HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 089-98 TVTD FeeRESOLUTION NO. 89 - 98
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ESTABLISHING A TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE
FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN
WHEREAS, Chapter 7.82 of the Dublin Municipal Code creates and establishes the
authority for imposing and charging transportation impact fees; and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan outlines future land uses within the City and within
the Extended Planning Areas; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ("SP") provides more specific detailed
goals, policies and action programs for approximately 3313 acres within the City; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan, the SP, the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report
(SCH #91103604) and Addenda describe the freeway, freeway interchange and road
improvements necessary for implementation of the General Plan and the SP; and
WHEREAS, the "Tri-Valley Transportation Council" ("TVTC") consists of one
representative of each of the following entities: County of Alameda, County of Contra Costa, City
of Dublin, City of Livermore, City of Pleasanton, City of San Ramon and Town of Danville; and
WHEREAS, a report was prepared for the TVTC by Barton-Aschman Associates Inc., in
a document dated July 1995 entitled "Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of
Regional Significance" (hereafter "Plan"), which is incorporated herein as Attachment A; and
WHEREAS, a second report was prepared for the TVTC and Dowling Associates by CCS
Planning and Engineering, Inc. in a document dated December 6, 1996 entitled '~rri-Valley
Combined Study/Technical Report: Status and Funding of High Priority Projects" (hereafter
"Study"), which is incorporated herein as Attachment B; and
WHEREAS, the Study includes a 13-page report entitled "Tri-Valley Regional
Transportation Improvement Fee Program/Nexus Analysis" prepared by Cambridge Systematics,
Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the Plan and Study describe the impacts of contemplated future development
on existing public facilities in the Tri-Valley Development Area, which includes the incorporated
and unincorporated portions of Alameda County and Contra Costa County on the map attached
hereto as Attachment C and which includes Dublin, through the year 2010, and contain an
analysis of the need for new public facilities and improvements required by future development
witttin the Tri-Valley Development Area, including Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the County of Alameda, County of Contra Costa, City of Dublin, City of
Livermore, City of Pleasanton, City of San Ramon and Town of Danville are parties to an
agreement entitled "Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Pertaining to Tri-Valley TranspOrtation
Development Fees for Traffic Mitigation," dated April 22, 1998 ("JPA"); and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation/California Transportation
Commission approved a Negative Declaration (SCH# 96042087) on September 19, 1996 for the
1-580/680 Interchange Project ("580/680 Interchange Negative Declaration"); and
WHEREAS, the Plan and Study set forth the relationship between future development in
Dublin, the needed improvements and facilities, and the estimated costs of those improvements
and facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Plan and Study were available for public inspection and review for ten
(10) days prior to this public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The purpose ofthe Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (hereafter "TVTD
Fee") is to finance Transportation Improvement Projects needed to reduce the traffic-related
impacts caused by future development in the Tri-Valley Development Area, including Dublin.
With the exception of"Ramp Metering" which is not a Transportation Improvement Project, the
Transportation Improvement Projects are listed in the Plan in Table 8-3 and consist of the
following eleven (11) projects which are hereafter defined and referred to as "Transportation
Improvement Projects".
1. Improvements to the 1-580/1-680 interchange: construct a
southbound 1-680 to eastbound 1-580 flyover and associated
improvements (not to exceed $5,548,300)
2. Improvements to State Route 84 between 1-580 and 1-680
3. Auxiliary lanes along 1-680 from Diablo Road to Bollinger
Canyon Road
4. West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
5. 1-580 HOV lanes between Santa Rita Road and Greenville Road
6. 1-680 HOV lanes from the State Route 84/1-680 interchange to
the top of the Sunol Grade
7. Improvements to the 1-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon Boulevard
interchange
8. Improvements to 1-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange
9. Crow Canyon Road safety improvement west of Bollinger
Canyon Road
10. Vasco Road safety improvements north ofi-580 within Alameda
County
11. Express bus service in the Th-Valley area
The Transportation Improvement Projects are all necessary to accommodate new development
projected within the Tri -Valley Development Area by the year 2010, including development
within Dublin.
B. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the
Transportation Improvement Projects.
C. After considering the Plan, the Study, the Agenda Statement, the General Plan, the
SP, the 580/680 Interchange Negative Declaration, all correspondence received and the testimony
received at the noticed public hearing held on June 16, 1998 (hereafter the "record"), the Council
approves and adopts the Plan and Study and incorporates them herein, and further finds that
future development in Dublin will generate the need for the Transportation Improvement Projects
and the Transportation Improvement Projects are consistent with the City's General Plan and the
SP.
D. For the purposes of CEQA, the Council finds that the adoption of the TVTD Fee
is not a "project" under section 15378, subdivision (b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines. While the
TVTD Fee is intended to offset develOpment impacts on regional traffic facilities by funding
improvements to those facilities, the proceeds of the TVTD Fee are not, at this time, being
committed to any specific project which "may result in a potentially significant physical impact on
the environment," and, with one exception, it is not known at this stage which regional traffic
improvements will be funded with such proceeds. The only improvement for which the proceeds
of the TVTD Fee are being committed is the improvement of the 1-580/1-680 Interchange, for
which the California Department of Transportation/California Transportation Commission
approved a Negative Declaration (SCH# 96042087) on September 19, 1996. Because a negative
declaration has been adopted for this project, it cannot be said that the interchange improvement
"may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment." In any event,
pursuant to section 15096, subdivision (f), this Council has reviewed said negative declaration,
and the environmental effects identified in said negative declaration. Pursuant to section 15096,
subdivision (g)(1), the Council finds that none of the mitigation measures identified in said
negative declaration are within the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin.
E. The record estabhshes:
1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
Transportation Improvement Projects and the impacts of the types of development for which the
corresponding fee is charged in that new development in the City of Dublin -- both residential and
non-residential -- will generate traffic which generates or contributes to the need for the
Transportation Improvement Projects; and
3
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the TVTD Fee's use (to pay
for the construction of the Transportation Improvement Projects) and the type of development for
which the TVTD Fee is charged in that all development in Dublin -- both residential and non-
residential -- generates or contributes to the need for the Transportation Improvement Projects;
and
3. That the cost estimates set forth in the Plan and Study are reasonable cost
estimates for constructing the Transportation Improvement Projects, and the TVTD Fees
expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the projected costs of
constructing the Transportation Improvement Projects; and
4. The method of allocation of the TVTD Fee to a particular development
bears a fair and reasonable relationship to each development's burden on, and benefit from, the
Transportation Improvement Projects to be funded by the TVTD Fee, in that the TVTD Fee is
calculated based on the number of automobile trips each particular development will generate.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE as follows:
1. Definitions
a. "Gross Floor Area" refers to the sum of the area at each floor level,
including, but not limited to, cellars, basements, mezzanines, penthouses,
corridors, lobbies, stores, and offices, that are included within the principal
outside faces of exterior walls, not including architectural setbacks or
projections. Included are all stories or areas that have floor surfaces with
clear standing head room (six feet, six inches minimum) regardless of their
use. Where a ground level area, or part thereof, within the principal
outside faces of the exterior walls is left unenclosed, the gross area of the
unenclosed portion is to be considered as a part of the overall square
footage of the building. All umoofed areas and unenclosed roofed-over
spaces, except as defined above, are to be excluded from area calculations.
The gross area of any parking garages within the building shall not be
included within the gross area of the entire building.
b. "Industrial" refers to developments for the purpose of manufacture
or fabrication of products, the processing of materials, the warehousing of
merchandise for sale or distribution, research and development of industrial
products and processes, and the wholesaling of merchandise.
c. "Land Use Entitlement" means a permit or approval granted for a
development project as that term is defined in Government Code §66000.
d. "Multi Family Residential" refers to buildings or parts thereof
designed and used exclusively as a dwelling unit among other dwelling
units, either on the same parcel (e.g., apartments and mobile home parks)
or under separate ownership (e.g., condominiums, townhomes, duplexes,
or duets).
e. "Office" refers to developments for the purpose of housing non-
commercial, non-manufacturing businesses.
f. "Other Uses" refers to land use categories not implicitly included
within the land use categories of"Single Family Residential", "Multi Family
Residential", "Retail", "Office", or "Industrial", and for which alternative
rates can be found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Manual or in a list of peak-hour trip rates that the Tri-Valley
Transportation Council has explicitly approved.
g. "Retail" refers to developments for the purpose of the retail sale
of merchandise and services.
h. "Single Family Residential" refers to detached buildings designed
for occupation as the residence of one family.
i. "Subsidized Housing Development" refers to housing facilities
developed by public agencies, limited dividend housing corporations, or
non-profit corporations, and maintained exclusively for persons or
families of very low, low or moderate income, as defined in Section
50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
j. "Transportation Improvement Projects" shall include the following
public improvements required to mitigate the regional traffic impacts of
development within the Tri-Valley Development Area:
(1) Improvements to the 1-580/I-680 interchange: construct a
southbound 1-680 to eastbound 1-580 flyover and associated
improvements (not to exceed $5,548,300)
(2) Improvements to State Route 84 between 1-580 and 1-680
(3) Auxiliary lanes along 1-680 from Diablo Road to
Bollinger Canyon Road
(4) West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
(5) 1-580 HOV lanes between Santa Rita Road and
Greenville Road
(6) 1-680 HOV lanes from the State Route 84/1-680
interchange to the top of the Sunol Grade
(7) Improvements to the 1-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon
Boulevard interchange
(8) Improvements to 1-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange
(9) Crow Canyon Road safety improvement west of Bollinger
Canyon Road
(10) Vasco Road safety improvements north ofi-580 within
Alameda County
(11) Express bus service in the Th-Valley area
k. "Treasurer" refers to the Finance Director of the city or county
designated by the TVTC to act as treasurer pursuant to the IPA.
1. '°l'ri-Valley Development Area" refers to the incorporated and
unincorporated portions of Alameda County and Contra Costa County
shown on the map attached as Attachment C."
2. TVTD Fee Imposed.
a. A Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee ("TVTD Fee") shall be
charged and paid for each Land Use Entitlement granted for each Single Family Residential unit
and each Multi Family Residential Unit within Dublin by the date that the building permit is issued
for any such residential building or structure.
b. A TVTD Fee shall be charged and paid for each Land Use Entitlement
granted for Industrial, Office, Retail and Other Uses within Dublin by the date that the. building
permit is issued for any building or structure which fits within the definition of Industrial, Office,
Retail or Other Uses.
3. Amount of TVTD Fee.
a. The amount of the TVTD Fee shall be as set forth on Attachment I)
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
4. Exemptions From TVTD Fee.
The TVTD Fee shall not be imposed on any of the following:
a. Any alteration or addition to a residential structure, except to the extent
that a residential unit is added to a single family residential unit or another unit is added to an
existing multi-family residential unit.
b. Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing residential structure that
has been destroyed or demolished provided that the building permit for reconstruction is obtained
within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished unless the replacement or
reconstruction increases the square footage of the structure fifty percent or more.
c. Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-residential structure
that has been destroyed or demolished provided that the building permit for new reconstruction is
obtained within one year at~er the building was destroyed or demolished and the reconstructed
building would not increase the destroyed or demolished building's fee based on Attachment D.
d. Public schools.
e. Subsidized Housing Developments.
f. Governmental buildings owned by any public entity unless a development
agreement provides for payment of the TVTD Fee for a governmental building.
g. Development projects which are subject to a development agreement
except that the fee shall be applicable to any "significant" changes to any development agreement
adopted after January 1, 1998. As used herein, "significant" means any of the following: (i)
change in land use type (e.g., office to retail); (ii) intensification of land use types (e.g.,
increases in square footage of approved Office); (iii) extension of term of development
agreements; and (iv) reduction or removal of project mitigation requirements or conditions of
approval.
