The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.2 Transportation Sales Tax Expend Plan 10&0 — q0 CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 14, 1986 SUBJECT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Regarding - Alameda County Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan EXHIBITS ATTACHED 1 ) Resolution 2 ) Letter dated July 1, 1986 from Bob Knox, Chair, Alameda County Transportation Committee 3 ) Expenditure Plan Proposal 4 ) Letter dated July 8, 1986 from J. Lemm, President of Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce RECOMMENDATION Consider Request to Approve the Plan FINANCIAL STATEMENT: DESCRIPTION For several months the Alameda Countywide Transportation Committee has been working to develop an expenditure plan . Councilmember Jeffery has been the City ' s participant on the committee . Attached is a written request from the Chairman of the Alameda County Transportation Committee, requesting that the City Council consider the Expenditure Plan. The State Legislature has approved SB 878, which will allow authorized counties to increase their local sales tax in order to pay for transportation improvements . Pursuant to the legislation an expenditure plan must be developed and approved by 50 percent of. the cities in the county. The cities approving the plan must represent 50 percent of the population. The plan must than be sent to Board of Supervisors for approval prior to August 8th. Provided that the plan receives the necessary approvals it will be placed on the ballot for the November General Election. At its July meeting the Alameda County Mayor ' s Conference supported the basic expenditure plan with the latitude to negotiate adjustments which will be amenable to cities supporting the funding of additional local street projects . The proposal will provide for an additional 1/2 cent sales tax which will be levied countywide . The special tax levy will continue for 15 years . As proposed the funds would be administered by a newly created County Transportaion Authority . The membership of the Authority would be as follows : 5 Members of the Board of Supervisors 2 Representatives from the Cities of Hayward, Fremont, Newark, Union City, Pleasanton, Livermore and Dublin 2 Representatives from the Cities of San Leandro, Oakland, Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville and Piedmont The City Representatives will be elected officials appointed by the Mayors ' Conference . The expenditure plan outlines -10 specific projects throughout the County, which could be funded through the special tax revenue . The plan includes interchange improvements at the intersection of I-580 and _I-680 . A rail extension from BART Bayfair Station to the Dublin/Pleasanton area. In addition to the specific projects , $1 million each year will be provided to ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: ITEM NO. • AGENDA STATEMENT: Alameda County Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan Page 2 supplement existing paratransit funding. The expenditure plan also provides for 20 percent of the funds to be utilized for local transportation improvements . The funds will be provided to the cities on the basis of a formula utilizing population and number of road miles within the jurisdiction. Action was taken by the BART Board regarding the sponsorship of. the rail extension to the Dublin/Pleasanton area. The BART Board of Directors agreed at their meeting on July 10 , 1986, to enter into a sponsorship agreement . The agreement provides for BART to be the sponsor of the project, and before implementing the project, BART will conduct a study to determine the most appropriate technology. The study will determine whether light rail or heavy rail would be the most effective mode of operation. BART staff has indicated that their usual policy is to utilize a control board with local representation during studies of this nature. The approved agreement will require BART to coordinate the extension with local transit planning. Staff would recommend that the City Council review the Expenditure Plan and consider adoption of the Resolution supporting the plan. If any adjustments as a result of ongoing negotiations are made to the plan after the City. Council adopts the resolution, it may be necessary to adopt the amended plan at the next regular City Council meeting. RESOLUTION NO. - 86 IN A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ************************** APPROVING THE ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN WHEREAS, the SB 878 authorizes the County of Alameda to place a ballot measure before the voters in November of 1986 ; and WHEREAS, approval of the ballot measure by the voters will provide for an increase in the local sales tax to provide for transportation improvements throughdut the County; and WHEREAS, the Alameda County Transportation Committee has prepared a Tax Expenditure Plan which outlines eligible projects ; and WHEREAS, the Tax Expenditure Plan must be approved by a majority of the cities in the County and the Board of Supervisors before it can be placed on the ballot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve the Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Dublin urges approval by the Board of Supervisors to allow the electorate an opportunity to vote on the measure . 