HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09221998 - C115 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSContra
Casty
FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE County
DATE: September 14, 1998
SUBJECT: 1998 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
ACCEPT a report from the Committee and authorize the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a
letter to MTC with comments consistent with those prepared by the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority.
FISCAL IMPACT
None to the General Fund.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Commission) is responsible for preparing the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and has initiated an update of the Plan for adoption by October
1998. The purpose of the RTP is to provide a long range vision that will guide major investments in
the transportation system of the nine-county Bay Area over the next 20-year period. As you know,
your Board's representative on the Commission is Supervisor DeSaulnier. On April 14, 1998, the
Board of Supervisors requested the Transportation Committee to monitor development of the
Commission's 1998 RTP and to report to the Board as necessary. A draft 1998 RTP and
Environmental Impact Report has been released for review.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
I�I�1pYlli Y -ll/� 1 I�Illrl�ISI
_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE ?TKER
SIGNATURE (S):
ACTION OF Boj�RD`OIV , tber 22, 199$ APPROVED AS RECOMMENDE OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
g UNANIMOUS (ABSENT - -v } TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact Person, Steven Goetz, 335-1240 ATTESTED b;r,2z� 199$
Orig: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Public Works, T.E. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
A 4000#0
B , DEPUTY
SLG:cAtranscomirtp.be
1998 Regional Transportation Plan
September 14, 1998
Page Two
BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION (continued)
Most of the revenues estimated to be available to the region over the next 20 years - $82 billion out of a
total of$88 billion - are committed by voters, prior MTC action or to ongoing operations and management
of the existing transportation system. The remaining $6.5 billion is available to undertake new funding
commitments. These new funding commitments are referred to by MTC and Track 1. Even with the
Track 1 recommendations, transportation revenues will fall short by almost $7 billion for maintaining and
repairing roadways, rehabilitating and operating public transit systems and retrofitting the region's
bridges for seismic safety in the nine Bay Area counties. For Contra Costa County, this shortfall
amounts to $880 million for rehabilitation and maintenance of local streets and roads during the 20-year
RTP planning period, or 15% of the Bay Area's total shortfall.
The Draft RTP looks at new funding initiatives through its Track 2 program. The primary funding sources
for Track 2 projects are new or renewed county-level half-cent sales taxes and a proposed regional gas
tax. The Draft RTP identified the following potential uses in Contra Costa for Track 2 revenues.
- Improved interconnections for county transit and HOV systems;
- Local street and road maintenance needs;
- Operating funds for additional Capitol Corridor rail service;
- Transit improvements east of Bay Point BART;
- Bus service between East County and the Tri Valley area;
- SR 4 Bypass widening;
- SR 411-680 Interchange improvements, and
- Caldecott Tunnel 4th Bore.
Excepts from the Draft RTP that address investments in Contra Costa County are included as Exhibit A
to this Board Order.
On September 2, 1998, the CCTA's Planning Committee reviewed the draft 1998 RTP and approved a
comment tetter for consideration by the CCTA (see Exhibit B). Previous comments of the CCTA has
requested adding widening to the SR 4 Bypass in Track 1, and funding safety improvement to Vasco
Road in Alameda County. The draft RTP does not include widening to the SR 4 Bypass in Track 1 and
does not include any funding commitment from Alameda County for the Vasco Road safety project. This
comment letter identified a way to include some widening of the SR 4 Bypass within the funding
constraints identified in the draft RTP. It further asks that MTC meet with the CCTA and Alameda CMA
staff to find a reasonable resolution for making the necessary safety improvements to Vasco Road.
The Transportation Committee supports the recommendation of the Planning Committee and
recommends that the Board of Supervisors write a similar comment letter to MTC.
Exhibit A: Excerpts from the RTP
Exhibit B: Draft CCTA Comment Letter on the RTP
EXHIBIT A
r
INTERSTATE 80 8A CLQRRIDOR
i
IOI.ITY ZOONOMICYMULITY
Travel on I-W continues to be As a:m2jor icight corridoL
dominated by Commum trips Ua Tx should be mmagod to
to Sas,Fraser Oakland and ensure smooth operaons on
On yr zeds,travel I-W doting the raid for
is seasonally infiucnood by nucks�,
xroracaxl uipx
Growing ongesan on 1-80
MOV lanes for carpools and and p;rr c4.arrer als will
express Imses provide travel require improved Transit carr
tient savings over the mbwd noctions To MAiwain occas to
flow lanes.?rase and jams in the urban carr.
