The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 8.1 I-580/680 DirectConn (2) CITY CLERK File #I I1 1Io110 I101 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 9, 1996 SUBJECT: Interstate 580/680 Direct Connector (Measure B) Project (Report Prepared by Richard C. Ambrose, City Manager ) EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3' Letters from the Alameda County Transportation Authority (ACTA) dated March 26, 1996, and March 19, 1996 Local Match Program Technical Memorandum prepared by Alameda County Transportation Authority dated January 10, 1996 Draft resolution approving contribution to the 1- 580/1-680 Direct Connector Project RECOMMENDATION: ../1) Receive Staff Presentation on design of roadway connection to I- //~ ~ ~ 680 hookramps; 2) Receive presentation from Alameda County / '.L/v- Transportation Authority on Local Match requirements; 3) Receive presentation on funding of Dublin's Local Match for the project; 4) Adopt resolution approving contribution to the 1-580/1-680 Direct Connector Project. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: ACTA has identified Dublin's fair share of the required Local Match as $2,038,500 of which the City has already paid $111,700 to date resulting in a remaining balance of $1,926,800. Dublin's Local Match Share would increase if other Tri-Valley agencies do not commit to their share of the project's cost. DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND The Interstate 580/680 Direct Connector Project is a project that was approved by the voters in their adoption of Measure B in 1986. This project replaces the existing southbound 1-680 to eastbound 1-580 loop with a flyover ramp connecting 1-680 southbound directly to 1-580 eastbound. This project also separates eastbound 1-580 to northbound 1-680 traffic from westbound 1-580 to northbound 1-680 traffic and widens the existing westbound and northbound ramp. The westbound to northbound ramp has already been constructed. The project also includes hookramps from 1-680 into Downtown Dublin. H/cc-forms/49acta.doc COPIES TO: The project when presented to the voters in 1986 totaled $54 million and included the provision for a $10 Local Match. Since that time, the total project costs have escalated to approximately $120 million and the Local Match has remained the same. The schedule for completion of this is as follows: EIR Clearance Right-of-Way Certification Advertisement for Bid Award of Contract Construction Commences Construction Completed Jtme 1996 July 1997 August 1997 November 1997 December 1997 November 2000 The design on the project is 90 percent complete and all major design issues have been resolved. HOOKRAMP CONNECTOR ROAD DESIGN The City has worked closely with the Alameda County Transportation Authority to develop a cost effective design for the connector road which is necessary to handle traffic utilizing the hookramps off of 1-680. The Public Works Director and the Transportation Authority Staff will present a brief presentation as to the connector road design for Council information. LOCAL MATCH FUNDING & REQUIREMENTS As indicated above, the Local Match for the 1-580/1-680 Direct Connector Project total is $10 million. As a result of contributions from the Bay Area Rapid Transit District and contributions from the Th-Valley cities and Alameda County, the remaining balance to be paid into the Local Match Fund is $5,548,300 as shown in Table 3 of the Local Match Program Technical Memorandum. The Tri-Valley Transportation Council has been working for some time to develop a Th-Valley Transportation Plan and funding mechanism to fund projects such as the 1-580/1-680 Direct Connector Project. The Tri-Valley Transportation Council recently hired a consultant to undertake a study to determine the amount of the Traffic Impact Fee and the methodology for distribution of funding to projects such as 1-580/I-680, West BART Station, and Highway 84. The timefmrne for completing this study is approximately nine months. Although the Tri-Valley Transportation Council is working on a method to develop funding to cover the Local Match on this project, the timeframe required for commitment from the Local Match participants is much shorter due to the Alameda County Transportation Authority project schedule. Given the need for a commitment from the local participants, that is required before the project can proceed much further, Alameda County Transportation Authority developed a cost sharing strategy utilizing the Tri-Valley Transportation Model. This methodology would require Dublin and Pleasanton to pay fair share for local ramps and for freeway benefits, Livermore to pay its fair share for freeway benefits, Contra Costa County jurisdictions to pay a combined fair share of 11 percent, and Alameda County to pay its fair share of 3 percent. ACTA's methodology took into consideration the origin and destination of trips, traffic time savings, and local ramp direct benefits. As shown on Table 3 of the Local Match Program Technical Memorandum, Dublin's remaining share of Local Match would total $1,926,800. -2- Staffhas reviewed the methodology used by ACTA and believes that although some minor adjustments coul~l be made, that overall the methodology does represent a fair share for all Tri-Valley agencies. Since the development of the original fair share methodology, the Cities of