5. TVTD Fee Adjustments.
a. The TVTD Fee shall be adjusted automatically each March 1 by the
increase or decrease in the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index for the San
Francisco Bay Area for the period ending December 31 of the preceding calendar year.
b. In addition to the automatic adjustment of subsection (a) above, the City
may amend this resolution to adjust the TVTD Fee to reflect revisions in the Transportation
Improvement Projects, increases in land values over the inflationary increase or other factors.
6. Use of TVTD Fee Revenues.
a. The TVTD Fees shall be placed in the Capital Project Fund. Separate and
special accounts within the Capital Project Fund shall be used to account for such revenues, along
with any interest earnings on each account.
b. Within 30 days of the end of each quarter, the Finance Director shall
transmit not less than 80% of all TVTD Fees collected during the quarter, and any interest or
income generated on such 80% amount, to the Treasurer, along with a statement setting forth the
Transportation Improvement Project that the City intends to fund with the retained portion of the
TVTD Fees.
c. The Finance Director shall maintain a record of all TVTD Fees retained,
together with interest or income on such retained fees, and annually shall furnish the Treasurer an
accounting of such monies for inclusion in any audit of TVTD Fees prepared by or at the request
of the Treasurer.
7
d. The TVTD Fees (and interest or income generated on such fee revenues)
shall be used for the following purposes:
(1)
To pay for design, engineering, right-of-way acquisition and
construction of the Transportation Improvement Projects;
(2)
To satisfy the City's obligation to the Alameda County
Transportation Authority ("ACTA") pursuant to the "Local
Match Agreement" between the City and ACTA for funding for
the 1-580/680 Interchange project (see Section 7 of the JPA);
(3)
To reimburse Dublin or any of the parties to the JPA for
contributions to ACTA for the 1-580/680 Interchange Project
made prior to September 1, 1998 if such contributions qualify for
reimbursement pursuant to Section 7(d) of the IPA;
(4)
To reimburse Dublin or any of the parties to the JPA for
contributions to ACTA for the 1-580/680 Interchange Project
made on or after September 1, 1998 if such contributions qualify
for reimbursement pursuant to Section 7(e) of the IPA;
(5)
To reimburse developers who have constructed all or a portion of
any of the Transportation Improvement Projects if such
reimbursement qualifies for reimbursement pursuant to Section 7
of this resolution and Section 15 of the JPA;
(6)
To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and
ongoing administration of the TVTD Fee program.
7. Credit of Reimbursement for Developer-Constructed Projects.
A developer may be entitled to credit against the TVTD Fee or to reimbursement
from TVTD Fees if the developer constructs all or a portion of one of the Transportation
Improvement Projects. Credit or reimbursement shall be provided in the manner set forth in
Section 15 of the JPA, provided that the City Manager has approved the construction by the
developer of all or a portion of the Transportation Improvement Project.
8. Miscellaneous
a. The standards upon which the needs for the Transportation Improvement
Projects are based are the standards of the parties to the JPA, the State Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
8
b. The Council determines that the need for the Transportation Improvement
Projects is generated by new development within Dublin and within other jurisdictions in the Tri-
Valley Development Area; therefore, the Plan and Study have determined the proportionate share
of the cost of the Transportation Improvement Projects for which development within Dublin is
responsible.
9. Periodic Review.
a. During each fiscal year, the City Manager shall prepare a report for the
City Council, pursuant to Government Code section 66006, for those TVTD Fees retained by the
City.
b. During each fiscal year, the Treasurer shall prepare a report for the City
Council, pursuant to Government Code section 66006, for those TVTD Fees transmitted to the
Treasurer.
c. Pursuant to Government Code section 66002, the City Council shall
review, as part of any adopted Capital Improvement Program each year, the approximate
location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all Transportation Improvement
Projects to be financed with the TVTD Fee. The City Council shall make findings identifying the
purpose to which the existing TVTD Fee balances are to be put and demonstrating a reasonable
relationship between the TVTD Fee and the purpose for which it is charged.
10. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee.
The Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (Resolution No. 41-96) includes improvements
which are listed as either Section I, Section II or Section III improvements. Four improvements
are listed as Section III improvements. The four Section HI improvements are as follows: (1) 1-
580/680 Interchange Project; (2) 1-580 Auxiliary Lanes; (3) State Route 84; and (4) Improve
Transit Service. These improvements are the same as the Transportation Improvement Projects
listed in Section l(i) of this resolution.
Upon the effective date of the TVTD Fee and so long as the TVTD Fee
remains in effect, the portion of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee attributable to the Section
III improvements shall be suspended and shall not be collected. However, if the TVTD Fee
becomes ineffective for any reason before the Section III improvements have been constructed,
the portion of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee attributable to the Section III improvements
shall thereafter be collected.
11. Effective Date.
This resolution shall become effective immediately. The TVTD Fee shall be
effective on September 1, 1998, provided that a similar fee is adopted by the County of Alameda,
the County of Contra Costa, the Cities of Pleasanton, San Ramon and Livermore and the Town of
Danville to be effective on September 1, 1998. If such jurisdictions have not all adopted similar
fees to be effective September 1, 1998, then the TVTD Fee shall be effective when the similar
TVTD Fee becomes effective in all of such six jurisdictions.
12. Severabili _ty.
Each component of the TVTD Fee and all portions of this resolution are severable.
Should any individual component of the TVTD Fee or other provision of this resolution be
adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be and continue to be
fully effective, and the TVTD Fee shall be fully effective except as to that portion that has been
judged to be invalid.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 16th day of June, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers Barnes, Burton, Howard, Lockhart and Mayor Houston
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST.~/~ ~/
~it~tClerk x..
K2/G/6-16-98/reso-fee.doc
J :\WPD'~tLIA\TVTDFDE V. 6 0 3
EHS.'rjaz~
10
ATTACHMENT A
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ACTION
PLAN FOR ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
WILL BE AVAILABLE At THE PUBLIC WORKS COUNTER
PRIOR TO AND AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 16, 1998
Tri-Valley Combined Study
Technical Report:
Status and Funding of High Priority Projects.
Prepared For
DowHng Associates
and
Tri-Valley Tran.qportation Council
· CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc.
42080 Osgood Road, Suite 1
Fremont, CA 94539
December 6, 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I1
Il
!l
I1
!
il
1
2
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
2f
2g
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
PROJECT FUNDING STATUS ...................................................................................... 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS ................................................ ' ............................................ 2
PROJECT PKIORrYIES ................................................................. i ......... : ....................... 5
APPENDIX A: PROJECT SUMMARIES
1-580/I-680 Direct Connector and Widening ..................................................................... 7
SR 84 Corridor Improvements: 1-580 to 1-680 .................................................................. 8
New 1-580/Isabel Avenue (Northside) Interchange with Four-Lane Isabel Parkway ........ 9
1-580/Airway Boulevard Interchange Modifications and Two-Lane Isabel
Avenue Extension: Jack London Bc~ulevard to Concannon Boulevard ......................... 10
Two-Lane Isabel Avenue Extension: Concannon
Boulevard to Vineyard Avenue ...................................................................................... 11
Two-Lane Isabel Avenue Extension: Vineyard Avenue to Vallecitos ROad .................... 12
Interim Two-Lane SK 84 on New Alignment from Vallecitos Road to 1-680 ................ 13
Four-Lane SR 84 on New Aignment from Vallecitos Road to 1-680 ............................. 14
SR 84: Widen to Four-Six Lanes from Vallecitos Road to 1-580 .................................... 15
1-680 Auxiliary Lanes from Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Boulevard ...................... 16
West Dublin BART Station Access Improvements ........ , ................................................ 17
1-580 HOV Lanes from Tassajara Road to N. Livemore Avenue Interchange ................ 18
1-680 HOV Lanes from SR. 84 to Top of Sunol Grade ................................................... 19
1-580/Foothill Boulevard Interchange Modifications ....................................................... 20
1-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange Modifications and Widening of
San Ramon Valley Road Approaches ............................................................................. 21
Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements ...................................................................... 22
Vasco Road Safety Improvements .................................................................................. 23
Express Bus Service ....................................................................................................... 24
APPENDIX B: TVTC MODEL FORECASTS ......................................... : ...... ff
96044hvtctech. doc
TVTC Combined Study
Phase lie Regional Traffic Impact Fee
Projeot Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
This report describes the eleven high priority projects identified in the 1995 Tri-Valley
Transportation Action Plan, presents their estimated costs and funding status, and discusses
priorities for completion of the projects.
I
II
.11
!
!
!
!l
!
q_
N
N
!1
N
!
]!
PROJECT FUNDING STATUS
Table 1 on the next pages summarizes the estimated costs and funding stares of the eleven high
priority projects. The engineering and construction costs were obtained fi.om available agencies
and were supplemented by the consultant's estimated costs as of July 31, 1996. The costs are
presented in 1996 dollars. These estimated costs can vary 25 percent fi.om the actual cost. The
actual cost cannot be determined until the design plans, specifications, and estimates are completed
for each project.
Five major funding sources are shown in the table:
· Measure B - Funding fi.om Alameda County's Measure B program based on the 1996 third
quarter report by Alameda County Traffic Authority.
Measure C r Funding from Contra Costa County's Measure C program based on the 1995
Strategic Plan and input from Paul Maxwell, Deputy Executive Director of the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority.
SLTPP - State Local Transportation Partnership Program matching fund from the State.
Development fees and contributions (including Southern Contra Costa JEPA)
Other funding sources such as local jurisdictions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
In Appendix.& the following information is presented for each of the eleven high priority projects:
· Project Title
· Lead Agency - Current or potential lead agencies for the project
· Project Descripti°n - Summarizing the improvement items included in the project
· Total Engineering and Construction Cost - Mostly obtained fi.om th~ various agencies.
Otherwise, the estimates reported in the 1995 Th-Valley Transportation Action Plan were
used.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase 111: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
Project Statu~ Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
Page lei 2
Table 1
PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES
Total Funding Currently Programmed, by Source ($Millions)
No. Lead Agency Project Description I~Millions Moas. B Moas. C , SLTPP Fees Other Total '~0MIIIIons Notes~
1 Caltrans 1-580/I-680 I/C SB to EB .Flyover 121.2 103.6 3.2 4.3 111.1 10.1 1
2 Various SR 84 Improvements: 1-580 to 1-680 213.0 27.0 0.0 1.0 7.5 0.6 36,1 176.9
2a Caltrans, Livermore New 1-580/isabel Interchan~le; Isabel Pkwy @ 4'lanes 40.0 40.0
2b Uvermore Isabel Ext. (J. London to Concannon) @ 2 lanes, and 32.0 27.0 1.0 0.1 28.1 3.9 2b
1-580/Alrway Bvd. Interchange Modification .,
2c Livermore Isabel Ext. (Concannon to Vineyard) @ 2 lanes 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 2c
2d Uvermore Isabel Ext. (Vineyard to Vallecitosl @ 2 lanes 7.0 7.0 7.0
2e Caltrans SR 84 Interim: New 2-lane road, Vallecitos to 1-680 25.0 25.0 2e
2f Caltrans SR 84 Completion: Widen to 4 lanes, Vallecitos to 1-680 25.0 25.0
,2g Caltrans SR 84: Widen to 4-6 lanes from Vallecitos to 1-580 · 83.0 83.0
3 , Caltrans 1-680 Aux Lanes from Diablo to Bollinger 40.0 7.9 8.5 16.4 23.6 3
4 BART West Dublin BART Station and Access 43.0 0.0 43.0 4
BAR:I' Station plus additional parking and other
mitigation measures including Laurel Creek Way signal,
new parallel connector to Dublin Blvd. and .
Dublin Blvd. wldenin~l
5 Caltrana 1-580 Tassajara to N. Uvermore: HOV Lanes 40.0 40.0
6 Caltrans 1-680 Rte. 84 to Sunol: HOV Lanes 14.4 14.4
7 Dublin 1-580/Foothill I/C Modification. for W. Dublin BART 2.0 O.0 2.0 7
8 ' San Ramon 1-680/Alcosta Blvd. I/C Modification 9.6 2.3 2.3 7.3 8
Move southbound on/off ramps to north;
Widen San Ramon Valley Rd approaches
9 Alameda County Crow Canyon Rd. Safety Improvements. 18.0 0.2 0.2 17.8 9
From County Line to 1 mi. north of Norris Canyon Rd.;
Straighten, shoulders -- no widening from ext~l.
