HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.8 Travel Demand Model~~~~ Off' nU~~~
/ii ~ 111
L~~ - ~ ~~~
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
File #600-30
December 20, 2011
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
~~
Joni Pattillo, City Manager ° ~'
SUBJECT: Approval to Procure Traffic Engineering Consulting Services in Excess of
$20,000 for the development of a Travel Demand Model
Prepared by Jaimee Bourgeois, Transportation & Operations Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Various on-going and future development projects and an update to the Circulation Element of
the City of Dublin General Plan currently underway require the use of a Citywide Travel Demand
Model to project future traffic patterns. Development of a new model to replace the existing
model is needed to support existing and future projects. The City Council will consider the
procurement of consulting services to develop the new Citywide Travel Demand Model.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The total cost to develop a new model is $127,320. Of this amount $118,860 is allocated
towards the Traffic Engineer professional services and $8,460 will be expended through a
separate agreement for data collection. The cost of this work is proposed to be funded from a
combination of Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees (Category 1) and the General Fund. The
General Fund component was budgeted as part of the General Plan Update activities. A
Budget change will appropriate the project costs within the Engineering Operating Budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Authorize the City Manager to procure consulting
services with Fehr & Peers for the development of a Citywide Travel Demand Model for an
amount not to exceed $118,860; and 2) Approve the Budget Change allowing the total project
expenditures to be recorded in the Engineering Operating Budget.
~.
~.~
~...ti _..~~.~.
Submitted By
Director of Public Works
~,
Reviewed By
Assistant City Manager
Page 1 of 3 ITEM NO. 4.8
DESCRIPTION:
The City's existing travel demand model was developed in 2004 for the Fallon Village Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and has been utilized for multiple projects including,
most recently, Arroyo Vista and Grafton Plaza. The current model was based on the Contra
Costa Countywide model and regional Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) land use
projections 2000. The model has been updated periodically within focused areas to reflect
current land use and transportation network assumptions; however, a model validation has not
been conducted since its inception.
It is important to utilize an updated and validated model to insure better accuracy of future
projections. Staff believes that given the various efforts underway and anticipated in the future,
this is an appropriate time to update the model. An initial assessment has been conducted to
determine whether it would be best to update the existing model or develop a new model based
on the Contra Costa Countywide model, the Alameda Countywide model or the City of
Pleasanton model. It has been determined that a new model based upon the Alameda
Countywide model would insure better accuracy of volume projections since the Alameda
Countywide model takes into consideration San Joaquin County data, was most recently
updated to reflect ABAG projections and provides peak hour and daily projections, a goal of this
project.
The City of Dublin has an existing on-call consultant services agreement with Fehr & Peers.
They are well qualified to develop a Citywide model and are very familiar with the local
transportation network, local modeling tools, and Caltrans Forecasting Guidelines. The scope of
work will include data collection, base year model development, model validation, near-term
model development, long-term (cumulative) model development and model documentation. The
model will be capable of forecasting daily, AM and PM peak hour volumes for various roadway
segments through the City. Clear documentation will be provided by Fehr & Peers with the
intent of having the model be user-friendly and easily transferable to other consultants.
The scope of work prepared by Fehr & Peers (Attachment 1) includes a base cost of $99,050.
In preparation of the effort, Staff has also procured data collection (traffic counts) under a
separate purchase order at a cost of $8,460. Staff is seeking City Council authorization to
obtain the professional traffic engineering services from Fehr & Peers in an amount not to
exceed $118,860 ($99,050 for the base scope plus a contingency of up to an $19,810, or 20%
of the base fee, should the scope of work require expansion). Because the total cost for
services provided exceeds $20,000, the City Council must authorize the agreement as provided
for in Section 2.36.050 of the Dublin Municipal Code.
