Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.5 TriVlyTranspSEP (2) CITY CLERK File # / D I(UI o - 9 Q AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 16, 1999 SUBJECT: Tri-Valley Transportation Council Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP) Report Prepared by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution Approving the Tri-Valley Transportation Council Strategic Expenditure Plan(TVTC SEP) 2) Tri-Valley Transportation Council Strategic Expenditure Plan dated January 27, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: 1) Review and approve TVTC SEP. �1 J f - 2) Deliberate and approve project(s) for Dublin's 20% fee set- \/' aside monies. Staff is recommending that Council approve the San Ramon Road/I-580 interchange improvements and the West Dublin BART Station improvements as the City's top priorities. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: This Expenditure Plan provides a blueprint for the timed funding of the top seven regional projects in the Tri-Valley. The Fee is already being levied. Each jurisdiction is able to use 20% of the Fee collected in their respective jurisdiction toward that jurisdiction's top priority project. DESCRIPTION: The City Council, at its June 16, 1998, regular meeting, adopted the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (Fee)to provide funding for regional transportation improvements needed to mitigate new development traffic impacts. At that time, a list of proposed projects was established without funding priority, except that the I-580/1-680 Flyover project was designated as the number one priority. The Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) has since met and prepared a Strategic Expenditure Plan, which includes a recommended project priority list with expected funding, by year, for the 80%Fees. This proposed priority list, which would expend a projected $56.7 million dollar Fee revenue, is as follows: COPIES TO: TVTC „�/' 0 ITEM NO. 4 g:\annmisc\tvdlist.doc I I Projects In Millions (1) 1) I-580/1-680 Local Share $ 5.5 2a) SR 84/1-580 to I-680 Expressway 24.0 2b) SR 84 - Isabel Rte 84/I-580 Interchange Not Funded 3) I-680 Auxiliary Lanes in Contra Costa County 12.0 4) West DPX BART Station(2) 4.0 5) I-580 HOV Lanes 8.0 6) 1-680 HOV Lanes, Sunol Not Funded 7) I-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road Interchange 1.6 8) I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange 1.6 9) Crow Canyon Road Improvements Not Funded 10) Vasco Road Safety Improvements Not Funded 11) Express Bus Service (3) Not Funded PROJECTS TOTAL: S 56.7 (1) Amounts shown are 1998 dollars.. (2) See Table 2 of the SEP for total project costs. (3) A portion of the BART Station funding commitment could be used to purchase buses. The SEP also provides a project description and status report for each project, project costs, revenue estimates, alternate funding sources, and assigned individual project sponsors. Dublin is being assigned as the project sponsor for the I-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road Interchange Improvements. There are two companion administrative documents being developed to be used with the SEP. The first document is comprised of guidelines governing credit and/or reimbursement for entity-constructed projects and developer-constructed projects. The second document consists of guidelines for implementation of the TVTDF. The 20% Fee holdback for each jurisdiction is to be used on the individual jurisdiction's top priority projects. Of the eleven identified projects, it is Staff's recommendation that the City of Dublin identify the I-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road Interchange Improvements and the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station as having the most beneficial impacts on Dublin's transportation system. 2 . . RESOLUTION NO. - 99 /00 ;31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ********* APPROVING THE TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL STRATEGIC EXPENDITURE PLAN WHEREAS, each of the Tri-Valley jurisdictions adopted the Joint Exercise.ofPowers Agreement (JEPA) for the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fees (TVTDF); and WHEREAS, the JEPA requires unanimous approval of the Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP); and WHEREAS, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council has prepared and updated the SEP at their meeting of January 27, 1999, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin resolves as follows: Section 1; Approves the Tri- Valley Strategic Expenditure Plan dated January 27, 1999. Section 2: This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of March, 1999. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk . g:\agenmisc\resoTVTCsep.doc ,. ~'"}<i,fi ('1 F! -,r"";;' F.~' fJ;. . J....:a. '" ~ H r~ r~~.. ~-,l) ,t t ,~r ,.., ""'" ~ ....;:'. 10\-0 l -=:: \. __."_ ___ .