residential
$3,160/unit (one to 14 units per acre)
Multi-family residential
$2,200/unit (more than 14 units per acre)
Development other than residential
$286 per trip
The Study proposes allowing commercial developers trip reductions for pass-by trips.
pass-by trips are those in which the driver is already on the roadway for another
purpose, but sees the commercial business and decides to take advantage of the
services, such as gas stations, convenience stores, fast foods, etc.
The number of trips for each non-residential project would be categorized and
calculated per the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) manual trip generation rate
based on the specific land use.
As an example of the fee calculation, the Homart project proposes 800,000 square feet
of commercial development and they would pay slightly less than $5,040,000 as a TIll'.
This translates to $6.30 per sf of building area.
If the Council adopts a TIF, developers would not be precluded from paying for the cost
of their road improvements and/or Traffic Impact Fees through assessment districts.
Also, if a developer oversizes road improvements consistent with the improvements used
in the impact fee calculation, he will be entitled to a credit against the TIll'.
Staff has contacted other cities within the Tri-Valley area regarding their Traffic
Impact Fees to make a comparison of other traffic fees to the magnitude of fees being
recommended for Dublin. A summary of this information is shown in Exhibit 3. It was
found to be difficult to compare other jurisdictions' fees with fees necessary to
implement Dublin's Specific and General Plans because each City bases its needs on a
different set of criteria.
At the December 12, 1994, city council meeting, the public will be invited to present
any comments they have regarding the Traffic Impact Fee. Formal public notice will be
given for the December 27th Public Hearing, at which time the Council will be asked to
consider adoption of a resolution imposing a TIll' for Eastern Dublin. Although not
required, the December 12th meeting has been noticed as a public hearing so that
interested persons who cannot attend the December 27th meeting may make comments which
will be included as part of the public record.
The property owners in Eastern Dublin have been notified of the two public hearings and
have been given a copy of the report, as well as the backup cost estimates.
It is anticipated that this fee will be reviewed on an annual basis and adjusted, if
necessary, based on accumulated interest from loans, increases in cost estimates due to
inflation, and actual costs of improvements being installed.
Staff recommends that the city Council accept the Staff report, receive public comments
and direct Staff to respond to the public comments and return back on December 27th to
the City Council with the responses to public comments. At the December 27, 1994, City
Council meeting, Staff will be recommending that the City Council adopt the Traffic
Impact Fee by Resolution.
a:agenda94\1212tif
Page 2
.. .
e
.
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
EASTERN DUBLIN
Prepared for
City of Dublin
Prepared by
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
November 1994
~'/III ~,,~ ~~r-'
E.~ ./,~, lW '" I::. ,.,' ,i.~ ..:' I
r" .w "", i:. ,','. ~
~~;,Jl~.~ ~ ic_~' j I _, ·
~.
'..
e
e
Contents
Chapters
Page
1
2
3
Introduction
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Traffic Impact Fee Implementation
1
4
14
Appendix
Tobles
2.1 Projected Land Uses in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
2.2 Section 1 Fees: Eastern Dublin Responsibility 100 Percent
2--3 Section 2 Fees: Eastern DublinlDublin/Contra Costa County!
Developer Responsibility
2-4 Section 3 Fees: Tri.Valley Jurisdiction Responsibility
6
10
12
13
Figures
1
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area
3
11 So'- TIF 180'54233.01000
~.
. .
e
e
1 .
Introduction
The Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact fee is designed to pay for roadway and transit
improvements necessitated by development associated with the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. These improvements include both the
construction of new roadway facilities and the upgrade and improvement of existing
facilities, including transit.
The traffic and transportation impacts of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendment areas are documented in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
General Plan Amendment EIR. Impacts were evaluated for the year 2010. In order to
compare traffic impacts for the year 2010, certain arterial and regional roadway
facilities and facility sizes were assumed. Impacts from land uses for all development
in the Tri-Valley area, excluding the Eastern Dublin development, were compared with
impacts from all development in the Tri-Valley area including the Eastern Dublin
development. For any impact that was considered significant, mitigation measures
were developed and included in the EIR. Impacts were considered significant if the
Project would cause traffic operations to exceed Level of Service E on study freeway
segments, if the Project would cause traffic operations to exceed Level of Service D at
designated study intersections or, if the Project generated traffic that would cause
significant safety hazards (from page 3.3-18 of the Specific Plan).
The Eastern Dublin Impact Fee is designed to pay for the Projecfs proportional share
of the assumed 2010 base network and for the roadway and transit improvement
projects specified in the mitigation measures to the EIR.
This report first describes existing conditions in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendment areas and then lists the required network improvements
from the Em.
Barton~Aschman Associates, Inc.
1
~.
'.
-
e
Introduction
Existing Conditions
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and General Plan Amendment area is shown
on Figure 1. It does not include the area designated on the figure as Future Study
Area Agriculture. The majority of the land in the area is presently undeveloped.
Existing land uses in this area include some Camp Parks buildings, some Alameda
County facilities, and a few low-density residential homes or ranches.
Existing Transportation Network
The existing transportation network in the Eastern. Dublin Specific Plan area and
General Plan Amendment area is very sparse. Dublin Boulevard extends as two lanes
from Dougherty Road to Tassajara Road. Tassajara Road is a two-lane roadway. Fallon
Road and Doolan Road are two-lane local roadways that dead-end north of 1-580.
There is no existing transit service in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area
Year 2010 Network Assumptions
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes new and improved facilities in or near the
Project area that would be built in conjunction with new development through year
2010. In addition to those facilities in or near the project area, the Specific Plan Em
includes future transportation improvements in the entire Tri-Valley area for the year
2010 either as assumed background network or as project mitigation. The Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment area is expected to contribute to
funding for these regional road and transit improvements.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
2
ell
Gl
<
01
l;;
'c
l;;
ell
c::
"C
Gl
"C ll.
l;; ~ <I:
"')( :::E
.C:: w w
C IJl
E a; ::l
Gl -:n 0
5i ell ~
l.:l Ilt ..J
$
"
" ..
~ ~ 8
" ~ ~
<b 6
iJ
~ ~
2 ~
~ ~.~
U8 .g .~ ~
" L_~ ~i" c
880 ~"~c~.~
'b-U'I c"fO m
.,~~ ~E~~lIO
i~~ --1.f::5'o~ca
-0 G~<3u ~~~~3~
c lIO Z
~ I~~~o ~g~GB~
d
.5
~;l'
i
i
o
!
lC
.
E
.c
g
.
<
g
i
D
'"
."
."
~;I
.~:~
tfE
..
~
<{
'"
..