sidc$h2rlag Should be expand-
ed to serve rhe growth in the Improving rag strvrte to the
longer distance commute Port of Oakland through xhe
starker. Joint Intermodal Terminal
could help enhance she eco-
Mobility in the southern nomic competitiveness of rhe
(urban)portion,of the corridor Port.
can be preserved by mwd=iz-
ing-rrans r and ridesharing use
over the Carquinez$ridgy ENVIMMME T
"gszcr*xy�and izxelrrovir:3 arse- 'T`ranspor-u—improvrsztersts
rials and local transit capers- aced to be compwdble with
tions in du core arm local and regional plans for
preservation and enharx enr
of open space and prime agri-
EQUITY cultural.lareds in the nordscrn
free wxy management strategies cad of the corridor.
seal to be coordinated with
aruzrial operations and balance COMMUNITY Vt3AtYTY
urban£or local grips in the Opporru hies Cart for rcvital-
urban roar and longKlisrana
and tlsrough nips from oudy- izing urban sections ofshc
mg suburban areas. corridor around transporta-
tion,;nodes.
Transit services to regional
amity o_amen mese be main- Transportation and streerscape
rained to provide basic mobM- improvements along San
ty for elders and bo.ver mcomc Pablo Avenue could.enhance
households in the cos:idon transit service and community
ame4lues:
2990 2020 'x CHANE
DMOOGRAPMC 0
TOW Poput&6m 694=3 94L964 36
Total Envioyment 275.239 3'981=9 43
wtm k*xa*<525K 88,835 59.589 33
TRMAEL DAM
Atiefte Daily Person Trips 1.937.846 2.588.390 33
Trot tsps 53 395 68-"4 28
Transk tts w%of WWI 3 3 0
AVWW V avec U t from MAeka to 8e"sey(mkwtCB);
Dr%t Aaane 57 81 42
Transit 1 as
Carow 57 56 2
Avenge navel tame from Vaeaysrst to vattejo(mks erg
DrSve Awe 37 48 30
TtarrA 1
Canwol 37 40 $
AeM9e D81ryyel#'We Norms of Delay 1.2.812 82.697 545
3 Transit travel time inewes watt t me
4 _
THE INVESTMENT GAME PLAN
R.eliancc On the Capitol Corr Reconstrucr MacArthur on- ,..,, SALES TAX
Ador trains,exprm buses ramp to eastbound I40E1- 1-80 interduv a improve-
WO carpools from Rom utilizing the 580 connector Exmrxd ute�HOV lanes metas(SolanoCo.)
HOVHOV}ares.to serve groom 4 to�e Car-
of lon -tike commuting New Carquinez Bridgewith � ���*
Improvements to Capitol
to the-urban core southbound HOV lane Corridor intercir y rail service
1
'Bridge toll policies.should HOV lanes from Fair_should Increased Capitol Corridor perry service from Benicia
fticaurage r-tde6ming and intercity rail service(S fxdd>to Vacaville* and"V-Aejo to Sart Francisco
trz=t:use trams)
180 interchange and aztertal AC Trsit rnitanced bus.
Reliance on local transit and San Pablo Ave.signal coordi- ttnpmvcrnenrs(Mr mapped) service on Telegraph corridor
axterw improvements to nation project s
save growth in comsrt
berwoencorumunizies within Transit centers and park- Smtionlodw improvementsOperating funds or 1- 8
urban wore and--ride lots to Capitol Corridor interciry express bus service and Capt-
rail service col Corridor(Commuter sail
Facility improvements service incrcrxtrrr t)
should sutc chat 1-80
operates smoothly<luring San Pablo Ave.duality bus Additional Vallejo fray
midday hours to preserve service service
fieig�ht mobility
Capitol Corridor/west flab
1-80 reliever route(Solano
Corudnr improvements - land BART contxeaion,
should.protect local streetsCO.)
froth sp&over lieu tri
Interchange improvements Purchase buses:.
for 1-80 should be designed • I-80 express service
to protect mainline o • Solano Co.intercity
tions - service(not mapped)
i 1
Develop an equitable ramp
metering plan Widen Appian'day to 1-80
y
Develop reliever rye sys-
tem in Solano Cotmty,for
local trips
*PizJeerfim&ng assumes a
j contribution.from the state' �
{t zAirretion vyf mit anterre-
j gional,improvement Pro-
gram}_
37
c
STATE ROUTE 4 CORRIDOR
Iti208iLlfY ONOMICV ALITY°
The MPM hotsing ��,&rjxionacoaag—
without oommcasurratc incre,as- con on Route 4 could impair
CS in corridor capacitip has truckm Ar a major
mul d m worsetag mobility fiiight corridor,it willbe,
in the corridor,both far travel innportaot to ensure:rclrablr
wi da"n the corridor as Wa as apention during the mk day
U44dannod outwidc the corn. fortrucim
dor.