Livermore, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville have considered the Local Match proposal and have indicated that they could not :ommit at this time to their Local Match share for a variety of reasons. Some agencies indicated that they were committed to the project, but would only consider funding the match through a Tri-Valley Transportation Council Regional Transportation Impact Fee. On March 26, 1996, the Alameda County Transportation Authority Executive Director sent a letter to the remaining participants indicating what the impact of non-participation of Livermore, Danville, and San Ramon would be on the rest of the participating agencies if the non-participating agencies share was distributed equally among the remaining agencies and Contra Costa County's share was left unchange-& The resulting Local Match requirement for Dublin would then be $2,487,030. The Alameda County Transportation Authority has indicated that a commitment is needed in the near future from the participating agencies, otherwise the project could be delayed which could result in increased project costs. DUBLIN'S SOURCE OF LOCAL MATCH FUNDING In reviewing the fair share Local Match obligation of the City of Dublin of $1,926,800, Staff has identified potential sources to fund that Local Match amount. These sources include credit for the right- of-way acquired from Enea Properties for the Hookramp Connection, Downtown Traffic Impact Fees that have been collected to date, BART Mitigation Funds, and the regional component of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. taft believes that these funding forces would be adequate to fund the initial fair share proposed by Alameda County Transportation Authority. Dublin does have the same problem as other Tri-Valley agencies in that in all likelihood all of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee for this project would not be collected before the year 2000 in order to satisfy Alameda County Transportation Authority's timeline. Therefore, Staff has evaluated some options for advancing the funds from the City's General Fund and repaying the City's General Fund with the collection of the regional portion of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. Staff believes that one option that the Council could consider would be to utilize the Debt Service savings on the Civic Center building which would be initially realized in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 (presently estimated at $1 million.) If the Council chooses to defease the Civic.Center Debt Service obligation in February 1999, this could provide a source of funds to be advanced and repaid from future Traffic Impact Fees. The details of the payment schedule to ACTA still needs to be negotiated in order to finalize any commitment on the part of the City of Dublin. RECOMMENDATION Given that the participation of other entities in the Tri-Valley is presently uncertain, and there is a possibility that their participation could change or could modify the results of the Local Match required, it is Staff's recommendation that the City Council adopt a resolution committing only to its fair share of ~1,926,800 at this time and authorize Staff to negotiate an agreement with ACTA which provides for a .yment schedule. If the circumstances necessary to fund this project change in the next several months, Staff would propose that change be brought back to the Council at a later time. -3- Alameda Transportation Authority 140i Lakeside Drive Suite 600 Oakland, California 94612-4305 Telephone 510/893-3347 Facsimile 510/893-6489 E-Mail ACTA2002@aol.com Keith Carson Chairman Supervisor rk Green .ce-Chairman Nlayor, Union City Edward R. Campbell Supervisor W'flma Chan Supervisor Roberta Cooper Mayor, Hayward Nora Davis Mayor, Eme ,ryville Elihu M. Harris Mayor, Oakland blary V. King Supervisor Gaff Steele Supervisor Vincent J. Harris Executive Director March 26, 1996 Mr. Richard Ambrose, City Manager City of Dublin PO Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Ms. Deborah Acosta, City Manager City of Pleasanton PO Box 520 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Ms. Susan Muranishi County Administrator County of Alameda 1221 Oak Street Oakland, CA 94612 Mr. Val Alexeeff, Director GMEDA Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street No Wing 2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: 1-580/680 Direct Connector Project -- Local Match Contributions Dear Addressees: The purpose of this correspondence is to follow-up on my conversation of March 22, 1996 with each of you and to provide clarification of the Authority's revised approach for local match for the 1-580/680 Interchange. I provided a project status update to each of you last Friday. In addition, it is the Authority's intent to also determine your jurisdiction's position regarding these changed conditions. Because of Livermore, Danville and San Ramon's negative response to the Authority's local match proposal, I requested advice from the Authority's legal counsel regarding the Authority's recourse if the total local match is not committed and ultimately received. Legal counsel has advised that the total $10 million must be committed in order for the project to be constructed. Additionally, because the project cannot be substantially segmented, it must be awarded for construction as one unit. With this legal assessment, ACTA is asking