HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESOLUTIONS - 09132022 - 2022/311
"Accredited by the American Public Works Association"
255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4825
TEL: (925) 313-2000 • FAX: (925) 313-2333
www.cccpublicworks.org
Brian M. Balbas, Director
Deputy Directors
Stephen Kowalewski, Chief
Allison Knapp
Warren Lai
Carrie Ricci
Joe Yee
ADOPTED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON __________
Development Program Report
for the 2022 Update of the
Tri-Valley Transportation
Development Fee
June 2022
Prepared Pursuant to Section 913 of the County Ordinance Code
Prepared by and for:
Contra Cost a County Public Works Department, Transportation Engineering Division
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ................................................................ 1
CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 3: LOCATION AND BOUNDARY ...................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 4: GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP ................................................................ 5
CHAPTER 5: PROJECT LIST ............................................................................................ 6
CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ....................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 7: ESTIMATED COST OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ........................................... 8
CHAPTER 8: BASIS FOR FEE APPORTIONMENT ............................................................ 9
CHAPTER 9: FEE RATES ............................................................................................... 10
CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM FEES ................................................................................................................................................................... 10
RECOMMENDED FEE RATE ............................................................................................................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 10: PROGRAM FINANCE CONSIDERATIONS ............................................... 11
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES.............................................................................................................................................................................. 11
REVIEW OF FEES............................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
COLLECTION OF FEES ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
INTEREST ON FEES ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
DEDICATION IN L IEU OF FEE ........................................................................................................................................................................... 12
List of Tables
Table 1. Total Household Forecasts by Agency ............................................................. 7
Table 2. Total Employment Forecasts by Agency .......................................................... 7
Table 3. Maximum Fee Calculations ............................................................................ 10
Table 4. Determination of FY 2022/2023 Fee Rates ................................................... 11
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A: Tri-Valley Development Fee Area Legal Description
Exhibit B: Tri-Valley Development Fee Area Boundary Map
Exhibit C: Project List with Total and Unfunded Costs
Exhibit D: Tri-Valley Transportation Council 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
1 OF 12
Chapter 1: Introduction and Purpose
The Tri-Valley Transportation Development (“TVTD”) Fee is a uniform fee on development to fund
transportation improvements in the Tri -Valley area, both in Contra Costa County and in Alameda
County. The Tri-Valley area consists of the San Ramon Valley, Liv ermore Valley and Amador
Valley. Within this area are portions of southern Contra Costa County and northern Alameda
County and the Cities of San Ramon, Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin and the Town of Danville,
which collectively comprise the Tri -Valley Development Area.
This Development Program Report (“DPR”) is required by the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors’ Policy on Bridge Crossing and Major Thoroughfare Fees (adopted July 17, 1979),
which implements Division 913 of the County Ordinance Code a nd Section 66484 of the State
Subdivision Map Act.
The April 22, 1998, “Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Pertaining t o Tri-Valley Transportation
Development Fee for Traffic Mitigation” (“JEPA”) is an agreement among the County of Contra
Costa (“County”), the Town of Danville, the City of San Ramon, the City of Pleasanton, the City of
Dublin, the City of Livermore, and the County of Alameda. The JEPA established a framework for
the enactment of the TVTD Fee by the participant jurisdictions withi n the Tri -Valley Development
Area. These participant jurisdictions formed the Tri -Valley Transportation Council (TVTC). The
TVTC entered into a new agreement on May 16, 2011 , which resulted in the establishment of a
funding authority and also adopted a Str ategic Expenditure Plan (SEP).
This DPR details the basis for collection of the TVTD Fee in the County. The County’s ordinance
will apply only to new development within the unincorporated areas of the Tri -Valley Development
Area, an area known as the TVTD Fee Area. The TVTD Fee Area is specifically described in Exhibit
A and generally shown in Exhibit B. Similar ordinances will be or already have been adopted by
the other parties to the JEPA.
One of the objectives of the County General Plan and of th e JEPA is to relate new development
directly to the provision of facilities necessary to serve that new development. Accordingly,
development cannot be allowed to occur unless a mechanism is in place to provide the funding for
the infrastructure necessary to serve that development. The TVTD Fee provides funds to construct
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
2 OF 12
regional road improvements to serve new residential, office, commercial/retail, and industrial
developments. Requiring that all new development pay a regional road improvement fee will
ensure their participation in the cost of improving the regional road system.
Each new development or expansion of an existing development will generate new additional
traffic. Where the existing road system is inadequate to meet future needs based on ne w
development, improvements are required to meet the new demand. The purpose of a
development program is to determine improvements ultimately required to serve estimated future
development throughout the Tri -Valley Development Area and to require developers to pay a fee
to help fund these improvements. Because the TVTD Fee is based on the relative impact on the
road system and the costs of the necessary improvements to mitigate this impact, the fee amount
is roughly proportional to the development impact. This DPR discusses the basis of that fee
amount.
Chapter 2: Background
In 1991, the seven jurisdictions of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Dublin, Pleasanton,
Livermore, Danville, and San Ramon signed a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) that established the
Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC). The purpose of the JPA was f or the joint preparation of
a Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (TVTP/AP) for Routes of Regional Significance (RRS)
and cost sharing of recommended improvements. The TVTP/AP was prepared and presented to
all member jurisdictions in April 1995 and updated in 2000. The TVTP/AP created a common
understanding and agreement on the Tri -Valley’s transportation concerns regarding prioritizing
projects for funding and implementation.
In addition to the project priorities, the TVTP/AP also recommended the development of a TVTD
Fee Program to allocate a fair share of regional infrastructure cost to go towards new development.
The nexus study for the fee program, completed in 1995, justified allocating the unfunded cost
needed to complete all the 11 projects identified in the TVTP/AP to new development. The TVTC,
however, recommended scaling back by roughly two -thirds the total amount the fee program
would collect from the maximum funding needed. The TVTC and its member jurisdictions
subsequently created and adopted the TVTD Fee in 1998 through a Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement (JEPA). The original Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP) was adopted in 1999.
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
3 OF 12
The JEPA called for a periodic update of the fee program to reflect any significant changes in
population growth, project status, and other conditions that would require revisions to the fee
program. Since 1995, there have been substantial changes in the funding, planning, and traffic
setting since the TVTD Fee was originally developed. New funding sources wer e established; the
TVTP/AP was updated in 2000; projects were completed; project schedules and/or funding plans
shifted; traffic patterns changed; and new regional transportation projects were identified through
various traffic studies. The TVTC responded to these changes by directing the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) to conduct its first update to the fee nexus study to update the fee and project
list.
Completed and adopted in early 2008, the first update to the TVTC Nexus Study: Fee Update
(2008 Nexus Study) identified 22 projects that the TVTC elected for eligibility to receive funding
from the TVTD Fee Program. The first 11 projects (List A, Exhibit C ) were adopted into the original
program in 1995. The second set of 11 (List B, Exhibit C ), were new projects that were included
in the 2008 Nexus Study. The travel demand modeling documented in the 2008 Nexus Study
projected that these projects would further reduce congestion created by new development within
the Tri -Valley. A revised fee structure w as released by TVTC for consideration by each member
agency in late 2008. While each member agency communicated support for the revised fee
structure, it was not approved by all member agencies pending preparation and approval of a
corresponding SEP. A TVTC SEP Subcommittee was therefore formed to commence preparation of
an SEP.
To facilitate the progress of existing projects while an update to the SEP was underway, an Interim
Funding Plan was approved by TVTC in April 2010. The Interim Funding Plan matched the
programmed amounts and priorities established in the 2004 SEP Update. It also included a revised
disbursement timeline to reflect the current Joint TVTD Fee account balance and projected fee
collections over the next five years.
With respect to the TVTC JEPA, in October 2013 TVTC entered into a new Joint Exercise of Pow ers
Agreement (JEPA) comprised of seven member agencies: the County of Alameda, the County of
Contra Costa, the City of Livermore, the City of Pleasanton, the City of San Ramon, the City of
Dublin, and the Town of Danville. The purpose of the new JEPA agre ement was to establish the
TVTC as a separate agency responsible for planning, coordinating, and receiving disbursement of
traffic impact fee revenues from member agencies to help implement transportation improvement
projects within the Tri -Valley Area.
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
4 OF 12
Strategic Expenditure Plan
In January 2015, the TVTC adopted Resolution No. 2015 -01 – Adopting the updated Tri -Valley
Transportation Development Fee Schedule as a two -year phase-in plan, with no change during the
initial year (FY 14 -15), an increase to 2 5% of the maximum allowable rate by the fee nexus study
in the second year (FY 15 -16) and a final increase to 35% of the maximum allowable rate by the
third year (FY 16-17). The new fee was based on the Fee Nexus Study adopted in 2008.
In November 2015 , a review of the 2008 Nexus Study was conducted to determine if the analysis
establishing a reasonable relationship between the unexpended fees and the purpose for which
those fees were collected remained valid. This review analyzed the 2008 Nexus Study F ee Update
with current traffic conditions, forecasted growth, and project updates and found that the analysis
establishing a reasonable relationship between the unexpended fees and the purpose of which
those fees were collected was still valid. The review also identified a number of conditions that
had changed since the completion of the 2008 Nexus Study, such as growth projections were
lower in the more recent forecasts than at the time of the 2008 Nexus Study. This translated to
lower trip generation rate from new development. In addition, a number of the projects in the
Nexus Study had been completed or had a change in project description or cost estimate. However,
due to inflation and updated cost estimates, the total unfunded project cost had only decre ased
by 9 percent. The minor decrease in unfunded cost, paired with a decrease in expected new peak -
hour trips to which the fee would be applied, meant that the maximum fee identified in the 2008
Nexus Study would be higher in an updated calculation.
In January 2017, the TVTC approved the 2008 TVTC Nexus Study Validation Review and adopted
the 2017 SEP Update. At that time, the TVTC elected to maintain the current fee rate, with
exception of the annual Construction Cost Index (CCI) adjustment. The 2017 SEP update
incorporated and built upon the updated project descriptions, funding programs, and progression
of the TVTD Fee over the previous six years. Some of the transportation improvement projects on
the original list were completed and schedules and f unding for others had changed. The JEPA,
adopted in 2013, required approval for the SEP, by a supermajority of the TVTC – six members.
Since 2008, there have been changes in the funding, planning , and traffic conditions under which
the TVTD Fee was origi nally developed. In addition, many of the 22 projects have been completed
and the TVTC has identified 16 new projects (List C, Exhibit C) to be considered. Based on these
factors the 2020 Nexus Study was undertaken.
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
5 OF 12
On August 16, 2021, the TVTC approved TVTC Resolution No. 2021 -10, hereby adopting the Tri -
Valley Transportation Council 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study.
Chapter 3: Location and Boundary
The Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Area location is described in Exhibit A an d
generally shown in Exhibit B.
Chapter 4: General Plan Relationship
The basis for the TVTD Fee is consistent with the features of the County General Plan and its
amendments and subscribes to the policies of the General Plan elements. The General Plan policies
include, but are not limited to, improving the County roadway n etwork to meet existing and future
traffic demands. Establishing and charging new development the TVTD Fee will assist in funding
the necessary improvements required for future growth that are generally shown in the General
Plan.
The fees will be used to help finance improvements to state highways including freeways, not just
local surface streets. The Contra Costa County General Plan includes freeways in its Transportation
and Circulation Element as part of the General Plan Roadway and Transit Networ k. The
Transportation and Circulation Element also states the County shall work with Caltrans to establish
commuter lanes on new and expanded freeways and state highways and that the County shall
work with cities to establish regional funding mechanisms t o fund improvements to the Roadway
and Transit Network in the General Plan. The funding mechanisms “may include sales taxes, gas
taxes, or fees on new development” (Contra Costa County General Plan page 5 -17, Item 5-f).
The County General Plan and its various elements are available for review on -line at the
Department of Conservation and Development’s website or at the Community Development
Division, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, during regular office hours.
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
6 OF 12
Chapter 5: Project List
The project list for the TVTD Fee Program is set forth in Exhibit C . The current projects are divided
into two lists. The first list, List A, includes 7 projects that were included in the original program
adopted in 1995. The second list, List B, includes 8 projects t hat were included in the 2008 Nexus
Study.
Of the 27 existing projects, 10 projects have been completed and are no longer considered for
further funding. In addition, two projects (B-9 Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road I -680
Intersection and B-11a I-680 HOV Direct Access Ramps) have been removed from the project list
and are no longer being considered for funding . Thus, a total of 12 projects have been removed
from the prior lists. The remaining projects have not been fully completed. The project li st table
in Exhibit C summaries the projects in List A and B along with their total project costs and their
remaining unfunded costs.
With almost half of the current project list completed and no longer receiving funding, TVTC
reviewed and selected additio nal projects to be considered for receiving funding from the TVTD
Fee Program. This selection process involved a comprehensive planning process to develop a
project list that mitigates the impacts of new development based on feasibility and stakeholder
support. From this process, 23 additional projects (List C) were identified to receive funding from
the TVTD Fee Program. List C projects, along with their total projects costs and their remaining
unfunded costs are also listed in Exhibit C.
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
7 OF 12
Chapter 6: Development Potential
The Nexus Study: Tri-Valley Transportation Council (Nexus Study), dated August 2021, was
prepared by Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. for the TVTC, and is attached as Exhibit D and
incorporated herein by reference. The Nexus Study provides the technical basis for establishing
the required nexus between the anticipated future development within the TVTD Area and the
need for certain facilities. The projected growth in households and employment within the TVTD
Area is discussed and shown in the Nexus Study.
A summary of the potential new residential dwelling units, office, industrial, and commercial / retail
developments (net growth from 2020 to 2040) for 7 total agencies comprising the TVTC are shown
below in Table 1 and Table 2.
Table 1. Total Household Forecasts by Agency
Agency 2020-2040 Growth
(Households)
Percent Change Annual Growth
Rate
Danville 993 6% 0.31%
Dublin 7,397 34% 1.48%
Livermore 9,074 30% 1.30%
Pleasanton 6,316 23% 1.03%
San Ramon 9,014 33% 1.42%
Unincorporated Alameda 254 12% 0.57%
Unincorporated Contra Costa 264 2% 0.11%
Total Tri -Valley 33,312 24% 1.09%
Table 2. Total Employment Forecasts by Agency
Agency 2020-2040 Growth
(Employment)
Percent Change Annual Growth
Rate
Danville 189 1% 0.05%
Dublin 9,314 40% 1.69%
Livermore 20,757 45% 1.88%
Pleasanton 24,293 39% 1.66%
San Ramon 8,488 17% 0.78%
Unincorporated Alameda 555 13% 0.60%
Unincorporated Contra Costa 351 8% 0.38%
Total Tri -Valley 63,947 30% 1.34%
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
8 OF 12
Chapter 7: Estimated Cost of Road Improvements
The estimated cost of the road improvements planned for the TVTD Fee Program is listed in Exhibit
C. The TVTD Fee Program will only finance the proportional share of the improvements
necessitated by the impact on the road system from new development.
Detailed cost estimates for the projects included in the road improvement plan are provided in
Appendices A and B of the Nexus Study.
The County will assess an administrative fee equal to 2% of the applicable fee. This additional
fee will be used to cover staff time for fee collection, accounting, and technical support to the
community groups and traffic advisory committees.
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
9 OF 12
Chapter 8: Basis for Fee Apportionment
The basis for the fee apportionment is set forth in detail Chapter 4 of the Nexus Study and Chapter
9 of this DPR.
To summarize, the land use categories for which a fee will be assessed in the TVTD Area, are
single-family and multi -family residential, office, industrial, commercial/retail, and “other.” The
total TVTD Fee share of the cost of improvements is divided by the total number of peak-hour
trips generated by all of these land use categories to determine a cost per peak-hour trip.
The costs are then distributed based on a peak -hour trip rate. For the residential categ ories, the
cost is distributed among all dwelling units. In the non-residential categories, the cost is distributed
per square foot of gross floor area. For the “other” category, which includes land uses that do not
fall within the defined land use categories, the fee is based on the number of peak-hour trips
generated by the particular type of development. For those type of developments that do not fall
within a standard category, a traffic st udy prepared by a licensed engineer, reviewed, and
approved by the Public Works Department, or an analysis completed in accordance with the latest
revision of the Inst itute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, may be required to analyze
the project’s impact during the peak traffic hours. The project would then be charged the peak -
hour trip rate multiplied by the number of peak -hour trips identified by one of the methods above.
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
10 OF 12
Chapter 9: Fee Rates
Calculation of Maximum Fees
The fee calculation is set forth in detail in Chapter 4 of the Nexus Study.
To determine the maximum fee per dwelling unit, square-foot, or peak-hour trip depending on the
land use category, the total cost per category was divided by the total number of units, square -
feet, or peak-hour trips that occur between 2020 and 2040. An example calculation is shown
below:
𝑅𝑖𝑙𝑔𝑙𝑑 𝐹𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝑅𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙= $𝑋𝑋𝑋 𝑀𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑙𝑙
15,857 𝐷𝑤𝑑𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑙𝑔 𝑈𝑙𝑖𝑟𝑟=$𝑋𝑋𝑋 𝑙𝑑𝑟 𝑑𝑤𝑑𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑙𝑔 𝑟𝑙𝑖𝑟
The maximum fees are summarized in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the maximum fee for a single-
family residential unit is $43,397 while the maximum fee for one square-foot of retail use is $84.52.
Historically the TVTC has not applied the maximum fee schedule. For both the 1995 and 2008
nexus studies, the TVTC jurisdiction set rates at approximate one -third of the maximum fee
calculated in the 19 95 and 2008 Nexus studies to help foster growth within the Tri -Valley area,
while providing a regional funding source that could be used to match and help compete for
Federal and State transportation grants and funding programs.
Table 3. Maximum Fee Calculations
Land Use Type Growth Maximum Fee
Single-Family Residential 15,857 DU $43,976 per DU
Multi-Family Residential 17,456 DU $25,928 per DU
Retail 5,117,500 SF $84.52 per SF
Office 6,796,800 SF $58.72 per SF
Industrial 9,289,800 SF $33.81 per SF
Other 12,441 trips* $50,839 per trip*
Note: Reduction is only provided for comparison purposes and should not be seen as the preferred fees. *Average AM/PM trip.
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
11 OF 12
Recommended Fee Rate
The 2022 TVTD Fee is proposed to be set at between 6% to 15% of the justified maximum fee
rate and thus, the amount of the fee is lower than the actual costs attributable to new
development. The recommended fee rate is 15% of the maximum fee rate for the duration of
the SEP for all uses except retail and “other” land uses, which are recommended to be set at 6%
and 12% of the maximum fee rate, respectively. These rates are shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Determination of FY 2022/2023 Fee Rates
Land Use Type Maximum Fee % of Maximum FY 2022/2023 Rates
Single-Family Residential $43,976 per DU 15% $6,596.40 per DU
Multi -Family Residential $25,928 per DU 15% $3,889.20 per DU
Retail $84.52 per SF 6% $5.07 per SF
Office $58.72 per SF 15% $8.81 per SF
Industrial $33.81 per SF 15% $4.97 per SF
Other $50,839 per trip* 12% $6,100.68 per trip*
*Average AM/PM trip.
Chapter 10: Program Finance Considerations
Other Funding Sources
The planned improvements are only partially funded by the TVTD Fee. The rate of revenue
generated in the TVTD Area is dependent on the rate of new development within this area. This
rate of revenue affects the timing of the construction of the improvemen ts as it is dependent on
the total amount of fees collected less expenditures.
Other funding sources may be available to help fund the proposed transportation projects. These
other funding sources include but are not limited to Regional Measure J Funds , State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Funds, and Federal Program Funds, or local sources
such as sales tax, gas tax, etc.
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
12 OF 12
Review of Fees
Project cost estimates will be reviewed periodically while the TVTD Fee Program is in effect. On
July 1 of each year, the amount of the fees will be increased or decreased based on the
percentage change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San
Francisco Bay Area for the 12 -month period ending April 30 of that calendar year, without
further action of the Board of Supervisors.