The cost of this project will be funded from two sources. The Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
(Category 1) will fund $112,575 of the costs and the General Fund will contribute $14,745. As a
study it is appropriate to account for this activity in the Operating Budget and not in a Capital
Project. Staff would propose to reduce by $112,575 the appropriations made to CIP Project
#960004 -Eastern Dublin Arterial Street and Freeway Improvements. This project has been
used in the past to capture costs associated with administering and updating the Eastern Dublin
Traffic Impact Fee. Based on the funds available and the lack of any current expenditure
underway in this project, this change can be made at this time. The General Fund amount will
be accommodated by transferring $14,745 from the Planning Operating Budget to the
Engineering Operating Budget. The funds were appropriated in the Planning Budget as part of
the General Plan Update activities. The allocation between the two funding sources has been
Page 2 of 3
done based on the approximate ratio of new trips that may be developed within and outside of
the Eastern Dublin area. Staff has prepared a Budget Change Form (Attachment 2).
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None required.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Consultant Scope of Services to Develop Citywide Travel Demand
Model
2. Budget Change
Page 3 of 3
FEHR~'PEERS
November 22, 2011
Jaimee Bourgeois, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer (Traffic)
City Traffic Engineer, City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Proposal to Develop Citywide Travel Demand Model, Dublin California
Dear Jaimee:
Fehr & Peers appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal to develop a Citywide Travel
Demand Model the City. We understand that this model will be used to develop daily traffic flow
projections on the arterial and collector roadways for the General Plan update, as well as analyze
future land use development proposals and transportation network changes within the City. The
model will allow for the estimation of greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation.
There are several possible approaches to developing a Citywide model. We understand that the
City wants afull-featured travel demand model that can be used by transportation consultants
that commonly work on projects in the Bay Area; therefore, the options we are presenting use
modeling software that is typically used in other Bay Area demand models (i.e., Cube and
TransCAD). The options focus on different methods of using standard demand model software
that tiers from other models prepared for the Tri-Valley area. The goal is to develop a model that
will be sensitive to land use and infrastructure changes within Dublin, as well as to differing travel
mode choices at a City and regional scale. The following presents our review of available
modeling tools, proposed scope of work, schedule and fee.
REVIEW OF AVAILABLE MODELING TOOLS
There are four travel demand models that include the Dublin area that could be considered as a
starting point for the new Dublin Citywide Model: the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(CCTA) model, the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) model, the City of
Pleasanton model, and the previous City of Dublin model. All of these models generally
represent the existing arterial and collector roadway network within the City of Dublin and
adjacent communities. The previous Dublin model was developed in 2005 and has not been
substantially updated or maintained; this model was not considered as a suitable starting point for
a new Citywide model because it lacks sufficient documentation of its inputs and assumptions
and could not be independently applied to derive travel demand volumes. The other three
models could potentially serve as a foundation for a new Dublin model; a summary of the
components of each of these three models is provided in Table 1.
In addition to summarizing model components, we prepared a preliminary base year validation
assessment of each model using available data from other sources, to determine how well each
model would meet standard model validation criteria for roadways within Dublin. (The validation
criteria were taken from the Caltrans' Travel Forecasting Guidelines and Fehr & Peers' internal
modeling guidelines.) None of the models in its current form met the validation criteria within
Dublin; this was expected since none of these models was developed with a focus on the local
roads in Dublin. The models did, however, perform similarly in terms of their ability to replicate
current volumes on Dublin roads, which is an indication that any one of the models could be used
as the basis for building aDublin-specific model.