I
13A T,banes and czrp sks will I~1NV1f0WAM
provide,a naodt:d mcremmt of Pro==of op nr space and
capacity to atcommodare agriculrurd lands is an issue in
growth in cxrasm=travel, dae western and'eastern pot-
tions of&e o=fidos
Su=development impact fess
f mRoutc 4 will=rue incur- The curern portion of the cor-
mentally over time,it will be ridor also has sensi6vc,*c° i"
usdul to rtp3oce lower cm cal resources.
operatic"straC&to mazy
sF trade on Route 4 and local CON MifiM VffALrff
SM)CM 'Them ate,opportunities to use
Fatuarc interconnections transporcodwa investments to
betty=Route 4W=and help with community dcvdop-
I-80 noed to be to menr vbjcctivess in the corridor.
avoid overloading 1-80.
EQUffY
The corridor has a sdative,ly
high proportion of lower
iacotrac,carless bouselaol&
Tmvorcttion=P—--=
will have to consider access to
d households.
3990 2OW %CHAWA
crc vArn .
total 264- 448.087 69
Total FAVIamem 97A91 ISS—vel 71
Householft wIM kmme<$25K 24477 15,903 -44
T d1iTA
A-M&Dally P,rsW Trips 597.154 1.128.867 8$
Transit trts 6.405 12,= 88
TramIt trips as%of total 1 1 0
AWW travei VArrae ft M&WtwoW to ftftA Creek(fig
DOM Akyne 53 59 11
Ti It 1 134 109 -19
Carpool 53 53 0
Average travel t6r*fr m Martinet to FWvnoW(mburtesr
Drive Alter 34 31 -9
Tramit 1 309 108 �3
Carpool 34 30 -32
average Daily Verit:W Hours o:Detay 4,772 32.356 578
1-Tralsri ssve:ti=ne Mcsczes wait tty-4
i
THE INVESTMENT GAME PLAN
Improve operations and safe- Route 4 East wwidei aiizg fromSWXS TAX(Ta SE ED)
ty on Roure 4 West{Ha- Bailey to west of iovexi (dge Route 4 Bypass widening
Route 4 West(Cummings toles) Rd.(HOV and�flow) (fcwx lane l~ec Authority
Skyway to I-80):upgrade to Project)
Accommodate future travel Route 4/Railroad.Ave:inter- full fi=wa'y
growth in commrttc trite change improvements � Tras t improvements�asr of
over WMow Pass by HOV BART Bay Point Station
and transit :Route 4 West( Route 4 irnproveanents
be
Skyway to 1-80).u�.c to Y°nd Railroad.Avenue to Bus service betwoen east
Manage Route 4 and adja- 44ane expremny Route 160(could include Contra Costa Co-and Th-
cent-local sttoers as one Sys- mbcod-flow and HOV lanes, Vary vm Vases Rd.
rem to minimize systom Route 4'Bypass(TWO-lane reliever routes and ramp
delay in the peak Foe Authority project) metering)
Maintain reliable op=tions
on Route 4 in off peak for `4 Iden Ypacio Valleyl
frcighr mobility Kiricer Pass(Cowell to
Clearbrook Dr.)
Provide&equent feeder bus
service to BART and
enhance inner-city transit ser- Vasco Rd.safety
vice as appropriate(Route 4 improv kexus
East}
Coordinate.with San Joaquin
Co.on long range improve-
ments for Route 4 East out-
side Contra Cass Co.
i
E
t
i
r
t
a
f
t
i +
E
i t
59
4
INTER STATE ,X80 NORTH CORRIDOR
M e"= ttijor
For the longer din cm- (Sun ail vrf d waimt
fault trips from Solano Creel.and&c WAop Ranch
Coaut�transit and ding business park 4 cifical to the
can be enoouraged4wough economic vality of rhss=Va.