1986 . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of July, AYES : NOES : ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk oA All"-1-80 (0 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA , ----- 399 Elmhurst Street • Hayward. CA 9.1544-1393 (415) 881-6443 �,aEl3A COV�� July 1 , 1986 V 'JUL Richard Ambrose Manager City of Dublin P. 0. Box 2340 Dublin CA 94568 Dear Mr. Ambrose: As you are no doubt aware, the Alameda Countywide Transportation Committee has been working on a 1/2¢ transportation sales tax expenditure plan for several months. The proposed tax will have to be approved by at least 50% of the cities representing 50% of the population. Then it will be sen't to the Board of Supervisors. If they concur, the measure will be placed on the ballot for November. The Transportation Committee held several public hearings and meetings to gather testimony, and approved the attached recommended plan only after many hours of discussion. Because we are approaching deadlines established by the enabling legislation and the Registrar of Voters, .the Committee is asking that the cities take approval action by July 25th. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission will have taken action by that time and the plan will be ready for County Counsel analysis and forwarding to the Board of Supervisors. The Board is expected to take action on August 5 as the ballot deadline is Friday, August 8. I am fully aware that this is a serious matter to undertake in so short a time. I hope you will feel free to contact either me at 874-7681 or Mary Kittleson, the Committee Consultant, with any questions you may have. Additionally, the Council representatives from the cities were very interested and will be an invaluable resource as you proceed with your deliberations. Again, I stand ready to respond to questions. aSincerely, G� Bob Kno Chair, Alameda County Transportation Committee COUNTY OF ALAMEDA -------� 399 Elmhurst Street • Hayward. CA 94544-1395 (415) 881-6443 July 3, 1986 To: All interested parties From: Robert G. Knox, Chairman Alameda Countywide Transportation Committee Re: Attached expenditure plan proposal . On Monday, June 30, 1986, a preliminary copy of the recommended expenditure plan was released to the City Councilmembers who sit on the Transportation Committee. Since that time, staff has refined the plan and it now is in final form. The only remaining details involve the sponsorship of the Dublin Canyon rail extension and the CrossAirport Roadway. These will be resolved by the agencies involved and formalized by July 11 , 1986. Additionally, signatures verifying the scope statements and cost estimates are being collected from the various sponsoring agencies. These will be sub- mitted to MTC for their review on July 18, 1986. I hope that all those interested will continue to follow this process as the Cities undertake to approve the attached expenditure plan. Cities must approve the plan by resolution and it will then be sent to the Board of Supervisors. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. 0 t .9;� ' COUNTY OF ALAMEDA � -----� 399 Elmhurst Street • Hayward. CA 94544-1395 (415) 881-6443 n To Whom it may Concern: As you are no doubt aware, the Alameda Countywide Transportation Committee has been working on a 1/20 transportation sales tax expenditure plan for several months. The proposed tax will have to be approved by at least 50% of the cities representing 50% of the population. Then it will be sent-to the Board of Supervisors. If they concur, the measure will be placed on the ballot for November. The Transportation Committee held several public hearings and meetings to gather testimony, and approved the attached recommended plan only after many hours of discussion. Because we are approaching deadlines established by the enabling legislation and the Registrar of Voters, .the Committee is asking that the cities take approval action by July 25th. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission will have taken action by that time and the plan will be ready for County Counsel analysis and forwarding to the Board of Supervisors. The Board is expected to take action on August 5 as the ballot deadline is Friday, August 8. I am fully aware that this is a serious matter to undertake in so short a time. I hope you will feel free to contact either me at 874-7681 or Mary Kittleson, the Committee Consultant, with any questions you may have. Additionally, the Council representatives from the cities were very interested and will be an invaluable resource as you proceed with your deliberations. Again, I stand ready to respond to questions. Sincerely, G� Bob Kno Chair, Alameda County Transportation Committee t or COUNTY OF ALAMEDA � -----� 399 Elmhurst Street • Hayward. CA 94544-139: �u (415) 881-6443 *Z� EXPENDITURE PLAN RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to SB 878, the attached recommended expenditure plan includes the following elements: 'A list of essential transportation projects in prioritized groupings with their respective sponsoring agencies. 