____....._..................,"".1"...._ TRI-V ALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL STRATEGIC EXPENDITURE PLAN I. Introduction II. Project Descriptions and Status Reports III. Project Priorities IV. Project Funding v. Project Sponsors Table 1 - TVTDF Strategic Expenditure Plan Table 2 - Project Revenue Sources January 27. 1999 .h.-:W--.\... ,~~ l:l. :',~~ :JJ.-~' ,..., ~ l...., ,~-'" P'd ~-:.. ! ~ ~l .., =~.....,... .L~~~~a'\ ~ cfi q( 3 7' 2. ~....~ . . . :3 qJ 5'-/ I. INTRODUCTION The "Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance," which was adopted by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) in 1995, determined the "High Priority Regional Transportation Projects." In the swnmer of 1998, the seven member agencies of the TVTC signed the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Pertaining to the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fees for Traffic Mitigation (JEPA), which established the Tri-Yalley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF) and identified eleven projects from the "High Priority" list to be funded by the TVTDF. Subsequently, each member agency adopted an ordinance or resolution authorizing collection of the TVTDF in its jurisdiction, and fee collection began in September 1998. It is estimated that the TVTDF will collect approximately $70 million over the next fifteen years. It is recognized that the TVTDF revenue will fund only a ponion of the cost to implement the eleven projects. Additional funding from state and federal funds, local traffic impact fees, new regional gas taxes, half-cent sales tax programs, developer contributions, and other local or regional funds will be needed to fully implement the eleven projects. The document describing project priorities and the implementation schedule is the Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP). The initial SEP, which was identified in the JEP A, was to fund one project - the local share of the I-5801I-680 Interchange Flyover project at $5.5 million. This subsequent SEP describes project priorities and the implementation schedule for funding the other projects on the TVTDF list over the next IS-year period. According to the JEP A, this SEP must be approved unanimously by all of the member agencIes. This SEP is the policy document that guides expenditure of the TVTDF revenue. It represents a statement of priorities for transportation projects for the Tri-Valley area agreed to by the seven TVTC member agencies. The SEP should make the Tri-Valley agencies more competitive in securing additional funding for these projects because it identifies specific high priority projects for the Tri-Valley area, it indicates how TVTDF funding is to be used to help fund these projects, and it specifies individual project priorities. Key elements of this SEP are: 1) project costs, 2) TVTDF revenue estimates, 3) a list of other possible funding sources for each project, 4) a prioritization plan, 5) a phasing plan/time line for project delivery, and 6) identification of agency sponsors to oversee project implementation. Two separate administrative documents will be used in conjunction with the SEP. They are: 1) the guidelines governing credit and/or reimbursement for entity-constructed projects and developer-constructed projects, which has been prepared and approved by the TVTC; and 2) the guidelines for implementation of the TVTDF, which is still being developed. These administrative documents, along with reasonable requirements for 1 t/ 4 J'I indemnification and insurance as appropriate for individual projects, requirements that Project Sponsors or other entities which construct any of the TVTDF projects defend and indemnify the Parties to the JEP A, and requirements that appropriate capital improvement procedures shall be followed in project implementation, 'will be included in a separate SEP "Guidelines" section that will be attached to the SEP. It is envisioned that the SEP "Guidelines" will remain static over the years, while the project priority and funding section of the SEP will be updated periodically. Implementation ofprojects in'the SEP will be initiated 'with a funding agreement hetween the TVTC and the Project Sponsor or implementing entity. The scope of work for the project and the portion of the project to be funded with TVTDF funds will be described in the agreement. 2 . . . S'753'/ . II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND STATUS REPORTS . . 3 TVTDF EXPENDITURE PLAN PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS The eleven projects included in the TVTDF are described on the following pages. These descriptions include the lead. agency, the current cost estimates, the status of the project, the current funding simation for the project, the schedule, and a synopsis of the need for the project. This information has been obtained from a variety of sources and represents the most current available information on each project. The locations of these projects are described in Figure A. Maps showing the location and limits of each project area are included for reference. The TVTDF projects are as follows: 1. 