HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 07162015 - TWIC Agenda PktTRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE
July 16, 2015
11:00 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair
Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair
Agenda
Items:
Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference
of the Committee
1.Introductions
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on
this agenda. (speakers may be limited to three minutes)
3.Administrative Items, if applicable. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation
and Development) Page 4
4.REVIEW record of meeting for the June 1, 2015 Transportation, Water and
Infrastructure Committee Meeting. This record was prepared pursuant to the Better
Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205 (d) of the Contra Costa County Ordinance
Code. Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be
attached to this meeting record. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and
Development) Page 5
5.AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director to submit grant applications to the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) for the 2016 State
Transportation improvement Program (STIP). (Mary Halle, Department of Public
Works) Page 15
6.REVIEW issues associated with the health of the San Francisco Bay and Delta,
including but not limited to Delta levees, flood control, dredging, drought
planning, habitat conservation, and water quality, supply, and reliability. (Cece
Sellgren, Department of Public Works) Page 23
7.CONSIDER report on Local, State and Federal Transportation Related
Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham,
Department of Conservation and Development) Page 53
8.RECEIVE the report on the Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study. (John
TWIC Packet Page Number 1 of 167
8.RECEIVE the report on the Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study. (John
Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development) Page 91
9.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Tuesday, September 8, 2015, at 1pm.
10.Adjourn
The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) will provide reasonable
accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend TWIC meetings. Contact the staff
person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the County to a majority of members of the TWIC less than 72 hours prior to that
meeting are available for public inspection at the County Department of Conservation and
Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day
prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
John Cunningham, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250
john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us
TWIC Packet Page Number 2 of 167
Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County
has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in meetings of its
Board of Supervisors and Committees. Following is a list of commonly used abbreviations that may appear in
presentations and written materials at meetings of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee:
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
AOB Area of Benefit
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District
BATA Bay Area Toll Authority
BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission
BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan
BGO Better Government Ordinance (Contra Costa County)
BOS Board of Supervisors
CALTRANS California Department of Transportation
CalWIN California Works Information Network
CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility
to Kids
CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response
CAO County Administrative Officer or Office
CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority
CCWD Contra Costa Water District
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFS Cubic Feet per Second (of water)
CPI Consumer Price Index
CSA County Service Area
CSAC California State Association of Counties
CTC California Transportation Commission
DCC Delta Counties Coalition
DCD Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development
DPC Delta Protection Commission
DSC Delta Stewardship Council
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
EIR Environmental Impact Report (a state requirement)
EIS Environmental Impact Statement (a federal requirement)
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FTE Full Time Equivalent
FY Fiscal Year
GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District
GIS Geographic Information System
HBRR Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation
HOT High-Occupancy/Toll
HOV High-Occupancy-Vehicle
HSD Contra Costa County Health Services Department
HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development
IPM Integrated Pest Management
ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance
JPA/JEPA Joint (Exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement
Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area
LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission
LCC League of California Cities
LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy
MAC Municipal Advisory Council
MAF Million Acre Feet (of water)
MBE Minority Business Enterprise
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOE Maintenance of Effort
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
NACo National Association of Counties
NEPA National Environmental Protection Act
OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency
Operations Center
PDA Priority Development Area
PWD Contra Costa County Public Works Department
RCRC Regional Council of Rural Counties
RDA Redevelopment Agency or Area
RFI Request For Information
RFP Request For Proposals
RFQ Request For Qualifications
SB Senate Bill
SBE Small Business Enterprise
SR2S Safe Routes to Schools
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee
TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central)
TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County)
TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
WBE Women-Owned Business Enterprise
WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory
Committee
WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority
WRDA Water Resources Development Act
TWIC Packet Page Number 3 of 167
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:07/16/2015
Subject:Administrative Items
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
This is an Administrative Item of the Committee.
Referral Update:
Staff will review any items related to the conduct of Committee business.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Take ACTION as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
TWIC Packet Page Number 4 of 167
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:07/16/2015
Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for the June 1, 2015 Transportation, Water
and Infrastructure Committee Meeting.
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
County Ordinance (Better Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205, [d]) requires that each
County Body keep a record of its meetings. Though the record need not be verbatim, it must
accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the meeting.
Referral Update:
Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached to this
meeting record.
Links to the agenda and minutes will be available at the TWI Committee web page:
http://www.cccounty.us/4327/Transportation-Water-Infrastructure
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the June 1, 2015 Committee
Meeting with any necessary corrections.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
June 2015 TWIC Meeting Minutes
6-1-15 TWIC Meeting Sign-In Sheet TWIC Packet Page Number 5 of 167
6-1-15 TWIC Meeting Sign-In Sheet
TWIC 6-1-15 Mtg Hand-Out, Delta Stewardship Council Water Chart
TWIC 6-1-15 Mtg Hand-Out, EBMUD Pledge
TWIC 6-1-15 Mtg Hand-Out, Elements of Transportation Funding Plans
spkrcard
TWIC Packet Page Number 6 of 167
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
June 1, 2015
1:00 P.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair
Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair
Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee
Present: Candace Andersen, Chair
Mary N. Piepho, Vice Chair
Attendees: Steve Kowaleski, CC County Public Works Dept.
Julie Bueren, CC County Public Works Dept.
Nancy Wein, CC County Public Works Dept.
Angela Villar, CC County Public Works Dept.
Laura Case, Office of Supervisor Karen Mitchoff
Michelle Blackwell, EBMUD
Robert Sarmiento, CC County DCD, Transportation
John Cunningham, CC County DCD, Transportation
1.Introductions
Please see the attached sign-in sheet, hand-outs and "Attendees" section, above.
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may
be limited to three minutes).
Michelle Blackwell, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) - Community Affairs distributed and
described EBMUD's "Pledge to Partner In Saving Water"
There was no Committee action taken. Staff will work with the County Administrators Office, Water
Agency, the Public Works Department, and the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) to discuss an
appropriate response to the EBMUD Water Saving Pledge. The response would then go to either the
Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) or Board of Supervisors (BOS).
3.Administrative items, if applicable (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development).
The Committee unanimously approved a) moving Item #5 to end of the agenda, and b) the removal of Item
#6 from the agenda, as it was mistakenly included having been previously acted on at the May 4, 2015
meeting.
4.Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the May 4, 2015 Committee Meeting
with any necessary corrections.
The Committee unanimously approved the 5/4/15 meeting record.
5.
CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take
ACTION as appropriate including CONSIDERATION of specific recommendations in the report above.
The Committee unanimously recommended a support position on SB 321 (Beall) and directed staff bring toTWIC Packet Page Number 7 of 167
The Committee unanimously recommended a support position on SB 321 (Beall) and directed staff bring to
the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on consent. Regarding progress on the Iron Horse Corridor
effort, the Committee offered any assistance in reaching out to the County's legislative delegation.
6.ACCEPT staff report and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, on behalf of the County, to submit to
Caltrans and MTC grant applications for the Active Transportation Program (ATP), Cycle 2.
The Committee unanimously removed this item from the June 1, 2015 TWIC Meeting Agenda as it was
previously acted on at the 5/4/15 Committee meeting.
7.AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, on behalf of the County, to submit grant applications to
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) Cycle 7 funding cycle.
Angela Villar (Public Works Department) reviewed the Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant
requirements, and the County's grant application. The Committee unanimously approved the staff
recommendation. The Committee requested a report on past grant efforts and awards.
8.AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, on behalf of the County, to submit the two grant applications to
DOT for the TIGER Discretionary Grant program.
Nancy Wein (Public Works Department) described the Transportation Investment Generating Economic
Recovery (TIGER) grant process and the County's grant proposal. The Committee requested maps for future
grants to orient the Supervisors and the public to the project geography. The Committee unanimously
approved the staff recommendation.
9.RECEIVE update on Pedestrian-Rail Safety issues and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
The Committee members offered to send out messages via their regular email to the district. A report is to be
brought back to TWIC in October. The Committee unanimously approved staff recommendation and
directed staff to explore the possibility of timing a public service announcement with the return to school in
the fall.
10.Adjourn
The Committee adjourned this meeting at 2:45 on the afternoon of Monday, June 1, 2015.
11.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Thursday, July 16th at 11am.
The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend TWIC meetings. Contact the
staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the TWIC less than 72 hours prior
to that meeting are available for public inspection at the County Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
John Cunningham, Committee Staff
TWIC Packet Page Number 8 of 167
Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms,
abbreviations, and industry-specific language in meetings of its Board of Supervisors and Committees. Following is a list of commonly used abbreviations that
may appear in presentations and written materials at meetings of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee:
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
AOB Area of Benefit
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District
BATA Bay Area Toll Authority
BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission
BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan
BGO Better Government Ordinance (Contra Costa County)
BOS Board of Supervisors
CALTRANS California Department of Transportation
CalWIN California Works Information Network
CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility
to Kids
CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response
CAO County Administrative Officer or Office
CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority
CCWD Contra Costa Water District
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFS Cubic Feet per Second (of water)
CPI Consumer Price Index
CSA County Service Area
CSAC California State Association of Counties
CTC California Transportation Commission
DCC Delta Counties Coalition
DCD Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development
DPC Delta Protection Commission
DSC Delta Stewardship Council
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
EIR Environmental Impact Report (a state requirement)
EIS Environmental Impact Statement (a federal requirement)
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FTE Full Time Equivalent
FY Fiscal Year
GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District
GIS Geographic Information System
HBRR Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation
HOT High-Occupancy/Toll
HOV High-Occupancy-Vehicle
HSD Contra Costa County Health Services Department
HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development
IPM Integrated Pest Management
ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance
JPA/JEPA Joint (Exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement
Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area
LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission
LCC League of California Cities
LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy
MAC Municipal Advisory Council
MAF Million Acre Feet (of water)
MBE Minority Business Enterprise
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOE Maintenance of Effort
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
NACo National Association of Counties
NEPA National Environmental Protection Act
OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency
Operations Center
PDA Priority Development Area
PWD Contra Costa County Public Works Department
RCRC Regional Council of Rural Counties
RDA Redevelopment Agency or Area
RFI Request For Information
RFP Request For Proposals
RFQ Request For Qualifications
SB Senate Bill
SBE Small Business Enterprise
SR2S Safe Routes to Schools
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee
TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central)
TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County)
TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
WBE Women-Owned Business Enterprise
WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory
Committee
WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority
WRDA Water Resources Development Act
For Additional Information Contact: Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250
john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us
TWIC Packet Page Number 9 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 10 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 11 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 12 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 13 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 14 of 167
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:07/16/2015
Subject:AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director to submit grant applications for the
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer
Department:Public Works
Referral No.: 2
Referral Name: REVIEW applications for transportation, water and infrastructure grants to be
prepared by the Public Works and Conservation and Development
Departments
Presenter: Mary Halle, Department of Public
Works
Contact: Mary Halle
(925)313-2327
Referral History:
The authorization of transportation grant applications is a standing referral item of TWIC.
Referral Update:
The STIP is a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects on and off the
State Highway System, funded with revenues from the State Highway Account and other funding
sources. The magnitude of STIP funds available for Contra Costa will not be known until the
California Transportation Commission (CTC) adopts the Fund Estimate in August 2015.
However, Staff received a status update from Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) on
July 2nd which stated that Statewide Funds for STIP are significantly reduced this year due to
less revenue from the excise tax on gas. In 2014 STIP awards totaled $1.26 billion; whereas, the
current statewide estimate for 2015 is $32 million.
The new STIP funds will not be available until FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21. The STIP funds can
be used to fund one or more phases of a capital project (e.g., environmental clearance, design,
right-of-way, and/or construction).
Projects will be screened based on the following criteria:
Project must be consistent with the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Local
projects must be in a Congestion Management Plan (CMP).
1.
Candidate projects must submit a draft Project Study Report (PSR) or Project Study Report
equivalent along with the application by July 17, 2015.
2.
Funds must be allocated for the phase(s) requesting STIP funding within the period between
FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21.
3.
1.
TWIC Packet Page Number 15 of 167
FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21.
Project or project phases must be fully funded with requested STIP funds and other
committed fund sources.
4.
Project must solve an existing problem related to safety, capacity, or operations.5.
Requested STIP funds must be at least $1 million and be for Capital Improvements.6.
Letters of concurrence from the Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPCs)
should be submitted with the application.
7.
Roadway Projects must be on collector roads or above as classified by Caltrans California
Road System (CRS) maps.
8.
STIP funds are federalized. Project sponsors must be willing to go through Caltrans local
Assistance for the complete federal process.
9.
Projects that are operational in nature must show commitment of operations and
Maintenance funds for the life of the project.
10.
Projects considered for STIP funding are restricted to those within the Measure J Action
Plan.
11.
The following two projects selected for submittal fulfill all these requirements:
Camino Tassajara Realignment at the County Line1.
Appian Way Complete Streets Project, Fran Way to San Pablo Dam Road2.
Previously Awarded Projects:
Kirker Pass Road Truck Climbing Lanes
Camino Tassajara Shoulder Widening
Montalvin Manor Pedestrian Transit Access Improvements
Project Recommendations
Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure
Total Project Cost: $3,000,000
STIP Amount Requested: $2,500,000
The Camino Tassajara Bike Lane Gap Closure Project is located on Camino Tassajara between
Finley Road and Windemere Parkway, a total length of five miles. Camino Tassajara is a heavily
traveled bicycle route as well as a high volume corridor for vehicle travel. While some sections of
the roadway include fully paved shoulders, other sections have inadequate shoulders or no
shoulders at all. The Project scope includes widening Camino Tassajara shoulders over four
segments to provide a standard Class II continuous bike lane throughout. Filling the gaps in the
bike infrastructure would create a continuous bike lane that extends for seven miles, from
Blackhawk Plaza Circle to Windemere Parkway.
The Project will improve safety for motorists and bicyclists by separating the two modes of
transportation. It will also facilitate congestion relief and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
providing an active transportation alternative. This gap closure project will provide a benefit that
exceeds the value of the improvements as closing the missing links will allow the benefits to be
realized from the previous project improvements in this area to complete a uniform bike corridor.
TWIC Packet Page Number 16 of 167
realized from the previous project improvements in this area to complete a uniform bike corridor.
Appian Way Complete Street Project
Total Project Cost: $5,700,000
STIP Amount Requested: $5,000,000
The Appian Way Complete Street Project will provide a transportation corridor for all modes of
transportation that is consistent with complete streets policies while improving pedestrian and
bicycle safety. The existing corridor is non-uniform with gaps in pedestrian facilities. The project
scope includes installation of sidewalk, curb ramps, bulb-outs, and pedestrian actuated flashers on
Appian Way from San Pablo Dam Road to Fran Way. This segment of Appian Way has
experienced 7 pedestrian collisions and 3 bicycle collisions over the past six years, with 4
pedestrian collisions resulting in serious injuries. The project would not only close gaps in
infrastructure but the installation of bulb-outs and pedestrian actuated flashers at crosswalks will
improve safety at pedestrian crossings on this high volume minor arterial.
There have been two El Sobrante workshops for this project as an ongoing effort for a community
based design for this corridor. Appian Way is a Route of Regional Significance within a Priority
Development Area (PDA). The completion of pedestrian infrastructure in this corridor will
prepare the area for future mixed-use developments to implement the Sustainable Communities
Strategy. The project connects users to government buildings, churches, schools, the Boys and
Girls Club of El Sobrante, and ten AC Transit bus stops.
Geographic Equity
Staff strives to provide equitable opportunities for projects throughout the County to compete for
grant funding. Staff tracks the grant programs available, candidate projects submitted in the past,
projects successfully awarded funding in the past, and project location. The attached table
summarizes these efforts over the last five years. After a "call for project" is released for a specific
grant program, staff first considers which projects will rate the highest as all State and Federal
programs are very competitive. Next, an effort is made to recommend project applications that
will spread funding opportunities county-wide.
The potential for additional funding through grant programs is a benefit countrywide to augment
the local road fund, stretching local dollars to provide additional improvements overall. The
attached summary table provides the grant application history from 2011-2015. The table was
recently updated to eliminate tracking from 2002-2010, to gain a perspective of the more recent
history from 2011-2015. Each column summarizes the opportunities provided in each supervisory
district per each grant program. Each column also provides a list of the rating criteria or the goal
of each program. Many grant programs have a goal to benefit disadvantaged communities. For
this reason, one would expect the majority of these grant opportunities will be within Districts 1
and 5. Grant programs based upon safety improvement award funds to projects located in high
collision areas. As many of the county's rural roads experience the highest rate of serious injury
collisions, District 3 has the highest number of past grant opportunities in the safety category. The
summary table also identifies the number of road miles within each District and compares the past
grant opportunities to the percent of road miles.
TWIC Packet Page Number 17 of 167
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, on behalf of the County, to submit grant applications to
CCTA for the 2016 STIP funding cycle per staff recommendations
Fiscal Impact (if any):
STIP applications are rated based upon the leveraging of local funds. The Public Works
Department has identified $0.5 million in developer mitigation funds to support the local match
funds for the Camino Tassajara Project in the event it is awarded funds. If the Appian Way Project
is awarded funds, $0.7 million is identified in Local Road Funds to provide the local match funds.
Attachments
Camino Tassajara Project Exhibit
Appian Way Project Exhibit
Grant Summary Table
TWIC Packet Page Number 18 of 167
LEGEND:
No Shoulders
Shoulders < 4’
Standard Bike Lane
Projects Currently
Under Construction
Highland Rd.
Bruce Ln.
Johnston Rd.
No Shoulders
(Separate Project)
Section 4
Separate Project
Underway
Section 3
Section 2
Section 1
Camino Tassajara
Bike Lane Gap Closure Project
Proposed project includes sections 1-4.
TWIC Packet Page Number 19 of 167
SHEET OF DATE: DB: CB:
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
Appian Way Complete Street Project
TC May 2015 1 1
255 GLACIER DRIVE, MARTINEZ, CA 94553 PH: (925)313-2000 FAX: (925)313-2333
TWIC Packet Page Number 20 of 167
Existing Condition of Appian Way
Proposed Cross-Section of Appian Way
Appian Way
TWIC Packet Page Number 21 of 167
7/1/2015
PROGRAM ATP CDBG CMAQ HBP HSIP LSRS OBAG Reg SR2S PROP 1B SRTS SR2S SR2T STIP-TE TDA TIGER TLC
DISTRICT
1 3 4 1 1 1 3 2 4 0 1 2 4 1 27 21%118 18%
2 0 1 3 1 1 0 0 2 1 9 7%98 15%
3 0 6 4 3 1 16 0 3 3 4 40 31%211 33%
4 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 1 16 12%40 6%
5 6 1 1 1 2 3 1 8 2 1 2 2 6 1 1 38 29%181 28%
TOTAL
SUBMITTED
TO EACH
PROGRAM
9 5 2 9 8 14 8 2 31 2 2 3 9 17 6 3 130 100%647 100%
ATP Active Transportation Program - Applications are rated on being bike and pedestrian friendly, potential to reduce GHG, location within a disadvantaged community, and high collision rate
CDBG Community Development Block Grant - Applications are rated on benefits provided to a disadvantaged community.
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement - Rated on anticipated reduction in vehicle miles traveled
HBP Highway Bridge Program Rated on federal highway bridges in need of structural repair
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program Rated on locations with high collision rates and the ability for proposed counter measures to economically address issue
LSR Local Streets and Roads Rated on need of road maintenance and repair Grant program for bike and pedestrian infrastructure
OBAG One Bay Area Grant Rated on location within a PDA and community of concern, project readiness, community involvement, connectivity
Regional SR2S Regional Safe Route 2 School Rated on bike & ped safety improvements near schools and preference to disadvantaged communities Grant program benefits Disadvantaged Communities
Prop 1B Proposition 1B Discretionary funds utilized this past decade as local match for grant opportunities or surface treatment
SRTS Safe Route to School (Federal) - Rated on bike & ped safety improvements near schools and preference to disadvantaged communities Grant program encourages reduction in Emissions
SR2S Safe Route 2 School (State) - Rated on bike & ped safety improvements near schools and preference to disadvantaged communities
SR2T Safe Route to Transit Rated on bike & ped safety improvements near transit stations and preference to disadvantaged communities Grant rating based upon collision data
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program Rated on congestion reduction and safety improvements. Project must have a PSR equivalent completed
TDA Transportatin Development Act Rated on bike & pedestrian benefits
TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery Economic development, safe & affordable transportation, improved connection to employment, and community revitalization
TLC Transportation for Liveable Communities Rated upon potential to encourage bicycle, pedestrian and transit options & revitalize communities
Road
Miles by
District
Road
Miles by
District
SUMMARY - GRANT APPLICATION OPPORTUNITIES 2011-2015
TOTAL
FROM
EACH
DISTRICT
% of total
grant
opportunitie
s
TWIC Packet Page Number 22 of 167
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:07/16/2015
Subject:UPDATE on proposed new municipal National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System stormwater permit.
Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer
Department:Public Works
Referral No.: 5
Referral Name: REVIEW issues associated with the health of the San Francisco Bay and Delta,
including but not limited to Delta levees, flood control, dredging, drought
planning, habitat conservation, and water quality, supply, and reliability.
Presenter: Cece Sellgren, Department of Public
Works
Contact: Cece Sellgren
(925)313-2296
Referral History:
The County Watershed Program has brought the “Trash” portion of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit before the Transportation, Water & Infrastructure
Committee (TWI Committee) twice (March 6, 2014 and June 5, 2014) and the Board of
Supervisors once (February 3, 2015). However, it has not discussed the NPDES permit in its
entirety within the last five years.
Referral Update:
Over the last five years, Contra Costa County, along with 75 other cities, counties, and flood
protection districts, has implemented the first Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) for the Bay Area
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. This permit required substantial investment in
treating the quality (and sometimes the quantity) of stormwater from new and redevelopment
projects, the initiation of the litter/trash abatement program, and several demonstration projects to
examine the feasibility of treating stormwater to remove pollutants of concern, such as
Poly-Chlorinated-Biphenyls (PCBs) and Mercury. This was in addition to the ongoing NPDES
programs of Municipal Operations, Commercial, Industrial, and Construction site controls, Public
Outreach and Education, and Integrated Pest Management.
Over the last year, municipal staff and consultants have met numerous times with Regional Water
Board staff to discuss development of the next Municipal Regional Permit (MRP 2.0). On
February 11, 2015, the Regional Board shared an “Administrative Draft” of the new NPDES
Permit. Negotiations became more frequent, focused, in depth, and detailed. On May 11, 2015,
the Regional Board released the Tentative Order for MRP 2.0.
The proposed MRP 2.0 will require Contra Costa County to continue to implement most of the
TWIC Packet Page Number 23 of 167
existing NPDES Permit requirements at current levels. In addition, the County will need to reduce
trash rates in unincorporated communities by an additional 30% (to a total reduction of 70%) by
2017. This will require the County to treat all parcels with “very high” or “high” trash rates to a
“medium” trash rate, as well as reduce the trash rates from a substantial percent of the parcels
with a “medium” trash rate to a “low” trash rate.
The County will be required to develop a plan within one year to treat stormwater from roads.
This plan, called the Green Infrastructure (GI) Plan, will expand stormwater treatment from
private development to require treatment of stormwater from existing roads. The GI planning area
will focus on areas with historic and current industrial uses, as well as residential and commercial
areas built between 1945 and 1980. This includes significant portions of west and central County
communities.
The GI Plan will need to begin implementation quickly in order to achieve mandated numeric
reductions in PCBs and Mercury in stormwater. Costs to build and maintain facilities identified in
the GI Plan have not been identified or provided. We assume these monies will either come from
the Stormwater Utility Assessments, the General Fund, or the Road Fund. If road funds are used,
this will create a conflict with other road fund uses, such as pavement management, repair of
transportation facilities, and road improvements. At least one GI project will need to be completed
during MRP 2.0. However, in reality, several will need to be constructed in areas with high
PCB/Mercury concentrations in order to help meet the PCB and Mercury load reduction
requirements.
The County will also need to vigilantly enforce illicit discharge of PCB and Mercury tainted
sediment coming from private properties and conduct enhanced municipal operations, including
street sweeping (where feasible), storm drain inlet and pipe cleaning (where existing), and/or ditch
cleaning. The County may want to consider amending the County’s stormwater ordinance to
increase financial penalties and/or develop an ability to place penalties on properties that refuse to
abate sediment discharges. The County can also refer these sites to the Regional Water Board.
However, they have a poor record for acting quickly and decisively.
The County, along with the other 70 cities and counties, will need to develop and implement a
program to prevent caulk (used in the building industry) from entering into stormwater during the
renovation or demolition of buildings. This program would ideally be handled at the state level,
similar to programs to abate lead paint and asbestos. Collectively, all of the cities and counties
will need to develop a study to explore the potential of PCB containing caulk, used to seal storm
drains, entering into stormwater. The results of this study will influence the requirements in the
next MRP.
On June 10 and July 8, 2015, the Regional Water Board held hearings and took testimony on the
proposed MRP 2.0. Testimony was given by many municipal staff, a few elected officials,
including Supervisor Gioia, as well as staff and volunteers from several nonprofit organizations.
Written comments were received through July 10, 2015.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Receive the report from County staff on the proposed NPDES permits and provide
recommendations on negotiations and/or implementation.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
TWIC Packet Page Number 24 of 167
The County Watershed Program estimates $500,000/year to $750,000/year (or more) to
implement the Trash Management Plan to achieve 70% trash reduction levels by 2017 and up to
$1,000,000 over a five-year period to develop the GI Plan. These costs are in addition to costs to
administer the ongoing NPDES programs. All costs will be funded through Stormwater Utility
Assessments.
Costs to implement the GI Plan will be borne by transportation funds (gas tax, VLF fees, etc.) and
grants (if available). The remainder of the NPDES permit is expected to cost roughly the same to
implement as MRP 1.0 ($1.5 million/year). The County Watershed Program was able to transfer
the costs associated with General Drainage Maintenance from Stormwater Utility Funds to the
General Fund. This should free up most of the funds needed to increase trash reduction efforts and
develop the GI Plan.
Attachments
Table of County Watershed Priorities
C.3.j. GI Planning & Implementation
Trash
PCB's
TWIC Packet Page Number 25 of 167
Requested Adjustments to Improve Efficiency in the Municipal Regional Permit, Including Elimination of “Less Beneficial Tasks”
Provision Task or Requirement Requested Adjustments
C.2.f. Corporation Yard inspection requirements. Eliminate this requirement, as it duplicates the requirements for
inspections already included in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plans (SWPPPs) for these same facilities.
C.3.b.i. Eliminates grandfathering of Regulated Projects
with vested tentative maps approved prior to advent
of C.3 requirements
Allow municipalities flexibility to require these applicants to implement
stormwater treatment requirements only to the extent not in conflict
with state law and existing development agreements.
C.3.b.ii.(4) Certain Roads Projects are Regulated Projects
under Provision C.3
Delete this requirement as the intent is superseded by the Green
Infrastructure requirements in Provision C.3.j.
C.3.b.ii.(1)(c) Requires projects where 50% or more of existing
impervious area is redeveloped to provide
treatment for entire area.
Delete this requirement as the intent is superseded by the Green
Infrastructure requirements in Provision C.3.j.
C.3.e.ii. Special Projects—allowance to use non-LID
treatment on smart growth development projects
that meet specified location and gross density
criteria.
To avoid a disincentive for including pedestrian amenities, allow
public plazas to be omitted from calculation of project gross density.
C.3.e.v.(1) Requires Permittees to track Special Projects that
have been identified (application submitted) but not
approved.
Delete this requirement, as the number of projects, and amount of
impervious area, has proven to be small.
C.3.e.v.(2) Requires Permittees to conduct and document an
analysis of the feasibility of LID treatment for
Special Projects.
Delete this requirement, as it creates considerable additional effort for
applicants and Permittees without any expected water-quality benefit.
C.3.g.vii. Requires Contra Costa municipalities (through
CCCWP) to submit a technical report describing
how Contra Costa will implement current Permit
hydromodification management requirements.
Delete requirement to submit a technical report. CCCWP submitted a
2013 report on the results of a multi-year monitoring study that
concluded current policies and criteria meet these requirements.
C.3.g.iv. Allows Permittees to propose a different method for
sizing hydromodification management facilities that
is not biased against Low Impact Development, but
requires a Permit amendment before using the
method.
Delete requirement for a Permit amendment before the method is
used. Note: the Fact Sheet accompanying the Tentative Order states
that Water Board Executive Officer approval would be required, not a
Permit amendment.