Collection of Fees
Fees will be collected when a building permit is issued in accordance with Section 913 -4.204 of
Title 9 (Subdivisions) of the County Ordinance Code. Fees collected will be deposited into inte rest
bearing trust funds established pursuant to Section 913 -8.002 of the County Ordinance Code.
Interest on Fees
The interest accrued on the fees collected shall continue to accumulate in the trust account and
shall be expended for administration, desi gn and construction of the improvements, or to
reimburse the County for the cost of constructing the improvements, pursuant to Section 913 -
8.006 of the County Ordinance Code.
Dedication in Lieu of Fee
A development may be required to construct, or dedicate right -of-way for, a portion of the
improvements as a condition of approval. In such an event, the developer may be eligible to
receive credit for the TVTD Fee or reimbursement. The eligible credit a nd/or reimbursement will
be determined in accordance with the County’s “Traffic Fee Credit and Reimbursement Policy”.
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
Exhibit A: Tri-Valley Development Fee Area Legal
Description
Real property in Southern Contra Costa County, California, bounded on the south by Alameda
County, bounded on the north by the “South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit” adopted December 6,
1994, by Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors’ Resolution 94/604, and bounded on the north
and west by the “Central County Area of Benefit” adopted June 13, 1995, by Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors’ Resolution 95/2 73 described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the west line of Section 23, Township 2 South, Range 1 East,
Mount Diablo Meridian with the boundary common to Contra Costa and Alameda Counties; thence
from the Point of Beginning, along said Coun ty boundary in a general westerly direction 101,550
feet, more or less, to Rancho corner P.C. No. 31 on the boundary of Rancho Laguna de los Palos
Colorados; thence along said Rancho boundary, north 19°28'45" east 3,547.16 feet to Rancho
Corner P.C. No. 32 and north 1°13'26" east 929.81 feet to the boundary of the Record of Survey
filed June 20, 1980, in Book 67 of Licensed Surveyors’ Maps at page 9; thence along the boundary
of said Record of Survey as follows: 1) north 88°52'39" east 513.17 feet, 2) north 0°15'16" west
1,303.04 feet, 3) north 88°43'10" east 1,290.34 feet, and 4) north 0°27'37" west 1,306.53 feet to
the northwest corner of Section 28, Township 1 South, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Meridian;
thence along the north lines of Sections 28, 27 and 26 (T1S, R2W), easterly 15,840 feet, more or
less, to the west line of Section 25 (T1S, R2W); thence along said west line, southerly 2,640 feet,
more or less, to the west quarter corner of said Section 25; thence south 88°43'05" east 1,063.84
feet to the northwest corner of Subdivision MS 28 -82 filed November 21, 1983, in Book 108 of
Parcel Maps at page 11; thence along the north line of Subdivision MS 28 -82, south 88°47'23"
east 1,062.06 feet to the northwest corner of Subdivision MS 53 -81 filed March 28, 1985, in Book
115 of Parcel Maps at page 14; thence along the north line of Subdivision MS 53 -81, south
88°43'43" east 3,035.66 feet to the east line of said Section 25 (T1S, R2W); thence along said
east line, northerly 2,640 feet, more or less, to the n ortheast corner of Section 25, said point lying
on the southerly boundary of the parcel of land described as PARCEL FIVE in the deed to East Bay
Regional Park District recorded April 4, 1974, in Book 7189 of Official Records at page 183; thence
along said boundary, in a general northerly direction 2,325.7 feet to the east line of the Parcel of
land described as PARCEL ONE in the deed to the United States of America recorded July 29, 1980,
in Book 9930 of Official Records at page 913; thence along said east line, in a general northwesterly
direction 192.27 feet to an angle point on the boundary of said East Bay Regional Park District
PARCEL FIVE (7189 O.R. 183); thence along said boundary, in a general northwesterly direction
1207.59 feet to the northeast cor ner thereof, said point being the southeast corner of the parcel
of land described as PARCEL TWO in said deed to the East Bay Regional Park District (7189 O.R.
183); thence along the northeast line of PARCEL TWO (7189 O.R. 183), said line also being the
boundary of Rancho San Ramon, northwesterly 4,840 feet, more or less, to the most easterly
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
corner of Subdivision MS 150 -75 filed June 14, 1976, in Book 45 of Parcel Maps at page 41; thence
along the boundary of said Subdivision MS 150 -75 as follows: 1) south 63°16' west 193.73 feet,
2) south 76°18'50" west 481.39 feet, 3) north 84°17' west 2,622.91 feet, and 4) north 0°39'40"
west 1,233.72 feet to the northwest corner of said Subdivision MS 150 -75, said point lying on the
south line of Subdivision 6419 filed July 28, 1988, in Book 323 of Maps at page 39; thence along
said south line, north 84°47'44" west 1,353.46 feet to the southwest corner of said Subdivision
6419, said point lying on the centerline of Section 14, Township 1 South, Range 2 West, Mount
Diablo Meridian; thence along said centerline of Section 14 and the centerline of Section 11 (T1S,
R2W), northerly 6,663.66 feet to the southwest corner of the parcel of land described in the deed
to David L. Gates, et ux, recorded April 9, 1981, in Book 10275 o f Official Records at page 438;
thence along the south line of said Gates parcel (10275 O.R. 438) easterly 300 feet to the most
southeast corner thereof, said point lying on the boundary of Subdivision MS 58 -75 recorded
October 26, 1978, in Book 71 of Parcel Maps at page 23; thence along the boundary of said
Subdivision MS 58-75 (71 PM 23) as follows: 1) north 87°05'11" east 274.17 feet, 2) in a general
northerly direction 3,354.5 feet to the northeast corner thereof, 3) north 89°12'12" west 176.01
feet, and 4) south 0°36' west 41.92 feet to the southeast corner of Subdivision MS 133 -72 filed
September 7, 1972, in Book 24 of Parcel Maps at page 9; thence along the south line of Subdivision
MS 133-72, south 89°12'36" west 259.78 feet to the Centerline of Cast le Hill Ranch Road (a private
road); thence along said centerline in a general northerly direction, 907 feet, more or less to the
northeast corner of Lot “B” as shown on the Record of Survey filed May 13, 1984, in Book 74 of
Licensed Surveyors’ Maps at pag e 12, said point being the most southern corner of the said “South
Walnut Creek Area of Benefit” (Res. 94/604); thence along the boundary of said “South Walnut
Creek Area of Benefit”, in a general northerly and easterly direction, 6,275 feet, more or less, to
the most eastern corner thereof, said point being the intersection of the centerline of Crest Avenue
with the extended west right of way line of South Main Street; thence along said extension and
west right of way line in a general southerly direction 565 feet, more or less, to the southeast
corner of Subdivision MS 114 -75 filed October 20, 1976 in Book 49 of Parcel Maps at page 19;
thence along the arc of a non-tangent curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 1,096
feet on the northwest line o f the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way, northeasterly 52 feet,
more or less, to the most western corner of Assessor Parcel Number (hereinafter referred to as
APN) 183-093-031 described as PARCEL THIRTY-ONE in the deed to Contra Costa County recorded
December 9, 1985 in Book 12652 of Official Records at page 570; thence non -tangent along the
southwest line thereof, crossing Engineer’s Station 603+65, southeasterly 110 feet, more or less,
to the southeast line of said County parcel, being a non -tangent curve concave to the northwest
having a radius of 1,196 feet and being concentric with said northwest line; thence along the arc
of said curve, northeasterly 52 feet, more or less, to the southwest line of APN 183 -093-023
described in the deed to East Bay Municipal Utility District (hereinafter referred to as EBMUD)
recorded January 5, 1968 in Book 5530 of Official Records at page 93; thence along said southwest
line, south 22°53'01" east 33.76 feet; thence crossing Rudgear Road, southeasterly 245 feet, mo re
or less, to the northwest corner of APN 187 -040-007 described as PARCEL 11 in the deed to Contra
Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District recorded December 20, 1967 in Book
5520 of Official Records at page 451; thence along the boundar y of PARCEL 11, in a general
southeasterly direction 1,036.02 feet and north 64°16'18" east 239.65 feet, to the most eastern
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
corner thereof on the west right of way line of Interstate Freeway 680; thence along said west
line in a general southeasterly direction 836 feet, more or less, to the boundary of APN 187 -050-
011 and 012 described as Parcel 1 in the deed to Edward Johannessen and Juliet Johannessen
1987 Revocable Living Trust recorded March 22, 1988 in Book 14228 of Official Records at page
211; thence along said boundary as follows: 1) south 63°37'38" west 44.33 feet, 2) south
23°15'36" east 359.22 feet, 3) north 64°03'39" east 14.72 feet, 4) south 23°15'36" east 144.57
feet, 5) south 45°21'24" west 36.15 feet, 6) south 55°15'24" west 108.21 feet, 7) south 32°31'24"
west 152.34 feet, 8) south 12°04'24" west 20.34 feet, 9) south 33°09'41" east 465.15 feet, 10)
north 35°52'50" east 129.8 feet, 11) south 29°21'32" east 64.96 feet, and 12) south 69°09'52"
east 54.67 feet, to the most southeastern corner t hereof on the west right of way line of Interstate
Freeway 680; thence along said west line in a general southeasterly direction 1,209.59 feet; thence
crossing said freeway, north 53°47'20" east 290 feet, more or less, to the east right of way line
thereof; thence along said east line in a general southeasterly direction 2,259.08 feet to the west
line of Subdivision 6468 recorded January 8, 1982 in Book 286 of Maps at page 41; thence along
said west line in a general northerly direction 828.77 feet to the s outh line of APN 187 -160-013
described as Parcel Three in the deed to the City of Walnut Creek recorded July 5, 1984 in Book
11867 of Official Records at page 965; thence along said south line and the south line of
Subdivision 4810 filed September 23, 1976 in Book 189 of Maps at page 48, south 89°43'18" east
944.73 feet, to the southwest corner of Subdivision 3037 recorded June 25, 1964 in Book 99 of
Maps at page 30; thence along lot lines of Subdivision 3037, south 89°43'18" east 933.43 feet,
south 6°19'31 " east 712.51 feet and along the north right of way line of Livorna Road, north
72°23'20" east 145.74 feet; thence crossing Trotter Way, north 72°23'20" east 100 feet, more or
less, to the south line of Lot 131 (99 M 30); thence continuing along lot lines of Subdivision 3037
as follows: 1) along the north right of way line of Livorna Road, north 72°23'20" east 272.09 feet,
2) north 1°36'23" east 275.72 feet, 3) south 88°23'37" east 149.23 feet 4) south 1°36'23" west
223.71 feet, and 5) along the north right of way line of Livorna Road in a general easterly direction
79.27 feet, to the east boundary of Subdivision 3037; thence along said boundary in a general
northerly direction 1,532.28 feet to the northeast corner thereof, also being the southeast corner
of Subdivision 3827 recorded June 11, 1969 in Book 126 of Maps at page 38; thence along the
east line of Subdivision 3827, north 1°31'55" east 942.5 feet, to the southwest corner of
Subdivision 5366 recorded March 25, 1980 in Book 236 of Maps at page 7; then ce along the
boundary of Subdivision 5366 in a general easterly direction 400.83 feet to the southeast corner
thereof on the boundary of Subdivision 5931 recorded June 29, 1983 in Book 271 of Maps at page
21; thence along the boundary of Subdivision 5931, in a general southeasterly direction 105.63
feet along Livorna Heights Road right of way line and south 55°22'55" east 537 feet, to the
southeast corner of Subdivision 5931 on the west line of Subdivision 4402 recorded December 27,
1974 in Book 175 of Maps at page 25; thence along said west line, south 1°32'10" west 1063.35
feet to the northwest corner of Subdivision 3973 recorded August 18, 1972 in Book 149 of Maps
at page 20; thence along the west line of Subdivision 3973 and its southern prolongation, so uth
1°32'10" west 967.1 feet, to the centerline of Livorna Road; thence along said centerline in a
general easterly direction 890.41 feet to the southern prolongation of the east line of Subdivision
3973; thence along said prolongation and east line, nor th 1°44'25" east 1,057.06 feet, to the
southeast corner of Subdivision 4402 (175 M 25); thence continuing north 1°44'25" east 1,527.78
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
feet to the northeast corner of Subdivision 4402 on the boundary of Subdivision 4924 recorded
May 18, 1977 in Book 196 of Maps at page 28; thence along said boundary in a general
southeasterly direction 2,879.25 feet to the southeast corner thereof on the boundary of
Subdivision 6743 filed June 9, 1987 in Book 313 of Maps at page 28; thence along said boundary,
north 21°53'15" west 3,423.26 feet, north 73°16'01" east 4,566.44 feet, and south 13°51'48" east
5,687.22 feet, to the most southern corner thereof on the south line of Rancho San Miguel and
the Record of Survey filed August 27, 1970 in Book 53 of Licensed Surveyors’ M aps at page 13;
thence along said south line, south 76°53'13" east 1,445.41 feet, to the most southern corner of
said Record of Survey (53 LSM 13) on the boundary of that 787.58 acre parcel shown on the
Record of Survey filed June 22, 1960, in Book 18 of L icensed Surveyors’ Maps at page 39; thence
along the boundary of said parcel (18 LSM 39), south 6°08'40" east 2,389.28 feet and north
87°52'06" east 9,881.20 feet to the southeast corner thereof on the northwest line of Lot D,
Rancho San Miguel Robert Allen Tract; thence along said northwest line, northeasterly 3,100 feet,
more or less, to the centerline of Mount Diablo Scenic Boulevard (North Gate Road); thence along
said centerline in a general easterly direction 12,400 feet, more or less, to the centerl ine
intersection of Summit Road; thence along the centerline of Mount Diablo Scenic Boulevard (South
Gate Road) in a general southerly direction 6,700 feet, more or less, to the south line of Section
12 Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Mount Diablo Meridian ; thence along said south line, easterly
4,400 feet, to the northwest corner of Section 18, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo
Meridian; thence along the west line of said Section 18 (T1S, R1E) southerly 5,280 feet, more or
less, to the southwest corner thereof; thence along the south line of Sections 18, 17 and 16,
Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, easterly 15,840 feet, more or less, to
the northwest corner of Section 22, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Meridian,
thence along the west line of said Section 22 (T1S, R1E), southerly 5,280 feet, more or less, to
the southwest corner thereof; thence along the south line of Sections 22 and 23 (T1S, R1E),
easterly 10,560 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner of Sec tion 26 (T1S, R1E); thence, along
the east line of Sections 26 and 35 (T1S, R1E), southerly 10,560 feet, more or less to the northeast
corner of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Meridian; thence along the
east line of Sections 2 and 11 (T2S, R1E), southerly 10,560 feet, more or less, to the northeast
corner of Section 14, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Meridian; thence along the
north line of said Section 14, (T2S, R1E), westerly 2,640 feet, more or less, to the northeas t corner
of Parcel “D” of Subdivision MS 80 -85 filed May 14, 1987, in Book 127 of Parcel Maps at page 32;
thence along the east line of said Parcel “D” and its southerly prolongation, southerly 6,250 feet,
more or less, to a point on the said boundary comm on to Contra Costa and Alameda Counties;
thence along said County boundary in a general westerly direction 2,800 feet, more or less, to the
Point of Beginning.
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
Exhibit B: Tri-Valley Development Fee Area Boundary Map
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
Exhibit C: Project List with Total and Unfunded Costs
Allocation of Project Costs to Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Program
Project
Number Project Total Cost
(2021 $Million)
Unfunded Cost
(2021 $Million)
A -2a State Route (SR 84) Expressway (I -580 to I -680) $325.4 -
A -2b SR 84/I -580 Interchange $22.7 $6.42
A -9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 $10.87 $8.42
A -9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2 $58.77 $57.08
A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 $40.57 $11.14
A-10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 $31.20 $28.62
A -11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – Phase 2 $22.35 $21.21
B-1 I -580/I -680 Interchange (westbound to southbound) $1,785.65 $1,746.65
B-3 $98I -580/First Street Interchange Modification $61.00 $7.93
B-4 I -580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification $85.65 $16.61
B-5 I -580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification $86.00 $18.92
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
B-6 Jack London Boulevard Extension $28.16 $10.08
B-7 El Charro Road Extension (Stoneridge Drive/Jack
London Boulevard to Stanley Boulevard) $72.48 $72.48
B-8
Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project
(East of Blackhawk Drive to North Dublin Ranch
Drive)
$88.08 $54.55
B-11b I -680 Transit Corridor Improvements $274.85 $274.85
C-1 Tesla Road Safety Improvements $13.19 $13.19
C-2 Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement $24.49 $18.49
C-3 Dublin Boulevard – North Canyons Parkway
Extensions $160.39 $134.91
C-4 Vasco Road at Dalton Avenue Intersection
Improvements $3.39 $3.39
C-5 El Charro Road Widening $68.09 $38.09
C-6 Sunol/680 Interchange Improvements $16.60 $7.60
C-7 I -680 Express Lanes – Hwy 84 to Alcosta $527.57 $507.57
C-8 Santa Rita/I -580 Interchange $10.33 $2.63
C-9 Stoneridge/I -680 Interchange $11.98 $4.08
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
C-10 Innovate 680 $57.21 $54.66
C-11a Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing –
Bollinger Canyon Road $22.88 $8.58
C-11b Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing –
Crow Canyon Road $19.69 $19.69
C-11c Iron Horse Trail – Dublin $11.60 -
C-11d Iron Horse Trail – Livermore $26.99 $26.99
C-11e Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs $1.65 $0.30
C-11f Iron House Trail Connection Improvements at Santa
Rita Road $0.87 $0.48
C-11g Iron Horse Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing –
Sycamore Valley Road $19.78 $19.78
C-11h Iron Horse Trail Safety Improvements $85.60 $85.60
C-12 Hacienda/I -580 Interchange Improvements $39.13 $34.50
C-13 Fallon/El Charro Interchange Improvements $34.51 $19.96
C-14 Valley Link Rail (Phase 1) $258.25 $258.25
C-15 Technology Enhancements $0.33 $0.33
C-16 I -680 Express Bus Service $59.35 $59.36
Source: Tri-Valley Transportation Council 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
Development Program Report
For the
TVTD Fee Update
Exhibit D: Tri-Valley Transportation Council 2020 Nexus
Fee Update Study
Exhibit D
Attached as Separate Document
Tri-Valley Transportation Council
2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
TVTC MEMBER AGENCIES
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
AUGUST 2021 | FINAL
Prepared By:
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final i
CONTENTS
Acronym List .............................................................................................................................. iv
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... i
1 Introduction and Background ........................................................................................... 1
2 Forecast of New Development and Travel Demand ......................................................... 4
3 Improvement Projects and Cost Estimates .................................................................... 19
4 Nexus Findings .............................................................................................................. 22
5 Next Steps ..................................................................................................................... 33
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................ 34
Appendix A – Existing TVTC Projects ....................................................................................... 35
Appendix B – Additional TVTC Projects .................................................................................... 52
Appendix C – Project Improvement Categories ......................................................................... 66
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final ii
TABLES
Table 1: Total Household Forecasts by Agency ......................................................................... 5
Table 2: Projected Dwelling Unit Growth, 2020-2040 ................................................................. 6
Table 3: Single Family Household Forecasts by Agency ............................................................ 6
Table 4: Multifamily Household Forecasts by Agency ................................................................ 7
Table 5: Total Employment Forecasts by Agency ...................................................................... 8
Table 6: Total Employment Forecasts by Employment Type ...................................................... 9
Table 7: Employment Growth Converted to Square Commercial Building Space ......................13
Table 8: Overall Growth Comparison ........................................................................................13
Table 9: Household Growth Comparison ...................................................................................15
Table 10: Actual Versus Projected 2020 Household Values ......................................................15
Table 11: Employment Growth Comparison ..............................................................................18
Table 12: Actual Versus Projected 2020 Employment Values ...................................................18
Table 13: Existing Projects – List A& B .....................................................................................20
Table 14: New Selected Projects – List C .................................................................................21
Table 15: Methodology and Improvements ...............................................................................24
Table 16: Future Build vs No Build Scenario Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) .............................25
Table 17: HSIP Crash Saving Dollar Amounts ..........................................................................27
Table 18: Future Safety Benefits with Project Improvements ....................................................27
Table 19: Future Project Induced Daily Bicycle Demand ...........................................................27
Table 20: Safety Benefits with Project C-11 ..............................................................................28
Table 21: AM/PM Peak-Hour Average Trip Rate Comparison Between 7th Edition and 10th
Edition .......................................................................................................................................29
Table 22: Total Trip Ends by Land Use Category ......................................................................30
Table 23: Total Fee by Land Use Category ...............................................................................31
Table 24: Total Cost and Maximum Fee by Land Use Category ...............................................32
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final iii
FIGURES
Figure 1:Total Household Forecasts by Agency ......................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Single Family Household Forecasts by Agency ........................................................... 7
Figure 3: Multifamily Household Forecasts by Agency ............................................................... 8
Figure 4: Total Employment Forecasts by Agency ..................................................................... 9
Figure 5: Retail Employment Forecasts by Agency ...................................................................10
Figure 6: Service Employment Forecasts by Agency ................................................................10
Figure 7: Other Employment Forecasts by Agency ...................................................................11
Figure 9: Manufacturing Employment Forecasts by Agency ......................................................12
Figure 10: Trade/Wholesale Employment Forecasts .................................................................12
Figure 11: 2008 Nexus and 2020 Refined Dwelling Unit Forecast .............................................14
Figure 12: 2008 Nexus Study and 2020 Nexus Study Employment Forecast (Retail, Service,
Other) .......................................................................................................................................16
Figure 13: 2008 Nexus Study and 2020 Nexus Study Employment Forecast (Agriculture,
Manufacturing, Trading) ............................................................................................................17
Figure 14: Future Build vs No Build Scenario Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) ............................25
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final iv
ACRONYM LIST
ACTC Alameda County Transportation Commission
ATP Active Transportation Program
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority
CHP California Highway Patrol
CMF Crash Modification Factors
CPM County Program Manager
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FHWA Federal Highway Authority
HOV High Occupancy Vehicle
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
I-580 Interstate 580
I-680 Interstate 680
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
JEPA Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
JPA Joint Power Agreement
LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority
LRSM Local Roadway Safety Manual
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG One Bay Area Grant Program
OTS Office of Traffic Safety
PM Post Mile
PSR Project Study Report
PSR-PDS Project Study Report-Project Development Support
RRS Routes of Regional Significance
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SAV Shared Autonomous Vehicle
SB 1 Senate Bill 1
SEP Strategic Expenditure Plan
SR 84 State Route 84
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TBD To Be Determined
TDM Travel Demand Model
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final v
TEP Transportation Expenditure Plan
TFCA Transportation Fund for Clean Air
TIF Transportation Improvement Fee
TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership and Cooperation
TSP Transit Signal Priority
TVTC Tri-Valley Transportation Council
TVTDF Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee
TVTP/AP Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan
VHD Vehicle Hours of Delay
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Completed and adopted in early 2008, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) Nexus Study: Fee
Update (“2008 Nexus Study”) identified 22 projects that the TVTC elected for eligibility to receive funding
from the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF). The first 11 projects (List A, Table 13) were
adopted into the original program in 1995. The second set of 11 (List B, Table 13), were new projects that
were included in the 2008 Nexus Study. The travel demand modeling documented in the 2008 Nexus Study
projected that these projects would reduce the congestion created by new development within the Tri-
Valley.