1-580/1-680 FL YOVER AND HOOK RAMps 2A. STATE ROUTE 84 CORRlDOR IMPROVEMENTS - 1-580 TO 1-680 2B. ISABEL ROUTE 84/1-580 INTERCHANGE 3. 1-680 AUXILIARY LANES BETWEEN BOLLINGER CANYON ROAD AND DIABLO ROAD 4. WEST DUBUN-PLEASANTON BART STATION 5. 1-580 HOV LANES FROM TASSAJARA ROAD TO VASCO ROAD 6. 1-680 HOV LANES FROM STATE ROUTE 84 TO Top OF SUNOL GRADE 7. 1-580/FoOTHILL ROAD-SAN RAMON ROAD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS 8. 1-680/ ALCOSTA BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS 9. CROW CANYON ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 1 O. VASCO ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS 11. EXPRESS Bus SERVICE ~ ./ :3f V . . . '7 3( 3. 1.680 Auxiliary Lanes ............ , "-. ~9. . Crow t. Canyon "-, --. , ..... . -, 7. "- 1.580lF.oothill/San ,...--- Ramon Interchange -' .- .- ,tf"'I . -.~,^ cP-' --"""..-- coJ'T'" .....-~f). 10. /Vasco Rd. - ~ <II t > " > " " 5. 1.580 HOV f .... <: '" Jl S " rn ~ rn - 4. BART Station "' ;;: ~ ~ ;;; " " LEGEND ~ .. North Not to Scale - Project Location A ~ TC Expenditure Plan Index Map Figure 89-202 . 1199 - LH Lead Agency Description Cost Estimate Status Funding Schedule Need ~ ~. 3'1 Project No.1 1-580/1-680 Flyover and Hook Ramps Caltrans and the Alameda County Transportation Authority The project consists of the construction of a southbound to eastbound flyover, a northbound to eastbound director connector, southbound on and off hook ramps and a northbound on ramp. The total project is expected to cost in excess of $120 million. The project is currently under construction. It is expected to be completed by 2003. Most of the project is funded by Measure B, which has a requirement for local matching funds. The final portion of the local match, $5.55 million, is funded from TVTDF as the top priority project. The project is currently under construction. It is scheduled for completion by 2003. The project was approved by the voters of Alameda County as a portion of the Measure B sales tax program. . . . Remove Ramp 9'15' i;Y DueLlN BLVD. ~ Previous Improvement Construct Flyover : I Remove Ramp Construct Direct Connector LEGEND ~ .. North Not to Scale _ ProJect Location C Expenditure Plan 1-580/1-680 Flyover and Hook Ramps A~re ~ 8;'202 - 1/99 . CK /j?) ttf :3 ( Project No. 2A State Route 84 Corridor Improvements: 1-580 to 1-680 Lead Agency Description Cost Estimate Status Funding Schedule Project Need Caltrans, Livermore, Pleasamon and Alameda County This road improvemem project is expected to be built in several stages with a variety of funding sources. The ultimate configuration is expected to consist of six lanes on Isabel A venue from 1-580 to Vineyard A venue and four lanes from Vineyard Avenue to 1-680. The total length of the project is about 10 miles. $120 million for the roadway portions. (See project 2B for the companion 1-580 interchange portion of the project.) A two-lane project on Isabel Avenue from 1-580 at the Ainvay Boulevard interchange to Vallecitos Road will be completed by 2000. It will include a grade-separation at Stanley Boulevard. Completion of a PSR for all remaining portions of the roadway project is the logical next step. This will result in definitions, phasing and revised cq,st estimates for future stages of the project. The TVTC allocates S24 million in future TVTDF funds for this project. Partial funding for this project may be included in the new Alameda County Measure B sales tax program. The initial two-lane project - Vallecitos Road to 1-580 via Airway Boulevard - is currently under construction and will be complete in 2000. The project would provide improved access to/from southwest portion of Livermore, including the Ruby Hill development in. Pleasanton. It would also relieve traffic congestion on portions of 1-680 and 1-580. The projected 2010 PM peak hour volumes (one-way) range from 2,000 to 3,200 vph, which exceed the capacity of the existing two-lane roadway. . . . ;1 ~ '5 Y Segment CD Stage 1: Construct initial interchange with 2 lane overpass; extend Portola See Project 2b to Isabel and remove Portola ramps. description - : . Stage 2: Construct 6 lane overpass and ultimate interchange. PI easan ten o Livermore Segment 0 Stage 1: Construct 2 lane ~ '" roadway and grade separation ~ at Stanley. (Measure 8) ~ Stage 2: Construct 4/6 lane expressway. Segment CD Stage 1: Developer construct 2 lane roadway. Stage 2: Construct 4/61ane expressway. Segment 0 Stage 1: Construct uphill truck lanes; improve deficient curves. Stage 2: Construct 4 lane expressway. Note: Segment CD is TVTDF Project 28 Segments 0 . 