10 Alameda County Vasco Rd. Safety Improvements 25.0 25.0
From Livermore City limits to County Uno;
Strai~lhten, shoulders -- no widening from ext~l.
i'1 Various Express Bus Service 8.0 8.0 11
Purchase two vehicles for each of the maximum of
19 new Express Routes for interclty services -,
TOTAL 534.2 130.6 8.1 4.2 18.3 4.9 166.1 368.'
Funding Sources: Meas. B = Alameda Measure B; Meas. C = Contra Costa County Measure C; SLTPP = State Local Transportation Partnership Program;
Dev. Fees = Developer Impact Fees {Including South Contra Costa JEPA); Other = Local Agencies.
Table I (Cont'd)
CCS Planning and Engineering 12/9/96TVTC2.XLS
Footnotes:
1
2b
2c
9
11
Page 2of 2
Other funds (94.3M) are Federal. (Source: ACTA Measure B Capital Projects, July-September, 1996 Quarterly Report.)
Other funds are from Alameda County Flood Control District (Zone 7). Unfunded amount is anticipated to include a combination of TVTC,
City of Livermore and developer contributions. (Source: Dan Smith, Livermore)
Includes 0.5M assessment to Ruby Hill development, and 90.5M City of Livermore funds (Source: Susan Frost, 11/19/96)
Does not include safety improvements to the existing route, previously estimated at 915M. Existing route would be used for local access.
Project 3 is a committed Measure C project (Source: TVTP/AP of 1/95, page 149); however, no specific funding amount is programmed.
Measure C amount shown in table is estimated as follows: Southwest Area allocation is 918.4M [889]. After programming 912.2M [889] in the 1995
Strategic Plan, the remaining 96M [889] was escalated to 97.9M'[969] using CCTA factor of 1.3131 per 1995 Strategic Plan.
(Source: Paul Maxwell, 9/18/96) Developer fees represent an allocation of 98.5M from Southern Contra Costa JEPA. (Source: Brian Welch, City of Danville, 12/5/96).
929M have been programmed thru FY 99 in the 9/96 MTC RTIP; however, BART CIP shows 933M.
Cost shown includes 933M for the station and 910M for a parking garage and other mitigations.
Because of the uncertainty of the programmed amount from any sources, all costs were conservatively assumed to be unfunded in this table.
BART FEIR requires BART to fund 32% of total cost, assuming matching by others. However, table conservatively assumes costs are unfunded.
Of the 99.6M total estimated construction cost, $2.3M would be funded by developer fees from the Soutl~ern Contra Costa JEPA.
(Source: John Dillon, City of San Ramon)
90.239M programmed from Measure C --Southwes Area allocation (Source: Paul Maxwell 9/18/96).
TVTC Action Plan's proposed 9 express bus routes, at 2 buses per route, would require approximately 98 million in capital purchases.
Cost estimate assumes CNG-powered buses with ADA lift @ 9375,000 each, plus 20% contingency.
0.239 M [955] are programmed in CCTA's 1995 Strategic Plan for bus projects. However, no funding has been assumed in this table.
CCS Planning and Engineering 12/9/96TVTC2.XLS
· Planning and Approval Status - Indicating whether the project is included in the MTC Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) or any other local improvement plans.
· Funding - Indicating available mounts and the associated funding sources for the project.
· Schedule - Indicating planned implementation schedule for the project:
· Project Need - Based primarily on 2010 traffic projections from the updated TVTC model with
gateway constraints applied. TVTC traffic projections are provided in Appendix B.
PROJECT PRIORITIES
The Tri-Valley Transportation Commission (TVTC) has selected the following top four projects to
be funded by the proposed regional traffic impact fee:
· Southbound 1-580 to Eastbound 1-680 Direct Connector (Project No. 1)
· Two-Lane Rome 84 Corridor Improvement between 1-580 and 1-680
(Project Nos. 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e)
· HOV Lanes between Diablo Road and Bollinger Canyon Boulevard (Project No. 3)
· BART West Dublin .Station (Project No. 4)
The remaining seven high priority projects were qualitatively assessed to help prioritize them for
funding, as follows:
1-580 is currently being widened from the interchange with 1-680 to the Tassajara (Santa Rita
Road) interchange to provide HOV lanes in conjunction with Project No. 1 (1-580/680 direct
connector). Project No. 5 (1-580 HOV lanes from Tassajara to N. Livermore Avenue) will
function as an extension of Project No. 1. To avoid a bottleneck where HOV lanes end at the 1-
580/N. Livermore Avenue interchange, Project No. 5 should have higher priority than the other
projects.
Project No. 7 (1-580/Foothill Boulevard interchange modification) will be required to
accommodate Project No. 4 (BART West Dublin Station). Therefore, this project should be
given the same priority and be grouped with Project No. 4.
The 1-680 HOV lane project from Route 84 to Sunol Grade (Project No. 6) has been identified
as the extension of the Route 84 improvement (Project No. 2). Therefore, this project should
have the same priority as Project No. 2. However, a bottleneck may occur at the Sunol Grade
unless the 1-680 HOV lanes can be further extended to Santa Clara County.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase 1II: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
Project No. 8 (I-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange) is located between two of the top four
projects (project No. 1:1-680/580 Direct Connector and Project No. 3:1-680 Auxiliary Lane
between Diablo Road and Bollinger Canyon Road). It would be desirable to construct this
project in conjunction with the other two projects to avoid a bottleneck 'in the intervening
segment between them.
Project No. 9 (Crow Canyon Road Safety ImprOvement Program) and prOject 10 (Vasco Road
Safety Improvement Program) are both safety improvement projects to the existing two-lane
winding roadway. They may be prioritized based on the accident rates and the existing and
2010 traffic demand. Accident data for these two roadways are not available; therefore, it is
not possible to set priorities between these two projects.
!
!
!
!
!
!
TVTC Combined Study
Phase HI: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
APPENDIX A
PROSECT SUMMARIES
1
PROJECT
1-580/I-680 DIRECT CONNECTOR & WIDENING
Lead Agencies
Description
Total Eng.&
Const. Cost
Planning &
Approval Stares
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
Alameda County Transportation Authority (MB 31 O)
Caltrans (E.A. 233921)
Reconstruction of the 1-580/I-680 interchange. The major work is building
a new two-lane flyover ramp from southbound 1-680 to eastbound 1-580 to
replace the existing loop ramp.
Approximately $121 million in 1996 dollars.
(Source: Alameda County Transportation Authority Measure B Capital
Projects, July-September, 1996 Quarterly Report)
AdoPted by Metropolitan Transportation Commission in' the
Regional Transportation Planning (RTP) for completion by 2005.
All but $10 million have been funded from various sources including
Alameda County Measure B; Federal and State Local Transportation
Parmership Program (SLTPP). See Table 1.
This Project will be advertised in 1997 for construction to begin in early
1998 and be completed by March, 2002.
Needed for capacity. Projected 2010 AM and PM peak hour traffic
volumes on the direct connector from southbound 1-680 to eastbound 1-580
are 2,100 vehicles per hour (vph), which exceeds existing ramp capacity.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase I~I: Regional Traffic knpaet Fee
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
2
PROJECT
STATE ROUTE 84 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS:
1-580 .TO 1-680
Lead Agencies
Description
Total Eng. &
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
Various, see Subproject descriptions on following pages.
Currently, two lanes exist only from Livermore Municipal Airport to Jack
London Boulevard, and there is no 1-580/Isabel Avenue Interchange or
direct road connection between 1-580 and SR 84. Project would ultimately
build 6-lane arterial from 1-580 to Vineyard Avenue and four-lane arterial
.on new alignment from Vineyard Avenue to 1-680. Total length of project
is about 10 miles.
$213 million. For details, see Subprojects 2a through 2g.
Two-Lane Isabel Avenue from 1-580 to SR 84 is in the RTP for 2005.
Projects 2b, 2c and 2d are largely funded from Measure B, developer fees
· and other sources. $177 million unfunded. For detail, see separate
Subprojects below.
Subproject 2b is currently under design and is scheduled to begin
construction in 1997.
Project would provide improved access to/from southwest portion of
Livermore, including Ruby Hill development, and would also relieve traffic
congestion on portions ofi-680 and 1-580. Projected 2010 PM peak hour
volumes (one-way) range from 2,000 to 3,200 vph, which well exceeds the
capacity of the existing two-lane roadway.
TVTC Combined Study
.Phase 1II: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
Project Status Re-port
Revised - December 6, 1996
2a
PROJECT
Lead Agencies
Description
Total Eng &
Const. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
NEW 1-580/ISABEL AVENUE (NORTItSIDE)
INTERCHANGE WITH FOUR-LANE ISABEL PARKWAY
Caltrans and the Cig, of Livermore.
Construction of a new partial cloverleaf (Par-Cio) Interchange at 1-
580 with the following access roadway improvements:
· 1.25-mile (6,600 feet), four-lane Isabel Parkway from Jack
London Boulevard to 1-580
· 0.5 t,mile, two-lane extension of N. Canyons Parkway
· 0.57-mile (3,000 feet), two4ane Ponola Avenue Extension to
N. Canyon Parkway
· 750-foot re-alignment of Arroyo Las Positas
· Traffic signals & lighting at Jack London Boulevard, the
proposed interchange, and N. Canyons Parkway.
Approximately $40 million for full width right-of-way, one of the two
bridge structures over 1-580, modification to the existing 1-580/Portola
Avenue interchange, relocation of an overhead electrical line and gas line,
as well as the above roadway improvements. (Note: the cost estimate
assumes the Chabot alignment)
$27.8 million
$ 3.2 million
$ 1.0 million
$ 8.0 million
$40.0 million
Initial Interchange as in the PSR (Oct. 3, 1995)
Portola Avenue Extension to N. Canyons Pkwy
Additional widening on Isabel Pkwy
25% Engineering
Isabel Parkway from 1-580 to SR 84 is in the MTC KTP'for 2005.
Interchange would need FEIR/EIS and to be found in conformity by MTC.
Not currently funded.
Not scheduled, but assumed to be built in TVTC 2010 forecasts.
Project would relieve traffic congestion on Airway Boulevard and other
existing routes in the vicinity. Six-lane Isabel Parkway south ofi-580 is
projected to carry up to 3,200 vph in peak direction by 2010. Traffic
projections not available for four lane alternative, but would be lower bm
still anticipated to well exceed capacity of existing roadways and
interchange.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase 1II: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
i
I
I
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
2b
PROJECT
Lead Agency
Description
Total Eng. &
Constr. Cost
Planning &'
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
1-580/AIRWAY BOULEVARD INTERCItA_NGE
MODIFICATIONS AND TWO-LANE ISABEL AVENUE
EXTENSION: JACK LONDON BOULEVARD TO
CONCANNON BOULEVARD
City of Livermore
Construction of a new Isabel Avenue extension, consisting of a two-lane
arterial with 70 foot landscape buffer from Jack London Boulevard to
Concannon Boulevard. To provide interim access to 1-580 until Subproject
2a is built, modifications to the existing 1-580/Airway Boulevard
Interchange are also included in this Subproject, consisting of a new
northbound to westbound loop on-ramp. The project includes improvement
to the Jack London Boulevard intersection and an under-crossing (U/C) of
the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, with a 'jug-handle' intersection
at Stanley Boulevard, southeast of the undercrossing. The new road would
have a minimum 70-foot landscaped shoulder on west, with an earth
berm(s) adequate as a visual/sound barrier. A 1 O-foot paved
pedestrian/bike path is also included for the new portion.
TOtal $31 million. (Isabel Extension SR 84 Project, Additional Studies
Report, July 1996)
Isabel Avenue from 1-580 to SR 84 is in the MTC RTP for 2005.