Since 2008, there have been changes in the funding, planning and traffic conditions under which the TVTDF
was originally developed. In addition, many of the 27 original projects have been completed and the TVTC
has identified 23 new projects (List C, Table 14) to be considered. Based on these factors an updated nexus
study is needed to support updates to the TVTDF.
FORECAST GROWTH
New development within the Tri-Valley is forecast to add 33,312 household and 63,947 jobs between 2018
and 2040. This growth will produce an increase of 57,596 average AM/PM peak hour trips.
PROJECT BENEFITS
Based on forecast projection, the vehicle hour of delay is expected to increase by 60 percent during the
AM and 88 percent during the PM peak. With the construction remaining improvement projects, this delay
is expected to decrease by 15 percent during the AM peak and 23 percent during the PM peak when
compared to the 2040 No-Build Scenario. In addition, these projects will result in other benefits to the Tri-
Valley Area including improving roadway safety, improving roadway operations, and increasing bicycle
ridership.
Figure E-1: Future Build vs No Build Scenario Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD)
24,718
15,613
39,570
29,376
35,852
25,813
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak HourVehicle Hours of Delay (VHD)2020 2040 No-Build 2040 Build
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final ii
Note: Hours of delay are based on trips with origin or destination in the TVTC region.
UPDATED FEE
The total investment for projects eligible to receive TVTDF funding is estimated to be $4.470 billion, where
$3.677 Billion is unfunded. An additional reduction was applied to account for external “cut-though” trips on
roadway congestion projects. Future development within the Tri-Valley area is not responsible to pay for
these trips since these trips are caused by growth outside of the Tri-Valley area. This reduces the total
unfunded cost to be covered by the maximum TVTDF to $2.928 billion. Note that this does not change the
overall project costs.
The $2.928 billion unfunded cost was allocated across future development land use type based on the
proportion of forecast peak-hour trips to determine the Total Fee per Land Use. Then the maximum fee
schedule was determined by dividing Total Fee per Land Use by the 2020-2040 Growth as shown in Table
E-1 below.
Table E-1: Maximum Fee by Land Use Category
Land Use Type Growth Maximum Fee
Single-Family Residential 15,857 DU $43,976 per DU
Multi-Family Residential 17,456 DU $25,928 per DU
Retail 5,117,500 SF $84.52 per SF
Office 6,796,800 SF $58.72 per SF
Industrial 9,289,800 SF $33.81 per SF
Other 12,441 trips* $50,839 per trip*
* Average AM/PM trip
The maximum fee schedule shown in in Table E-1 would generate sufficient revenues to fund the total
unfunded cost of all selected projects, however TVTC jurisdictions are not obligated to apply this fee
schedule. For instance, the TVTC jurisdiction set rates at approximate 1/3 of the maximum fee calculated
in the 1995 and 2008 Nexus studies to help foster growth within the Tri-Valley area, while providing a
regional funding source that could be used to match and help compete for Federal and State transportation
grants and funding programs.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 1
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
In 1991, the seven jurisdictions of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore,
Danville, and San Ramon signed a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) that established the Tri-Valley
Transportation Council (TVTC). The purpose of the JPA was for the joint preparation of a Tri-Valley
Transportation Plan/Action Plan (TVTP/AP) for Routes of Regional Significance (RRS) and cost sharing of
recommended improvements. The TVTP/AP was prepared and presented to all member jurisdictions in
April 1995 and updated in 2000. The TVTP/AP created a common understanding and agreement on the
Tri-Valley’s transportation concerns regarding prioritizing projects for funding and implementation.
In addition to the project priorities, the TVTP/AP also recommended the development of a TVTDF to allocate
a fair share of regional infrastructure cost to go towards new development. The nexus study for the fee
program, completed in 1995, justified allocating the unfunded cost needed to complete all of the 11 projects
identified in the TVTP/AP to new development. The TVTC, however, recommended scaling back by roughly
two-thirds the total amount the fee program would collect from the maximum funding needed. The TVTC
and its member jurisdictions subsequently created and adopted the TVTDF in 1998 through a Joint Exercise
of Powers Agreement (JEPA). The original Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP) was adopted in 1999.
The JEPA called for a periodic update of the fee program to reflect any significant changes in population
growth, project status, and other conditions that would require revisions to the fee program. Since 1995,
there have been substantial changes in the funding, planning, and traffic setting in which the TVTDF was
originally developed. New funding sources were established; the TVTP/AP was updated in 2000; projects
were completed; project schedules and/or funding plans shifted; traffic patterns changed; and new regional
transportation projects were identified through various traffic studies. The TVTC responded to these
changes by directing the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to conduct its first update to the fee nexus
study to update the fee and project list.
Completed and adopted in early 2008, the first update to the TVTC Nexus Study: Fee Update (“2008 Nexus
Study”) identified 22 projects that the TVTC elected for eligibility to receive funding from the TVTDF. The
first 11 projects (List A, Table 13) were adopted into the original program in 1995. The second set of 11
(List B, Table 13), were new projects that were included in the 2008 Nexus Study. The travel demand
modeling documented in the 2008 Nexus Study projected that these projects would further reduce
congestion created by new development within the Tri-Valley. A revised fee structure was released by
TVTC for consideration by each member agency in late 2008. While each member agency communicated
support for the revised fee structure, it was not approved by all member agencies pending preparation and
approval of a corresponding SEP. A TVTC SEP Subcommittee was therefore formed to commence
preparation of an SEP.
To facilitate the progress of existing projects while an update to the SEP was underway, an Interim Funding
Plan was approved by TVTC in April 2010. The Interim Funding Plan matched the programmed amounts
and priorities established in the 2004 SEP Update. It also included a revised disbursement timeline to reflect
the current Joint TVTDF account balance and projected fee collections over the next five years.
With respect to the TVTC JEPA, in October 2013 TVTC entered into a new Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement (JEPA) comprised of seven member agencies: the County of Alameda, the County of Contra
Costa, the City of Livermore, the City of Pleasanton, the City of San Ramon, the City of Dublin, and the
Town of Danville. The purpose of the new JEPA agreement was to establish the TVTC as a
separate agency responsible for planning, coordinating, and receiving disbursement of traffic impact fee
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 2
revenues from member agencies to help implement transportation improvement projects within the Tri-
Valley Area.
Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP)
In January 2015, the TVTC adopted Resolution No. 2015-01 – Adopting the updated Tri-Valley
Transportation Development Fee Schedule as a two-year phase-in plan, with no change during the initial
year (FY 14-15), an increase to 25% of the maximum allowable rate by the fee nexus study in the second
year (FY 15-16) and a final increase to 35% of the maximum allowable rate by the third year (FY 16-17).
The new fee was based on the Fee Nexus Study adopted in 2008.
In November 2015, a review of the 2008 Nexus Study was conducted to determine if the analysis
establishing a reasonable relationship between the unexpended fees and the purpose for which those fees
were collected remained valid. This review analyzed the 2008 Nexus Study Fee Update with current traffic
conditions, forecasted growth, and project updates and found that the analysis establishing a reasonable
relationship between the unexpended fees and the purpose of which those fees were collected was still
valid. The review also identified a number of conditions that had changed since the completion of the 2008
Nexus Study, such as growth projections were lower in the more recent forecasts than at the time of the
2008 Nexus Study. This translated to lower trip generation rate from new development. In addition, a
number of the projects in the Nexus Study had been completed or had a change in project description or
cost estimate. However, due to inflation and updated cost estimates, the total unfunded project cost had
only decreased by 9 percent. The minor decrease in unfunded cost, paired with a decrease in expected
new peak hour trips to which the fee would be applied, meant that the maximum fee identified in the 2008
Nexus Study would be higher in an updated calculation.
In January 2017, the TVTC approved the 2008 TVTC Nexus Study Validation Review and adopted the
2017 Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP)* Update. At that time, the TVTC elected to maintain the current fee
rate, with exception of the annual Construction Cost Index (CCI) adjustment. The 2017 SEP update
incorporated and built upon the updated project descriptions, funding programs, and progression of the
TVTDF over the previous six years. Some of the transportation improvement projects on the original list
were completed and schedules and funding for others had changed. The JEPA, adopted in 2013, required
approval for the SEP, by a supermajority of the TVTC – six members.
Since 2008, there have been changes in the funding, planning and traffic conditions under which the TVTDF
was originally developed. In addition, many of the 22 projects have been completed and the TVTC has
identified 16 new projects (List C, Table 14) to be considered. Based on these factors the 2020 updated
nexus study was undertaken.
On August 16, 2021, the TVTC approved Resolution No. 2021-10 Adopting the Tri-Valley Transportation
Council 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 3
1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The remainder of the report is divided into the following chapters:
• Chapter 2 - Forecast of New Development and Travel Demand: Describes the methodology,
assumption, and results used to determine future development forecast
• Chapter 3 - Improvement Projects and Cost Estimates: Presents list of improvement projects the
TVTC elected to receive funding from the TVTDF. Detailed project descriptions are provided in
Appendix A and Appendix B.
• Chapter 4 - Nexus Findings: Describes relevant findings for the imposition of development impact
fees,
• Chapter 5 - Next Steps: Identifies next steps for adopting the updated fee schedule.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 4
2 FORECAST OF NEW DEVELOPMENT AND TRAVEL DEMAND
This chapter describes the methodology, assumption, and results for travel demand forecasting.
2.1 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH
Travel demand forecasting was conducted using the current version of Contra Costa Transportation
Authority Travel Demand Model (CCTA TDM). The use of the CCTA TDM is consistent with the previous
2008 Nexus Study. Based on the outcome of initial discussions with the TAC, the following steps were
taken regarding the development of travel demand forecasts:
• Travel demand forecasting was reaffirmed to be based on the latest version of CCTA TDM. In 2019,
the CCTA TDM was updated to incorporate assumptions consistent with the current (as of 2017)
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). A 2018 base
year validation was also completed as part of that update. The growth projections were based on
a base year of 2020 and a horizon year of 2040. Note that the CCTA TDM base year was updated
to reflect 2020 conditions and that the 2040 horizon year was also modified to address the specific
needs of this study.
• Land use assumptions for households and employment were broken down for the 2020 base and
2040 horizon years by jurisdiction and were distributed to member agencies for review. Detailed
data submitted to each jurisdiction included household and employment data at the traffic analysis
zone (TAZ) level. In addition, supplemental data from the Alameda County Transportation
Commission (ACTC) travel demand model was also provided to member agencies within Alameda
County. Kimley Horn worked closely with the individual agencies to appropriately finalize growth
forecasts prior to their use in the final modeling for this study.
Given that a recent land use forecast for the Tri-Valley region already exists as incorporated into the 2019
update of the CCTA Model, it is important to provide a context for the basis of this forecast. Specifically, the
focus of this effort, unlike the more recent application of the CCTA model which was in support of a Region‐
Wide RTP, is confined to a limited area that primarily includes City of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore,
Danville, and San Ramon and parts of unincorporated Contra Costa and Alameda counties. As this
constitutes sub‐area analysis (although the entirety of the model will be used during analysis), the typical
best practice includes carefully assessing land use within the study area to make sure that it is prepared in
a manner consistent with the specific goals of the study for which the TDM will be applied. It is important to
note that TDMs used in support of RTPs are prepared in accordance with strict control totals and, as such,
their land use forecasts do not necessarily reflect certainty as to whether a given development will occur,
rather they are more akin to a process of prioritization (the forecaster determines the magnitude and
location of development that is most likely to occur rather than determining whether something will NOT
occur). Not surprisingly, local jurisdictions sometimes have more detailed perspectives on whether certain
concentrations of development within their communities will occur before the RTP planning horizon. A land
use assessment, such as that carried out as part of a typical sub‐area analysis, is often an opportunity to
reconsider jurisdictional land use input without the necessary limitations that an RTP puts on land use
forecasting.
Based on these considerations and information shared by the TAC members, as well as input from staff
from the member agencies at several individual agency meetings, it was determined that the 2040 land use
forecast for the study area as included in the 2019 version of the CCTA TDM had unlikely development
patterns in several locations within the study area as compared to the collective perspectives of member
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 5
agencies. Accordingly, it was agreed that a process to refine the existing CCTA forecast in a manner that
could be reasonably justified based on readily available information and data would be undertaken.
Specifically, this forecast is intended to reflect both realistic and achievable 2040 growth within the study
area, and not necessarily circumstances that would be reflective of the full potential of the study area or an
overly conservative approach such as a “worst‐case” scenario.
2.2 TRAVEL DEMAND FORECAST
This section presents the growth forecast based on feedback from member agencies.
2.2.1 HOUSEHOLD GROWTH
Table 1 and Figure 1 summaries the estimated household growth between 2020 and 2040 the resulted
from the process described in the prior section. Between 2020 and 2040 there is an expected total growth
of 33,312 households within the Tri-Valley Area. This equates to a 24 percent change or an annual growth
rate of 1.09%.
Table 1: Total Household Forecasts by Agency
Agency 2020 2040 2020-2040
Growth
Percent
Change
Annual
Growth
Rate
Danville 15,564 16,557 993 6% 0.31%
Dublin 21,708 29,105 7,397 34% 1.48%
Livermore 30,685 39,759 9,074 30% 1.30%
Pleasanton 27,783 34,099 6,316 23% 1.03%
San Ramon 27,624 36,638 9,014 33% 1.42%
Alameda Unincorporated 2,108 2,362 254 12% 0.57%
Contra Costa Unincorporated 11,921 12,185 264 2% 0.11%
Total Tri-Valley 137,393 170,705 33,312 24% 1.09%
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 6
Figure 1:Total Household Forecasts by Agency
Table 2 presents the overall change based on dwelling type. As shown, it is expected that single family
units will grow by 15,856 units at an annual growth rate of 0.69%. It is expected that multi-family units will
go by 17,456 units at an annual growth rate of 2.35%. Table 3 and Figure 2 summarizes growth for single
family household by agency. Table 4 and Figure 3 summarizes the growth for multifamily households by
agency.
Table 2: Projected Dwelling Unit Growth, 2020-2040
Dwelling Type 2020 2040 2020-2040
Growth
Percent
Change
Annual
Growth
Rate
Single Family 107,944 123,800 15,856 15% 0.69%
Multifamily 29,449 46,905 17,456 59% 2.35%
Total 137,393 170,705 33,312 24% 1.09%
Table 3: Single Family Household Forecasts by Agency
Agency 2020 2040 2020-2040
Growth
Percent
Change
Annual
Growth
Rate
Danville 14,346 14,882 536 4% 0.18%
Dublin 14,579 17,506 2,927 20% 0.92%
Livermore 23,631 29,091 5,460 23% 1.04%
Pleasanton 20,689 24,202 3,513 17% 0.79%
San Ramon 21,704 24,821 3,117 14% 0.67%
Alameda Unincorporated 1,767 1,953 186 11% 0.50%
Contra Costa Unincorporated 11,228 11,345 117 1% 0.05%
Total Tri-Valley 107,944 123,800 15,856 15% 0.69%
6%, 993
34%, 7,397
30%, 9,074
23%, 6,316 33%, 9,014
12%, 254
2%, 264
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Danville Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Alameda
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
UnincorporatedDwelling UnitsExisting Total Household Total Household Growth
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 7
Figure 2: Single Family Household Forecasts by Agency
Table 4: Multifamily Household Forecasts by Agency
Agency 2020 2040 2020-2040
Growth
Percent
Change
Annual
Growth
Rate
Danville 1,218 1,675 457 38% 1.61%
Dublin 7,129 11,599 4,470 63% 2.46%
Livermore 7,054 10,668 3,614 51% 2.09%
Pleasanton 7,094 9,897 2,803 40% 1.68%
San Ramon 5,920 11,817 5,897 100% 3.52%
Alameda Unincorporated 341 409 68 20% 0.91%
Contra Costa Unincorporated 693 840 147 21% 0.97%
Total Tri-Valley 29,449 46,905 17,456 59% 2.35%
4%, 536 20%, 2,927
23%, 5,460
17%, 3,513 14%, 3,117
11%, 186
1%, 117
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Danville Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Alameda
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
UnincorporatedDwelling UnitsExisting Single Family Single Family Growth
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 8
Figure 3: Multifamily Household Forecasts by Agency
2.2.2 EMPLOYMENT GROWTH
Table 5 and Figure 4 summarizes the estimated employment growth between 2020 and 2040. Between
2020 and 2040 there is an expected total growth of 63,947 jobs within the Tri-Valley Area. This equates to
an approximate 30% change or an annual growth rate of 1.34%. Detailed information for specific Traffic
Analysis Zones (TAZ) are included in Attachment B and C.