your jurisdictions to consider contributing at a level greater than the amount presented in the Authority's original proposal as your fair share if al/ TVTC members participate,d.;_On March 22nd, you were asked to consider providing those funds which are currently left outstandino due to Livermore, Danville and San Ramon's refusal to contribute any part of the local match. This unfunded amount is $1,680,700. On last Friday the Authority asked that you consider splitting this balance equally and adding this amount to each of your local match contributions. This approach would require an additional $420,175 from each of your four jurisdictions. Alameda County jurisdictions received this proposal with possible interest; however, concern was voiced on the impact of fewer TVTC members refusal to participate and the even greater burden posed on those remaining members. Contra Costa County's response to this revised approach clear~l indicated that they would not consider any involvement beyond the amount originally proposed. A C TA ,,t e a u s A ct it, ,, EXHIBIT 1 March 25, 1996 Page Two Based on this input, the Authority would like to present the following revised proposal for local match contributions. 1) 2) Contra Costa County contributes only the original amount proposed, or $135,900. Dublin, Pleasanton and Alameda County provide~the remaining balance. This amount would be $1,680,700 minus Contra Costa County's $135,900, divided equally; plus each jurisdiction's original share. 3) The Authority will continue to attempt to obtain contributions from Livermore, Danville and San Ramon to reduce the contributions of Alameda County, Dublin & Pleasanton. 4) The Authority will work with TVTC to adopt a formal resolution to reimburse up-front local match contributions through future TVTC fees. Items 1 and 2 are summarized as follows: Dublin $1,926,800 $1,926,800 $2,487,030 Pleasanton 1,563,000 1,563,000 2,123,230 Livermore 703,700 -0- 703,700 0 Danville 171,600 -0- 171,600 0 San Ramon 805,400 ~0- 805,400 0 (2) Alameda County 241,900 241,900 802,140 Contra Costa County 135,900 135,900 135,900 Total $5,548,300 $3,867,600 $1,680,7d'0 (~) $5,548,300 (1) Redistributed between Dublin, Pleasanton and Alameda County: $1,680, 700/3 = $ 560,233 Rounded: Dublin $ 560,230, Pleasanton $ 560,230 and Alameda County $ 560,240. These amounts then added to original Local Match Contributions. (2) Authority will attempt to receive any minor contribution from these jurisdictions to reduce burden on major TVT=C contributors. The Authority is currently proceeding through environmental certification and final design of the 1-580/680 Direct Connector Project. Based on the local match currently received, design and right- of-way acquisition activities can be completed; however, construction advertisement cannot. The revised local match proposal will allow the present schedule to continue with construction starting by Fall of 1997. Dublin, Pleasanton, Alameda County and Contra Costa County are urged to consider this revised local match approach and work through this issue with the Authority. The Authority would seriously like to hear from you by the end of this month. March 25, 1996 Page Three I will be at the March 27th meeting of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council to discuss the project and the Authority's revised proposal. If you would like additional information or any clarification on this issue, please call me at the Authority's office. Sincerely, Vincent J. Harris Executive Director distribution: Chairperson Keith Carson, ACTA Congressman William Baker Mayor Guy Houston, City of Dublin Mayor Cathie Brown, City of Livermore Mayor Mildred Greenberg, Town of Danville Mayor Curt Kinney, City of San Ramon Mayor Ben Tarver, City of Pleasanton Randall Lum, City of Pleasanton Crystall Hishida, Alameda County Don LaBelle, Alameda County Daniel lacofano, MIG Eugenie Thomson, TTE Tom Wintch, Greiner, Inc. Christine Monsen, Deputy Director, ACTA Bertha Ontiveros, Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean VJH/taj Alameda County Transportation Authority March 19, 1996 Mr. Richard Ambrose, City Manager City of Dublin P. O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94588 ~: 140I.Lakeside Drive Suite 600 Oakland, California 94612-4305 Telephone 510/893-3347 Facsimile 510/893-6489 E-Mail ACTA2002@aol.com Keith Carson Chairman Supervisor Mark Green Vice-Chairman Mayor, Union City Edward R. Campbell Supervisor Wilma Chan Supervisor Roberta Cooper Mayor, Ha,vward Nora Davis Mayor, Emeryville Elihu M. Harris Mayor, Oakland Mary V. King Supervisor Gail Steele Supervisor Vincent J. Harris Executive Director SUBJECT: 1-580/680 DIRECT CONNECTOR PROJECT (MB 310) Width of BEXT and Local Match Considerations Dear Mr. Ambrose: Thank you and your staff for meeting with myself, Christine Monsen and Greiner on March 6, 1996 to discuss the width of the BEXT line and potential sources for the City's local match contribution. This letter summarizes my understanding of the agreements reached at our meeting. Typically BEXT line will remain one lane (17 feet) in each direction with provisions for left turn pockets (12 feet) in the middle of the street. There will be widening at the intersections as presently shown on the plans. One driveway to each of the Crown Chevrolet parcels to the north and south of the BEXT line will be allowed; though