C.3.h.ii.(6)(b) and Requires Permittees to inspect 20% of Regulated Delete the annual requirement to allow flexibility in scheduling
Comment [CS1]: I doubt the County has
legal authority to impose additional
conditions on approved developments or
those w/ vested tentative maps.
TWIC Packet Page Number 26 of 167
Provision Task or Requirement Requested Adjustments
(c) Projects annually, as well as every project at least
once every 5 years.
inspections.
C.3.j.i.(1) Requires each Permittee to prepare and implement
a Green Infrastructure Plan (framework for Plan
due in 12 months; Plan due in 2019)
Extend the time for submittal of the required framework to a minimum
of 20 months.
C.4, C.5, C.6 For inspections of businesses and construction
sites, and for response to illicit discharges, requires
that corrective actions of “actual or potential non-
stormwater discharges” be implemented before the
next rain event, but no longer than 10 business
days after potential or actual non-stormwater
discharges are discovered.
Delete references that specify types of corrective actions and
timeframes for implementation, as these create a disincentive for
identifying minor problems and create unproductive administrative
work.
C.5.e.iii. Requires Permittees to report a list of mobile
cleaners operating in their jurisdiction.
Delete, as this information is unavailable.
C.5.e.iii. Requires Permittees to report a list and summary of
specific outreach events and education conducted
to the different types of mobile businesses
Delete and clarify that requirements to inspect mobile businesses and
abate discharges is covered by existing requirements elsewhere in
Provisions C.4 and C.5.
C.7.a. Permittees are required to mark and maintain “no
dumping” markings on storm drain inlets.
Move this task to Provision C.2.
C.7.b. Requires Permittees to participate in or contribute
to “advertising” campaigns on specified subjects
and assess results.
Change “advertising” to “outreach” to make explicit that a variety of
methods, including social media, may be used. Delete references to
specific subjects. Allow more flexibility.
C.9.c. Requires Permittees to observe pesticide
applications by their contractors.
Delete requirement.
C.10.a.i.a. Requires Permittees to achieve a 70% load
reduction by July 1, 2017
Extend this compliance date to 2018.
C.10.a.ii.b. Requires Permittees to ensure private properties
plumbed directly to municipal storm drains are
equipped with full trash capture devices or to verify
“low” trash generation rate. Requires Permittees to
investigate and map these properties.
Delete the mapping requirement and integrate inspections and
enforcement into Provision C.4 (Commercial and Industrial
Inspections).
C.10.b.1.a. Specifies maintenance frequencies for full trash
capture devices based on trash generation rates.
Set minimum frequency of 1x/year for all devices, to be adjusted
based on maintenance experience. Required maintenance frequency
Comment [CS2]: This will be a very big
effort. Not sure we could get it done in even
20 months.
Comment [CS3]: Better to tie requirement
to where business license is obtained (if
they get one).
Comment [CS4]: Splitting efforts & money
btwn 2 or more short term campaigns
leads to failure. Better to have long term
branding campaign like “spare the air” or
“keep Tahoe blue”
Comment [CS5]: No city/county has maps
of private storm drains. Better to “illicit
discharge” permit requirements &
Enforcement Response Plans to force
private properties from discharging trash
through their stormdrains.
TWIC Packet Page Number 27 of 167
Provision Task or Requirement Requested Adjustments
is determined mostly by amount of leaf litter and type of device.
C.10.b.1.c. Requires Permittees to certify that full trash capture
systems are maintained to meet standard.
State that systems are maintained, and maintenance program is
designed to meet standard.
C.10.b.iv. Allows a credit of up to 5% toward trash reduction
requirement for source control actions such as
product bans.
Increase maximum to 20% to fully credit existing product bans and to
create incentive for future source control actions.
C.10.e.i. Creates a formula for crediting trash collected
during additional creek and shoreline cleanups
toward trash reduction requirement—at a 1:10 ratio,
with a 5% maximum credit.
Make the ratio 1:3 and increase maximum credit to 10%.
C.10.e. Credits on-land cleanups and litter reduction only if
visual assessments show a categorical change
(e.g., from “very high” to “high” trash)
Allow interim credit for demonstrated actions intended to achieve
categorical change.
C.10.a.iii. Requires bioretention facilities to be equipped with
a screen to qualify as full-trash-capture facilities.
Specify that these facilities qualify as full trash capture. Screens
could cause flooding.
C.10.b.iv. Requires observations of creeks and shorelines to
determine whether trash control actions have
prevented trash from discharging to receiving
waters.
Restate purpose of observations, as it is not possible to determine
that trash originated from storm drains.
C.10.e.ii. Provides 1:10 ratio up to 10% maximum credit for
actions to reduce direct discharge of trash (e.g.
dumping, encampments).
Increase ratio to 1:3, with no maximum, as in some locations this is
the predominant source of trash.
C.10.f.ii. Produce an updated trash generation map each
year.
Tie updated maps to compliance dates (for 70% and 100%).
C.11.a&b./C.12.a&b Requires Countywide Programs to reduce Mercury
& PCB load levels in 1st 2 years of permit, and
additional reduction in last 3 years of permit
Develop mutually agreed upon accounting scheme that will allow
permitees to meet permit requirement
C.11.c/12.c Implement sufficient “green infrastructure” projects
to reduce Mercury & PCB loads to meet load reqs
Give cities/counties more time to plan & implement GI projects
C.11.f/12.f Manage PCBs during building renovation &
demolition
Work with State Agencies to develop programs at State level similar
to lead paint and asbestos building materials
Comment [CS6]: Diff trash capture devices
req diff rates of cleaning. Our Maint crews
know best.
Comment [CS7]: Will lose 8% of trash
reduction (of 40% req’d reduction) based on
13-14 annual report if they keep the 1:10
ratio
Comment [CS8]: Allow permitees to take
some credit even if doesn’t change trash
rate category
Comment [CS9]: Will lose 8% of trash
reduction (of 40% req’d reduction) based on
13-14 annual report
Comment [CS10]: This is a huge effort!
Should only require this when % reduction
goals must be met (i.e. 2017)
Comment [CS11]: Current scheme sets
cities/Counties to fail. This need much
more work.
Comment [CS12]: 12 months to prepare
new road drainage in most of unincorp
County. We don’t even have a good
stormdrain GIS layer.
Comment [CS13]: This does NOT belong at
the local level. State needs to take the lead.
Cities/counties to implement, like w/
asbestos & lead paint.
TWIC Packet Page Number 28 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 29 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 30 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 31 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 32 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 33 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 34 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 35 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 36 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 37 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 38 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 39 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 40 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 41 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 42 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 43 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 44 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 45 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 46 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 47 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 48 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 49 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 50 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 51 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 52 of 167
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:07/16/2015
Subject:CONSIDER Report on Local, State and Federal Transportation Related Legislative
Issues and take ACTION as appropriate.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 1
Referral Name: REVIEW Legislative Matters on Transportation, Water and Infrastructure.
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925)674-7833
Referral History:
This is a standing item on the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) referral list and meeting
agenda.
Referral Update:
In developing transportation related legislative issues and proposals to bring forward for consideration by TWIC,
staff receives input from the Board of Supervisors (BOS), references the County's adopted Legislative Platforms,
coordinates with our legislative advocates, partner agencies and organizations, and consults with the Committee
itself.
Recommendations are summarized in the Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s) section at the end of this report and
specific recommendations are underlined in the report below. This report includes three sections, 1) LOCAL, 2)
STATE, and 3) FEDERAL.
1) LOCAL
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (CCTA) is in the process of developing both the 2014 Countywide
Transportation Plan (CTP) and a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP). A TEP is a statutorily required component
of a transportation sales tax. These items are standing item for the foreseeable future. New material below is shown
in italics.
As the TWIC has discussed at past meetings, the development of the CTP resulted in a dialog regarding the need for
additional revenue. The outcome of those discussions was to initiate the process to go to the ballot in November
2016 with a new transportation sales tax. The CCTA Board approved this activity at their March, 2015 meeting.
At previous TWIC meetings we have discussed the basis on which CCTA is developing the plan, the process, and
schedule. For background purposes that material is available at the links below.
June 1, 2015 TWIC
http://64.166.146.155/docs/2015/TWIC/20150601_557/567_06-01-15%20TWIC%20Agenda%20Packet.pdf#page=41
May 4, 2015 TWIC
http://64.166.146.155/docs/2015/TWIC/20150504_556/566_566_05-04-15_1530_AGENDApacket.pdf#page=83
Staff has initiated an an internal coordination process which includes meetings of all District office staff and
relevant Department Directors and updates to the Board of Supervisors. That process was initiated using the BOS's
October 21, 2014 letter to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority as a starting point for policy discussions.
TWIC Packet Page Number 53 of 167
That letter can be seen here:
http://64.166.146.155/docs/2014/TWIC/20141204_373/384_12-04-14_1201_AGENDApacket.pdf#page=56
A verbal update will be given at the July TWIC meeting on the TEP process, internal coordination, and when to
bring the matter to the full Board of Supervisors for discussion.
One issue being discussed with the TEP process potentially crosses over to the State discussion below. The amount
of maintenance funding in a new measure may be affected by actions at the state.
In theory, if substantial new state transportation revenues are generated, that could relieve local jurisdictions of
some maintenance burden. However, issues related to timing (20+ year local measure vs. 5 year state solution),
revenue protection (to prevent the state from raiding transportation funds to resolve cash flow problems), and the
scale of the maintenance backlog (deferred maintenance forecasts may still exceed the additional, proposed
increases) would need to be reconciled when considering this state/local dynamic.
RECOMMENDATION: Discuss CCTA's CTP and TEP processes, internal coordination and DIRECT staff as
appropriate.
2) STATE
Legislation
As with last month, the July state report will be largely be verbal, legislative activities are currently too fluid to
make a written report practical.
Recent reports from Mark Watts, the County's legislative advocate are attached. Most relevant is the July 8th report
which discusses how the Special Session on transportation finance is proceeding. Staff will provide a verbal update
on the status of the Special Session at the July TWIC meeting. At the time of submission of this report, activities are
largely informational and related to reaffirming the need for transportation infrastructure investment.
Also attached to this report are two related pieces of communication, 1) the "Go Big" letter from the state's large
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (including our Metropolitan Transportation Commission) to both houses
regarding transportation finance, and 2) the Contra Costa County BOS's letter to our legislative delegation on the
same topic (draft, authorized by the BOS on 7/7/15).
A complete table of tracked legislation is attached to this report to facilitate any dialog necessary. A high-priority
subset of the complete list is also attached.
Iron Horse Corridor
On July 8, 2015 the County’s legislative advocate, Mark Watts, met with Caltrans staff regarding the requirements
in grant agreements relative to the Southern Pacific Rail Road Property, currently in use as the Iron Horse Trail.
Caltrans had been exploring options internally with Budget Office grant administrators and the legal division related
to addressing the aged grant requirements.
Caltrans understands 1) the corridor is and has been in use as a viable, effective transportation facility, 2) is being
maintained by the County as such, and 3) is directly supportive and consistent with new state and local policies
relative to greenhouse gas reduction, active transportation, safe routes to school, policies that were not in place at the
time the original grant was made.
They have concluded that the grant requirements in question can only be relieved fully by California Transportation
Commission (CTC) action, although as the grant administrators, they could enter into a negotiated settlement with
the County.
Recognizing that it is in the public interest to relieve the County of the grant obligations, the approach called for is to
directly seek CTC action for full relief. The question is what mechanism will be used to pursue that relief through
the CTC. Mr. Watts is recommending that a small delegation from Contra Costa County meet with state
representatives to discuss the situation in the very near future.
If available, additional information will be provided verbally at the July TWIC meeting. TWIC should be prepared
to discuss members of a Contra Costa delegation to meet with Caltrans on this issue in Sacramento. TWIC Packet Page Number 54 of 167
to discuss members of a Contra Costa delegation to meet with Caltrans on this issue in Sacramento.
RECOMMENDATION: The Committee should DISCUSS state legislative activities of interest to the County and
take ACTION as appropriate.
3) FEDERAL
Expiration of MAP-21 AND Continuing Resolutions: The current federal transportation funding authorization
expires on July 31 of this month. In late June, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved the
"Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy" Act (DRIVE) highway bill (S. 1647). The bill
includes a few new programs but largely extends MAP-21 for six years. The DRIVE bill does not include any new
revenue which the Senate Finance Committee will need to identify.
Of note to the County are the increases in funding and prioritization for bridges listed in the DRIVE Act summary
available at the link below:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/436cfe2b-bda3-4c01-aa31-7edb72aa2f82/20150622driveactsummary.pdf
S.1626 - Railroad Reform, Enhancement, and Efficiency Act: Staff is working with Paul Schlessinger, the
County's federal legislative advocate, to determine if S.1626 would provide funds to study and address rail needs in
the northern waterfront area. A verbal update and recommendation by staff will be provided at the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS that status of federal transportation funding legislation and take ACTION as
appropriate.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as
appropriate including CONSIDERATION of specific recommendations in the report above.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
There is no fiscal impact.
Attachments
June 22 2015 State Legislative Report
June 26 2015 State Legislative Report
July 8 2015 State Legislative Report
MPO Letter _TransPackage_AssemblyGoBig
7-7-15 BOS Ltr Re Transportation Finance
Positions of Legislation of Interest - 2015
Tracked Legislation
TWIC Packet Page Number 55 of 167
June 22, 2015
MEMORANDUM
To: Transportation Clients
From: Mark Watts
Subject: Legislative Report
State Budget
On June 15, the Legislature approved AB 93, the 2015 State Budget Act. The overall
state General Fund expenditure plan for 2015-16 reflected in the bill amounts to $117
Billion.
But, in a disagreement with the governor, the legislative general fund budget was
based on a higher level of revenue estimates for the fiscal year than the Governor’s
Department of Finance has estimated and dedicated the additional revenues to
additional program funding.
Although it was anticipated that negotiations between the Governor and legislative
leadership would take more than a week to conclude an agreement on modifications
to the core budget negotiations resulted in significant changes to the budget act that
were approved by the Legislature on June 20, along with related trailer bills.
Special Session On Transportation and Infrastructure
In addition to announcing the budget agreement, the governor also announced two
Special Sessions of the Legislature to address (1) how California pays for roads,
highways and other infrastructure and (2) Medi-Cal. These would run concurrent with
the regular legislative session.
The Governor’s proclamation calls for the Legislature to enact permanent and
sustainable funding to maintain and repair the state’s transportation and critical
TWIC Packet Page Number 56 of 167
Consulting and Governmental Relations
Smith, Watts & Company, LLC.
infrastructure, improve the state’s key trade corridors and complement local
infrastructure efforts.
The Governor’s call for a Special Session on Transportation last week was acted upon
by the Legislature this past Friday, with the adoption of Special Session Joint Rules by
the Senate and the introduction of SCAX1 1(Huff), the first Special Session bill to be
introduced. With both Houses meeting Monday, June 20, it is anticipated that
additional Special Session legislation may be introduced as well; in fact, it appears that
Senator Beall will be moving forward with legislation to be introduced today.
In a related development, CalSTA Secretary Brian Kelly conducted a conference call
with Transportation stakeholders with the following the key points he made regarding
the Special Session:
•The Administration's initial focus will be to reach out to the legislative leadership;
•The Administration’s overarching objective remains to seek new funding under a
“fix it first” theme to address the state’s long-standing deferred maintenance crisis;
The Secretary did also underscore that the Special Session proclamation calls for action
to streamline project delivery.
Transportation Budget Items
In addition to the Budget Act, the Legislature approved four trailer bills on June 15, as
well, including AB 95 (related to transportation). AB 95 includes several items of
interest to the transportation community:
Development of CT highway preservation “Shelf” of projects. The budget includes 25
positions to create a $500 million project shelf for the State Highway Operations and
Preservation Program (SHOPP).
AMTRAK Funding for Intercity rail. The budget fully funds Amtrak contract changes,
pursuant to federal government requirements for intercity rail services.
Intercity Rail Reporting. Caltrans is required to report, by April 1, 2016, to the
Legislature on potential benefits to safety, greenhouse gas reduction, service levels,
and operating costs by improving grade separations at key intersections, as defined by
the Federal Railroad Administration, along the state's intercity rail system.
TWIC Packet Page Number 57 of 167
State Transit Assistance Eligibility Funding. A one-year extension of an exemption to
allow transit operators whose cost increases have exceeded the Consumer Price Index
to continue using State Transit Assistance funding for both operating and capital
expenditures is included in the budget trailer bill.
Cap on Clean Air Vehicle Program. Increases the cap on the "green sticker" Clean Air
Vehicle program from 70,000 to 85,000. This program allows low-emission and energy-
efficient vehicles with a single occupant to use high-occupancy vehicle lanes
Cap and Trade Funding
The Budget Conference Committee final spending plan incorporated into the final
budget sent to the Governor includes staff resources necessary to continue existing
workload related to cap-and-trade expenditures, but rejects all of the discretionary
expenditure proposals. This conforms to the announced legislative intent that
discussions will continue to further refine the state’s expenditure plan for the 40
percent of the cap-and-trade revenues that are not continuously appropriated
according to statute enacted last year.
However, the existing statutory continuous appropriations remain, so sixty percent of
revenue in 2015-16 will be allocated to High Speed Rail, Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities, Low Carbon Transit Operations, and the Transit and Intercity
Rail Capital Program, pursuant to current law.
Transportation Loan Repayments
The Budget Conference Committee previously added language into their version of the
budget related to Pre-Prop 42 loans. These loans have not been characterized by the
Governor as part of the state’s “Wall of Debt” and had remained withheld over the
past decade due to state budget pressures.
The final budget agreement identifies $842 million in Pre-Prop 42 borrowing from
2000-01 as “general fund borrowing” which would qualify the loans for repayment
from the Proposition 2 “Rainy Day” funds in a future legislative action.
Assembly Transportation Funding Plan
TWIC Packet Page Number 58 of 167
Assembly Transportation Committee chair, Jim Frazier is expected to disclose the
Assembly plans for legislation to address the state and local road systems repair needs.
This follows the release of an initial legislative concept by the Speaker last February.
While the Senate has moved SB 16 (Beall) through the committee process and the bill,
which generates about $3.5 billion, annually for 5 years, is pending consideration on
the Senate floor, the Assembly Democratic leadership has worked together and with
their caucus to develop their version to provide funding for roads.
TWIC Packet Page Number 59 of 167
MEMORANDUM
TO: Transportation Clients
FROM: Mark Watts
DATE: June 26, 2015
SUBJECT: Special Session #1 Report –
Everything you need to know about the Special Session
Legislature
Special Session
The Governor called two special sessions last week: Infrastructure and Healthcare. The
Transportation & Infrastructure special session is referred to as the First Extraordinary
Session.
Call of the Special Sessions:
The wording in the proclamation by the Governor is important because the Legislature
is limited, in the special session, to the consideration of the matters specified in the
Governor’s Proclamation (Art. IV, Sec. 3(b)). This is referred to as the “call of the
special session”.
“Call” in Transportation Infrastructure Special Session:
Legislation to enact pay-as-you-go, permanent and sustainable funding to:
a.Adequately and responsibly maintain and repair the state’s transportation and
other critical infrastructure; and
b.Improve the state’s key trade corridors; and
c.Complement local efforts for repair and improvements of local transportation
infrastructure
TWIC Packet Page Number 60 of 167
Smith, Watts & Company, LLC.
Consulting and Governmental Relations
Also, to consider and act upon legislation necessary to:
a.Establish clear performance objectives measured by the percentage of pavement,
bridges and culverts in good condition; and
b.Incorporate project development efficiencies to expedite project delivery or
reduce project costs.”
Committees Created:
Yesterday, both the Senate and Assembly announced the committees that will hear
special session bills. No committee hearings have been scheduled at this time.
Senate Special session #1 Committees
Transportation and Infrastructure Development (13 members): Beall (Chair), Cannella
(Vice Chair), Allen, Bates, Berryhill, Gaines, Hertzberg, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza,
Pavley, and Wieckowski.
Appropriations (7 members): Lara (Chair), Bates (Vice Chair), Beall, Hill, Leyva,
Mendoza, and Nielsen.
Assembly Special Session #1 Committees
Transportation And Infrastructure Development (13 members): Frazier (Chair),
Achadjian (Vice Chair), Alejo, Burke, Chiu, Dodd, Eggman, Gatto, Hadley, Kim, Linder,
Nazarian, and O’Donnell.
Finance (9 members): Gomez (Chair), Bigelow (Vice Chair), Bloom, Jones–Sawyer,
McCarty, Melendez, Obernolte, Ting, and Weber.
Special Session Procedures
Some unique aspects of special sessions include:
•Bills do not need to wait 30 days in print to be heard.
• Extraordinary session bills are exempt from the four/two day file notice
requirement, so committees can be scheduled rapidly, as needed.
• Majority vote special session bills take effect 91 days after the final adjournment
of that special session (Con. Art. IV, Sec. 8(c)(1)) unless they are urgency
measures.
• Taxes still require a 2/3rds vote
TWIC Packet Page Number 61 of 167
Special Session #1 bills Introduced
Senate
SB X1 1 (Beall):
Senator Beall reintroduced his regular session $4 billion roadway repair funding bill
proposal (SB 16) in the Transportation Special Session
SCAX1 1 (Huff):
This bill would constitutionally guarantee that the transportation taxes paid by
California drivers annually are only used for transportation purposes and is a
reintroduction of SCA 7 in the Regular session.
SB X1 2 (Huff):
This bill would dedicate cap and trade taxes paid from putting gasoline production
under the cap to improving California’s streets and roads. SB X1 2 would direct how
approximately $1.9 billion in revenues would be spent.
Assembly
AB X1 1 (Alejo)
This bill is a reintroduction of Mr. Alejo’s AB 227 from regular session. It would transfer
truck weight fees back from Prop 1B debt Service to state highway purposes and would
also accelerate repayment of outstanding loans back from the General fund.
AB X1 2 (Perea)
This bill is a reintroduction of Mr. Perea’s AB 1265 relating to Public Private
partnerships (P3).
TWIC Packet Page Number 62 of 167
Smith, Watts & Company, LLC.
Consulting and Governmental Relations
925 L Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 446-5508 Fax: (916) 266-4580
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Cunningham
FROM: Mark Watts
DATE: July 8, 2015
SUBJECT: Special Session #2 Report – Update on Activities
Recent Developments
Senator Beall introduced 2 new Special Session bills on July 7. They are both “spot”
bills, expressing legislative intent to enact legislation to address permanent and
sustainable new transportation revenues.
Informational Hearings
Senate Hearing, July 2:
The Senate Transportation and Infrastructure Development Committee heard
testimony from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Transportation Secretary Kelly,
City and County representatives and Commissioner Madaffer of the CTC. I
provided testimony on public attitudes that Transportation California has
developed through focus groups conducted in partnership with the California
Alliance for Jobs and subsequent survey research.
Most of the testimony emphasized the infrastructure needs for the state’s roads
and bridges. Options for where funding for these projects would come from was
a major point of discussion and included increasing existing taxes and fees,
charging new taxes, and use of other existing revenues.
Committee members expressed interest too in public transit as being part of the
TWIC Packet Page Number 63 of 167
2
solution to aging infrastructure by taking automobiles off the roads. However,
transit also needs significant funding and investment to improve and so far,
transit has not been included in the proposed transportation funding legislation.
Assembly Hearing, July 6:
The Assembly hearing was more broadly informational, ranging from the basics of
transportation finance in California, an overview of the adequacy of the state’s present
funding levels, and concluding with presentations by stakeholders. The most
prominent development in this hearing was MTC director Heminger’s submittal of a
joint letter from the executives of the state’s 4 largest MPO’s setting out their
principles for the legislature, calling for (1) a significant new revenues base, (2)
protection of the new revenues, (3) sharing of the new revenues equally between state
and locals, and (4) addressing the annual price‐based excise tax adjustment, among
others.
Special Session #1 bills Introduced
Senate
SB X1 1 (Beall):
Senator Beall reintroduced his regular session $4 billion roadway repair funding bill
proposal (SB 16) in the Transportation Special Session
SCAX1 1 (Huff):
This bill would constitutionally guarantee that the transportation taxes paid by
California drivers annually are only used for transportation purposes and is a
reintroduction of SCA 7 in the Regular session.
SB X1 2 (Huff):
This bill would dedicate cap and trade taxes paid from putting gasoline production
under the cap to improving California’s streets and roads. SB X1 2 would direct how
approximately $1.9 billion in revenues would be spent.
SB X1 3(Vidak):
TWIC Packet Page Number 64 of 167
3
The measure would repurpose outstanding Prop 1A, High speed binds to be used to
make debt service payments and to establish new program to fund state and local road
repairs. The bill excludes from the repurposing funds dedicated for the “bookend” and
the Connectivity projects.
SB X1 4 (Beall), new bill
This “spot” bill declares the intent of the Legislature to enact
legislation to establish permanent, sustainable sources of
transportation funding to maintain and repair the state’s highways,
local roads, bridges, and other critical transportation infrastructure.
SBX1 5 (Beall), new bill
This “spot” bill declares the intent of the Legislature to enact
legislation to establish permanent, sustainable sources of
transportation funding to maintain and repair the state’s highways,
local roads, bridges, and other critical transportation infrastructure.
Assembly
AB X1 1 (Alejo)
This bill is a reintroduction of Mr. Alejo’s AB 227 from regular session. It would transfer
truck weight fees back from Prop 1B debt Service to state highway purposes and would
also accelerate repayment of outstanding loans back from the General fund.
AB X1 2 (Perea)
This bill is a reintroduction of Mr. Perea’s AB 1265 relating to Public Private
partnerships (P3).
Looking Ahead
At present, although there is background discussion alluding to possible additional
hearings, the official schedule available now does not indicate anything scheduled at
present.
TWIC Packet Page Number 65 of 167
4
The Special Session is anticipated to recess along with the Regular Legislative Session
for one month on July 17.
TWIC Packet Page Number 66 of 167
July 6, 2015
Dear Chairman Frazier & Assembly Transportation & Infrastructure Development Committee
Members:
As the executive directors for the metropolitan planning organizations representing approximately
80 percent of the state’s population, we applaud Governor Brown for calling the Legislature into a
special session to address California’s ailing transportation infrastructure.
We respectfully urge this committee to take action this summer to put the state on a path to
providing well maintained highways, local roads and public transit systems that meet the needs and
expectations of our residents and businesses.
As you begin consideration of the key elements needed in a transportation funding package, Senator
Beall’s SB X1-1 serves as an excellent starting point for discussions. We share eight policy
priorities that we respectfully ask you to keep in mind in your deliberations.
1.Make a significant investment. Any solution must provide an investment large enough to
demonstrate tangible benefits to the traveling public. This requires going big. Recent focus
group efforts and polling conducted by the California Alliance for Jobs and Transportation
California suggests that voters are willing to tax themselves to the tune of at least $3 billion
a year, as long as there are accountability provisions and assurances that funds will be
dedicated to transportation purposes.
2.Ensure transportation revenues are protected. Time and time again (Proposition 42,
2002; Proposition 1A, 2006; Proposition 22, 2010), voters have overwhelmingly supported
dedicating and constitutionally-protecting transportation dollars for transportation purposes.
Focus group and polling efforts confirm that voters fear that new revenues will be diverted.
Therefore, the transportation package should include protections against using new
transportation revenue for other purposes.
3.Share revenue equitably between local and state roadway systems. Cities, counties and
the state are all facing tremendous funding shortfalls for the maintenance of their respective
streets, roads and highways. We support sharing revenue for roadway maintenance equally
between the state and cities and counties.
4.Achieve a state of good repair. One of the caveats voters support when polled on
transportation taxes is that new revenues should be prioritized for repairs to the existing
transportation system. Funding should be made available not just to the state and local
roadway system, but also to address the immense rehabilitation needs of many of our public
transit systems.
5.Support focus on operational improvements. Any legislation to increase funding for
roadway maintenance should also focus on operational improvements. Operational projects
are key to maximizing current infrastructure efficiencies, highly cost-effective and can
deliver tremendous benefits on local streets and roads as well as the state highway system.
TWIC Packet Page Number 67 of 167
6.Adopt a program of at least 10 years. Given the difficulty of enacting new taxes and fees,
we urge you to adopt a new transportation funding program with a minimum duration of 10
years. A five-year plan is simply not long enough to have a significant impact on the local
road and state highway maintenance backlog.
7.Address state’s critical goods movement needs. We support the dedication of a portion of
a new transportation funding package to the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund, as proposed
in SBX1-1 but at a funding level substantially higher than the approximately $52
million/year proposed therein.