A Measure B project up to $23.8 million, with an additional $1.2 million
proposed for SLTPP, $2.6 million from the City of Livermore, and $0.1
million from the Alameda County Flood Control (Zone 7). Project is
unfunded by $3.3 million.
EIR Addendum has been certified, and PR and PS&E are underway.
Construction scheduled for 1997 and has been assumed built in MTC RTP
by 2005 and in TVTC 2010 forecasts.
Needed for improved north-south access and capacity, and for interim
capacity improvement at 1-580/Airway prior to completion of Subproject
2a. The TVTC model projects up to 2,900 vph (one-way) in 2010 for 6
lane Isabel Avenue extension. Projections for interim two lane Isabel
Avenue, not available from TVTC Model, would be lower but would still
likely exceed capacity of interim roadway.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase IH: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
l0
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
I
I
I
I
I
!
!
!
!
I
2c
PROJECT
TWO-LANE ISABEL AVENUE UPGRADING:
CONCANNON BOULEVARD TO VINEYARD AVENUE
Lead(s)
Description
Total Eng. &
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
City of Livermore
A 0.6 mi. rehabilitation of Isabel Avenue; to upgrade this road to a two-
lane undivided state highway between the end of Project 2b at Concarmon
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue.
$1 million.
Project is a condition to the Ruby Hill residential development
and is in the MTC RTP for 2005.
$0.5 milhon of developer contributions; another $0.5 million City of
Livermore funds.
To be determined.
Required as mitigation for Ruby Hill residential development. 2010 PM
peak hour projection is 2,000 vph m peak direction based on a four-lane
highway. Projections for interim two-lane upgrading, not available l~om
TVTC Model, would be lower but are still likely to exceed CaPacity of the
· two-lane roadway.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase III: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
11
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
~?
g?
2d
PROJECT
TWO-LANE ISABEL AVENUE EXTENSION:
VINEYARD AVENUE TO VALLECITOS ROAD
Lead Agency
Description
Total Eng. &
Const~. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
City of Livermore
Construction of a new Wvo-lane undivided highway approximately 1.2
miles long, from the existing Isabel Avenue/Vineyard Avenue intersection
to a new intersection with SR 84.
$ 7 million.
Approved as condition to the Ruby Hill residential development.
Project is in the MTC 2005 RTl).
Fully funded by developer contributions.
Required for mitigation of Ruby Hill residential development and to
provide north-south outlet. TVTC's 2010 PM forecasts show a peak hour
demand of 2,000 vph in peak direction based on the ultimate four-lane
highway. Projections for a two-lane road, not available from TVTC
Model, would be lower but are still likely to exceed the capacity of the
two-lane arterial road m be built by this project.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase ~I: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
12
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
I
I
I
I
2e
PROJECT
INTERIM TWO-LANE SR 84 ON NEW ALIGNMENT
FROM VALLECITOS ,ROAD TO 1-680
1
I
!
!
!
I
!
!
I
I
Lead Agency
Description
Total Eng. &
Const. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
Caltrans
Construction of a two-lane highway on a new alignmem from
Vallecitos Road to 1-680, a distance of approximately five
miles. This project is proposed as an interim stage of the
ultimate four-lane highway (Subproject 20 pending availability
· of sufficient funding for the ultimate project.
Existing two-lane roadway would continue to serve local access needs.
Caltrans previously approved a PSR for safety improvements to the
existing roadway (November 1985), but that project was put on hold due to
lack of funding, and is not included in the current project proposal.
Approximately $25 million, based on comparison to Vasco Road
realignment project (Source: Bill van C-elder, City ofPleasanton, 11/27/96)
Not yet approved in State or MTC Plans or programs.
Not funded.
To be determined.
TVTC's 2010 constrained traffic forecasts show a peak hour demand of
3,200 vph in the peak direction for the ultimate four-lane highway.
Projections for the interim two-lane project, not available from the TVTC
Model, would be lower. Adequacy of new facility will depend on how
much traffic uses the existing roadway.
I
I
I
TVTC Combined Study
Phase III: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
13
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
2f
PROJECT
FOUR-LANE STATE ROUTE 84 ON NEW ALIGNMENT
FROM VALLECITOS ROAD TO 1-680
Lead Agency
Description
Total Eng. &
Const. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
Widerfing of the interim two-lane SR 84 on new alignment (Subproject 2e)
from Vallecitos Road to 1-680, a distance of approximately five miles.
Approximately $25 million (assuming prior completion of interim project)
Not yet approved in State or MTC Plans or programs.
Not funded.
To be determined.
Needed for traffic capacity. TVTC model's 2010 constrained traffic
forecasts show a peak hour demand of up to 3,200 vph in peak direction,
which exceeds the capacity of the existing two lrme roadway in conjunction
with a new parallel two-lane roadway (Subproject 2e).
TVTC Combined. Study
Phase 111: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
14
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
!
I
I
I
2g
PROJECT
STATE ROUTE 84: WIDEN TO 4-6 LANES FROM VALLECITOS
ROAD TO 1-580
Lead Agency.
Description
Total Eng.&
Const. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
Widen and upgrade SR 84 to the ultimate project (6.8 miles) including:
· Ultimate Interchange at 1-580/lsabel Avenue (Nomhside)
Widening of Isabel Parkway from four to six lanes between 1-580 and
Jack London Boulevard
· Widening of Isabel Avenue from two to six lanes from Jack London
Boulevard to Vineyard Avenue
· Widening of Isabel Avenue from two to four lanes from Vineyard
Avenue to Vallecitos Road
· Widening of Portola Avenue from two to four lanes over new bridge
$10 million
$10 million
$22 million
$13 million
$ 5 million
$60 million
Complete 1-580 Interchange
Isabel Parkway widening
Jack LOndon to Concannon
Concannon to Vineyard
Vineyard to Vallecitos
However, $83 million is shown in Table 1 to provide contingency fund to
all Subprojects.
Not yet approved in State or MTC Plans or pro.ams.
Not funded.
To be determined.
TVTC's 2010 constrained traffic forecasts show a range of demand from
2,000 vph to3,200 vph in the peak direction, requiring full capacity ora 4-
6 lane arterial.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase IH: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
15
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
3
d?
PROJECT
1-680 AUXH,IARY LANES FROM DIABLO ROAD
TO BOLLINGER CANYON BOULEVARD
Lead Agency
Description
Total Eng. &
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
Caltrans, Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)
Construction of one auxiliary lane between interchanges in each direction
ofi-680 from the Diablo Road interchange to the Bollinger Canyon
Interchange. The centerline lengths of the auxiliary lanes in one direction
are about 2.8 miles.
$40 million (estimated by CCTA)
In the adopted RTP by 2015.
Allocation for the southwest area from Measure C funds in 1988 value is
$18.4 million_ $12.2 million in 1988 value has been programmed in the
1995 Strategic Plan by CCTA. The remaining $6.2 million can be
escalated to approximately $7.9 million in 1996 value based on a 31.31%
of escalation factor used by CCTA. The $7.9 million can be used for this
project. TVTC should make such recommendation to CCTA to be
included in the forthcoming 1997 Strategic Plan.
To be determined.
Needed for additional capacity in 2010 and to facihtate on/offtraffic at
intervening interchanges. The highest 2010 PM peak hour mainline
demand (TVTC constrained model) occurs between Diablo Road and
Sycamore Avenue interchanges, with 8,800 vph in peak direction, which
exceeds existing capacity.
TVTC Combined Smd),
Phase 1II: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
16
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
4
PROJECT
WEST DUBLIN BART STATION AND ACCESS
IMPROVEMENTS .
Lead Agencies
Description
Total Eng. and
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
· Schedule
Project Need
BART
Completion of W. Dublin BART station, access, parking, and mitigations
as identified in the FEIR including:
· Additional parking facility
· Laurel Creek Way traffic signal
· Dublin Boulevard widening
· New parallel connector to Dublin Boulevard
$43 million, including $33 million estimated in the 1996 BART Capital
Improvement Program for the stations, and $10 million for mitigation
measures.
In both MTC KTP for 2005 and the Alameda County Tier 1
FEIR recommends 29% of Laurel Creek Signal and 40% of new parallel
connector to Dublin Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard widening to be
contributed by BART. Since no funding is committed by BART at the
present time, no available funding is assumed in Table 1.
To be determined
Consmaction of access, safety, parking and traffic improvements at the W.
Dublin BART station are needed to ensure that this station is accessible
and convenient for riders, so that the ridership forecasts for this station can
be achieved. This project has been incorporated in the 2010 TVTC model.
If the ridership forecast for this BART station is not achieved, traffic
volumes could increase from forecast levels on the highway and streets of
the Tri-Valley Area.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase III: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
17
Project Status Report
Revised - Decembea- 6, 1996
i
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
!
11
5
PROJECT
1-580 HOV LANES FROM TASSAJARA ROAD TO
N. LIVERMORE AVENUE INTERCHANGE'
Lead Agency
Description
Total Eng. and
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
Caltrans
Construction of approximately 5.5 miles of HOV lanes on 1-580 from
Tassajara Road to N. Livermore Avenue. After addition of these lanes, 1-
580 would have a total of four mixed lanes and one HOV lane in each
direction in this segment. Widening ofi-580 and additional right-of-way
may be required.
$40 m/Ilion
This project is in the adopted MTC RTP for year 2015.
In the long range RTP, this project is not presently funded.
Completion date to be determined, but prior to 2015.
Needed for overall person-lrip capacity in the freeway corridor. TVTC's
2010 constrained traffic forecasts show a demand for travel on 1-580 of up
to approximately 10,600 vph in the peak direction~ This is the highest
directional volume on all the roadways in the RTIF project list, and exceeds
existing capacity. Added lanes would encourage HOV's, potentially
reducing SOV trips as well as increasing overall capacity. Added capacity
would also complement added capacity of direct ramp connectors at 1-
580/1-680 interchange.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase 1211: Regional Traffio Impact Fee
18
Project Status Report
Revised - ~ber 6, 1996
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
6
PROJECT
1-680 HOV LANES FROM STATE ROUTE 84 TO TOP OF
SUNOL GRADE
Lead Agency
Description
Total Eng. &
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
Caltrans
Construction of approximately 3.5 miles (seven total lane-miles)ofHOV
lanes on 1-680 from the SK 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 in this segment. '.
$14.4 milliorL This section ofi-680 has been designed to accommodate the
addition of HOV lanes. Construction cost is mainly for the pavement
widening.
This project is not in the adopted MTC KTP through the year 2015. Not
currently approved.
This project is not presently funded.
To be determined.
Needed for overall person-trip capacity in the comdor. TVTC's 2010
constrained traffic forecasts show a peak hour, peak direction demand of
approximately 7,100 vph on 1-680 between SR 84 and the top of Sunol
Grade, which exceeds existing capacity.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase 111: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
19
Project Status Report
Revised - ~ber 6, 1996
i
i
I
l
i
I
i
i
i
11
i
7
PROJECT
Lead Agency
Description
Total Eng &
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Stares
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
1-580/FOOTl~ILL BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE
MODIFICATIONS
Caltrans, BAKT
To accommodate the W. DublinBAKT station, the design of the I-
5$0ffoothill Road cloverleaf Interchange will be modified, replacing the
westbound and eastbound offloops with diagonal ramps.
$2.0 million.
Included in the BAKT Dublin/Pleasanton Extension project as approved in
the MTC RTP for 2005.
BAKT FEIK requires that BAKT cover 32% of the costs of this project.
However, no funding source was assumed for this project in this study.
Same as W. Dublin Station
Needed to ensure adequate access to/from W. Dublin BART station, and
as mitigation for the added traffic as a result of the station.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase 121/: Regional Tra~¢ Impact Fee
2O
Project Stares Report
Revised - Dec. ember 6, 1996
8
PROJECT
1-680/ALCOSTA BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE
MODIFICATIONS AND WIDENING OF SAN RAMON
VALLEY ROAD APPROACI:rES
Lead Agencies
Description
Total Eng.