Table 5: Total Employment Forecasts by Agency
Agency 2020 2040 2020-2040
Growth
Percent
Change
Annual
Growth
Rate
Danville 19,330 19,519 189 1% 0.05%
Dublin 23,402 32,716 9,314 40% 1.69%
Livermore 46,038 66,795 20,757 45% 1.88%
Pleasanton 62,196 86,489 24,293 39% 1.66%
San Ramon 50,539 59,027 8,488 17% 0.78%
Alameda Unincorporated 4,358 4,913 555 13% 0.60%
Contra Costa Unincorporated 4,460 4,811 351 8% 0.38%
Total Tri-Valley 210,323 274,270 63,947 30% 1.34%
38%, 457
63%, 4,470 51%, 3,614 40%, 2,803 100%, 5,897
20%, 68 21%, 147
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Danville Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Alameda
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
UnincorporatedDwelling UnitsExisting Multifamily MultiFamily Growth
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 9
Figure 4: Total Employment Forecasts by Agency
Table 6 presents the estimate growth between the base year of 2020 and the 2040 horizon year by
employment type. Manufacturing, Service, and Other-type employment are forecasted to have the highest
growth with a 60%, 33%, and 31% change, respectively. Retail and Trade/Wholesale-type employment are
forecasted to have the smaller growth with a 20% and 19% change respectively. Agricultural-type employee
is expected to have very little change. Figure 5 through Figure 10 summarizes the growth for each
employment type by agency.
Table 6: Total Employment Forecasts by Employment Type
Employment Type 2020 2040 2020-2040
Growth
Percent
Change
Annual
Growth
Rate
Retail 50,168 60,403 10,235 20% 0.93%
Service 69,029 91,685 22,656 33% 1.43%
Other 67,621 88,356 20,735 31% 1.35%
Agricultural 1,225 1,224 -1 0% 0.00%
Manufacturing 14,942 23,842 8,900 60% 2.36%
Trade/Wholesale 7,338 8,760 1,422 19% 0.89%
Total Employment 210,323 274,270 63,947 30% 1.34%
Note:
Service employment includes professional services/offices, public administration, health services, educational services, hotel, etc.
Other employment includes car washes, repair-maintenance services, personal care services, civic and social organization etc.
1%, 189 40%, 9,314
45%, 20,757
39%, 24,293
17%, 8,488
13%, 555 8%, 351
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
Danville Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Alameda
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
UnincorporatedEmployment
Existing Total Employment Total Employment Growth
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 10
Figure 5: Retail Employment Forecasts by Agency
Figure 6: Service Employment Forecasts by Agency
4%, 166
9%, 711 50%, 3,468
19%, 3,864
25%, 1,817
8%, 85 10%, 124
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Danville Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Alameda
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
UnincorporatedEmploymentExisting Retail Employment Retail Employment Growth
0%, 3
57%, 3,770
28%, 3,900
57%, 10,666
20%, 3,958
20%, 270 5%, 89
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Danville Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Alameda
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
UnincorporatedEmployment
Existing Service Employment Service Employment Growth
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 11
Figure 7: Other Employment Forecasts by Agency
2%, 128 56%, 3,762
41%, 7,083
44%, 6,952 14%, 2,521
13%, 159 10%, 130
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Danville Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Alameda
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
UnincorporatedEmployment
Existing Other Employment Other Employment Growth
-71%, -90
6%, 3
16%, 37
3%, 4
6%, 38
10%, 7
0%, 0
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
Danville Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Alameda
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
UnincorporatedEmployment
Existing Agriculture Employment Agriculture Employment Growth
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 12
Figure 8: Manufacturing Employment Forecasts by Agency
Figure 9: Trade/Wholesale Employment Forecasts
-1%, -3
85%, 903
130%, 5,472 43%, 2,358
4%, 147
7%, 16 7%, 7
-2,000
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
Danville Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Alameda
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
UnincorporatedEmployment
Existing Manufacturing Employment Manufacturing Employment Growth
-4%, -15
24%, 165
23%, 797
36%, 449 1%, 7
6%, 18 1%, 1
-1,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Danville Dublin Livermore Pleasanton San Ramon Alameda
Unincorporated
Contra Costa
UnincorporatedEmployment
Existing Trade/Wholesale Employment Trade/Wholesale Employment Growth
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 13
Employment growth was converted to square feet of commercial building space based on employee density
assumed from the 2008 Nexus Study. These conversions are shown in Table 7 below.
Table 7: Employment Growth Converted to Square Commercial Building Space
Land Use
Type
Employee Growth
2020-2040
Employee Density
(SF/Employee)
In Building Square
Footage 2020-2040
Retail 10,235 500 5,117,572
Office/Service 22,656 300 6,796,911
Industrial1 10,321 900 9,289,204
Other 20,735 600 12,440,969
Total 63,947 - 33,644,656
1 Industrial includes agriculture, manufacturing, and trading employment-types.
2.2.3 COMPARISON WITH 2008 NEXUS STUDY
A comparison of the total growth (base year to horizon year) and the annual growth rates between the 2008
Nexus Study and the 2020 Nexus Study forecast is presented in Table 8. The household growth estimated
in the current 2020 Nexus Study is approximately half as much as estimated in the 2008 Nexus Study. The
employment growth is estimated to be slightly lower than the 2008 Nexus Study. A slower build-out results
in smaller amount of development being available to pay towards improvement projects.
Table 8: Overall Growth Comparison
Total Growth Annual Growth
Household Employment Household Employment
2008 Nexus Study
(2007 to 2030 Growth) 51% 42% 1.81% 1.54%
2020 Nexus Study
(2020 to 2040 Growth) 24% 30% 1.09% 1.34%
Detailed comparison household and employment are discussed in the following sections.
2.2.3.1 Household
Table 9, Table 10 and Figure 11 presents a comparison of the household growth between 2008 Nexus
Study and the 2020 refined growth forecast. Single family housing experienced 4% less growth than
anticipated in the 2008 Nexus Study. Multifamily housing experienced 10% less growth than anticipated in
the 2008 Nexus Study. The multifamily growth trend is similar between the 2008 and 2020 Nexus Study.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 14
Figure 10: 2008 Nexus and 2020 Refined Dwelling Unit Forecast
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045Dwelling Units2008 Nexus - Single Family 2020 Update - Single Family
2008 Nexus - Multifamily 2020 Update - Multifamily
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 15
Table 9: Household Growth Comparison
Dwelling Type
2008 Nexus Study 2020 Nexus Study
2007 2030
2007-
2030
Growth
Percent
Change
Annual
Growth 2018 2040
2020-
2040
Growth
Percent
Change
Annual
Growth
Single Family 91,136 129,818 38,682 42% 1.55% 107,944 123,800 15,856 15% 0.69%
Multifamily 21,959 41,042 19,083 87% 2.76% 29,449 46,905 17,456 59% 2.35%
Total 113,095 170,860 57,765 51% 1.81% 137,393 170,705 33,312 24% 1.09%
Table 10: Actual Versus Projected 2020 Household Values
Dwelling Type 2020
Projected
2020
Actual Difference Percent
Difference
Single Family 113,000 107,944 -5,056 -4%
Multifamily 32,745 29,449 -3,296 -10%
Total 145,745 137,393 -8,352 -6%
Note: 2020 Projected assumes linear growth based on 2007-2030 growth assumed in 2008 Nexus Study
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 16
2.2.3.2 Employment
Table 11, Table 12, Figure 12, and Figure 13 presents a comparison of the employment growth between
2008 Nexus Study and the 2020 Nexus Study. All employment types except for Other are forecast to
experience less growth than anticipated in the 2008 Nexus Study. Retail and Other employment experience
higher growth at 15% and 8% more than 2020 estimate. For Agriculture employment, there was a -7%
difference. Service, manufacturing, and trading employment experienced the greatest difference, ranging
from -37% to -43% compared to employment numbers anticipated for 2020 in 2008 Nexus Study. While the
actual numbers differ from the anticipated growth assumed in 2008 Nexus Study, the 2020 Nexus Study is
anticipating similar growth trends as the previous study for all employment types.
Figure 11: 2008 Nexus Study and 2020 Nexus Study Employment Forecast (Retail, Service, Other)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045Employment
2008 Nexus - Retail 2020 Update - Retail
2008 Nexus - Service 2020 Update - Service
2008 Nexus - Other 2020 Update - Other
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 17
Figure 12: 2008 Nexus Study and 2020 Nexus Study Employment Forecast (Agriculture, Manufacturing, Trading)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045Employment
2008 Nexus Agriculture 2020 Update - Agriculture
2008 Nexus - Manufacturing 2020 Update - Manufacturing
2008 Nexus - Trading 2020 Update - Trading
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 18
Table 11: Employment Growth Comparison
Employment
Type
2008 Nexus Study 2020 Nexus Study
2007 2030
2007-
2030
Growth
Percent
Change
Annual
Growth 2020 2040
2020-
2040
Growth
Percent
Change
Annual
Growth
Retail 36,806 48,927 12,121 33% 1.25% 50,168 60,403 10,235 20% 0.93%
Service 83,608 129,427 45,819 55% 1.92% 69,029 91,685 22,656 33% 1.43%
Other 54,076 69,459 15,383 28% 1.09% 67,621 88,356 20,735 31% 1.35%
Agriculture 1,483 1,182 -301 -20% -0.98% 1,225 1,224 -1 0% 0.00%
Manufacturing 20,048 30,895 10,847 54% 1.90% 14,942 23,842 8,900 60% 2.36%
Trading 10,986 14,371 3,385 31% 1.17% 7,338 8,760 1,422 19% 0.89%
Total 207,007 294,261 87,254 42% 1.54% 210,323 274,270 63,947 30% 1.34%
Table 12: Actual Versus Projected 2020 Employment Values
Employment
Type
2020
Projected
2020
Actual Difference Percent
Difference
Retail 42,603 42,603 7,565 15%
Service 105,521 105,521 -36,492 -37%
Other 61,433 61,433 6,188 8%
Agriculture 1,339 1,339 -114 -7%
Manufacturing 25,236 25,236 -10,294 -43%
Trading 12,605 12,605 -5,267 -43%
Total 248,737 248,737 -38,414 -18%
Note: 2020 Projected assumes linear growth based on 2007-2030 growth assumed in 2008 Nexus Study
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 19
3 IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND COST ESTIMATES
This chapter presents the 38 improvement projects included as part of the 2020 Nexus Updates.
3.1 IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
There are 38 improvement projects that the TVTC has included in the Tri-Valley Transportation
Development Fee (TVTDF) for the 2020 Nexus Study. Of those projects, 15 projects exist in the current
TVTDF and 23 that are to be considered as part of this nexus update study.
3.1.1 CURRENT PROJECT LIST
Current projects are divided into two lists. The first list, List A, includes 7 projects that were included in the
original program adopted in 1995. The second list, List B, includes 8 projects that were included in the 2008
Nexus Study.
Out of the 27 existing projects, 10 projects have been completed and are no longer considered for further
funding. In addition, two projects (B-9 Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road I-680 Intersection and B-11a
I-680 HOV Direct Access Ramps) have been removed from the project list and are no longer being
considered for funding (for a total of 12 projects removed from the prior lists). The remaining projects have
not been fully completed. Table 13 summaries the projects in List A and B along with their total project
costs and their remaining unfunded cost. Detailed description of projects in Lists A and B are provided in
Appendix A.
3.1.2 NEW SELECTED PROJECT LIST
With almost half of the current project list completed and no longer receiving funding, TVTC reviewed and
selected additional projects to be considered for receiving funding from the TVTDF. This selection process
involved a comprehensive planning process to develop a project list that mitigates the impacts of new
development based on feasibility and stakeholder support. From this process, 23 additional projects (List
C) were identified to receive funding from the TVTDF. List C projects, along with their total project costs
and their remaining unfunded costs are listed in Table 14. Detailed descriptions of projects in List C are
provided in Appendix B.
3.2 UNFUNDED COST
Tables 13 and 14 presents total project cost and their remaining unfunded cost. The total investment for
projects eligible to receive TVTDF funding is estimated to be $4.470 billion, where $3.677 billion is
unfunded. An additional reduction was applied to account for external “cut-though” trips on roadway
congestion projects. Future development within the Tri-Valley area is not responsible to pay for these trips
since these trips are caused by growth outside of the Tri-Valley area. This reduces the total unfunded
cost to be covered by the maximum TVTDF to $2.928 billion. Note that this does not change the overall
project costs.
The funded amount includes the current TVTDF amount currently allocated toward projects as well as
additional federal, state, regional, or local funding sources. Based on input received from member
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 20
jurisdictions, it is anticipated that approximately $793.24 million of funding has been identified for the current
project list. Appendices A and B include a cost estimate and a portfolio of likely funding sources.
Table 13: Existing Projects – List A& B
Project
Total Cost
(2021
$Millions)
Unfunded
Cost
(2021
$Millions)
A-1 Interstate 580 (I-580)/Interstate 680 (I-680) Interchange
(southbound to eastbound) - -
A-2a State Route 84 (SR 84) Expressway (I-580 to I-680) $325.4 -
A-2b SR 84/I-580 Interchange $22.7 $6.42
A-3 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Segment 2) - -
A-4 West Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
Station - -
A-5a I-580 Eastbound Auxiliary Lane - -
A-5b I-580 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Westbound - -
A-6 I-680 HOV Lanes, SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade - -
A-7 I-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon Road Interchange
Modifications - -
A-8 I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange - -
A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 $10.87 $8.42
A-9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2 $58.77 $57.08
A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 $40.57 $11.14
A-10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 $31.20 $28.62
A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – Phase 2 $22.35 $21.21
B-1 I-580/I-680 Interchange (westbound to southbound) $1,785.65 $1,746.65
B-2 Fifth Eastbound Lane on I-580 from Santa Rita Road to
Vasco Road - -
B-3 I-580/First Street Interchange Modification $61.00 $7.93
B-4 I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification $85.65 $16.61
B-5 I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification $86.00 $18.92
B-6 Jack London Boulevard Extension $28.16 $10.08
B-7 El Charro Road Extension (Stoneridge Drive/Jack London
Boulevard to Stanley Boulevard) $72.48 $72.48
B-8 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project (East of
Blackhawk Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive) $88.08 $54.55
B-9 Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road I-680 Interchange
Improvements - -
B-10 I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Gap Closure (North Main Street
to Rudgear Road)
-
-
B-11a I-680 HOV Direct Access Ramps - -
B-11b I-680 Transit Corridor Improvements $277.85 $274.85
Note: Completed or removed projects that are no longer considered for further funding are shaded.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 21
Table 14: New Selected Projects – List C
Project Total Cost
(Millions)
Unfunded Cost
(Millions)
C-1 Tesla Road Safety Improvements $13.19 $13.19
C-2 Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement $24.49 $18.49
C-3 Dublin Boulevard – North Canyons Parkway Extensions $160.39 $134.91
C-4 Vasco Road at Dalton Avenue Intersection Improvements $3.39 $3.39
C-5 El Charro Road Widening $68.09 $38.09
C-6 Sunol/680 Interchange Improvements $16.60 $7.60
C-7 I-680 Express Lanes – Hwy 84 to Alcosta $527.57 $507.57
C-8 Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange $10.33 $2.63
C-9 Stoneridge/I-680 Interchange $11.98 $4.08
C-10 Innovate 680 $57.21 $54.66
C-11a Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Bollinger
Canyon Road $22.88 $8.58
C-11b Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Crow
Canyon Road $19.69 $19.69
C-11c Iron Horse Trail – Dublin $11.60 -
C-11d Iron Horse Trail – Livermore $26.99 $26.99
C-11e Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs $1.65 $0.30
C-11f Iron House Trail Connection Improvements at Santa Rita
Road $0.87 $0.48
C-11g Iron Horse Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing –
Sycamore Valley Road $19.78 $19.78
C-11h Iron Horse Trail Safety Improvements $85.60 $85.60
C-12 Hacienda/I-580 Interchange Improvements $39.13 $34.50
C-13 Fallon/El Charro Interchange Improvements $34.51 $19.96
C-14 Valley Link Rail (Phase 1) $258.25 $258.25
C-15 Technology Enhancements $0.33 $0.33
C-16 I-680 Express Bus Service $59.35 $59.35
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 22
4 NEXUS FINDINGS
This chapter presents the relationship of between the increase travel demand from new development, the
cost of improvements needed to accommodate that growth, and the impact fee to fund those investments.
4.1 OVERALL METHODOLOGY
Impact fees may be calculated using a purely technical method that would fund the cost of facilities required
to accommodate growth. The four steps followed in any development impact fee study include the following:
1. Prepare growth projections;
2. Identify facility standards;
3. Determine the amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate new development based on
facility standards and growth projections; and
4. Calculate the public facilities fee by allocating the total cost of facilities per unit of development.
This nexus study results in a calculation of the maximum fee based on the list of projects identified in
Chapter 3 (and described in Appendices A and B) to the greatest extent technically defensible under the
Mitigation Fee Act. Consistent with the TVTC’s directions, the full cost of funding these improvements is
used to calculate the maximum fee rates the TVTC could apply to all new residential and non-residential
development in the Tri-Valley between 2020 and 2040.
4.2 MITIGATION FEE AC T FINDINGS
Development impact fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on
development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide
the widespread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (Act)
with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government
Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and
administration of fee programs. The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting
a fee.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the TVTC updated impact fee were adopted when the
first TVTC fee was adopted in 1995 and subsequently again when the Nexus Study was updated in 2008
and 2017. They are presented here and supported by the Nexus Analysis section (Chapter 2) of this report.
All statutory references below are to the Act. This sample framework for the Mitigation Fee Act findings is
only to provide local agencies with guidance and is not a substitute for legal advice. Local agencies will
customize the findings for their jurisdiction and consult with their legal counsel prior to adoption of the
updated TVTDF.
4.2.1 PURPOSE OF FEE
For the first finding, the local agency must identify the purpose of the fee (Section 66001(a)(1)). The TVTC
policy, as expressed through the TVTC Action Plan, is that new development shall contribute for mitigation
of their impacts on the Routes of Regional Significance, and that the cost sharing of recommended
improvements will be implemented through the TVTDF regional impact fee program. This is administered
by the seven jurisdictions of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore,
Danville, and San Ramon, which all signed a joint powers authority (JPA). The fee advances a legitimate
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 23
public interest by enabling the TVTC to fund improvements to transportation infrastructure required to
accommodate new development.
4.2.2 USE OF FEE REVENUES
For the second finding, the local agency must identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is
financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by
reference to a capital improvement plan, as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable
general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public
facilities for which the fee is charged (Section 66001(a)(2)). The TVTDF will fund expanded facilities on the
Routes of Regional Significance to serve new development. These facilities include the following:
• Roadway widening;
• Roadway extension;
• Traffic signal coordination and other traffic improvements;
• Freeway interchanges and related freeway improvements;
• Active transportation (pedestrian/bicycle) improvements;
• Safety improvements needed to mitigate the higher volume of traffic generated by new
development on a major arterial or other regional facility; and
• Improvements required for regional express bus and rail transit.
4.3 BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP
The nexus must show a reasonable benefit relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development
project upon which the fee is imposed. In other words, the nexus must demonstrate that the improvement
projects will mitigate the impacts of new development upon which the fee is imposed. This section describes
the methodology and results for establishing the benefit relationship.
4.3.1 METHODOLOGY
The previous 2008 Nexus Study used a model-based delay methodology to determine how List A and List
B would mitigate the impacts of new development by comparing vehicle hours of delay (VHD) from the
2005 base year with the Future 2030 No-build and Future 2030 Build scenarios. Given that some of the
new recommended projects cannot be effectively analyzed using this same methodology, additional
methodologies are being introduced as part of this update to appropriately assess the benefits of some
select projects.