8.Fix the annual price-based excise tax adjustment. Due to the Gas Tax Swap of 2010, a
portion of the state’s excise tax on gasoline is adjusted once a year to take into account the
forecast of gasoline and consumption for the subsequent fiscal year so as to maintain
revenue neutrality relative to a gasoline sales tax. Given the high volatility and loss of
revenue resulting from this policy, we support eliminating this annual adjustment and
instead indexing the tax to the Consumer Price Index or, at a minimum, enacting legislation
to smooth out the ups and downs as proposed in SB 321 (Beall).
We stand with you in advocating for a long-overdue focus on rebuilding California’s aging
transportation system and look forward to working with you to achieve this investment for the
betterment of future generations of Californians.
Thank you for your service and leadership at this critical time.
_______________________ _______________________
Gary L. Gallegos Steve Heminger
Executive Director, SANDAG Executive Director, MTC
_______________________ _______________________
Hasan Ikhrata Mike McKeever
Executive Director, SCAG Chief Executive Officer, SACOG
cc: The Honorable Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon
The Honorable Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins
The Honorable Bob Huff, Senate Minority Leader
The Honorable Kristin Olsen, Assembly Minority Leader
Mr. Brian Kelly, Secretary, California State Transportation Agency
J:\COMMITTE\Legislation\Letters\2015\MPO Letter _TransPackage_Assembly.docx
TWIC Packet Page Number 68 of 167
The Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, California 94553
John Gioia, 1st District
Candace Andersen, 2nd District
Mary N. Piepho, 3rd District
Karen Mitchoff, 4th District
Federal D. Glover, 5th District
July 7, 2015
Assembly Member Jim Frazier
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849, Room 3091
Sacramento, CA 94249-0011
Dear Assembly Member Frazier,
On behalf of the County of Contra Costa, I write to urge you to take action to avert the looming
transportation crisis in the State of California and your district by working to find a bipartisan
solution in 2015. California has more than 50,000 miles of state highways, 143,000 local streets
and roads, and 24,000 bridges. In unincorporated Contra Costa County alone, we own and
operate 660 miles of paved roads and 111 vehicle and pedestrian bridges. California’s economic
vitality and the mobility of all Californians both depend upon a first–class, multi-modal
transportation network. In spite of this fact, the stagnant level of investment into our shared
transportation infrastructure has resulted in significant unmet maintenance and rehabilitation
needs on both the state and local transportation systems.
The 2014 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Report found that
counties and cities are short $79.3 billion over the next 10 years just to bring the system into a
state of good repair, which would minimize future maintenance costs. In Contra Costa County,
we currently have $25 million in deferred maintenance. We currently do not have adequate
revenues to address our failing local infrastructure. This includes bike lanes, sidewalks, traffic
signal lights, traffic signage and striping, and road drainage that are not only critical to active
transportation options, but also for the safety of the travelling public. California’s transit
operators also rely on local streets and roads as their primary right-of-way. The state highway
system is also facing $59 billion in deferred maintenance costs over the next decade.
The primary sources of revenue to maintain, preserve, repair, and rehabilitate highways and local
roads and bridges are state and federal gasoline excise taxes (gas taxes). Neither the state nor
federal gas tax has been increased in more than 20 years. Neither gas tax is adjusted for inflation
or increases in the cost of construction.
David Twa
Clerk of the Board
and
County Administrator
(925) 335‐1900
Contra
Costa
County
TWIC Packet Page Number 69 of 167
Assembly Member Jim Frazier
July 7, 2015
Increases in fuel efficiency, which are critical to reduce costs to motorists and meet our
environmental goals, mean that vehicles are travelling more yet paying less for use of the
transportation system. Making matters even worse, the recent short-lived decline in the price of
gas, while good for consumer pocketbooks, will result in a year-to-year reduction of $885
million in transportation revenues.
The California Transportation Commission is currently studying alternatives to the state gas tax
such as a road user charge that would more accurately charge drivers for their use of the system,
but the results of that study are years away. That is why the County of Contra Costa is asking
you to take bold action this year to find interim solutions to begin to make much needed
improvements in the transportation system.
The bottom line is that the longer we wait to address our failing transportation infrastructure, the
more it will cost in the long run. We need an immediate solution in 2015 to ensure the problem
doesn’t get worse and to bridge the gap while California considers whether to implement longer-
term options to replace the gas tax.
Sincerely,
John M. Gioia, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Supervisor, District I
c: Contra Costa County Legislative Delegation
The Honorable Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor, State of California
The Honorable Kevin de Leon, President Pro Tem, California State Senate
The Honorable Bob Huff, Minority Leader, California State Senate
The Honorable Toni Atkins, Speaker, California State Assembly
The Honorable Kristin Olsen, Minority Leader, California State Assembly
g:\transportation\bos letter-memo\2015\7-7-15 bos to honorables resupport for trans\admin folder\7-7-15 bos to jfrazier.docx
TWIC Packet Page Number 70 of 167
Adopted Positions on Legislation of Interest – 2015
(Information Updated from Last Month is in bold/italics)
Bill Status CC County ABAG BAAQMD CCTA CSAC LofC MTC Other Notes
AB 2 (Alejo) Community Revitalization
Authority
Staff
Recommendation:
Watch
Pending Support
AB 148 (Holden) School Facilities:
General Obligation Bond Measure Pending
SB 8 (Hertzberg) Taxation Pending Watch
AB 4 (Linder) Vehicle Weight Fees:
Transportation Bond Debt Service Watch Watch Support & Seek
Amendment
AB 6 (Wilk) Bonds: Transportation:
School Facilities Watch Watch
AB 8 (Gatto) Emergency Services:
Hit-and-Run Incidents Pending Watch
AB 21 (Perea) California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006:
Emissions Limit: Scoping Plan
Staff
Recommendation:
Watch
(Martinson)
Pending;
(Keene)
Pending
Watch
AB 23 (Patterson) California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006:
Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms:
Exemption
Staff
Recommendation:
Watch
Staff
Recommendation:
Oppose
(Martinson)
Pending;
(Keene)
Pending
Watch
AB 33 (Quirk) California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006:
Scoping Plan
(Martinson)
Pending;
(Keene)
Pending
Watch
AB 157 (Levin) Richmond-San Rafael
Bridge
Staff
Recommendation:
Watch
Staff
Recommendation:
Support
Watch Support & Seek
Amendment
SB 1 (Gaines) California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006:
Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms:
Exemption
Staff
Recommendation:
Watch
Staff
Recommendation:
Oppose
(Martinson)
Pending;
(Keene)
Pending
Watch
SB 5 (Vidak) California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006:
Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms:
Exemption
Staff
Recommendation:
Watch
Staff
Recommendation:
Oppose
(Martinson)
Pending;
(Keene)
Pending
Watch
SB 9 (Beall) Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund: Transit and Intercity
Rail Capital Program
Staff
Recommendation:
Watch
Watch Watch
TWIC Packet Page Number 71 of 167
Bill Status CC County ABAG BAAQMD CCTA CSAC LofC MTC Other Notes
SB 32 (Pavley) California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006:
Emissions Limit
Support
(Martinson)
Pending;
(Keene)
Pending
Watch
SB 39 (Pavley) Vehicles: High-
Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Watch Watch Oppose
SB 40 (Gaines) Air Quality
Improvement Program: Vehicle
Rebates
Pending Watch
SB 114 (Liu) Education facilities:
Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Public
Education Facilities Bond Act of 2016
Staff
Recommendation
of Watch
Watch
SB 16 (Beall) Transportation funding
Staff
Recommendation:
Watch
Support Support
Staff
Recommendation:
Support and Seek
Amendments
SB 632 (Cannella) Vehicles: prima
facie speed limits: schools.
Support
Support Watch
Legislation
based on
CCC
proposal
SB 654 (De Leon) Hazardous waste:
facilities permitting Watch Watch
CA ACA 4 (Frazier) Local government
transportation projects: special taxes:
voter approval
Staff
Recommendation:
Watch
Staff
Recommendation:
Support
(Holzem)
Pending;
(Buss)
Support
Support
Staff
Recommendation:
Support
SB 313 (Galgiani) Local government:
zoning ordinances: school districts
Support Support Watch
AB 1344 (Jones) County office of
education: charter schools
Staff
Recommendation
of Oppose
Oppose Oppose
AB 194 (Frazier) High-occupancy toll
lanes
Staff
Recommendation:
Support
Watch Watch Support
AB 227 (Alejo) Transportation funding Watch Watch Support
AB 518 (Frazier) Department of
Transportation Watch Watch
AB 1284 (Baker) Bay Area state-
owned toll bridges: Toll Bridge Program
Oversight Committee
Staff
Recommendation:
Watch
Watch
TWIC Packet Page Number 72 of 167
Bill Status CC County ABAG BAAQMD CCTA CSAC LofC MTC Other Notes
SB 491 (Committee on
Transportation and Housing)
Omnibus bill
Staff
Recommendation:
Watch
Watch Watch
SB 1 a (Beall) Transportation funding Support Watch
SCA 7 (Huff) Motor vehicle fees and
taxes: restriction on expenditures
(Holzem)
Watch;
(Buss)
Watch
SCA 1 a (Huff) Motor vehicle fees and
taxes: restriction on expenditures. Watch
AB 227 (Alejo) Transportation funding Watch Watch
AB 1 a (Alejo) Transportation funding Watch
AB 2a (Perea) Transportation
projects: comprehensive lease
agreements
Watch
AB 1265 (Perea) Transportation
projects: comprehensive development
lease agreements
Watch Support
G:\Transportation\Legislation\2015\Positions on Legislation of Interest - 2015.docx
TWIC Packet Page Number 73 of 167
File name: TWI-OtherLeg
CA AB 2 AUTHOR: Alejo [D]
TITLE: Community Revitalization Authority
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 12/01/2014
LAST AMEND: 06/16/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
COMMITTEE: Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
HEARING: 07/14/2015 1:30 pm
SUMMARY:
Authorizes certain local agencies to form a community revitalization authority
with a community revitalization and investment area to carry out provisions of
the Community Redevelopment Law in that area for infrastructure, affordable
housing, and economic revitalization and to provide for the issuance of bonds
serviced by tax increment revenues. Requires the authority to adopt a
community revitalization plan. Provides for periodic audits. Requires funds in a
specified fund to be for housing needs.
STATUS:
06/16/2015 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred
to Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING.
CA AB 148 AUTHOR: Holden [D]
TITLE: K-14 School Investment Bond Act of 2016
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 01/15/2015
LAST AMEND: 05/06/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Assembly Appropriations Committee
SUMMARY:
Reduces the minimum amount that a school district must set aside for ongoing
and major maintenance of school buildings in a fiscal year. Authorizes a grant
for new construction or modernization to be used for seismic mitigation.
Requires an interagency plan to streamline the school facilities construction
application and review process. Enacts the K-14 School Investment Bond Act of
2016 to provide funds for the construction and modernization of education
facilities.
STATUS:
05/28/2015 In ASSEMBLY Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: Held in
committee.
CA AB 325 AUTHOR: Wood [D]
TITLE: Community Development Block Grant Program
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 02/13/2015
LAST AMEND: 07/01/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
COMMITTEE: Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
HEARING: 07/07/2015 1:30 pm
SUMMARY:
Relates to the Community Development Block Grant Program. Requires the
TWIC Packet Page Number 74 of 167
Department of Housing and Community Development to enter into a grant
agreement with the applicant. Provides for a list of activities and procedures to
receive a grant. Authorizes the Department to make changes to the final list of
activities if the applicant makes changes to the original application or the
federal government or the Legislature requires changes.
STATUS:
07/07/2015 From SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND
HOUSING: Do pass to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS.
CA AB 1362 AUTHOR: Gordon [D]
TITLE: Local Government Assessments Fees and Charges
FISCAL COMMITTEE: no
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 02/27/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Assembly Local Government Committee
SUMMARY:
Defines stormwater for purposes of the Proposition 218 Omnibus
Implementation Act to mean any system of public improvements or service
intended to provide for the quality, conservation, control, or conveyance of
waters that land on or drain across the natural or man-made landscape.
STATUS:
03/23/2015 To ASSEMBLY Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
CA SB 8 AUTHOR: Hertzberg [D]
TITLE: Taxation
FISCAL COMMITTEE: no
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 12/01/2014
LAST AMEND: 02/10/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Senate Governance and Finance Committee
SUMMARY:
Expands the Sales and Use Tax Law to impose a tax on the gross receipts from
the sale in the State or, or the receipt of the benefit in the State of services at a
specified percentage rate.
STATUS:
02/19/2015 Re-referred to SENATE Committee on GOVERNANCE AND
FINANCE.
File name: TWI-TransLeg
CA AB 1 AUTHOR: Brown [D]
TITLE: Drought: Local Governments: Fines
FISCAL COMMITTEE: no
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 12/01/2014
LAST AMEND: 06/16/2015
DISPOSITION: To Governor
LOCATION: To Governor
SUMMARY:
Prohibits a city, county, or city and county from imposing a fine under any
ordinance for a failure to water a lawn or having a brown lawn during a period
for which the Governor has issued a proclamation of a state of emergency
TWIC Packet Page Number 75 of 167
based on drought conditions.
STATUS:
07/01/2015 *****To GOVERNOR.
CA AB 4 AUTHOR: Linder [R]
TITLE: Vehicle Weight Fees: Transportation Bond Debt Service
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 12/01/2014
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Assembly Second Reading File
SUMMARY:
Prohibits weight fee revenues from being transferred from the State Highway
Account to the Transportation Debt Service Fund, the Transportation Bond
Direct Payment Account, or any other fund or account for the purpose of
payment of the debt service on transportation general obligation bonds.
Prohibits loans of weight fee revenues to the General Fund.
STATUS:
06/02/2015 Withdrawn from ASSEMBLY Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
06/02/2015 In ASSEMBLY. Ordered to second reading.
CA AB 6 AUTHOR: Wilk [R]
TITLE: Bonds: Transportation: School Facilities
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 12/01/2014
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Assembly Transportation Committee
SUMMARY:
Provides that no further bonds shall be sold for high-speed rail purposes
pursuant to the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the
21st Century. Requires the net proceeds of other bonds to be made available to
fund construction of school facilities for K-12 and higher education.
STATUS:
04/20/2015 In ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION: Failed
passage.
04/20/2015 In ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION:
Reconsideration granted.
CA AB 8 AUTHOR: Gatto [D]
TITLE: Emergency Services: Hit-And-Run Incidents
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 12/01/2014
LAST AMEND: 07/06/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Senate Public Safety Committee
SUMMARY:
Authorizes a law enforcement agency to issue a Yellow Alert if a person has
been killed or has suffered serious bodily injury due to a hit-and-run incident
and the law enforcement agency has specified information concerning the
suspect or the suspect's vehicle.
TWIC Packet Page Number 76 of 167
STATUS:
07/06/2015 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred
to Committee on PUBLIC SAFETY.
CA AB 21 AUTHOR: Perea [D]
TITLE: Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Scoping Plan
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 12/01/2014
LAST AMEND: 05/05/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
FILE: 121
LOCATION: Senate Third Reading File
SUMMARY:
Requires the State Air Resources Board in preparing its scoping plan for
achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in
greenhouse gas reduction, to consult with specified State agencies regarding
matters involving energy efficiency and the facilitation of the electrification of
the transportation sector.
STATUS:
06/30/2015 In SENATE. Read second time. To third reading.
CA AB 23 AUTHOR: Patterson [R]
TITLE: Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Compliance
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: yes
INTRODUCED: 12/01/2014
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Assembly Natural Resources Committee
SUMMARY:
Exempts categories of persons or entities that did not have a compliance
obligation under a market-based compliance mechanism from being subject to
that market-based compliance mechanism.
STATUS:
03/23/2015 In ASSEMBLY Committee on NATURAL RESOURCES: Failed
passage.
03/23/2015 In ASSEMBLY Committee on NATURAL RESOURCES:
Reconsideration granted.
CA AB 28 AUTHOR: Chu [D]
TITLE: Bicycle Safety: Rear Lights
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 12/01/2014
LAST AMEND: 04/22/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
FILE: 122
LOCATION: Senate Third Reading File
SUMMARY:
Requires that a bicycle operated during darkness upon a highway or a sidewalk
be equipped with a red reflector, a solid red light, or a flashing red light on the
rear that is visible for a specified distance to the rear when directly in front of
lawful upper beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle.
TWIC Packet Page Number 77 of 167
STATUS:
06/30/2015 In SENATE. Read second time. To third reading.
CA AB 33 AUTHOR: Quirk [D]
TITLE: Global Warming Solutions Act: Energy Council
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 12/01/2014
LAST AMEND: 06/23/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
COMMITTEE: Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee
HEARING: 07/07/2015 9:30 am
SUMMARY:
Establishes the Energy Sector Emissions Reduction Advisory Council to
recommend strategies for the electricity sector for incorporation into the
scoping plan prepared by the State Air Resources Board, based on specified
analysis including various strategies that could be implemented to reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases from the electricity sector and integrate
increasing amounts of renewable energy into the grid.
STATUS:
07/07/2015 From SENATE Committee on ENERGY, UTILITIES AND
COMMUNICATIONS: Do pass to Committee on
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
CA AB 157 AUTHOR: Levine [D]
TITLE: Richmond-San Rafael Bridge
FISCAL COMMITTEE: no
URGENCY CLAUSE: yes
INTRODUCED: 01/20/2015
LAST AMEND: 06/25/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
COMMITTEE: Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
HEARING: 07/07/2015 1:30 pm
SUMMARY:
Requires the lead agency to complete the design work for the project
simultaneously with the environmental review conducted pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act if the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission and the Department of Transportation develop a project to open
the third lane on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to automobile traffic on the
eastbound level and to bicycle traffic on the westbound level.
STATUS:
07/07/2015 From SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND
HOUSING: Do pass to Committee on ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY.
CA AB 227 AUTHOR: Alejo [D]
TITLE: Transportation Funding
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 02/03/2015
LAST AMEND: 04/15/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Assembly Budget Committee
TWIC Packet Page Number 78 of 167
SUMMARY:
Retains weight fee revenues in the State Highway Account. Deletes the
provisions relating to the reimbursement of the State Highway Account for
weight fee revenues and relating to the making of loans to the General Fund,
thereby providing for the portion of fuel excise tax revenues that is derived from
increases in the motor vehicle fuel excise tax in 2010 to be allocated to the
State Transportation Improvement Program, to the State Highway Operation
Program, and to city and county roads.
STATUS:
04/15/2015 In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended.
Re-referred to Committee on BUDGET.
CA AB 323 AUTHOR: Olsen [R]
TITLE: Environmental Quality Act: Exemption
FISCAL COMMITTEE: no
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 02/13/2015
ENACTED: 07/06/2015
DISPOSITION: Enacted
LOCATION: Chaptered
CHAPTER: 52
SUMMARY:
Amends the California Environmental Quality Act that exempts a project or an
activity to repair, maintain, or make minor alterations to an existing roadway, if
the project of activity is carried out by a city or county with a specified
population to improve public safety and meets other specified requirements, to
extend that exemption to a specified date.
STATUS:
07/06/2015 Signed by GOVERNOR.
07/06/2015 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter No. 52
CA AB 327 AUTHOR: Gordon [D]
TITLE: Public Works: Volunteers
FISCAL COMMITTEE: no
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 02/13/2015
ENACTED: 07/06/2015
DISPOSITION: Enacted
LOCATION: Chaptered
CHAPTER: 53
SUMMARY:
Extends the provisions of existing law that provides governing public works does
not apply to specified work performed by a volunteer, a volunteer coordinator,
or a member of the California Conservation corps or a community conservation
corps.
STATUS:
07/06/2015 Signed by GOVERNOR.
07/06/2015 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter No. 53
CA AB 464 AUTHOR: Mullin [D]
TITLE: Transactions and Use taxes: Maximum Combined Rate
FISCAL COMMITTEE: no
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
TWIC Packet Page Number 79 of 167
INTRODUCED: 02/23/2015
LAST AMEND: 06/17/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
FILE: 74
LOCATION: Senate Third Reading File
SUMMARY:
Amends existing law that authorizes cities and counties, and if specifically
authorized, other local government entities, to levy a transactions and use tax
for general purposes, in accordance with the procedures and requirements set
forth in the Transactions and Use Tax Law, including a requirement that the
combined rate of all taxes imposed in the county to not exceed a specified
percentage. Increases the maximum combined rate.
STATUS:
06/17/2015 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. To third
reading.
CA AB 518 AUTHOR: Frazier [D]
TITLE: Department of Transportation
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 02/23/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Assembly Transportation Committee
SUMMARY:
Amends existing law authorizing a local agency to enter into an agreement with
the appropriate transportation planning agency to use its own funds to develop,
and construct a project within its own jurisdiction. Deletes a provision requiring
the department to compile information and report to the Legislature.
STATUS:
03/05/2015 To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION.
CA AB 1088 AUTHOR: O'Donnell [D]
TITLE: Education Facilities: Bond Act: Greene Act
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 02/27/2015
LAST AMEND: 05/06/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Assembly Appropriations Committee
SUMMARY:
Repeals provisions requiring the existing school building capacity for a high
school district to be calculated without regard to multitrack year-round school
considerations. Requires a workgroup to recommend changes to shorten and
streamline the construction or modernization of schools process. Requires
regulation recommendations regarding designing facilities. Requires baseline
eligibility for modernization funding. Enacts a specified facilities bond act.
STATUS:
05/06/2015 In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended.
Re-referred to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS.
CA AB 1098 AUTHOR: Bloom [D]
TITLE: Transportation: Congestion Managment
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
TWIC Packet Page Number 80 of 167
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 02/27/2015
LAST AMEND: 03/26/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Assembly Transportation Committee
SUMMARY:
Deletes traffic level of service standards as an element of a congestion
management program and deletes related requirements, including a
requirement that a city or county prepare a plan when highway or roadway level
of service standards are not maintained. Requires performance measures to
include vehicle miles traveled, air emissions, and bicycle, transit, and pedestrian
mode share. Requires an evaluation of how a congestion management program
contributes to achieving a greenhouse gas reduction target.
STATUS:
03/26/2015 To ASSEMBLY Committees on TRANSPORTATION and LOCAL
GOVERNMENT.
03/26/2015 From ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION with
author's amendments.
03/26/2015 In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended.
Re-referred to Committee on TRANSPORTATION.
CA AB 1119 AUTHOR: Rendon [D]
TITLE: Public Utilities: Rights of Way
FISCAL COMMITTEE: no
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 02/27/2015
LAST AMEND: 05/11/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
COMMITTEE: Senate Governance and Finance Committee
HEARING: 07/08/2015 9:30 am
SUMMARY:
Requires a municipal corporation, before using any right of way within any other
municipal corporation or county, to request the entity that has control of such
right of way to agree with it upon the location of the use and the terms and
conditions to which the use shall be subject. Authorizes the proposing municipal
corporation to bring an action against the county if they are unable to agree on
the terms and conditions and location of the use. Repeals related provisions.
STATUS:
06/16/2015 From SENATE Committee on ENERGY, UTILITIES AND
COMMUNICATIONS: Do pass to Committee on
GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE. (10-0)
CA AB 1265 AUTHOR: Perea [D]
TITLE: Transportation Projects: Comprehensive Development
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 02/27/2015
LAST AMEND: 04/29/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Assembly Appropriations Committee
SUMMARY:
Relates to existing law which authorizes the Department of Transportation and
regional transportation agencies to enter into comprehensive lease agreements.
TWIC Packet Page Number 81 of 167
Provides that a lease agreement shall not be entered into under these
provisions on or after a specified date. Includes within the Definition of regional
transportation agency, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, thereby
authorizing the authority to enter into public-private partnerships.
STATUS:
05/06/2015 In ASSEMBLY Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: To
Suspense File.
CA AB 1284 AUTHOR: Baker [R]
TITLE: Bay Area State-Owned Toll Bridges
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 02/27/2015
LAST AMEND: 04/08/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
FILE: 29
LOCATION: Senate Second Reading File
SUMMARY:
Provides that the Toll Bridge Program Oversight Committee is subject to the
Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.
STATUS:
07/07/2015 In SENATE. Read second time. To Consent Calendar.
CA AB 1344 AUTHOR: Jones [R]
TITLE: County Office of Education Charter Schools
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 02/27/2015
LAST AMEND: 04/06/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Assembly Education Committee
SUMMARY:
Extends the authorization of a governing board of a school district to render a
city or county zoning ordinance inapplicable to a proposed use of school district
property, except when the proposed use is for nonclassroom facilities to the
governing board of a county office of education. Prohibits a county office from
rendering such ordinance inapplicable to a charter school facility, unless the
school is physically with the jurisdiction of the office.
STATUS:
04/22/2015 In ASSEMBLY Committee on EDUCATION: Not heard.
CA AB 1347 AUTHOR: Chiu [D]
TITLE: Public Contracts Claims
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 02/27/2015
LAST AMEND: 07/06/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Senate Appropriations Committee
SUMMARY:
Establishes for state and local public contracts a claim resolution process
applicable to all claims by contractors in connection with public works. Defines a
claim. Provides the procedures that are required of a public entity, upon receipt
TWIC Packet Page Number 82 of 167
of a claim sent by registered mail. Provides an alternative claim procedure if the
public entity fails to issue a statement. Requires the claim deemed approved in
its entirety. Authorizes nonbinding mediation. Provides a public works
contractor claim procedure.
STATUS:
07/06/2015 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred
to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS.
CA ACA 4 AUTHOR: Frazier [D]
TITLE: Local Government Transportation Projects: Special Taxes
FISCAL COMMITTEE: no
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 02/27/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
COMMITTEE: Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee
HEARING: 07/13/2015 1:30 pm
SUMMARY:
Provides that the imposition, extension, or increase of a special tax for the
purpose of providing funding for local transportation projects requires the
approval of 55% of its voters voting on the proposition.
STATUS:
04/27/2015 From ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION: Be
adopted to Committee on REVENUE AND TAXATION. (10-5)
Alert: Xpress
CA SB 1 AUTHOR: Gaines T [R]
TITLE: Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Compliance
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: yes
INTRODUCED: 12/01/2014
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Senate Environmental Quality Committee
SUMMARY:
Amends the State Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Authorizes the State
Air Resources Board to include the use of market-based compliance
mechanisms. Exempts categories of persons or entities that did not have a
compliance obligation under a market-based compliance mechanism from being
subject to that market-based compliance mechanism. Requires all participating
categories of persons or entities to have a compliance obligation beginning on a
specified date.
STATUS:
01/15/2015 To SENATE Committee on ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
CA SB 5 AUTHOR: Vidak [R]
TITLE: Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Compliance
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: yes
INTRODUCED: 12/01/2014
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Senate Environmental Quality Committee
SUMMARY:
Relates to the State Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Authorizes the State
Air Resources Board to include the use of market-based compliance
TWIC Packet Page Number 83 of 167
mechanisms. Exempts categories of persons or entities that did not have a
compliance obligation under a market-based compliance mechanism from being
subject to that market-based compliance mechanism through a specified date.
STATUS:
04/15/2015 In SENATE Committee on ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY:
Failed passage.
04/15/2015 In SENATE Committee on ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY:
Reconsideration granted.
CA SB 9 AUTHOR: Beall [D]
TITLE: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Transit/Intercity Rail
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 12/01/2014
LAST AMEND: 07/02/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
COMMITTEE: Assembly Natural Resources Committee
HEARING: 07/13/2015 1:30 pm
SUMMARY:
Modifies the purpose of the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. Provides
for the funding of defined, transformative capital improvements. Updates
project selection criteria under the program to projects that reduce greenhouse
emissions and expand transit service. Requires estimates of funding available
under the program. Allows the issuance of a no prejudice letter to allow an
applicant to utilize its own moneys on a project subject to reimbursement from
program moneys for eligible expenditures.
STATUS:
07/02/2015 In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended.
Re-referred to Committee on NATURAL RESOURCES.
CA SB 16 AUTHOR: Beall [D]
TITLE: Transportation Funding
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: yes
INTRODUCED: 12/01/2014
LAST AMEND: 06/01/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
FILE: 60
LOCATION: Senate Third Reading File
SUMMARY:
Creates the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program and a related fund
for deferred highway and local road maintenance. Provides for an increase in
motor vehicle fuel tax, a vehicle registration fee, commercial vehicle weight
fees. Transfers a portion of the diesel fuel tax increase to the Trade Corridors
Investment Fund. Increases the vehicle license fee for transportation bond debt
service. Relates to petroleum storage taxes. Relates to allocation for
supplemental project allocation requests.