0 and 0 are TVTDF Project 2A ~ .. North Not to Scale LEGEND _ Project location 2a ~ C Expenditure Plan State Route 84 Corridor Improvements 1..580 to 1..680 Figure 89-202 . lJ!l9 . LH Lead Agency Description Cost Estimate Status Funding Schedule Project Need -/~ cd ?y Project No. 2B Isabel Route 84/1-580 Interchange . Caltrans and Livermore This project consists of a new partial-cloverleaf interchange on Isabel Avenue at 1-580. The ultimate configuration includes a six-lane overcrossing and signalized off-ramps. It will be built in stages. The project includes the removal of ramps at the adjacent Portola A venue interchange and construction of a new roadway connection on the north side of 1-580 between Portola Avenue and the new interchange. $60 million for the 1-580 interchange. (See project 2:\ for the companion roadway portion of this project.) A Project Study Report (PSR) for the Isabel Avenue Route 84/I-580 interchange has been completed and approved by Caltrans; a Project Report is expected to be initiated soon. . Current funding includes $9.9 million in TEA-2 I funds. Partial funding for this project may be included in the new Alameda County Measure B sales tax program. No TVTDF funds are included in this portion of the Route 84 program. (See project 2A for the TVTDF-funded portion of this proj ect.) Construction of the Isabel Avenue Route 8411-580 interchange 1S not scheduled at this time. The interchange project would provide direct access to the Isabel AvenueNaIlecitos Road planned improvements. With the completion of the interchange, State Route 84 will be able to be relocated from roadways in downtown Livermore to the planned improved roadways in the IsabelNaIlecitos corridor. This will improve traffic conditions in the downtown area and partially relieve traffic conditions in the 1-580 and 1- 680 corridors. . . N. CANYON PKI'tY. ---------- -. -- Construct New Interchange ...- To Airway Blvd. Interchange u; :>- to "' ... ,. <: !" LEGEND Te Expenditure Plan Isabel Route 84/1..580 Interchange - ...,. .... ....... ....... "- "- \. \. \. \. \ \ \ /3q') .;J{ To N. Livermore Ave. -..- -<> ~..... 't,. "l'.... <Y' ~ .. North Not to Seale F~~e ~ BS-202 . 12/98 .LH /'1 0 :31 Project No.3 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes between Bollinger Canyon Road in San Ramon and Diablo Road in DanvilIe Lead Agency Description Cost Estimate Status Funding Schedule Project Need . Contra Costa Transportation Authority This project will construct both northbound and southbound auxiliary lanes in the 1-680 corridor from Bollinger Canyon Road in San Ramon to Diablo Road in Danville. These improvements include an additional 12-foot lane between interchanges in the northbound and southbound directions, retaining walls, and soundwalls in the corridor. Also included are ramp improvements and structure widening over Laurel Drive between Sycamore Valley Road and Diablo Road. $40 million A corridor planning level study was completed in September 1992. A Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR) is scheduled to be prepared in FY 2001. This project can be done in phases and the PSR is needed to identify usable segments and costs. . The 1998 CCT A Strategic Plan has programmed $1 million in existing Measure C funds in FY 2000 and FY 2001 for preliminary project development. The project will be funded with a variety of sources, including Measure C and the sec JEP A, with full funding expected over a 15 year period. An additional $8 million in future Measure C funds is anticipated after 2005. $8.5 million should be available from the SCC JEP A fee in the same time period. The TVTC allocates $12 million in future TVTDF funds for this project. See above. The project is not contemplated for construction in the immediate future. Traffic studies of future conditions along 1-680 indicate that peak hour traffic volumes on the existing six mixed flow lanes and two HOV lanes will exceed capacity in the near future. The auxiliary lane project is not intended to increase freeway capacity per se. but will mitigate operational problems caused by merging and diverging vehicles at interchanges. . /5 '1f JI TYPICAL AUXILIARY LANE SCHEMATIC on-rBmp ~ aU"lIa~ j lana; i oN-ramp ~ '" 1;. ;, 1:- ~ ~ ~ 12. ~~ '? ,....... .. North NollO Scale LEGEND 3 ~ C Expenditure Plan 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes Figure Bi-202 . t 1,oge - LH Lead Agency Description Cost Estimate Status Funding Schedule Project Need /6. 15' ~i !IQject No.4 West Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station . City of Pleasamon Construction of tbe West Dublin-Pleasanton BlillT Station, parking, and access facilities. $43 million Included in the MTC 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (R TP) Track 2. The current activity by BART is to examine tbe possibility of a joint venture with convention center interests who would combine the Station with hotel and meeting facilities, which have direct service to both Oakland and San Francisco Airports. A joint venture might fund all or a portion of the station. Until the private sector potential funding is resolved, there is no progress on the station construction, and TVTDF funds are not needed for the first five years. This station may be eligible for Regional Gas Tax funds and may be included in the next Alameda County Measure B sales tax program. . To be determined. Construction of the proposed West Dublin BART Station is needed to ensure that BART is accessible and convenient for riders. This will provide important parking relief for the current Dublin-Pleasanton BART station. If the ridership forecasts for this BART Station are not achieved, traffic volumes could increase above contemplated levels on the freeways serving the Tri-Valley area and exacerbate congestion. . . o a: > I- a: "" a ~lstlng ::J Dublin.Pleasanton g BART J -< > '" '" 2: ,. ;g ,. :;D !