prtfirential if=1kiCS4r the
and briAst approach- EMUMxMENT
Fffmmar bas service con=- The northern portion of the
tons with 1BAXT art essential cotx r indudes open spm,
for both com===and as a vmdands and agricultural
rmk between BART and mayor lands.Tsampomrion
unprove-
activiq centem meats need to be compatible
with low and rr*,mW plass
Sumer and f=vxv operations For these tesourom
noLd to be coordinated
duousghour the corridor to In the southem curl of the tnr-
z=mmo&m the he zvy€low rida4 there are rcgiond panes,
of trips from a tttials onto open space and managed
140 daring peak commute warershcds,which should be
Periods. protected in accordance with
loci€and regional p6m
EQUrrY
Freeway wanagpment seraregits COMMUNMMAMY
need w balance aoxos bar= Stent oppormmincs exist
local trips and lrxpoistance for transit-oriented demlop-
and through taps frosts euxdp- smart at mulct Transit nodes,
ins suburban areas. such as the pleasant MM
BART station.
ECOMOMIC VTrALT Y
Sprrasliug druanon ofcongcs-
t'usn on 1-W could irapair
truck movetntnu in the mid-
day.Trac should be managed
for reliable operations during
the said-day for trucks.
logo 2020 CHMM
DEMOGPAPMC OM
i'owi vowation =312 737,835 42
T"€ *mem 269,7:48 41'_1517 53
Mouseholft wititt <� 36„074 22,443 —U-
TRAM DATA
Day Person TOPS 2.400.760 3 303,974 so gg,
Transit tri 15,454 37„$07 15
Tran'A uts,as%of toter 1 1 0
e
koerw
S
t'8++ei tkne from Corseorr3 to (r%hwtes): d
Drive Aurone 38 44 16 B
Transit 1 99 111 12
Carow 38 38 0
i
Average trmet Brest from 0ortse5a W Wattut Creek(mmuues)
Drive Atone 34 d7 38
Traw,1 82 —
Carpool 34 4S 33t
Average Daily Vehicle borers of Delay 9,256 52.852 471
E
�i'rar+si;reaves time ir+ctuUes wait tr;rse '
i
THE INVESTMENT GAME_ PLAN
use told policies and prefker- "80 HOV lanes from,near SAM TAXVOMM)
tn"lanes to cncoura t Rt.242 to Benicia Bridge �:•� 1-680/Rt.4 inttrchangc
HOV use and peals spread- 1-680 auxiliary lanes in San improvements
mg for tips Within the corn- New Benida,Bridge Ramon
dor and end corridor Caldecott Tunnel 4th Bore*
from tht north Mardne z Intermodal Sin
Route 24 2=W=7 lanes in
Manage 1-680 and €-68011-90 interchange Orin is
Route 242 as one systema to improvements in Solano , "WPOSM$"ON"e"�nx
minimize overall system County �} HOY 200M to employment
deky during the peak period 1-68OWcosm interchange centers
and Prot=the 1-X80124 Arterial improvements improvements
interchange
a
Enstsrt improven=rs to VArious arterial
Route 4 and Router 242 do improvements including:
not adversely affect 1-680 •Alhambra Ave.
operations
•Pachxo Blvd.
ivfammm,rd able frwway
operations in off-peak for
fruit mobility
Recognize that the Calde Cott
Tunnel is a gateway in the
peak direction=d develop
strategies to better mases
reverse oam ute and off
peak traffic
Provide good transit connec-
tions to tnajor activitycen-
ters and BART
G
1
I
'ns ea frmuling assumes a
p contribution from the state's
I discretionary fundi (Interre-
gional Improvement
Interre-gion allmprovement Pro-
gram).
r
41
ATTACHMENT A—CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PROJECTS-COMMITTED FUNDING
REFERENCE
RT>s
IbROJECTIPROGRAM W TR COMMIlTfir FUNInNNG NOTES
REGIONAL
BdtX41. >:j: Seismic retrofit of Bay Area state-owned toil bridges
Freeway Service Patrol(FSP)and call boxes
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUBAREA
794553 .. Local streets and roads maintenance(to the degree fundable with projected dedicated revenues) M1C Paaement�Ianagemerri Syst fir r ,.
3 U2 7.
Local street maintenance and improvements;carpools,vanpools,and park and ride lots les'tax piograrn{ivTeBst re iv)':
512 Various WtWlat irProvetnants,signal timing projects.and pedestrian and bikeway projects
AC Transit(Contra Costa Co.)•Transit operating and capital Improvement program(including replace-
merit,rehabilitation,and minor enhancements for rolling stock,equipment,fixed facilities and other cap3
ta!assets.Does not include system ex)anslon).