:>
E
::J
0>
[:;:
"
"
ill
,.
~8g
ffi ~ ~ ~_
~~~~B
Q ..!.. '2::I: (,l
ffi ~ ~ .~ ~
::) u') 421 i: 21
a.. ~ W ~ :r:
~~~(5)@<ID
~D.
lll.
OJ .
Q. .
'"
::L. :. ID
.2 ~-g~
111 ;>-. 0 u'J
~ 1:.1: '! -E "0
M~~~g
~.~8~~
11'I u U Z ..c::
&@~~l
o
~
i~ z
~ ~o( ill c:: Z ~
U5 ~H~W-~
(; e8<;;.lIL-..J"
~.~-~.2'- 1::
8 ~gt)& cnca ~
<t::> ~
WC~
o
~ 0
" u
U> E
~ :; z
C\. ~ 0
o rtJ j::;
l;J0m~
~L:lWJ5
ill
a:
=>
f-
-J
=>
o
0:
d
<(
i
\
\
)
,
I
,
'\
I \
, \
:....----.l....,
!
I
<Il
~
<.>
<l:
'"
0;
...
....
'"
'"
~
<.>
..;
c
~ 0
.9 ~
'" "
3 ~
e l'!
" .l'!
- "
$ E
8 ~
u 0
1I ;;
; ~
~ ~
,,~
lil 0(
-Q.
~ 0(
t; .~
o ~
0: -
ri
:: ~
11
o "
" "
~ ~
~ 'j
.. e
~~
-g .g
- '"
~ '"
~ ;a
" "
" ~
0(
~~
"",
E "
:;; II
~~
E =
o ~
U ..
m S
~ ~
" :;
* *
*
e
e
2.
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
The transportation improvements specified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
included as mitigation measures in the EIR were divided into three sections;
(1) Improvements for which Eastern Dublin developments are responsible for 100
percent of the cost, (2) Improvements elsewhere in Dublin for which Eastern Dublin
developments are partially responsible, and (3) Regional improvements for which all
jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley area, including Eastern Dublin, are responsible.
Description of the Project
Eastern Dublin includes two development areas. The first includes only growth
projected in the Specific Plan area, as shown on Figure 1. The second, called the
Project, includes all the development in the first development scenario plus additional
development in the General Plan Amendment area. The impact fee is designed to
cover the Project development scenario. Land uses projected for this scenario include
low-density, medium-density, medium.high density, and high.density residential,
retail, office, industrial, school, and parks. Table 2-1 shows the amount of development
by land use.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
4
.
e
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Table 2-1
Projected Land Uses in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Land Use
Units
Residential
Low Density
Medium Density
Medium-High Density
High Density
3,916 d.u.*
4,863 d.u.
2,680 d.u.
2,447 d.u.
Non-Residential
Retail
Office
Industrial
School
Park
4,415 ksf
3,952 ksf
1,370 ksf
9,731 students
258 acres
Source: Memorandum from City Senior Planner, Dennis Carrington, November 29, 1994
d.u. - dwelling units
Trip Generation
Trip generation for the land use in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan
Amendment area was projected based on trip generation rates that relate the type and
size of a land use to the number of persons or vehicles traveling to or from the land
use. The traffic generation rates used for the Eastern Dublin land uses were based on
the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation and specific counts of
traffic generation conducted by DKS Associates for the Specific Plan EIR. The rates
were adjusted based on local conditions.
Using the adjusted trip generation rates, the Project is expected to generate 423,787
daily vehicle trips. This number is reduced to 346,525 when pass-by trips are taken
into account. Pass-by trips are comprised of vehicles that stop at certain land uses,
such as restaurants and stores, while on the way to somewhere else. Since these trips
are not new trips, but merely diverted trips, a pass-by reduction can be applied to the
total number of trips generated by such uses. For the purposes of the traffic impact fee
calculation, all retail land uses were assigned a pass-by reduction of 35 percent. The
Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation gives a range of pass-by rates
for retail development from 12 :percent to 89 percent.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
5
e
e
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Transportation Improvements
The transportation improvements specified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
mitigation measures in the EIR were divided into three sections; (1) Improvements for
which Eastern Dublin developments are responsible for 100 percent of the cost, (2)
Improvements elsewhere in Dublin for which Eastern Dublin developments are
partially responsible, and (3) Regional improvements for which all jurisdictions in the
Tri-Valley area, including Eastern Dublin, are responsible. The transportation
improvements for each of the three sections are outlined below.
Section I. Eastern Dublin Responsibility 100 Percent
According to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Em, the following
transportation improvements are needed for the development of the Specific Plan area
and the General Plan Amendment area and should be funded solely by Eastern Dublin
Development.
1. Dublin Boulevard. Extend and widen to six lanes from the Southern Pacific Right-
of-way to Airway Boulevard (from the EIR future road improvement assumptions
on pages 1 and 2 of the DKS revised report from December 15, 1992 and
mitigation measure 3.3/10).
2. Hacienda Drive. Widen and extend as four lanes from Dublin Boulevard to
Gleason Drive and to six lanes from 1.580 to Dublin Boulevard (from the EIR
future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report).
3. Hacienda/I-S80 Interchange Improvements (from mitigation measure 3.an.O).
Reimburse Alameda County for dedication of right-of-way and add a second left.
turn lane to the eastbound off-ramp. This interchange was constructed by the City
of Pleasanton with participation by the County for the funding but with no cost to
Eastern Dublin. Becal,lse Eastern Dublin developers will benefit from the
interchange as will developers to the south of the freeway, Eastern Dublin
developers' proportional share of the additionalleft.tum lane is considered to be
100 percent.
4. Transit Spine. Construct four-lane road from Dublin Boulevard west of Hacienda
Drive to Fallon Road (from the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page
1 of the DKS revised report).
5. Gleason Drive. Construct new four-lane road from west of Hacienda Drive to
Fallon Road (from the EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 1 of the
DKS revised report). (The Project does not require extension of Gleason Drive to
Doolan Road due to no devlopment proposed in the future study area).
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
6
e
e
TraffIC Impact Fee Approach
6. Tassajam Road. Widen to four lanes over a six-lane right-of-way from Dublin
Boulevard to the Contra Costa County Line, and to six lanes over an eight-lane
right-of-way from Dublin Boulevard to 1-580 (from the EIR future road
improvement assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report and mitigation
measure 3.3/14.0).