these driveways are not to be opposite each other. The locations of these driveways will be a subject of discussion during right-of-way acquisition. After our meeting, the designers investigated the impacts of placing the driveways where we discussed and discovered that some redesign of the profile for the BEXT and drainage would be necessary to minimize the construction cost. Without concurrence from the property owner on the driveway locations, the redesign would be speculative. It w,a~s decided to leave the design as is, not show the driveways on the plans but note that they are intended to be placed during right-of-way negotiations, and revise the design as appropriate once the driveway locations are secure. This approach was discussed and agreed upon between Mehran Sepehri of the City and Scott Kelsey, Greiner, on March 13, 1996. The driveways for the Enea parcels as designed are appropriate. A 68 foot right-of-way will be purchased by the Authority through the south side of Crown Chevrolet. The lane configurations, widths and plans for the BEXT line will remain as currently designed. As we discussed, we have attached a copy of the Layout for BEXT with the 68 foot right-of-way shown, and Typical Sections and Pavement Delineation Plans for your use. ACTA m ca n s A ctio n Mr. Richard Ambrose March 19, 1996 Page 2 Local Match: As the two way left turn lane of the BEXT line now has a defined project purpose, the $270,000 that the City of Dublin received from BART can be used for this project and will be credited to the City of Dublin local match obligation. As the 68 foot wide parcel that was dedicated by Enea to the City of Dublin is held in fee by the City and dedicated to the City in lieu of relaxed requirements on his development, the appraised value of this land will be credited to the City of Dublin local match obligation. We applaud your foresight in the early reservation of this land. The Authority appreciates Dublin's efforts in containing the project costs through relaxed City standards on the BEXT line. I also appreciate your continued pursuit of avenues to meet the City's local match obligations of this project and look forward to reviewing the City's strategy to meet the remainder of their local match obligation. As we discussed, I am still hoping to review a draft strategy by the end of March. I realize that it is difficult to be the first entity in a padnership such as this to publicly announce your strategy to dedicate funds toward the project local match. However, someone needs to be first and the Cit.v of Dublin as a primary benefactor, due to the local access ramps at Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway, is the logical leader. I ask that the City of Dublin consider this. Please contact me by Monday, March 25, 1996 if you have any concerns with the above summary of our meeting. Thank you again for your cooperation and assistance in progressing this project towards completion. As always, please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss the project or the local match obligation. Sincerely, Executive Director Enclosure CCZ Ms. Christine Monsen, Deputy Director Mr. Patrick Pang, Caltrans Ms. Elizabeth Engle, Caltrans Mr. Thomas Wintch, Greiner TOTAL PROv~GT DUBLIN ROUTE 680 SEE Sbt PD-5 :: I I I (L) TYPE I I TYPE III{L) ARROW · CL "KEEP" 12' TYPE I ARROW TYPE II ARROW WHITE Ill(R) ARROW TYPE III(L) ARROW I I (L) ARROW -:.. TYPE Ill(R) ARROW TYPE II(L) ARROW G G "---TYPE VI ARROW 'SIGNAL" "AF ~TYPE VI ARROW THIS PLAN ACCURATE FOR PAVEMENT DELINEATION ONLY FOR REDUCED PLANS 12" WH I I I (L) ARROW TYPE III(L) V ARROW iF" REGISTERED CIVIL E:NGi~EER Pt.,I.NS ~VAL DATE Al. MD& COI.14T Y TRANSPORTATION ~JTH0~ I TY 1401 L&~ESID~ DRIVE SUITE C)AKL&ND, CA 1o5~O/6~0 DIRECT C~II(CTOR PROJECT ~ T. I&RI~N & ASSOCIATES 1330 ~J~OJ~IAY, SUITE 15~ OA~LJND, CALIFORNIA 9461Z TI~ 5fote oF Collfornio or Its oFficers or rte Alomedo Co~r~ Tro/~port~l/on Nllh~'ity. o~d Greln~r. lr~ ~11 r~l be re$.-~,:~slble for the oc~roc~ or of electronic ooples OF tlfs plon steel. VI ARROW FOR NOTES & LEGEND, SEE SHEET PD-I. PAVEMENT DELINEATION PLAN SCALE~ I' · 50' PD-6 BI~ e/ OllalJl"l""l'A I l_ DUBLIN 'S '12' WHITE TYPE III (L) ARROW TYPE III (L) ARROW 90'BAY TAPER ~1 ,.-=, i STOP .65 ,. SEE Sh't PD°6 Pt. ANS AIm~mROYAL DATE ALAMEDA C{XIITY TR&NSP(2I{TAT I (24',I AUTHDR ITY I~1 L~SIDE DJ{I~ SUITE 6OD OaXLANOo CA 94612' TOTAL PROJECT 19. 8/21.0 RI9~ 7/R21.9 1-580/680 DIRECT CO/elECTOR PROJECT ,JOHN T. WL~RF.N & ASSOCIATES 1330 BRD&DIAT, SUITE 155S OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 TM Store of Coliforp2o or [ts ~/f[cer$ or the Al~edo County Tror~portotl~n A~tor[ty. md Grelrer. lm. sholl rd I~e resJ;o~lble for the __npp__~rocy Of electronic oozes of [tls pion THIS PLAN ACCURATE FOR PAVEMENT DELINEATION ONLY FOR NOTES & LEGEND, SEE SHEET PD-I. PAVEMENT DELINEATION PLAN SCALEm I' - 50' PD-5 ...... ~. :~7 ~ .......... ¢' . :~'~: .~: : ~ ~z:.....".,..",..".........::'.....:L=5...::....::.5.:......~.....~ ...... ~ ......................... . .... ~~ ....... ..~:~ ~: .... ~ .... ~ MAROH 14. 