To facilitate this approach, projects were aggregated into different improvement categories. These
categories include roadway capacity, transit, safety, pedestrian/bicycle, intersection, and technology. If the
project’s benefit could not be sufficiently analyzed based on model-delay, either because the project could
not be reflected in the model or that the model is insensitive to the benefits associated with a specific project,
the project was categorized as a safety, pedestrian/bicycle, intersection, or technology improvement and
accordingly analyzed using off-model techniques. Since these improvement categories improve different
aspects of the transportation system, differing methodologies and measures of effectiveness (MOEs) are
necessary to appropriately evaluate their anticipated benefit to the transportation system. It should be noted
some projects could be categorized into multiple improvement types; however, projects were limited to the
category which best reflects their primary benefit for the purposes of supporting this Nexus Study. Table
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 24
15 summarizes the different methodology and MOEs that are proposed for this evaluation. A full list of how
each project was categorized is included in Appendix C.
Table 15: Methodology and Improvements
Improvement
Type Methodology MOE/Benefit
Roadway
Capacity Model-based Delay
• AM and PM Peak Hour Delay (combined
with Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle
Improvement Categories)
Transit Model-based Delay
• AM and PM Peak Hour Delay (combined
with Capacity and Pedestrian/Bicycle
Improvement Categories)
Safety Crash Reduction Factors
• Crash Reduction Estimates
• Qualitative Assessment of Resultant Delay
Reduction
Pedestrian/
Bicycle
Planning-level Assessment
Based on NCHRP 552
• Delay Based on the Conversion of
Estimated Commuter Usage of Proposed
Facilities (combined with Capacity
• and Transit Improvement Categories)
• Crash Reduction Estimates
Intersection Planning-level Assessment • Qualitative Assessment of Resultant Delay
Reduction
Technology Planning-level Assessment • Qualitative Assessment of Resultant Delay
Reduction
4.3.2 ROADWAY CAPACITY AND TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
Roadway capacity projects include improvements that involve increasing capacity such as widening a
roadway to add additional through lanes or extending existing roadways. Transit projects include
improvements that upgrade or expand existing transit service or assist with the implementation of new
transit routes and services. Both roadway capacity and transit improvement projects were evaluated based
on region wide delay derived using the CCTA travel demand model. Morning and evening region wide peak
hours of delay from the two future scenarios, 2040 No-Build (without improvement projects) and 2040 Build
(with improvement projects), were compared to the 2020 base year conditions.
The 2040 No-Build scenario is based on a year 2040 transportation network that will carry all of the locally
produced or attracted new trips, but that only includes improvements that are expected to be funded under
the financially-constrained RTP without the proposed Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee projects
(List A, B, and C). The 2040 Build scenario is based on a year 2040 transportation network that includes
all the additional improvements that are expected to be funded with the updated Tri-Valley Transportation
Development Fee. Both the 2040 No-Build and 2040 Build project scenarios include all of the travel
associated with new development within the Tri-Valley. Under both scenarios, travel associated with
through trips was excluded from the resultant delay summary (i.e., trips that have origins and destinations
outside the Tri-Valley). Excluding through trips is common practice for this analysis given that the impact of
this travel is not generated by land uses within the Tri-Valley area and therefor assessing a fee is
impractical.
The improvement projects were evaluated using the aggregate regional peak-hour average weekday VHD
delay on all the significant roadways (includes freeways, expressways arterials, and major collectors) in the
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 25
Tri-Valley on the 2020 Base Year networks and the 2040 No-Build and Build networks. The aggregate VHD
provide a reasonable system wide measure of the impact of new development on congestion and mobility.
According to the CCTA travel demand model, between 2020 and 2040, if no projects are undertaken, the
number of AM peak hours of delay is expected to increase 60 percent from 24,718 to 39,570 hours, while
the number of PM peak hours of delay is expected to escalate 88 percent from 15,613 to 29,376 hours. If
the projects are undertaken, the number of AM peak hours of delay would decrease 15 percent compared
to the 2040 No-Build scenario, whereas, the number of PM peak hour of delay would decrease 23 percent.
This modest improvement demonstrates that the proposed improvement projects only partially mitigate
future congestion by ne w development. Table 16 and Figure 14 show the comparison between the Future
2040 Build and Future 2040 No-Build scenarios.
In the aggregate, the comparison between the three scenarios showed that: 1) the 2020 Base Year
conditions are better than the Future 2040 No-Build conditions; 2) the Future 2040 Build conditions are
better than the Future 2040 No-Build; and 3) the Future 2040 Build conditions are not better than the 2020
Base Year conditions. These comparisons demonstrated that, in the aggregate, new development does not
fund infrastructure needed to address existing deficiency caused by existing development.
Table 16: Future Build vs No Build Scenario Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD)
Peak Period 2020 Base
Year
Future 2040 Difference
No-Build Build No-Build Build
AM Peak Hour 24,718 39,570 35,852 60% 45%
PM Peak Hour 15,613 29,376 25,813 88% 65%
Note: Hours of delay are based on trips with origin or destination in the TVTC region.
Figure 13: Future Build vs No Build Scenario Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD)
Note: Hours of delay are based on trips with origin or destination in the TVTC region.
24,718
15,613
39,570
29,376
35,852
25,813
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak HourVehicle Hours of Delay (VHD)2020 2040 No-Build 2040 Build
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 26
In addition to reducing VHD, many roadway capacity and transit projects include additional secondary
benefits to the transportation system. Many of these projects will result in safety benefits, as congestion
can often exacerbate unsafe motoring conditions. Additionally, specific project attributes such as modifying
interchanges or widening roadways to provide additional lanes so vehicles can safely maneuver along the
roadway or provide space for slower moving vehicles during peak times can also improve safety. Other
common project benefits may include pedestrian and bicycle improvements either directly or indirectly. For
example, interchange can often be barriers for bicycles and pedestrian, however several of the interchange
projects (e.g. C-12: Hacienda/I-580 Interchange Improvements and C-13: Fallon/El Charro Interchange
Improvements) include bicycle and pedestrian improvements which close existing gaps and encourage
more pedestrian and bicycle activity.
Based on this analysis it is determined that the planned projects identified in this report will expand the
capacity of the Routes of Regional Significance to accommodate the increased trips generated by new
development and thus, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee for these projects and
the new development on which the fee will be imposed.
4.3.3 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Safety projects involves safety-related improvements such as shoulder widening, installing guardrail,
installing median barriers, or realigning roadway. For these projects, a crash reduction factor was calculated
based on each safety improvements being implemented. The crash reductions were subsequently applied
to crash forecasts for the purpose of identifying future benefits. The safety improvements considered in the
evaluation are listed below:
• California Highway Patrol (CHP)
Enforcement Area
• Intersection
Improvement • Shoulder Widening
• Guard Rail Update • Roadway Median Barrier • Signal Timing Optimization
• Guardrails • Roadway Realignment • Speed Feedback Signs
• High Friction Pavement • Retaining Walls • Increased Super elevation
• Additional Turn Lanes
Each of the safety elements for the proposed improvements were converted to a total number of annual
crash savings in the region based on the Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) and Federal
Highway Authority’s (FHWA) Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearing House guide. CMFs are based on
before and after research of safety improvement implementations. They indicate the proportion of future
crashes that may be prevented by implementing a given countermeasure, reducing the crash frequency for
an intersection or roadway segment. In other words, a CMF is a multiplicative factor used to compute the
expected number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site.
The CMF was applied to a crash forecast which was based on 5-years of historical crash data which
resulted in fatality or injury. The reduction in crashes was then then converted to annual crash saving based
on Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) crash saving dollar amounts shown in
Table 17.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 27
Table 17: HSIP Crash Saving Dollar Amounts
Severity Crash Savings
(per crash)
Fatal $2,190,000
Serious $2,190,000
Moderate $142,300
Minor $80,900
Table 18 shows the overall annual crashes saving from traffic injuries that were potentially eliminated. Note
that this analysis excludes property costs and as such should be conservative. Also note that the forecast
only considers the effect of new traffic impacts and excludes the effect of existing conditions for the
purposes of establishing Nexus.
Table 18: Future Safety Benefits with Project Improvements
Safety Benefits Total Fatal Serious Moderate Minor
5-Years Reduction
in Crashes 153.0 2.5 14.1 45.3 91.0
1-Year Reduction
in Crashes 30.6 0.5 2.8 9.1 18.2
Value per Annum
(2019 Dollars) $10,048,590 $1,092,810 $6,192,599 $1,290,003 $1,473,178
As shown in Table 19, there is a direct cost benefit to the investments made for roadway safety
improvements in the region. While it is difficult to estimate an absolute percentage in reduced peak hour
delays, the expected reductions in crashes will also enhance system reliability and resilience.
4.3.4 PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS
While projects may include pedestrian and/or bicycle improvements, out of the 38 projects, project C-11
Iron Horse Trail Improvements is the only project that predominantly focuses on pedestrian and bicycle
improvements. Project C-11 consists of various improvements to the Iron Horse Trail within the TVTC
boundaries including overcrossing construction, closing existing gaps, and adding safety improvements
through the trail system. Pedestrian and bicycle improvement were evaluated based on NCHRP 552
Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. This approach relies on spatial analysis
techniques to determine the likely number of new active transportation users resulting from the introduction
of a new pedestrian/bicycle improvement. Table 19 shows the comparison between the Future 2040 Build
and Future 2040 No-Build scenarios.
Table 19: Future Project Induced Daily Bicycle Demand
Total Induced Demand 2020 Base Year Future 2040
No- Build
Future 2040
Build
Adult Bicyclists 1,275 1,778 3,338
Child Bicyclists 731 1,038 2,077
Total Facility Users 2,006 2,817 5,415
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 28
As shown in Table 19, Project C-11 could add over 2,500 bicycle trips per day on the Iron Horse Trail by
2040 which will provide an alternative to congested vehicular travel as well as significant health and
recreational value. Closing existing gaps in the trail will also encourage bicycle trips for other trip purposes
beyond just commute trips, including school, commercial and recreational trips.
Project C-11 improvements will result in additional secondary operational and safety benefits. Currently
many at-grade crossings are located at intersections with high vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volumes
which are regularly disrupted by conflicting at-grade operations given required traffic signal phasing. These
improvements will help improve vehicular traffic operations by relocating pedestrian and bicycle traffic away
from vehicular traffic helping to offset the transportation impacts associated with future development. These
improvements will also provide safety benefits by reducing the potential for vehicle-bicycle and vehicle-
pedestrian conflicts. Using the same methodology described in the previous section, a separate safety
analysis was conducted to quantify the safety benefits of all the C-11 project. Table 20 summarizes the
safety benefit for Project C-11.
Table 20: Safety Benefits with Project C-11
Safety Benefits Total Fatal Serious Moderate Minor
Annual Reduction
in Crashes 7 2 1 4 0
Value per Annum
(2019 Dollars) $7,166,200 $4,380,000 $2,190,000 $596,200 -
4.3.5 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
There are two projects in List C with intersection improvements. Project C-4: Vasco Road & Dalton Avenue
intersection Improvements, includes the addition of a traffic lane, signal optimization, and other
improvements such as shoulder widening and roadway alignment to improve safety. Vasco Road is a major
commute corridor connecting the City of Livermore and City of Brentwood. The intersection at Dalton
Avenue provides access to the communities in the San Ramon Valley. With the planned and anticipated
residential and industrial development along the corridor, this intersection is expected to have significant
delays during the peak hours of commute.
Project C-8: Santa Rita and I-580 Interchange, will construct a second southbound left turn lane from Santa
Rita onto Pimilico Drive. The City of Pleasanton General Plan has identified this intersection to have a
reduced Level of Service under build out conditions.
4.3.6 TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS
There are two technology projects in List C. While Project C-10: Innovate 680 consist of multiple
components including transit infrastructure and service improvements, roadway improvements, and
technology enhancement, this project has been categorized as a technology improvement because TVTDF
funding is being requested only for the Advance Technology component of the project. Other project
components are expected to be funded through alternative sources. The Advance Technology component
consist of implementing three technology-related strategies to improve operation along the I-680 corridor.
Strategies include providing an enhanced 511 mobile app and implementing a shared autonomous vehicles
(SAV) program to shift travel away from single occupant vehicles by providing travelers with better
information about mode choice opportunities, resultant travel time, cost per trip, and the availability of
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 29
transit. Other technology strategies include integrating adaptive ramp metering and/or corridor/incident
management systems which can help improve the efficiency and safety of the transportation system.
Project C-15: Technology Enhancements proposes to provide connectivity for transit and vehicles between
local arterials and regional facilities. The project is expected to be completed in three phases - Feasibility,
Design, and Construction. The TVTDF will help fund the feasibility study phase of the study, since the
details of the design and construction phase are unknown at this time. The feasibility study will focus on the
first and last mile connectivity opportunities at key transit hubs and along major transit routes in the Tri-
Valley area. Leveraging existing and emerging technology, such as connected and autonomous vehicles,
may help increase safety and mobility for all modes. These technologies may also help with increasing
transit ridership or expanding transit service to less-served areas, especially for communities that currently
lack service. Given that the resultant projects are intended to offset the impacts of future development, the
feasibility study is appropriate to include in the TVTC project list.
4.4 BURDEN RELATIONSHIP
The need for the TVTDF is based on the forecasted increase in congestion on routes of regional significance
as well as other transportation impacts resulting from new development. Consistent with the methodology
from the 2008, the contribution by each land use was based on the proportion of average AM/PM trips
generated by each land use. As demonstrated in this Study, there is a reasonable relationship between the
need for the planned projects and the types of development upon which the fee is imposed because the
planned projects will mitigate the transportation impacts of said new development.
4.4.1 TRIP RATE
The 2008 Nexus Study used the 7th Edition of Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)’s Trip Generation
Handbook to develop the trip rates for each land use category. Since then, three additional editions of the
Trip Generation Handbook have been published for use, ending with the most recent 10th Edition. It was
determined that for all categories except the ‘Other’ category, the trip rates would be developed using the
10th Edition rather than the 7th Edition for this update. In addition, consistent with the 2008 Nexus Study,
the trip rates were developed based on adjacent street traffic rather than peak -hour of generator. A 30-
percent reduction was also taken for retail trips to account for pass-by trips, consistent with the 2008 Nexus
Study. Table 21 below summarizes the comparison in average AM and PM peak-hour trip rates by land
use type. As shown in Table 21, every land use category results in a lower trip rate using the 10th Edition
when compared to the 7th Edition.
Table 21: AM/PM Peak-Hour Average Trip Rate Comparison Between 7th Edition and 10th Edition
Land Use Type 7th Edition Average
Trip Rate
10th Edition Average
Trip Rate Difference
Single-Family Residential 0.90 0.87 -0.03
Multi-Family Residential 0.62 0.51 -0.11
Retail 1.67 1.66 -0.01
Office 1.53 1.16 -0.37
Industrial 0.89 0.67 -0.22
Other 1.00 1.00 0.00
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 30
4.4.2 TOTAL TRIPS BY LAND USE
The total number of trips generated by the growth in either dwelling units or square-feet for each land use
category are shown in Table 22. As shown in Table 22, a total of 57,596 trip ends are generated by the
land use growth between 2020 and 2040. The growth attributable to single-family residential units generates
the largest number of trips, 13,716, or almost 25-percent of the total trips. The growth attributable to
industrial employment or industrial buildings generates the fewest number of trips, 6,178, or just over 10-
percent of the total trips.
Table 22: Total Trip Ends by Land Use Category
Land Use Type Growth
(HH or Sq. Ft) Trip Rate Forecast Trips
Single-Family Residential 15,857 0.87 13,716
Multi-Family Residential 17,456 0.51 8,903
Retail 5,117,500 1.66 8,508
Office 6,796,800 1.16 7,850
Industrial 9,289,800 0.67 6,178
Other 12,441,000 1.00 12,441
4.5 FEE ESTIMATION
As required by the Mitigation Fee Act, the following section outlines the methodology for calculating the
proposed fee and demonstrates how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the proposed
fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which
the fees will be imposed.
The following steps were taken to determine the fee for each land use type:
1. Determine total unfunded cost.
2. Determine average AM/PM forecast peak-hour trips generated
3. Determine Fee per Land Use Category
4. Determine Maximum Fee
4.5.1 TOTAL UNFUNDED COST
The total investment for projects eligible to receive TVTDF funding is estimated to be $4.470 billion,
where $3.677 billion is unfunded. An additional reduction was applied to account for external “cut-though”
trips on roadway congestion projects. Future development within the Tri-Valley area is not responsible to
pay for these trips since these trips are caused by growth outside of the Tri-Valley area. This reduces the
total unfunded cost to be covered by the maximum TVTDF to $2.928 billion. Note that this not change the
overall project costs.
4.5.2 PEAK-HOUR TRIP FORECAST
Section 4.4.2. describes how the peak hour forecast was determined. Based on Table 22, an average of
57,596 AM/PM peak hour trips are generated by the land use growth between 2020 and 2040.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 31
4.5.3 FEE PER LAND USE CATEGORY
To determine the total project cost by category, each land use category’s share of the total trips generated
by land use growth was multiplied by the total cost. An example calculation is shown below: 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹 𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑆=$𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋 𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆 × 13,716 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹 𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅57,596 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑆 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑆𝑆𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅 =$𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋 𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆
The total cost by land use category is shown in Table 23. As shown in Table 23, the total cost ranges from
$396.27 million for industrial uses to $879.78 million for single-family residential uses.
Table 23: Total Fee by Land Use Category
Land Use Type Forecast Trips*
Total Fee by Land
Use
(Millions)
Single-Family Residential 13,716 $697.31
Multi-Family Residential 8,903 $452.62
Retail 8,508 $432.54
Office 7,850 $399.09
Industrial 6,178 $314.08
Other 12,441 $632.49
* Average AM/PM trip
4.5.4 MAXIMUM FEE
To determine the maximum fee per dwelling unit, square-foot, or trip depending on the land use category,
the total cost per category was divided by the total number of units, square-feet, or trips that occur between
2020 and 2040. An example calculation is shown below 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹 𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑆=$𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋 𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆15,857 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑈𝑈𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅 =$𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋 𝑝𝑝𝑆𝑆𝑝𝑝 𝑅𝑅𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑢𝑢𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅
The maximum fees are summarized in Table 24. As shown in Table 24, the maximum fee for a single-
family residential unit is $43,397 while the maximum fee for one square-foot of retail use is $84.52.
Historically the TVTC has not applied the maximum fee schedule. For both the 1995 and 2008 nexus
studies, the TVTC jurisdiction set rates at approximate one-third of the maximum fee calculated in the 1995
and 2008 Nexus studies to help foster growth within the Tri-Valley area, while providing a regional funding
source that could be used to match and help compete for Federal and State transportation grants and
funding programs.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 32
Table 24: Total Cost and Maximum Fee by Land Use Category
Land Use Type Growth Maximum Fee
Single-Family Residential 15,857 DU $43,976 per DU
Multi-Family Residential 17,456 DU $25,928 per DU
Retail 5,117,500 SF $84.52 per SF
Office 6,796,800 SF $58.72 per SF
Industrial 9,289,800 SF $33.81 per SF
Other 12,441 trips* $50,839 per trip*
Note: Reduction cost is only provided for comparison purposes and should not be seen as the preferred fees.* Average AM/PM trip
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 33
5 NEXT STEPS
This report documents the findings needed to adopt a fee schedule to fund the improvements projects
elected to receive funding from the TVTDF. Below are next steps needed for the TVTC to adopt a fee
schedule that is most appreciate for their needs.
5.1 ADJUSTMENT TO MAXIMUM FEE CALCULATION
As previously discussed, the maximum fee would generate sufficient revenues to fund the total unfunded
cost of all selected projects. However, if the TVTC adopts fee schedule below the maximum, this would
result in revenue shortfall and TVTC would need to take one or both of the following actions:
• Increase funding from other sources
• Fund selected projects or project phases
5.1.1 INCREASE FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
TVTC could reduce the funding shortfall for specific projects by increasing funding form other federal,
state, regional, and local fund sources. Some potential funding sources as listed below:
• Federal
o One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG)
• State
o State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
o Senate Bill 1 (SB 1)
o Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant
o Active Transportation Program (ATP)
• Regional
o Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) County Program Manager (CPM) Fund Local
o Measure B & Measure BB
o Measure J
• Local
o Traffic Impact/Mitigation Fees
o Development Fees
o General Purpose Funds
5.1.2 FUND SELECTED PROJECTS OR PROJECT PHASES
TVTC could determine to fund the full amount for selected projects or fund certain phases of the project
such as the planning or design phase of a project.