7. Tassajara 1 Santa Rita Road 11-580 Interchange. Modify and improve this
interchange to provide northbound overpass approach as three through lanes and
widen eastbound and westbound off-ramps to add turn lanes. The southbound
overpass was constructed by the City of Pleasanton with no cost to Eastern
Dublin. Because Eastern Dublin developers will benefit from the interchange 8S
will developers to the south of the freeway, Eastern Dublin developers'
proportionate share of these additional improvements is 100 percent (from
mitigation measures 3.318.0 and 3.3/9.0).
8. Fallon Road. Extend to Tassajara Road, widen to four lanes over a six-lane right-
of-way from 1-580 to Tassajara Road (from the EIR future road improvement
assumptions on page 1 of the DKS revised report).
9. Bicycle Path along Tassajara Creek (from mitigation measure 3.3116.0).
10. T1F Study. The study is to establish the required traffic impact fee.
11. Street Alignment Study. The study required to specify the exact street alignments
in the Eastern Dublin area.
Section II. Dublin Projects with Partial Eastern Dublin Developer
Responsibility
The second section of transportation improvements, also specified in the Eastern
Dublin Em, are in or near Dublin and according to the EIR should be partially funded
by Eastern Dublin development.
1. Dublin Boulevard. Widen Dublin Boulevard to six lanes from Village Parkway to
the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way (from the EIR future road improvement
assumptions on pages 1 and 2 of the DKS revised report and mitigation measures
3.3/2.1 and 3.3110.0). All new developments in Dublin, including Eastern Dublin,
will share funding responsibility.
2. Scarlett Drive (Southern Pacifk Right-of-Way Connector). Construct a new four-
lane street from Dublin Boulevard to Dougherty Road (from the EIR future road
improvement assumptions on page 3 of the DKS revised report). All new
developments in Dublin, including Eastern Dublin, will share funding
responsibility.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
7
e
e
TraffIC Impact Fee Approach
3. Dougherty Road. Widen to six lanes from north of 1-580 to Contra Costa County
Limits (from the Em future road improvement assumptions on page 2 of the DKS
revised report and mitigation measure 3.3/6.0). The cost for this project should be
shared by all City of Dublin new development, including Eastern Dublin, and
Contra Costa County new development.
4. I-580/Fallon/El Charro Interchange Upgrade. Improve the interchange (from the
EIR future road improvement assumptions on page 2 of the DKS revised report
and mitigation measure 3.3/12.0). If not for the interchange's use by trucks from
the quarry/gravel pit, the interchange improvements would be less expensive.
However, the use by trucks will necessitate extra improvements and will increase
the cost of construction. The addded increment of cost should be the sole
responsibility of the the quarry/gravel pit developer, since no other developer will
be benefitting from these extra improvements. The remaining cost of this
interchange will be divided proportionately among the Cities of Livermore and
Pleasanton, and Contra Costa County.
5. Airway /1-580. Replace and improve this interchange (from mitigation measure
3.3/11.0). The cost of improving this interchange should be divided among the
Eastern Dublin, Contra Costa County, and Livermore developers.
Section III. Tri-Valley Jurisdiction Regional Responsibility
The third section includes regional transportation improvements for which all
jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley area, including Eastern Dublin. are responsible.
Development within Eastern Dublin will only be responsible for its estimated
proportionate contribution to the impacts creating the need for such improvements.
These transportation improvements from the EIR are as follows:
1. 1-580/1-680 Interchange. Southbound-to-eastbound flyover and Dublin hook ramps
(from the Em future road improvement assumptions on page 2 of the DKS revised
report and mitigation measure 3..314.0).
2. 1-580 Auxiliary Lanes. Tassajara to "East of Airway" assumed to be North
Livermore Avenue (from mitigation measures 3.311.0. 3.3/3.0. and 3.315.0).
3. Route 84. Build as a four.lane highway on the Isabel alignment from 1-680 to
1.580. including a new interchange at SR 84/1-580 (from the EIR future road
improvement assumptions on page 3 of the DKS revised report).
4. Improve Transit Services (see item No. 3.3115.0-.3).
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
8
--
e
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Other Improvement Responsibility
There are some improvements specified in the EIR that are not included in the three
sections above. These improvements are:
1. 1.680 HOV Lanes between Rudgear Road and 1-580
2. North Canyons Parkway extended to Vasco Road..
3. Bollinger Canyon Road extended as a four~lane arterial to Dougherty Road.
4. 1~580 improvements widen to eight lanes plus two auxiliary lanes between 1~680
and Tassajara Road..
5. Other local improvements in San Ramon, Pleasanton, and Livermore south of
1-580 consistent with adopted general plan circulation elements.
The 1-680 HOV lanes are already under construction. The North Canyon Parkway
projects will be the sole responsibility of the City of Livermore. The City of Livermore
will not participate in sharing the cost of improvements in the City of Dublin's road
system and vice versa Bollinger Canyon Road and other projects located exclusively in
other Trl-Valley jurisdictions will be the responsibility of those jurisdictions. The 1~580
auxiliary lanes will be constructed as part of the BART and 1-580/1-680 flyover
projects. The Tassajara Connection is not warranted by year 2010, beyond that it is
the responsibility of Contra Costa County developers.
Cost for Improvements
The costs for interchanges, roadway systems and studies for the first two categories of
improvements were calculated by the City of Dublin's consultant (Santina and
Thompson) or City of Livermore. These roadway cost estimates were prepared based
on the premise that within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and General Plan
Amendment area, developers adjacent to the road would be directly responsible for the
parkway and 20 feet of roadway improvements (next to the parkway), including right-
of-way dedication for this area, essentially creating a two-lane access road. The
developer will also be responsible for any turn~lanes into the project site. The impact
fee will cover the cost of building the necessary roadway width beyond the minimum
two-lane cross-section. The additional width is needed to serve the traffic of all
Eastern Dublin development.
Costs for regional transportation improvements have been developed by Barton-
Aschman Associates, Inc. as part of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan.
The costs for roadway improvements are shown in Tables 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5.
Barton~Aschman Associates. Inc.
9
e
e
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Determination of Traffic Impact Fees
The traffic impact fee is calculated by dividing the Eastern Dublin percent share of the
total cost of the specified improvements by the total number of daily trips generated
by Eastern Dublin development. For section one improvements Eastern Dublin
developments are responsible for 100 percent of the costs. Table 2-2 lists the
improvements, cost of improvements, and the impact fee for section one.
For the improvements in Section II, the responsibility for improvement costs should be
apportioned among the identified jurisdictions based on their estimated percentage
contributions to the impacts creating the need for the improvements. The percentage
of non-participating jurisdictions and through traffic will be deducted from the total
percentage and the remainder proportionately divided among the paying jurisdictions.