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 930-7100 Fax (925) 933-7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
Jaimee Bourgeois ,~, S
November 22, 2011
Page 2 of 8
TABLE 1
MODEL STRUCTURE SUMMARY
Component ACTC Model CCTA Model Pleasanton Model
Land Use Projections ABAG P'09 ABAG P'05 ABAG P'07
Base Year 2000 2000 2010
2005 2010 Approved Projects
Forecast Years 2020 2020 General Plan Buildout
2035 2030 2030
Geographic Scope Bay Area + San Joaquin gay Area Tri-Valley
Coun
Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Dwelling Units
Land Use Input Units Number of Employees Number of Employees Square footage of non-
residential uses
Model Run Time 8-12 hours 12-16 hours 10 minutes
Software Platform Citilabs -Cube Caliper - TransCAD Citilabs -Cube
Daily Daily
AM 1 hour AM 1 hour AM 1 hour
Time Periods PM 1 hour AM 4 hour
PM 2 hour
PM 1 hour PM 1 hour
PM 4 hour PM 4 hour
Auto -Drive Alone Auto -Drive Alone
Auto -Shared Ride Auto -Shared Ride
Modes Analyzed Autos
Walk Walk
Bike Bike
Transit Transit
The City of Pleasanton Model, while offering the fastest run time, was eliminated from further
consideration because it does not directly forecast daily roadway segment volumes, which is a
goal of this project. The CCTA model would be a good option, but it is currently based on ABAG
P'05 and is in the process of being updated, with the new model not expected to be available until
the middle of next year. The ACTC model was just recently updated (with the new version
released in July 2011) and was enhanced in several respects such as heavy vehicle forecasts
and the inclusion of San Joaquin County in the model area. Based on our review of the available
models, we recommend starting with the ACTC model to develop asub-area model for the City of
Dublin.
SCOPE OF WORK FOR DUBLIN TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL
Task 1: Project Scope Refinement and Data Needs Review
Fehr 8~ Peers will attend akick-off meeting at project initiation to review data needs and formats,
review proposed methodology, identify project milestone timelines, and discuss communication
protocols. At the kick-off meeting, the City Project Manager and the Fehr & Peers Project
Manager will finalize the composition and role of a Model Development Team (MDT). At a
minimum, it is anticipated that MDT members would include specific staff from the City of Dublin
Public Works and Community Development Departments, who would meet periodically to review
and comment on model inputs and assumptions. In some situations, we have found it to be
Jaimee Bourgeois F E H R ~' P E E R S
November 22, 2011
Page 3 of 8
helpful to expand the MDT membership to include staff from agencies who will be involved in
reviewing future projects that will use the model; in this case, that would include adjacent
jurisdictions such as Pleasanton, Livermore, and San Ramon, ACTC, and Caltrans. Conducting
meetings with an expanded MDT can take more time during the model development process, but
it can also result in more streamlined review of future projects because those agencies have been
given a direct opportunity to review and understand the City's model. We will discuss the pros
and cons of this approach with City staff at the kick-off meeting. This scope of work and fee
estimate assumes a basic MDT of City staff, but an expanded MDT could be added with a
supplemental scope and fee.
Information and data needs to be discussed at the kick-off meeting will include:
Land Use Data
The ACTC model was validated to year 2000 conditions, and it contains land use information for
the year 2005, 2020 and 2035. Because we are suggesting that the base year of the Dublin
model be 2010, we will start from the year 2010 data prepared by ABAG in P'09, and will work
with City staff to review and modify those inputs. We will also compare land use data available
from neighboring jurisdictions (primarily Pleasanton and Livermore) to the ABAG data. We will
discuss whether or not the base year should be 2010 or 2012 since the traffic data will be
collected in December 2011.
Base Year Roadway Network
At the kick-off meeting, the City will provide roadway GIS centerline files to Fehr & Peers. After
processing the network, Fehr & Peers will later give the City an opportunity to review and
comment on the model network, such as the number of lanes, posted speeds, facility type, etc.
Traffic Count Data Collection
Fehr & Peers will review the traffic count data that is already available, including daily and hourly
roadway segment volumes, for both local and regional locations. We understand that the City is
undertaking a Citywide road segment count program, and we will coordinate with staff to ensure
that the count program will capture all of the data needed for model validation. We will also obtain
recent peak hour intersection turning movement counts from previous traffic studies. Available
counts for facilities under state jurisdiction (I-580 and I-680) will be obtained from Caltrans. New
traffic counts will be taken at a time of year that represents "stabilized, usual conditions", such as
a mid-week day when schools are in session and employment, shopping and vacation patterns
are "typical."