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
Caltrans, San Ramon
Project in study phase. No design selected Keconstruct the southbound on
and off ramps at the 1-680 Alcosta Boulevard interchange to improve
operations at these ramps. This project includes closing the southbound off
ramp, building a new southbound on/offramp to the north of Alcosta
Boulevard, and widening San Ramon Valley Drive from two to four lanes
in the vicinity of the interchange.
$9.6 million. (Estimated by City of San Ramon)
Not in MTC KTP. Not currently approved in a regional transportation plan
or program.
$2.3 Million identified in Southern Contra Costa J-EPA.
To be determined.
Needed to improve traffic operations and capacity at the interchange.
TVTC's 2010 constrained traffic forecasts for all ramps are about 2,800
vph.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase 121I: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
21
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
9
PROJECT
!
Lead Agency
Description
· Total Eng. &
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
CROW CANYON ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Alameda County
Safety improvements on approximately 44 miles of Crow Canyon Road
from Bollinger Canyon Road in Contra Costa County to one mile north of
Norris Canyon Road. Realign roadway for a 50 mph design speed and
widen shoulders, but no new lanes. Add climbing lanes on the two-lane
segments, and two-way left-mm lanes to provide adequate access to
residential properties
$18 million (Estimated by Alameda County Public Works Agency)
None. Not currently approved in a regional transportation plan or program.
$239,000 has been programmed for Crow Canyon Road in 2001 as shown
in the 1995 CCTA Strategic Plan. This fund can be used for safety
improvements. This leaves $17.8 million unfunded.
To be determined.
Needed as a safety improvement. (Projected 2010 PM peak hour volume
exceeds desirable capacity of existing and planned roadway two lane
roadway; however, project is not intended to address the potential capacity
deficiency.)
TVTC Combined Study
Phase llh Regional Traffic Impact Fee
22
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
J
d
i
i
Ii
ii
ii
ii
10
PROJECT
Lead Agency
Description
Total Eng. &
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
ProjeCt Need
VASCO ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Alameda County
From Liverrnore City limits to County Line; straighten, add shoulders, no
additional lanes from existing two-lane highway section.
$25 million (Estimated by Alameda County)
Adopted in Alameda County Strategic Plan as a Tier two (unftmded)
project.
Unfunded.
To be determined.
Needed as a safety improvement. (Projected 2010 volumes exceed
desirable capacity of existing and planned two lane roadway; however,
project is. not intended to address the potential capacity deficiency.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase 111: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
23
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
11
PROJECT
Lead Agencies
Description
Total Eng. &
Constr. Cost
Planning &
Approval Status
Funding
Schedule
Project Need
EXPRESS BUS SERVICE
Various.
Provide capital equipmem in order to provide new Express bus service for
the nine express bus routes as proposed in the 1995 Tri-Valley
Transportation Action Plan.
$8 million assuming two buses per route based on $375,000 for each CNG
bus. (Unit price provided by Maria Marinos, assistant to General Manager
of Santa Cruz Metropohtan Transit District)
None.
Unfunded.
To be.determined.
Needed to accommodate projected rideship increase due to residential and
employment growth in the area. In the absence of transit rideship growth,
traffic increases in the area would be greater than projected.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase ITl: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
24
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
APPENDIX B
TVTC 2010 MODEL FORECASTS
USER DEFINED LINK DRTR 1
i ' ! ' ~ UPPER: 999999
$s 7 o
. t~~ ~~ W ] NDOW ',
58393/
646~/ 443~7
EHHE/~ PROJECT: TrJ-VoLLey ~010 HodeL Update '96 9~-1~-06 17:31
SCENRR]O 300: PH Pea~ Hour, Yea,r ~010 CRBRO'84]. Cons[rained CCS PLanning & Engineering HODULE: ~ 13
~ CCS_ENG .... ose
· USER DEFINED LINK DATA 1
"_ / ~¢'~"' ! i I ~ _ .i ~'~-.- ..... ~ ' ,
~¢ ~r I ~ ~/ I ..... ~~~1~ ~ THRESHOLD:
UPPER: 999999
~ ~ I ~ ~/~
- ~YON ;
~~' ~ u I NOOW:
//
58393/ 39GGO
G4GGS/ 443G7
EHHE/8 PROJECT: Trl-VoLt~y 8010 NodeL Updo[~ 'gG 9G-18-OG 1Z:30
SCENRRIO 100: fin Peon Hour. Yeor ~010 (RBRO'94), Oons[rolned CCS PLonnlng & Engln~erlng NODULE: 8.13
CCS_ENO ....
BFtSE NET /ORK
NO. OF LRNES / VOLUME-DELRY FUNCTION
1-550
1.0/g2
1,0122
$?~NLE¥ BLVO
rmore
L ~ CI~c]rl t
1. O/Z1
/t0
EMME/8 PROJECT Trl-VoLtey 8010 HodeC Umdote 'gS
SCENRRiO 300 PM Peo~ Hour. Yeor 2010 (RBRO'94). Constrolned
CCS Ptonning & Engineering
LINKS:
mod=ob
&!typ=29
WINDOW:
'58393/ 385S0
S4G$8/ 443S7
gs-12-06 17:33
MODULE: 2.13
CCS_ENO .... ose
~nSE NETWORK e~~'~
USER DEFINED LINK DATA 1
~ LINKS:
· mod=ob
THRESHOLD:
' ~~..,,.??~,~ / LO~/ER:
UPPER:
999999
~1~ ~/ ~ ~ / ~ /
yl/'~ F~5~ ~r
.
639 68~ ...... :
~16~/ 43~13
6~5~/ 44~33
EHHE/~ PROJECT: Tri-VaLLey ~0~0 Hode[ Update '~ ~-1~-0~ 17:1~
SCENRR[O 300:....PH Pea~ Hour..'~eor ~010 CRBR~'~4~. Con~[roi~ed CCS PLa~nln~ & Enq;nee~i~ HODULE: ~.13
CCS_ENG .... ase
USER OEFINED LINK DRTR I
mod~ob
THRESHOLD:
'~~ UPPER: 999999
~8588/ 44833
EHH~/8 PROJECT: Tri-WL-¢~y~010 Ho~eL Update 'gG 9G-1~-0~ 17:10
SCENRR]O 100: ~H Pea~ Hou~.'~ear 8010 CRBRO'94). Constrained COS PLan~i~g & E~glh~erJng HODULE: 8.13
CCS_ENG ....
BFISE NETWOBK ~~'~
NO. OF LRNES / VOLUHE-DELRY FUNCTION
~. o/~ 1 1. o/8~
~ i V l NOOV:
/
G1GgG/ 43G13
G8~88/ 44833
EHHE/~ PROJECT: Tri-VoLL~y ,8010 Hod~L Upda[~ '~ 9G-18-OG 17:13
SCENRRiO 300: RH P~o~ Hour, Year 8010 CRBRG'94). Con~[raJned COS PLanning & ~ngJneerJng MODULE: 8.13
CCS_ENO ....
USER DEFINED LINK OATA 1
LO~ER: -99999
~ ~ ~0o3
~ / '~~
~044 '
~ .
58~1~/ 43734
, S9860/ 44~94
EHH~/~ PROJECT: Tri-V~[~y 8010 Hod~[ Up~ 'gB 9B-18-OB 1~:~0
SCENRRIO 300: P~ P~o~ Hour. Y~r ~010 [flBflO'94). Con~roln.8 C~S.P[~n~ing ~ Ending.ring HOOULE: 8.13
CCS_ENO ....
USER DEFINED LINK DRTR 1
~ . ~ 707
~~8 V I NDOV:
- 58518/ 43734
,~ 59260/ 44~94
EHHE/8 PROJECT: Tri-VoLL~y 8010 HodeL Upaat~ '96 9~-1~-06 17:17
SCENRRIO 100: RH Pao~ Hour. Year 8010 (RBRO'94). Con~traln~a CCS PLanning g Engln~ring HODULE: ~.13
CCS_ENO ....
NO, OF LRNES / VOLUME-DELRY FUNCTION
~ ~ ",'~""'~ · .~
m ,~ WINDOW:
58518/ ~373~
EMME/8 PROJECT':
SCENRRIO 300: PM Peob Hour. Yeor 8010 (RBRG'8~), Cons{rolne~ CCS P(onn;ng ~ EngJneer;ng MODULE: 8.13
CCS_ENO ....
Tri-Valley Regional. Transportation
Improvement Fee Program
Nexus Analysis
· Introduction
In July 1995, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) adopted the TH-Valley Action
Plan as its blueprint for transportation pIanning through the year 2010. The Plan
acknowledges that financial constraints played a critical role in selecting an optimal level
of service and identifying only the most critical improvement to regional roadways and
transit facilities. As an integral component of the Plan's financial s~rategy, TVTC will
leverage over $162 million in federal, state, and local (i.e., Measure C and Measure B sales
tax funding) provided it can raise matching funds from other local sources.
The TVTC selected 11 improvements that will require over $534 r~illion, leaving $368
million of the plan currently unfunded. In order to fund this gap, the TVTC has
undertaken a study of a Regional Transportation Improvement Fee (RT/F). The RTIF
would charge a fee on new development to augment other funding for projects on routes
of regional significance. The purpose of this report is to document the technical analysis
necessary for the implementation o£ the RTII: traffic fee.
Methodology
An area-wide fee program must conform to the requirements of Government Code 66000
et seq. and subsequent opinions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court, California Supreme
Court, and lower courts. While the statutes and court decisions provide general
guidelines, the design and implementation of multi-jurisdIctional impact fees is not as
tightly c_ixctm~cribed as other local revenue measures (e.g., assessment districts, local
sales tax measures, subdivision map/developer exactions). Nevertheless, the statutory
requirements and judicial guidance behooves the TVTC to follow a basic five step process
to design its regional fee:
1. Convert New Development Into A Net Increment of New Trips. ABAG's Projections
94 provides the forecast of new residents and employees moving into the Tri-Valley
area over the next 20 years. This projection of residential and employment growth in
each jurisdiction must be converted to a 13 year increment of new trip generation
(1997 to 2010). This increment must then be reduced by the number of trips
associated with exempt development. Exempt development has already received a
vesting tentative map or has a development agreement excluding assessment of
additional fees.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
~C to req~e new dev~opment m ~fi~te i~ ~ ~pa~ on ~e Tfi-V~ey routes
of re~on~ si~c~ce [i.e., m~ ~t lev~ of semite ~)]. ~e ~C,
howev~, h~ ~ted ~e ~~ cos~ to new developm~t.to ~e ~ded po~on
of ~e A~on Fly's ~ev~ proje~, appro~ly $368 m~lllom ~ ~ ~bs~y
below ~e-~eshold of new dev~opm~t's
3. Ev~uate ~e Rela~ons~p BeSeem the ~provements, ~e Shoe of F~g ~om
Ne~ Development, ~d the ~pa~ of New Trip G~e~fiom ~e ~provemen5
m~st pro~de'.~~ ~at are .~ r~onable propo~on to ~e mo~t of ~e ~pac~
fees p~d by new dev~opm~t ~, H ~C ~pos~ a ~o~ f~, it m~t rea~ a
co~~ ~at new dev~opm~t ~ ~ p~ of ~e T~-V~ey ~ea w~ receive
4." ~ocate Costs A~oss ~d Use T~es. Fee' ~o~ shoed ~ f~ty ~buted
b~ed on ~e ~p ~~on ~~ of ~ ~d ~e ~e. Nev~~s, ~e
~C ~ reduce ~e f~ for some
replaced ~ some o~ ~g so,ce (e.~., fed~ ~d sate) ~d ~e R~-~ded
pro)ec~ ~e ev~y b~L
~o~gh ~ ~e of ~ 'poSce pow~,, m~t adopt ~ or--ce ~pos~g ~e
fee on dev~opm~t ~ ~ j~~o~ ~e ~C ~y ad~ a ~o~ fee
s~edffie ~or ~e~c ~d ~e con~fio~
ho~old ~come on ~p g~fion, ~e ~d ~e's pro~ to ~t ~fio~, ~d
~e ~fe~ of job~hou~g b~ce on ~av~ ~or.