The percentage share for section two was determined in a three-step process. First, the
Tri-Valley Transportation Model was used to determine the amount of traffic from the
responsible jurisdictions that are projected to be using the improved facilities based on
PM peak-hour forecasts using the 2010 expected land use. Then the relative percent of
new growth attributable to the responsible jurisdictions was calculated. Finally, the
relative percentage was adjusted based on the percentage share of new development
for each responsible jurisdiction, using a weighted average method. Table 2-3 lists the
roadway improvements, the adjusted percent responsibility by jurisdiction, the
improvement cost, and the cost by jurisdiction.
For the regional improvements, the responsibility for improvement costs should be
apportioned among all the Tri- Valley jurisdictions based on their estimated percentage
contributions to the impacts creating the need for the improvements. The percentage
share for section three was determined in a similar process as section two. First, the
Tri-Valley Transportation Year 2010 PM Peak-Hour Model was used to determine the
amount of traffic from Dublin, Eastern Dublin, Livermore, North Livermore,
Pleasanton, San Ramon, Danville, Dougherty Valley, and TassfQara Valley, which are
projected to be using the improved facilities. Then the relative percentage of new
growth attributable to the responsible jurisdictions was calculated. Finally, the
relative percentage was adjusted based on the percentage share of new development
for each responsible jurisdiction, using a weighted average method. Table 2-4 lists the
roadway improvements, the adjusted percent responsibility by jurisdiction, the
improvement cost, and the cost by jurisdiction.
Barlon-Aschman Associates, Inc.
10
e
e
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
Table 2-2
Section 1 Fees: Eastern Dublin Responsibility 100 Percent
Segment/Improvement
Cost Estimate
Dublin Boulevard
Southern Pacific Alght.of~Way to Airway Boulevard
$27,032,000
Hacienda Drive
Gleason to Dublin (four lanes)
Dublin to 1-580 (six lanes)
$5,488,000
Hacienda Drlvell-saO Improvements
Transit Spine
Dublin w/o Hacienda to Fallon (four lanes)
Gleason Drive
w/o Hacienda to Fallon (four lanes)
Tassajara Road
Dublin Boulevard to Contra Costa County (four lanes/six.lane right~f-way)
Dublin Boulevard to 1.580 (six lanesleighHane right-of-way)
$4,056,000
$11,193,000
$6,283,000
$4,279,000
Tassajara/I-sao Interchange
Fallon Road
1-580 to Tassajara (four lane/six-lane right.of-way)
Tassajara Creek Bicycle Path
Traffic Impact Fee (nF) Study
Street Alignment Study
Subtotal of COsts
Total Number of Daily Trips
CostlTrlp
$5,600,000
$4,430,000
$1,008,000
$18,000
$301,000
$69,688,000
346,525
$201
The total cost per trip for all three types of improvements is $286; for Section I, $201;
for Section II, $55; and for Section III, $30. The total cost for each type of development
can be calculated based on the number of trips generated by that type of development.
By dividing the development into residential and non-residential development it is
possible to separate the costs due to the different types of developments. The total
number of trips generated by the residential development included in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan is 136,674 trips. This number includes trips generated by schools
and 85 percent of those generated by parks, which are made necessary by the
residential development. The remaining 15 percent of park trips are attributed to
office land use. The total number of trips generated by the non-residential
development, including a 35 percent reduction for the retail trips, is 209,851. The total
cost incurred by the residential development is then $39,092,900 and the total cost
incurred by the non-residential development is $60,127,800. By dividing the total cost
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
11
e
e
Traffic Impact Fee Approach
incurred by the total number of residential units and total non.residential square
footage a cost per unit or a cost per square foot can be obtained. With the 8,779 single-
family residential units, and the 5,127 multi-family residential units specified by the
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, the approximate cost per single.family
residential unit is $3,160, and the approximate cost per multi-family residential unit is
$2,200. This breaks down to a cost for Section I of $2,220, Section II of $600, and
Section III of $340 for single-family residential units. For multi-family residential
units, the section breakdown is Section I, $1,550, Section II, $420, and Section III,
$230.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
12
c:: oe g 0 8 0 0
(II't ~ (II't 0
s 0 0
c:: . 0 <::>
III ~ CD CD
~c <'!. <'!.
at ;; ;;
lr
at 0 0 0 0 0 8
~ ~ (II't (II't ~ 0 0
0 0 0
.a 0 ~
,... CD
atC ." f;') co
> i. &i ,.:
::J 6't
.~ c:: alal~ ~ 0 ~ 8 0 &
- 6't g
:s 0 ~1ii:l '" o. ~
13 ~ ." 0 ~
.- ~ 888 ('1,1 ;t
en co ~ ('1,1
c: "C Iti uj
~ ... ...
0 ..,
>. 0 0 0 0 a
Co .tJ 0
.s: 0 co <l) ... ...,
en - ~ C\!. 0 ,...
'" :0 aj aj
0) 8 ,... ~
a ~ It) co
a:: ('1,1 ('1,1 t;
... ... ...
....
0)
Co i.s 8 0 0 g 0 ~ It) It)
..Q ~ ('1,1 0 ~ ~
..., co 0 0
-:is ~ 18 iii ~ 0 aj iii
~ :lB <l) 0 ,... ~
Cl co co ,...
w ~ ~ (Ij ~ ... or
0) 6't ;;
C
~ g ~ 0 0 g
at 0 8
1ii~ 0 0 0
e: ~ ,.: ~ 0 0
8~ 0 ~ 0
:::s C\l CD 0
0 w iii iii ~ 0 ;t
... (II't ,...
u ...
ca ~
1;; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 c c:: '>
al at
U at lac ,...
E at
a. a:::
ca 0
... ai
- >
C at l!!
0
0 ~ ~ '> ~ ~ ~ ~ #.
U at ~~ ~
:s z :3
s
- at
.c .a gst
:::s ~
C 888 ~ ~ tft. .,. 'i!
:0 $ In
- 1il
C c:
.- S.
- .s
.c '"
at :a
:::s a: :l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
c i 0
C 2 c::~
.... at
0) Q.. 5-
1tj.tJ ~ 'i! 'i! .,. ~
- ala
en ! ,... PI
w (') -
ca
LLI i ~
.. g
en ~ ~ 51
0) at III 1 t ..
If .l: l;o 6 a.
Q 8
I si;' :l c:: ~ a.
8 i 8 m '3
N >.:1: '-00 =t5 .B '0 >.~
> ca ~ CD 'l; ....
Me: c GI ~ 9 > S:a: a: I o !.