Fehr & Peers will develop a set of initial screenlines for review and discussion with city staff. The
intent of the screenlines is to capture the major flows of traffic, usually across several parallel
facilities, which will aid in developing accurate inbound and outbound flow characteristics for
model calibration.
Consistency with the ACTC Regional Model
At the initial scoping meeting, the desired degree of consistency between the City's travel
demand model and the ACTC regional model will be discussed, and a direction and methodology
determined. Consistency will address external stations, traffic analysis zone boundaries, and land
use forecasts.
Jaimee Bourgeois
November 22, 2011
Page 4 of 8
Travel Patterns Uniaue to Dublin
FEHR~'PEERS
At the kick-off meeting, Fehr ~ Peers and participants will discuss how the local transportation
system is performing, identifying congested roadways serving major origins and destinations in
the City. This information is valuable for reasonableness checks of the model inputs and outputs
as the model development process proceeds.
DELIVERABLE: Fehr & Peers will summarize the results of the scoping meeting topics as
meeting minutes, and distribute them to the MDT.
Task 2: Data Collection and Base Year Model Development
Task 2.1 Data Collection
As discussed in Task 1, the City will provide new 72-hour traffic counts at about 40 locations
throughout the City, to be determined in consultation between Fehr & Peers and the City.
Freeway segment or ramp counts can be substituted as needed. Note that this scope of work
and fee estimate does not include the costs of any direct traffic data collection by Fehr & Peers.
In addition to the traffic count data collected by the City, Fehr & Peers will collect and review the
following information:
- Socio-economic and land use data. We will start from the 2005 land use data available in
the ACTC model for the Dublin area, and factor it to year 2010 conditions based on the
most recent ABAG information. We will also compare the data to commercially available
socio-economic information and to aerial photographs. We will present the data to the
MDT for their review and comment. While it is not easy to predict the amount of time
necessary to adjust local land use data for a model development effort, we have
allocated up to 40 hours for these activities, which is typical for a model of this size; if the
effort required exceeds that estimate, we will work with the City to determine the best
course of action.
- Recent travel surveys and traffic counts conducted by others.
- U.S. Census 2000 and 2010 data and American Community Survey (ACS) data.
- City roadway network in GIS format. Fehr 8~ Peers will review the network to ensure the
accuracy of the number of lanes, free-flow travel speeds, and other factors.
DELIVERABLE: Fehr 8~ Peers will provide the traffic count data to the City in Excel format that
the City can link to its GIS database.
Task 2.2 Review of Model Structure and Input Files
We will review and modify the ACTC travel demand model to accurately reflect existing and
planned land use and roadway network conditions within the study area. To correctly develop a
City-level model, a thorough review of the model structure and input files is required. This step is
especially important to understand the details of the model and how the process may be
streamlined to decrease run time.
As part of this review, we will verify the base year roadway networks and land use inputs within
the sub-area. The network will be compared against field observations, input from City staff, and
GIS data. The base year land use data will be compared against census data, aerial photos, and
field observations. Fehr & Peers will work with City staff to identify appropriate factors to convert
building square footages to employees, which is how the model reflects land uses.
Jaimee Bourgeois
November 22, 2011
Page 5 of 8
Task 2.3 Model Development
FEHR~PEERS
The model development effort will focus on adding traffic analysis zone (TAZ) and roadway
network detail in the Dublin area, including representation of recent and planned developments
such as East Dublin and the Dublin Crossings site. We will be subdividing some of the TAZs in
the ACTC model so that development patterns in Dublin are reflected at a greater level of detail.
