HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07081986 - X.14 TO-*"
O. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson
Costa
DATE: July 8, 1986 County
SUBJECT: LETTER FROM SOLANO COUNTY REGARDING REGIONAL TRAFFIC MITIGATION
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to the Transportation Planning Division
of the Community Development Department and County Transportation
Advisory Committee topursue the issues raised in my letter of April 10
(copy attached) and the attached letter of response from Solano
County, dated April 23, 1986.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The subject letters relate to previous
Board concern and discussions regarding regional traffic mitigation.
It would be important to follow up with communications back to Solano
County.
TT:gro
Attachment
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON July 8, 1986 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT III, IV ) 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: Community Development Department ATTESTED 7 0 6
Transporation Planning Ie�
CCTAC & rte.. ,
County Administrator
M382/7-E8 BY /AJ� � DEPUTY
Tom Torlakson ..ti,;s�� u 45 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg,Califomia 94565
Supervisor,District Five ` ~` 1415)439.4138
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors o is
T'9 COUPt'C
April 10, 1986
Supervisor Richard Brann, Chair
Solano County Board of Supervisors
1961 Waters Court
Fairfield, CA 94533
Dear Supervisor Brann:
As you are well aware, we face enormous traffic
problems in our greater two-county region. These problems
are growing rapidly with each passing year. We know that
these traffic problems do not contain themselves within any
one jurisdiction. Cars, buses and people cross city and
county lines back and forth between the workplace and home.
Please review the attached correspondence reflecting
concerns in Contra Costa County and actions taken by the
Board of Supervisors to address these concerns.
Obviously, we are all thwarted in dealing with these
transportation problems by the lack of leadership in
Sacramento and Washington, D.C. , in providing the necessary
funds for transportation--both highways construction funds
and transit funds. We need to work together to bring a
greater understanding to Sacramento and to Washington, D.C. ,
as to the extent of these problems and their extreme
negative impact upon business and commerce.
In the meantime we must look at other solutions for
generating more "local share" money which can begin to
address these problems in the immediate future. I will look
forward to your response to the concept of a regional
traffic mitigation fund. We have implemented the concept in
the unincorporated area of the county and have asked the
city and county engineers to develop a broader concept with
application for all the cities in Contra Costa County.
Supervisor Richard Brann
April 10, 1986
Page TWO
Obviously, traffic congestion along the interstate
routes merits our mutual cooperation in such a matter.
Please let me know some of your thoughts or questions you
have as you review this concept.
Sincerely,
Tom Torlakson
TT:gro
Attachments
TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL OF SOLANO COUNTY
?QAM_ffiF)DUSTIMEILIA RECEIVED .APO72 S 9986
FAIRFIELD, CA. 94533
1961 Walters Court U 592
1.1
April 23 , 1986
Supervisor Tom Torlakson
45 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg, CA 94565
Dear Supervisor Torlakson:
Thank you for your letter of April 10 concerning regional traffic
l mitigation.
We in Solano County recognize that rapid traffic growth is an
inter-jurisdictional problem requiring creative solutions. The
Solano County Board of Supervisors has recently taken action in
several areas related to regional traffic and transit.
Solano County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 86-34
(attached) supports improvements to the Benicia Bridge and its
approaches to improve traffic flow in both the northbound and
southbound directions.
Resolution No. 85-58 (attached) expresses support for a BART
extension in the I-80 corridor from Richmond toward Crockett.
Resolution No. 85-194 (attached) expresses support for a regional
study of traffic and transit needs in the I-80 corridor. This is
a corridor in which many Solano residents commute. The Solano
County Board might be willing to consider similar support for a
BART extension or other transit or traffic improvements in
Central or East Contra Costa County if significant benefit to
Solano residents could be expected.
As you are well aware, local funding is becoming increasingly
important as state and federal money becomes more difficult to
LS
tain. Your concept of a "regional traffic mitigation fund" is
ry interesting and worthy of consideration, however, I think
lano County would have some concerns that would have to be
dressed before we could officially support it.