1998 80ALE: 1' · 1~' -LOCAL MATCH PROGRAM TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ROUTES 580/680 INTERCHANGE PROJECT Prepared For: Cit)' of Dublin Prepared By: Alameda County Transportation Authority & Thomson Transportation Engineers, Inc. January 1 O, 1996 EXHIBIT 2 LOCAL MATCH PROGRAM SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A: SECTION B: Project Benefits Local Match Program Technical Approach SECTION C: Response to Questions J:\TTE%24\LPSURVEY~TOC.DOC TOC-I 1/10/96 5:26 PM SUMMARY LOCAL HATCH PROGRAM 1-580/I-680 Interchange Project Alameda County Transportation Authority Local Match - Total $10 million · BART 40%. -- · Dublin/Pleasanton pay fair share for local ramps and for freeway benefits. · Livermore pays fair share for freeway benefits. · Contra Costa jurisdictions pay combined fair share of I I%. · Alameda County pays fair share of 3%. FAIR SHARE ALLOCATION PROPOSED BY ACTA BART 40% Dublin 20% P~easanton 18% Contra Cosca County in San Ramon Danville Tri Valley Area 8% 2% I% Alameda County 3% Liverrnore 8% Local Match Program · Cost strategy model developed for basis of fair share for this project. · The output from the Tri-Valley Transportation Model was used. · Freeway engineering analysis tool (TTE-OPS) was employed to determine project benefits (i.e., queuing, reduction, and travel-time improvements). Origin and destination of trips included in calculations. I/I 1/96 - 10:10 AM · J:\TTE9524\LPSU RVEY~LOC_MAT.DOC SECTION A: PROJECT BENEFITS ACTA 1-580/680 PROJECT BENEFITS CITY OF DUBLIN Project centrally located in the TrioValley area. This interchange is one of the key interchanges in the Bay Area. The interchange currently carries 250,000 vehicles per day. Project improves inter-Tri-Valley travel. Project is within the City of Dublin. Of the P.M. peak-hour trips on the new south-to-east flyover, I I% of the trip ends would be associated with the City of Dublin. Project improves travel on local Dublin streets. A vehicle from the north going east on 1-580, to or from Dublin, would experience a reduction in travel time from a No-Build of 7.5 minutes to a Build of 4 minutes between the Alcosta/I-680 interchange and the Hopyard/I-580 interchange. This is a 50% reduction in future year peak-hour travel. A vehicle from the west going east on 1-580, to Dublin, would experience a reduction in travel time from a No-Build of 5.7 minutes to a Build of 3 minutes between the Foothill/I-580 interchange and the Hopyard/I-580 interchange. Project reduces freeway delay by approximately 22% in the peak hours as shown in Exhibit A. Other freeway movements would also experience travel- time benefits as illustrated in the following Exhibits B and C. Project adds three local ramps in the City of Dublin significantly improving travel time for access to and from 1-680 (see Exhibit D). 120,000 100,000 ' 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 Exhibit A: Freeway Delay No-Build Build Project Alternative J:\TTEg$24\LPSURVEY\DUB_BEN.DOC I/11/96.9:41 AM NO-BUILD EXISTING CONGESTION AS A RESULT OF CONGESTION ON THE COLLECTOR -OISTRIBUTOR ROAD TRAVEL TIME FROM NORTH OF ALCOSTA TO HOPYARD = 7,5 MINUTES EXISTING WEAVE AT CAPACITY HIGH ACCIDENT LOCATION iD~AY~ ,000 VEHICLE-MINUTES FUTURE P.M. PEAK ~ EXHIBIT B FREEWAY OPERAT IONS FOR NO-BUILD YEAR 2010 P.M. PEAK HOUR ACTA ROUTES 580/680 PROJECT IMPROVED FREEWAY OPERATIONS IMPROVEMENTS IN EXPECTED ACCIDENT RATES .-, RELIEF IN iCONGESTION CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS AND SAFETY BENEFITS WITHIN THE INTERCHANGE BUILD IMPROVED EXITS TRAVEL TIME FROM NORTH OF ALCOSTA TO HOPYARD - 4.0 MINUTE5 I REDUCTION IN I WESTBOUND OUEUE IELIMINATED IWEAVE CTION IN FREEWA~ Y = 22Z EXHIBIT C FREEWAY OPERATIONS FOR BUILD YEAR 2010 P.M. PEAK HOUR ACTA ROUTES 580/680 PROJECT THREE LOCAL RAMPS ARE PROVIDEDm (~ FROM SOUTHBOUND ROUTE 680 TO DUBLIN (~) FROM DUBLIN TO SOUTHBOUND ROUTE 680 (~) FROM DUBLIN TO NORTHBOUND ROUTE 680 ITRAVEL TIldE: · 3,6 TRAVEL TIME - 3.5 mlnI NO-BUILD TRAVEL TIME - $.2 mln \ IMPROVED TRAVEL TIME · 2.3 mfn IMPROVED mini TRAVEL TIME · 1.5 BUILD IMPROVED t~%TRAVEL TIME · I.I NOT TO SCALE EXHIBIT D LOCAL ACCESS RAMPS DUBLIN BENEFITS ACTA ROUTES 580/680 PROJECT SECTION B LOCAL MATCH PROGRAM TECHNICAL APPROACH LOCAL MATCH PROGRAM FAIR SHARE TECHNICAL APPROACH 1-580/!-680 PROJECT BACKGROUND A project specific cost-share equation.and associated eh_ gineering calculations were employed to assess the proposed fair share of the Local Match for each jurisdiction. The future land-use and network assumptions, as well as the freeway volumes from the Tri-Valley Transportation Model, were utilized. The jurisdictions included in the Local Match equation are: · Dublin · Pleasanton · Livermore · Alameda County · San Ramon · Danville · Contra Costa County These jurisdictions have already joined in the form of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council. The Council has identified the ACTA 1-580/680 Project as its highest priority project for the Tri-Valley Area Transportation Program. The Council has recently hired a consultant to develop a regional fee program to fund the Council's proposed Transporzation Program of $31 I. I million. However, since ACTA needs a commitment of Local Match in early 1996, it was decided that we develop a fair share program for the 1-580/I-680 project independent of the fee program. ~: The total Local Match for the ACTA 1-580/680 Project, as identified in the Measure B Expenditure Plan is $ I 0 million. The total construction cost of this project was originally identified as $54 million in the tax measure, but this total project cost has escalated to $120 million. However, ACTA has not inflated the Local Match. The