This effort will be coordinated with City staff. We will also add roadway network detail so that all
study roadways and intersections are accurately represented in the model.
The trip generation model will be reviewed and refined to ensure that the model's estimate of
daily and peak hour trips for the study area matches estimates obtained using empirical trip rates
from local, regional, and national travel surveys or publications such as NCHRP Report 365
(Transportation Research Board, 1998) and Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation
Engineers, 2008). Note that there may be a few "special generators" used in the Dublin model to
reflect trip generation from unusual land uses; based on initial information, we expect that both
Camp Parks and the County Jail may be treated as special generators. We will compare the trip
lengths, mode choice, and assignment results from the Dublin model against the ACTC model
and against regional Bay Area Travel Survey data to check for reasonableness.
Task 2.4 Model Validation
The Dublin model will be validated using a series of static and dynamic validation tests. The
static tests will involve comparing the base year model traffic assignment results against the
traffic count data described under Task 2.1, and checking to see how well the model replicates
those counts using statistics such as the maximum deviation, correlation coefficient, and percent
root mean squared error (RMSE) criteria contained in the Travel Forecasting Guidelines,
Caltrans, 1992.
Dynamic validation tests will involve making typical changes to the model such as adding or
deleting a link, or modifying land uses at various magnitudes to evaluate changes in the mode
split, vehicle trip assignment, and VMT results. For the dynamic tests, we will review the resulting
traffic volumes to verify that they change in the appropriate direction and magnitude. This process
is important for establishing a level of confidence in the future year forecasts. Without this step,
the level of confidence in the forecasts would be limited and could affect the defensibility of
subsequent analysis prepared using the model.
DELIVERABLE: Technical Memorandum: Base Year Model Validation - A description of the
model validation process, and presentation of calibration and validation results.
Task 3: Development of Near-Term Model
Fehr & Peers will develop anear-term model for the City. Anear-term scenario is often used to
reflect approved and pending development projects and to determine the timing for construction
of near-term improvements.
Fehr & Peers will work with the City to determine a reasonable year to assign to the "near-term"
scenario. For purposes of this scope, we assume the year 2020 will be adequate. We will
provide the City with projections of growth in housing and non-residential development in Dublin
for 2020 directly from the ACTC model. The City will review the near-term land use projections
and the team will develop preferred land use data for each TAZ.
The City and Fehr & Peers will meet to jointly review near-term land use assumptions for
locations outside of Dublin. Some adjustments may be warranted based on data used in the
Jaimee Bourgeois F E H R'~' P E E R S
November 22, 2011
Page 6 of 8
ACTC traffic model including projected growth at external stations to the model. We will review
the increase in traffic volume at key gateways to evaluate regional growth consistency.
We will prepare a draft near-term roadway network based on input from the City and current
Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs) of Dublin and adjacent jurisdictions. The resulting model
will represent near-term conditions considering Approved and Pending Projects and funded
roadway improvements expected to be constructed concurrent with approved development.
Task 4: Development of Cumulative Model
Fehr & Peers will develop a Cumulative scenario model for the City. For the purposes of this
scope, we assume that the year 2035 will be suitable for this purpose. Year 2035 information is
available from the ACTC model.
Fehr & Peers will provide the City with projections of growth in housing and non-residential
development in Dublin for 2035 directly from the ACTC model. The City will review the
cumulative land use projections and the team will develop preferred land use data for each TAZ.
It will be important to maintain the overall total 2035 land uses within Alameda County reflected in
the ACTC model, in order to maintain consistency with ABAG regional projections. We will work
with the City to achieve this level of consistency.
The City and Fehr & Peers will meet to jointly review future 2035 land use assumptions for
locations outside of Dublin. Some adjustments may be warranted based on data used in the
ACTC traffic model including projected growth at external stations to the model. We will review
the increase in traffic volume at key gateways to evaluate regional growth consistency.