5.2 UPDATE STRATEGIC EXPENDITURE PLAN (SEP)
Once the final fee schedule has been adopted TVTC should update the SEP to set priority for which
projects should be funded first.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 34
APPENDIX
A – Existing TVTC Projects
B – Additional TVTC Projects
C – Project Improvement Category
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 35
APPENDIX A – EXISTING TVTC PROJECTS
A -1. I-580/I-680 INTERCHANGE (SOUTHBOUND TO EASTBOUND)
TVTC Project Sponsor: Alameda County
Lead Agency: Caltrans
Project Description: Project A-1 was located at the I-580 and I-680 interchange. The project constructed
the southbound to eastbound flyover, northbound to eastbound direct connector, southbound on- and off-
loop ramps, and a northbound on-ramp.
The project was needed to improve safety and reduce congestion on southbound and northbound I-680
near I-580, and mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment. This project
was approved by the voters of Alameda County, as a portion of the Measure B sales tax program.
Status: This project has been completed.
A -2A. SR 84 EXPRESSWAY (I-580 TO I-680)
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Livermore, City of Pleasanton
Lead Agency: Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC)
Project Description: Project A-2a is located along SR 84 between I-580 and I-680 in Livermore and
Pleasanton. The project will widen and reconstruct SR 84 to expressway standards. The ultimate
configuration is expected to consist of six lanes from I-580 to Stanley Boulevard and four lanes from Stanley
Boulevard to I-680.
The project has been segmented into five primary sections:
• Segment 1 (I-580 to Jack London Boulevard) – widening and Phase I of the I-580/SR 84
Interchange project (Project A-2b).
• Segment 2 (Jack London Boulevard to a point roughly halfway between Concannon Boulevard
and Stanley Boulevard) – widening existing configuration from two lanes to four lanes and from
four lanes to six lanes.
• Segment 3 (Halfway between Concannon Boulevard and Stanley Boulevard to Ruby Hill Drive) –
widening from two lanes to four lanes.
• Segment 4 (Ruby Hill Drive to Pigeon Pass) – straightening the roadway alignments and adding
truck climbing lanes.
• Segment 5 (Pigeon Pass to I-680) – widening the roadway from two lanes to four lanes and
improvements at the SR 84/I-680 interchange.
Status: Below is the status of the project.
• Final design and right-of-way acquisition was completed in September 2020.
• Construction began in May 2021.
• Completion of construction is anticipated in spring 2024.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 36
Cost Estimate and Funding Sources
Segment 3:
Cost (Millions) $105.40
Funding (Millions)
Measure B $34.87
Measure BB $10.00
State $47.03
Local (CMA-TIP) $2.00
Local (City) $1.50
TVTDF $10.00
Total Funding (Millions) $105.40
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $0.00
Segment 5:
Cost (Millions) $244.10
Funding (Millions)
Measure B $1.05
Measure BB $123.40
State (SB 1 LPP) $8.60
Regional Improvement Program (RIP) $11.11
Regional Measure 3 (RM 3) $85.00
TVTDF $14.94
Total Funding (Millions) $244.10
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $0.00
A -2B. SR 84/I-580 INTERCHANGE
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Livermore
Lead Agency: Caltrans and City of Livermore
Project Description: Project A-2b is located in Livermore, at the intersection of I-580 and Isabel Avenue
including Portal Avenue.
The project consists of two phases:
• Phase 1 – The Isabel Avenue Interchange project which included replacing the I-580/Portola
Avenue interchange with the I-580/Isabel Avenue-SR 84 interchange. Phase I also included
realignment of Isabel Avenue and the realignment and extension of Portola Avenue from East
Airway Boulevard to Isabel Avenue.
• Phase 2 – The ultimate improvements at the I-580/Isabel Avenue-SR 84 Interchange are to provide
six lanes over I-580 at the Isabel Avenue-SR 84 Interchange and four lanes over I-580 at the Portola
Avenue overcrossing.
Status: A programmatic environmental assessment and right-of-way acquisition is complete.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 37
• Phase 1 – Construction of Phase I of the project was completed in March 2012.
• Phase 2 – Conceptual design is approved. Project development activities are anticipated to begin
in 2023.
Cost Estimate and Funding Sources
Phase 2:
A -3. I-680 AUXILIARY LANES (SEGMENT 2)
TVTC Project Sponsor: Town of Danville
Lead Agency: Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)
Project Description: Project A-3 was located along I-680 in Danville and constructed auxiliary lanes in
both directions between Crow Canyon Road in San Ramon and Sycamore Valley Road in Danville. The
project was the last segment of auxiliary lanes in both directions of I-680 between Bollinger Canyon Road
in San Ramon and Diablo Road in Danville.
Status: This project has been completed.
A -4. WEST DUBLIN/PLEASANTON BART STATION
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Dublin, City of Pleasanton
Lead Agency: BART
Project Description: Project A-4 was located in Dublin and Pleasanton and constructed the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and related transit improvements. The project was a joint public and
private venture to build a station on the active BART line in the median of I-580. The related transit
improvements were located on both the north (Dublin) and south (Pleasanton) sides of the freeway on
property owned by BART and included patron parking garages, passenger pick-up and drop-offs, and bus
drop-offs.
Status: This project has been completed.
Cost (Millions) $22.00
Funding (Millions)
Livermore Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) $16.28
TVTDF $5.15
Total Funding (Millions) $21.43
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $0.57
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 38
A -5A. I-580 EASTBOUND AUXILIARY LANE
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Pleasanton
Lead Agency: Alameda CTC
Project Description: Project A-5a was located along eastbound I-580 from Hacienda Drive in Pleasanton
and Greenville Road in Livermore. The project constructed eastbound auxiliary lanes between Isabel
Avenue and North Livermore Avenue and between North Livermore Avenue and First Street in Livermore.
In addition, the project included widening two eastbound bridges at Arroyo-Los Positas Road and adding
final asphalt concrete pavement across all lanes in the eastbound direction from Hacienda Drive to
Greenville Road.
Status: This project has been completed.
A -5B. I-580 HOV LANE WESTBOUND
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Pleasanton
Lead Agency: Alameda CTC
Project Description: Project A-5b was located along westbound I-580 from Greenville Road in Livermore
to Foothill Road overcrossing in Dublin and Pleasanton. The project constructed westbound HOV lanes
and rehabilitated existing pavement.
The project increased capacity, safety, and efficiency for commuters and freight along the primary trade
corridor connecting the Bay Area with the Central Valley.
The project was completed in two segments:
• East Segment – Greenville Road overcrossing to Isabel Avenue in Livermore
• West Segment – Isabel Avenue to Foothill Road overcrossing
Status: This project has been completed.
A -6. I-680 HOV LANES, SR 84 TO TOP OF SUNOL GRADE
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Pleasanton
Lead Agency: Caltrans and Alameda CTC
Project Description: Project A-6 was located along southbound I-680 between SR-84 and the top of the
Sunol Grade. The project constructed HOV lanes along approximately a 3.5-mile segment of I-680.
Status: This project has been completed.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 39
A -7. I-580/FOOTHILL ROAD/SAN RAMON ROAD INTERCHANGE
MODIFICATIONS
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Pleasanton
Lead Agency: Caltrans
Project Description: Project A-7 was located at the intersection of the I-580 ramps and Foothill Road in
Pleasanton. The project constructed improvements to improve intersection operations and safety. The
project modified the intersection to remove the direct eastbound to southbound connection and eastbound
to northbound loop connection so that it terminates into a “T” style signalized intersection at Foothill Road
just south of the Foothill Road Bridge.
Status: This project has been completed.
A -8. I-680/ALCOSTA BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of San Ramon
Lead Agency: Caltrans
Project Description: Project A-8 was located at the I-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange in San Ramon.
The project reconstructed the southbound off-ramp and added a new on-ramp to improve operations at the
interchange. This project closed the southbound off-ramp and built new on- and off-ramps north of Alcosta
Boulevard.
Status: This project has been completed.
A -9 A. CROW CANYON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 1
TVTC Project Sponsor: Alameda County
Lead Agency: Alameda County
Project Description: Project A-9a is located along Crow Canyon Road between E. Castro Valley
Boulevard and the Alameda/Contra Costa County line.
Project A-9a is Phase 1 of a two-phase safety improvement project along Crow Canyon Road. Please refer
to Project A-9b for details on Phase 2.
Phase 1 safety improvements include speed feedback signs, shoulder widening, California Highway Patrol
(CHP) enforcement areas, and guard rail modifications.
Overall, the short-term safety improvements will facilitate traffic safety and operations, while reducing
congestion for residents traveling between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
Status: The project is currently in the Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Studies stage. Construction
of Phase 1 is to be determined.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 40
Cost and Funding Source
Cost (Millions) $18.87
Funding (Millions)
CMA TIP $0.45
Local Alameda County $0.45
TVTDF $1.55
Total Funding (Millions) $2.45
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $8.42
A -9B. CROW CANYON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 2
TVTC Project Sponsor: Alameda County
Lead Agency: Alameda County
Project Description: Project A-9b is located along Crow Canyon Road between E. Castro Valley
Boulevard and the Alameda/Contra Costa County Line.
Project A-9b is Phase 2 of the two-phase safety improvement project along Crow Canyon Road. Please
refer to Project A-9a for details on Phase 1.
Phase 2 safety improvements include roadway realignment, shoulder widening, roundabouts, two-way left
turn lanes (as needed), and tunnels at post mile (PM) 2.15.
This project will increase safety for motorists traveling along this major arterial roadway between Castro
Valley in Alameda County and San Ramon in Contra Costa County. The realignment of various curves,
shoulder widening, and tunnels at PM 2.15 will facilitate improved traffic operations and reduce congestion
for residents traveling between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
Status: This project is in the scoping stage. Construction is expected to begin after completion of Phase 1
(Project A-9a). Phasing and schedule have not yet been determined.
Cost and Funding Source
Cost (Millions) $58.77
Funding (Millions)
TVTDF $1.69
Total Funding (Millions) $1.69
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions, 2015) $57.08
A -10A. VASCO ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 1
TVTC Project Sponsor: Alameda County
Lead Agency: Alameda County
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 41
Project Description: Project A-10a is located along Vasco Road in Alameda County.
Project A-10a is Phase 1 of the Vasco Road Safety Improvements, a two-phase safety improvement project
along Vasco Road. The project includes roadway realignment, shoulder widening, and installment of
median barriers along Vasco Road. Please refer to Project A-10b for details on Phase 2.
Roadway realignments have been completed and consisted of straightening the alignment of Vasco Road
at about 1.8-miles north of the Livermore city limits to the Alameda/Contra Costa county line. A median
barrier has been installed between the Contra Costa County line and about 1.8-miles north of the Livermore
city limits. The installation of median barriers eliminates crossover-type collisions that resulted in fatalities
in the past. The realignment of tight curves facilitates Tri Delta bus services between Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties.
The remaining components of Phase 1 includes sub-standard shoulder modifications.
Status: The utility relocation phase of this project has been completed. Construction of the realignment
project was completed in November 2009. Installation of the median barriers was also completed. The
Vasco Road Safety Improvement Project is scheduled to be constructed in two stages. Shoulder
improvements for Phase 1 are expected to be completed by 2020.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $40.57
Funding (Millions)
Measure B $1.50
STIP $4.60
TCRP $6.50
Local Alameda County $2.81
STP/CMAQ $3.90
Prop 1-B $6.00
Fed demo $0.80
TVTDF $3.32
Total Funding (Millions) $29.43
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions, 2015) $11.14
A -10B. VASCO ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 2
TVTC Project Sponsor: Alameda County
Lead Agency: Alameda County
Project Description: Project A-10b is located along Vasco Road in Alameda County. Project A-10b is
Phase 2 of the Vasco Road Safety Improvements, a two-phase safety improvement project along Vasco
Road. Please refer to Project A-10a for details on Phase 1.
Phase 2 includes roadway realignment, shoulder widening, and installation of median barriers. This phase
of the project will install median barriers along Vasco Road within Alameda County on portions of the
roadway not covered by Phase 1. In addition, this phase will include shoulder widening and curve
modifications, as needed. Phase 2 of Vasco Road will provide continuous median barrier protection
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 42
between Contra Costa County and the City of Livermore. The installation of median barriers will eliminate
crossover-type collisions that resulted in fatalities in the past.
Status: The Phase 2 project is in the scoping stage. The Phase 2 project includes the PSR to be done by
Alameda County.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $31.20
Funding (Millions)
TVTDF $2.58
Total Funding (Millions) $2.58
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions, 2015) $28.62
A -11. EXPRESS BUS/BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) – PHASE 2
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Dublin
Lead Agency: Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA)
Project Description: Project A-11 is Phase 2 of the Express Bus/BRT, which consists of two phases. The
express bus route associated with Phase 1 of the project has been operating since January 2011.
Phase 2 includes upgrades to and expansion of the initial Rapid Project, as well as some project
refinements, updates, and maintenance/replacement of original project elements and equipment based on
evaluation of the existing components and conditions at the time of funding. The transit system priorities
include the following elements:
• A technologically advanced transit system
• A multi-modal transportation system that supports the local economy
• Prioritized regional transfers and connections
• Reliability and efficiency that maximizes value to taxpayers and the community
Phase 2 will consist of five key potential elements (based upon conditions at time of funding):
1. Advanced Technology – Design and installation of advanced technologies and road features
allowing rapid transit to operate quickly and efficiently, and help to mitigate delay in dwell times,
boardings, and travel times. Some of the advanced technologies and road features that LAVTA is
considering for Phase 2 are: transit signal priority (TSP), enhanced stations, queue jumps,
environmentally friendly coaches and advanced onboard technology, advanced fare collection
systems, level boarding, dedicated travel lanes, and better integrated park and ride facilities and
transit centers. Element 1 is currently budgeted at $2 Million.
2. North/South Express Bus/Rapid Service – In keeping with the Alameda Countywide Transit
Plan, and in order to provide a strong foundation for LAVTA’s System, I-680 service expansion,
North/South Express Bus/BRT service, and other Express/Rapid service options, will be explored
and considered. Element 2 is currently budgeted at $6.5 Million.
3. Dublin Extension – Continued study and planning will be done on how best to integrate the
planned extension of Dublin Boulevard and the planned Livermore BART Extension into LAVTA’s
Express Bus/BRT service. Element 3 is currently budgeted at $6.5 Million.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 43
4. Pleasanton Alignment – Complete “Rapidization,” of the Livermore to Pleasanton alignment will
be evaluated, with advanced technology and improved service elements planned for the south side
of I-580, and possible connection to the existing Rapid service. Element 4 is currently budgeted at
$1.5 Million.
5. Park and Ride Lots – In working with local cities and Alameda County, LAVTA will consider
improved park and ride elements to support bus, biking, and walking access in the Tri-Valley, and
to improve the accessibility of transportation alternatives that would ease congestion on I-580.
These options might include: construction of new lots, smart signage, improved bicycle storage,
increased pedestrian accessibility and safety, enhanced multi-modal elements on coaches, and
increased or revised bus service to rail stations and regional transit connections. Element 5 is
currently budgeted at $2 Million.
Status: Phase 1 is fully completed and operational, as of January 2011. Phase 2 is in the research, design,
and planning stage. In August 2016, LAVTA realigned the Express Bus/BRT Route (Route 30R) to serve
Las Positas College, and transformed existing Route 10 into an Express Bus/BRT (Route 10R) operating
through Pleasanton to BART. The transformation of Route 10 into Route 10R was the first step in
implementation of the Phase 2 Pleasanton Alignment. LAVTA intends to implement additional items from
Phase 2 (Advanced Technology) to both Routes 10R and 30R in 2017, which includes upgrading the traffic
signal priority onboard the buses and at key intersections along both Rapid routes. Costs for Phase 2 have
been updated to reflect current pricing for the project elements listed above. Phase 2 Scope of work,
schedule, and full funding parameters are not known at this time.
Cost and Funding Sources
Phase 2:
Cost (Millions) $22.35
Funding (Millions)
TVTDF $1.14
Total Funding (Millions) $1.14
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $21.21
B -1. I-580/I-680 INTERCHANGE (WESTBOUND TO SOUTHBOUND)
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Dublin
Lead Agency: Alameda CTC
Project Description: Project B-1 is located at the I-580/I-680 Interchange in Alameda County. The
proposed project limits are from 1,700 feet east of the Hacienda Drive Overcrossing to 2,000 feet west of
the San Ramon Road Overcrossing along I-580, and from the Amador Valley Boulevard Undercrossing to
3,400 feet south of the Stoneridge Drive Overcrossing along I-680.
Status: A Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) was completed and approved
by Caltrans in 2009.
The next steps in project development will be to:
• Review the existing PSR-PDS to validate the information
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 44
• Identify the need for updates/revisions to identify financially feasible improvements to address the
latest safety, operational, and congestion issues
The Alameda CTC’s 2014 Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP), approved as part of Measure BB,
includes $20 Million in funding for I-580/I-680 Interchange improvements. Further project development is
being explored. Alameda CTC is working with local, regional, and state agencies in identifying funding.
The Alameda CTC’s 2020 Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) split this project into two phases. Phase
1 is part of the County’s 10-year priory project list, while Phase 2 is listed under 30-Year project list.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions, 2015) $1,785.65
Funding (Millions, 2015)
Measure BB $20.00
TVTDF $1.00
Total Funding (Millions, 2015) $21.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions, 2015) $1,764.65
B -2. FIFTH EASTBOUND LANE ON I-580 (SANTA RITA ROAD TO VASCO
ROAD)
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Pleasanton, City of Livermore
Lead Agency: Alameda CTC
Project Description: Project B-2 is located along eastbound I-580 between Santa Rita Road and Vasco
Road. The project would construct a fifth eastbound mixed flow lane and would eliminate the lane drop at
Santa Rita Road.
Status: This project has been completed.
B -3. I-580/FIRST STREET INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Livermore
Lead Agency: Caltrans
Project Description: Project B-3 is located at the I-580/First Street interchange in Livermore. The project
would modify the interchange by widening the overcrossing to six lanes and reconstructing the ramps to
achieve a partial cloverleaf interchange design.
Status: A PSR has been completed. The project schedule and phasing are not available at this time.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 45
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $61.00
Funding (Millions)
Livermore TIF $53.07
Total Funding (Millions) $53.07
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $7.93
B -4. I-580/VASCO ROAD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Livermore
Lead Agency: Caltrans
Project Description: Project B-4 is located at the I-580/Vasco Road interchange in Livermore. The project
would modify the interchange by widening the overcrossing to eight lanes and reconstructing the ramps to
achieve a modified partial cloverleaf interchange design.
Status: A PSR and programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for right-of-way protection has been
completed. Right-of-way acquisition is underway. Environmental assessment, project development
activities, and design are anticipated to begin in 2018.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $85.65
Funding (Millions)
Livermore TIF $67.66
Measure BB $1.38
TVTDF $6.80
Total Funding (Millions) $75.84
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $9.81
B -5. I-580/GREENVILLE ROAD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Livermore
Lead Agency: Caltrans
Project Description: Project B-5 is located at the I-580/Greenville Road interchange in Livermore. The
project would modify the interchange by widening the undercrossing to six lanes and reconstructing the
ramps to achieve a modified partial cloverleaf interchange design. The project would also construct
segments of auxiliary lanes in the vicinity of the interchange.