cost-share equation for the ACTA 1-580/680 Project has three primary components as follows: Local Match : I BART I + (ACTA 1-580/I-680 Project) Share Regional I + Benefit Share Local Ramp Benefit Share BART has contributed almost $4 million to the ACTA 1-580/I-680 Project, and the fair share for the jurisdictions was reduced accordingly by this amount. J:\TTEg$24\LPSURVE~TECHAPP.DOC I / 10/96 - 4:47 PM Below is the calculation for each of the other jurisdictions' shares. Adiustment in Local Match Fund per BART Contribution: Originally Defined $ I 0,000,000 Local Match Fund Total Less Bart ~3,960,000~ Contribution New Local Match $6,040,000 Fund Total · Allocation of New Local Match Fund Total by Portion of Project: Estimated % of Benefit Share Portion of Project Construction Cost Amount Regional Benefit Directional 75% $4,530,000 Share Interchange Local Ramp Benefit Local Ramps 25% $1,510,000 Share Total New Local 100% $6,040,000 Match Fund Total BENEFITS & METHODOLOGY The ACTA 1-580/1-680 project improves freeway travel, which benefits the travelers in the Tri- Valley area. The project includes the construction of a freeway-to-freeway flyover for the 1-680 south to 1-580 east movement. In addition to this flyover, auxiliary lanes,,~a_dditional freeway lanes, and ramp improvements are included in the project. These improvements improve travel throughout the interchange. Several years ago, ACTA also added three local ramps to this project. The current project configuration is graphically illustrated in the following figure. This figure also illustrates in color the eight freeway movements that would be affected by the ACTA project. Of the freeway movements, Movement 2 is the proposed flyover (i.e., the 1-680 south to 1-580 east movement) that would realize a reduction of 50% in travel time in the future P.M. peak hour from the Alcosta/I-680 interchange to the Hopyard/I-580 interchange. Total estimated savings in vehicular delay for the interchange is estimated at 22% with the ACTA project. For one of the key interchanges in the Bay Area, this type of savings in delay is large, since this facility carries 250,000 vehicles daily. J:\TTE9 $2~I\LPSURVEY~TECHAPP.DOC I 110/96 - 4:47 PM To calculate the delay and the travel-time savings for the ACTA project, the freeway traffic engineering tool TI'E-OPS was used to develop the peak-hour freeway constrained vehicular volumes for the year 2010 for No-Build and Build (with ACTA project) conditions. TTE-OPS utilizes the peak-hour volumes developed from regional transportation models, such as the Tri- Valley Transportation Model, and performs freeway operations analyses based on primary and secondary freeway bottlenecks, freeway capacity, and ramp locations. These traffic operations engineering analyses locate the queues on the freeway, calculate the queue lengths, calculate the effects of weaves on freeway travel, and provide tb_e actual volumes that the freeway facility could carry in the peak hours based on these freeway lane and ramp configurations. 'i-I-E-OPS provides for overall measure of effectiveness of a freeway project in terms of vehicle minutes of delay, person and vehicle miles traveled, queue lengths, and speeds of the freeway in stable and unstable (queued conditions). REGIONAL BENEFIT SHARE The regional freeway benefits evaluated for the ACTA project are based upon travel-time savings along 1-680 from north of Alcosta to south of Stoneridge and 1-580 from west of Foothill Blvd. to east of Santa Rita. The eight freeway movements, which the ACTA project will affect, include the following three movements on southbound 1-680: Movement I: Southbound 1-680 from north of Alcosta to 1-580 west would experience travel- time improvements from No-Build of 6.8 minutes to a Build of 3.8 minutes in the year 2010 P.M. peak hour or 3 minutes of travel-time savings per vehicle. Movement 2: Southbound 1-680 from north of Alcosta to Hopyard (I-580 eastbound) would experience travel-time improvements from No-Build of 7.6 minutes to a Build of 4 minutes in the year 2010 P.M. peak hour or 3.6 minutes of travel-time savings per vehicle. Movement 3: Southbound through 1-680 from north of Alcosta to Stoneridge would experience travel-time improvements from No-Build of 7. I minutes to a,13uild of 6.4 minutes in the year 2010 P.M. peak hour or 0.7 minutes of travel-time savings per vehicle. On 1-580 eastbound, the following movements are affected by the ACTA project. Movement 4:1-580 eastbound from west of Foothill to Hopyard would experience improvement in travel time from a No-Build of 5.7 minutes to a Build of 3. I minutes in the year 2010 P.M. peak hour or 2.6 minutes of travel-time savings per vehicle. Movement 5:1-580 eastbound from Hopyard to Santa Rita would experience an increase in travel time from a No-Build of 4. I minutes to a Build of 6.5 minutes or 2.4 minutes of travel- time increase per vehicle. Movements 6 & 7: Two movements within the interchange benefit from the elimination of the loop in the southwest quadrant. These are Movement 6 for the 1-580 east to 1-680 north J:\TI'E9524\LPSURVEY~TECHAPP.DOC I/I 0~96 - 4:47 PM movement and Movement 7 for the 1-580 west to 1-680 south movement_ Each of these would experience estimated one minute in travel-time savings. Movement 8: On 1-580 westbound, one primary movement is improved from east of Tassajara/Santa Rita to 1-680 