Fehr 8~ Peers will prepare a draft 2035 roadway network based on the City's current General
Plan, and the General Plans of adjacent jurisdictions. The 2035 network will be compared against
the list of fully funded regional projects. The City and Fehr 8~ Peers will coordinate to jointly
decide upon the final roadway network to be used for the future year model, which may include
certain adjustments or refinements based upon current information or projections.
Task 5: Document Model Development
Fehr 8~ Peers will prepare a draft Model Development Report that describes the methodology,
data sources, and assumptions used to develop the Citywide model, both for the base year and
the future years. Flow chart diagrams will be included which will illustrate the relationship of data
inputs, model steps, and output. In addition, Fehr & Peers will prepare a Model User's Guide
intended to assist technical staff in modifying data inputs, running the model, and performing
selected basic model applications.
Fehr ~ Peers will prepare a draft version of each document and circulate to City staff for review
and comments. We have assumed up to 12 hours of staff time to respond to comments on the
draft documents. Final versions of each document will then be prepared; one bound copy of each
document will be sent to the City, along with a PDF version that can be reproduced.
Task 6: Meetings
Fehr 8~ Peers will attend up to six (6) staff-level or MDT meetings during the course of the project.
Fehr & Peers will attend additional meetings on atime-and-material basis.
Jaimee Bourgeois
November 22, 2011
Page 7 of 8
SCHEDULE AND FEE
FEHR ""PEERS
Fehr & Peers will commence with compiling available land use and roadway network information
for City review. The overall schedule will be dependent on the amount of time it takes to finalize
the land use and roadway network assumptions, but is expected to take between three and six
months. The overall work schedule will be finalized at the Project kick-off meeting.
Our estimated fee to complete Tasks 1 through 6 is $99,050 (see Attachment A); note that this
budget assumes that the City will collect the necessary traffic data. We look forward to working
with you on this project.
Sincerely,
FEHR & PEERS
-~
Robert E. Rees, P.E.
Principal
Kathrin Tellez, Alice ,4~ TP
Associate
P 11-3622-WC
y ~
•0 O
~ N
~ N
3 N ~
m ~ O
N ~ c0
'Cp O f~6
~Z~
d
~.
d
Q
d
a
0
as
C C
s ~
~ 0
Q d
`V
r
a
.~
V
C
r
N
N
d
0
z
H
4i
d
a
t
d
LL
Q H _.~_
o ~`
cD
~ o 0 0
~ W~ N --w_ __.,....,mW~ _____~,_
" 0 0 0 ~n
m c00 ~ N
o
Oa
~
p
p
- r
F' ® LL'i
~ O C~ c i V
~ (P r O ~
fJT
~ M to pj
O U fA
fig to ER fA ~ ~
eJ ~
M 0~0 ~ ~ ~ r o00 ~ ~ ~
O ®
N ~
_.._.
__.__.-
_
`..
...._._
___.
__
_.
~
(n ~ O N O N
~ M ~ M .
0
~
~
~
O o O ~ Q ~
Q
~ J
,~, `
p
O
0 ~
~EA~M
6N9 6N9 ~ F
-
,
d =
r f~ m m
~ p~pp
C) ~ ~ CO ~ r VO' r N N N V a0
® CL
.-~._
_~ m_
w
BY
O
CO O O O O
a0 N N O o
o
0
O
N ~~yy O
V
fR a0 O O O C7~ ~t V
(n
~ ® ~ N fH ~ f.9 C;? ~ fA W
a = Z
N N
~ _..,__~___..... W
'Q' fA fn
® ~. N O fD ~ CD ~ O N ~ W
W o~
H
C O
N O O O O
O
N M I o o O o
O
M
M ~ ~
O
C C
D. C
D
a ~ M
N
~~ ~
~
~ 6
p E
9 E
9 6
9
9 V
~
' ~
C
~ ~ ~
W ~ ~ ~ ~ N M ~ N ~ CV ~ ~ ~' W
~ ~ n
®7
o V ~~
~' V 7 V M
m
F"
M
CD M CD CD __
~ M ~D 00
7 (n
® ~
~ N C() O O
~ ~ ~ ~ in to C'. M
~ ~' N
d ~ ~
~ ~ N ~ N 7 V N N V (P ~ '.