~e r~nd~ of ~ report e~
~e ~ve steps des~bed above. Suppo~g do~mfion
~ys~ ~d comput~ modoI~ng ~ av~Ie &om
New Developmen zmd Incremental'Trip Generation
From 1997 through 2010, new development in the Tri-Valley area will generate 56,907
additional a.~- peak ho%rr trips on the area's routes of regional significance, a 40 percent
increase over the next !4 years. The following sections explain the origins of this increase.
Population, Employment, and Land Use Growth
2-ne fee is based on tine projected g-rowth in Tri-ValIey households and e. mpioyment
forec~.~t by ABAG (Projectior~s 9~_). 'i~ne fig-ute3 for 1997 are estimated by s~aight line
mtervolation betwee_n the years 1990 and 2000. i-{ouseholds, which are occupied dwelling
unim~, are used as a pro×7 for dwelling units and adjured for an area-wide vacancy rate.
Table 1 presents the popr~2ation and e. mpioyment proiectiovm-
~_amhr~,r Sustematic~, Inc.
Table 1. ABAG Forecast of Tri-Valley Households
Jurisdiction 1997 2010 Increment Shares Growth
7,148 7,906 758 1.7% ~0.6%
12,943 14,790 1,847 4.0% 14.3%
2,224 ~0,356 8,132 17.8% 365.6%
168 280 112 0.2% 67.1%
15,077 18,411 3,334 7.3% 22.1%
697 845 148 0.3% 21.3%
38,256 52,588 14,332 31.3% 37.5%
Alamo/Blackhawk
Danville
Dougherty
Tassajara
San Ramon
Other Contra Costa Co.
Total Contra Costa Co.
Livermore 24,291 34,997 10,706 23.4% 44.1%
Pleasanton 21,277 30,151 8,874 19.4% 41.7%
Dublin 9,372 20,880 11,508 25.2% 122.8%
Other Alameda Co. 240 549 309 0.7% .129.1%
Total Alameda Co. 55,180 86,577 31,397 68.7% 56.9%
93,436 139,165 45,729 100.0% 48.9%
Total Tri-Valley
As shown in Table 1, residential development in Alameda County will accommodate over
two-thirds of the area's residential development. Dougherty Valley, the area's fastest
growing community, will account for almost 18 percent of the area's new residents.
Dublin and the unincorporated area of Alameda County are the new two most rapidly
developing jurisdictions and will account for 26 percent of the growth.
Ta~ole 2 shows that the three jurisdictions in Alameda County will accommodate more
than three-quarters of the Tri-Valley's employment growth. Total employment for the
reg-ion is expected to increase by over 57 percent, with total jobs in the Contra Costa
County increasing by more than 42 percerrt and in Alameda County by 64 percent
Table 2. ABAG Forecast of Tri-Valley Employment Growth from 1997 to 2010
Jurisdiction 1997 2010 Increment Shares Growth
Alamc;/Blackhawk 2,072 2,272 200 0.3% 9.7%
Danville 6,960 7,226 266 0.3% 3.8%
Dougherty 765 5,365 4,600 6.0 % 601.3 %
31 32 1 0.0% 3.2%
Tassajara 39.5%
San Ramon 32,397 45,204 12,807 16.7%
1 0.0 % 1.1%
Other Contra Costa Co. 91 92
Total Contra Costa Co. 42,315 60,191 17,876 23.4% 42.2%
Livermore 33,811 51,815 18,004 23.5% 53.2%
27.9% 53.2%
Pleasanton 40,137 61,476 21,339
Dublin 16,836 36,000 19,164 25.0% 113.8%
Other Alameda Co. 791 943 152 0.2% 19.2%
Total Alameda Co. 91,576 150,234 58,658 76.6 % 64.1%
Total Tri-Valley 133,891 210,425 76,534 100.0% 57.2%
3
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Po_pulatJon a_nd employment growth will generate amd at"m-act new trips on ~e area's
re~ozY~]~r~i:a?sZ-~r"n-~-focfonfcoinorr~'-pYoj~ctions' shb~-in--Ta'b]es-'l'ga;id 2'~f~ ifSf~ in ~- ............
transportation demand forecasting model developed specifically for the Tri-Valley area to
forecast the increase in travel. The results of the modeling are sho~m in Table 3.
Trip Generation
Table 3. presents the a.m. peak hour traffic volumes for the years !997, 2010, and the
g-rowth within the !4 year increment. The projections assm-ne aH 11 Action Plan projects
are built.
Table 3. Growth in _AM Peak Hour Trip Ends From 1997 to 2010
]1997 2010 Increment Share Growth
Alamo/Blackhawk 6,857 7,609 753 1.3% 1!.0%
Danville 15,518 16,471 953 1.7% 6.1%
Doughert-y 3,572 11,683 8,I!1 ]14.3% 227.1%
Tassajm-a 160 °_33 73 0.! % 45.4 %
San Ramon Z3,336 25,~79 1,843 3.2% 7.9%
Other Contra Costa C~anty 519 695 176 0.3% 34.0%
Total Contra Costa Court .t-y 49,962 61,870 1~,908 20.9% 23.8%
Livermore 37,874 52317 !5,043 26.4% 39.7%
Pleasanton 36,369 49,684 13,315 --,9~.-~°',o 36.6%
Dublin 18,$22 35,145 16,323 28.7% 86.7%
Other .Alameda County 575 893 37t8 0.6% 55.3 %
Total Alameda County 93,640 !38,639 44.999 79.1% 45.]1%
Total Tri-Valley 143,602 200,509 56,907 100.0% 39.6%
't~ne total Lncrement of 56,907 new trips encompass all trips that either originate or
reriniiuate in the Tri-Valley area. tn adciition, the area wi]] accoirn:nodate roughly 5,530
new through trip ends (external - external), or rough]), 10 percent of the total increase.
Exempt Development
The total increment of new nip generation (from 1997 to 2010) includes trips from new
development that will be exempt from pa56_ng a fee. Their exemption is due to either one
of two legal cx-/teria applying to a development project that has (i) been/ssned a vested
tenmt/ve map or (2) completed a development ag~reen'tent that explicitly exctndes assess-
ment of any additional fees3 If eith~ of these criteria apply to a development project as
of the official date that the jur/sdiction's coy_nail or board adopts the t~TIF, the develover
ma5; pull the proscribed number of building permits w/thout pa}ting a fee.
~ If for any re2.son the vesting tentative map or development ag-reement of an exempt develovment
exvires or must be re-negotiated, the jurisdiction may impose the fee.
Cambridge Systenmt/cs, Inc. 4
transportation impacts of exempt development will be as real as the impacts
While the_ t develo ment, the TVTC carmot impose a. fee an.d theref,or ca ~nnot c_oll~vc~
from non exemp . P - · - ~- ........... + ~u ~ract the numver or new uiF
fee revenues for me p{opo, sec~ proje~cts: .,,nu.~, LT,~j~_~oz~u~? of new trins The result is the
rated exem t aevelopment ~rom me to~m u~-*=t-5*L~ ~ , . r · . _~ ~.~ .~,~,.~,~
gn~?~mounbtYof ne?trips over which we can allocated the tmm_nc~ec~ cost o~ u,~ ~¢ ......
improvements.
Table 4 shows the exempt development in the Tri-Valley area.
Table 4. Exempt Development By Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Residential Retail Square Office Square Industrial
Dwelling Units Feet Feet S__.q~are Feet
Alamo/Blackhawk
Danville -
Dougherty _ -
TVPOA 650 2,123,600 -
San Ramon _ -
Other Tri-Valley CC County 2,123,600 -
Total Contra Costa Co. 650 -
4,961,000
Livermore 1,414 -
Pleasanton 2,790 - _
Dublin 172 - _
Other Tri-Valley Alameda County - 4,961,000
Total Alameda Co. 4,376 -
Total Tri-Valley 5,026 _ 2,123,600 4,961,000
The exempt development shown in Table 4 is subtracted from the total 1997 to 2010
increment of new development in Tri-Valley. The projection of new development for Tri-
Valley is a rough estimate based on the ABAG socio-economic forecasts. Average
vacancy rates are used to convert households to dwelling units. Average density factors
are used to covert employees to square feet of retail, office and industrial space. The
results are shown in Table 5.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
..... Table.-5 ...... Es~mates o£New De_velop_m_en.~_.tr.q.r Tzi_-_~..aI.l. ey- (2997 - 2010) {
- LanCl Use Categories
Single Family Dwelling Uni~
Multi Family Dwelling Units
Small Retail Square Feet (<200,000 sq. ft.)
Large Retail Square Feet (>200,000 sq. fL)
Office Square Feet
Indus~iaI Square Feet
1997- 2010
............... Increment-
34,597
6,105
8,848,040
2,949,347
9,152,200
5,396,500
For each category of land use exempt developm~--nt was converted into trips and the
amomnt deducted from the total number of trips for that land use. For example, a vested
project with twent-y dweIting units of single family residential would generate 0.74 a.m.
peak hour trips per v_nit or a total of 14.8 a.m_ peak hour trips.' The results-of this
adjustment process are presented in Table 6.
Table 6. TOtal, Exempt, and Net .AM Peak Hour Trip Ends From 1997 to 2010
Total Trip Ends Exemvt Trim Ends Net Trier Ends
Alamo/Blackhawk 753 0 755
Danv,:lle 953 0 953
Dougherty 8,~122 0 8,11~1
Tassajara ~ 0 73
San IZarnon 1,843 689 1,154
O~her Corttr~ Cos~ Co. ~[76 0 176
Liverrnore & North Livermore 15,043 3,757 51,286
Imleasanton 13,325 -,~ 0°3- 11,~ ~' ?
"v 122
Dublin & East Dublin 16,~23
Other Alameda Co. 318 .0 318
Total 56,907 6,661 50,246
l~ne appropriate trip generation rates are applied to the exempt developing_ut in order to
estkmate the number of new trips that must be deducted from the total increment.: The
total number of Digs from exempt residential development equals roughly 3,500 a.m.
peak ~ivs, or about 56~ vercant of the total 6,661 exempt t~-ips, Non-residential develop-
ment w,~l/generate tine rerina?tSng '_zi4 percent. These estiJ/lates are deducted from the total
The trip generation rates are determined from the Trip Gen~ators, 5th Edition, knstimte of Traffic
Engineers (lEE) and modified according to special Tri-VaIley conditions as determined from the
updated ~-a~ffic model. These rat~ are shown in Table
C, amb,~dgc Systematics, Inc. 6
increment of 56,907 new trips, producing roughly 50,246 net trips that may be a.ssigned a
share of the cost of improvements.
Transportation Improvements
In July of 1995, TVTC adopted the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan~Action Plan for Routes of
Regional Significance (Action Plan). The Action Plan identifies 11 projects that will achieve
the best level of service within the Tri-Valley given financial constraints, physical limita-
t-ions within corridors, and development patterns. The Plan integrates enhancements to
roadway capacity, increased transit service, control of demand (growth management and
TDM), and acceptance of congestion in locations where it cannot be avoided (see TT~e
Action Plan, pages 117 to 123).
Table 7 identifies the 11 major projects on routes of regional significance within the Tri-
Valley. The TVTC selected this set of actions- as well as other programs and measures
described in the Plan - to mitigate congestion and achieve a specific set of Traffic Service
Objectives. These results assume that future traffic will be constrained by the limited
capacities of highway facilities serving the Tri-Valley Gateways (see The Action Plan,
Chapter 5, "Gateway Constraints").