'An estimate of the cost of each project. 'An estimate of the current sources of State and Federal -assistance available to complete these projects. 'An estimate of anticipated funding indicating that there is likely to be a serious shortfall of Federal and State assistance available to fund these projects. 'A recommendation as to the amount of the tax and length of time it will be imposed for. 'A recommendation regarding who should administer the tax and the makeup of the administering body. 'A recommendation as to whether bonding authority will be given. July 3, 1986 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ------ 399 Elmhurst Street • Hayward. CA 94544-139.5 (415) 881-6443 f EXPENDITURE PLAN RECOMMENDATION Recommendation for Sales Tax The Countywide Transportation Committee has found that a retail transactions and use tax ordinance would be necessary to fund the attached priority list of essential transportation projects. Therefore, the Committee recommends: 1) That a 1/2¢ sales tax be placed on the ballot to last for a period of 15 years to finance needed transportation projects in Alameda County; and. 2) That a new County Transportation Authority be formed to administer the funds. Additionally, it is recommended that the make-up of the authority be as follows:* 5 members of the Board of Supervisors 2 representatives from the cities of Hayward, Fremont, Newark, Union City, Pleasanton, Livermore, and Dublin 2 representatives from the cities of San Leandro, Oakland, Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, & Piedmont The City representatives shall be elected officials appointed by the Mayor' s Conference. 3) All projects will carry a Number 1 priority within the expenditure plan. 4) That the new County Transportation Authority be authorized to bond for the purposes of building transportation projects. The bond shall be for the amount of the project only and will be paid with the proceeds of the retail transactions and use tax. The authority may not bond for the annual increments given to local entities, A.C. Transit, or Paratransit. *Per recommendation of sub-committee 7-2-86. July 3, 1986 July 3, 1986 Essential Transportation Projects List Pursuant to SB 878, below is the recommended list of projects which the Transportation Committee has approved for distribution to the cities. Project: Nimitz Freeway Cost $220 million Sales tax contribution: $220 million Sponsor: Caltrans Description: This project will widen the Nimitz Freeway, Route 880, to eight lanes from Alvarado-Niles Road to Route 262 and to ten lanes from Route 262 to the Santa Clara County line, add auxillary lanes and upgrade interchanges. The project will also include the modification of the interchanges at Hegenberger Road, 98th Avenue, and Route 92 in Hayward. Project: Route 238 Cost $154 million Sales tax contribution: $134 million Sponsor: Caltrans Description: Route 238 will be built as a six lane expressway along Foothill and Mission Boulevard to Industrial Parkway. From there to Route 84 near Decoto Road a six lane conventional road will be constructed. Route 84 will then be built along a new, as yet undetermined alignment to intersect with 880. Note: Although the new route 84 will likely intersect Route 238 somewhere north of Peralta Avenue, the six lane conventional road is intended to extend to -Peralta Avenue. The remaining $20 million to complete the Route will come from other sources; i.e. , local assessment districts, thus providing leveraging for sales tax funds. The project is contingent upon receipt of the $20 million. If it is not forthcoming, the project will not be built. Project: Cross-Airport Roadway Cost $77 million Sales tax contribution: $65 million Sponsor: City of Alameda, Port of Oakland, City of Oakland Description: This six lane roadway would be built from Harbor Bay/Maitland in Alameda to Airport Drive and intersect with 880 at the 98th Avenue interchange. Note: The $12 million dollar difference is expected to be made up by local sources such as assessment districts in order to leverage sales tax money. This project is contingent upon receipt of the $12 million. If it is not forthcoming, the project will not be built. (The primary reason the project is so expensive is that a taxiway undercrossing must be constructed.) Essential Transportation Projects List Page 2 July, 3, 1986 Project: Route 13/Route 24 interchange Cost $11 million Sales tax contribution: $11 million Sponsor: Caltrans Description: The current Route 13/24 interchange does not have full freeway to freeway connections. This project would build the missing connections. Project: I 580-680 interchange modification Cost $54 million Sales tax contribution: $44 million Sponsor: Caltrans Description: This interchange modification would provide for a freeway to freeway connection from southbound 680 to eastbound 580. The ramp connecting westbound 580 to northbound 680 will be improved as well . The remaining $10 million will come from local assessment districts in order to leverage sales tax funds. The project will be contingent upon receipt of the $10 million. It it is not forthcoming, the project will not be built. Project: Route 84 Cost $45 million Sales tax