=l .. Construct ~ublin.Pleasanton BART Station TC Expenditure Plan West Dublin..Pleasanton BART Improvements - S9--202 - 11/98 . LH III c5' 37' ~ r- r- o 'Z 16 ~ .. North Not to Scale LEGEND o ProJec:t ~tlon Figure 4 /7 -5 :3 'I Project No.5 1-580 HOV Lanes from Tassajara Road to Vasco Road . Lead Agenc~ Cal trans Description Construction of approximately 8.2 miles of High Occupancy vehicle (HOY) lanes on 1-580 from Tassajara Road to Vasco Road. After addition of these lanes, 1-580 would have a total of four mixed lanes and one HOY lane in each direction in this segment. Widening of 1-580 and additional right-of-way may be required. Cost Estimate S40 million S ta tu s A PSR is needed to define the project, determine usable segments, and refine project costs. The PSR should consider the entire corridor, which includes HOV lanes in each direction, BART in the median, and auxiliary lanes between interchanges. . There are current or recent PSRs in process for nearly all 1-580 interchanges within the proposed project limits; the main line PSR would resolve and combine traffic issues related to the individual PSR projects. Funding The TVTC allocates $8 million in future TVTDF for this project. This project may be eligible for regional gas tax funds and may be included in the new Alameda County Measure B sales tax program. Schedule This project is not presently scheduled. Because of growing congestion on 1-580, completion of the PSR is a very high priority. Project Need This project is needed to increase overall person-trip capacity in the freeway corridor. Traffic forecasts show a demand for travel on 1-580 of up to approximately 10,600 vph (vehicles per hour) in the peak direction. This exceeds existing capacity. Added lanes would encourage HOV's, potentially reducing SOY (single occupancy vehicle) trips as well as increasing overall capacity. Added capacity would also complement added capacity related to I-580/I680 interchange improvements. . )'1 :C ,./ , c: 0 ':::: . 41 (l:I 5 tJ~~ 'ti C) ~~ 0' 0 " Q;. 0) Z ..,.seo I\P. ~ \ >- \0 ~ & - .-J u.. N. \.\VSfl""QflE ,.."E. a:1 ~ -o~ ~~ m5 cP" cO ~';l:. ~ 8 'al!~~r'\'SS'il "'0 ~ o a: o (.) (/l ~ ~ S . "'0 a: ~ ~ ~ .- (G en en f! ~ o ~ ~~ 0.. C) CP C ~ ~ 3 ' :;:;..- ~b ~:t. u.l 00 ';~ r-~ -- Lead Agenc)' Description Cost Estimate Status Funding Schedule Project Need ~D {j' :;;"( Project No.6 1-680 HOV Lanes from State Route 84 to Top of SUDol Grade . Caltrans Construction of approximately 3.5 miles (seven total lane-miles) of HOV lanes on 1-680 from the SR 84 ramps to the top of Sunol Grade at Mission Pass. After adding these lanes, 1-680 would have three mixed lanes and one HOV lane in each direction of this segment. Construction of the southbound 1-680 HOV lanes between Route 84 and Calaveras Boulevard in Milpitas is expected to cost approximately $90 million. The portion within the Tri-Valley (Rt. 84 to the top of the Sunol Grade constitutes about 35 percent of the total mileage, or approximately $29 million. . This project to construct the highest priority southbound HOV lanes has committed funding from other sources. It is likely the northbound HOV lane will receive outside funding also. This is a regional project that involves three counties, the CMAs, Caltrans, and MTC. In addition, the 1-680 Phase II Corridor Study will address future needs of the corridor. Almost all of the southbound HOV lanes project funding is now committed ($84 million) from outside sources. The northbound HOV lanes are currently unfunded. No TVTDF funds are included for this project. A PSR has been completed for the project. Environmental studies and preliminary engineering are underway. The southbound lanes of 1-680 through the Sunol Grade constitute the second most congested commute in the Bay Area. Congestion occurs for. a three to four hour period each week day. . ;</, !Jtj "--- Construct HOV Lanes Project Location ,........ .. North Not to Scale LEGEND Te Expenditure Plan 1-680 HOV Lanes From SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade (Tri-Valley Portion) A;re ~ 89-202. llJg8. LH Lead Agency Description Cost Estimate Status Funding Schedule Project Need rJ,rJ. ~ '3 f . Project No.7 I-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon Road Interchange Modifications Dublin To provide increased capacity and safety at the interchange, the design of the existing I-5801F00thill Road/San Ramon Road four-quadrant cloverleaf interchange will be modified, replacing the westbound and eastbound off loops with diagonal ramps. The two remaining off-ramps would be signalized at their intersections with the local street. The project is located within Dublin and Pleasanton. $2.0 million No improvement project has been scheduled. The City of Pleasanton has included its portion of this project in its recently adopted traffic impact fee program. The TVTC allocates $1.6 million in future TVTDF funds for this project. The project is not scheduled; however because of its relationship to the planned West Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station, it should be constructed by the time the station is completed (to be determined). The project is needed to ensure adequate access to/from West Dublin- Pleasanton BART station. In addition, both the Pleasanton and Dublin sides of the freeway currently experience safety issues related to traffic weaving from the diagonal off-ramps to make a left turn at the first intersection removed from the interchange. The project would create a signalized off-ramp intersection, which would eliminate the weaving problem. . . . )3 ~3'/ Install Relocated Ramp Install Traffic Signals , SAN RAMON RD. (: North Not to Scale C Expenditure Plan I-SSC/Foothill Boulevard Interchange Modifications FI;re ~ 89-202 . 11/98 . LH cJ, 0/ ~'3 'I frnject No.. 8 I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange Modifications . Lead Agency Caltrans, San Ramon Description Reconstruct the southbound off ramp and add a new on ramp at tbe 1-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange to improve operations at the interchange. This project includes closing the existing southbound off ramp and removing a traffic signal, building new southbound onlofframps to the north of Alcosta Boulevard, and connecting to San Ramon Valley Boulevard with a new signalized intersection. Cost Estimate $9.6 million Status The PSR for this project, which was funded by Measure C, is complete. This project currently is in the San Ramon eIP program for FY 99 and FY 00. The see JEP A designates $2.3 million for the project, with funds available in 2001. TVTC made a preliminary commitment of $2.0 million for the project, with tbe remainder to come from local sources. The project is ready to proceed to design in FY 99 and to construction in FY 00. The TVTDF funding for this project should be made available to coincide with the planned construction. . Funding $2.3 million is identified in the Southern Contra Costa JEP A for this project. The TVTC allocates $1.6 million in future TVTDF funds for this project. The remaining $5.7 million would be from local funds. An application for 1998 STIP funding for this project is pending. Schedule See Status above. Project Need The current interchange is a tight diamond with a busy intersection of two arterials immediately adjacent to the interchange. Reconstruction of the_ southbound ramps into a buttonhook design will remove the middle of three closely spaced traffic signals on Alcosta and improve safety and capacity in the area. The interchange traffic volumes are projected to increase as a result of growth in the area. . &/,> " '21' COnstruct New Ramps and Traffic SIgnal Remove Ramp C Expenditure Plan 1-6801 Alcosta Boulevard Interchange Modifications FI;re ~ B9-2C2 . ll/iB . LH JIrl'lII .. North Not to Scale Lead Agency Description Cost Estimate Status Funding Schedule Project Need ~b 11 ~,i Project No.9 Cro,v Canyon Road Safety Improvements Alameda County and City of San Ramon Safety improvements on approximately 3 miles of Crow Canyon Road (in both directions) from Bollinger Canyon Road in Contra Costa County to one mile north of Norris Canyon Road. The project will realign the roadway for a 50 mph design speed and will widen shoulders. Truck climbing lanes will be added on the two-lane segments, along with two-way left-turn lanes to provide adequate access to residential properties. $18 million Project is currently inactive while funding is being sought. The Alameda County CMA has identified $4.8 million of Tier 1 funds for this project in the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan. This is considered a low-priority TVTC project and no TVTDF funding is included at this time. To be determined. This project is needed as a safety improvement. Although the projected 2010 PM peak hour volume exceeds desirable capacity of existing two-lane roadway, this project is not intended to address the potential capacity deficiency. . . . J '/ Vc.J construct sateW \n'\PfO'Jements ........ .......... . ...... . \.. '. , ,- --.. .......... ............ <}~~ t-"''' g. r:,oP.... Cf.....- ~? .' ,..'.S -- --, , , //. ...."......- .. ~or\h Not \0 seale \..EGEtlO ......