Table 7. Action Plan Projects and Available Funding
I~roj eot
Funding
Total Cost Available
Unfunded
Amount
1-580/I-680 Interchange $121.2 $111.1 $10.1
Route 84 (includes interchanges at 1-580 and Stanley) $213.0 $36.1 $176.9
1-680 Aux/liary Lanes (Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon) $40.0 $16.4 $23.6
BART Extension: West Dublin station $43.0 $0.0 $43.0
1-580 Tassajara to N. Livermore: HOV Lanes $40.0 $0.0 $40.0
1-680 Rte 84 to Sunol: HOV Lanes $14.4 $0.0 $14.4
1-580/Foothill Interchange modifications for W. Dublin BART $2.0 $0.0 $2.0
1-680/Alcosta Interchange modifications $9.6 $2.3 $7.3
Crow Canyon Rd Safety Improvement $18.0 $0.2 $17.8
Vasco Road Realignment $25.0 $0.0 $25.0
$8.0 $0.0 $8.0
Express Bus Service $534.2 $!66.1 $368.1
Total Action Plan
The unhmded cost of all 11 Action Plan projects equals roughly $368 million in 1997 doI-
lars, or about 70 percent of the total cost.
After considerable technical analysis and careful consideration, the TVTC has determined
that a fee program designed to fund the full $368 million shortfall would place an
excessive financial burden on new development. This burden would be most severe on
low-income housing and commercial development. For exampIe, heavy fees on
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
-~coxrrrnerci~r] --'-develolvment~ ou]ct-~ -have the ~- probable----and-- counte~-pzoauc~x:e ~
consequence o£ dr~ving some )ob-creating development outside the Tr~-VaI]ey, thus
exacerbating the reg6on's jobs/housing innbalance.
Given these obiectives, the/A/'TC ranked the 11 proiects according to their affect of con-
gestion and the amount of. state and federal funding that could be ]everaged ~2sing fee
revenues as a ]ocaI match, in order to facilitate this ranking, Route 84 x~as divided into six
separate proiects. Each was then evaluated on.its oven merits and compared to the other
10 Action ?lan projects. Table $ presents the six highest-ranked projects.
Table 8. Selected Action Plan Projects and Available Funding
Project
Fm~ding Unfunded
Total Cost Available Amount
t-580/I-650 Interchange S121.2 $1ll.] $10.1
Rte 84: !-580/isabeiExt. new l/C; Isabel at 4 lanes $40.0 $0.0 540.0
Rte 84/Isabel Ext: J. London to Concannon & !-580/-A/rWay $32.0 $28.~ 53.9
Rte 84:!-580 to Vineyard: widen to 4 lanes 525.0 $0.0 525.0
1-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Diablo Road to Boliinger Canyon) $40.0 Sd 6.4 523.6.
BART Extev3ion: West Dublin station $43.0 $0.0 543.0
Total For .A/1 Six Projects 5309.2 5163.6 $144.6
As shown in Table 8, this short list of the highest ranked projects totals $309 rmjl]~on in
cost of which roughly $145.6 ~]}~on- or about half- is u_rrf-nnded. Thus, this short list
relvres~_rlts a 65 percent reduction in tlne unfunded cost T~v~fC intends 'to cover x~zith the
impac~ fee.
E×is~'-ing Local .Impact t~ees for Ac[ion Firm
Some Tri-Va!ley jurisdictions require new development to mitigate their impacts on the
same sections of regional routes that will be improved by one of the .Action Man projects.
Developers either pay locad impact fees, dedicate right-of-way, or construct trm-m?ortation
facilities. Some jurisdiction's include funding for one or more of the six prqjects in their
local fee pro~azrm. In these cases, the TV~FC will work ~-ith local jm-isdictions to reduce
the local fee by the amount of the re,oriel component and new development will pay the
f-oll re~onal fee. Thus, the total amount being funded by the t%/iF fee. must be increased
by the amount of fun~g from local fees.
Table 9 vresents an initial inventory of each iu~-isdiction's locally banded (or required)
imvrove_ments to the si~, highest-ranked 'projects.
Table 9, Local Fundin§ for Selected Proiects
Jurisdiction
Millions of 1997
Dollars
Alamo/Blackhawk
Danville
Dougherty
Tassajara
San Ramon
Other TV Contra Costa County
Total Contra Costa Co.
(estimate)
(estimate)
(estimate)
(estimate)
0.7
6.2
1.4
0.1
8.5
Livermore
Pleasanton
Dublin
Other TV Alameda County
Total Alameda Co.
$7.5
$7.5
Total Tri-Valley
16.0
The amounts shown in Table 9 for the four jurisdictions in Contra Costa County are
estimates of the Southern Contra Costa Fee for Traffic Mitigation. The estimates assume
roughly proportional to the trip generation estimated from each jurisdiction. As noted
above, the $16 million total in local fee revenue must be added to the $145.6 million in
u_n~-~ded cost. The total amount to be funded with the RTIF, therefore, equals $161.6
million.
Nexus Analysis
The impact of new Tri-Valley development on regional transportation facilities is based
on an update of the Tri-Valley Model completed by Dowling Associates (Tri-VaIley Re-
Validation Report, June 1997). This computer model simulates current and future traffic
flows on the roadway network under a wide range of user-specified conditions. The
model is extremely useful for determining the impact of new development on roadway
levels-of-service. In particular, the model estimates new development's fair share of the
Ac~on Plan improvements by isolating the effects of new development from those of
existing development, through (external-external) trips, and existing deficiencies.
This anatysis indicated that this development will cause levels-of-service to declLr~e
despite all of the improvements proposed in MTC's short and long range improvement
plan. Nor will the improvements to be funded as part of the Action Plan prevent
degradation's in levels-of-service.
As part of its Action Plan, the TVTC has evaluated the impact of new development on its
subregional system and identified numerous improvements. These improvements - ff all
were completed by the year 2010- will increase the area's capacity for vehicle miles of
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
=avel4'WLMYF)~by a .lmo_st 21._p.erc_en_~-_ .~ew_.d..e_v.e.}_o.p.m__en__t-w__i!l. _?_cr_e_a_se_me number of VMT
using this capaciD"by 48 percent, thus absorbing almost ,09 percent o'f-:Eh~-/5~4;
VMT from through ~-/ps (i.e., ~.ips travel through the area but not stopping) wilJ increase
16 percent. Of the total 254,251 increase in VMT, new development wi//account for 90
percent of the inCrease- Table l0 presents the results of the VMT analys/s/n more detail.
Table 10. VMT Analysis from 1997 to 2010
1997 2010 Increment Chan~e
VMT for Ail Tri-Vailey
VMT for Through Trips
VMT for tnmrnal Tri-Valtey
~rMT Capacity
632,756 887,¢37 254,281 40.2%
251,987 176,167 24,280 15.9 %
.480,769 710,870 .Z30,I O1 47.9 %
2,117,059 1,550,559 233,500 20.9%
The results sho~m in Table 10 would justify, the TVTC allocating 90 'percent of the Action
Plan's total cost - roughly $535 m~llion - to new development in the Tr/-ValIey area. For-
tunatelv, T~,-i'C has secured 5166 rv~tl~on (or 30 percent of the total) from other sources,
leaving 5368 trillion still zm_r-unded. While the TVTC could reqmre new develor>ment to
fund the entire unfm~ded balance, it has selected six projects it believes are most needed.
These projects, however, w/Ii not prevent some deg-radation in the re~onal nerwork's
level of service.
I Fee Calculations
Fee calculations involve four stews:
Step 1 - .&Ilocatdon of Costs: Dete~z~4ne if the to~a2 share of unfunded costs should be
allocated uniformly to all new developm~_nt in the Tr/-Valley area, regardless of jur~-
diction, or if a the fees must be determined on a jur/sdictionby-ju_dsdiction basis.
Stew 2 - Cost per Peak hour a Trip End: Calculate three per trip mounts and three
fee *schedules based generating sufficient revenues to fund the $368 rv~ltion unfunded
balance for all il Action Plan Projects and the 5161.6 million for the selected projecm.
Step 3 - Preliminary Fee Schedules: Apply the three costs per peak hour ~-ip end to
the trip generation characte~stics of different types of land use to create ffu:ee pre-
liminary fee schedules.
Step 4 - Final Fee Schedule: As ar, alte~tive to the three fee schedules in Stew 3, cre-
ate a discounted fee schedule wkich reduces the financial burden placed on new
development by collecting less than the ful!, un_banded amount.
Cambridgc Systcma~ffc5, lnc.
Allocation of Costs
The fee revenue generated by each jurisdiction should be rough proportion to the benefits
each jurisdiction receives from the Action Plan improvements. This balance, however, is
difficult to quantify given the complexity of travel pat-terns in the Tri-Valley. As an alter-
native to a quantitative analysis, the TVTC's Technical Advisory Committee has recom-
mended six projects it believes represent a reasonable balance of benefits to all
jurisdictions. Given the extensive experience of the TAC's membership, this qualitative
approach is a satisfactory alternative to a qualitative analysis using the transportation
model (i.e., select-link analysis of all proposed projects3). Thus, TVTC has decided to
apply a uniform cost per peak hour trip end across all TVTC jurisdictions.
Costs Per Peak Hour Trip End
A uniform cost per peak hour trip end is calculated by dividing the net increase of 50,246
new a.m. peak hour trip ends by the three revenue targets: $368 million for aH 11 Act-ion
Plan Projects and $161.6 million for six selected projects.. Table 11 presents the two costs
per peak hour trip end.
Table 11. Alternative Funding Amounts and Corresponding Costs Per Peak
Hour Trip End.
Revenue Targets Per Peak Hour Share of
($1,000,000's) Trip End Action Plan
Full Action Plan (11 Projects) $368.1 $7,362
Selected Projects $161.6 $3,216 44%
Preliminary Fee Schedules
The fee amounts are determined by multiplying the cost per a.m. peak hour trip end by
the number of t-rips generated by a particular land use. For purposes of efficiency and
consistency, TVTC has limited its fee schedule to two types of residential development
(i.e., single and multi-family dwelling units) and four types of commercial space (large
and small retail, office, and industrial). Table 12 shows the Institute of Traffic Engineers
trip generation rates for each of these land use. In addition, it shows the adjustments for
average trip length, trip diversion, and the final adjusted trip length.
3 For each seg-ment of regional roadway that will be improved using fee revenues, select link analysis
shows the origins and destinations of future trips. Thus, the results help allocate the benefit of the
improved roadway according to the amount of new development in each jurisdiction.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Table 12. A.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates and Adjustments
and Use Categories
Trip Diversion Trip Lend-th Adjusted
Base Rates Adiustment.Factor Adjustment Factor Peak Hour Trip Kate
Single Family Residential 0.74
Multi Family Resident/al 0.47
Retail per sq. Pa (<200 ksf) 1.60
Retail per sq. ft. (>200 ksf) 0.$0
Office per sq. ft. 1.33
Industr/al per sq. ft. 0.90
1.00 1.00 0.74
].00 1.00 0.47
0.20 0.50 0.16
0.45 0.50 OAS
1.00 1.00 1.33
1.00 1.00 0.90
Trio diversion factors indicate the percentage of trips for each land use category that are
pa~t of a longer trip but divert less than two .miles out of the way to stop at the land use.
Trip ieng~da adjusts for trip shorter than the home-based work trips. The rates sho,am in
Table 13 are multiplied by the cost per peak hour trip end produce the three prei~minaQ~
fee schedules sho'am below. The bottom row shows the estimated amounted of revenue
each fee schedule should collect over the next 13 years.
Table 13. Preliminary Fee Schedules (1997 - 2010)
Land Use Categories
Single Family Residential
Multi Family Residential
Retail per square foot (<200 ksf)
Retail vet square foot (>220 k. sf)
Office per s~uare foot
industrial vet square foot.
Total Revenues (51,000,000)
Full Action Plan Selected
(II-Projects) Proiects
$5,421 S2,380
$3.443 $1,512
$1.17 50.5!