B4aa6 :; BART(Contra Costa Co.)-Transit operating and Capital improvement program(ncluding replacement,
rehabilitation,and minor enhancements,equipment,lined ftaides and other capital assets.Does not
include expansion except BART to SFO extension).
I CCCfA•Transit operating and capital Improvement program(Including replacemeM,aehabitkation,and
minor enhancements for roliing•stock,equipment,fixed facilities and other capital assets.Does not
include system expansion).
9 : WestCAT and Tri Detta-Transit operating and capital improvement programs(including replacement,reha.
biiitation,and minor enhancements for roiling stock,equipment,fixed facilities and other capital assets.
Does not include system expansion).
BART Advanced Automatic Train control system
r: Etd dy/disabled transit servkw Sales ax ix gr ,NtOa�sru0ar)
3t3 Regional bicycle/pedestrian trails ales€tax pf til e �
Traffic Operations System(TOS)
1-689 NORTH CORRIDOR
cJfi4 Martinez intermodal terminal facility Including construction of parking,bus facilities and new commuter
rail station
4 9 Oak Park Boulevard overcrossing improvements
: 34 Widen Dougherty Rd.to 6 lanes from Red Willow to Contra Costa County fine
79t5. Construct Windermere Pkwy at 4 lanes from Boilinger extension to E.Branch
X8532 Widen and extend Hollinger Canyon Rd.(6 lanes)from Alcosta to Dougherty Rd.(South) C3ttue rifunr#axielr fees
X194 ' Commerce Avenue extension to Wilkrw Pass Road 100%'ick aflyted
X32" Gat Lamorinda traffic ptogram Sates3taur MeaSrire C)
Benicl~tirw Bridge:construct second bridge span
08136 Construct E.Branch at 4 lanes from Bollinger extension to Camino Tassajara
94(552 HOV lanes on 1680 from Route 242 to the Marina Vista interchange(Benicia Bridge) isy 046ddbre'C:anll
STIP . .
149 CORRIDOR
94540 ,''': M Carquinez Bridge:replace west bridge,add one southbound HOV lane from Cummings Skyway south
Of Crockett to the bridge and modify Crockett Interchange
94555 Amtrak Capitol Corridor Service(6 round trips per day)
STATE ROUTE 4 CORRIDOR
96022 Phase 1 Route 4 Bypass--construct a 24ane facility from Route 4 to Walnut Shd.,upgrade Marsh Creek y;�suxted tivith tocat tt�rsi 'tees.
Rd.and construct a partial freeway to freeway interchange one mile east of Hilicrest on Route 4
.:*94536 . Route 4 TOS(Phase 1)
88104 Route 4/Railroad Ave.interchange improvements and highway widening to west of Loveridge Rd.(6 lmprovernaa fs ire to the„ outtrrru
mixed flow lanes and 2 HOV lanes) past of the e
Route 4(East)widen to 6 mixed flow lanes and 2 HOV Lane from Bailey Road to Railroad Ave.and Salestax pEojeCtiNeasure, ).
resEripe from State Route 242 to Bailey Avenue for HOV lanes
9B19t)' Route 4 widening to expressway from 1-80 to Cummings Skyway Pr€aect devetopert to twur:lse3: .
t i.lsn of zrva asfdi
bona(lanes for A 4 ane rrprasswajr
Phase?.lg upgrading 20 full freeway
98193 Panoramic Drive extension from North Concord BART station to Willow Pass Road1I3O%
locally
funded '
TRANSBAY RICHMOND-SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE CORRIDOR
98623 Electronic toll collection on Bay bridges
64
ATTACHMENT A—CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PROjECTS-TRACK 1
RTP
RUTRE= TOTAL Ww-TRACK 1 TVAI (1
NUM en TRACK 1 PROTECT/PROGRAM cost's FUNDS FUNDS Nom
IN MILLJONS OF INFLATED DOLLARS
REGIONAL
94£343 Transit fare coordination and ticket distrlhu n $7.3
98582
Golden Gate Bridge seismic retrofit-Phases U and 111 $0.0
. :,f} Seismic retrofit of Golden Gate
Bridge;county share of regional cost
€98515 Traveler Information and trip planning $2733 $6.4 }6 includes TravinfoTM,the regional tele-
phone Information system,fideshare
programs,and other traveler informs
tion,and trip planning activities
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUBAREA
`i94038 Rehabilitation of Metropolitan Transportation System(MTS) $0.0
" streets mads;fatty funis maintenance of MTS road netvrork
441)3 T RehabUitatiom of non4M streets and reads(shortfafl) $433 8 ' $0.0 $216 Shortfall remains
Local streets and roads non-pavement maintenance(shortfall) $2 {33 i $0.0 :': 1 'f. Shortfa14 remains
Seismic retrofit and upgrade of local bridges and overpasses $1 2:4' $00 ':€ '$M Shortfall remains
{shortfall)
£t8573 Arteria#Improvements and traffic signaUzation projects $9 4. $0.0 $s. Roadway and transit strategies to
improve system operations.