"S ... 1: j]!,! ~GI >'GI
NO ~~ .B .c Q !~ 1iI 1ti
tl...g' = CD..., . 8.. ii ~ :l ~ 8
CD';: ~ i .5 at u S .5--.c l!! ~-6 ~"2 0
-C) :a Cl~ ... _ 't:l CI _ ....
,gO) It ~ 11 ~ .em:J c::~ COat co.
:J 5~88!!.~.s ~S
~U) Q So..
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 13
~
.-
-
:c
.-
tn
C
o
c..
tn
CD
a:
c
o
.-
-
.~
"C
tn
.-
...
::J
..,
~
.!!!
c;
>
.
i!:
..
UJ
CD
CD
U.
C")
'1'c
("10
CD_
-0
.a CD
~U)
Q)
Iii
E;
~
~j~
S
~~
Ql
ii:
i .
~ ~~
"i
-;:;
::>
., gSb
! ~~~
~
j..
~~
.!l
-~
~~
81
j.
~~
i ~ ~~
j cr;
~ ~
i i~
s l5:
~ Ql
"Q 15.
i:' E~
~ ~6
i !Sb
cr; 8~~
I ~
j1<
~~
~I
~~
,-
Barton.Aschman Associates. Inc.
a
~
l8
Ch
~
~
...
;;.
~
I
~
~
~
c
i5
B
~.
re
II)
N
Ch
~
N
r-.
~
~.
~
11)'
Ch
~
*"
...
*"
(:;j
~
~
~
~
a
a
~
g
...
11)"
...
~
~
t
...
~
~
...
~
~
N
Ch
~
ci
...
11),
:t
~
g
,...:
~
~
~
::
...
;
~
fli
I
U~ ~i
...!..5a.. ~~
"#.
CO)
...
a
~.
C\l
'"
;;.
a
~
fi
;;.
~
i
~
*
~
~
g
...
~
i
r-.
N
...
~"
g
r-.
....
...
~
:rl
0.
~
~
N
CD
;;.
~
g
~
~
g
t;
~
N
...
N
~
~
g
<Ii
;;.
~
g
a
~
'#
...
~
'#
...
'#.
...
...
~
~
~
CO)
"if.
...
!:
...
-;I.
...
-;I.
...
~
~
(l;
J
.!l
~
~-J
jJ~
~e
N
CD
...
...
~
<Ii
li
~
8
...
ci
;;.
~
:&
...
,...:
~
~
f:f
i
~ ~ a
<Ii gi
:;; c?
....
...
~
.
.-
...
ci
;;.
.@"
'15 ~ ....
lJ 21 !
SJ!l~!_
~~ ....i= ~
14
tit
-
3.
Traffic Impact Fee Implementation
This chapter outlines the application of the traffic impact fee on an individual project
basis. This chapter also indicates the process to be used for updating the traffic impact
fee
Traffic Fee Application
Using the Traffic Fee Impact Approach outlined in Chapter 2 results in the traffic
impact fee rate of $286 per trip with a per-section cost for Section I of $201, for
Section II of $55 and for Section III of $30. The trip generation rates used for the
generation of the fee were average rates for the various land uses (see Appendix). Trip
generation calculations for individual types of land use will be done on a project by
project basis. The City of Dublin will be responsible for calculating appropriate
development-specific trip generation rates, based on the Institute of Transportation
Engineers, Trip Generation, and on local trip generation data. This will result in some
variation from the general rates based on the mix of development. For example, multi-
family housing generates fewer trips than single. family housing and therefore has a
rate of $2,200 which is lower than the single family rate of $3,160.
Developers will receive credit for portions of the fee network that they build and for
the dedication of right-of.way needed for the completion of the fee network. Credit will
not be given for any roadway construction required solely by the project, such as a
right-turn lane into the project site that is only used by project patrons or residents.
Certain land uses, such as parks and schools are exempt from the traffic impact fee.
Their cost of the roadway fee network is absorbed by the residential and office
development that necessitates the need for such facilities. Public facility land uses,
such as post offices, city buildings and libraries are also exempt.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
15
e
e
Traffic Impact Fee Implementation
Updating the Traffic Fee
The traffic impact fee may need to be updated for a variety of reasons including;
negotiated changes to the proportional cost shares between Dublin and Contra Costa
County, changes to the land use mix specified in the Specific Plan, changes in the
construction and land costs, or adoption of a regional traffic impact fee by the Tri-
Valley Transportation Council.
Barlon-Aschman Associates, Inc.
16
,.11 '11I-'
e
Appendix
e
e
.
General Trip Generation Rates
Used for Calculation of Fee
Land Use
Rate
Residential
High Density
Medium-High Density
Medium Density
Low Density
Rural Residential
Non~Residentlal
Retail
Office
Industrial
SChool
Parks
7 trips/unit
7 trips/unit
1 0 trips/unit
10 trips/unit
10 trips/unit
50 trips/ksf
5 trips/ksf
5 tripslksf
1.2 trips/student
6 trips/acre
e
TIF Roadway estimates, City of Dublin
Filename=cccestb.cal
created 8/25/94
Print.~:
12/ 2
REPORT OF ROADWAY COSTS
by Santina & Thompson
-
12/ 2/1994
4: 22: 26 F:-I
~===:========:_=========-====::;:====:====:=:=:===:===~:====::
Dougherty Road, Sesment 1; 4300 feet; 118 RO~
City limits to Amacor Valley (~IDE~ING)
1/2 improvements exist, sallcut and exter~
Civil Improvements at $530 per LF
Signals
lJi II 011 Creek
. Amador Valley
Right of way
none
City aemin, .ce'S.lsri; c.r:1~ rOil acqtln,20.0~
iotal with 10% contingency (0 on ad~in)
52279000
$1200CO
$;OOCO
SO
5497S00
~_._.....~.-.-_._~......._._.---.-._._._---_...--*..~........-
S3235700
Ocu;~erty Road, Seg~ent 2; 4250 feet; 118 RC~
~T.ac:r Valley to Huston Place (WIOE~rHG)
1/2 improvements exis:, sawcut and extend
Civil Iw.provements at 5530 pet LF
Signals
none
Right of way
'0 x 440 x S18, SP right of way
920 x 8 x SiB, near Huston Place
City admin, cesign, em, row ac~:'n,2~.C%
Total with ~O% eentingency (0 on acmin)
52252:CC
S3163CO
513241:0
551.0356
..__.~_._..~.______~__.__w_~._..__...______.........._~........