- prot\\ee\ \J)cSl\\C fls;e ~ C E:~:pend\tu(e p\an CroW caO'yon Road sateW \rnpro'Jernents -- Lead Agency Description Cost Estimate Status Funding Schedule Project Need dJg z5 3.1 lTIUect No. 10 Vasco Road Safety Improvements Alameda. County Realign and straighten eXIstmg two-lane road and add shoulders. No additional lanes will be constructed. $30 million for a three mile segment. A PSR has been completed for the most northerly one-mile segment. (The cost estimate for this mile is $10 million.) This is considered a low-priority TVTC project and no TVTDF funding is included at this time. To be determined. This project is needed as a safety improvement. The project is intended to match recent two lane improvements completed in Contra Costa County. It would eliminate sharp curves and narrow lanes and add shoulders. Although the projected 2010 volumes exceed desirable capacity of the existing and planned two lane roadway, this project is not intended to address the potential capacity deficiency. It is the current policy of the City of Livermore and the Tri- Valley Transportation Council to keep this section of Tri-Valley gateway as two lanes. . . . ....- . -.....-. ....- ....- . cP""\1 .'-- c<>;\a - ~ vc"~' ~\l"tj ....-. p..\a",e6 .--- . ....-- Construct Vasco Rd. / Improvements ,.. <: m :z> l:: o ;%l m ~ !" RAYMOND RD. ~ U> n o ;%l p ~ 11; o ;%l p Gl ;%l m m Z < ;= ,.. m :::l p TVTC Expenditure Plan Vasco Road Safety Improvements 89--202 -11198 - L.H ....- . ....- ....- -- LEGEND J? ::( 31 -- ~ .. North Not to Scale _ Project Location Figure 10 ~ Lead Agency Description Cost Estimate Status Funding Schedule Project Need 3D z5 3,r Project No. 11 Express Bus Service . County ConnectionlLivermore Amador Valley Transit Authority/Tri Delta Transit Capital costs to cover express routes. Some routes are local within the Tri- Valley, with destinations at regional services. Some routes are inter- regional, with either source or destination outside the Tri- Valley boundaries. $8 million, for capital costs only The lead transit agencies each have project descriptions, including proposed route locations, and are coordinating efforts towards developing an attractive inter-regional express route system. The Alameda County CMA has identified $5.0 million of Tier 1 funds for this project in the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan. This project may be eligible for the Regional Gas Tax, and may be included in the new Alameda County Measure B sales tax program. The express bus project can be broken into smaller fundable components. In addition to other existing transit funding sources, private sector funding from either the business or residential development community could be cultivated to match specific express route costs. A total of $4.0 million of TVTDF funds has been designated to be shared with Project 4, the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. . To be determined. Because this project requires no PSR or preliminary engineering work, the amount of time from concept to implementation is relatively short. Express Bus Service will provide the Tri-Valley with a flexible alternative to heavy rail or auto facilities. Flexibility is a benefit, allowing for changes in the access of successful employment centers. As development in and beyond the Tri-Valley continues, congestion and commute times will grow and frustrated commuters will continue to seek out alternate- ways to get to work. Express bus routes can transport riders directly to their job sites and they can link people to existing and successful fixed transit lines such as BART and the Altamont Commute Express. . ~/ ~ 31 <.-/ . Priority 4. Fund $4.0 million for public transit projects, which include the West DublinIPleasant BART Station (project 4) and/or the Express Bus project (project 11). a.) The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station (Project 4) benefits both the 1-580 and 1-680 corridors. The BART station may be a candidate for the New Measure B program, although it received no allocation in the June 1998 expenditure plan. Other potential funding sources are the Regional Gas Tax, BART itself, or private. funding. More should be known about funding for the station by year 2001, so this priority vvill be reexamined when the SEP is revisited. Any TVTDF funds allocated to the project should be on the same timetable as other funding for the project. b.) Use a portion of the $4.0 million for purchasing buses to be used for express service provided that all of the operating costs are fully funded from other sources. Priority 5. Start accumulating funds for the initial phase (as yet undetermined) of the Route 84 Expressway project (Project 2a). Priority 6. Start accumulating funds for the initial phase (as yet undetermined) of the I- . 680 Auxiliary Lane project in Contra Costa County (Project 3). Priority 7. Start accumulating funds for the 1-580 HOV project (Project 5). Priority 8. Fund the 1-580/FoothilVSan Ramon Road interchange project (Project 7). Priority 9. The Vasco Road project and the Crow Canyon Road project are lower priority projects that are not recommended for TVTDF funding during the first 15 years of the program. IV. PROJECT FUNDING The TVTDF is projected to raise approximately $70 million over the next 15 years. Eighty percent of the TVTDF revenue ($56.75 million) will be allocated by the TVTC through the SEP, while 20% of the fee revenue ($13.25 million) may be designated by member agencies for one or more of the projects listed in the JEP A. Each agency may designate up to 20% of the funds it collects for the specific project. . 