STATUS:
06/01/2015 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. To third
reading.
CA SB 32 AUTHOR: Pavley [D]
TITLE: Global Warning Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit
TWIC Packet Page Number 84 of 167
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 12/01/2014
LAST AMEND: 06/01/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
COMMITTEE: Assembly Natural Resources Committee
HEARING: 07/13/2015 1:30 pm
SUMMARY:
Requires the State Air Resources Board to approve a specified statewide
greenhouse gas emission limits that are the equivalent to a specified percentage
below the 1990 level to be achieved by 2030 and another percentage below the
1990 level by 2050. Authorizes the Board to adopt an interim emissions level
target to be achieve by 2040. Makes conforming changes.
STATUS:
06/15/2015 To ASSEMBLY Committee on NATURAL RESOURCES.
CA SB 39 AUTHOR: Pavley [D]
TITLE: Vehicles: High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: yes
INTRODUCED: 12/01/2014
LAST AMEND: 04/08/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Assembly Transportation Committee
SUMMARY:
Increases the number of vehicle identifiers that the Department of Motor Vehicle
is authorized to issue for HOV lane usage.
STATUS:
05/22/2015 To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION.
CA SB 40 AUTHOR: Gaines T [R]
TITLE: Air Quality Improvement Program: Vehicle Rebates
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 12/01/2014
LAST AMEND: 04/06/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
SUMMARY:
Requires incentives for qualifying zero-emission, battery-electric passenger
vehicles under the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project of the Air Quality Improvement
Program to be limited to vehicles in that category with a manufacturer's
suggested retail price of a specified amount. Requires the rebate for certain
vehicles to be a specified sum, subject to the availability of funds.
STATUS:
04/06/2015 From SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND
HOUSING with author's amendments.
04/06/2015 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred
to Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING.
CA SB 114 AUTHOR: Liu [D]
TITLE: Education Facilities: Kindergarten Through Grade 12
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
TWIC Packet Page Number 85 of 167
URGENCY CLAUSE: yes
INTRODUCED: 01/13/2015
LAST AMEND: 06/03/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
FILE: 61
LOCATION: Senate Third Reading File
SUMMARY:
Revises the definition of modernization under the Leroy F. Greene School
Facilities Act of 1998 to include replacement facilities. Requires a school district
to certify that it has a certain school facilities master plan consistent with a
certain sustainable communities strategy. Makes changes concerning evaluation
of certain costs, eligibility, a statewide school facilities inventory, grants for
seismic mitigation purposes, funding of joint-use facilities. Enacts a
facilities-related bond Act.
STATUS:
06/04/2015 In SENATE. Read second time. To third reading.
Alert: Xpress
CA SB 119 AUTHOR: Hill [D]
TITLE: Protection of Subsurface Installations
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 01/14/2015
LAST AMEND: 07/01/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Assembly Judiciary Committee
SUMMARY:
Relates to excavation. Makes changes relating to a regional notification center
and subsurface installations. Provides for delineation of areas to be excavated,
preservation of certain plans, excavator damages for improperly inaccurate field
mark, pipeline safety, an exemption for certain residential property owners
using hand tools, the creation of an advisory committee, and the use of moneys
collected as a result of the issuance of citations. Creates a complaint authority.
STATUS:
07/06/2015 From ASSEMBLY Committee on UTILITIES AND COMMERCE:
Do pass to Committee on JUDICIARY.
CA SB 194 AUTHOR: Cannella [R]
TITLE: Vehicles: High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
FISCAL COMMITTEE: no
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 02/10/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Senate Rules Committee
SUMMARY:
Makes technical, nonsubstantive changes to existing law that authorizes local
authorities and the Department of Transportation to establish exclusive or
preferential use of highway lanes for high-occupancy vehicles on highways
under their respective jurisdictions.
STATUS:
02/19/2015 To SENATE Committee on RULES.
CA SB 313 AUTHOR: Galgiani [D]
TWIC Packet Page Number 86 of 167
TITLE: Local Government: Zoning Ordinances: School Districts
FISCAL COMMITTEE: no
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 02/23/2015
LAST AMEND: 05/12/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
FILE: A-1
LOCATION: Senate Inactive File
SUMMARY:
Conditions the authorization to render a city or county zoning ordinance
inapplicable to a proposed use of school district property upon compliance with
a notice requirement regarding a schoolsite on agricultural land. Requires the
governing board of a district to notify a city or county of the reason the board
intends to take a specified vote. Requires the vote to be based upon findings
that such an ordinance fails to accommodate the need for renovation or
expanding an existing school, or for a new school.
STATUS:
06/02/2015 In SENATE. To Inactive File.
CA SB 321 AUTHOR: Beall [D]
TITLE: Motor Vehicle Fuel Taxes: Rates: Adjustments
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: yes
INTRODUCED: 02/23/2015
LAST AMEND: 05/27/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
COMMITTEE: Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee
HEARING: 07/13/2015 1:30 pm
SUMMARY:
Relates to motor fuel tax rates. Requires the State Board of Equalization to
adjust the rate in a manner as to generate an amount of revenue equal to the
amount of revenue loss attributable to an exception that reflects the combined
average of the actual fuel price over previous fiscal years and the estimated fuel
price for the current fiscal year. Relates to revenue neutrality for each year.
STATUS:
06/15/2015 To ASSEMBLY Committee on REVENUE AND TAXATION.
CA SB 491 AUTHOR: Beall [D]
TITLE: Transportation: Omnibus Bill
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 02/26/2015
LAST AMEND: 06/29/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Assembly Transportation Committee
SUMMARY:
Provides provisions regarding transportation to include vehicle registration fees
for air quality, transit security, hazardous materials license endorsement,
commercial driver cargo security, commercial motor vehicle speedometers, use
of flags and lighting on oversized loads, placing a lighted fusee to a vehicle,
truck tractor wheel service breaks, use of saddle mounts or tow-bars, securing
vehicles from fumes and hazards, earphones prohibition, bikeways, highway
descriptions, and vehicle accident reports.
TWIC Packet Page Number 87 of 167
STATUS:
06/29/2015 From ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION with
author's amendments.
06/29/2015 In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended.
Re-referred to Committee on TRANSPORTATION.
CA SB 564 AUTHOR: Cannella [R]
TITLE: Vehicles: School Zone Fines
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 02/26/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Assembly Transportation Committee
SUMMARY:
Requires that an additional fine be imposed if a certain violation occurred when
passing a school building or school grounds and the highway is posted with a
standard warning sign and an accompanying sign notifying motorists that
increased penalties apply for traffic violations that are committed within that
school zone. Requires the funds from additional fines be deposited in the State
Highway Account for funding school zone safety projects within the Active
Transportation Program.
STATUS:
05/22/2015 To ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION.
CA SB 595 AUTHOR: Cannella [R]
TITLE: Vehicles: Prima Facie Speed Limits: Schools
FISCAL COMMITTEE: no
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 02/27/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Senate Rules Committee
SUMMARY:
Makes technical nonsubstantive changes to existing law concerning the prima
facie speed limit when approaching or passing a school.
STATUS:
03/12/2015 To SENATE Committee on RULES.
CA SB 632 AUTHOR: Cannella [R]
TITLE: Vehicles: Prima Facie Speed Limits: Schools
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 02/27/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
SUMMARY:
Allows a city or county to establish in a residence district, on a highway with a
posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower, a 15 miles per hour prima
facia limit when approaching at a distance of less than 500 feet from, or
passing, a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and
posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 15 miles per
hour, while children are going to or leaving the school, either during school
hours or during the noon recess period.
STATUS:
TWIC Packet Page Number 88 of 167
04/14/2015 In SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND
HOUSING: Not heard.
Alert: Xpress
Priority: High
CA SCA 1 AUTHOR: Lara [D]
TITLE: University of California: Legislative Control
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 12/04/2014
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Senate Education Committee
SUMMARY:
Proposes an amendment to the Constitution to repeal the constitutional
provisions relating to the University of California and the regents. Requires the
university and the regents to be continued in existence subject to legislative
control as may be provided by statute. Requires the Legislature from enacting
any law that restrains academic freedom or imposes educational or curricular
requirements on students.
STATUS:
01/15/2015 To SENATE Committees on EDUCATION and ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.
CA SCA 7 AUTHOR: Huff [R]
TITLE: Motor Vehicle Fees and Taxes:Restriction on Expenditure
FISCAL COMMITTEE: yes
URGENCY CLAUSE: no
INTRODUCED: 04/09/2015
LAST AMEND: 05/28/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
SUMMARY:
Proposes an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit the Legislature from
borrowing revenues from fees and taxes imposed by the State on vehicles or
their use or operation, and from using those revenues other than as specifically
permitted by a specified Article. Provides that none of those revenues may be
pledged or used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds or other
indebtedness. Revises the use of specified fuel tax revenues for mass transit
purposes and for boating-related activities.
STATUS:
05/28/2015 From SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND
HOUSING with author's amendments.
05/28/2015 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred
to Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING.
CA AB 2 a AUTHOR: Perea [D]
TITLE: Transportation Projects: Comprehensive Lease Agreements
INTRODUCED: 06/25/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: ASSEMBLY
SUMMARY:
Amends existing law that authorizes the Department of Transportation and
regional transportation agencies to enter into comprehensive development lease
TWIC Packet Page Number 89 of 167
agreements with public and private entities for certain transportation projects.
Extends this authorization indefinitely and includes within the definition of
regional transportation agency the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
STATUS:
06/25/2015 INTRODUCED.
CA SB 1 a AUTHOR: Beall [D]
TITLE: Transportation Funding
INTRODUCED: 06/22/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Senate Rules Committee
SUMMARY:
Creates the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program to address deferred
maintenance on the state highway system and the local street and road system.
Provides for an increase the motor vehicle fuel and diesel fuel excise tax, the
vehicle registration fees, the redirection of commercial vehicle weight fees for
transportation bonds and transportation loans repayment, the breakout of road
maintenance funds, an increase in the vehicle license fee for bond debt service,
and funding for state highways.
STATUS:
07/01/2015 Withdrawn from SENATE Committees on TRANSPORTATION
AND HOUSING and GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE.
07/01/2015 Re-referred to SENATE Committee on RULES.
Copyright (c) 2015 State Net. All rights reserved.
TWIC Packet Page Number 90 of 167
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 8.
Meeting Date:07/16/2015
Subject:RECEIVE Report on the Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study
Submitted For: John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: Multiple
Referral Name: Multiple
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925)674-7833
Referral History:
The Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) received an update in August 2014. The Study is now in its
draft final stage and staff is returning to TWIC requesting additional comment/direction and providing recommendations.
Referral Update:
Subsequent to the last report to TWIC on this study in August 2014, there has been an additional stakeholder meeting, and two
public meetings (one to discuss details of the alignment options, and one to present the draft study).
In addition to these public meetings, there have been numerous internal meetings to discuss process, design, and engineering
issues. The project has received substantial support from the public, both during public meetings and independent, direct
communication with staff as well as expressed support from the relevant Regional Transportation Planning Committees
(RTPCs).
The subject study is attached, critical issues and steps are highlighted below.
Preferred Alignment
In summary, this study recommends that a "low-stress" facility be constructed in the majority of the corridor. This type of
facility is often referred to as a "protected bicycle lane" or "cycle track" (3). This low-stress facility would connect the
Lafayette-Moraga Trail (LMT) to the Iron Horse Trail (IHT). This type of facility is critical for several reasons:
Protected bicycle facilities or cycle tracks have been shown to be one of the best, if not the best, investments you can make
to increase the number of people riding bikes (1),
1.
(related to #1 above) Contra Costa County has the lowest trips-by-bike-bike rate in the Bay Area(2). Investments such as
the study's preferred alignment are shown to be extremely effective in increasing the number of people riding bikes(1).
2.
If Class I facilities could be considered freeways for cyclists, this project would be considered the equivalent of
connecting State Route 24 to Interstate 680. Consistent with this analogy, this corridor already experiences substantial
demand. However, due to the constrained nature of the current route, users of the corridor are limited to the "Strong &
Fearless" type of rider (5). The preferred design would expand corridor users to "Enthused & Confident" and "Interested
but Concerned" riders.
3.
The attached report describes the preferred alignment in substantial detail staring on page 5.1 (Page 12 of the .pdf). In textual
summary, the route is as follows:
Starting at the termination of the LMT (at the Olympic Blvd Staging Area) in the western end of the corridor,
the alignment would head east along Olympic Boulevard to California Boulevard,
south on California Boulevard to Newell Avenue,
east on Newell Avenue towards the IHT, and
Connect to the IHT at the eastern end of the corridor at the intersection of S. Broadway & Newell Avenue, near Macy's
and Whole Foods.
Comments on the Plan
Comments collected on the plan are detailed in Appendix A. As indicated in the introductory paragraphs to this report, the
report had had consistent support with constituents engaged in the process. Staff and the prime consultant on the project, Alta
TWIC Packet Page Number 91 of 167
Planning + Design, have been able to respond to the majority of comments and concerns raised during this process. As indicated
in the Next Steps section below, this study is starting point and will spawn subsequent, smaller implementation projects. Some
concerns, traffic and parking, are going to be best responded to at the time of specific project implementation.
Next Steps
This planning level study is a starting point for more detailed design which includes different projects in different jurisdictions:
Geographically and Jurisdictionally, this project spans the County and two Cities, Lafayette and Walnut Creek.
Regionally , this project is now included in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's TEP.
Sub-regionally, this project spans the SWAT and TRANSPAC RTPCs, both of which have included the project in their TEP
project lists.
The recommendations section includes direction to continue coordination and project development with appropriate entities.
The agencies and committees listed above would be included in this coordination effort.
Funding
As described in the Funding Sources section of the report on Page 6-7 (page 49 of the .pdf) the project is eligible for numerous
federal, state, and local funding sources. The recommendations sections include direct to staff to pursue funding opportunities.
Consistent with the Board of Supervisors position as expressed to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority on the
Countywide Transportation Plan in October 2014 (4), staff has been working through the appropriate Regional Transportation
Planning Committees, SWAT (Southwest Area Transportation Committee), and TRANSPAC (Transportation and Partnership
Committee) to include the subject project in the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP). As TWIC has previously discussed, the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority is in the process of developing a TEP for a potential transportation sales tax measure in
2016.
(1) In the two U.S. cities that first started building modern protected bike lanes, New York and Washington D.C., bike
commuting doubled from 2008 to 2013.
US Census - NYC and DC, protected lane pioneers, just doubled biking rates in 4 years
http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/nyc-and-dc-protected-lane-pioneers-just-doubled-biking-rates-in-4-years
62 percent of people who live near protected lane projects "would be more likely to ride a bicycle if motor vehicles and bicycles were
physically separated by a barrier."
Monsere, C., et al., 2014 - Lessons from the Green Lanes (National Institute for Transportation and Communities)
http://trec.pdx.edu/research/project/583/Lessons_from_the_Green_Lanes:_Evaluating_Protected_Bike_Lanes_in_the_U.S._
The average protected bike lane sees bike counts increase 75 percent in its first year alone.
Monsere, C., et al., 2014 - Lessons from the Green Lanes (National Institute for Transportation and Communities)
http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/everywhere-they-appear-protected-bike-lanes-seem-to-attract-riders
NYC's Prospect Park West protected bike lane saw a 190 percent increase in weekday ridership, with 32 percent of those biking under age 12.
NYC DOT, 2012 - Prospect Park West: Traffic Calming & Bicycle Path
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2012_ppw_trb2012.pdf
After a protected bike lane was installed on Chicago's Kinzie Street: Bicycle ridership on increased 55 percent, according to
morning rush hour counts; Forty-one percent of respondents changed their usual route to take advantage of the new lane;
Bicyclists accounted for a majority of all eastbound traffic (53 percent) and more than one third (34 percent) of total street
traffic during a CDOT traffic count conducted during morning rush hour in August 2011.
Chicago DOT, 2011 - Initial Findings: Kinzie Street Protected Bike Lane
http://www.chicagobikes.org/pdf/Kinzie_Initial_Findings.pdf
(2) Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area - 2009 Update
Table 3.3: Average Bay Area total weekly bicycle trips (weekdays+weekends; 2000)
Contra Costa County % of all trips by bicycle = 0.6%, next highest is Solano and Sonoma at 1.0%, the highest is San Francisco
at 2.1%.
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/MTC_Regional_Bicycle_Plan_Update_FINAL.pdf#page=22
(3) From the National Association of City Transportation Official's Urban Bikeway Design Guide:
http://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/cycle-tracks/
A cycle track is an exclusive bike facility that combines the user experience of a separated path with the on-street infrastructure
of a conventional bike lane. A cycle track is physically separated from motor traffic and distinct from the sidewalk. Cycle tracks
have different forms but all share common elements—they provide space that is intended to be exclusively or primarily used for
bicycles, and are separated from motor vehicle travel lanes, parking lanes, and sidewalks. In situations where on-street parking
is allowed cycle tracks are located to the curb-side of the parking (in contrast to bike lanes).
Cycle tracks may be one-way or two-way, and may be at street level, at sidewalk level, or at an intermediate level. If at sidewalk
level, a curb or median separates them from motor traffic, while different pavement color/texture separates the cycle track from
the sidewalk. If at street level, they can be separated from motor traffic by raised medians, on-street parking, or bollards. By
separating cyclists from motor traffic, cycle tracks can offer a higher level of security than bike lanes and are attractive to a
TWIC Packet Page Number 92 of 167
wider spectrum of the public.
(4) October 21, 2014 Letter from the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
re: the 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan
"Major Projects & Emerging Planning Initiatives
A comprehensive response on project priorities can be seen in the attached list. This list includes the Board of Supervisor's
high priority projects including, but not limited to,
TriLink (SR239), North Richmond Truck Route, I-680 HOV Gap Closure, Iron Horse/Lafayette-Moraga Trail Connector,
Kirker Pass Road Truck Climbing Lane, Vasco Road Safety Improvements, and Northern Waterfront Goods Movement
Infrastructure Projects."
(5) From: FOUR TYPES OF CYCLISTS? Testing a Typology to Better Understand Bicycling Behavior and Potential. Jennifer
Dill, Ph.D, NAthan McNeil, Portland State University August 2012:
Strong & Fearless: Very comfortable without bike lanes
Enthused & Confident: Very comfortable with bike lanes
Interested but Concerned: Not very comfortable, interested in biking more. Not very comfortable, currently cycling for transportation but
not interested in biking more
No Way No How: Physically unable. Very uncomfortable on paths. Not very comfortable, not interested, not currently cycling for
transportation
http://web.pdx.edu/~jdill/Types_of_Cyclists_PSUWorkingPaper.pdf#page=9
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER the report, provide COMMENT, and DIRECT staff as appropriate including 1) bringing the Olympic Corridor
Trail Connector Study to the full Board of Supervisors for approval, 2) continue coordination and project development in
conjunction with appropriate entities as described in this report, and 3) pursue funding opportunities as described in the study
and as directed by the Committee.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None.
Attachments
Olympic Connector Preferred Alignment Final
TWIC Packet Page Number 93 of 167
Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study
Preferred Alignment Report
June 2015
PREPARED BY:
Alta Planning + Design
IN ASSOCIATION WITH:
DKS Associates, Inc.
Harrison Engineering Inc.
The Environmental Collaborative
PREPARED FOR:
Contra Costa County
City of Lafayette
City of Walnut Creek This project is funded through a grant from the Contra Costa County Transportation AuthorityTWIC Packet Page Number 94 of 167
TWIC Packet Page Number 95 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | i Acknowledgements Technical Advisory Committee Brad Beck, Senior Transportation Planner, Contra Costa Transportation Authority Jeremy Lochirco, Senior Planner, City of Walnut Creek Jerry Fahy, Civil Engineer, Contra Costa County Public Works Department Jim Townsend, Manager Trails Development Program, East Bay Regional Park District John Cunningham, Principal Planner, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Leah Greenblat, Transportation Planner, City of Lafayette Mary Halle, Associate Civil Engineer, Contra Costa County Public Works Department Mike Carlson, Civil Engineer, Flood Control/Clean Water Contra Costa County Public Works Department Consulting Team Alta Planning + Design Randy Anderson, PLA, Principal-in-Charge Jennifer Donlon Wyant, Project Manager Kristin Maravilla, Designer Emily Tracy, Planner Harrison Engineering Randell Harrison, PE, QSD T. Ryan O’Kane, PE DKS Associates Thomas Krakow, PE Joshua Pilachowski, PhD, EIT Environmental Collaborative James. A. Martin Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1-1 2. Background and Context .................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Study Overview ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 3. Connector Development Vision, Goals and Objectives .................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Vision Statement ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Design Guidelines ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 4. Alignments Considered ..................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Alignment Selection Criteria and Environmental Challenges Considered ........................................................... 4-1 4.2 Eliminated Route Alternatives .............................................................................................................................................. 4-3 5. Proposed Preferred Alignment......................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Alignment Overview ................................................................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 Chapter Organization .............................................................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.3 Preferred Alignment and Improvement Types ............................................................................................................... 5-2 5.4 Segment 1: Olympic Boulevard, Lafayette Moraga Trail to Pleasant Hill Road .................................................... 5-7 5.5 Segment 2: Olympic Boulevard, Pleasant Hill Road to Newell Court ...................................................................... 5-9 5.6 Segment 3: Olympic Boulevard, Newell Court to Tice Valley Boulevard/ Boulevard Way ............................. 5-13 5.7 Segment 4: Olympic Boulevard, Boulevard Way/Tice Valley Boulevard Intersection to Newell Avenue . 5-15 5.8 Segment 5: Olympic Boulevard, Newell Avenue to S.B. I-680 On/Off Ramps .................................................... 5-17 5.9 Segment 6: Olympic Boulevard, S.B. I-680 On/Off Ramps to S. California Boulevard ...................................... 5-20 5.10 Segment 7: S. California Boulevard, Olympic Boulevard south to Newell Avenue ........................................... 5-24 5.11 Segment 8: Newell Avenue, S. California Boulevard to Broadway ......................................................................... 5-27 5.12 Segment 9: Newell Ave West of I-680 .............................................................................................................................. 5-31 5.13 Segment 10: Southern Connections to IHT ................................................................................................................... 5-31 6. Implementation and Phasing ........................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 Trail Project Priorities and Phasing Recommendations ............................................................................................... 6-2 6.3 Next Steps ................................................................................................................................................................................... 6-6 6.4 Funding Sources ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6-7 7. Maintenance ....................................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................ 7-1 7.2 Maintenance Requirements .................................................................................................................................................. 7-1 7.3 Estimating Annual Maintenance Costs ............................................................................................................................. 7-2 TWIC Packet Page Number 96 of 167
Final Report ii | Alta Planning + Design This page intentionally blank. TWIC Packet Page Number 97 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 1-1 1. Introduction The Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study is an investigation to connect two well-used, multi-use regional trails in Contra Costa County – the Lafayette-Moraga Trail and the Iron Horse Regional Trail – with low stress, convenient, and family friendly bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The communities along the corridor envision a trail connector that will help them connect, become healthier, and support thriving communities. Attractive and low stress facilities such as this vision for the Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector (Connector) are attractive and welcoming to the broad community and contribute to economic development. The Connector will provide many benefits to the communities of Lafayette, Contra Costa County, and Walnut Creek. These benefits include: Connecting community members to work Connecting community members to recreation activities Connecting community members to schools Connecting community members to shopping Supporting economic activity Supporting active living through walking or bicycling Supporting community development by slower travel by walking or bicycling This Report describes the preferred alignment and types of facilities that will serve community members of all ages and abilities. TWIC Packet Page Number 98 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 2-1 2. Background and Context 2.1 Study Overview The Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study (Study) assessed several potential alignments for improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the Olympic Boulevard Corridor, connecting two paved multi‐use regional trails in Contra Costa County: the Lafayette‐Moraga Trail (LMT) and the Iron Horse Trail (IHT). The LMT connects the cities of Lafayette and Moraga and the community of Canyon. The IHT extends from Concord to Dublin, following the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way (ROW). The Study objective is to identify the best alignment or combination of alignments to connect the two trails. This Study is funded by Contra Costa Measure J (2004) Transportation for Livable Communities grant administered by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority). Consistent with the grant program description in the voter approved Measure J, the trail connector will improve walking and bicycling access to housing, schools, job centers, and transit by: Providing a high-quality non‐motorized facility connecting housing and jobs, services, and retail areas including Mt. Diablo Boulevard and St. Mary's College in Lafayette and Downtown Walnut Creek; Providing a high-quality non-motorized facility(s) connecting housing to schools; Providing an improved bicycle and pedestrian connections to transit in Lafayette and downtown Walnut Creek; and Improving access to the IHT which, in turn, provides additional non‐motorized, countywide access to retail, recreational areas, and job centers. 2.1.1 Scope and Study Area The Study began in spring 2013 and examined several possible alignments and identified a draft preferred alignment connecting the LMT and the IHT. The Study Area spans three jurisdictions including the City of Lafayette, unincorporated Contra Costa County, and the City of Walnut Creek (Figure 2-1). The Study recommends improvements which could be implemented in phases, in addition to geographic phasing of improvements. The recommendations include short‐term/low-cost improvements as well as longer term/larger scale projects that would require substantial reconstruction of road corridors and travel lanes, or collaboration with private property owner’s regarding potential modification of private frontage improvements. In any case, these improvements are intended to provide a connector between the LMT and IHT, which would significantly improve safety and accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Figure 2-1: Study Area TWIC Packet Page Number 99 of 167