Status: A PSR and programmatic EIR for right-of-way protection has been completed. Right-of-way
acquisition is underway. The project phasing and schedule is unavailable.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 46
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $86.00
Funding (Millions)
Livermore TIF $67.08
Total Funding (Millions) $67.08
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $18.92
B -6. JACK LONDON BOULEVARD EXTENSION
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Livermore
Lead Agency: City of Livermore
Project Description: Project B-6 is located along Jack London Boulevard in Livermore. The project would
widen Jack London Boulevard to El Charro Road as a four-lane arterial roadway.
The project will be constructed in two phases.
• Phase 1 - two lane extension
• Phase 2 – relocate a portion of the roadway south of the Livermore Airport to its ultimate
alignment
Status: An EIR, design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of the two-lane extension (Phase 1)
has been completed.
The project is expected to be constructed in two phases.
• Phase 1 – Completed 2009.
• Phase 2 - Will not commence until after the quarries have completed mining operations.
Cost and Funding Sources
Phase 2:
Cost (Millions) $28.16
Funding (Millions)
Livermore TIF $18.08
Total Funding (Millions) $18.08
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $10.08
B -7. EL CHARRO ROAD EXTENSION (STONERIDGE DRIVE/JACK LONDON
BOULEVARD TO STANLEY BOULEVARD)
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of Pleasanton
Lead Agency: City of Pleasanton
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 47
Project Description: Project B-7 is located along El Charro Road in Pleasanton. The project would extend
El Charro Road south from its current terminus at Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard to connect with
Stanley Boulevard. Currently, this section of El Charro Road is a private roadway, but the El Charro
extension will be open for public use.
The El Charro Road Extension project consists of two phases.
• Phase 1 – between I-580 and Stoneridge Drive-Jack London Boulevard
• Phase 2 – between Stoneridge Drive-Jack London Boulevard and Stanley Boulevard,
approximately 1.7 miles
Status: Phase 1 was completed and open for public use in 2012 with the construction of the Livermore
Outlets. Phase 2 is dependent on the status/development of the East Pleasanton Specific Plan. This plan
will identify the land use and circulation along the future El Charro Road and will identify a timeline for
opening of this roadway for public use. It is anticipated that the project will be constructed with the first
stages of the East Side Specific Plan development. The City of Pleasanton began the East Pleasanton
Specific Plan in 2013 and the Pleasanton City Council, in 2015, determined that the completion of the Plan
would occur at a later date and the Plan adoption was placed on hold.
The project is expected to be constructed in several stages.
• Phase 1 – Completed and opened to traffic in 2012.
• Phase 2 – Schedule is undetermined at this time.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $72.48
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $72.48
B -8. CAMINO TASSAJARA/TASSAJARA ROAD WIDENING PROJECT (EAST
OF BLACKHAWK DRIVE TO NORTH DUBLIN RANCH DRIVE)
TVTC Project Sponsor: Contra Costa County, City of Dublin
Lead Agency: Contra Costa County, City of Dublin
Project Description: Project B-8 is located along Camino Tassajara-Tassajara Road. This project
consists of two project phases:
Safety Improvement Project – Blackhawk Drive in Contra Costa County to Moller Ranch (Palisades Drive)
in the City of Dublin
• The safety improvement project will widen Camino Tassajara from two to four lanes from East of
Blackhawk Drive to Moller Ranch (Palisades Drive) in the City of Dublin. The project may also
include realignment of various horizontal curves along the roadway. Interim improvements may
include roadway widening to meet two-lane rural road standards with sufficient lane width and
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 48
shoulder width to improve safety and allow for future bike lanes. The project will improve safety for
motorists and create bicycle facilities consistent with the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan and the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The ultimate
improvements will increase capacity along Camino Tassajara to help mitigate the impacts of local
and regional growth in housing and employment within the Tri-Valley.
Roadway Widening Project – Windemere Parkway to County Line (Contra Costa County) and Quarry Lane
School/Wallis Ranch Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive (City of Dublin)
• The roadway widening project consist of two segments:
o Segment A – Windemere Parkway to County line
Segment A will widen and realign Camino Tassajara from two to four lanes. The
horizontal curves at the Contra Costa/Alameda County Line will be realigned to
increase safety along the roadway. Roadway shoulders will be widened to create
bicycle facilities consistent with the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan. The ultimate improvements will increase capacity along Camino
Tassajara/Tassajara Road to help mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth
in housing and employment within the Tri-Valley.
o Segment B – Quarry Lane School/ Wallis Ranch Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive
Segment B will widen Tassajara Road from two to four lanes and will improve
safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, by providing sidewalks, bike lanes,
and widening from two to four lanes. Roadway improvements will be consistent
with the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The ultimate
improvements will increase capacity along Tassajara Road to help mitigate the
impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment within the Tri-
Valley.
The segment of Tassajara Road from the County line to North Dublin Ranch Drive in the City of Dublin is a
RRS and was modeled in the 2008 Nexus Study. However, the segment was not included in previous
TVTDF funding plans to receive funding. By identifying this segment of the project in the project description,
this will enable the City of Dublin to utilize various revenue sources, including the 20% TVTDF return-to-
source funds on this segment. This will not impact the projected revenue allocation or resulting benefit of
the 2008 Nexus Study.
Status:
Safety Improvement Project: The PSR for the project has been completed. The City of Dublin and Contra
Costa County are coordinating on various aspects of the Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road safety
improvements near the Contra Costa/Alameda County line. Contra Costa County and the City of Dublin are
beginning design of Phase 1 improvements of the safety project limits from Windermere Parkway to Moller
Ranch (Palisades Drive).
Roadway Widening Project: The PSR for the project has been completed. The City of Dublin and Contra
Costa County are coordinating on various aspects of the Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road widening
phase. Contra Costa County and the City of Dublin are conducting initial preliminary engineering for the
Segment A and B roadway widening project within their respective jurisdictions.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 49
Cost and Funding Sources
Safety Improvement Project
Contra Costa County:
Cost (Millions) $20.54
Funding (Millions)
Contra Costa Traffic Mitigation Fees $4.25
TVTDF $3.70*
Total Funding (Millions) $7.95
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $12.59
City of Dublin:
Cost (Millions) $34.55
Funding (Millions, 2015)
Dublin EDTIF $2.49
Dublin Dougherty Valley Contributions $0.50
TVTD (City of Dublin 20% Local Funding) $1.00
TVTDF $0.00*
Total Funding (Millions) $3.99
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $30.56
*The City of Dublin and Contra Costa to share $2.0 Million from the 2017 SEP Update for project segment
between Windermere Parkway and Moller Ranch (Palisades Drive). Remaining $1.70 Million to be used in
Contra Costa County.
Roadway Widening Project
Segment A: County
Cost (Millions) $17.65
Funding (Millions)
Contra Costa Traffic Mitigation Fees $14.48
TVTDF $2.68**
Total Funding (Millions) $17.16
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions, 2021) $0.49
Segment B: City of Dublin
Cost (Millions) $15.34
Funding (Millions)
Dublin Transportation Improvement Fee (TIF)
Program
$1.00
Dublin Dougherty Valley Contributions $1.63
TVTD (City of Dublin 20% Local Funding) $1.80
Total Funding (Millions) $4.43
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $10.91
**$2.68 Million to be used in Contra Costa County.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 50
B -10. I -680 SOUTHBOUND HOV LANE GAP CLOSURE (NORTH MAIN STREET
TO RUDGEAR ROAD)
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of San Ramon
Lead Agency: CCTA
Lead Agency: Project B-10 is located along southbound I-680 between North Main Street and Rudgear
Road. The project would close the HOV lane gap along this segment of I-680 and provide a continuous
HOV lane from the Benicia-Martinez Bridge to the Contra Costa/Alameda County line.
The project is necessary to encourage carpooling, vanpooling, and transit; while providing the necessary
infrastructure for express buses in the corridor. When completed, the HOV lane is planned to be converted
to an Express Lane as part of the I-680 Express Lanes Project.
Status: This project has been completed.
Cost and Funding Sources
B -11A. I-680 HOV DIRECT ACCESS RAMPS
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of San Ramon
Lead Agency: CCTA
Project Description: Project B-11a is located along I-680 in San Ramon. The project would construct
dedicated HOV on- and off-ramps in the median of I-680, in both the northbound and southbound directions
at Norris Canyon Road or at Executive Parkway in San Ramon. The project received a high level of
community interest, with a number of local residents voicing strong oppositions about the direct HOV ramps
at Norris Canyon. An alternative location for the direct ramps is also being evaluated at Executive Parkway.
Status: March 2016, a letter from the City of San Ramon to CCTA was submitted and stated that the City
of San Ramon withdrew support for the project. Subsequently, the CCTA has suspended work on the
project. The project has been removed from the project list and is no longer considered for funding.
Cost (Millions) $98.70
Funding (Millions)
RM2 $14.1
Measure J $30.4
STIP/RP $15.6
BAIFA $15.1
TVTDF $6.49
Total Funding (Millions) $81.69
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $17.01
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 51
B -11B. I-680 TRANSIT CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
TVTC Project Sponsor: City of San Ramon
Lead Agency: CCTA
Other Involved Parties: Caltrans, Southwest Area Transportation (SWAT) Committee, Transportation
Partnership and Cooperation (TRANSPAC)
Project Description: Project B.11b is located along I-680 in San Ramon Valley. The project would fund a
corridor express lane and operational improvements to facilitate carpools, vanpools and increase transit
use in the corridor as an alternative to single occupant vehicle travel. Funding may also be used to
implement high capacity transit improvements along I-680. These improvements may include an express
lane, relevant transit projects, advanced traffic management programs, and/or autonomous or connected
vehicles.
Status: A Project Study “I-680 Transit Investment Congestion Relief Study” was completed in 2015 with
Measure J funds. Specific details for this project will be further developed when additional funding is
identified. Phasing and schedule are unavailable at this time.
Cost Estimate and Funding Sources:
Cost (Millions) $277.85
Funding (Millions)
Measure J $1.00
TVTDF $2.00
Total Funding (Millions) $3.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $274.85
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 52
APPENDIX B – ADDITIONAL TVTC PROJECTS
C-1 TESLA ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT
TVTC Project Sponsor: Alameda County
Project Description: This project along Tesla Road from Greenville Road to South Livermore Avenue in
rural Unincorporated Alameda County includes shoulder widening, turn lanes to access wineries and
residences, pavement rehabilitation, and utilities undergrounding. This safety improvements project will
address rear end type collisions, improve access to wineries, and improve goods movements as well as
commute traffic issues. Proposed improvements will reduce queues along this congested rural roadway
connecting Unincorporated areas of Alameda County to City of Livermore.
Status: This project is in the scoping phase and is expected to be completed by 2024.
Cost and Funding Sources:
Cost (Millions) $13.19
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $13.19
C- 2 NORRIS CANYON ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
TVTC Project Sponsors: Contra Costa County, Department of Public Works & Alameda County,
Department of Public Works
Project Description: The proposed project for Norris Canyon Road includes countermeasures that will
increase safety on a regional route that connects San Ramon to Alameda County. The proposed project
includes the following road segments:
• Segment 1 (Norris Canyon Road from San Ramon City Limits to 300 feet west of Ashbourne Drive)
– this segment has experienced an increase in run off the road collisions and is slated for
countermeasures such as guardrails and other safety countermeasures.
• Segment 2 (Norris Canyon Road from 300 feet west of Ashbourne Drive to Alameda County limits)
– this segment currently has a 20’ pavement width and no road shoulders. This segment has also
experienced an increase in run off the road collisions. Countermeasures include shoulder widening,
installation of a retaining wall, and installation of a guardrail.
• Segment 3 (Norris Canyon Road from the Alameda County limit line to Crow Canyon Road) – the
narrow rural road continues west into Alameda County where the road pavement continues to be
narrow with approximately 20’ existing pavement width and no road shoulders. The proposed
project would include shoulder widening and guardrail installation to reduce serious injury collisions.
For each phase of this project, there will be a project scope and cost estimate, environmental
documentation, preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E), Right of Way Acquisition,
Construction, and Construction Inspection.
Status: The Project is in the preliminary engineering phase for Segments 1 and 2 as other funding is sought
in order to continue planning studies and further design efforts.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 53
Cost and Funding Sources:
Contra Costa County (Segment 1 & 2):
Cost (Millions) $8.00**
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $8.00
**Segment 1: $2 million, Segment 2: $6 million
Alameda County (Segment 3):
Cost (Millions) $16.49
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $16.49
C- 3 DUBLIN BOULEVARD – NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY EXTENSION
TVTC Project Sponsor: Dublin and Livermore
Project Description: This project will construct the street extension to connect Dublin Blvd at Fallon Road
in Dublin with North Canyons Parkway in Livermore at Doolan Road. The preliminary phase (currently
underway) of this planned project will update the project by incorporating multimodal travel, and the current
State, regional, and local priorities.
Dublin Boulevard - North Canyons Parkway Extension project would extend Dublin Boulevard in Dublin at
its current terminus at Fallon Road to North Canyons Parkway in Livermore. The new extended street is
planned to have 4 to 6 travel lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, curb and gutter, traffic signals/roundabouts, a
raised median, bus stops, and all street utilities. This project will consider the provision of dedicated transit
lanes in addition to the mixed flow travel lanes for higher level of transit service with 10 to 20-minute
headways during appropriate peak demand periods. This project will also require enhanced multimodal
connectivity to various land uses along its stretch and at its terminus, including connectivity to 5 PDAs.
While addressing Sustainable Communities Strategies, circulation inside and outside the PDAs will be
incorporated as part of the design. This project is currently in Preliminary Design Phase (funded by local
monies) including the environmental analysis for the project. It will require design and construction funding.
Status: Environmental phase is complete. Currently in design phase. Anticipated to complete design in
2023. Subsequent milestones are TBD.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $160.39
Funding (Millions)
Measure BB $7.75
Federal $0.54
Local $17.20
Total Funding (Millions) $25.49
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $134.91
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 54
C-4 VASCO ROAD AT DALTON AVENUE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
TVTC Project Sponsor: Alameda County/City of Livermore
Project Description: The project along Vasco Road at Dalton Avenue includes the addition of a traffic
lane, traffic signal modification, shoulder widening, and utility adjustments as needed.
This project is a continuation of the safety improvements project along Vasco Road that included a roadway
realignment and other safety improvements north of the Livermore city limits to the Alameda/Contra Costa
county line.
Status: This project is in the scoping phase and is expected to be completed by 2023.
Cost and Funding Sources:
Cost (Millions) $3.39
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $3.39
C-5 EL CHARRO ROAD WIDENING
TVTC Project Sponsor: Pleasanton
Project Description: Construct 1.7 miles of 4-lane divided road with Class I and Class IV bike facilities,
including a bridge over the Arroyo Mocho and a grade separation.
Status: This project has not been started.
Cost and Funding Sources:
Cost (Millions) $68.09
Funding (Millions)
Pleasanton TIF $30.00
Total Funding (Millions) $30.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $38.09
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 55
C-6 SUNOL/680 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
TVTC Project Sponsor: Pleasanton
Project Description: This project will fund the design of the I-680 at Sunol Boulevard interchange
improvement. This will include a Project Study Report (PSR) to establish a project scope and cost estimate,
environmental documentation, and the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E).
Status: Currently in PSR-PDS, PA&ED Phase anticipated Spring/Summer 2019
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $16.60
Funding (Millions)
Pleasanton TIF $2.00
Total Funding (Millions) $2.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $14.60
C-7 I-680 EXPRESS LANES – HWY 84 TO ALCOSTA
TVTC Project Sponsor: Pleasanton/ACTC
Project Description: This project will close the gap between existing and in-progress high-occupancy
vehicle (HOV)/express lane projects to the north and south. The project extends for approximately nine
miles on northbound I-680 through Sunol, Pleasanton, Dublin, and San Ramon.
Status: Design and construction of this project is being rolled out in two phases—southbound (Phase 1)
and northbound (Phase 2). Environmental and preliminary engineering studies are complete. Phase 1
final design work was initiated in February 2020 and construction for Phase 1 is anticipated to start in
2022.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $527.57
Funding (Millions)
Measures BB $20.00
Total Funding (Millions) $20.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $507.57
C-8 SANTA RITA/I-580 INTERCHANGE
TVTC Project Sponsor: Pleasanton
Project Description: This project will construct a 2nd southbound left turn lane from Santa Rita onto
Pimilico Drive. The left turn vehicle queue length exceeds the length of the left turn pocket and blocks the
#1 southbound lane, thus reducing the Level of Service.
Status: This project has not been started.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 56
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $10.33
Funding (Millions)
Pleasanton TIF $7.70
Total Funding (Millions) $7.70
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $2.63
C-9 STONERIDGE/I-680 INTERCHANGE
TVTC Project Sponsor: Pleasanton
Project Description: This project will make modifications to the Stoneridge Drive Interchange to allow four
westbound through lanes. This project will modify the northbound I-680 on ramp by one lane to provide
two northbound ramp lanes. The widening will include the widening of the bridge structure as well as
widening on Stoneridge Drive and safety improvements on the pedestrian and bicycle crossing.
Status: PS&E
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $11.98
Funding (Millions)
2014 MBB (TEPO – 26) from Alameda
CTC
$5.20
Developer $2.70
Total Funding (Millions) $7.70
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $2.63
C-10 INNOVATE 680
TVTC Project Sponsor: CCTA/Danville/San Ramon/CCC
Project Description: Implement the following strategies in the I-680 corridor:
Strategy No. 1: Complete HOV/Express Lanes
Eliminate the gap in existing carpool lanes in the NB direction and convert to an express lane to increase
efficiency.
Strategy No. 2: Cool Corridor “Hot Spots”
Improve congestion “hot spots” caused by high-volume weaving areas around N. Main Street, Lawrence
Way, Treat Blvd, and other locations south of SR 24 (Livorna Road, etc.). This strategy will be completed
with Strategy 1 since they are interdependent.
Strategy No. 3: Increase Efficiency of Bus Service
Increase bus service efficiency by improving express bus service, implementing bus operations on shoulder
(BOS), and increasing technology-based intermodal transit centers/managed park and ride lots.
Strategy No. 4: Enhance TDM Strategies
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 57
Provide enhanced 511 mobile app providing options to make informed decisions about mode choice, travel
time, and cost per trip.
Strategy No. 5: Provide First Mile/Last Mile Connections
Implement Shared Autonomous Vehicles (SAVs) to improve transit connectivity and to shift travelers from
Single Occupant Vehicles (SOVs).
Strategy No. 6: Innovative Operational Strategies
Deploy a suite of technology-based solutions to maximize the efficiency of the roadway system integrating
adaptive ramp metering, integrated corridor management, incident management, and decision support
systems.
Strategy No. 7: Prepare Corridor for the Future
Prepare corridor to accommodate the evolution of CV applications and AV technologies for improved traffic
flow by building new and upgraded vehicle-to-infrastructure and vehicle-to-vehicle communications.
TVTDF would go towards Advance Technology portions of the project.
Status: Currently in Planning, PA&ED
Cost and Funding Sources:
Advance Technologies:
Cost (Millions) $57.21
Funding (Millions)
Measure J $0.55
STMP $2.00
Total Funding (Millions) $2.55
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $54.66
C-11A IRON HORSE TRAIL BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING – CITY
OF SAN RAMON
TVTC Project Sponsor: CCTA/San Ramon/CCC
Project Description: The Iron Horse Trail (IHT) is an 18-mile regional non-motorized trail that runs
north/south through the San Ramon Valley providing critical access to adjacent land uses. The construction
of overcrossings at key locations will develop attractive travel alternatives for congestion relief for commute
trips as well as enhanced facilities for school, shopping, and recreation trips. For the scope of this project,
the proposed overcrossing location is Bollinger Canyon Road. At this location, the overcrossing will provide
substantial benefits including:
1. Improve safety by eliminating conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists;
2. Improve motor vehicle circulation by removing the at-grade crossings;
3. Reduce and eliminate unsafe crossing maneuvers by pedestrians and bicyclists;
4. Enhance safety by providing an environment that encourages walking and bicycling along the
Iron Horse Regional Trail; and
5. Increase trail usage by improving the connectivity at the Bollinger Canyon Road and Crow
Canyon Road crossings.