contribution: $20 million Sponsor: City of Livermore, Alameda County Description: Route 84 currently runs along Vallecitos Road from Scotts Corner to Route 580 in Livermore. This project would build a new alignment roadway - initially two lanes - along Isabel Avenue to Route 580. Depending on the amount of private contributions, the road will eventually be a six lane expressway. Project: Dublin Canyon Rail Extension/Warm Springs BART Extension Cost $180-220 million Sales tax contribution: $170 million Sponsor: BART/LAVTA (To be finalized by July 11 , 1986.) Description: This project includes two parts: the Dublin Canyon Rail extension . and the Warm Springs BART extension. Dublin Canyon will consist of a rail line from the Bayfair BART station along the I-580 corridor. Whether this line will be light or heavy rail will depend on the outcome of the study to be issued by the LAVTA/BART Joint Powers Agreement regarding this corridor. The Warm Springs BART extension is planned to extend from the Fremont BART station to Warm Springs. Dublin Canyon is expected to cost $220 million in a heavy rail con- figuraton, and Warms Springs $345 million. A total of $170 million is to be allocated from sales tax revenues for the Dublin Canyon portion of this project. No sales tax revenue will be allocated to the Warm Springs extension until the Dublin Canyon extension is fully funded and ready for implementation. Essential Transportation PrL,._,:ts List Page 3 July 3, 1986 Project: AC Transit Cost $75 million (5 million annual ) Sponsor: AC Transit Description: Operations and maintenance money will be allocated to AC Transit. The initial allocation will be $5 million annually, but will grow with inflation (not real economic growth) . This money will be subject to performance criteria established along the lines of the current MTC requirements. Project: Paratransit Funding Cost $15 million ($1 million annual ) Sponsor: Alameda County ' Description: This $1 million annual supplement to paratransit services will be administered by Alameda County. The allocation will be adjusted in accordance with inflation. Alameda County will work with MTC in determining the distribution of funds. Project: Transportation Planning Cost $10 million - Sponsor: Alameda County Description: Current Caltrans Policy stipulates that planning can not be done on highways that do not have funds allocated for their development. Because of this policy, most long lead time projects cannot be studied. Thus, this money would be used for feasiblity studies and coordinated transportation planning efforts throughout the County. Project: Local Streets and Roads Cost $200 million Sponsor: Cities & County Description: Annually, 20% of the revenue generated by the sales tax will be allocated to the fourteen cities and the County for the improvement of local transportation including streets and roads. The distribution of the funds will be based on the following: -95% of the funds will be divided between the fifteen jurisdictions according to the Mayor' s Conference Formula for gas tax; i .e. , 50% based on percent of road miles and 50% based on percent of population. -The remaining 5% will be allocated to those jurisdictions whose percentage of the total County backlogged maintenance needs exceeds their average percentage of population and road miles by more than 2%. The initial maintenance backlog distribution will be based on findings made in the 1982 MTC deficiency study. Following that, the new County Transportation authority will prepare a deficiency study biannually. These new figures will then be used to allocate funds. The County will not share in the backlog distribution until completion of the new deficiency study. Please note the attached legal opinion on substitution of sales tax funds for property tax on general funds. Essential Transportation Projects List Page 4� July 3, 1986 Local Streets and Roads continued. project: Marina Boulevard/Fairway Drive Circulation Improvements Cost $13.5 million Sponsor: City of San Leandro Description: This project includes 1 ) the widening of Marina Boulevard between I 880 and San Leandro Boulevard ($8 million), 2) constructing an overcrossing across I 880 to connect Fairway Drive with Aladdin Avenue ($5 million) , and 3) extending Teagarden Street between Monague Avenue and Aladdin Avenue ($0.5 million). Total = $ 979,500,000 + 1% for administration = 9,795,000 Total = $ 989,295,000 Revenue Generation = $ 990,000,000 9 LEGAL OPINION Section 4 of Proposition 13 requires that substantial new tax revenues not replace property taxes cut back because of Proposition 13. Since under the Expenditure Plan substantial revenues will flow to local governments, the County' s Special Counsel has advised that the Expenditure Plan should include language similar to that included in Section 142257 (b) of Senate Bill 878 regarding Fresno County. Section 142257 (b) states that: "Prior to the authority allocating funds, each local government shall certify to the authority that the funds will not be sub- stituted for property tax funds which are currently utliized to fund existing local transportation programs. If the local government is unable to segregate property tax