O
..~.
C
m _
~
N
m
~
m E ~7 t
v
. ~
.> o H ~ O
m~ _
U
H ~ V1
m N ~ 9 7
.,''
Z ~ LL ~ ~ ~ ',,,,,
~
d ~ p C)
~ ~ ~ a
m
H v
Y ~ m
} 'p ~
~ m
Q
~ m
,
~ A C m 'v o. c
ao o
•°-
~
m m
m ,
~
p
aci m ~ ~ _° ~ c ~ ~ ~
E v ~' R m~ m o
Ed v
~~
~m ;
a
~ tom a
~
~
a ~ - o m
~
~~ ~i
m o~
«
o o c o c
~ m m
m m~ c ~
~
~~'~ rn o m ~
u~ m ~°- E~~_ c o w .~
'
v O
~ v~ v
m O m io
p € p~ m~ C m
E m
v
~
`I m Fi ~ V m m m _
~ F ~~ ~ m v c
a of m~m o o ~ aaM~ m~ m '~'
r d TT D R' ~~ M Z 'd N N d m Q C ''
~ N M of
~
~
~ ,..
a
CO ~ N CV N N l
0 l
6 ~ l
9 X
~ h Si h-,__- W
CITY OF DUBLIN
BUDGET CHANGE FORM FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012
New Appropriations (City Council Approval Required)
Budget Transfers:
CHANGE FORM #
From Un-Appropriated Reserves
From New Revenues
From Budgeted Contingent Reserve
Within Same Department Activity
XX Between Departments (City Council Approval Req'd)
Other:
DECREASE BUDGET ACCOUNT AMOUNT INCREASE BUDGET ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Name: EXPENDITURE :General
Fund -Planning -Contract Services
GL Account #: 1001.8101.64001
14,745 Name: EXPENDITURE: General
Fund -Engineering -Traffic
Engineering Services
GL Account #: 1001.8301.64092
127,320
Name: EXPENDITURE :Streets
Capital Project Fund -Eastern
Dublin Arterial Street/Freeway Impv.
Project# 960004.9400.9401.4301
GL Account #: 3600.9601.73103 $112,575
Transfer Out: Transfer Out:
From Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact From Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact
Fee Category 1 to Capital Project Fd Fee Category1 to General Fund
GL Account #4301.9601.89101 $112,575 GL Account #4301.1901.89101 $112,575
Transfer In: Transfer In:
Streets Capital Project Fund General Fund
Project #960004.9607
GL Account #3600.9601.49999 $112,575 GL Account #1001.1901.49999 $112,575
REASON FOR BUDGET CHANGE ENTRY: As approved by the City Council on December 20,
2011 this budget change provides funding for the development of a Citywide Travel Demand Model.
The total cost of the Traffic Model is $127,320 and will be recorded in the Engineering Operating
Budget. Of this amount $112,575 is funded from the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Category 1
by a reduction in the Eastern Dublin Arterial Street and Freeway Capital Improvement Project
previously programmed in the project for the Study. The remaining $14,745 was funded by an
interdepartmental transfer from the Planning Operating Budget to the Engineering Operating Budget.
Fehr & Peers has been identified as the vendor to provide professional consulting engineering
services.
As Presented at the City Council Meeting on: Date: 12/20/2011
#################(Finance Use Only)###################
Posted By: Date:
City Council Minutes Excerpt Attached
Reviewed By:
C:IDocuments and SettingslpaulrlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslContent.Outlookl2WQVOAZ4114_12 20_11 Cityv/ide Travel Demand Model doc
ATTACHMENT 2