Final Report 2-2 | Alta Planning + Design 2.1.2 Existing Conditions Report An Existing Conditions Report, provided as a separate document, includes detailed background information for and analysis of potential alignment options. It describes the relevant background, policies, conditions, issues, objectives, and potential challenges in the Study Area for each possible alternative. Review of these alternatives through a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), local Stakeholders Group, and a general public workshop resulted in the preferred/recommended alternatives presented here. 2.1.3 Technical Advisory Committee The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the project consisted of staff from Contra Costa County, the cities of Walnut Creek and Lafayette, the East Bay Regional Park District, and the Contra Costa Flood Control District (CCFCD). The TAC provided valuable input on previous and current planning efforts, identified opportunities and challenges, and guided the alignment selection. The TAC met through a series of meetings between 2013-2015. 2.1.4 Stakeholder Meetings and Public Input A Stakeholder meeting was held on August 15, 2013. The purpose of this meeting was to gather input from representative groups on existing conditions, opportunities, and challenges for the Connector Trail. Groups invited to participate included: Acalanes School District Lafayette Unified School District Bike East Bay Parkmead Association Bike Walnut Creek Parkmead Elementary Broadway Shopping Center Saranap Association Caltrans Sierra Club Greenbelt Alliance Sun Valley Swim Club Hall Equities Group Supervisor Andersen’s Office Kaiser Permanente Supervisor Mitchoff’s Office Lafayette Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee Sustainable Lafayette Lafayette Chamber of Commerce Walnut Creek Chamber of Commence Lafayette Circulation Commission Walnut Creek Downtown Business Association Lafayette Homeowners Association: Olympic Oaks Walnut Creek School District Lafayette Homeowners Association: Pleasant Hills and Valley Walnut Creek Watershed Council Lafayette Homeowners Council White Pony Preschool Lafayette Park, Recreation and Trails Commission Following the stakeholder meeting, a public meeting was held on December 5, 2013 where approximately 35 community members attended. Similar to the stakeholder meeting, this meeting focused on existing conditions, opportunities, and challenges. A public meeting to share the Draft Study was held on September 16, 2014 where approximately 30 community members attended and provided input on the recommendations. In addition to the formal meetings, Bike East Bay organized a bike ride of route alternatives on October 12, 2013. County and consultant staff participated. Parent riding to the Lafayette Moraga Trail TWIC Packet Page Number 100 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 3-1 3. Connector Development Vision, Goals and Objectives 3.1 Vision Statement The Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector will close a major gap in the Central Contra Costa County trail network. This gap closure will link the Lafayette-Moraga and Iron Horse Regional Trails creating a network of comfortable, convenient off-street trails and on-street bike and pedestrian facilities connecting to area schools, employment centers, transit hubs, shopping districts, neighborhoods, community facilities, parks, and open spaces. This Connector, along with the Lafayette-Moraga and Iron Horse Regional Trails and the Contra Costa Canal Trail, which joins the Iron Horse Regional Trail 1.5 miles to the north, will connect the majority of Central Contra Costa cities with the off-street trail network. This vision statement was developed with input from a variety of stakeholders, including Contra Costa County and the cities of Lafayette and Walnut Creek. Residents were invited to share their vision for the Connector during several public events. The ideal vision for the Connector expressed in the public participation process is a separated, buffered “cycle track” facility (see Section 5.3 for descriptions of a cycle track and other facility types), ideally with a separate path or sidewalk for pedestrians. This type of facility accommodates the broadest range of users with the highest degree of comfort and safety. Some parts of the Olympic Boulevard Corridor already have a well-separated shared use path that may be an appropriate comparable facility for a suburban setting. The study team carefully evaluated the opportunities, challenges and requirements to create a continuous separated shared-use or bicycle-oriented path through the entire corridor. 3.2 Goals and Objectives This Study identifies the following goals and objectives for the Connector based on County, Walnut Creek, and Lafayette planning document goals and objectives for the Connector or pedestrian and bicycle facilities in general: Goal: The project should improve bicycle and pedestrian safety and connectivity in Contra Costa County by meeting the following objectives: Provide an enjoyable, low-stress1 experience along the route that is similar to the experience of using the LMT and IHT and away from the noise and fumes from local roads and highways where feasible. Ensure that the facility offers a direct route and meets or exceeds best practices for pedestrian and bicycle facility design. Provide links and improve access to connect pedestrian and bicycle facilities and important destinations along the corridor (e.g., employment and shopping centers, transit hubs, schools, parks, and open spaces). Improve safety conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians in the corridor by minimizing potential conflicts with motor vehicles and different user groups. To maximize the range of potential users, consider the needs and capabilities of each user group and users of all ages and abilities in the trail design. Maximize the functional aspects of any recommendation in terms of convenience, gradients, directness, cost, and connectivity to major destinations, while minimizing negative impacts to traffic operations. Design a project that is within the financial resources of the County and cities to construct and maintain. Design the project to be consistent with local, state, and federal standards, policies, and goals on pedestrian and bicycle facilities including ADA. Goal: The project should minimize impacts to the existing environment by meeting the following objectives: Design the project to avoid significant adverse impacts to the environment. Avoid or minimize impacts to private property. 1 As used in this Study, a low stress facility is a facility that meets Level of Stress (LTS) 1 or 2 of four levels as defined by Mekuria, Furth & Nixon in “Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity” (Mineta Transportation Institute, May 2012). LTS 1 is considered suitable for almost all bicyclists, including children trained to safely cross intersections. LTS 2 is suitable to most adult bicyclists but demanding more attention than might be expected from children. 3.3 Design Guidelines The Connector, or other pedestrian and bicycle improvements, should conform to California design standards. Pathway design in California is governed by many design documents, the most important of which include the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and the Access Board Draft Final Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas. The Urban Bikeway Design Guide of the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) is an important reference for the latest techniques.2 The 2001 Contra Costa County Trail Design Resource Handbook supplements the HDM by providing guidance on when and how to exceed the HDM minimum standards for Class I bikeways. The cities of Lafayette and Walnut Creek do not have specific design standards for paved trails and defer to Caltrans standards. The Iron Horse Trail at South Broadway and Newell Avenue 2 Caltrans endorsed the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide and the Urban Street Design Guide in April 2014. TWIC Packet Page Number 101 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 4-1 4. Alignments Considered 4.1 Alignment Selection Criteria and Environmental Challenges Considered Alignment Selection Criteria The criteria used to guide the development of the preferred alignment were informed by the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan’s evaluation criteria for prioritizing projects as well as input from the TAC, Stakeholder Group, and the community. The criteria include: Range of Users: The Connector should attract and meet the needs of a broad array of distinct groups of users, including school children, students, seniors, the disabled, families, commuters, and recreationalists. User Experience: The Connector should provide a low-stress, family-friendly experience that functions for the intended and likely user groups, and addresses potential conflicts between user groups: pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with disabilities. Neighborhood Compatibility: The Connector should strive to maintain neighborhood character and may provide traffic calming. Public Support: The Connector should have public and local jurisdiction support. Destinations: The Connector should strive to serve key existing and planned activity centers such as shopping areas, employment centers, transit centers, stations or stops, civic buildings, parks, schools, libraries, and other community facilities. Feasibility: The options should meet basic tests of cost vs. benefit, with cost considerations including environmental impact, right-of-way acquisition, and construction cost, and benefits including the ability of the facility to accommodate a wide range of users. Right-of-Way: The Connector should include minimal requirement to secure additional ROW and/or agreements from other parties to complete the trail improvements. Environmental Issues: The Connector should have minimal potential to adversely impact geologic stability, storm drainage, biological or cultural resources, aesthetics, noise, water quality, or other factors typically addressed during the state or federal environmental review process. South California Boulevard, Walnut Creek Photo courtesy of John Cunningham Engineering Challenges In order to achieve a low-stress, family-friendly connection for a wide range of users, several challenge points in the Study Area were considered and addressed, such as: Use of available ROW and functional allocation of space: There is little opportunity to acquire additional ROW in this highly-developed corridor. There are heavy, often fast traffic flows, and many complicated intersections and turn movements. Transitions from Class I Bikeways to Class II or Class III facilities: Ideally, the most appropriate facility can be planned for any given situation, but transitions between paths and bike lanes or routes may create challenges for how bicyclists can safely cross the street, along with wayfinding/directional issues. Connection through downtown Walnut Creek/the Broadway Plaza area: Downtown Walnut Creek is one of the premier retail and entertainment attractions in the county. It is walkable for pedestrians, but has no well-defined east-west route for bicyclists. Crossings of and connections to busy roads: This will be critical to the safety and utility of the potential improvements. I-680 undercrossings: Each of the identified alignments has a constrained undercrossing of I-680. Sidewalks are present, but are currently too narrow for a shared bicyclist and pedestrian facility. Creek alignments: These alignments are challenging due to lack of public ROW, potential conflicts with adjacent land uses, resources, and flood control operations. Specific solutions to these challenges are described in Chapter Error! Reference source not found.. Proposed Preferred Alignment. A number of constraints, such as limited ROW and cost concerns, may warrant consideration of an interim phase before an ultimate alignment can be implemented. TWIC Packet Page Number 102 of 167
Final Report 4-2 | Alta Planning + Design The study strives to avoid significant adverse impacts to the environment Biological Challenges The study corridor is largely developed, which limits the likelihood for occurrence of sensitive biological resources. Based on the field reconnaissance, sensitive resources appear to be limited to regulated trees and the jurisdictional waters associated with Las Trampas and San Ramon Creeks. The potential for occurrence of special-status species along most of the Connector alignment is considered highly unlikely. The two exceptions to this are 1) the possible presence of a number of special-status species in the natural habitat along the creek corridors at bridge crossings, and 2) the possibility that nests of birds are in active use in trees along the trail alignment. Special-status species possibly associated with the aquatic and riparian habitat of the creek corridors could be addressed through conduct of preconstruction surveys by a qualified biologist, worker training and construction exclusion, and appropriate monitoring. Any active nests regulated under State Fish and Game Code and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act could be addressed through controls on timing of vegetation removal, preconstruction surveys by a qualified biologist, and appropriate avoidance until young birds have successfully fledged if an active nest has been located within the vicinity of improvements. The crossings of Las Trampas Creek at South California Boulevard and San Ramon Creek at Newell Avenue would require new bridge structures through regulated habitat. Based on the assumed alignment, the new bridge structures would require removal of mature native trees and affect the banks at both crossings. The extent of disturbance would depend on bridge design, including the need for any support footings, removal of existing vegetation, and other variables. Both streams are perennial and construction may require temporary dewatering of the active channel, again depending on design. Authorizations would be required by both the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and if disturbance below the ordinary high water mark is required (including temporary dewatering during construction) then authorization would also be required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Involvement from these agencies would focus on minimizing project-related impacts to areas in their various jurisdictions and potential mitigation efforts including creating, restoring, or enhancing wetlands to compensate for those affected. Given that jurisdictional waters would be affected (new bridges over Las Trampas and San Ramon Creeks in the long-term options) and agency authorizations would be required, this would be considered a significant impact of the project with a high level environmental constraint. The potential impacts of the project on tree resources will depend on final improvement designs. Based on a preliminary review, however, a considerable number of regulated trees could be removed. A survey of tree trunk location, size, and species would be necessary to accurately assess potential impacts on regulated tree resources. Tree loss would occur along some roadway segments and at the new bridge crossings of Las Trampas Creek on South California Boulevard and San Ramon Creek at Newell Avenue. Given the proximity of tree trunks and root systems to the existing roadway prism, careful construction practices would be critical to minimizing damage and decline of trees to be retained along the Connector alignment. Given that regulated trees would be lost and affected, this would be considered a significant impact of the project with a high level of environmental constraint. TWIC Packet Page Number 103 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 4-3 4.2 Eliminated Route Alternatives This Study reviewed all the public roads that provide significant east-west connections between the two regional trails as well as portions of the Las Trampas Creek corridor that have maintenance roads or are in public ownership and connecting streets or other public corridors between the alternative routes that might be used to create a complete connection. This section describes routes that were initially considered, but were eliminated through the technical and public review process. These are shown on Figure 4-1. A more detailed analysis of the eliminated route alternatives is provided in the Existing Conditions Report. Connections to the Olympic Boulevard Route (orange): Fatal Flaws: Steep hills and environmental challenges Paulson Lane is a connection within the City of Walnut Creek from Olympic Boulevard southeast via Paulson Lane, a buffer strip in the I-680 ROW, a trail and bridge along and across Las Trampas Creek (discussed in more detail under the Las Trampas Creek Route below) and another buffer strip in I-680 ROW to Newell Avenue (alternative to the western part of Newell Avenue). Paulson Lane should be considered for further study or future connections. I-680 Off-Ramp / ROW is a connection within the City of Walnut Creek south along the I-680 off-ramp from Olympic Boulevard to Newell Avenue (uses same bridge across Las Trampas Creek). Alpine Road / Botelho Drive / S. California Boulevard is a connection within the City of Walnut Creek from Olympic Boulevard east of I-680 south on Alpine Road, east on Botelho Drive, and south on S. California Boulevard to Newell Avenue. Boulevard Way / Mt. Diablo Boulevard Route (blue): Fatal Flaws: Steep hills, poor sight distance, narrow streets, relatively circuitous route, challenge of navigating under the 24/680 interchange and ramps, and the heavy traffic on Mt Diablo Boulevard. Boulevard Way in unincorporated Contra Costa County runs from the Olympic Boulevard/Tice Valley Road intersection north and east to the City of Walnut Creek at Mt. Diablo Boulevard then following Mt. Diablo Boulevard east to the IHT. An alternative to using the north-south portion of Boulevard Way was also evaluated. Condit Road / Leland Drive / Meek Place / Sunset Loop /Kinney Drive is a connection from Olympic Boulevard north along Pleasant Hill Road, then east via Condit Road, Leland Drive, Meek Place, and Sunset Loop in the City of Lafayette, and Kinney Drive to Boulevard Way in unincorporated Contra Costa County. Las Trampas Creek Route (purple): Fatal Flaws: Indirect connections with the roadway network, limited right-of-way, and potential conflict with adjacent residences. Most of Las Trampas Creek is in private ownership and has residences abutting the creek. However, the portion of the creek from Bridge Road east to Olympic Boulevard in unincorporated Contra Costa County has creek access roads and easements owned by the Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and portions of the creek under and east of I-680 within the City of Walnut Creek are in public ownership by Caltrans. Potential routes to extend or connect to the Creek Route included: Warren Road and Dewing Lane in unincorporated Contra Costa County from Boulevard Way to Olympic Boulevard (if a bridge is implemented), and; Bridge Road in unincorporated Contra Costa County from Warren Road to Olympic Boulevard, would require construction of a new pedestrian bridge over the creek. Figure 4-1: Eliminated Route Alternatives TWIC Packet Page Number 104 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 5-1 5. Proposed Preferred Alignment 5.1 Alignment Overview The preferred route shown in Figure 5-1 is based on the initial review process and identified community preference. Preferred Route: from the LMT along Olympic Boulevard to California Boulevard, south on California Boulevard to Newell Avenue; Newell Avenue east to the IHT. Strengths: Primary existing route for bicycle and walking trips, most direct route, most opportunity for low-stress facility improvement, and most popular alignment identified by community members and stakeholders. Olympic Boulevard is the main east-west arterial connecting downtown Walnut Creek to the Rossmoor community and to Lafayette. This is also the primary existing route for bicycle and pedestrian connections: it is the most direct route, has significant existing facilities, and the most opportunity for improvement toward the goal of a pathway facility separated from traffic – ideally with separate space for pedestrians and bicyclists. Starting at Reliez Station Road in the City of Lafayette, the route continues east along Olympic Boulevard through unincorporated Contra Costa County to the City of Walnut Creek west of I-680. The first portion of the route includes improved segments of pathways separated from the roadway west of Tice Valley Boulevard and a “sidepath” adjacent to the roadway extending from Tice Valley Boulevard to Olympic Boulevard at Newell Avenue. The eastern portion of Olympic Boulevard, starting with the I-680 interchange, has very heavy traffic and constrained width, as does California Boulevard and the portion of Newell Avenue east of California Boulevard. The western portion of Newell Avenue provides an alternative to the eastern portion of the preferred Connector alignment. This portion of Newell Avenue is a narrow, winding, tree-lined residential street. Vehicle turns into Newell Avenue from Olympic Boulevard are blocked to deter through vehicle traffic. There is very limited space for bicycle or pedestrian facility improvements, but Newell Avenue will inevitably continue to be an important bicycle and pedestrian connection, especially to the southern portion of the City of Walnut Creek. This is already a popular route for bicyclists and an important route to Parkmead Elementary School and the Dorris-Eaton School on the west side of I-680 and Las Lomas High School on the east. The eastern portion of Newell Avenue is a heavily –travelled 4 to 6 lane connector through office and commercial areas and serves the busy Kaiser Hospital and adjacent parking structures. 5.2 Chapter Organization Short and long-term alternatives for improvement of the Connector alignment are presented moving west to east. The route is divided into a series of 14 maps (see Figure 5-1) in order to show sufficient detail. The maps are grouped into 10 segments reflecting changes and similarities of conditions along the route. Maps are accompanied by a series of cross-sections and descriptions of potential short-term and long-term improvements. In some cases there are alternative approaches for how space can be secured to construct the Connector improvements. Figure 5-1: Preferred Route Alignment TWIC Packet Page Number 105 of 167
Final Report 5-2 | Alta Planning + Design 5.3 Preferred Alignment and Improvement Types 5.3.1 Preferred Alignment Table 5-1 summarizes the improvement concepts for the preferred alignment. This study provides further detail on the potential scope of improvements that could occur given the opportunities, constraints, prior and current plans and polices, and the expressed interests of the community. Table 5-1: Summary of Recommended Improvements Segment Jurisdiction Potential Improvement Related Plans, Efforts 1 Olympic Blvd.: Reliez Station Rd. to Pleasant Hill Rd. Lafayette Short Term: Convert existing bike lanes to buffered bike lanes by narrowing vehicle lanes; extend existing path on S. side; signing and marking improvements at crossing of Reliez Station Rd.; wayfinding improvements at Pleasant Hill Rd. intersection Long Term: None – there is already a separate trail Pending study by City of Lafayette. City of Lafayette is planning to implement a traffic signal at Reliez Station Rd and roundabout at Pleasant Hill Rd. 2.1 Olympic Blvd.: Pleasant Hill Rd. to Windtree Ct. Lafayette Short Term: Create buffered bike lanes as above Long Term: Widen existing path on north side to create 10 foot sidepath (requires retaining wall tapering up to 10 feet tall, and median narrowing with tree replacement) 2.2 Olympic Blvd.: Windtree Ct. to Newell Ct. Lafayette & CC County Short Term: Create buffered bike lanes Long Term: Widen existing path on north side to create 14 foot sidepath (requires narrowing median and lane shift to S. at east end; redesign of Newell Ct. intersection and connections 3 Olympic Blvd.: Newell Ct. to Boulevard Way/ Tice Valley Rd. CC County Short Term: Create buffered bike lanes; connect existing Class I path on S. side to Tice intersection; provide bike pockets and crossing improvements at intersection Long Term: Extend continuous path or sidewalks along N. side (requires approx. 4 foot lane shift to the south) 4 Olympic Blvd.: Boulevard Way/ Tice Valley Rd. to Newell Ave. CC County Short Term: Create continuous bike lanes; improve existing sidepath; improve crosswalks to Newell Ave.; improve right turn for bikes from EB Olympic Blvd. to SB Newell Ave. Long Term: Continue the sidepath approximately 100 feet to connect to Newell Ave. (may be included w/ Segment 5) 5 Olympic: Newell Ave. to I-680 CC County Short Term: Create bike lanes in constrained portions at turn pockets; buffered bike lanes on other portions Long Term: Expand the existing sidewalks fronting the Villa townhome complex to create a 10 to 12 foot wide sidepath by narrowing lanes and wide portions of medians, eliminating up to 8 curbside parking spaces out of 30. At one location it may be necessary to shift the south side curb 2 feet south to create needed space, involving tree removal. 6.1 Olympic Blvd.: I-680 to Alpine Road Walnut Creek Short Term: Create bike lanes on S. side; bike pockets on N side Long Term: Create a sidepath along the south side of Olympic from Paulson Ln. to Alpine Rd. by constructing retaining walls. Provide enhanced crossing improvements. City of Walnut Creek has submitted a grant application for improvements at I-680 undercrossing 6.2 Olympic Blvd.: Alpine Rd. to S. California Blvd. Walnut Creek Short Term: Convert existing bike lanes to buffered bike lanes by narrowing vehicle lanes Long Term: Add a bike path north of the existing sidewalk on the south side. Create space either by removing a vehicle lane or shifting the roadway 10 to 12 feet north in conjunction with future redevelopment of the properties on the north side SegmentJurisdictionPotential Improvement Related Plans, Efforts7 S. California Blvd.: Olympic Blvd. to Newell Ave. Walnut Creek Short Term: Add “sharrows” with green backing to designate lanes as shared with bikes Long Term: On first block convert existing wide sidewalk/plaza on E. side to separate bike path on curb side and sidewalk on inside with street tree, light, and utility space in between. On second block create sidepath by eliminating 2 parking spaces S. of Botelho and 3 to 4 parking spaces on W. side S. of creek and shifting lane W.s, extending curb, and installing bicycle/pedestrian bridge over creek 8.1 Newell Ave: S. California Blvd. to S. Main St. Walnut Creek Short Term: Add green backing to existing “sharrows” designating lanes as shared with bikes; create bike lanes from S. California Blvd. west on Newell Ave. to I-680 undercrossing Long Term: Create sidepath on N. side by narrowing lanes and extending north side curb; OR add a bike path to south of existing sidewalk (create space either by removing a vehicle lane OR narrowing lanes and acquiring 5 – 6 feet of ROW on the south side and shifting roadway south); OR create an all-new sidewalk and bike path in conjunction with future redevelopment of the properties on the north side City has concept plan for a mid-block crosswalk at Kaiser that might conflict with long-term options 8.2 Newell Ave: S. Main St. to Broadway and IHT Walnut Creek Short Term: Add green backing to existing “sharrows” designating lanes as shared with bikes Long Term: Add a bike path to south of existing sidewalk (create space either by removing a vehicle lane) OR create an all-new sidewalk and bike path by narrowing lanes and acquiring 5 – 6 feet of ROW beyond the existing sidewalk on north side; OR create an all-new sidewalk and bike path in conjunction with future redevelopment of the properties on the north. Install a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over creek; sidepath or sidewalk plus bike path continued to Broadway as part of mall redevelopment project; crossing improvements at Broadway intersection to connect to IHT Broadway Plaza redevelopment plan includes plan for shared use path along Newell Ave. City has concept plan for adding a lane on this portion – reflected in long-term concept. Sidepath shown is not as wide as improvement concept 9 Newell Ave.: west of I-680 CC County Wayfinding and marking of route County working with residents on traffic calming concepts 10 Southern connections to the Iron Horse Trail Walnut Creek Provide wayfinding signage to aid in connections to/from Olympic/Newell Connector TWIC Packet Page Number 106 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 5-3 5.3.2 Design Concepts The Indianapolis Cultural Trail is an 8-mile, world-class urban bike and pedestrian path in downtown Indianapolis, Indiana. It was mentioned by public participants in the current study as a good example of a major trail facility. It seamlessly connects neighborhoods, cultural districts, and entertainment amenities while serving as the downtown hub for central Indiana’s vast greenway system. The Cultural Trail was made possible by a large public and private collaboration led by Central Indiana Community Foundation, the City of Indianapolis, and several not-for-profit organizations. Preferred Design Concept 1: Bike path or “cycle track” with separate sidewalk or pedestrian path One configuration of the preferred bicycle/pedestrian facility is illustrated in Figure 5-2. This would include a bike path or “cycle track,” ideally 10 to 12 feet wide depending on adjacent obstacles, and separated from motor vehicle lanes by a buffer such as a landscape or decorative pavement strip and/or curb, pylons, or low barrier. A barrier of railing height would not be desirable because bicyclists could hit it and fall into the vehicle lanes. The inner side, away from the curb, would be occupied by a sidewalk with 5 to 8 feet of clear space, depending on the setting and density of anticipated pedestrian traffic. The street trees, street lights, and utilities such as power poles, boxes, signals, and signal controller equipment that typically occupy the outer few feet of the sidewalk space would occupy a 3 to 5 foot zone between the sidewalk and the bike path. Note that this concept is not compatible with bus stops; additional space for the bus stop would need to be provided in the street outside the bike path, or the bus stop would need to be located on a portion of the route that had a shared use path as described under Design Concept 2. Design Concept 1 is recommended as a long-term improvement in portions of downtown Walnut Creek where there is sufficient space or the space could be created by future lane reduction or private property redevelopment. Indianapolis Cultural Trail Figure 5-2: Preferred Design Concept 1 – Bike path or “cycle track” with separate sidewalk (on left) Figure 5-3: Preferred Design Concept 1 – Bike path or “cycle track” with separate sidewalk (on right) TWIC Packet Page Number 107 of 167
Final Report 5-4 | Alta Planning + Design Preferred Design Concept 2: Shared use side path with bike lanes Where there is not enough room to create a bike path with separate sidewalk, or in some cases to provide on-street dedicated bicycle space, the preferred design concept is a side path. A sidepath is defined in this case as a 10 to 14 foot wide path shared by bicyclists and pedestrians. Typically it is located in the public right-of-way, and takes the place of a sidewalk on that side of the road. It may or may not qualify as a Caltrans Class I Bike Path, which must meet geometric standards defined in Section 1000 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. This could be due to lack of 5-foot separation from a roadway or a vertical treatment between the path and roadway, less than standard width, or other departure from Caltrans standards. Many portions of the existing preferred route have bike lanes – defined as a 5 foot or wider striped shoulder space which ideally will be marked and signed as a bike lane. These are preferred to shared use paths by many bicyclists, and the study recommends that they be preserved in conjunction with other improvements – ideally adding a 2 foot buffer between vehicle lanes and the bike lanes to create “buffered bike lanes.” In no case are existing bike lanes recommended to be removed to create space for a side path or bike path. Figure 5-4: Preferred Design Concept 2 – Shared use “sidepath” with bike lanes (on right) Special Considerations for Driveway Crossings Special design measures are needed at locations where a bike path/sidewalk or sidepath crosses a driveway to minimize conflict and ensure visibility and awareness. These challenges have been addressed on cycletracks and paths throughout the nation, as illustrated by the example below from Seattle. Driveway crossings are varied in their existing configuration. The following guidelines and the design concepts in Figure 5-5 are provided for use in addressing potential conflicts with vehicles at driveways during future more detailed stages of design. If raised, maintain the height of the cycle track/bike path through the crossing, requiring automobiles to cross over. Prohibit curbside parking 30 feet prior the crossing. Use colored pavement markings, colored pavement and/or shared lane markings through the conflict area. Place warning signage to identify the crossing Driveway crossings on Broadway Cycle Track, First Hill Streetcar, Seattle, WA Figure 5-5: Driveway Crossing Guidance TWIC Packet Page Number 108 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 5-5 High Visibility Crosswalk Advance Stop Lines Community Wayfinding RRFB Crossbike Sidepath Type Treatment Buffered Bike Lane Green Bike Lanes Through Conflict Areas 5.3.3 Design Guidelines The conceptual plans on the following pages include a number of treatments which are described below in greater detail. High Visibility Crosswalks There are a number of different marked crosswalk types, including the high-visibility, continental-style as shown to the right. These types of crosswalks are more visible to drivers and are generally recommended at locations with high pedestrian activity, where slower pedestrians are expected (such as near schools), and where high numbers of pedestrian related collisions have occurred. In addition to using striping to increase visibility of crosswalks, there are a number of recommended textured crosswalks at key gateway areas. Advance Stop Lines Advance stop lines are a painted stripe in the roadway set back from the crosswalk, directing drivers to stop at least 4 feet before the crosswalk. On multi-lane roads advance stop lines increase pedestrian visibility for drivers in other travel lanes, especially important around schools, as students are harder to see than adults. Advance stop lines also discourage encroachment upon the crosswalk at a red light, leaving more free space for pedestrians to cross. Community Wayfinding A wayfinding system consists of comprehensive signing to guide roadway users to their destinations along preferred routes. The system can be supplemented with pavement markings that primarily benefit bicyclists. There are three general types of wayfinding signs: confirmation signs, turn signs, and decision signs. Confirmation signs indicate to bicyclists they are on a designated roadway. Turn signs indicate where a route turns from one street onto another. Decision signs mark the junction of two or more routes, inform roadway users of key destinations, and indicate the destination, distance, and direction. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) are pedestrian actuated devices mounted adjacent to the roadway. The beacon lights are rectangular LED lights installed below a pedestrian crosswalk sign that flash in an alternating pattern when activated. The beacon is dark when not activated. Caltrans has received approval from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for use of RRFBs on a blanket basis at uncontrolled pedestrian crosswalk locations in California including State highways and all local jurisdictions’ roadways. Bike Pocket A bike pocket is a bike lane between a through lane and a dedicated right turn lane that helps bicyclists traveling straight through an intersection position themselves correctly and minimize right-hook conflicts with vehicles. Crossbike A crossbike is a crossing treatment for bicyclists similar to a pedestrian crosswalk. It alerts motorists that there may be bicyclists crossing at this location, and encourages cyclists to cross in these predicable, marked locations. Side Paths A side path is a wide sidewalk or path, typically shared by bicyclists and pedestrians. It may or may not qualify as a Caltrans Class I Bike Path due to lack of 5-foot separation from a roadway or a vertical treatment between the path and roadway, less than standard width, or other departure from Caltrans standards. Special consideration should be made to minimize conflict and ensure visibility and awareness at intersections and driveways. Buffered Bike Lanes A buffered bike lane is a bike lane that is buffered by a striped “shy zone” between the bike lane and the moving vehicle lane. With the shy zone, the buffered lane offers a more comfortable riding environment for bicyclists who prefer not to ride adjacent to traffic. This design has a number of benefits including: Provides greater shy distance between cars and bicyclists Provides space for bicyclists to pass each other Provides greater space for the bicycle travel lane without making the lane appear so wide that it may be mistaken for car use Appeals to not just experienced bicyclists, but people who bicycle on occasion and those new to bicycling The recommended buffered bike lane design is the same design as a recently implemented Caltrans buffered bikeway on Sloat Boulevard in San Francisco, and is a modified version of the design guidance presented in the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide. The key difference is the proposed design has an inner dashed stripe; this will permit vehicles to cross when necessary, for example to enter or exit driveways. Green Bike Lanes Through Conflict Areas Green bike lanes through conflict areas is the application of green coloring applied to pavement in conflict zones. Benefits of this treatment include: Alerts roadway users to expect bicyclists Assigns the right of way to bicyclists The FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) has provided blanket approval for green colored pavement and Caltrans has also approved this treatment. TWIC Packet Page Number 109 of 167