One concern is the need to have some guarantee that if local
citizens contribute to a regional fund, they will receive a fair
share of the benefits and that funding for their local
A�` transportation problems will be available in a timely manner.
Another concern is the difficulty of determining what part of
Solano County is part of the region that affects traffic in
Central and Eastern Contra Costa and vice versa. A significant
part of Solano' s population has little relationship to your area.
Some-of our cities now charge local development fees to help with
local_':. traffic improvements'," '.including improvements-.;f,to ,freeway
interchanges-' This .. -is .--a step 'dn the right direction,..,-but ..:it
would be-= a--more 'difficult step''=to line up local support -.:-for, a
regional ''fund:
The = support `-"of = our `ci.ties ..:would be required, _since- in . Solano
`County_ nearly�':al l= ,of ':the .:population growth .and development are ,in
the'' cities.:•''-= I n-ivould ::be;-interested in_`hear ing how your}- .,ci,ti-es
have-.,responded to the idea :of a.:regional -traffic :.mitigation ,fund.
If cities in Contra Costa strongly support the idea," that might
make it easier to' obtain::support •from cities in Solano. .
-As' always;=.I-.,:am+.:very,'xai11ing ,-to-work with .neighboring counties on
legislative matters concerning transportation.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss these
concerns further.;; -;
'Sincerely,W` X-4io-711:1
,Richard Brann ..., ._ _.. ,..,......._._.... _ . .
Chairman
CC:..,,:Sol.ano County Board of Supervisors
_CJW.SR v
RESOLUTION NO. 86-34
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF IMPROVEMENTS TO BENICIA BRIDGE
WHEREAS, Solano County recognizes that traffic volumes on the
Benicia Bridge and its approaches cause serious congestion and
delays during peak periods and that this problem will worsen as
traffic volumes grow; and
r
WHEREAS, the Solano County Transportation Council is on record in
• support of proposals to improve traffic capacity and flow on - the
existing bridge and approaches, both southbound and northbound, j
and to construct a new bridge parallel to the existing bridge;
. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Solano County Board of
Supervisors supports projects intended to provide additional
:traffic capacity and improve traffic flow across the Benicia
Bridge and on its approaches, both southbound and northbound.
These projects may include:
1) Adding lanes to the existing bridge
2) Adding .tolls booths
3 ) Improving signing on the bridge and approaches
4 ) Improving the connections between I-680 and I-780, and
5) Constructing a new bridge parallel to ,the existing bridge.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I, LINDA TERRA, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, County of
Solano, State of California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by said ;
Board at a regular meeting_ held February 11 , 1986, on motion
of Supervisor 'Hewitt seconded by Supervisor Davits; by the following vote:
AYES: SUPERVISORS Davis, 'Hewitt, Pippo, Sturn and
- Chairman Brann
NOES: SUPERVISORS None
ABSTAINED: SUPERVISORS None
ABSENT: SUPERVISORS None
WITNESS my hand and Seal of said Board this lith day of
February 1986.
_ LINDA TERRA, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors
RESOLUTION NO. 85-58 '
Y' RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF WEST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BART EXTENSION
---------------------------------------- -
WHEREAS, the COUNTY OF SOLANO has considered the problem of increz;.s-
ingly severe traffic congestion along. the Interstate 80 freeway -
corridor from Vallejo to the Oakland/San Francisco Bay Bridge; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY OF SOLANO recognizes that full alleviation of
this problem requires essentially rebuilding more than twenty
miles of the Interstate 80 freeway, which would be extremely expensive
and would have unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts ; .