revenues from other general fund revenues which cannot be so distinguished, substituion of funds from the authority for general funds is also prohibited." This language will be a part of the Expeniture Plan as it is finally approved. June 27, 1986 Sf: ; COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ------� 399 Elmhurst Street • Hayward. CA 94544-1395 (415) 881-6443 ybE� TRANSPORTATION FUNDING SHORTFALL ESTIMATES MTC has provided the Transportation Committee with funding estimates for the next 15 years. They are divided into transit and highway categories. The first column indicates projects Alameda County feels will likely be necessary over the next 15 years. The second column indicates the amount of funding programmed to be spent by the State for the next 5 year period. The figures at the bottom of each category show the estimated shortfall . _ These calculations show that even with somewhat liberal estimates of funding, there will be substantial shortfalls over the next 15 years, especially in the highway category. Highway projects Cost (in millions) - Allocated funds Nimitz Freeway $385 $50 Route 238 $280 $ 0* Route 61 $150 $ 0* 13/24 Interchange $ 11 $ 0 Route 84 $160 $1.8 Route 80 $ 65 $26 Route 262 $ 29 $ 0 Route 680 $ 52 $40 Route 580/680 Interchange $250 $ 0 TOTAL $1.563 billion $117.9 Additionally possible from State $257.2 Total cost $1.563 Total revenue $375 Shortfall = $1.188 billion *Some money allocated for non-capacity improvements such as drainage. May 29, 1986 • a COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward. CA 94544-1395 , (415) 881-6443 DA I Transit projects Cost (in millions) Allocated funds BART Extensions: Warm Springs $345 $1* Dublin $220 $0 Pleasanton $ 80 $0 Livermore $200 $0 Oakland Airport Connector Line $ 95 $0 TOTAL $940 $1 Possible from Federal funding $1-200 Total cost $940 Total revenue $1-200 Shortfall = $739-939 million , *Funding allocated for Alternatives analysis study. Local Projects Alameda County is estimated to have $120M in backlogged maintenance needs. An allocation of 10% of the annual sales tax revenues will begin to address the more serious problems; however, a shortfall will still exist. Planning Projects Caltrans current policy is to begin planning a project; i.e. , doing route studies and environmental work, only when funds will be available to build the project. Because funds are currently so scarce, it is increasingly difficult to find long lead time projects. Given that, it is necessary to set aside some funds to assist in the planning of those as yet unfunded projects which Alameda County considers a high priority. May 29, 1986 . . INTERCHANGE INTERCHANGE —10 LANEA -LANE FREEWAY FREEW EIGHT REEWAY LOCATION 0� � �� "°" �� " *** R["]TE 080 (NIMITZ) WIDENING *** Prgject estimated cost ana description ~ - This $230 million dollar project will widen Route 880 to eight-lanes from Alvarado Niles Road to Route 262 and to IO lanes from Route 282 to the Santa Clara County line, add auxiliary lanes and upgrade interchanges and overcrossings to meet in- terstate standards. The proposed work will also involve the modification of the interchanges at Ma8enbergar Road and 98th Avenue In Oakland, and at Route 92 in Hayward. Froject justification - The Fremont/Hayward area is heavily Industrialized with large amounts of truck traffic. The heaviest use is by commute traffic. The burgeoning employment opportunities in Santa Clara County are creating a heavy demand on the freeway system. When demand Is at its Qreatest^ the interchanges along this segment are heavily congested and numerous accidents occur. Ramp traffic frequently backs Up onto the freeway. This project would allow for smoother traffic flow and reduce grid lock conditions on the local arterials leading the freeway. Additional funding - Funding is currently programmed for the following projects: • Widen Route 880 to six-Janes from Alameda County lino In the north to Route 262. • Modifications to interchange of Route 880 and Route 262 (interim) . • Modification of Durham Road, paseo Padre, Fremmnt*B' vd. and Dixon Landing Road ovmrcrmssings. • Widen Route 880 to eight-lanes from Davis Street to Alvarado-Niles Road. • Modification of Qecoto Road Interchange. ~ 6-30-86 INTERCHANGE ~• II 1 �• \\ \\ I N • ••�� St � CM.:bV F s n;<<•,.. tT � 117 185 Y •^C 1 r C \ 580 -Castro Volley c'l SAN o'EANDRO I ,t.,�JL , o ._S%'1,::•.o• \ 580 \ = D6C.a,., ` • SIX--LANE DIVIDED-ROADWAY Son Lorenzo - - - -- - -- Lorenzo\ ~: Y LOCATION MAP * * CROSS-AIRPORT ROADWAY PR' cCT * Project cost and description - This $77 million dollar project (Sales tax contribution of $65 million dollars) would build a new six-lane divided roadway from Bay Farm Island through the Oakland International Airport to the Nimitz Freeway (Route 880) . 