Final Report 5-6 | Alta Planning + Design Two-Stage Turn Boxes Two-stage turn boxes assist bicyclists with making left turns at multi-lane intersections. This treatment is typically applied on multi-lane streets with high traffic speeds and/or volumes. A two-stage turn box helps a bicyclist make an L-shaped left turn by crossing one leg of the intersection at a time. It provides a number of benefits including: Improves bicyclist comfort Provides formal waiting area for bicyclists making left turns outside of the crosswalk This treatment is not a Caltrans approved traffic control device, however the City of Walnut Creek can apply to Caltrans for approval to experiment. A bicyclist’s path of travel through a two-stage left turn box is illustrated in the panels at right. 1. Bicyclists and motorists travel through the intersection on a green signal. 2. Bicyclists turning left stop in the two-stage turn box and wait. 3. A red signal stops all users and the intersection clears of traffic. 4. Bicyclists are highly visible in the two-stage turn box and are positioned to travel through. 5. On the green signal, waiting bicyclists travel forward into the bikeway. 6. Motorists behind the box proceed when clear. Two Stage Turn Box Gateway Treatments This conceptual plan includes recommendations for a number of gateway treatments. Gateways communicate to drivers they are entering a community and often include physical and texture treatments such as markers and textured crosswalks. Example gateway treatments are presented below; however, specific recommendations for treatments along the Connector are not included as part of this Report. Stamped Asphalt Crosswalk Gateway Marker TWIC Packet Page Number 110 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 5-7 5.4 Segment 1: Olympic Boulevard, Lafayette Moraga Trail to Pleasant Hill Road Existing Conditions: Reliez Station Road Intersection: This is a stop-controlled T-intersection for motorists, and trail users on the LMT have a stop sign before they exit the trail. The primary vehicle movements are turning to and from Reliez Station Road, which creates conflicts for bicyclists, especially for bicyclists transitioning to and from the existing bike lanes. Northbound motorists turning east onto Olympic Boulevard and westbound motorists turning south onto Reliez Station Road often don’t look to the west for bicyclists or pedestrians coming off of the trail. Existing Class I LMT enters the Olympic Boulevard/Reliez Station Road intersection from the west, transitioning to bike lanes along Olympic Boulevard or a Class I path through an East Bay Regional Park District open space corridor (immediately adjacent to Las Trampas Creek) and past two parking lots and one parking lot driveway that serve users of the LMT. An approximately 5 foot wide asphalt walkway exists on the south side of the road, but it gradually transitions to an informal path to the east. Pleasant Hill Road Intersection: Crosswalks are present at all approaches to the stop-controlled Pleasant Hill Road intersection, including across the channelized right-turn lanes on the southbound and westbound approaches. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Provide crossing improvements at Reliez Station Road, add buffered bike lanes, improve and extend existing walkway on south side of Olympic Boulevard, and provide improved route wayfinding. The existing conventional bike lanes can be converted to buffered bike lanes by narrowing the existing vehicle lanes and potentially shifting the center stripe. In at least one location the existing pavement is up to 2 feet narrower than the cross-section shown. This would necessitate widening on the north side, which could conflict with the roots of a non-native black acacia and a medium-sized live oak. Reliez Station Road Intersection: Crossing signing and striping improvements will help reduce the conflict for bicyclists transitioning between the LMT and the existing bike lanes. These include ‘trail crossing’ signage, enhanced crossbike markings, and advance stop bars for motorists (Figure 5-7a). Relocating an existing asphalt curb will facilitate a smoother trail-to-road connection. Pleasant Hill Road Intersection: o Install additional wayfinding signs. o Implement single-lane roundabout, studied in the 2015 Olympic Boulevard and Reliez Station Road Corridor Traffic Study, with consideration for bicyclist merge conflicts and reduced pedestrian crossing distances. Tree Impact: Potential impact on roots of 2 trees due to widening. Figure 5-6: Olympic Boulevard Station 7+50 (facing east) TWIC Packet Page Number 111 of 167
Final Report 5-8 | Alta Planning + Design Figure 5-7: Segment 1 – Olympic Boulevard, Lafayette Moraga Trail to Pleasant Hill Road TWIC Packet Page Number 112 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 5-9 5.5 Segment 2: Olympic Boulevard, Pleasant Hill Road to Newell Court 5.5.1 Segment 2.1: Olympic Boulevard, Pleasant Hill Road to Windtree Court Existing Conditions: The western portion of this segment has a landscaped median 4 feet wide at the turn lane and 14 to 15 feet wide with street trees to the east, followed by a 14 to 15 foot painted median, which transitions to turn pockets at Windtree Court. There are steep cut slopes on both sides of the road, starting at approximately Sta. 17+00 and extending to 19+00 on the north side. A short retaining wall separates an existing 4 foot path from the rocky slope on the north side. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Provide buffered bike lanes. Buffered bike lanes can be created by narrowing the existing vehicle lanes and painted medians. Long-Term Improvement Concept: Widen and improve the existing path on the north side as a shared use path while retaining the buffered bike lanes. A separated sidepath 10 feet wide with a 3 foot buffer could be created by reducing the width of the median to 10 feet, replacing existing trees, and constructing a taller retaining wall on the north side – tapering up to approximately 10 feet high. Fire hydrants, signs, utility poles, mature oaks, and other trees would intrude into the pathway space, reducing clear width to as little as 8 feet in some locations. Tree Impact (Long-Term Concept): No trees removed. Some leaning tree limbs and vegetation would be trimmed along the sidepath. Figure 5-8: Olympic Boulevard Stations 16+50, 17+50, and 21+50 (all facing east) TWIC Packet Page Number 113 of 167
Final Report 5-10 | Alta Planning + Design Figure 5-9: Segment 2.1- Olympic Boulevard, Pleasant Hill Road to Windtree Court TWIC Packet Page Number 114 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 5-11 5.5.2 Segment 2.2: Olympic Boulevard, Windtree Court to Newell Court Existing Conditions: A 4 to 6 foot wide pedestrian path exists on north side, separated from bike lane by an asphalt curb. The space between the curb and the adjacent property line is as wide as 12 feet at the west end, although hedges and other private improvements intrude into it. The roadway includes 5 to 8 foot wide bike lanes, and the existing striped median is 14.5 to 15 feet wide. Beyond Sta. 29+00, two properties extend out further and narrow the available right-of-way, and native trees further reduce space that would otherwise be available for a path – which narrows to 4 feet at this point (see section Sta. 28+80). Near the intersection with Newell Court, the space between the curb and fence/ROW line is approximately 6 feet and the median narrows to approximately 5 feet at the intersection. A path on the south side of Olympic Boulevard connects with a crosswalk at the Newell Court signalized intersection. The median is 5 feet wide, and the distance beyond the northern curb and property line is only approximately 6 feet. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Provide buffered bike lanes. Buffered bike lanes can be created by narrowing the vehicle lanes and median. Long-Term Improvement Concept: Widen and improve the existing path on the north side as a shared use path. A separated sidepath 10 feet wide could be created by reducing the median to 5 feet and shifting the north side lane approximately 10 feet south between Sta. 26+80 and 28+80. West of Sta. 27+00 there are turn pockets for Windtree Court that would prevent narrowing the median more than approximately a foot, but the separated sidepath could be created using the 12 foot wide frontage and an additional 1 or 2 feet from median and lane. East of the second property that intrudes into the right-of-way alignment, the curb and path are set back and there is a tapering space extending approximately 150 feet that could accommodate the sidepath. The space to continue the separate path and the buffered bike lanes can be created by shifting the lanes south approximately 8 feet, which would require realignment on the east side of the intersection to transition back to the current alignment. This would require realignment of the existing Class I path that connects to the southeast corner of the intersection, including relocation of the signals and controller box. Hedges, vines, and trees growing along the north edge of the existing path would reduce the clear space to as little as 10 feet – particularly at a mature oak at approximately Sta. 32+50. The sidepath would end at the east side of the intersection where it would connect south to the existing Class I path that continues east. Tree Impact (Long-Term Concept): No trees removed – minor trimming. Figure 5-10: Olympic Boulevard Station 28+80 (facing east) TWIC Packet Page Number 115 of 167
Final Report 5-12 | Alta Planning + Design Figure 5-11: Segment 2.2 – Olympic Boulevard, Windtree Court to Newell Court Inset A: Olympic Blvd / Newell Ct Intersection Detail TWIC Packet Page Number 116 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 5-13 5.6 Segment 3: Olympic Boulevard, Newell Court to Tice Valley Boulevard/ Boulevard Way Existing Conditions: Olympic Boulevard between Newell Court and Tice Valley Boulevard/Boulevard Way is a two lane roadway that includes bike lanes. On-street parking is not allowed. A 10 foot wide paved Class I path exists on the south side. It has a wood post and rail barrier fence and 11 foot wide mulched and planted shoulders on either side. A sidewalk exists on the north side at the east end of the segment, and a short segment of sidewalk exists in the center. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Create buffered bike lanes, connect the existing Class I path to Boulevard Way/Tice Valley Road intersection, and provide intersection crossing improvements. An improved pedestrian crossing signal at Bridgefield Road would facilitate connections from residences on the north side to the Class I path on the south side and the adjacent bus stop. Buffered bike lanes can be created by narrowing vehicle lanes and providing green conflict zone markings and a striped bike pocket at the intersection. Long-Term Improvement Concept: Provide a continuous pedestrian sidewalk or path at least 4 feet wide on the north side. There are space constraints for creation of a continuous path. From near Newell Court to approximately Sta. 38+00, there are many mature trees including native oaks as well as vines and street signs occupying the approximately 4 foot wide space between the curb and the fence. The existing Class I path on the south side can be connected to the intersection by extending the path past the gas station at the corner by widening the sidewalk and reducing the right lane width. Removal of the existing pork chop islands and addition of high visibility crosswalks are recommended to connect the path to the north and east where an existing sidepath continues. To create the additional space for the sidewalk without removing all the trees, the north side curb and the roadway could be shifted approximately 2 feet to the south, encroaching into the existing 10 foot space between the roadway and the Class I on the south side. This may require relocation of the existing split trail fence. Tree Impact (Long-Term Concept): No trees removed – minor trimming. Figure 5-12: Olympic Boulevard Stations 46+00 and 51+50 (facing east) TWIC Packet Page Number 117 of 167
Final Report 5-14 | Alta Planning + Design Figure 5-13: Segment 3 – Olympic Boulevard, Newell Court to Tice Valley Boulevard Inset A: Olympic Boulevard / Tice Valley Boulevard Intersection Detail TWIC Packet Page Number 118 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 5-15 5.7 Segment 4: Olympic Boulevard, Boulevard Way/Tice Valley Boulevard Intersection to Newell Avenue Existing Conditions: An existing paved path extends along the north side in a 12 to 14 foot wide space, mostly bordered by fences that separate Olympic Boulevard from the adjacent parallel Cottage Lane, which provides access to several residences along two disconnected segments to the east and west. In between are some residences that take direct access from Olympic Boulevard. Parking is allowed along the south side where commercial buildings and a series of single and multi-family residences take access directly off Olympic Boulevard. Removing this parking is not seen to be a viable alternative. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Provide bike lanes and an improved sidepath on the north side. An improved separated path could be created by providing 10 feet of pavement with a 3 foot planting strip at the curb. Mature trees and other obstructions would narrow the path by as much as 2 feet at some points. There is not sufficient continuous space to provide a Caltrans-compliant Class I path, which requires 5 feet of separation from the roadway. Space for bike lanes could be created by narrowing the existing lanes, but even if the existing 5 foot wide medians were narrowed there is not enough space to create buffered bike lanes. The existing narrow drainage opening – where the right turn from EB Olympic Boulevard to SB Newell Avenue has been blocked off – should be widened to accommodate bike right turns or a connecting path could be constructed across the corner. Long-Term Improvement Concept: Extend the sidepath to Newell Avenue intersection. The improved pathway could be continued to Newell Avenue (the current pathway ends west of the Villa condominiums) by utilizing some of the space from a very wide bus pullout and a portion of landscaped street frontage near the intersection. High visibility crosswalks are recommended across Olympic Boulevard at this point to facilitate connections to Newell Avenue. Tree Impact (Long-Term Concept): No trees removed. There is one mature oak on the north side near Sta. 64+00 that would reduce the clear path space to approximately 8 feet, and two ornamental trees near Sta. 81+50 that would reduce the clear space to 9 feet. Figure 5-14: Olympic Boulevard Station 66+80 (facing east) Figure 5-15: Olympic Boulevard/Newell Avenue Intersection Detail TWIC Packet Page Number 119 of 167
Final Report 5-16 | Alta Planning + Design Figure 5-16: Segment 4 – Olympic Boulevard, Boulevard Way/Tice Valley Boulevard Intersection to Newell Avenue TWIC Packet Page Number 120 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 5-17 5.8 Segment 5: Olympic Boulevard, Newell Avenue to S.B. I-680 On/Off Ramps Existing Conditions: A seven foot sidewalk, or a 5 foot sidewalk with 2 foot planting strip, exists on the north side of Olympic fronting the Villa condominium complex along with curbside parking for residents and visitors. There are raised paved medians as wide as 16.5 feet and as narrow as 5 feet. There are no existing bike lanes. There is no sidewalk on the south side, or any space for one due to the presence of trees within the approximate 4 foot space between the curb and residential backyard fences. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Create bike lanes with buffered bike lanes provided where space allows. Bike lanes could be created on portions with wide medians by restriping the existing lanes (see Sta. 85+00). At the two turn pocket areas and on the eastern portion where the median is narrow bike lanes could be created by restriping the existing lanes, but they would be a minimal 4 feet (see Sta. 96+50). At the eastern end at the bridge over Las Trampas Creek the buffered bike lanes can be created by restriping the existing lanes (see Sta. 101+00). Long-Term Improvement Concept: Create a 10 foot wide sidepath on the north side with a 2 foot buffer between the bike lane and parked cars. Implementation would require that all lanes are narrowed to 11 feet, the medians shifted one foot south, the wide medians narrowed to 10 feet, and the 5 foot medians narrowed to 3 feet. o To minimize impacts to homes on the east side of the corridor, a wall or other physical barrier should be considered, although this may not be consistent with existing vegetation and aesthetics. In order to minimize loss of parking, there would be a 4 foot off-set between the lane alignment at the left turn pockets and the alignment beyond them, with a suitable transition between alignments (see Figure 5-19). 7 or 8 of the current 30 curbside parking spaces would be lost. In the vicinity of cross-section at Sta. 96+50 the ROW and roadway narrows. Creating space for a 10 foot wide sidepath would require shifting the south side curb approximately 2 feet into the approximately 4 foot wide space between the curb and the fence. This could potentially remove or impact up to 6 mature trees, including 4 native oaks. Tree Impact (Long-Term Concept): Potential removal of or impact on up to 6 mature trees, including 4 medium-sized native oaks. Figure 5-17: Olympic Boulevard Stations 85+00 and 88+00 (facing east) TWIC Packet Page Number 121 of 167
Final Report 5-18 | Alta Planning + Design Figure 5-18: Olympic Boulevard Stations 96+50, 98+50, and 101+00 (facing east) TWIC Packet Page Number 122 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 5-19 Figure 5-19: Segment 5- Olympic Boulevard, Newell Avenue to SB I-680 RampsTWIC Packet Page Number 123 of 167
Final Report 5-20 | Alta Planning + Design 5.9 Segment 6: Olympic Boulevard, S.B. I-680 On/Off Ramps to S. California Boulevard 5.9.1 Segment 6.1: Olympic Boulevard, S.B. I-680 On/Off Ramps to Alpine Road Existing Conditions: This segment has very heavy traffic, especially at commute and shopping/after hours times with vehicles accessing the I-680 on and off-ramps. The City of Walnut Creek has developed a grant application to improve the undercrossing by widening the sidewalk on the south side to 10 feet by building a retaining wall into the existing embankment and adding lighting. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Provide bike lane on south side and bike pocket on north side. Narrowing the lanes would provide enough space to stripe bike lanes, but due to the heavy right turn traffic to the I-680 on-ramps on the north side it would be safer to create a “bike pocket” – a five foot wide through bike lane between the right turn lanes and the through lane. Crosswalk and/or bike lane striping improvements would be needed at the Paulson Lane on- and off-ramps and at Alpine Road to support the bike lanes and bike pocket. Long-Term Improvement Concept: Create a Class I path or sidepath at least 10 feet wide on the south side of Olympic Boulevard. The proposed sidepath on the north side of Olympic Boulevard through Segment 5 could connect across Olympic via an improved crosswalk west of the intersection at Paulson Lane and the north side ramps to/from I-680. With the extension of the existing retaining wall and a slight lane shift, a Class I path could be extended along the south side of Olympic Boulevard adjacent to Paulson Lane to connect to the path proposed on the south side of the underpass by City of Walnut Creek. Signs and devices to encourage bicyclists to stop before crossing the ramp, especially when eastbound, would help make the crossing safer. The current City of Walnut Creek concept for the path under I-680 shows a 10 foot width. A 12 foot width, created with a slightly higher retaining wall, is recommended to provide additional space for this important connection. Beyond I-680 (see Sta. 110+50), the path could be continued on the south side to Alpine Road by constructing a taller retaining wall within the ROW of the first office building on the south side. This would allow the existing 6’ sidewalk to be widened to 10 feet. This appears to be feasible within the available ROW. Crossing Alpine Road with the path at this point would be an engineering challenge due to the steep slope of the side street. Tree Impact (Long-Term Concept): Creating the sidepath at Sta. 110+50 by constructing a taller wall 4 feet further back will require removal/replacement of up to 3 mature ornamental trees. Figure 5-20: Olympic Boulevard Stations 107+00 and 110+50 (facing east) TWIC Packet Page Number 124 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 5-21 Figure 5-21: Segment 6.1 – Olympic Boulevard, S.B. I-680 On/Off Ramps to Alpine Road TWIC Packet Page Number 125 of 167
Final Report 5-22 | Alta Planning + Design 5.9.2 Segment 6.2: Olympic Boulevard, Alpine Road to S. California Boulevard Existing Conditions: Bike lanes exist on both sides of the roadway between Alpine Road and S. California Street. Office structures are immediately adjacent to the back of sidewalk on the south central portion; the remainder is fronted by commercial parking lots. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Provide buffered bike lanes. Conventional bike lanes can be widened into buffered bike lanes if vehicle lanes are narrowed to 11 feet. Long-Term Improvement Concept: Create a cycle track/bike path on the south side. The 6 foot sidewalk/pedestrian space on the south would be retained adjacent to the property line and a cycle track or bike path would be created, requiring 10 to 12 feet on the curb side with a street tree, light, and utility zone between the two. The existing trees, lights, and utilities could potentially be left in place. There are 2 scenarios under which the additional space needed for the Cycle Track/Bike Path Alternative could be created: 1) Future Redevelopment: Create the required space on the north side in conjunction with future redevelopment of the shopping center and office parking areas on the north side. The path would be created on the south side, incorporating the existing 6 foot sidewalk. The existing roadway configuration would be shifted to the north. 2) Lane removal: Create the required space by removing one vehicular lane. Recognizing that this would have a significant impact on traffic in this very heavily-used corridor, this alternative would be a strong statement in support of bicycle and pedestrian access as major transportation alternatives. Other cities (San Francisco, Oakland) have made this tough choice and demonstrated that the increased bicycle access helps offset the reduced motor vehicle traffic capacity. Tree Impact (Long-Term Concept): The lane removal alternative could potentially be implemented without tree removal. The redevelopment alternative could potentially involve removal and replacement of all the trees on the north side – approximately 15 relatively small ornamental street trees – and 3 large pines in the median. Figure 5-22: Olympic Boulevard Station 115+50 (facing east) TWIC Packet Page Number 126 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 5-23 Figure 5-23: Segment 6.2- Olympic Boulevard, Alpine Road to S California Boulevard Inset A: Olympic Boulevard / S. California Boulevard Intersection Detail TWIC Packet Page Number 127 of 167
Final Report 5-24 | Alta Planning + Design 5.10 Segment 7: S. California Boulevard, Olympic Boulevard south to Newell Avenue Existing Conditions: This segment has narrow lanes and median. There is no curbside parking up to Botelho Drive; thereafter there is limited curbside parking. There is insufficient space to construct bike lanes. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Add sharrows with green backing. There is insufficient space to construct bike lanes. The existing lanes are narrow and the medians are approximately 4 feet wide. Even if the median was reduced to a barrier, there would not be enough space gained to create the 10 feet needed for bike lanes. In theory the curbs could be moved back on one or both sides and the sidewalk narrowed, but this would be more expensive and disruptive than the conceptual long-term solution. Long-Term Improvement Concept: Create a cycle track or bike path on the east side by utilizing a portion of the wide sidewalk space. Although there is 20 feet of space from the curb to the structures on the east side of California Boulevard in the portion from Olympic Boulevard to Botelho Drive, only approximately 10 feet from the face of curb is in the public ROW; only this portion should be used for bicycle space. Currently the curbside 4-5 feet is occupied by trees, plantings, street lights, and utilities such as signal controller boxes, conflicting with space for bicyclists. The conceptual solution is to move the tree, light, and equipment zone between the bike path and the pedestrian space. The conceptual solution for the bus shelter located in the bike space near Botelho Drive is to relocate the shelter to the south side of Botelho Drive where the path will be a shared use facility, rather than separate bike and pedestrian space. Warning signs and buffers would be needed at building exits (which occur only at the north and south corners) and the garage driveway crossing and pedestrian entrance. Improved crosswalks are recommended at the Olympic Boulevard/ S. California Boulevard intersection to connect to the proposed path on the southwest corner. The sidepath can be created south of Botelho Drive by eliminating two on-street parking spaces and extending the curb line out. A bicycle/pedestrian bridge (presumably prefab) would be needed at Las Trampas Creek, approximately 130 feet long; requiring the removal of at least one tree – a native live oak. Access to the bridge would require a small encroachment onto the adjacent private parcels and the bridge would require the permission of the Contra Costa County Water Agency. The sidepath could be continued south by widening the existing 10 foot wide sidewalk fronting Trader Joe’s to 16 feet by eliminating up to 4 curbside spaces on the west side of the street and shifting/retaining the 7 curbside spaces on the east side. This would require moving or replacing street trees, street furniture, and utilities. Tree Impact (Long-Term Concept): 7 medium-sized street trees would be removed and replaced in the reorganized sidewalk space between Olympic Boulevard and Botelho Drive. One medium sized native oak would be removed on the south side of the proposed bridge over Las Trampas Creek. Figure 5-24: California Boulevard Stations 2+00 and 9+00 (facing north) TWIC Packet Page Number 128 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 5-25 Figure 5-25: California Boulevard Station 11+00 (facing north) TWIC Packet Page Number 129 of 167
Final Report 5-26 | Alta Planning + Design Figure 5-26: Segment 7 – South California Boulevard, Olympic Boulevard to Newell Avenue TWIC Packet Page Number 130 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 5-27 5.11 Segment 8: Newell Avenue, S. California Boulevard to Broadway 5.11.1 Segment 8.1: Newell Avenue, S. California Boulevard to Main Street Existing Conditions: The sidewalk along the north side is 8 feet wide, but street lights, street trees with gates, power poles, and projecting planters reduce clear path to as little as 4 feet. The mixed residential and commercial project at 1500 Newell Avenue, currently under construction at the northwest corner of Newell Avenue and Main Street, will have a 10 foot wide sidewalk along Newell Avenue. Kaiser Hospital and its’ associated parking structure are located on the south side, where there is an 8 foot or wider sidewalk, a bus stop with pullout, and a landscaped frontage with large mature pines and an oak. Short-Term Improvement Concept: There is insufficient space to construct bike lanes. Sharrows are already in place (not shown). Even if the lanes were narrowed to 11 feet, and the median reduced to a barrier, there would not be enough space gained to create the 10 feet needed for bike lanes. Add sharrows with green backing. Long-Term Improvement Concept: Construct a sidepath or add a bike path or “cycle track” adjacent to the sidewalk on the north side. A sidepath with a shared bicycle/pedestrian space of a net 9 to 10 feet is not necessarily adequate to accommodate the significant use anticipated on this segment, which joins the Newell Avenue west segment and the California Boulevard segment. Consistent with the vision for the Connector, a concept for the more desirable separate facilities is presented: Sidepath Alternative: Six feet could be added to the existing 8 foot sidewalk on the north side by narrowing the lanes to 11 feet and relocating and narrowing the adjacent 4 foot median to 3 feet. The street trees, street lights, and utilities would need to be relocated to near the new curb to provide space for the shared use path. Cycle Track/Bike Path Alternative: The 8 foot sidewalk/pedestrian space on the north would be retained adjacent to the property line, and a cycle track or bike path would be created, requiring 10 to 12 feet on the curb side with a street tree, light, and utility zone between the two. The existing trees, lights, and utilities could potentially be left in place. This alternative would require some reconstruction of the new frontage of 1500 Newell Avenue, but only in the public ROW. There are 3 scenarios under which the additional space needed for the Cycle Track/Bike Path Alternative could be created: 1) Redevelopment Alternative: Wait for the properties on the north side to be redeveloped, affording the opportunity to provide more space and build the path (as is occurring to the east with Broadway Plaza). The Newell Promenade shopping center is an older facility and economics could warrant its’ reconstruction over a medium-term horizon, but Trader Joe’s is a high-performing use that is not likely to be redeveloped, and the Village at 1500 Newell Avenue is currently being reconstructed, and while additional sidewalk space is being provided, a Class I path facility was not envisioned. 2) Additional ROW Alternative: Acquire (presumably by willing-seller negotiation) approximately 5 feet of right-of-way along the frontage of the gas station and Kaiser Hospital, and shift the lanes to the south to provide room for the trail facility on the north. This would involve: a. relocating the canopy over the gas pumps b. demolishing and reconstructing part of the Kaiser landscape areas and planters; sidewalks and pedestrian plazas with associated lighting and amenities and a bus stop; c. removing a heritage-size pine tree 3) Lane Removal Alternative: Remove one of the vehicle lanes on Newell Avenue to provide space for the trail. This would have a significant impact on a major connector that already experiences level of service F. This alternative would be a strong statement in support of bicycle and pedestrian access as major transportation alternatives. Other cities (San Francisco, Oakland) have made this tough choice, and demonstrated that the increased bicycle access helps offset the reduced motor vehicle traffic capacity. There is a current City proposal to construct a mid-block crosswalk with a curb extension (see Figure 5-28) to accommodate Kaiser employees and visitors. Although this would be a desirable accommodation for bicyclist and pedestrian connectivity, it would also have to be reconstructed if the street shift and/or trail construction occurred. Tree Impact (Long-Term Concept): If the sidepath was created by lane narrowing, or the cycle track/bike path was created in conjunction with redevelopment of the properties to the north, 5 street trees (small and in poor condition) would need to be removed and replaced. If additional space was created by removing a lane, there would be no tree impact. If the space was created by acquiring frontage to the south, one heritage-sized Italian stone pine, three mature street trees, and one small street tree would need to be removed and replaced. Figure 5-27: Newell Avenue Station 2+50 (facing east) TWIC Packet Page Number 131 of 167
Final Report 5-28 | Alta Planning + Design Figure 5-28: Segment 8.1- Newell Ave, S California Blvd to Capwell St Inset A: S. California Blvd / Newell Ave Intersection Detail TWIC Packet Page Number 132 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 5-29 5.11.2 Segment 8.2: Newell Avenue, Main Street to Broadway and the IHT Existing Conditions: The existing lanes and median in this segment are already relatively narrow. There is a 6 foot wide raised median along the left turn pocket from WB Newell Avenue to SB Main Street. A maximum of approximately 3 feet could be gained by narrowing the median. There is not sufficient space to add bike lanes. Short-Term Improvement Concept: None. There is insufficient space to construct bike lanes and sharrows are already present. Even if the lanes were narrowed to 11 feet and the median reduced to a barrier, there would not be enough space to create the 10 feet needed for bike lanes. Long-Term Improvement Concept: Construct a sidepath or add a bike path or “cycle track” adjacent to the sidewalk on the north side. A sidepath with a shared bicycle/pedestrian space of a net 9 to 10 feet is not really adequate to accommodate the use anticipated on this segment. Consistent with the vision for the Connector, a concept for the more desirable separate facilities is presented: Sidepath Alternative: 4 feet could be added to the existing 10 foot sidewalk on the north side by narrowing travel lanes to 11 feet and relocating/narrowing the adjacent 6.5 foot median to 4.5 feet. The trees, street lights, and utilities would need to be relocated to near the new curb to provide space for the path. A bike/pedestrian bridge (presumably prefab) would be needed at San Ramon Creek, (about 130 feet long) requiring the removal of at least two trees. Bridge access would require a small encroachment onto adjacent private parcels and the bridge would require permission of the Contra Costa County Water Agency. Cycle Track/Bike Path Alternative: The 8 foot sidewalk on the would be retained adjacent to the property line, and a cycle track or bike path would be created, requiring 10 to 12 feet at curb side, with a tree, light, and utility zone between the two. The existing trees, lights, and utilities could potentially be left in place. This would require some reconstruction of the new frontage of 1500 Newell, but only in the public ROW. There are 3 scenarios under which the additional space needed could be created: 1) Redevelopment Alternative: The Broadway Plaza property is currently being redeveloped, and a Class I path is part of the proposal. If the Chase Bank Building at 1390 Main Street is also redeveloped opportunity may be presented to complete the cycle track/bike path connection. 2) Additional ROW Alternative: Acquire (presumably by negotiation) approximately 5 feet of right-of-way at the back of sidewalk along the frontage of the Chase Bank building to provide room for the trail facility on the north, utilizing the existing 10 foot wide sidewalk on the north side. 3) Lane Removal Alternative: Remove one of the vehicle lanes on Newell Avenue to provide space for the path. This would have an impact on a major connector that already experiences level of service F (the City is currently planning to add a lane in conjunction with the Broadway Plaza redevelopment project, as shown in the section for Sta. 16+50). This alternative would be a strong statement in support of bicycle and pedestrian access as major transportation alternatives. Other cities (San Francisco, Oakland) have made this tough choice and demonstrated that increased bicycle access helps offset the reduced motor vehicle capacity. The sidepath east of the creek anticipated to be constructed as part of the Broadway Plaza redevelopment project. If the sidewalk with cycle track/bike path alternative is pursued, the Broadway Plaza plans would need to be amended to reflect this as the improvements would extend approximately 7 additional feet into the property. Crosswalks and ramps on north and west sides of intersection would be improved to accommodate the pathway connections to the north and south IHT segments. Tree Impact (Long-Term Concept): Unless the path was created in conjunction with lane removal, 5 street trees (small and in poor condition) would need to be removed and replaced. Up to 7 mature ornamental trees near the back of the sidewalk might have to be removed and replaced. Figure 5-29: Newell Avenue Stations 9+50 and 16+50 (facing east) TWIC Packet Page Number 133 of 167