and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY OF SOLANO recognizes that the present pattern of
long-distance commuting to the major Bay Area employment centers
emphasizes the need for alternative long-distance travel modes such
as a parallel transit route to the increasingly congested Interstate 80 ;
and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY OF , SOLANO recognizes that many Solano County
residents commute into ' the Bay Area on Interstate 80 ; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY OF SOLANO recognizes that the Solano County
Transportation Council is on record in support of the concept of a
4
BART extension toward Crockett ; and
WHEREAS , the COUNTY OF SOLANO recognizes that the West Contra Costa
County Transportation Committee has formulated the position that :
1. Thd West Contra Costa BART Extension should be included as one
of the extensions to be considered in the BART Extension Alter-
native Analysis Draft Environmental Impact Study, and
2 . Action should be taken by BART to preserve and acquire a corridor �
for the extension project and proposed station sites, and
i
f
i
i
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF WEST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BART EXTENSION
page 2 ...
------------------------------------------
3. MTC should recognize the BART Wes_t- Contra Costa County Extension
Project aspartof the new rail start policy.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this COUNTY OF SOLANO supports
the position of the West Contra Costa County Transportation Commit-
tee, and urges BART and MTC officials and other concerned parties
to cooperate and accede to the position formulated by the West Contra
Costa County Transportation Committee. F
I , LINDA TERRA, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Solano County,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly intro-
duced, passed, and adopted by said Board at a regular meeting thereof
held on April 9 1985. On the motion of Supervisor _
Hewitt
and seconded by Supervisorgann j
this Resolution was adopted by the following vote :
j
AYES: 4 SUPERVISORS: RRANN, nkVTS� NFuttTT STURN,—
ANO CHAIRMAN P TPPO
NOES : SUPERVISORS:
NONE
- I
ASENT: SUPERVISORS: NQNF
WITNESS my hand and Seal of said Board this 4th day of Aprfl
1985 . LINDA TERRA
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
i
CJW:C'P
,
,5
iC-7-14 =
a
i8.
l�.
:fS
f
RESOLUTION NO. 85-194
RESOLUTION OF THE SOLANO COUNTY BOARD OF L:
SUPERVISORS IN SUPPORT OF THE I-80 CORRIDOR STUDY
------------------------------------------------- a
WHEREAS , the County of Solano recognizes that I-80 is a .
transportation corridor of regional significance ; and
WHEREAS, segments of I-80 are ranked among the top fifteen most
congested spots in the nine Bay Area Coanties; and
WHEREAS , the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Com-
mittee (WCCTAC) along with representatives from Alameda and Solano 4
Counties have reviewed regional and subregional transportation
studies that have been conducted along the I-80 Corridor ; and
WHEREAS , it is the opinion of WCCTAC that while extensive
analysis has been done on the I-80 Corridor , there is a need for a
comprehensive approach that recommends alternatives and solutions ;
and
WHEREAS, the Solano County Transportation Council has---indicated
its support for a comprehensive study' of the I-80 Corridor ; and
WHEREAS , the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC ) is
responsible for the regional transportation planning in the nine-
county San Francisco Bay Area ;
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Solano joins
in requesting MTC to conduct a comprehensive study of the I -80
Corridor with direction from Solano , Alameda , and Contra Costa
Counties ; that the I -80 Corridor Study should examine the entire
corridor through Solano County , including traffic flows to both the
Bay Area and Sacramento area ; that the I -80 Corridor Study should
examine all relevant modes of transportation and recommend solutions
and long-range alternativ-es to the growing congestion problems along
the I-80 Corridor ; and to defer any ballot measure until after
completion of said studies . _
-- ------------------------------------------
I , LINDA TERRA, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors , County of
Solano , -State of California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was regularly . introduc-ed., passed and adopted by said
Board at a regular meeting held : October 29 , 1985 , on
Motion of, SupervisorSturn ,_ Seconded by Supervisor
Brann , by the following vote :
AYES: SUPERVISORS Brann, Davis, Hewitt,
Sturn and Chairman Pippo
NOES : SUPERVISORS None
ABSTAINED: SUPERVISORS - None
ABSENT : , SUPERVISORS None
WITNESS my hand and Seal of said Board this 29th day of
October 1985 .
LINDA TERRA, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors
r
_ O
-2-