'Additionally, a taxiway undercrossing will be built. The roadway would begin at the intersection of Harbor Bay/Maitland in Alameda and extend southerly parallel to the north airport runway where It would 'then proceed easterly along Airport Drive and 98th Avenue to the Route 880/98th Avenue interchange. Project justification - The project would provide traffic benefits for air passengers, commuters, and businesses at Oakland International Airport, and industrial areas east of the Airport. This roadway will meet the projected growth in East Bay air passenger and air cargo demand for access to Oakland Airport. The roadway will provide an excellent alternative regional expressway for traffic to the airport and industrial areas from the Nimitz Freeway. This traffic diversion would improve the levels of service for local intersections and arterials. Project note - There will be an interchange modification at 98th avenue and Route 880 as part of the Route 880 improvements. Additional funding - The right of way for this project will be provided in part by the Port of Oakland. vrInca - BERKELEY 1 ,I o\ EMERYVILLE 24 �` INTERCHANGE QY PIEDMONT ``• =� MORAGA TREES'. ISLS'r0 •'I \ I OAKLAND ` .. 260 LOCATION MAP * ROUTE 13 AND ROUTE 24 INTERCHANGE * * (Warren Freeway and Grove Shafter Freeway) Protect cost and escrip on - This $11 million dollar project will provide the missing ramps for freeway to freeway travel at the existing interchange. Project justification - Currently, traffic at this intersection must use city streets to go from Highway 13 to 24 and vice versa. Additional time for each trip is approximately five minutes. This project will reduce both congestion on city streets and the traffic accident rate. _ \ C O C0t1tR0 j C0 �, ( I I I i RANCHO INTERCHANGE IF —..—. l ��• \ .II )'II r C.._.. r. .� it 1 D\IN t' I i I I � �.•I LAS'/ FOSITAS /. RANCH � SANTA RITA I IY \tvt 84 •.tIY[N AIRFORIUNICIVFI: LIVERMOR PLEASANTON LOCATION MAP ROUTE 580 AND ROUTE 680 INTERCHANGE *** Project cost and description - This $54 million dollar project (Sales tax contribution of $44 million dollars) will provide a portion of a full directional interchange to replace the existing cloverleaf loops with one freeway-to-freeway direct connection in the southbound to eastbound direc- tion (portions) . The westbound to northbound connection will also be improved. Project justification - Commercial and residential growth in the cities of Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore, and San Ramon has been increasing rapidly. This recent growth is creating a cumulative impact which will cause a breakdown of the Route 580/680 Interchange before the freeways themselves reach capacity. Congestion during weekends caused by recreational traffic is as bad as the weekday commuter congestion. The interchange modification will allow a freer flow of vehicles through this interchange. ]n• O l.ns.L.n 0 1 Q� � -TWO-LANE ROAD . o TTT � - Cr LLJ LOCATION MAP * ROUTE 84 EXPRESSWAY ** Project cost and description - This $45 million dollar project (Sales tax contribution of $20 million dollars) proposes to construct a two lane road f rom Val l ecitos Road to 580 at Col l ier Canyon Road. Right of way requi red to make this alignment into a six-lane expressway will be acquired at this ti me. Project justification Route 84 has been projected to be at capacity in the near future. The major problems are this routes present alignment and intersections along the existing alignment. This proposed work would provide an alignment for Route 84 which would allow a safer corridor for anticipated traffic loads as well as allow future growth in capacity along this alignment, Additional Funding - Additional funding may be available for up to a six-lane expressway from Route 580 south to at least Stanley Boulevard in addition to the two lane road proposed in this project. ! SAN KuMUN IAMADORI_C G COSI R O � ' Son ,omo Co�t0.M��C villop• J ► ,CA.P POO C RECICNAL PA RAIL LINE r s' 185 r, WITH DIRECT B.A.R.T. CONNECTION e . ib + C„l,C-1 u b i n 580 II o., C, � BAY FAIR ( C�volley J vu Ev i RANCH 238 S �+ Lorenzo HAYWARD LOCATION MAP *** DUBLIN CANYON RAIL-EXTENSION ** Proj ect cost and d .scri pti on - This $180 to $220 million dollar project (Sales tax contribution of $170 million dollars) proposes to construct a rail line from the Bayfai r BART station along the Route 580 corridor to Dublin. Heavy rail would cost $220 million dollars, and light rail is expected to cost approximately $180 million dollars; however, the light rail estimate is pending a cost study. Project _ification_ificatinn - Several transportation studies have shown a tremen- dous need for transit to and from the Tri-Valley area. The geography of the Dublin Canyon makes the continued widening of existing freeways impossible. It will be necessary to construct a rail line through this corridor to augment the freeway system that is now in place and allow for a di rect BART connection using rail vehicles to the valley. The existing freeways have rights of way which provide for this alternative and its early construction will add much to provide efficient and needed transportation. ` 'NI WIDE N NKI ON SAN LEANDRO "51 LOCATION M A P ~ *** MARINA BOULEVARD/FAIRWAY DRIVE CIROUL8TIDN IMPROVEMENTS *** Project - This $l].S million dollar project ---------includes three elements: I) the widening of Marina Boulevard between I-880 and San Leandro Boulevard ($8 million), 3) constructing an overorossinQ across I-800 to connect Fairway Drive with Aladdin Avenue ($5 million), and 3} extending Tmagarden Street between Montague Avenue and Aladdin Avenue ($^5 million) . - Marina