$i.32 50.58
59.74 54.28
56.59 52.89
5368.1 526~[.6
Cambridgc Systomatics. Inc. 12
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Tri-Valley Combined Study
Technical Report:
Status and Funding of High Priority Projects
prepared for
DoMing Associates
and
Tri-Valtey Transportation Council
By
(?CS
~~ PlanningandEngineering'
Incorporated
December 6, 1996
'- ........................................................ Tri:V~II~yCornl~irl-~d-'St/id?
Technical Report:
Status and Funding of High Priority Projects
Prepared For
Dowting Associates
and
Tr/-¥alley Tr~n ~ortafion Council
By
CCS pl~ning and ~e~ing, Inc.
42080 Osgood Road, Suite 1
Fremont, CA 94539
D~cember 6, 1996
This report describes the eleven high priority projects identified in the 1995 Tfi-Valley
Transportation Action Plan, presents their estimated costs and funding status, and discusses
priorities for completion of the projects.
PROJECT FUNDING STATUS
Table 1 on the next pages summarizes the estimated costs and funding status of the eleven high
priority projects. The engineering and construction costs were obtained from available agencies
and were supplemented by the consultant's estimated costs as of July 31, 1996. The costs are
presented .in 1996 dollars. These estimated costs can vary 25 percent from the actual cost. The
actual cost cannot be determined until the design plans, specifications, and estimates are completed
for each project.
Five major funding sources are shown in the table:
· Measure B - Funding from Alameda County's Measure B program based on the 1996 third
quarter report by Alameda County Traffic Authority.
Measure C - Funding from Contra Costa County's Measure C pro,am based on the 1995
Strategic Plan and input from Paul Maxwell, Deputy Executive Director of the Contra COsta
Transportation Authority.
· SLTPP - State Local Transportation Parmership Program matching fund from the State.
· Development fees and contributions (including Southem Contra Costa J-EPA)
· Other funding sources such as local jurisdictions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
In Appendix A, the following information is presented for each of the eleven high priority projects:
· Project Title
· Lead Agency - Current or potential lead agencies for the project
· Project Description - Summariz/ng the improvement items included in the project
· Total Eng/neering and Construction Cost - Mostly obtained from the various agencies.
Otherwise, the estimates reported in the 1995 Tri-Valley Transportation Action Plan were
usec[
· 'Fv'TC Combined Study 2 Project Status Report
Phase 1TI: Regional Traffic Imrmct Fee Revised - Deeembe'r 6, 1996
Page lol 2
Table 1
PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES
: ' ..... Total Fundin(J Curro,itly Programmed, by Source {$~1~.~)
,No. SMillions Moas. B Moas. C SLTPP Foes Other Total SMIIIIons Notes
~1 Caltrans 1-58011-680 I/C SB to EB Flyover 121.2 103.6 3.2 4.3 111.1 10.1 1
t2 Various SR 84 Improvements: 1-580 to 1-680 213.0 27.0 0.0 1.0 7.5 0.6 36.1 176.9
2a Caltrans, Livermore New 1-580/Isabel Interchange; Isabel Pkwy @ 4lanes 40.0 40.0
2b Livermore Isabel Ext. {J. London to Concannon) @ 2 lanes, and 32.0 27.0 1.0 0.1 28.1 3.9 2b
1-580/Airwey Bvd. Interchange Modification
2c Llvermore Isabel Ext. (Concannon to Vineyard) @ 2 lanes 1.C 0.5 0.5 1.0 2c
2d Evermore Isabel Ext. (Vineyard to Vallecitos) @ 2 lanes 7.C 7.0 7.0
2e Caltrans SR 84 Interim: New 2-lane road, Vallecitos to 1-680 25.(; 25.0 2e
2f Celtrans SR 84 Completion: Widen to 4'lanes, Vallecitos to 1-680 25.0! 25.0
2g Celtrans SR 84: Widen to 4-6 lanes from Vallecitos to 1-580 .83.0 83.0
3 Caltrans 1-680 Aux Lanes from Diablo to Bollinger 40.0 7.9 8.51 16.4 23.6 3
4 BART West Dublin BART Station and Access 43.0 0.0 43.0 4
BART Station plus additional parking and other
mitlgatlon measures Including Laurel Creek Way signal,
new parallel connector to Dublin Blvd. and
Dublin Blvd. widening
!5. C.a!trans 1-580 TassaJars to N. Llvermore: HaY Lanes 40.0 40.0
6 Caltrans 1-680 Rte. 84 to Sunol: HOV Lanes 14.4 14.4
7 Dublin 1-5801 Foothill I/C Modification. for W. Dublin BART 2.0 0.0 2.0 7
8 San Ramon 1-680/Alcosta Blvd. I/C Modification 9.6 2.3 2.3 7.3 8
Move southbound on/off ramps to north;
Widen San Ramon Valley Rd approaches
9 Alameda County Crow Canyon Rd. Safe. ty Improvements. 18.0 0.2 0.2 17.8 9
From County Line to 1 mi. north of Norris Canyon Rd.;
Straighten~ shoulders -- no widening from extg.
10 Alameda County Vasco Rd. Safety Improvements 25.0 25.0
From Livermore City limits to County Line;
.... Straighten, shoulders -- no widening from ext,. - .
11 Various Express Bus Service 8.0 8.0 11
Purchase two vehicles for each of the maximum of - ..
9 new Express Routes for intercity services -
TOTAL 634.2 130.6 8.1~ 4.2 18.3 4.9 166.1 368.1
Funding Sources: Mess. B .= Alameda Measure B; Mess. C = Contra Costa County Measure C; SLTPP -- State Local Transportation Partnership Program;
Dev. Fees = Developer Impact Fees (Including South Contra Costa JEPA); Other = Local Agencies.
Table I (Cont'dl
CCS Planning and Engineering 12/9/96TVTC2.XLS
Footnotes:
1
2b
2c
2e
3
9
11
Page 2ol 2
Other funds ($4.3M) are Federal. {Source: ACTA Measure B Capital Projects, July-September, 1996 Quarterly Report.)
Other funds are from Alameda County Flood Col~trol District {Zone 7). Unfunded amount is anticipated to include a combinatior~ of TVTC,
City of Livermore and developer contributions. (Source: Den Smith, Livormore)
Includes O.SM assessment to Ruby Hill development, and $0.5M City of Livermore funds (Source: Susan Frost, 11/19/96)
Does not include safety improvements to the existing route, previously estimated at $15M, Existing route would be used for local access.
Project 3 is a committed Measure C project (Source: TVTP/AP of 1/95, page 149); however, no specific funding amount is programmed.
Measure C amount shown in table is estimated as follows: Southwest Area allocation is $18.4M (88 $]. After programming $12.2M (885] in the 1995
Strategic Plan, the remaining $6M [885] was escalated to $7.9M [965] using CCTA factor of 1.3131 per 1995 Strategic Plan.
(Source: Paul Maxwell, 9/18/96) Developer fees represent an allocation of $8.5M from Southern Contra Costa JEPA. (Source: Brian Welch, City of Danville, 12/5/96).
$29M have been programmed thru FY 99 in the 9/96 MTC RTIP; however, BART CIP shows $33M.
Cost shown includes $33M for the station and $10M for a parking garage and other mitigations.
Because of the uncertainty of the programmed amount from any sources, all costs were conservatively assumed to be unfunded in this table.
BART FEIR requires BART to fund 32% of total cost, assuming matching by others. However, table conservatively assumes costs are unfunded.
Of the $9.6M total estimated construction cost, $2.3M would be funded by developer fees from the Southern Contra Costa JEPA.
{Source: John Dillon, City of San Ramon)
$0.239M programmed from Measure C --Southwes Area allocation (Source: Paul Maxwell 9/18/96).
TVTC Action Plan's proposed 9 express bus routes, at 2 buses per route, would require approximately $8 million in capital purchases.
Cost estimate assumes CNG-powered buses with ADA lift @ $375,000 each, plus 20% contingency,
0,239 M [9551 are programmed In CCTA's 1995 Strategic Plan for bus projects, However, no funding has been assumed in this table,
CCS Planning and Engineering 12/9/96TVTC2,XLS
· Planning and Approval Status - Indicating whether the project is included in the MTC Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) or any other local improvement plans.
Funding - Indicating available amounts and the associated funding sources for the project
· Schedule - Indicating planned implementation'schedule for the project:
· Project Need - Based primarily on 2010 traffic projections from the updated TVTC model with
gateway constraints applied. TVTC traffic projections are provided in Appendix B.
PROJECT PRIORITIES
The Th-Valley Transportation Commission (TV'rC) has selected the following top four projects to
be' funded by the proposed regional traffic impact fee:
· Southbound 1-580 to Eastbound 1-680 Direct Connector (Project No. 1)
· Two-Lane Route 84 Corridor Improvement between 1-580 and 1-680
(Project Nos. 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e)
· HOV Lanes between Diablo Road and Bollinger Canyon Boulevard (Project No. 3)
· BART West Dublin Station (Project No. 4)
The remaining seven high priority projects were qualitatively assessed to help prioritize them for
funding, as follows:
1-580 is currently being widened from the interchange with 1-680 to the Tassajara (Santa Rim
Road) interchange to provide HOV lanes in conjunction with Project No.1 (1-580/680 direct
connector). Project No. 5 (1-580 HOV lanes from Tassajara to N. Livermore Avenue) will
function as an extension of Project No. 1. To avoid a bottleneck where HOV lanes end at the 1-
580/N. Livermore Avenue interchange, Project No. 5 should have higher priority than the other
projects.
Project No. 7 (1-580/Foothill Boulevard interchange modification) will be required to
accommodate Project No. 4 (BART West Dublin Station). Therefore, this project should be.
given the same priority and be grouped with Project No. 4.
The 1-680 HOV lane project from Route 84 to Sunol Grade (project No. 6) has been identified
as the extension of the Route 84 improvement (Project No. 2). Therefore, this project should
have the same priority as Project No. 2. However, a bottleneck may occur at the Sunol Grade
unless the 1-680 HOV lanes can be further extended to Santa Clara County.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase rll: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
Project Status Report
Revised - December 6, 1996
Project No. 8 (I-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange) is located between two of the top four
projects (Project No. 1:1-680/580 Direct Connector and Project No. 3:1-680 Auxiliary Lane
between Diablo Road and Bollinger .Canyon Road). It would be desirable to construct this
project in conjunction with the other two projects to avoid a bottleneck in the intervening
segment between them.
Project No. 9 (Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvement Program) and Project 10 (Vasco Road
Safety Improvement Program) are both safety improvement projects to the existing two-lane
winding roadway. They may be prioritized based on the accident rates and the existing and
2010 traffic demand. Accident data for these two roadways are not available; therefore, it is
not possible to set priorities between these two projects.
TVTC Combined Study
Phase llI: Regional Traffic Impact Fee
Project Status Report
Revised -Dec, em~ 6, 1996
IU~IGt& C~TY
F Rr.~C~I'
DUI3LIIx
UYEf~d, ORE
TVTC Joint Exercise
of Powers Agrdement
Exhibit "A"
ATTACHMENT D
The Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee shall be as follows:
Land Use Type
Fee
Per
Unit
Single Family Residential
Multi Family Residential
Office
$1,500
$1,050
$1.oo
Dwelling unit
Dwelling unit'
Square foot of gross floor area
Retail $1.00
Industrial $0.75
Square foot of gross floor area
Square foot of gross floor area
Other Uses $1,500
Average a.m./p.m, peak hour trip*
* Peak-hour trips will be determined from the latest revision to the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual or other rate schedule as agreed
to by the TVTC. Notwithstanding the foregoing an applicant for a Land Use
Entitlement who is dissatisfied with the number of peak-hour trips, as calculated by
the Public Works Director, may appeal the determination to the Council. If such
an appeal is granted by the Council, and the Council adjusts the number of peak-
hour trips, the City shall have such decision ratified by five members of the TVTC.
Absent such ratification, the full amount of the fee must be paid by the applicant.
ATTACHMEN,T D.