interchange. This movement travel time in the No-Build would be 9.6 minutes and with the Build would be 7.6 minutes in the year 2010 peak hour or 2 minutes of travel-time savings per vehicle. The freeway travel-time benefits in 2010 for this project total 25,000 vehicles-minutes of delay savings in the P.M. peak hour, a reduction of 22% from the No-Build. The summary of the freeway benefits is illustrated in Table I. To assess the regional benefits for each jurisdiction, each movement was evaluated as to the percentages of origin and destination of the trips on each movement. The Tri-Valley Transportation Model (year 2010 peak hour) was run for 13 select links. The percentages of trip ends were weighted resulting in the percentage by jurisdiction for the freeway benefits as illustrated in Table 2. These percentages, when applied to the Regional Benefit Share ($4,530,000), constitute the fair share of the regional benefits for each jurisdiction. The resulting percentage and dollar fair- share amounts are illustrated in Table 3. LOCAL ACCESS BENEFITS The ACTA proiect provides for two new local ramps in the northwest quadrant and one new local ramp in the northeast quadrant of the interchange. The Local Match assessment for the local access benefits was developed based on the origin and destination of the year 2010 P.M. hour trips on these three ramps. The Tri-Valley Transportation Model was run for the select link data of the trips for Dublin, Pleasanton, and the remainder of Alameda County. The percentage of the trips for Pleasanton was 12%, Dublin was 72%, and Alameda County was 16%. The percentages for each of these three jurisdictions were applied to the Local Ramp Benefit Share ($1,510,000). As illustrate_~n Table 3, the fair share of Local Match from the local ramp benefits is $1,087,200 for Dublin, $181,200 for Pleasanton, ~nd $241,600 for Alameda County, including the incorporated Tri-Valley are~. J:\TI'EgS24\LPSURVEY~TECHAPP.DOC I/I 0/96 - 4:47 PM ALCOSTA BLVD----- DUBLIN BLVD AMADOR PLAZA ~ TO CASTRol VALLEY PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ---ALCOSTA BLVD VILLAGE PKWY Movernen"t" I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Roufe 580 \ TO STOCKTON -.,.- , ----- STONERIDGE DR FIGURE I TKofflc Movements ACTA ROUTES 580/680 PROJECT NOT TO SCALE Base Case TABLE I FREEWAY TRAVEL TIME BENEFITS P.M. PEAK HOUR (YEAR 2010) Summary by Movement TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS IN VEHICLE MINUTES Movement I Movement 2 Movement 3 Movement 4!Movement 5 Movement 6 Movement 7 Movement 8 SB Right SB Left SB Thru EB Thru EB Thru EB Left WB Left WB Thru Constrained P.M. Peal< Hour Volume(vph.) ( I ) 670 2,550 3,320 7,270 9,160 470 840 7,040 Travel Time Savings (min.) (I) 3.0 3.6 0.7 2.6 (2.4) 0. I 0. I 2.0 Vehicle Minutes L of Savings 2,010 9,180 2,324 18,902 (21,984) 47 84 14,080 Source: I Tota, I : 4,643 I (I) Unconstrained PM peak hour volumes source: Tri Valley Model. Barton Aschmann and Caltrans Tranportation Studies Branch. October 1993 & August 1994 Constrained PM peak hour volumes developed using the above Tri Valley Model and TTE_OPS Ireeway tralfic operations model. Travel Time Savings based on TTE OPS lot No Build and Build 2 (2) Origin Destination Information from Trl-Valley Traffic Model{P.M. Peak Hour Select Link Runs). Caltrans Transportations Studies Branch 1114195 & I I/7/95 Base Case TABLE 2 FREEWAY TRAVEL TIME BENEFITS P.M. PEAK HOUR (YEAR 2010) Summary by City All Areas Trip Ends in Tri Valley Total % by Total % by Tier City ! County Veh.-Min. City/County Veh.-Min. City/County Use I Dublin 2,990 12.1% 2,990 20.7% 21.0% Pleasanton 5,130 20.8% 5,130 35.5% 3,5.0% Livermore 2,610 10.6% 2,6 I0 18.0% 18.0% 11 Danville 560 2.3% 560 3.9% 4.0% San Ramon 2,650 10.8% 2,650 18.3% 18.0% Alameda County in Tri Valley Area 80 0.3% 80 0.6% 1.0% III Contra Costa County in Tri Valley Area 450 1.8% 450 3. 1% 3.0% Others(Outside Tri V ,aJley Area) I 0,180 41.3% ' ........... Total by Movements 24,650 100.0% 14,470 100.0% 100.0% Source: (I) Unconstrained PM peak hour volumes source: Tri Valley Model. Barton Aschmann and Caltrans Tranportation Studies Branch, October 1993 & August 1994 Constrained PM peak hour volumes developed using the above Tri Valley Model and TTE_OPS freeway traffic operations model. Travel Time Savings based on 'rTE OPS for No Build and Build 2 (2) Origin Destination information from Tri-Valley Traffic Model(P.M. Peak Hour Select Link Runs), Caltrans Transportations Studies Branch I I/4/95 & I I/7/95 Base Case TABLE 3 LOCAL MATCH FUND RESULTS 12/I I/95 Freeway Benefits Travel Time Savings + Local Ramp Benefits = $ Summary Tier City/County % $ % $ Fair Share Paid to Balance Date Remaining I Dublin 21% 951.300 72% 1.087.200 2.038,500 I I 1,700 1,926,800 Pleasanton 35% 1,585,500 12% 181.200 1,766,700 203,700 1,563,000 Livermore 18% 815,400 NA 815,400 I I 1,700 703,700 II Danville 4% 181,200 NA 181,200 'i ~ 9,600 171.600 San Ramon 18% 815,400 NA 815,400 10,000 805,400 III Alameda County I% 45.300 (I) 16% 241,600 (2) 286,900 45,000 241,900 Contra Costa County in Tri-Valley Area 3% 135,900 NA 135,900 135,900 100% 100% :', :~:: , i! ~: Total 4,530.000 1,510,000 6,040,000 491,700 5.548,300 LOCSN~:T3.XL$ SLocalMatchShare (2) Originally Defined Local Match Fund ~ ,~ Total , $ I 0,000,000 BART Contribution $ 3,960,000 New Local Match Fund Total I $ 6,040,000 Interchange 75%1 $ 