Boulevard is presently a narrow 4-lane arterial street carrying 23 ,000 vehicles per day, including a high percentage of truohs. The widened street is proposed to be 5 lanes (3 eastbound, 2 westbound, plus bike lanes and a median turn lane) and will - provide the capacitv needed for the future projected traffic volume of 3»000 vehicles. - The Fairway Drive mverorossing is proposed to be a 2- lane facilitv projected to carry a future daily traffic volume of 1Iv000 vehicles. ' his facility will provide an alternative to Marina Boulevard, where congestion is increasing rapidly. The Teagarden extension provides the critical connection between Marina Boulevard and Fairway Drive on the east side of I-880 . It will be a 2-lane industrial roadway and is projected to carry 6,000 vehicles per day. The combined effect of these three improvements will be improved circulation between industrial areas in San Leandro and relief for the oonYastion on Marina Boulevard and at the Marina Boulovard/I-880 interchange. The project will provide improved access to I-080^ improved traffic operations at the Marina Boulevard/I-880 interchange* and improved local circulation. -- SIX—LANE HIGHWAY ° SIX—LANE EXPRESSWAY/ FREEWAY P P ;•/r--- = _.�, � � J` it V ti�.�, 1�.'� I•II m FOUR/SIX—LANE FREEWAY •' / '' �� e �� a� (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) �j O _V _ '7l'lwrp., (``� i.OJST Pi:I Q.., i7'i_rs• ? i LOCATION MAP *** CONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 238 AND ROUTE 84 *** Project estimated cost and description - This $155 million dollar project (Sales tax contribution of $135 million dollars) will construct that portion of Route 238 from Route 580 along Mission Boulevard to Route 84 near Decoto Road and then down along Route 84 to the interchange with Route 880 (Nimitz Freeway) . The work will consist of constructing a six- lane freeway/expressway from Route 580 to Industrial Boulevard in Hayward, the widening of existing Mission Blvd. to six lanes to existing Route 84, and finally constructing an initial four, ultimate six-lane expressway through to Route 880 . The new alignment of Route 84 is generally along the previously adopted alignment where rights-of-way have been acquired. Project justification - The southern part of Alameda County is served by only one north-south freeway corridor, Route 880. This area is expected to be one of the fastest growing areas of the county and will need an alter- native to this existing corridor in the future. Route 238/84 will immediately provide relief to congested Foothill Boulevard and Mission Boulevard and is 1 ikel y to rel ieve some traffic loads on Route 880 . Additionally, Route 238 can be built in a short time frame. JUL THE PLEASANTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE • 411 MAIN STREET • PLEASANTON, CA 94566 • 846-5858 July 8, 1986 Alameda County Transportation Advisory Committee County of Alameda 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward, CA 94544 1395 Enclosure ( 1 ) Testimony of Mr. Keith Bernard, General Manager of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) to the Alameda County Transportation Advisory Committee Hearing on Essential Transportation projects , May 28 , 1986 Enclosure ( 2 ) Essential Transportation Projects List of the Alameda County Transportation Advisory Committee for SB878 Funding (Half Cents Sales Tax) Enclosure ( 1 ) states that BART will not be able to generate the $110 million matching funds for the Dublin Canyon Rail Extension listed in Enclosure ( 2 ) as required by SB878 Legislation (halfcent sales tax bill) . BART states that even a light rail system for the Dublin Canyon Project needs at least $180 million of SB878 funds . Enclosure ( 1 ) then proposes that the Warm Springs Extension Project in Fremont be introduced and that the Dublin Canyon and Warm Springs Projects be considered as a "package" to get SB878 funds , even though the Warm Springs Project is not presently in Enclosure ( 2 ) . BART claims in the table in Enclosure ( 1 ) that the Warm Springs project can receive $257 million of federal funds during the next 15 years . BART then states that assuming their prediction is correct about obtaining such federal funds , they will be able to use the federal funds to satisfy the SB878 matching fund require ment because $259 million of federal funds is more than 50% of the total cost of the Dublin Canyon plus Warm Springs Projects as shown in the above mentioned table . We believe that any transit extension project in Alameda County that is dependent for most of its funds from the Federal Government during the next 15 years has essentially zero probability of ever being built be- cause of the Federal Government ' s drastic cutbacks in mass transit exten- sion funds during the past 7 years and probably also in the foreseeable future . Compounding this almost hopeless Federal funding situation are the very low priorities of such transit extensions within Alameda County relative to the numerous other proposed competing projects throughout the United States . County of Alameda July 8 , 1986 Page two Therefore, the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce strongly supports the I 