53512314
Dougherty Road, Segment 3; rt hand tWin
H~ston Place to Dublin Boulevard (900')
Rt turn pocket onlYi all other Improvements ere dcne
civil Imprevemts, 8 x 300
Right.cf '"lay ar:d CEMO, LS (city)
Signal,
City ad~in, cesign, em, row aCGt'n,20.0~
iotal with 10% centln;ency (0 on aOnin)
$33600
S10CeOO
so
525720
.....~4_~._____.._.....~~__..___"'_____.._____P_.__............
sii3eac
Cougherty read; Se;~ent _4; 3000
Cublin Blve to north of 1580 eff-ramp
....iden roedway
Civil Improvements, LS
Signa l modi fi-c:"31:;t:n -
Right of way, LS; ;ncl DEMO
City aernin, cesi;n, em, row acqt'n,20.0%
iotal with 20% contingency (0 on aemin)
5200COO
SO
5~COOOCO
5240000
...--_..._--_...._....-.~_._------_.._--_._...._-_............-
51680000
Cousherty Rd To.al (w/out. freeway interchange) S8,602,000
(~ote that the city of San Ramon and Contra Costa County are
Respensible for that portion of Dougherty Rd frem the City
Limits north to Ole Ranch Road)
,
...... - -.. -..... -. - - -......... - ............... -- --.... ~.~.. .-----. ...... ......... ...-... .-.
TiF
so
~~;i~ ~<Jj1'?:.~~,p
~;\" .~. ;'i }-.j '~.'. 'j~..
,~""'''''' .....~ 9._,.~,'~ :.;~ ' , ~., :'.1 "
~:I-' ~~'\I ~~. ~t~ .~..~ .:':rl . '~1 ~.
~U 'u<lJ ~.il,o.;-" 'oll ·
2.
e
. .
Dublin Boulevard, Segment 5; 2200; 108 RO~
Village Pkw to Sierra Court (UIDEN!NG)
As subnitted to Ca.l.trans
Civil Improvemets at 300 per If
Bridge widening
RO~ and Demo; have 100,need 108
City admin, design, crn, r~w acqt'n,20.0~
Te:al with 10% contingency (0 cn admin)
$1 million credit for ISTEA contribution
~et total for this ses~ent
-
$442308
5205769
5221154
$1731!46
51130COO
$-10000CO
5130000
~~~....4________~__..____.___._P__..__...._________.~.....----
D~blin Boulevard, Segment 6; 2030; 108 RC~
Sierra Court to Dougherty Rd (UIDcSING)
future improvements will be similar to segments
Civil Imprcvemets at 300 per lf .
Signals
Sierra Lane, civic, ~~dification
Oublin Ccurt, medificaticn
Oougherty, wi civil i~p
Right of waY,a*S18+100k demo
City admin, design, cm, ro~ acqt'n,20.0~
ictal with 10% c~ntin~c?(O cn a~~in)
3 and 4
5609000
- S75CCO
5750CO
5210000
5392320
5272264
.._---...._-~-_.-..._.---.-._..._-_.._....-------~-_.........-
5.769716
Dublin Bculevard ext,' Segment 7; 1700; 126 RCW
Ccu9~erty to SP RC~; 300 ft ccmpleted; 1400 ft 507. complete
Future improvements.cnly in esti~~te
civil Improverr.ents at S7CO,0~C
Right of ,,"'ay
Bart Load of S2.821M
Sisnals with other streets, see ses 5
City ad~in, cesign, em, r:w ac~t'n,20.C~
Total with 107. contingency (0 en a=~in)
$364000
SO
$2821000
S:J
56370Ce
S':'140500
~--_.~~._-._~....---_..__.-_..__.-_._--_..-----~_.._--......--
56,040,00:J
D~~lin Boulevard Tctal(to SP Rcfw)
...---.......-.....-----....--.....--.---......---.....--_....
Ou=lin Soulevard ext, Segment 8; 4750; 126 RO~
SF RC~ to Hacienda
Imprcved on each side of existin; roadway (widened acout el)
Civil Improve~ets at BOO per If 52850COO
Sigr:als
Hacienda, new,: major
Interi~ sig, new (road un~nown)
Spine intersection, new
Interim sig, new (road unknown)
Right of way,126*57 + 200~ de~o 53292125
City admin, design, cm, rcw acqt'n,20.0~ 51312425
(Ir:cludes Alameda Co. R/W Costs & City of Pleasanton Loan)
Tctal with 10~ contingency (0 en ac~in) 58530762
$.70000
512500C
5125000
._._.._.__.._._-_.*...~.~.._.--_..__.-----_.._.-.__....----...
Cublin Boulevard, Segment 9, 5600i 126 R~
Hacienda to Tassajara Road
Improved on each si~e~f existing roadway (wider:ed about eL)
Civil Improvemets at 800 per If 5224CCOO
Signals
Tassajara new, major
Bridge, $120*'00*55'
Right of way,126*S7'+ Ok d~~o
City admirl, design, :cm, rowaeqt'n,20.0X
(COStS Include City of Pleasanton Loan)
Total with 10% contingency (0 en ec~in)
$170000
53630CO
52469600
S1048520
56815380
e
Dublin Boulevard, Segment 10, 6200; 126 .RC~
Tassajara Rd to Fallon
All new roadway included
Civil Improvemets at 800 per lf
SIgnals.
Fallon new, major
Right of way.126*$1.25+0k deme
City admin. design, cm, row.acqt'n,20,O%
Total with 20Y. contingency (0 on ac~in)
Dublin Boulevard ext, Se;~ent 11, 9250; 126 ROW
Fallon Rd to Airway
All new roadway included
civil Improvemets at 800 per lf
Signals
Airway Blvd, major
Gleason, major
Bridge, 580*100*100
Right of way,126*S1.25 + Ok demo
City admin. design, em, row acqt"n,20.0%
Total with 20ro contingency (0 on a~min)
e
$2480000
$170000
548a250
$027650
S4393550
53700000
S1700CO
Si70000
S~4COOO
572~3a
Si041683
$7291813
...--_._-..--_......~~...~----~----..._---~...~._............-
S27,032,OOO
Dublin Blvd Ext, (w/out freeway interohange)
FR:E~AY INTERCHANG:, Dublin Boulevard Extension with
I seo; segment 12
All new interchange
Civil Improve~ents, Ramps
Signals
Right of ~ay
City admin, design. cm, row acqt"n,20.0/.
Tctal with 20% contingency (0 en Be"in)
5265COOO
5107143
S100CO~
5571429
$4fOOPCO
._-----_...._-_._.....--_._..__.~-......_----_._._............