Final Report 5-30 | Alta Planning + Design Figure 5-30: Segment 8.2- Newell Avenue, Capwell Street to the Iron Horse Trail Inset A: Newell Ave / Broadway Intersection Detail TWIC Packet Page Number 134 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 5-31 5.12 Segment 9: Newell Ave West of I-680 West of I-680, Newell Avenue is a winding, two-lane roadway with a ROW width of 50 feet through a residential neighborhood. The pavement width is approximately 25 feet. Newell Avenue provides access to Parkmead Elementary School as well as three other schools. Relatively low vehicle volume and speed makes this portion of Newell Avenue more comfortable for bicyclists and pedestrians than other busier roads. Newell Avenue is a popular route with weekend bicyclists, many of whom are headed to the IHT or other routes south to Mt. Diablo, and it is recommended that this route is designated as an option for reaching the IHT. It would be the most low-stress, family-friendly option except that it leads to the eastern portion of Newell Avenue, which won’t be a low-stress route until the long term improvements are implemented. In the interim, Lilac Drive and the other existing connections to the south, described under Segment 10, are the best connections to the IHT. Improvements at the west and east ends of the segment are covered under Segments 4 and 8.1. Significant physical improvements to better accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists are not feasible or necessary in this setting. The existing narrow sidewalks are blocked in many locations by landscaping or resident-installed features and, though reportedly prohibited, parked cars often block the path. Coordination with individual property owners to correct these conditions is recommended. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Provide wayfinding signage and maps to clarify for bicyclists on Olympic Boulevard and Newell Avenue/downtown Walnut Creek that Newell Avenue west is a connecting route and that Lilac Drive, Lancaster Road and other routes to the south are optional connections to the IHT. Long-Term Improvement Concept: Provide wayfinding signage and maps to designate that Newell Avenue west is an option to the primary connector route, and that it merges back into the main route at California Boulevard. 5.13 Segment 10: Southern Connections to IHT Many bicyclists currently use Olympic Boulevard, Newell Avenue, Lilac Drive, Lancaster Road, Castle Hill Road, Danville Boulevard, and other roadways to connect south to the IHT and bicycling destinations in the Danville-San Ramon area, including Mt. Diablo. Parts of these southern connections may also have benefits for access to Las Lomas High School, Kaiser Hospital, high-density residential areas, and other destinations. These connections are not considered for physical improvements, but additional wayfinding would benefit users of the Olympic Boulevard/Newell Avenue route that want to connect to/from the south. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Provide wayfinding signage and maps to clarify that these routes are connections from Olympic Boulevard via Newell Avenue west to the IHT and other destinations to the south. Figure 5-31: Segment 9 – Newell Ave West of I-680 Figure 5-32: Segment 10 – Southern Connections to the Iron Horse Trail TWIC Packet Page Number 135 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 6-1 6. Implementation and Phasing This Study is a bold vision for a bicycle and pedestrian Connector that will provide the region with multiple benefits, including transportation alternatives, healthy recreation, and support for environmental sustainability goals. This chapter outlines an implementation approach including an overview of cost estimates, phasing recommendations, and next steps. 6.1 Cost Estimates This chapter presents planning-level cost estimates for the proposed short-term and long-term improvement segments. Summaries are presented in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2. The detailed estimates and unit cost assumptions are presented in Appendix B. Planning-level cost estimates require numerous assumptions about the details of construction and associated requirements. The estimate and assumptions reflect the experience of the consultant team based on similar projects. These cost estimates include all the remaining project implementation steps in addition to “hard” construction costs. This includes costs for surveying, design, technical studies and environmental documentation, as well as construction period engineering and administration. The estimates include cost “placeholders” for each of these stages of project implementation, represented as factors of the construction cost as outlined below. Cost estimates are summarized in this chapter in two categories: Construction Costs o “Hard” construction costs for capital improvements Right-of-way easement acquisition, for some segments where additional right-of-way is necessary for the trail alignment. Acquisition is assumed to be on a willing seller basis, and at a placeholder cost of $50.00 per square foot. Actual right-of-way costs would be subject to negotiation o Construction overhead (costs the contract typically includes over and above the individual work items – calculated as a percentage of the total project construction cost): Mobilization – 5% General conditions, bonds, and insurance – 2% Erosion control, including Best Management Practices (BMPs), Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and reporting – typically 5%, or 0 for short-term improvements that consist only of signing and striping Traffic control – 10% (most segments will involve significant traffic control) Contingency, Survey, Design, Environmental, and Admin Costs – calculated as a percentage of the total project construction cost o Contingency, to account for variations in the level of accuracy of the estimate – 20% o Survey, including boundary and topographic – 5% o Design, including plans, specifications, and estimates – 15% o Environmental – in this study, applies only to long term improvements as short-term improvements such as signing and striping are assumed to be categorically exempt from environmental regulations Analysis, documentation, and related permits – 10% Technical and environmental studies and mitigation, including for geotechnical or hazardous waste investigations – 2.5% o Administration, including construction period engineering and other management tasks – 15% Table 6-1: Short-Term Project Segments Costs Segment Jurisdiction Construction Contingency, Survey, Design, Environmental, and Admin Total Estimate 1 Olympic Blvd.: Reliez Station Rd. to Pleasant Hill Rd. Lafayette $1,083,489* $45,919 $1,130,0002.1 Olympic Blvd.: Pleasant Hill Rd. to Windtree Ct. Lafayette $41,240 $22,682 $64,0002.2 Olympic Blvd.: Windtree Ct. to Newell Ct. CC County/ Lafayette $75,759 $41,667 $118,0003 Olympic Blvd.: Newell Ct. to Boulevard Way/ Tice Valley Rd. CC County $143,236 $78,780 $223,0004 Olympic Blvd.: Boulevard Way/ Tice Valley Rd. to Newell Ave. CC County $415,814 $228,698 $645,0005 Olympic Blvd.: Newell Ave. to I-680 CC County $103,563 $56,960 $161,0006.1 Olympic Blvd.: I-680 to Alpine Rd. Walnut Creek $92,672 $50,970 $144,0006.2 Olympic Blvd.: Alpine Rd. to S. California Blvd. Walnut Creek $33,521 $18,437 $52,0007 S. California Blvd.: Olympic Blvd. to Newell Ave. Walnut Creek $7,675 &4,221 $12,0008.1 Newell Ave.: S. California Blvd. to S. Main St. Walnut Creek $1,053 $579 $20008.2 Newell Ave.: S. Main St. to Broadway Ave./Iron Horse Trail Walnut Creek $6,458 $3,552 $11,0009 Newell Ave.: west of I-680 CC County $9,407 $5,174 $15,00010 Southern connections to the Iron Horse Trail CC County/ Walnut Creek $9,407 $5,174 $15,000*Includes $1,000,000 estimated for planned improvements at the intersections of Olympic Boulevard with Reliez Station Road and with Pleasant Hill Road. These improvements were identified and cost estimates developed concurrent with but outside the scope of this trail connector alignment study. Table 6-2: Long-Term Project Segments Costs Segment Jurisdiction Construction Contingency, Survey, Design, Environmental, and Admin Total Estimate 1 Olympic Blvd.: Reliez Station Rd. to Pleasant Hill Rd. Lafayette -- -- --2.1 Olympic Blvd.: Pleasant Hill Rd. to Windtree Ct. Lafayette $745,880 $503,469 $1,250,0002.2 Olympic Blvd.: Windtree Ct. to Newell Ct. CC County/ Lafayette $292,098 $197,166 $490,0003 Olympic Blvd.: Newell Ct. to Boulevard Way/ Tice Valley Rd. CC County $366,302 $247,254 $614,0004 Olympic Blvd.: Boulevard Way/ Tice Valley Rd. to Newell Ave. CC County $376,859 $254,380 $632,0005 Olympic Blvd.: Newell Ave. to I-680 CC County $991,215 $669,070 $1,661,0006.1 Olympic Blvd.: I-680 to Alpine Rd. Walnut Creek $758,157 $511,756 $1,270,0006.2 Olympic Blvd.: Alpine Rd. to S. California Blvd. Walnut Creek $274,498 $185,286 $460,0007 S. California Blvd.: Olympic Blvd. to Newell Ave. Walnut Creek $740,744 $500,003 $1,241,0008.1 Newell Ave.: S. California Blvd. to S. Main St. Walnut Creek $302,243 $204,014 $507,0008.2 Newell Ave.: S. Main St. to Broadway Ave./Iron Horse Trail Walnut Creek $560,039 $378,027 $939,0009 Newell Ave.: west of I-680 CC County -- -- --10 Southern connections to the Iron Horse Trail CC County/ Walnut Creek -- -- --TWIC Packet Page Number 136 of 167
Final Plan 6-2 | Alta Planning + Design 6.2 Trail Project Priorities and Phasing Recommendations The following tables summarize the short-term and long-term projects recommended in the Study, organized by jurisdiction, reflecting logical grouping of adjacent segments with similar construction types. Projects could be undertaken as smaller efforts or combined into larger inter-jurisdictional efforts. This multi-jurisdictional regional project approach is consistent with the objectives of the Active Transportation Program grant funding administered by Caltrans, and will enhance the chances to obtain competitive grant awards for implementation. Projects may also be eligible for regional Measure J funding. Actual project phasing is likely to be opportunity-driven, based on funding availability, ability to forge agreements and partnerships, and/or opportunities to incorporate improvements into development proposals. It is always advantageous to implement “low hanging fruit” portions of the trail that can be completed with minimal funding and maximum community involvement to demonstrate progress and maintain interest on the overall effort. Short- and long-term improvement maps of the entire trail connector are shown in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2. Table 6-3: Short-Term Projects and Phases Segment JurisdictionImprovement Notes, CommentsLengthCostLafayette Projects/Phases 1 Olympic Blvd.: Reliez Station Rd. to Pleasant Hill Rd. Lafayette Convert existing bike lanes to buffered bike lanes by narrowing vehicle lanes; extend existing path on S. side; signing and marking improvements at crossing of Reliez Station Rd.; wayfinding improvements at Pleasant Hill Rd. 1323 ft (0.25 mi) $1,130,000 2.1 Olympic Blvd.: Pleasant Hill Rd. to Windtree Ct. Lafayette Create buffered bike lanes as above Lafayette jurisdiction only on north side except at west end – coordinate w/ CC Co 1005 ft (0.19 mi) $64,000 Contra Costa County Projects/Phases 2.2 Olympic Blvd.: Windtree Ct. to Newell Ct. CC County/ Lafayette Create buffered bike lanes – north western portion Lafayette jurisdiction on north side for short distance - coordinate 1137 ft (0.21 mi) $118,000 3 Olympic Blvd.: Newell Ct. to Boulevard Way/ Tice Valley Rd. CC County Create buffered bike lanes; connect existing Class I path on S. side to Tice intersection; provide bike pockets and crossing improvements at intersection 2288 ft (0.43 mi) $223,000 4 Olympic Blvd.: Boulevard Wy./ Tice Valley Rd. to Newell Ave. CC County Create continuous bike lanes; improve existing sidepath (widen narrow portions); improve crosswalks to Newell Ave.; improve right turn for bikes from EB Olympic Blvd. to SB Newell Ave. 2250 ft (0.42 mi) $645,000 5 Olympic: Newell Ave. to I-680 CC County Create bike lanes in constrained portions at turn pockets; buffered bike lanes on other portions 1874 ft (0.35 mi) $161,000 Walnut Creek Projects/Phases 6.1 Olympic Blvd.: I-680 to Alpine Road Walnut Creek Create bike lanes on S. side; bike pockets on N side Existing bike lane for last 250’ on NB side 1131 ft (0.21 mi) $144,000 6.2 Olympic Blvd.: Alpine Rd. to S. California Blvd. Walnut Creek Convert existing bike lanes to buffered bike lanes by narrowing vehicle lanes No existing bike lane for last 385’ on NB side 847 ft (0.16 mi) $52,000 7 S. California Blvd.: Olympic Blvd. to Newell Ave. Walnut Creek Add “sharrows” with green backing to designate lanes as shared with bikes 1228 ft (0.23 mi) $12,000 8.1 Newell Ave: S. California Blvd. to S. Main Walnut Creek Add green backing to existing “sharrows” designating lanes as shared with bikes; create bike lanes from S. California Blvd. west on Newel Ave. to I-680 undercrossing 725 ft (0.14 mi) $2000 8.2 Newell Ave: S. Main St. to Broadway and IHT Walnut Creek Add green backing to existing “sharrows” designating lanes as shared with bikes Work with the Broadway Plaza redevelopment project sponsors to implement design concept recommended in Study 868 ft (0.16 mi) $11,000 Joint Projects/Phases 9 Newell Ave. west of I-680 CC County, Walnut Creek Provide wayfinding signage for Olympic Connector LMT to IHT $15,000 10 Southern connections via Lilac, S. Main, Lancaster, Creekside (tributary routes) Walnut Creek Provide wayfinding signage to aid in connections to/from Olympic/Newell Connector $15,000 TWIC Packet Page Number 137 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 6-3 Table 6-4: Long-Term Projects and Phases Segment Jurisdiction Improvement Notes, Comments LengthCostLafayette Projects/Phases 2.1 Olympic Blvd.: Pleasant Hill Rd. to Windtree Ct. Lafayette/ CC County Widen existing path on north side to create 10 foot sidepath (requires retaining wall tapering up to 10 feet tall, and median narrowing with tree replacement) Lafayette jurisdiction only on north side except at west end – coordinate w/ CC Co 1005 ft (0.19 mi)$1,250,000Contra Costa County Projects/Phases 2.2 Olympic Blvd.: Windtree Ct. to Newell Ct. CC County/ Lafayette Widen existing path on north side to create 14 foot sidepath (requires narrowing median and lane shift to S. at east end; redesign of Newell Ct. intersection and connections Lafayette jurisdiction on north side for short distance - coordinate 1137 ft (0.21 mi)$490,0003 Olympic Blvd.: Newell Ct. to Boulevard Way/ Tice Valley Rd. CC County Extend continuous path or sidewalks along N. side (requires approx. 4 foot lane shift to the south) 2288 ft (0.43 mi)$614,0004 Olympic Blvd.: Boulevard Wy./ Tice Valley Rd. to Newell Ave. CC County Continue the sidepath approximately 100 feet to connect to Newell Avenue (may be included w/ Segment5) 2250 ft (0.42 mi)$632,0005 Olympic: Newell Ave. to I-680 CC County Expand the existing sidewalks fronting the Villa townhome complex to create a 10 to 12 foot wide sidepath by narrowing lanes and wide portions of medians, eliminating up to 8 curbside parking spaces out of 30. At one location it may be necessary to shift the south side curb 2 feet south to create needed space, involving tree removal. 1874 ft (0.35 mi)$1,661,000Walnut Creek Projects/Phases 6.1 Olympic Blvd.: I-680 to Alpine Road Walnut Creek Create a sidepath along the south side of Olympic from Paulson Lane to Alpine Road by constructing retaining walls. Provide enhanced crossing improvements. City of Walnut Creek has submitted a grant application for improvements at I-680 undercrossing 1131 ft (0.21 mi)$1,270,0006.2 Olympic Blvd.: Alpine Rd. to S. California Blvd. Walnut Creek Add a bike path north of the existing sidewalk on the south side. Create space either by removing a vehicle lane or shifting the roadway 10 to 12 feet north in conjunction with future redevelopment of the properties on the north side 847 ft (0.16 mi)$460,0007 S. California Blvd.: Olympic Blvd. to Newell Ave. Walnut Creek On first block convert existing wide sidewalk/plaza on E. side to separate bike path on curb side and sidewalk on inside with street tree, light, and utility space in between. On second block create sidepath by eliminating 2 parking spaces S. of Botelho and 3 to 4 parking spaces on W. side S. of creek and shifting lane W.s, extending curb, and installing bicycle/pedestrian bridge over creek 1228 ft (0.23 mi)$1,270,0008.1 Newell Ave: S. California Blvd. to S. Main Walnut Creek Create sidepath on N. side by narrowing lanes and extending north side curb; OR add a bike path to south of existing sidewalk (create space either by removing a vehicle lane OR narrowing lanes and acquiring 5 – 6 feet of ROW on the south side and shifting roadway south); OR create an all-new sidewalk and bike path in conjunction with future redevelopment of the properties on the north side Cost depends on design option and space-creation scenario 725 ft (0.14 mi)$460,000Segment JurisdictionImprovementNotes, CommentsLengthCost8.2 Newell Ave: S. Main St. to Broadway and IHT Walnut Creek Add a bike path to south of existing sidewalk (create space either by removing a vehicle lane) OR create an all-new sidewalk and bike path by narrowing lanes and acquiring 5 – 6 feet of ROW beyond the existing sidewalk on north side; OR create an all-new sidewalk and bike path in conjunction with future redevelopment of the properties on the north. Install a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over creek to connect to sidepath or sidewalk plus bike path at redeveloped Broadway Plaza Broadway Plaza redevelopment plan includes plan for shared use path along Newell Ave. 868 ft (0.16 mi)$1,241,000Joint Projects/Phases 1 - 10 Varies Lafayette, CC County, Walnut Creek Update wayfinding signage to reflect new/improved Olympic Connector LMT to IHT N.A. Varies TWIC Packet Page Number 138 of 167
Final Plan 6-4 | Alta Planning + Design Figure 6-1: Short-Term Improvement Concepts TWIC Packet Page Number 139 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 6-5 Figure 6-2: Long-Term Improvement Concepts TWIC Packet Page Number 140 of 167
Final Plan 6-6 | Alta Planning + Design 6.3 Next Steps This section reviews the steps and documentation anticipated for project planning, design, approval, and implementation, anticipating the particular challenges unique to each project type and location. It describes the typical implementation steps that may be required to take the project from the current concepts through construction. It also describes the permits and approvals that may be required for project implementation. The Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study accomplished three major milestones: 1) the collection of base data and analysis of opportunities and constraints in the form of maps and descriptions that can be used for more detailed planning and design: 2) the identification of specific community-supported design concepts, and associated cost estimates, consistent with pertinent agencies’ policies and standards; and 3) the establishment of public and stakeholder priorities and strategies for implementing the design concepts. This planning-level study is of the foundation for further planning and design of the design concepts. Specific and generic next steps toward project implementation are outlined below: Coordination between Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County, Caltrans and other relevant public agencies and stakeholders to refine the design concepts, and to update and applicable plans to incorporate the conceptual improvements; Coordination between Lafayette, Walnut Creek, and Contra Costa County to pursue funding for implementing the design concepts; For preparation of grants and coordination with other projects, utilize the plan maps, improvement cross sections, and initial planning-level cost estimates to advance study of the design concepts; Continue public and stakeholder engagement on the development of the design concepts and incorporate study concepts throughout the project development process. 6.3.1 Typical Project Implementation Steps Once funding is secured for design a project or phase of combined projects can move through the more detailed stages of design, environmental review, agreements and approvals, and into construction. A general description of elements and steps is provided below. Site Survey - Base Maps and Information Detailed CAD base maps with ROW/property lines, topography (contour lines and/or spot elevations) and features such as roads, trees, buildings and fences must be prepared by a land surveyor or civil engineer covering the improvements and adjacent areas. The pertinent codes, policies, adjacent plans, utilities, and other background information must be analyzed to prepare specific design parameters for the project. Project Agreements - Right-of-Way Acquisition/Permission If acquisition or permission for use of property for the improvements is required, this will need to be secured, at least tentatively, before significant study or design work can begin, and typically must be finalized before preliminary design (when the feasible/desired alignment is defined) or at least before preparation of construction documents. Preliminary Design More detailed plans would be developed, with disciplines participating depending on the scope of improvements. These plans would have relatively accurate locations, dimensions, materials and features, to allow a correspondingly detailed preliminary cost estimate, but they would not have all the information required for bidding and constructing the project. The preliminary plans would be the basis for environmental documents and public and agency review of the project. Environmental Studies and Documentation State and federal law and nearly all grant programs require environmental studies and findings to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If federal funds or interests are involved the document may also need to address the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which has slightly different processes and document requirements. The environmental document must review and address a broad range of potential issues. Often the most complex issues to address are special status (rare, threatened, or endangered) plant and animal species that are protected under law. Technical Studies Technical studies are often required for design and/or to support environmental documentation. This often includes site-specific studies of biological and cultural resources, bluff retreat, hydrology, traffic, soil borings and geotechnical studies for design or foundations for bridges or other factors critical to design and/or project approval. These may be completed before, during or after Preliminary Design, depending on the purpose and type of study. Permits Project sponsors may need to obtain several types of permits and agreements. Potentially required permits are described in detail below. Preparing applications and completing the permitting process in areas with sensitive resources and many legal conditions and constraints can be time-consuming and expensive in settings such as along or across streams and wetlands. Construction Documents The preliminary plan drawings and descriptions will need to be translated into detailed construction plans, specifications, and estimate that can be used to obtain permits that require such detail, and for bidding by contractors. Bidding and Contracting Contract bid documents for the project must be prepared, and the project must be advertised for public bid. The bids must be analyzed, and the sponsoring agency must award a construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder. Construction In addition to the work of the contractor, construction of a public project entails responsible agency and/or consultant staff to oversee the contractor and administer the project, including any grant-imposed procedures or paperwork. 6.3.2 Environmental Permitting and Approvals Where projects involve work in or near a creek, river, or other jurisdictional wetland area, special environmental permit will be required. This section summarizes the major types of permits that may be required and the basic process for each. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Permit A Section 404 Permit application to the USACE for placement of fill, including consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, may be required to satisfy the requirements of Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). A Jurisdictional Delineation Report, or wetland delineation is part of the technical studies required in any location where there is potential for wetlands to occur. This maps and obtains USACE concurrence on jurisdictional “Waters of the U.S.,” including wetlands (if present), and/or “Waters of the State”. Section 401 Water Quality Certification - Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) The project will be required to prepare a RWQCB CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) notification/application to the local RWQCB, which may include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The issuance of the WQC is necessary prior to the issuance of an USACE CWA Section 404(b) (1) permit. Streambed Alteration Agreement – California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) A Section 1602 Notification/Application for a Streambed Alteration Agreement will need to be submitted to CDFG for any work that may impact a stream or related riparian habitat. Encroachment Permit - Caltrans Where the project involves work or permanent improvements within the state ROW that would be built or maintained by others, an encroachment permit from Caltrans will be required. This typically requires a maintenance agreement with either a public agency or a non-profit organization to ensure that the facilities in the state ROW will be adequately maintained. TWIC Packet Page Number 141 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 6-7 6.4 Funding Sources This chapter describes various sources of funding available to plan and construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The trail connector described in this feasibility study can be funded through multiple sources, and not all sources apply to all segments. The following sections cover federal, state, regional, and local sources of funding, as well as some non-traditional funding sources that have been used by local agencies to fund bicycle projects. 6.4.1 Federal Sources Moving Ahead for Progress in the Twenty-First Century (MAP-21) The largest source of federal funding for bicyclists was the US DOT’s Federal-Aid Highway Program, which Congress reauthorized roughly every six years since the passage of the Federal-Aid Road Act of 1916. The latest act, Moving Ahead for Progress in the Twenty-First Century (MAP-21) was enacted in July 2012 for a 2-year period as Public Law 112-141. The Act replaced the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which was valid from August 2005 - June 2012. SAFETEA-LU contained dedicated programs including Transportation Enhancements, Safe Routes to School, and Recreational Trails, which were all commonly tapped sources of funding to make non-motorized improvements nationwide. MAP-21 combined these programs into a single source called ‘Transportation Alternatives’ programs (TAP). More information on TAP, including eligible activities, can be found below and at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidetap.cfm In California (see Section 0 Active Transportation Program), federal monies are administered through the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Most, but not all, of these programs are oriented toward transportation versus recreation, with an emphasis on reducing auto trips and providing inter-modal connections. Federal funding is intended for capital improvements and safety and education programs, and projects must relate to the surface transportation system. Regional MPO money from MAP-21 is utilized in the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Program grants (see Section 8.3.1 One Bay Area Grant Program). There are a number of programs identified within MAP-21 applicable to bicycle and pedestrian projects. These programs are discussed below. More information: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/summaryinfo.cfm Transportation Alternatives Transportation Alternatives (TA) is a new funding source under MAP-21 that consolidates three formerly separate programs under SAFETEA-LU: Transportation Enhancements (TE), Safe Routes to School (SR2S), and the Recreational Trails Program (RTP). These funds may be used for a variety of pedestrian, bicycle, and streetscape projects including sidewalks, bikeways, multi-use paths, and rail-trails. TA funds may also be used for selected education and encouragement programming such as Safe Routes to School, despite the fact that TA does not provide a guaranteed set-aside for this activity as SAFETEA-LU did. MAP-21 provides $85 million nationally for the RTP. Complete eligibilities for TA include: 1. Transportation Alternatives as defined by Section 1103 (a)(29). This category includes the construction, planning, and design of a range of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure including “on–road and off–road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other active forms of transportation, including sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle signals, traffic calming techniques, lighting and other safety–related infrastructure, and transportation projects to achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.” Infrastructure projects and systems that provide “Safe Routes for Non-Drivers” is a new eligible activity. For the complete list of eligible activities, visit: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/transportation_enhancements/legislation/map21.cfm 2. Recreational Trails. TA funds may be used to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both active and motorized recreational trail uses. Examples of trail uses include hiking, bicycling, in-line skating, equestrian use, and other active and motorized uses. These funds are available for both paved and unpaved trails, but may not be used to improve roads for general passenger vehicle use or to provide shoulders or sidewalks along roads. Recreational Trails Program funds may be used for: Maintenance and restoration of existing trails Purchase and lease of trail construction and maintenance equipment Construction of new trails, including unpaved trails Acquisition or easements of property for trails State administrative costs related to this program (limited to seven percent of a state’s funds) Operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection related to trails (limited to five percent of a state’s funds) Under MAP-21, dedicated funding for the RTP continues at FY 2009 levels – roughly $85 million annually. California will receive $5,756,189 in RTP funds per year through FY2014. More information: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/ funding/apportionments_obligations/recfunds_2009.cfm 3. Safe Routes to School In 2013, Governor Brown signed legislation creating the Active Transportation Program (ATP). This program consolidated the Federal and California Safe Routes to School programs, which are intended to achieve the same basic goal of increasing the number of children walking and bicycling to school by making it safer for them to do so. All projects must be within two miles of primary or middle schools (K-8). The Safe Routes to School Program funds non-motorized facilities in conjunction with improving access to schools through the Caltrans Safe Routes to School Coordinator. More information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/ Eligible projects may include: Engineering improvements. These physical improvements are designed to reduce potential bicycle and pedestrian conflicts with motor vehicles. Physical improvements may also reduce motor vehicle traffic volumes around schools, establish safer and more accessible crossings, or construct walkways, trails or bikeways. Eligible improvements include sidewalk improvements, traffic calming/speed reduction, pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements, on-street bicycle facilities, off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and secure bicycle parking facilities. Education and Encouragement Efforts. These programs are designed to teach children safe bicycling and walking skills while educating them about the health benefits, and environmental impacts. Projects and programs may include creation, distribution and implementation of educational materials; safety based field trips; interactive bicycle/pedestrian safety video games; and promotional events and activities (e.g., assemblies, bicycle rodeos, walking school buses). Enforcement Efforts. These programs aim to ensure that traffic laws near schools are obeyed. Law enforcement activities apply to cyclists, pedestrians and motor vehicles alike. Projects may include development of a crossing guard program, enforcement equipment, photo enforcement, and pedestrian sting operations. 4. Planning, designing, or constructing roadways within the right-of-way of former Interstate routes or divided highways. At the time of writing, detailed guidance from the Federal Highway Administration on this new eligible activity was not available. Average annual funds available through TA over the life of MAP-21 equal $814 million nationally, which is based on a 2% set-aside of total MAP-21 authorizations. Projected MAP-21 apportionments for California total $3,546,492,430 for FY 2013 and $3,576,886,247 for FY 2014 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/MAP21/funding.cfm). The 2% set-aside for TA funds in California will be about $71,000,000 for the next two fiscal cycles. State DOTs may elect to transfer up to 50% of TA funds to other highway programs, so the amount listed above represents the maximum potential funding. TA funds are typically allocated through MPOs and may require a 20 percent local match. Surface Transportation Program The Surface Transportation Program (STP) in the San Francisco Bay Area is rolled into OBAG grants (see Section 8.3.1). A wide variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements are eligible, including on-street bicycle facilities, off-street trails, sidewalks, crosswalks, bicycle and pedestrian signals, parking, and other ancillary facilities. Modification of sidewalks to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is also an eligible activity. Unlike most highway projects, STP-funded bicycle and pedestrian facilities may be located on local and collector roads which are not part of the Federal-aid Highway System. Fifty percent of each state’s STP funds are suballocated geographically by population. These funds are funneled through Caltrans to the MPOs in the state. The remaining 50 percent may be spent in any area of the state. TWIC Packet Page Number 142 of 167