4,530,000 Local Ramps 25%I $ 1,510,000 NOTES: (I) Alameda County within the Tri-Valley area. (2) Entire Alameda County area. (3) Shares based on trip ends within Tri-Valley Area and travel time savings for various movements in the project area. IIlO/~& 3;]] PM SECTION C: RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS RESPONSE TO QUES'~ NS - CITY OF DUBLIN DATE: . January I0, 1996 OUR JOB NO.: 9303 - 1-580/680 Local Match RESPONSE TO: Questions Raised in Meeting With Rich Ambrose - City of Dublin DATE QUESTIONS RECEIVED: November 13, 1995 Question I: For the percentages for the local ramps, was No. Only the percent,~ge of users of the three local ramps were included, because the the access to Hopyard included? access to Hopyard from 1-680 southbound exists today. If the Hopyard access is included as the fourth local ramp, the percentages associated with the two cities and Alameda County would be as follows: City of Dublin 65% City of Pleasanton 20% Alameda County 15% If the percentages of trips to the ramp to Hopyard were included, two components of the cost-share equation, which as of yet have not been considered, would need to be considered. First, the relief on the local city streets would shift back to Dublin, the greater local benefit and offset the Hopyard benefits to Pleasanton. In calculating the reduction of travel on city streets, TTE calculated the difference in vehicle miles traveled for the city streets affected by the ACTA project This calculation indicated I 0 miles of streets in each city were affected, and the reduction in VMT was 9% total during the peal< hour in the year 2010. Of this, 54% of the VMT reduction would be realized by Dublin and 46% would be realized by Pleasanton. Second, the access benefits to Dublin as a result of these new local ramps in the city of Dublin would need to be considered. If this was included as another component of the cost-share equation, a major shift would occur to Dublin, since these local ramps were not part of the original ACTA project. J:\~I'E9524\LPSURVI~Y~RES_QUES.DOC 1110196 4:55 PM Question 2: Isn't it true that San Ramon and Danville are also utilizing the local ramps? Question 3: appear Iow. The percentages associated with Danville Yes, the select link traffic model run using the Tri-Valley model developed by Barton- Aschman for this project indicated other users. See the table below. If the other jurisdictions are included, then two additional components as discussed above would need to be added to the cost-share equation in order for ACTA to maintain a fair share for the other jurisdictions. TTE backchecked the select link data and find the ~percentages to be consistent with the other jurisdictions. The City of Danville gains travel benefits as a result of the direct south-to-east connector and benefits from the additional eastbound lanes on 1-580 for improved travel between Foothill and the 1-680/580 interchange. TOTAL OF PROJECT LOCAL RAMPS % OF TOTAL TRIP ENDS Dublin 48.2% Pleasanton 8. I% Livermore 0.8% Danville 6.7% San Ramon 13. 1% Remainder of Alameda County (Excludes Dublin, Pleasanton & Livermore) 11.2% Remainder of Contra Costa County (Excludes Danville and San Ramon) 8.0% 4.0% Others TOTAL TRIPS :: : ~' oo.o% J:\TTE9524\LPSURVEY~RES_QUES.DOC 1110196 ,1:55 PM RESOLUTION NO. - 96 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING CONTRIBUTION TO THE 1-58011-680 DIRECT CONNECTOR PROJECT WHEREAS, the Voters of Alameda County approved Measure B in 1986 to impose a 1/2 cent sales tax increase to fund specific street and freeway improvement projects; and WHEREAS, under Measure B the Alameda County Trans-i~ortation Authority has the responsibility for ensuring that the funds raised from the increased sales tax are spent according to the terms approved by the voters; and WHEREAS, one of the projects to be constructed with the Measure B Funds was improvement of the 1-580/I-680 Interchange originally estimated at a total cost of $54 million, of which $10 million was designated to come from local sources; and WHEREAS, the total estimated costs of the 1-580/I-680 Interchange has increased to $119.7 million of which the local match requirement remains fixed at $10 million; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has previously contributed $111,700 of funds with local sources in order to advance construction of the west to north ramp of the 580/680 Interchange; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin agrees that the City of Dublin like other agencies in the Tri-Valley area will benefit from the proposed 1-580/I-680 Interchange Improvements; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin agrees that its fair share of funding of the remaining Local Match for .580/I-680 is $1,926,800. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby resolve to pay its remaining fair share of $1,926,800 of the $10 million Local Matching Share required under Measure B for the 1-580/I-680 Direct Connector Project to the Alameda County Transportation Authority. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby directed to work with the Alameda County Transportation Authority to develop an agreement to provide for a payment schedule that is mutually acceptable to both agencies. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of April, 1996. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk H/cc-~rms/resoacta.doc EXHIBIT 3