Hacienda, Segment 13, 1500; 126 ROw
1550 (not incl Interchange) to D~blin Blvd
I~;roved on each side of existing rced~ay (widened a:out C~)
Civil Im~roverr.ets at 800 per If s6coooe
Signals, ir.ol wi 6 & 25 $0
Right of way, 126*$7 + Ok demo 5661500
City admin, design, c~, ro~ acqt'n,20.0~ $252300
Tctal with 20% ccntingency (0 on a~":n)
.._.._.~_.~_~.______..___..6..._.__________._.._.______._.._._
$1766100
Hac;e~a, Segment 14. 4400; 102 RC~
Gleason to Oublin Slvd ext
All new roadway Included
Civil Improvemets at 650 ~e~ lf
Signals
Transit Spine, major
Gleasen, major
Risht of way,102*$7 + 100k deT~
City admin, design. c~, row acqt'n,20.0~
Total with 20X contingency (0 on admin)
S10e6S0D
so
5170000
5170COO
$123:8C8
$531722
53722051
Hacienda Rd Tot~l (w/out freeway interchange)
_.~--~--_.__._------_._--_.-.._..--_.._-_....._--_...~~_._-_.-
55,488,000
-----...--.-----------------------------.---------.-.-..._---.
e
, ..
-
FREEWAY INTERCHANGE, Hacienda Road with
I 580, Segment 15
~lcen offramp and modify signal (Loan am't built prior)
civil Improvements, lS
Signal modification
Alameda County $3.762H loan (inel int'st
City admin, design, em, row aeqt'n,20.0X
total
$0
$0
$3762000
$294000
$4056000
Transit Spine, Ses~en: 16, 3130; 102 RO~
Dublin Blvd ext to H~oienda
(Camp Parks is on be:h siees of roaeway)
Improved on each side of existing roadway (wieened about Ct)
Civil lmprcve~ets at 650 per If s1403a05
Signals
Future Road, 7
Right of way,102*S7 + lOOk cemo
City admin, design, cm, row acqt'n,20.0%
iotal with 20ro ccntingency (0 en admin)
Transit spine, Segment 17, 5600; 102 RC~
Haoienda to Tassajara
A II new roaeway
civil Improveme:s at 650 per If
Signals, see 11 and 20
Right of way, 102.$7 + 100k demo
City admin, design, em, row aoqt"n,20.0%
iotal with 20% ccntingency (0 on acmin)
Transi: Spine, Seg~e~: 18, 6200; 102 RC~
Tassajara to Falle~
A II new roadway
Civil I~~rovemets at 650 per If
Signals, see 20 and 23
Right of way,1C2*Sl.25 + lOOk cemo
city ad~in, design, cm, rew aeqt'n,20.07.
Tctal with 20% eontin;er~y (0 en ed~in)
ira~sit Spine Roaeway Total
Gleascn, Segment 19, 7000; 102 RC~
1500 ft west of Ha~ienda to Tassejara
1/2 Improvements exist, sawcut and extend
Civil Imprcve~ets at 350 Fer If
Signals, see 11 and 20
~ight of way, 102*$7 + lOOk ce~o
City aemin, cesi,n, C~, r~w aeqt'n.20.0~
S170000
51611026
S636966
54458763
Si383200
SO
51557392
ssaa 118
S41i6a29
51531400
SO
5:3::2390
5373958
526177c6
511,193,000
Sc81000
SO
$1937240
$52.3648
iotal with 20% contingency (0 on acmin) 53665536
........................................................(.....
e
Gleason, Segment 20, 6200; 102 ROV
Tassajara to Fallon
Al I new roadway
Civq.lmproverr.ets at 650 per If
Signals, see 20 and 23
Right of way,102*S1.25 + 100k demo
city admin, design, em, row acqt'n,20.0%
Total with 20% contingency (0 on admin)
-
51531400
$0
5338390
S373958
S261nC6
Gleeson Roadway Total $6,283,000
(Sote, the portion of Gleason Road from Fallon Read to Donlard
Road is not included because no development is pro~osed for
Donlan Canyon as part of the Dublin General Plan A~e~~nt)
Scarlet OR Segment 21, 2400; 102 RCW
Dougherty Rd to Dublin Blvd ext
A l I new roadway
Civil l~~rovemets at 650 per If
Signals
Dcugherty, major
Dubl in, major
R.~ uti I ities 7
Bridge, 58C*100~90
Right of way,102.S7 . 10Ck c~~o
City admin, design, c~, rcwaeqt'n,20.0%
Total with 20% contingency (0 on admin)
Tassajara Rd. Segment 22, 8250; 126 ROV
City li~its to Gleason
A I I ne\ol roadway
Civil Irr.provemets at 53C Fer If
Signals
Fallon
Gleason, majcr
Right of way,126wS7*5C%. 100< de~o
City admin, design, em, row ae~t'n,20.0%
Total with 20~ oontingency (0 en ad~in)
Tassajara Rd. Segment 23, 4400; 126 ROW
Gleason to Dublin Blvd.
A l I new roadway
civil I~~rovemet$ at 800 per If
Signals
iransit Spine, Major
Gleeson, see 19
Right of way,126*$7*48%+ 100k demo
City admin, cesign, em, rew acqt1n,20.0%
Total wit~ 20% continsency (0 en ac~in)
SiS60CCO
5170000
51700CO
SC
S720COO
S.8136CO
5286720
$6,207,000
5i797:CO
so
so
SO
S3S$:CC
52516S00
sa800CO
S8S000
SO
SO
s.93000
S1351000
. .
e
.
Tassajara'Rd. Se9ment 24, 1000: 150 R~
Quclin Blvd ext to 1580; (not incl interchange)
Existing pavement unusable; all new roadway
~ivil Improvrn'ts at 900, short, at fwy
Signats; see 21 ar~ 7
Right of way,150*$7*47% + 100~ demo
city admin, design, cm, rcw acqt'n,20.0X
Total with 20h contingency (0 on admin)
.
S270000
so
S23740
$58748
54 i 1236
_...__.._...__.___~.~___~.__..~__.~___._.______.__.__..._6..._
54,279,000
_____...____._.__.._~__.____._____.______.__M__.___._..__6.___
Tassajara Rd. Segment 25, at Freeway, intersecticn
Freeway interchange
1/2 of Interchange exists
civil Imprcvew,ents, Ramps
Signals
Right of Way
city admin, design, c~, row acqt'n,20.0~
Tctal with 20X ccntingency (0 en eemin)
53700000
5300000
$0
5800000
.....--...-......---......-----....-......-......--....--_....