: 4038 AC Transit capital program shortfall(county share 7596 funded); S2(r.x:. $0.0 $18.5.: County share based on population in
Includes replacement of capital equipment AC Transit's district,shortfall remains
., BART capital program shortfall:funds 7596 of shortfall $0.0 $154 Courtly share based on population
Central Contra Costa Transit Authority(CCCTA)capital program $O t3.< $0.0
' shortfall
941349 Bicycle and pedestrian pry $0.0 $19 7 Funds are from Transportation Devti l
op Ment Act JOA)Article 3
Transportation for Livable Communities $40 5 i $0 0 $413:5'.' Community development projects
Unjted to transportation funded with
federal Surface Transportation Pre
gram(STP)or Transportation
Enhancement Activities funds
X8599 Corridor planning studies $3.8< $0.0 $3,8
98554 TEA 21 planning funds for the county $3.8 $OA
$. Regional MTS performance monitoring $0.0
K7
Metropolitan Trahsportation Operations System(MTOS) $10 0 $0.0
The Transportation Operations Sys
tem(TOS)LS included M the projects
with committed funding.MTOS is
comprised primarily of roadway and
transit strategies to improve system
operations.
Cast contingency for projects in Contra Costa County $2 .7 $0.0 $23.#'.:'
1-650 NORTH CORRIDOR
;98128 :: t6W non-capacity increasing improvements to interchanges S1fl 0 $0.0 $1t3 ff Ones not include undefined MTS
and parallel arterials{regionally significant Improvementscalled capacity Increasing projects.
out specifically}
>34t361
1-6W auxiliary lane from Diablo to Bollinger Canyon Rd. $ 2 9 $24.0 $43 3..1 Sales tax project(Measure C).Auxil-
in San Ramon #ary lane between Diablo and
Syrcmnore Valley completed by 2006.
Other funds also from the South
County fee.
;48196 Route 24 auxiliary lanes from Gateway Blvd.to Moraga Way In $10.3 $0.0
Orinda
;48130 Widen Alhambra Ave.from Route 4 to McAlvey Dr.{Phases 11 $17.0 $OA
and III)
4$138 Widen Pacheco Bird.to 4 lanes from Blum to Arthur $119 $7.8 Other funds from TOSCO refinery to
mitigate Closure of Solano Way
J8127
1-680/A#costa Interchange improvements - $22.3 $14.4 $7.9 Other funds from South County and
local fees
65
ATTACHMENT A—CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CO.Nff RA COSTA COUNTY PROJECTS
RTP
TOTAL NOR-TRACK 1 TRACK 2
NWBER TRACK 1 PRONCTIPROGRAM COSTS FINDS FINDS ROTES
IN MILLIONS OF INFLATED DOLLARS
1-E0 CORRIDOR
flew expresS buses for 1-$0 140V service,capital costs X25.0 $O.O $25 fl i Needs operating money
i-8t?sauihbOund 130V lane extension from Cummings Skyway $0 0 $331 s Extends southbound HOV tame.
(south of Crockeft)to Route 4 Assumes partial IIP funding.
k80 nonapac#ty increasing Improvements to interchanges and $10.0 $0.0 #10.0 . Does not include undefined MTS
parallel arterials(regionally significant Improvements called out capacity inrxeas#rtg Projects
Specifically)
X97
Richmond ir7termodai transfer Station $5.2 S7:d Other funds from West Contra Costa
County development fees
7 5 Widen Appian Way from 3 to 4 lanes from San Pablo Dam Road $7.7' 51.9 fi: Other funds from Contra Costa
to ISO Crxsnty.
trorUibound HOV lame extension from State Route 4 to the $25 6 ! SO.#7 X25 '. Mends northbound iiOV lane.
Carquinez Bridge Assumes IIP funding.