Status: Currently in PA&ED, CEQA Completed. Design Underway. Construction anticipated 2022.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 58
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $22.88
Funding (Millions)
OBAG2 $4.80
Measure J (Transportation for Livable
Communities) $2.51
Measure J (TLC future year pre-
commitment) $4.98
San Ramon General Fund $2.00
Total Funding (Millions) $14.30
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $8.58
C-11B IRON HORSE TRAIL BICYCLE PEDESTRI AN OVERCROSSING – CITY
OF SAN RAMON
TVTC Project Sponsor: CCTA/San Ramon/CCC
Project Description: The Iron Horse Trail (IHT) is an 18-mile regional non-motorized trail that runs
north/south through the San Ramon Valley providing critical access to adjacent land uses. The construction
of overcrossings at key locations will develop attractive travel alternatives for congestion relief for commute
trips as well as better facilities for school, shopping, and recreations trips. For the scope of this project, the
proposed overcrossing location is Bollinger Canyon Road. At this location, the overcrossing will provide
substantial benefits including:
1. Improve safety by eliminating conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists;
2. Improve motor vehicle circulation by removing the at-grade crossings;
3. Reduce and eliminate unsafe crossing maneuvers by pedestrians and bicyclists;
4. Enhance safety by providing an environment that encourages walking and bicycling along the
Iron Horse Regional Trail; and
5. Increase trail usage by improving the connectivity at the Bollinger Canyon Road and Crow
Canyon Road crossings.
Status: Currently in PA&ED, CEQA Completed
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $19.69
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $19.69
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 59
C-11C IRON HORSE TRAIL CROSSING AT DUBLIN BOULEVARD
TVTC Project Sponsor: Dublin
Project Description: This project will build a bicycle and pedestrian bridge over Dublin Boulevard in order
to connect two segments of the Iron Horse Trail. This bridge will create a total separation between vehicles
and bicyclists/pedestrians. This will eliminate the possibility of motorized vehicles and pedestrians having
a collision, making this segment of the road safer for all users. Along with this, congestion will be reduced
as cars will no longer have to wait for pedestrians. This reduction of congestion will also allow for the transit
to operate more efficiently. Pedestrians and bicyclists will also not have to wait for a walk signal since they
will be able to continue their walk or ride without stopping.
The bridge will follow ADA requirements so that disabled people will be able to use it as well. This bridge
will also be aesthetically pleasing in order to attract users and improve the user’s experience. The bridge
will also connect BART to Dublin in a safe manner, encouraging recreational user of the Iron Horse Trail
and the opening of local businesses. This safe and fast route of crossing the Iron Horse Trail will promote
walking and bicycling for both recreational and commuting purposes in Dublin, this encouraging the shift
from motorized vehicles to alternative forms of transportation.
Status: The project is currently in the final design phase. Additionally, Environmental Analysis of the
project is currently in-progress.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $11.60
Funding (Millions)
2014 MBB $6.05
TFCA $0.86
Local $0.23
Private $1.00
Total Funding (Millions) $11.60
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) -
C-11D IRON HORSE TRAIL
TVTC Project Sponsor: Livermore
Project Description: This project will extend existing trail and provide gap closures.
Status: Feasibility Study/Environmental Complete
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $26.99
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $26.99
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 60
C-11E IRON HORSE TRAIL TO SHADOW CLIFFS CONNECTION
TVTC Project Sponsor: Pleasanton, Alameda County
Project Description: Currently, the Iron Horse Trail (IHT) ends as a narrow-paved path to the overcrossing
bridge of the regional railway on the east side of Valley Avenue, where there is a flat, paved spaced under
the railroad bridge that could accommodate the trail.
This project would construct a continuous Class I trail, at least 10 feet wide, and would include protected
intersection improvements and additional crossing improvements of Valley/Bernal and Stanley to improve
pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
Status: This project has not started.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $1.65
Funding (Millions)
Pleasanton TIF $0.60
Direct Developer Fee $0.75
Total Funding (Millions) $1.35
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $0.30
C-11F IRON HORSE TRAIL CONNECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT SANTA RITA
ROAD
TVTC Project Sponsor: Pleasanton
Project Description: The Iron Horse Trail (IHT) is a major north-south regional route for bicyclists and
cyclists. The Arroyo Mocho Trail (AMT) is an important east-west route for bicyclists and pedestrians
extending to Livermore that bypasses many busy streets.
This project would improve connections from the IHT on Santa Rita Road to the AMT. The AMT would
receive an improved Class I Pathway. A new pedestrian bridge would be constructed over the Arroyo
Mocho to connect the southern Arroyo Mocho Class I pathway to the IHT to the north. The IHT then
connects to the north and provides access to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.
Status: This project has not started. TBD
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $0.87
Funding (Millions)
Pleasanton TIF $0.40
Total Funding (Millions) $0.40
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $0.48
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 61
C-11G IRON HORSE TRAIL BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING –
TOWN OF DANVILLE
TVTC Project Sponsor: Danville/CCC/CCTA
Project Description: The Iron Horse Trail (IHT) is an 18-mile regional non-motorized trail that runs
north/south through the San Ramon Valley providing critical access to adjacent land uses. The construction
of overcrossings at key locations will develop attractive travel alternatives for congestion relief for commute
trips as well as better facilities for school, shopping, and recreations trips. For the scope of this project, the
proposed overcrossing location is Bollinger Canyon Road. At this location, the overcrossing will provide
substantial benefits including:
1. Improve safety by eliminating conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists;
2. Improve motor vehicle circulation by removing the at-grade crossings;
3. Reduce and eliminate unsafe crossing maneuvers by pedestrians and bicyclists;
4. Enhance safety by providing an environment that encourages walking and bicycling along the
Iron Horse Regional Trail; and
5. Increase trail usage by improving the connectivity at the Bollinger Canyon Road and Crow
Canyon Road crossings.
Status: PSR (Feasibility Study) completed. Project will require coordination, permitting, and agreements
with Contra Costa County. East Bay Regional Parks Direct and various utilities.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $19.78
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $19.78
C-11H IRON HORSE TRAIL SYSTEM-WIDE IMPROVEMENTS
TVTC Project Sponsor: Contra Costa County, Town of Danville, City of San Ramon, Alameda County,
City of Dublin, City of Livermore, and City of Pleasanton
Project Description: As the primary regional multi-modal corridor between Contra Costa and Alameda
County, the Iron Horse Trail is the spine for active modes of travel in the East Bay. The proposed project
for the Iron Horse Trail includes safety, operational, and capacity improvements within the TVTC boundary
from Alamo to Livermore. The proposed project and associated cost estimate includes safety improvements
at roadway crossings, a proposed parallel path to separate users according to speed, and a buffer between
users traveling at high or low speed. The improvements would include features such as passive detection
at road crossings, actuated flashers or warning signals at roadway crossings, high visibility markings, minor
grading, construction of a new 10 foot wide parallel asphalt path with shoulders, and a buffer between high
and low speed corridors which may include vegetation or fencing to maintain safe separation. Other safety
improvements may be necessary to fit site conditions and as determined through additional study.
Separated grade crossings or bridges that have already been identified as critical for improved vehicle
traffic flow at current at grade crossings and to improve safety for trail users are listed as separate projects
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 62
within the TVTC program. The cost and context for each bridge site warrants a specific project identification
rather than to be included within the system-wide improvements under this project.
Status: A phasing plan has not yet been developed.
Cost and Funding Sources:
Cost (Millions) $85.60
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $85.60
C-12 I -680 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS AT H ACIENDA DRIVE
TVTC Project Sponsor: Dublin and Pleasanton
Project Description: Implement I-580 Hacienda Drive Interchange Improvements, which includes
reconstructing the overcrossing to add lanes.
I-580/Hacienda Drive interchange Improvements will include; reconstruction of overcrossing to provide
additional northbound lane; widening of the eastbound off-ramp to include an additional lane to be used as
a combined left and right turn lane; modifying signal and striping, modifying the westbound loop on-ramp;
and widening of the westbound off-ramp to include a third left-turn lane.
Status: The project is currently in Preliminary Engineering phase and an EIR is currently underway.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $39.13
Funding (Millions)
Dublin TIF $4.95
Pleasanton TIF $0.04
Total Funding (Millions) $4.63
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $34.50
C-13 FALLON/EL CHARRO INTERCHANGE
TVTC Project Sponsor: Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore
Project Description: I-580/El Charro Road Interchange Improvements (Phase 2): reconstruction of
overcrossing to provide four-lanes in each direction with bike lanes; reconstruction of the southbound to
eastbound loop on-ramp; widening of the eastbound off-ramp to provide two exit lanes with two left turn
and two right tum lanes; widening of the eastbound on-ramp; widening of the westbound off-ramp to provide
two left tum and two right tum lanes; and widening of the westbound on-ramp.
Status: The project has not yet started.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 63
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $34.51
Funding (Millions)
Dublin TIF $4.05
Pleasanton TIF $4.10
Livermore TIF $6.40
Total Funding (Millions) $14.55
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $19.96
C-1 4 VALLEY LINK RAIL (PHASE 1)
TVTC Project Sponsor: Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore, Alameda County
Project Description: This project will connect Northern San Joaquin County communities to the Tri-Valley
and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) through 41 miles of rail and 7 stations. The project will extend from
the planned ACE N. Lathrop Station in the San Joaquin Valley through the Altamont Pass, then readily
connect with the Dublin/Pleasanton BART terminus. The TVTDF would go towards construction cost and
access improvement for three stations in Tri-Valley Area (Dublin/Pleasanton, Isabel, and Greenville).
Status: 2018-2020 Design/Environmental, 2019-2023 Procurement, 2020-2026 Design/Construction.
Cost and Funding Sources:
Cost (Millions) $258.25
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $258.25
C-15 TECHNOLOGY ENHANCEMENTS
TVTC Project Sponsor: Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore
Project Description: Provide connectivity for transit and vehicles between local arterials and regional
facilities. This project will also focus on the first and last mile connectivity at key transit hubs and along
major transit routes.
A. Support expansion and facilitate interoperability among partner agencies of existing and future
intelligent transportation system deployments, including connected/autonomous vehicles,
integrated corridor management, transit vehicle operations, and emergency vehicle operations,
among other uses.
B. Plan and implement connected and autonomous vehicle access in a seamless manner across Tri-
Valley jurisdictions’ boundaries including arterial access to freeways. This requires a continued
emphasis on sharing communication infrastructure, field equipment at jurisdictional boundaries,
and data.
C. Update the existing communication links and enhance the existing connectivity of all Tri-Valley
Traffic Operations Centers for on-going data and comm unication sharing.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 64
D. Prepare corridors around transit centers and BART stations to implement Shared Autonomous
Vehicles (SAVs) to improve transit connectivity to shift travelers from Single Occupancy Vehicles
(SOVs) to transit.
E. Prepare intersections around transit center and ABRT stations to accommodate the evolution of
Connected Vehicle applications and Autonomous Vehicle technologies for improved traffic flow by
building new and upgraded vehicle-to-infrastructure and vehicle-to-vehicle communications.
F. Test and develop standard/protocol at the intersections, through existing and new Vehicle-to-
Everything (V2X) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) technologies as a regional standard to be
adopted by the local agencies among the Tri-Valley Jurisdictions. These technologies will allow a
vehicle to communicate in real time with its surroundings.
G. Work with regional agencies in incorporating signal and vehicle communications in day to day
operations. This would include sharing of equipment and data for seamless integration of
connected and autonomous vehicle access across Tri-Valley Jurisdictions and freeway
infrastructure including express lanes.
The project will be implemented in phases. Phase 1 of the proposed project will comprise of a feasibility
study to identify potential locations, improvements, and develop cost estimates at key transit hubs,
along major transit routes, and at freeway access locations in tri-valley area. Phase 2 of the project will
further the development of the project with completion of design and Phase 3 will compete the
construction/implementation and operation of the proposed project.
Status: The project is currently not yet started.
Cost and Funding Sources
Cost (Millions) $0.33
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $0.33
C-16 I -680 EXPRESS BUS SERVICE
TVTC Project Sponsor: Alameda CTC, in partnership with CCTA
Project Description: This project proposes to construct capital improvements and purchase buses in order
to establish an express bus service on I-680. This project requires the construction of the I-680 Express
Lane Gap Closure project, closing the gap in the express lanes between Alcosta Blvd and State Route 84,
in order to utilize the express lanes to avoid congestion, reduce travel time, and improve reliably, as part of
an express bus service between the Tri-Valley communities and Silicon Valley. This express bus service
would likely be combined with and become part of similar efforts by Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(CCTA) and their Innovate 680 program, with the intent to serve the entire I-680 corridor extending from
Martinez to San Jose, utilizing buses to provide access to additional commute options, including BART,
Amtrak, Caltrain, VTA light rail, local bus service, and Greyhound, for those living along the corridor.
The service would operate weekdays only, with proposed 20-minute headways during peak periods and
one-hour headways during off-peak hours. The service would be bi-directional to avoid substantial
deadhead time and to maintain a high level of service. New electric buses would be purchased as part of
this project.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 65
The project proposes to place express bus stops in the Tri-Valley area at the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station and at a future park and ride to be constructed at the Bernal Avenue interchange in Pleasanton.
Understanding that the express buses must merge across all lanes of traffic to access the express lane,
these stop locations are spaced to efficiently serve the Tri-Valley area while also maximizing the express
lane distance the bus is able to utilize in-between bus stops.
The estimated costs below assume that at each bus stop location there would be construction of roadway
and bus stop improvements, including installation of transit amenities such as shelters, bike lockers,
lighting, and real time information signs.
Status: A project schedule has not yet been developed.
Cost and Funding Sources:
Cost (Millions) $59.35
Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding (Millions) $0.00
Total Funding Shortfall (Millions) $59.35
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 66
APPENDIX C – PROJECT IMPROVEMENT CATEGORIES
Project Improvement
Category*
A-2a State Route 84 (SR 84) Expressway (I-580 to I-680) Roadway Capacity
A-2b SR 84/I-580 Interchange Roadway Capacity
A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 Safety
A-9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2 Safety
A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 Safety
A-10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 Safety
A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – Phase 2 Safety
B-1 I-580/I-680 Interchange (westbound to southbound) Roadway Capacity
B-3 I-580/First Street Interchange Modification Roadway Capacity
B-4 I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification Roadway Capacity
B-5 I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification Roadway Capacity
B-6 Jack London Boulevard Extension Roadway Capacity
B-7 El Charro Road Extension (Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard
to Stanley Boulevard) Roadway Capacity
B-8 Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road Widening Project (East of
Blackhawk Drive to North Dublin Ranch Drive)
Roadway Capacity
Safety
B-10 I-680 Southbound HOV Lane Gap Closure (North Main Street to
Rudgear Road) Roadway Capacity
B-11b I-680 Transit Corridor Improvements Transit
C-1 Tesla Road Safety Improvements Safety
C-2 Norris Canyon Road Safety Improvement Safety
C-3 Dublin Boulevard – North Canyons Parkway Extensions Roadway Capacity
C-4 Vasco Road at Dalton Avenue Intersection Improvements Intersection
C-5 El Charro Road Widening Roadway Capacity
C-6 Sunol/680 Interchange Improvements Roadway Capacity
C-7 I-680 Express Lanes – Hwy 84 to Alcosta Roadway Capacity
C-8 Santa Rita/I-580 Interchange Intersection
C-9 Stoneridge/I-680 Interchange Roadway Capacity
C-10 Innovate 680 Technology
C-11a Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Bollinger Canyon
Road Pedestrian/Bicycle
C-11b Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing – Crow Canyon
Road Pedestrian/Bicycle
C-11c Iron Horse Trail – Dublin Pedestrian/Bicycle
C-11d Iron Horse Trail – Livermore Pedestrian/Bicycle
C-11e Iron Horse Trail to Shadow Cliffs Pedestrian/Bicycle
C-11f Iron House Trail Connection Improvements at Santa Rita Road Pedestrian/Bicycle
C-11g Iron Horse Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing – Sycamore Valley
Road Pedestrian/Bicycle
Tri-Valley Transportation Council │ 2020 Nexus Fee Update Study
August 2021 │ Final 67
Project Improvement
Category*
C-11h Iron Horse Trail Safety Improvements Pedestrian/Bicycle
C-12 Hacienda/I-580 Interchange Improvements Roadway Capacity
C-13 Fallon/El Charro Interchange Improvements Roadway Capacity
C-14 Valley Link Rail (Phase 1) Transit
C-15 Technology Enhancements Technology
C-16 I-680 Express Bus Service Transit
Note: Table only includes projects that have not been fully completed.
* Improvement category used to determine project benefit for Nexus. Projects may also project additional benefits to the
system.
\\PW-DATA\grpdata\engsvc\ENVIRO\TransEng\Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Update 2022\CEQA\NOE (final).docx Revised 2018
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Notice of Exemption
To: Office of Planning and Research
P.O. Box 3044, Room 113
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
From: Contra Costa County
Department of Conservation and
Development
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
County Clerk, County of Contra Costa
Project Title: Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Update, Project #: WO4032, CP#: 22-23
Project Applicant: Contra Costa County Public Works Dept., 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez CA 94553
Main: (925) 313-2000, Contact: Alex Nattkemper, (925) 313-2364
Project Location: The southern portion of Contra Costa County, from Alamo to San Ramon, as well as
portions of Alameda County.
Lead Agency: Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553
Main: (925) 655-2705, Contact: Syd Sotoodeh (925) 655-2877
Project Description: On October 13, 2013 the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, the cities of
Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville entered into a Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement in order to establish the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC), as a separate
agency, to jointly coordinate transportation planning efforts within the Tri-Valley Area through collecting
and administering the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF) to facilitate the
implementation of transportation improvement projects identified in the TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan.
On May 12, 2015, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 2015-11 to adjust
the fees for the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Area of Benefit. Since the passing of Ordinance
2015-11, the Tri-Valley area has experienced growth in the area’s traffic circulation needs, development
potential, and project list. The TVTC has determined that additional funds are necessary for the TVTDF
program, in support of new and future regional transportation growth, as noted in the TVTC Nexus Fee
Update Study (August 2021).
The purpose of this activity is to: 1) implement the TVTDF ordinance, which consists of adjusting the
traffic mitigation fee program to accommodate new and future development in the Tri-Valley area, and
2) adjust the traffic mitigation fee program, as necessary. Fees will be collected from new development
within the mitigation fee area. All the roadways proposed for improvement under this program are
contained in or are in the process of being incorporated into the circulation element of each City’s and/or
County’s general plan and regional planning documents for the fee area. Each project funded either
wholly or in part by this fee will be analyzed under a project-specific CEQA document.
Exempt Status:
Ministerial Project (Sec. 21080[b][1]; 15268) Categorical Exemption (Sec. )
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080[b][3]; 15269[a]) General Rule of Applicability (Sec. 15061[b][3])
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080[b][4]; 15269[b][c]) Other Statutory Exemption (Sec. )
Reasons why project is exempt: The activity is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Article 5, Section
15601(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
activity may have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the
project?
Yes No
Signature: Date: _____________ Title:
Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development
Signed by Lead Agency Signed by Applicant
06/21/2022 Planner II
\\PW-DATA\grpdata\engsvc\ENVIRO\TransEng\Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Update 2022\CEQA\NOE (final).docx Revised 2018
AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING
I declare that on I received and posted this notice as required by
California Public Resources Code Section 21152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30
days from the filing date.
Signature Title
Applicant Department of Fish and Wildlife Fees Due
Public Works Department De Minimis Finding - $0
255 Glacier Drive County Clerk - $50
Martinez, CA 94553 Conservation and Development - $25
Attn: Alex Nattkemper
Environmental Services Division
Phone: (925) 313-2364
Total Due: $75 Receipt #:
TRI‐VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT
(TVTD) FEE AREA
*Note: County Ordinance applies to unincorporated County areas within TVTC boundary.Figure 1