55600000
Fallen Rd. Seg~~nt 26, 16000; 126 RO~
Tessajara to Oublin Blvd ext
All new roadway
civil lmprcve",ets at eao per If
Signals
Gleason
Transit Spine
Right of way,126*$1.25+ 1CO( d~
City admin, design, c~, row acqt'n,20.0r.
Tctal with 20% contingency (0 en ad~jn)
5216000C
58500C
585000
5452250
5556l.50
...-.--.....----..---.--....---...--..........---.-...--......
53895150
Fallon Rd. Seg~e~: 27, 1500; 126 RC~
Du=lin Blvd ext to north of 1580
All new roadway, in~l~de interchan;e
civil Imprcve~ets at 800 per If
Signals
see se<;mem 8
no free~ay interchange or fw signals
Right of way,126-S1.25+ 1CO~ de~
City aemin, eesi<;n, c~, row a:qt'n,20.0~
Tctal with 20~ contingency (0 cn a~~in)
53COOCC
50
SO
584063
S76813
55376e8
__..M..._._._.__-...._-..--...--.._.._~-_.___--..M............
54,430,000
..._....---_.-_..~._...-_.~_._.._-_.....~.__._..._............
Fallen & 1580 Freeway Interchange with signals;
freeway interchange, incl sisnals
Right of way
City admin, design, em, rcw Bcqt1n,20.0X
Total with 20~ ccntingency (0 on acinin)
Segment 28
57500000
SC
Si 500000
.___.~._._.___._.__~_.__w~___..___~~____~___~.__.._.....-....-
510,500,00C
.
C/J
W
....
o
(ij
...J
...J
<
>
I
0::
....
0::
o
u.
C/J
W
W
u.
....
o
<
c..
:2
-
o
u.
u.
<
a:
....
-
W
a:
o
2
a:
W
>
::J
ooenO>
00~"O
ccil!iv..o
U') t-- 0 -0
en~
- - -
~~ (/)
00 I-
Q)
a.
-
..... (/)
'C:t::: Q)
:J C ';::
>.:J 0
= >. ~
E= .....
- E ctS
LL ctS 0
ILL 0)
en'.B! ..!. = ~
W O)::! S ctS
WC::SQ)I
LL,Cn :2 0: -
z
o
I-
Z
<
en
<
W
..J
c..
.s "0":
C Q) .Q
Q) ..cz
E - (/) (/) Q)
a.~ :0:0 C
o ctS ..... ._
-"O......C"O
Q) '5 '0 (/) Q) =
>.- Q) Q) E::S
Q) -g '-' ~ ..c
"0._ e .... ~_
3:ca.ctSmo
mctS..cO-(/)'Zi
C C 0 ~ ~ ....
IOctSm.....m
"Oa>cca.
ffi m c'en Q) 0
-~O:JEU1
-g.c~C) ~~
o..m::s{ge0
o ~ 1;) C 0.0
en "0 ctS o.Ql E-
W ctS ~ U .- ll.
WO~i.'tli.'tlcz
Z a..... I ctS-
LL, .....
OOvO>
OO~32
r--.:~v.c
t--C'\JtfJ-_
~C'\J 0
C\i,.: 'Zi
0* I-
a>
a.
z
o
::E
<
a:
z
<
en
-
(/)
:t::: -m
c.~ i.'tl.;::
-. C .- 0
...J-'~O)
;::'...J Q) m
.- >. E.....
~'E E ~
LLi.'tlOC'1
ILLO~
en Q) ..!. = ~
W O)::! S i.'tl
WC::Sa>I
u..Ci5~a:-
0000')
oqU132
oov..o
00*-0
Ov
- ~ -
C'\J~ (/)
** ....
m
a.
-
W
...J
...J
:;
Z
<
C
.....
'c ....._
-,'c ctS
...J:J:;::::;
>. c
=>'m
E="O
i.'tl E.-
LLctSID
ILLo:
en .B!..!. I
W o).:!::: C
C :::s 0
~ICn :2 Z
(/)
fU
3: 0
"0 as
cU .
"00 as(/)
Q)....O)......
......o....c
cU......asQ)
,Q-"'O ~ E
,Q Com
......cUE>
!'J .50.....12
cC\\'x'''o.
a> as (/) 0) ....
-.- > E
.. E a.. ...... "0 ::i ._
CI) .- _
I- Q) <<i ~:J..c tii
CDf;l-lBgt::c
>C;O)I-;>on
8 a. c as Q) C'o,
E,~ Q) Q) Q) Q)
Q) .-...... .... - ..c ....
Q) "0 C) 0 Q) ...... CI)
LLO)cE..ccas
......"0:;::::; ...........__
asQ)CI)Q)......=_
..c 0)'- > as._ ~
> x '-.r::. :> ;>
>1 Z 0) ...J ...... ;>
Q)
..c
......
.5
.r::.
......
'::
~ i
0..: .2
QUO)
.;:: Q)
,.......1-
L...ICI)-
- .- CI)
a..OQ)
Z,5 g>
-0= as
.- "c
C 3: 0
o CI) l-
.- ...... 0)
t::Q)'E
o 0)._
ll.z>.
CI) CI) ctS
.- - 3:
"cctSQ)
J-oQ)
...... ...Jo ....
cU LL
.r::.
>--
>~C'\J
....
as
~ "'0
I Q)
It)E~
CI) as Q)
-c I- "0
Q 0>,_
E2,S
as ll. '0
a: 1::;::
ca>o
.. as E tIl
f (I) 0) ra .
Q)c>=CI)
>.- 12 Q) 'E
8Ea.3:Q)
Q)3:E~E
0) 0 - Q)
LL......raE>
-~:t:::Q)Q
ra '0' a."ti a.
5 I- oas >- E
>,0.. tIl.
"0
C .
- CI) .
'U...... ......
Cl)CC
.,CO)Q)
1UEE
0.0)0.
O)>..Q
.x;QQ)
.- 0. >
.oEQ)
- "'0
CI)'-
-.....a>
..as...."C
o cas......
1-0>12>.
Q).- ,...
>(0)'"
80:t:::"O
.- tIl Q)
CD ii '=0 t)
Q).... 2
LL""""O
_"OQ)"ti
as,S:t::: c
..cCl)Eo
>.- 0
> ...J .-
.
....
,.>l
iIi
1::
co
:,l;i
:;
~
co
"t:l
..
-"" "'!ll2ll,,&~, t'J~"=
~~'...... ;.{ol 'f' ,.1 ~ :;J. '3 1'., _.,1 ~_
;.~ "'i' ;' ',5t :~;1 ;:;;j j'
f,;;: ~1 ~~ '.. it '.'#1
~~r~~ l~l;';;J. _..
3.
--