9A$53 AC Transit enhanced bus service on San Pablo Avenue corri- $4 3 I $0.0 Needs operating funds for more fre-
dor new passenger stations,roadway geometric Improve- quem service.
ments.information kiosks(capital funds for Contra Costa
County portion)
STATE ROUTE 4 CORRIDOR
94Cf50 upgrade Route 4 to full freeway from 1-$O to Cummings Skyway $77:8: $6.0 $71,3 Project developed in two phases.
Phase 1 is construction of two adds-
tlonal lanes for a 44ane fully divided
highway.Phase 2 Is upgrading to full
freeway Standards.
a a Route 4 noncapaeity+increasing Improvements to Interchanges S1ft 0 $0.0 $lit(1. Does not include undefined MTS
and parallel artEr#sts(regionally significant improvements tailed capacity Increasing projects•
outspecifically)
; 8 Widen YV o ValleyArker Pass to 6 lanes from Cowell to $17 8 $11.9 $5 Other funds from the City of Concord
Clearbrook Dr.
942 Route 4 improvements from Railroad Ave.t8 Route 160 $87.7 $$7 7 Plaoeholder pending results of Major
Investmentstudy(MIS).Cost
assumes Route 4 East widening to 8
lanes with two HOV lanes from Rall-
road Ave.to Somersville Rd.and
widening to 6 lanes from Somersv#ite
Rd,to Route 160 with no NOV lanes.
9#3198 Vasco Road safety Improvements $5.13 $0.0 Scope t0 be determined by Study to
heconducted by Contra Costa Trans-
portation Authority,and Alameda
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TOTAL 53;832.8 $172.6
66
EXHIBIT B
August 26, 1998
Lawrence D. Dahms, Executive Director
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter
101 Eighth Street
Oakland CA 94607
Dear Mr. Dahms:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft 1998 Regional Transportation
Plan. We commend MTC for its efforts to involve us, our fellow CMAs and the many
affected agencies and groups in the development of the draft document. We offer the
following comments in this sprit of regional cooperation.
As we stated in our April 16, 1998 letter, we appreciate the inclusion in.the draft RTP V
of many of Contra Costa's highest priorities. The Authority, however, continues to
request that MTC add later stages of the State Route 4 Bypass, beyond the initial
locally-funded 2-lane project, to Track 1. Specifically, after reviewing the funding
assumptions outlined in Attachment A of the Draft RTP, we feel that a subsequent
project stage of the SR 4 Bypass could be included in Track 1 within identified funding.
ADDING THE SR 4 BYPASS
The draft RTP already includes the first phases of the Bypass--a two-lane expressway
from.SR 160 to Walnut—as a locally-funded project. These local funds would come
primarily from developer fees. The nexus analysis for these fees,however, found that
only about half of the need for the full Bypass project will come from this new
development; the remainder will come from existing development and new
interregional traffic. (The SR 4 Bypass would, for example, carry much of the
increasing amount of truck traffic between the Bay Area and the Central;Valley.)
To met regional and State requirements, we assume that the Bypass sponsors will need
to "federalize"the project, that is, to prepare an adequate NEPA document to receive
any Track 1 funds. That is why we suggest that Track 1 assume those subsequent
projects to be programmed for the"raid-term" of RTP(year 2011) rather than in the
near-term.
oraft
Illi. Larry Dalmu
August 26, 1998
Page 3
We propose adding three segments of the SR 4 Bypass to Track 1:
1. Widening to four lanes from SR 160 to Lone Tree Way ($6M),
2. Widening to four lanes from Lone Tree Way to Balfour Road($10M), and
3. Construction of freeway-to-freeway connectors between the Bypass and SR 160
($12M).
Together, these segments would cost$28M, in current dollars, without support costs.
Including these support costs and assuming development in the "mid-term", these
segments of the Bypass would require $56.2M(in escalated dollars).
CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS TO THE RTP
Room for the Bypass in Track 1 could be made through the following changes and
corrections to Attachment A of the draft document:
1. Decrease the overall cost of the SR 4 East project by $36.1 million and the
corresponding non-Track 1 and Trach 1 costs by $18.0 million(the draft Track 1
list double-counted support costs; the$94 million in current dollars estimated for
the project included support costs)
2. Increase the local share(non-Track 1)of funding for the 1-680 auxiliary lanes by
$7.9 million, for the I-680tAlcosta interchange by$6.9 million, and for the
Richmond intermodal facility by$2.5 million, consistent with the supplementary
information we supplied in March
3. Decrease the cost of the SR 24 auxiliary lanes by$1.0 million(the$800,000 in
support costs included in our 1998 Strategic flan were not reflected in Track 1)
4. Reduce the"cost contingency" line item shown in the draft Track 1 by$15.6
million
With these changes, the total escalated Track 1 funds allocated to Contra Costa would
remain the same-4792.6 million in escalated dollars--even with the addition of the
three segments of the SR 4 Bypass project.