5 . -<:. 2, (,J 4'7 YJ' ,/ :;cr C. TEA-21 - Funding is available for a variety of transportation projects in the new . federal transportation legislation. D. STIP - TIlls is a State funding program that is available on a competitive basis for a variety of transportation projects. E. Local Funds - This source includes local Traffic Impact Fee programs, developer contributions, and other local funds. F. Measure C - This funding source includes only those projects designated for funding in the half-cent sales tax program in Contra Costa County G. sec JEP A - This is a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement in Southern Contra Costa County that provides fimding from new development for transportation projects in southern Contra Costa County. Funding for TVTC projects is shown in TABLE 2. V. PROJECT SPONSORS Agency sponsors have been assigned for each of the eleven TVTDF projects. Project . sponsors are responsible for pursuing, overseeing, and monitoring development of the project. Project sponsors are listed below. Project 1. 1~5801I-680 Local Share ACTA Project 2a. Route 84 Expressway, 1-580 to 1-680 Livermore Project 2b. Isabel Route 841I~580 Interchange Livermore Project 3. 1~680 Auxiliary Lanes Danville Project 4. West Dublin/Pleasanton (DPX) BART Station Pleasanton Project 5. 1~580 HOV Lanes Pleasanton Project 6. 1-680 HOV Lanes, Sunol Grade Alameda County Project 7. I-5801F0othilllSan Ramon Road Interchange Dublin Project 8. I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange San Ramon Project 9. Crow Canyon Road Improvements San Ramon Project 10. Vasco Road Safety Improvements Alameda County Project 11. Express Bus LA VTA/CCCTA/ECCTA (Tri-Delta) . 7 .. TA I TVTDF STRA TEGle EXPENDITURE PLAN (1) January 1999 FISCAL YEAR AND PROJECTED FEE REVENUE (in $ millions) 98199 99/00 00/01 01/02 02103 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10111 11/12 12113 TOTAL REVENUE (80% or TVTDF) $3.30 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.40 $56.70 PROJECTS (2) 1. 1-580/1-680 Local Share $3.3 $2.2 $5.5 2a. SR 84 -1-580 to 1-680 $1.5 $2.7 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $2.3 $2.2 $24.0 Expressway 2b. SR 84 -Isabel Rte 84/ $0.0 1-580 Intercl1ange 3. 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes $1.6 $1.6 $1.6 $1.6 $1.6 $1.5 $0.1 $1.2 $1.2 $12.0 Contra Costa County 4. West DPX BART Station (2) $0.6 $3.4 $4.0 5. 1-580 HOV Lanes $0.3 $0.5 $2.0 $2.0 $3.2 $8.0 6. I-G80 HOV Lanes, Sunol $0.0 7. 1-5S0lFoothilllSR Blvd. $0.1 $1.5 $1.6 Intercl1ange 8. I-GSO/Alcosta Boulevard $1.6 $1.6 Intercl1ange 9. Crow Canyon Road $0.0 Improvements 10. Vasco Road Safety $0.0 Improvements 11. Express Bus Service (3) $0.0 PROJECTS TOTAL: $3.3 $4.0 $2.1 $0.6 $3.4 $2.7 $6.0 $6.0 $7.2 $4.0 $3.5 $3.5 $3.5 $3.5 $3.4 $56.7 I CASH FLOW: $0.0 $0.0 $1.91 $5.3 $5.9 $7.21 $5.2 $3,2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0,0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 (1 ) Amou nts sl10wn are 1998 dollars. (2) See Table 2 for total project costs. (3) A portion of {he BART Station funding commitment could be used to purchase buses. G:l v..\ <-\ {}... ........c_ 1/13/99 " , " ' 'f 1\ULE '2. .' \11 . OJ1i'Crr I"'i'V'lfNllE SOll\tCES ~il\ $ I\\\\\\OI\S)~ 1'\l: I" ,,,," '" \l,L\G\I1U~ "~ ~C ~R n.;\r.A.S. n.c\t\,A.SUH.li' .n,,\l!\ 'rEl\. ,\~\\'G.fJ~S \'\IOJECf 'fV1'\) " ,',,, .. ~" f\a~ 11 'f"1\. ~ COS'f jlEEIZ) 11(3) C ~ ~O ~-fs:r$10,0 ~~--- ___------------~99 NO $2.5 $1.4,0 $i\fo · . ___ _____ _____ NO ---~~-----~ $&.0'''------- ~ "{ ES $935~ ---- ~ ~ $'2,0 ~ _______$23-~ $5.1 ~$L6 ~ ~____--- $\l.'2VSIt NO $1&,0 -~ ~ ____--- NO $30.0.--=---- ----- ~ ~ (1) $5.0 t. \_5\.\\11\-6\\0 Local S\l31"C 2\\. Sit M - I-Sao to 1-6\\0 b1l.\lresswa)' 'lb. SR B4 _ 1sabe' Rtc \\41\-5\\0 'nterc\\ange 3. \_6\\0 p..uxmarY LaneS Co1\\Ia costa count)' $\20.0 $60.0 $40.0 $4}.0 4. West prX BAR'f 5la\\Ol\ $40.0 5. 1-5S0 \\0\1 Lanes 6. \.6\\0 HO\1 Lanes,5uno\ 1. \_5\\O/i'oO\h\\\lSR B\~d. \\\\etc\\3nge S. \_6\\01^'COS\3 B\~d. \nterc\\ange 9. Crow Can'jon Road \\t\pto'Vett\en\s \1). vaSco Road safelY llnprovemel\ts $90.0 ~ lJOC!\L O'f\\\\,R FUNDS ~ --- ---- $\2.0 ~ ---- ~ $2 \ .0 \6) $B.O $\\,).0 ----~ --- ---- --- $B.'2 $64.'2 , $56.7 $ \ \3.0 $9.2 $\0.1\ $\9.65 1\. ExpresS uus set'lice \ $466. \ rROlc,Crs 10'r ^L~ \ ~olCS'. m \99& oollars &0';' onyrD Ieven"e) (2) vroi eel co reven~e o~er ne,,1 \ 5 ye~S C ( : NeW Meas",e n ballol nleas",e, ]\\110 I 99~ 1 previons .llocatlon In Ille AlaToeu. "no Y ~2) LikelY Measnle C (unoh1\!, .(ler r,'i 1.\)05 (5) sriP funds . . '6' SaT,l. Clara connlY conlnbullon. 't I cunlo be nsell lu pu,eI""c bUscs, \ " . C 1. B ^ 1t1 Slalion (nooln\!, cornn" ,,,cn 0) ^ \,or\.\O\l 01 \\\C no . e!2R11)1)