580/680 Flyover ( interchange modification ) , Route 84 (Scott 's Corner to Route I 580 ) Road Projects and the Dublin Canyon Rail Extension Transit Project along with the corresponding sponsors and funding as listed in Enclosure ( 2 ) without change. It is our understanding that a LAVTA maintenance facility can be funded under the Local Street and Road category in Enclosure ( 2 ) if the local cities decide to spend such funds for this facility. Sincerely yours , J. L. Lemm President cc: Mr. K. Bernard, General Manager of BART Mr. H. Goode, Planning Director of BART Mr. R. Allen, Director of BART Mr. E. Campbell, Supervisor of Alameda County Dublin City Council Livermore City Council Pleasanton City Council Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority Dublin Chamber of Commerce Livermore Chamber of Commerce am Enclosure ( 1 ) a ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE HEARING ON ESSENTIAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS MAY 28, 1986 TESTIMONY OF KEITH BERNARD, GENERAL MANAGER OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT YOUR COMMITTEE IS EVALUATING A LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY, INCLUDING A RAIL EXTENSION THROUGH DUBLIN CANYON TO SERVE THE LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY AREA. THE PROGRAM AS CURRENTLY DRAWN IS NOT ADEQUATE TO DELIVER THE DUBLIN CANYON PROJECT , THE CURRENT LIST PROVIDES $110 MILLION FOR A DUBLIN CANYON RAIL PROJECT FROM NEW SALES TAX FUNDS, WHICH IS TO BE MATCHED WITH AN EQUAL AMOUNT FROM OTHER SOURCES TO BE OBTAINED BY BART , AS A SINGLE PROJECT, BART WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GENERATE THE NEEDED MATCHING FUNDS , BARTIS EXTENSION PROGRAM FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES DEPEND UPON FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THE WARM SPRINGS LINE WHILE THE DUBLIN ROUTE DEPENDS UPON A MIX OF LOCAL FUNDS, WHILE THE BART PLAN FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY AS A WHOLE CONTEMPLATES A MATCH TO SB 878 FUNDS OF IN EXCESS OF 50% FOR THE TOTAL PROGRAM, APPLICATION OF THIS REQUIREMENT TO THE DUBLIN PROJECT ALONE WILL NOT ONLY UNDERMINE THE WHOLE PROGRAM, IT WILL ALSO UNDERMINE THE DUBLIN LINE, AS A BART PROJECT , IF THE COMMITTEE DETERMINES THAT THE DUBLIN CANYON PROJECT IS TO BE A BART CONSTRUCTED AND OPERATED LINE, EITHER LIGHT OR HEAVY RAIL, I URGE YOU TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT TO BE PROVIDED FROM THE SALES TAX FOR TWO IMPORTANT REASONS, 1 , -2- . 1 , PROJECT DELIVERY THE FINANCING PLAN IN YOUR CURRENT LIST IS NOT ADEQUATE TO DELIVER THE PROJECT, EVEN AS A LIGHT RAIL LINE, LET ALONE AS A BART EXTENSION WITH HIGHER SPEEDS ' ND DIRECT CONNECTION TO THE BART NETWORK, 2 , . PROGRAM BALANCE : A LARGER LOCAL COMMITMENT TO THE DUBLIN CANYON. PROJECT WILL ACTUALLY ENHANCE THE FEASIBILITY OF THE TOTAL ALAMEDA COUNTY BART PROGRAM, THE ATTACHED TABLE SETS FORTH A POSSIBLE FINANCIAL PLAN WHICH ILLUSTRATES A COMBINATION OF FEDERAL, SB 878, AND OTHER STATE AND LOCAL MONIES TO ACCOMPLISH BART' S EXTENSION PROGRAM IN YOUR COUNTY , I URGE YOU TO INCREASE THE SB 878 COMMITMENT TO THE BART PROGRAM, YOUR ACTION IS A CRITICAL PIECE IN MAKING THIS PROGRAM A REALITY , ATTACHMENT ALAMEDA COUNTY BART PROGRAM (POSSIBLE FINANCIAL PLAN) PROJECT CONSTRU�IION FUNDING SOURCES COST J (MILLIONS Ot DOLLARS) SB 878 FEDERAL2) SALES TAX OTHERS) DUBLIN EXTENSION 220 180 40 WARM SPRINGS EXTENSION 345 259 86 565 25,9 180 126 NOTES 1) ESTIMATED IN 1985 DOLLARS 2) 75% 3) STATE, ANNEXING COUNTIES, OTHER BART FUNDS ($26M ALREADY COMMITTED IN ALAMEDA COUNTY) Enclodure ( 2 ) as of 6/12/86 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA _.———-- 399 Elmhurst Street a Hayward.CA 94544-1395 (415) 881-6443 Essential Transportation Projects List Cost Priority Project Sponsor (Millions) Participation ROAD Nimitz Freeway - I-880 - 8 b 10 Caltrans $220 Lanes w/some Interchanges - (Hegenberger, Rte. 92, 98th Ave.) Rte. 238 - 580 to Fremont, Caltrans $155 Rte. 84 - 238 to 880 Cross-Airport Roadway City of Oakland, $ 65 $ 12 . City of Alameda b Port of Oakland Rte. 13/24 Interchange Caltrans $ 11 I-580/680 Flyover Caltrans $ 54 (Interchange Modification) Rte. 84 - Scott's Corner to Rte. 580 City of Livermore $ 20 $ 25 4-lane Expressway (6-lane R/W) b Alameda County $525 $ 37 Dublin Canyon Rail-Extension OPEN $110 $110 (BART, LAVTA, Alameda Co.) A.C. Transit A.C. Transit $ 75 Paratransit (Elderly b Handicapped) Alameda County 3 7.5 $192.5 $147M Cost Priority Project Sponsor (Millions) Participation PLANNING Alameda County $ 10 STREET ROADS Improvement of local transportation Cities & County $104 including street & roads. • Includes 10% annually to locals for maintenance and construction. • Marina Blvd. widening in San Leandro • Consideration of light rail line down Broadway in Oakland. No money allocated for this project. Council approval pending. NOTE: Funds to AC Transit, Paratransit and local streets and roads (with the exception of thLspecified San Leandro projects) would increase proportionately as the sales tax revenue generated increases. ADMINISTRATION Administration of new county authority not to $ 8,4 exceed 1% of revenues generated annually. TOTAL