VASCO ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
We also note that while the Contra Costa portion of Track 1 includes $5.8 million for
essential safety improvements to Vasco Road in Alameda County, the necessary match
is not included in the Alameda County portion of Track 1. Significant safety issues
__. ......... ..........._... _. _.. ......... _ __
._.. ........ ......... ........ ........ ......... ........ . _. _.... . _.. ...... .... _...............
............................
........ .........
Draft
Mr. Larry Dahrns
August 26, 1998
Page 3
exist on the portion of Vasco Road south of Centra Costa now. Both the-Authority- and
MTC forecast that volumes on this road will grow significantly, exacerbating this
already hazardous situation. The proposed project would not increase the capacity of
Vasco Road but would instead address a problem that can only get worse as traffic
increases.
The Authority asks that MTC work together with us and the Alameda CMA to create a
workable resolution to this issue.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft 1998 RTP and to be a
part of shaping this blueprint for the region's future.
Sincerely,
Robert K. McCleary
Executive Director
I\S&Wykwpf,#e\ME E'rlT GS\PWming1153sw9\1)mft RTS'C==nt Letter.wpd
......... ........... __..... ._._. _..
.__. ...... ........ ......... ............ .._......... ...._.... _.
. ..... . .............. _.
....... ........._......................_. ..
6,
MI awk6ew
The Board of Supervisors Contra Cl"d#0 Gowd
County Adminluatton BuildingCosta A&Nn nkW
851 Pine Street.Roam 106 (510)3WI900
r rWw,Caldomia 94553-1293 County
.rte+floy.rs,ist>
ft*S.alto.,2nd rl YId °
Donne wear,3rd DWIct
wHc DeSmAnIer.41h 01ob d '
n<
dw Gw,6th owrict
September 22, 1998
Mr. Lawrence D. Dahms, Executive Director
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Dear Mr. Dahms:
I am writing to you on behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to comment on
the Draft 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Board members have followed the
development of the RTP through our representation on the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission(MTC), the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and varioustransportation
planning committees that conduct multi jurisdictional cooperative transportation planning in
Contra Costa. The continents of the Beard of Supervisors center on the State Route 4 Bypass
and Vasco Road, two important transportation facilities that connect Contra Costa to other
counties.
The Board supports including the State Route 4 Bypass as a four-lane expressway in the Track 1
category of the 1998 RTP. This request is consistent with the adopted General Plans of Antioch,
Brentwood, and Contra Costa County and with the request made by our congestion management
agency, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. The 1996 RTP already includes the first
phases of the Bypass as a locally-funded two-lane expressway from State Route 160 to Walnut
Boulevard. More recent forecasts of state and federal transportation revenues provide an
opportunity for further investment in this corridor. We request that MTC carefully consider the
proposal of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to include the State Route 4 Bypass as a
four-lane expressway. This proposal is described in their September 16, 1998 comments to you
on the Draft 1998 RTP, and provides a feasible way to include the Bypass as a four-lane facility in
the Track 1 category of the 1998 RTP while responsibly adhering to the financial constraints that
MTC must work within.
The Board is also concerned about the lack of coordination for planning essential safety
improvements to Vasco Road in Alameda County. The Draft 1998 RTP includes$5.8 million in
Track 1 revenues for this project, but the necessary match is not shown for Alameda County.
Mr. Dahms
September 22, 1998
Wage Two
Regional travel forecasts indicate that travel demand on this corridor will grow significantly as
workers in the Tri-Valley and Silicon Valley seek affordable housing in eastern Contra Costa.
The proposed project would not increase the capacity of Vasco Road, but would instead address
a problem that can only get worse as traffic increases. We support the Contra;Costa
Transportation Authority's request for MTC's assistance in developing a workable solution to the
operational and safety problems on Vasco Road that can be included in the 1998 RTP.
The Board of Supervisors would like to thank the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for
the opportunity to review and comment on the 1998 RTP.
Sincerely yours,
)mR og ers, Chair
Cc. supervisor DeSaulnier, MTC
Sharon Brown, MTC
Barbara Guise, OCTA
Supervisor Canciamilla, TRANSPLAN Committee