Final Plan 6-8 | Alta Planning + Design Highway Safety Improvement Program MAP-21 doubles the amount of funding available through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) relative to SAFETEA-LU. HSIP provides $2.4 billion nationally for projects and programs that help communities achieve significant reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, bikeways, and walkways. MAP-21 preserves the Railway-Highway Crossings Program within HSIP but discontinues the High-Risk Rural roads set-aside unless safety statistics demonstrate that fatalities are increasing on these roads HSIP is a data-driven funding program and eligible projects must be identified through analysis of crash experience, crash potential, crash rate, or other similar metrics. Infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects are eligible for HSIP funds. Bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements, enforcement activities, traffic calming projects, and crossing treatments for active transportation users in school zones are examples of eligible projects. All HSIP projects must be consistent with the state’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan. As of the writing of this Study (December 2014), the state is updating the Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Last updated in 2006, the California SHSP is located here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/survey/SHSP/SHSP_Final_Draft_Print_Version.pdf Pilot Transit-Oriented Development Planning MAP-21 establishes a new pilot program to promote planning for Transit-Oriented Development. At the time of writing the details of this program are not fully clear, although the bill text states that the Secretary of Transportation may make grants available for the planning of projects that seek to “facilitate multimodal connectivity and accessibility,” and “increase access to transit hubs for pedestrian and bicycle traffic.” Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) provides funding for projects and programs in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter which reduce transportation related emissions. These federal dollars can be used to build bicycle and pedestrian facilities that reduce travel by automobile. Purely recreational facilities are not eligible. To be funded under this program, projects and programs must come from a transportation plan (or State (STIP) or Regional (RTIP) Transportation Improvement Program) that conforms to the SIP and must be consistent with the conformity provisions of Section 176 of the Clean Air Act. CMAQ funding in the San Francisco Bay Area is included in the OBAG Program (see Section 8.3.1). Examples of eligible projects include enhancements to existing transit services, rideshare and vanpool programs, projects that encourage bicycle and pedestrian transportation options, traffic light synchronization projects that improve air quality, grade separation projects, and construction of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Partnership for Sustainable Communities Founded in 2009, the Partnership for Sustainable Communities is a joint project of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). The partnership aims to “improve access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment in communities nationwide.” The Partnership is based on five Livability Principles, one of which explicitly addresses the need for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (“Provide more transportation choices: Develop safe, reliable, and economical transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote public health”). The Partnership is not a formal agency with a regular annual grant program. Nevertheless, it is an important effort that has already led to some new grant opportunities (including the TIGER grants). The City of Vallejo should track Partnership communications and be prepared to respond proactively to announcements of new grant programs. More information: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/partnership/ Federal Transit Act Section 25 of the 1964 Urban Mass Transportation Act states that: “For the purposes of this Act a project to provide access for bicycles to mass transportation facilities, to provide shelters and parking facilities for bicycles in and around mass transportation facilities, or to install racks or other equipment for transporting bicycles on mass transportation vehicles shall be deemed to be a construction project eligible for assistance under sections 3, 9 and 18 of this Act.” The Federal share for such projects is 90 percent and the remaining 10 percent must come from sources other than Federal funds or fare box revenues. Typical funded projects have included bike lockers at transit stations and bike parking near major bus stops. To date, no projects to provide bikeways for quicker, safer or easier access to transit stations have been requested or funded. TIGER Grants The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, or TIGER, Discretionary Grant program of the U.S. Department of Transportation provides a unique opportunity for the DOT to invest in road, rail, transit and port projects that promise to achieve critical national objectives. Since 2009, Congress has dedicated more than $4.1 billion for six rounds of grants to fund projects that have a significant impact on the Nation, a region or a metropolitan area. A variety of project types have been awarded, including over $153 million for 12 bicycle and pedestrian projects, including a grant for implementation of a portion of the Napa Valley Vine Trail. More information: http://www.dot.gov/tiger Community Transformation Grants Community Transformation Grants administered through the Center for Disease Control support community–level efforts to reduce chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes. Active transportation infrastructure and programs that promote healthy lifestyles are a good fit for this program, particularly if the benefits of such improvements accrue to population groups experiencing the greatest burden of chronic disease. More information: http://www.cdc.gov/communitytransformation/ TWIC Packet Page Number 143 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 6-9 6.4.2 State Sources Active Transportation Program In 2013, Governor Brown signed legislation creating the Active Transportation Program (ATP). This program is a consolidation of the Federal Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), California’s Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and Federal and California Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs. The ATP program is administered by Caltrans Division of Local Assistance, Office of Active Transportation and Special Programs. The ATP program goals include: Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking, Increase safety and mobility for nonmotorized users, Advance the active transportation efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals, Enhance public health, Ensure that disadvantaged communities fully share in the benefits of the program, and Provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active transportation users. Eligible bicycle, pedestrian and Safe Routes to School projects include: Infrastructure Projects: Capital improvements that will further program goals. This category typically includes planning, design, and construction. Non-Infrastructure Projects: Education, encouragement, enforcement, and planning activities that further program goals. The focus of this category is on pilot and start-up projects that can demonstrate funding for ongoing efforts. Infrastructure projects with non-infrastructure components The minimum request for non-SRTS projects is $250,000. There is no minimum for SRTS projects. The local match requirement for non-SRTS projects is 11.47%. There is no local match requirement for projects benefiting a disadvantage community, stand along non-infrastructure projects and SRTS projects. More info: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/ State Highway Account Section 157.4 of the Streets and Highways Code requires Caltrans to set aside $360,000 for the construction of non-motorized facilities that will be used in conjunction with the State highway system. The Office of Bicycle Facilities also administers the State Highway Account fund. Funding is divided into different project categories. Minor B projects (less than $42,000) are funded by a lump sum allocation by the CTC and are used at the discretion of each Caltrans District office. Minor A projects (estimated to cost between $42,000 and $300,000) must be approved by the CTC. Major projects (more than $300,000) must be included in the State Transportation Improvement Program and approved by the CTC. Funded projects have included fencing and bicycle warning signs related to rail corridors. Climate Ready Grant Program - California State Coastal Conservancy Climate Ready grants are intended to encourage local governments and non-governmental organizations to advance planning and implementation of on-the-ground actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lessen the impacts of climate change on California’s coastal communities. The grant program makes eligible “development of multi-use trails with clearly identified GHG reduction goals; (and) protecting and managing open space lands with clearly identified GHG reduction goals.” A total of $1,500,000 is available on a competitive basis, with a minimum award of $50,000 and a maximum of $200,000. The size of awarded grants will be based on each project’s needs, its overall benefits, and the extent of competing demands for funds. More info: http://scc.ca.gov/2013/04/24/grant-opportunities/ Office of Traffic Safety Grants Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants are supported by Federal funding under the National Highway Safety Act. In California, the grants are administered by the Office of Traffic Safety. Grants are used to establish new traffic safety programs, expand ongoing programs or address deficiencies in current programs. Bicycle safety is included in the list of traffic safety priority areas. Eligible grantees are governmental agencies, state colleges, state universities, local city and county government agencies, school districts, fire departments, and public emergency services providers. Grant funding cannot replace existing program expenditures, nor can traffic safety funds be used for program maintenance, research, rehabilitation, or construction. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis, and priority is given to agencies with the greatest need. Evaluation criteria to assess need include potential traffic safety impact, collision statistics and rankings, seriousness of problems, and performance on previous OTS grants. The California application deadline is January of each year. There is no maximum cap to the amount requested, but all items in the proposal must be justified to meet the objectives of the proposal. More info: http://www.ots.ca.gov/ TWIC Packet Page Number 144 of 167
Final Plan 6-10 | Alta Planning + Design 6.4.3 Regional & Local Sources Measure J Contra Costa County voters approved Measure J in 2004, continuing a countywide half-cent sales tax through 2034. The measure is anticipated to provide approximately $2.5 billion for countywide and local transportation projects. Projects included in the Expenditure Plan include a wide range of transportation improvements, including carpool lane gap closures, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) track expansions, as well as bicycle, pedestrian, and trail facilities. One and a half percent of revenues from Measure J are set aside for construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. More information: www.ccta.net/_resources/detail/2/1/ One Bay Area Grant Program The One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG), managed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), establishes program commitments and policies for investing roughly $800 million over the four-year period that includes fiscal years 2012/13 – 2015/16. The OBAG program is a new funding approach that integrates the region’s federal transportation program with California’s climate law (Senate Bill 375, Steinberg, 2008) and the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Funding distribution to the counties will consider progress toward achieving local land-use and housing policies based on specifically designated allocation areas and design policies (Complete Streets). The OBAG program allows flexibility to invest in transportation categories such as Transportation for Livable Communities, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, local streets and roads preservation, and planning activities, while also providing specific funding opportunities for Safe Routes to School (SR2S) and Priority Conservation Areas. While the previous round of OBAG grants funded projects through FY 2015-16, there is the opportunity for MTC to issue a new call for OBAG applications after the 2015-16 financial year. More information: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/onebayarea/ Transportation Fund for Clean Air In Solano County, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District administers the Bay Area Regional Transportation Fund for Clean Air program (TFCA). Funds are provided by a $4 surcharge on motor vehicles registered in the Bay Area, which generates approximately $22 million per year for the program. Projects can be submitted through two channels: the Regional Fund, which administers approximately 60 percent of the TFCA revenue, and the County Program Manager Fund, which administers the remaining 40 percent. Eligible projects include bicycle facility improvements such as bikeways and bicycle parking. More information: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Strategic-Incentives/Funding-Sources/TFCA.aspx Restoration Cable TV and telephone companies sometimes need new cable routes within public rights of way. Recently, this has commonly occurred during expansion of fiber optic networks. Since these projects require a significant amount of advance planning and disruption of curb lanes, it may be possible to request reimbursement for affected bicycle facilities to mitigate construction impacts. In cases where cable routes cross undeveloped areas, it may be possible to provide new bikeway facilities following the cable trenching, such as shared use of maintenance roads. Developer Impact Fees As a condition for development approval, municipalities can require developers to provide certain infrastructure improvements, which can include bikeway projects. These projects have commonly provided Class 2 facilities for portions of on street, previously planned routes. They can also be used to provide bicycle parking or shower and locker facilities. The type of facility that should be required to be built by developers should reflect the greatest need for the particular project and its local area. Legal challenges to these types of fees have resulted in the requirement to illustrate a clear nexus between the particular project and the mandated improvement and cost. New Construction Future road widening and construction projects are one means of providing on street bicycle facilities. To ensure that roadway construction projects provide bike lanes where needed, it is important that the review process includes input pertaining to consistency with the proposed system. In addition, California’s 2008 Complete Streets Act and Caltrans’s Deputy Directive 64 require that the needs of all roadway users be considered during “all phases of state highway projects, from planning to construction to maintenance and repair.” More information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/complete_streets.html 6.4.4 Private Sources Private funding sources can be acquired by applying through the advocacy groups such as the League of American Bicyclists and the Bikes Belong Coalition. Most of the private funding comes from foundations wanting to enhance and improve bicycle facilities and advocacy. Grant applications will typically be through the advocacy groups as they leverage funding from federal, state and private sources. Below are several examples of private funding opportunities available. Bikes Belong Grant Program The Bikes Belong Coalition of bicycle suppliers and retailers has awarded $1.2 million and leveraged an additional $470 million since its inception in 1999. The program funds corridor improvements, mountain bike trails, BMX parks, trails, and park access. It is funded by the Bikes Belong Employee Pro Purchase Program. More information: http://www.bikesbelong.org/grants/ Bank of America Charitable Foundation, Inc. The Bank of America Charitable Foundation is one of the largest in the nation. The primary grants program is called Neighborhood Excellence, which seeks to identify critical issues in local communities. Another program that applies to greenways is the Community Development Programs, and specifically the Program Related Investments. This program targets low and moderate income communities and serves to encourage entrepreneurial business development. More information: http://www.bankofamerica.com/foundation Robert Wood Johnson Foundation The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation was established as a national philanthropy in 1972 and today it is the largest U.S. foundation devoted to improving the health and health care of all Americans. Grant making is concentrated in four areas: To assure that all Americans have access to basic health care at a reasonable cost To improve care and support for people with chronic health conditions To promote healthy communities and lifestyles To reduce the personal, social and economic harm caused by substance abuse: tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs More information: http://www.rwjf.org/applications/ Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) CARE is a competitive grant program that offers an innovative way for a community to organize and take action to re-duce toxic pollution in its local environment. Through CARE, a community creates a partnership that implements solutions to reduce releases of toxic pollutants and minimize people’s exposure to them. By providing financial and technical assistance, EPA helps CARE communities get on the path to a renewed environment. Transportation and “smart-growth” types of projects are eligible. Grants range between $90,000 and $275,000. More information: http://www.epa.gov/care/ Corporate Donations Corporate donations are often received in the form of liquid investments (i.e. cash, stock, bonds) and in the form of land. Employers recognize that creating places to bike and walk is one way to build community and attract a quality work force. Bicycling and outdoor recreation businesses often support local projects and programs. Municipalities typically create funds to facilitate and simplify a transaction from a corporation’s donation to the given municipality. Donations are mainly received when a widely supported capital improvement program is implemented. Such donations can improve capital budgets and/or projects. 6.4.5 Other Sources Local sales taxes, fees and permits may be implemented as new funding sources for bicycle projects. However, any of these potential sources would require a local election. Volunteer programs may be developed to substantially reduce the cost of implementing some routes, particularly multi use paths. For example, a local college design class may use such a multi-use route as a student project, working with a local landscape architectural or engineering firm. Work parties could be formed to help clear the right of way for the route. A local construction company may donate or discount services beyond what the volunteers can do. A challenge grant program with local businesses may be a good source of local funding, in which the businesses can “adopt” a route or segment of one to help construct and maintain it. TWIC Packet Page Number 145 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 7-1 7. Maintenance This chapter provides an overview of general bicycle and pedestrian facility maintenance. 7.1 Introduction Development of a monitoring and maintenance plan is an important step in developing a successful Connector that becomes an attractive asset to the communities. A well maintained Connector facility provides numerous benefits, but also requires considerable work. A well-maintained connection will benefit Lafayette, Contra Costa County and Walnut Creek residents by: Improving user safety Providing for a more positive user experience Protecting the agencies and resident’s investment in the Connector by identifying and rectifying issues in a cost-effective and timely manner Minimizing liability concerns Maintaining positive relations with neighbors and the larger community Creating more local pride in the regional trails as a positive community resource This chapter provides an overview of the major considerations in developing a maintenance and monitoring plan for the Connector, and details the specific facilities that would need to be maintained within each jurisdiction. 7.2 Maintenance Requirements The purpose of the Connector maintenance plan is to outline the specific tasks, priorities, schedules, responsible parties, and budget needed to keep the facility in the desired condition. The plan should be provided to anyone involved in maintaining the facility, including agency staff and individuals involved in working with volunteers on maintenance activities. Maintenance activities are generally classified as either routine maintenance or remedial maintenance. Routine maintenance refers to day-to-day and regularly-scheduled tasks, including trash removal, sweeping, trimming or pruning vegetation along the Connector, repairing minor cracks in the pavement surface, and cleaning out drainage channels. Remedial maintenance involves tasks that are of a larger scale, and need to be undertaken less frequently, such as resurfacing the facility, replacing a bridge, or stabilizing a stream bank. Anticipating and budgeting for these expenses can be critical to ensuring that the Connector provides a high quality user experience and avoiding the additional costs in deferred maintenance. While an agency typically assumes the lead role for maintaining bicycle and pedestrian facilities, many communities rely on partnerships between public agencies and community-based organizations, and have experienced positive results: Community members tend to develop a greater sense of pride, ownership, and personal investment in the facility; Groups have often added new dimensions to bicycle and pedestrian projects, taking a leadership role in raising funds or supplying labor for projects such as community art or gardens; and Public costs required for maintenance activities have been reduced, and the quality of the maintenance has been improved. Maintenance and management needs are a critical factor in the final Connector design, as they will impact the annual and long-term costs associated with the facility, and its overall usefulness and safety. Determining the specific responsible parties for maintenance and management and responding to their equipment and staff capabilities will be key considerations in Connector design. 7.2.1 Components of the Maintenance Plan The final Connector maintenance plan should include the following: List of maintenance tasks and a schedule that reflects maintenance priorities. Approximate frequencies should be included, where appropriate, for regular activities such as tree pruning, trash pick-up, and crack sealing. Inventory of features on the Connector that require regular inspection, particularly structures such as bridges, retaining walls, and culverts. The inventory should also include Connector amenities such as restrooms, picnic tables, benches, and information kiosks. Goals and standards for the quality of maintenance, so the expectations for the condition of the Connector features will be clearly understood. Forms to be completed as part of inspections to document conditions of each item, and the date and time of the inspections. Identify the responsible entities for each aspect of maintenance, and provide contact information for each. This is discussed in more detail below. Budget for maintenance activities. If the Connector maintenance budget will be incorporated into a larger budget for facility maintenance (e.g. including other trails or parks), this may impact the costs of various items, but the time and materials required for Connector maintenance should be estimated. Emergency access and procedures should be developed in close consultation with police and fire departments; this consideration is particularly important in determining whether bollards or some other type of access control is to be used at intersections of the Connector with streets, as well as the spacing between Connector access points. At least once a year, and after any significant emergency or maintenance event, the policies should be reviewed with staff or volunteer groups. Evaluation process for the plan. The maintenance plan should not be treated as a static document. Once the Connector is operational, it will be important to periodically evaluate the success of the plan. This will include reviewing the list of maintenance tasks, the schedule for carrying out these activities, and comparing the maintenance budget to what was actually needed over the course of the previous year. Feedback should be solicited from maintenance crews and/or volunteers involved in helping to carry out the plan. TWIC Packet Page Number 146 of 167
Final Report 7-2 | Alta Planning + Design 7.3 Estimating Annual Maintenance Costs Connector maintenance costs can be challenging to estimate because the facilities overlap into the responsibilities of different departments within each agency, as well as multiple agencies in this case, and the maintenance practices and capabilities vary a great deal from agency to agency. Yet it is important that a regional facility like the proposed Connector have a consistent high level of maintenance. Connector maintenance cost estimates are provided as a guide to potential cost. They should be subject to review and refinement by the responsible parties from the local agencies as the projects move forward. The estimates include maintenance costs only for the added facilities; not for bicycle or pedestrian facilities that pre-existed or for roadway facilities that were modified but without significant areas. Table 7-1 presents Connector maintenance cost information provided by other jurisdictions that can be used as a “yardstick” for estimating maintenance costs for the Connector. Some of these include, and break out, costs for operation and management, as opposed to maintenance. Because the Connector is almost entirely in the public road right-of-way it presumably will not need special patrol or management, such as by rangers that trails in open space or greenway settings may require. Table 7-1: Sample Connector Maintenance and Operation Costs from Other Jurisdictions Management Entity Year of Estimate Estimated Annual Cost Maintenance and Operation Activities Included in Estimate City of San Jose1 2011 $12,500/mile Paved pathway $12,050/acre Landscaping adjacent to trails $2,000/mile Trail rangers East Bay Regional Park District2 2011 $25,000/mile Police patrol, vegetation management, litter pickup and a contribution to a reserve fund for eventual pathway replacement. City of South Lake Tahoe and the Ski Run Business Improvement District3 2011 $14,850 to $15,350/mile 48 pedestrian lighting heads, electric bills for the lighting, water bills, mowing and fertilizing landscaping, and maintaining a 2-mile multi-use path City of Cupertino4 2011 $15,000/pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing Mary Avenue Bridge: bridge cleaning, graffiti removal, maintenance of electrical devices, and a biennial inspection Sonoma County Regional Parks5 2013 $10,281/mile for Class 1 trails Regular park ranger site patrol, sweeping, removing debris and graffiti, mowing and pruning, and safety repairs 1 Email correspondence with Yves Zsutty, Acting Division Manager, Department of Parks, Recreation & Neighborhood Services, City of San Jose, January 18, 2011. 2 Email correspondence with Jim Townsend, Manager, Trails Development Program, EBRPD, January 13, 2011. 3 Phone call with Gary Moore, Director, Parks and Recreation Department, South Lake Tahoe, July 27, 2009. Costs have been adjusted for inflation. 4 Email correspondence with Roger Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works, City of Cupertino, February 3, 2011. 5 Sonoma County Regional Parks Board Report, March 13, 2013 7.3.1 Maintenance Costs Per Unit Bike Lanes and Routes Class II bike lanes and Class III signed/marked routes are an important part of the Olympic Corridor Trail Connector facilities. In much of the corridor these already exist, but with designation as an important regional route a higher level of maintenance is assumed, which consists of additional sweeping. The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) Center for Performance Measurement collects street sweeping and other maintenance cost data from participants across the United States. Eighty-six participants reported street sweeping expenditures per mile swept with an average of $47 and a median of $36 (2010 data report).6 A cost of $52.80 per mile swept was used to adjust for inflation, or $10 per 1000 L.F. for the additional sweeping of Class II and III facilities on the route. Lifespan replacement cost of paved area of bike lanes and routes, as well as medians, curbs and gutters, and traffic signals is assumed to be part of normal maintenance of the roadway. Class I Paths or Sidepaths Class I maintenance costs for Class I facilities varied between approximately $10,200 and $25,000 per mile in the data in Table 7-1, but this reflects a wide variation in the elements that were included. Adjusted for inflation and the fact that the Olympic Corridor Trail Connector includes no new lighting, a cost of $14,000 per mile, or $2,652 per 1,000 L.F. was assumed for Class I path maintenance. Lifespan replacement cost of pathways is assumed to be 1/20th of the paving cost per year. Bridges Bridges should not require special maintenance, but will require eventual repair and ultimate replacement. An allowance of 1/30th of the bridge construction cost is assumed annually to cover maintenance, repair, and lifespan replacement Landscaping Some portions of the route have added landscape strips which also function as stormwater management infiltration swales, a best management practice. These are typically 3 feet wide with low-maintenance, drought-tolerant plants and trees on drip irrigation. The U. S. Environmental protection Agency’s Resource Conserving Landscaping Cost Calculator7 estimated a 2005 landscape maintenance cost of $0.20/S.F. The cost of maintaining the landscape strip is estimated at $0.30 per S.F. per year. With a typical width of 3 feet, this equates to $900 per 1,000 L.F. per year, or $4,752 per mile per year. This equates to $13,068 per acre compared to the City of San Jose’s estimated $12,050 per acre in 2011 to maintain landscaping adjacent to trails. Signing and Striping Replacement of signing and striping is assumed to be a factor of 1/10th of the construction cost per year. 6 http://icma.org/en/icma/knowledge_network/kn/Question/21663 7 http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/greenscapes/tools/landscape.pdf TWIC Packet Page Number 147 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 7-3 7.3.2 Maintenance Requirements for Short-Term Improvements In most cases the Connector facilities already exist; they would be slightly enhanced by the short-term improvement projects with relocated or added lane striping and wayfinding signage. However, formal designation of the route as an important regional Connector implies that a higher level of maintenance, particularly of existing sidepaths, will be provided than is currently exhibited. This primarily impacts Lafayette and Contra Costa County jurisdictions. Table 7-2 quantifies the facilities that would be maintained by each jurisdiction after the short-term improvements phase. In some cases the facilities are along residential or commercial frontages where the property owner or tenant is at least partly responsible for maintenance. Table 7-2: Short-Term Improvements Maintenance Responsibilities SEG. DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MAINTENANCE COST/ YEAR TOTAL MAINTENANCE COST/ YEAR 1 Olympic Boulevard, Newell Avenue to S.B. I-680 On/Off Ramps (Lafayette) Subtotal $5,934 Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 5,256 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $53 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $58,811 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $5,881 2.1 Olympic Boulevard, Pleasant Hill Road to Windtree Court (Lafayette) Subtotal $2,803 Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 1,850 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $19 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $27,848 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $2,785 2.2 Olympic Boulevard, Windtree Court to Newell Court (Lafayette/CC County) Subtotal $4,729 Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 2,200 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $22 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $47,071 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $4,707 3 Olympic Boulevard, Newell Court to Tice Valley Boulevard/Boulevard Way (CC County) Subtotal $10,345 Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 3,955 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $40 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $97,214 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $9,721 Sidepath Maintenance 160 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $424 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $3,200 IC INSTALLATION COST / 20 $160 4 Olympic Boulevard, Boulevard Way/Tice Valley Boulevard Intersection to Newell Avenue (CC County) Subtotal $16,480 Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 5,138 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $51 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $39,212 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $3,921 Sidepath Maintenance 1,510 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $4,005 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $145,400 IC INSTALLATION COST / 20 $7,270 Landscape Maintenance 1,370 LF $900 / 1,000 LF $1,233 5 Olympic Boulevard, Newell Avenue to S.B. I-680 On/Off Ramps (CC County) Subtotal $7,690 Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 3,746 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $37 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $76,528 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $7,653 6.1 Olympic Boulevard, S.B. I-680 On/Off Ramps to Alpine Road (Walnut Creek) Subtotal $7,244 Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 1,730 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $17 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $72,267 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $7,227 6.2 Olympic Boulevard, Alpine Road to S. California Boulevard (Walnut Creek) Subtotal $2,692 Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 1,780 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $18 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $26,745 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $2,675 7 S. California Boulevard, Olympic Boulevard south to Newell Avenue (Walnut Creek) Subtotal $656 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $6,560 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $656 8.1 Newell Avenue, S. California Boulevard to Main Street (Walnut Creek) Subtotal $90 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $900 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $90 8.2 Newell Avenue, Main Street to Broadway and the IHT (Walnut Creek) Subtotal $552 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $5,520 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $552 9 Newell Avenue West of I-680 (CC County/Walnut Creek) Subtotal $804 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $8,040 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $804 10 Southern Connections to IHT (CC County/Walnut Creek) Subtotal $804 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $8,040 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $804 TOTAL ANNUAL PROJECT MAINTENANCE COST (ROUNDED UP) $61,000 Wide sidewalks and shared-lane markings currently provide some accommodation for bicyclists and pedestrians.TWIC Packet Page Number 148 of 167
Final Report 7-4 | Alta Planning + Design 7.3.3 Maintenance Requirements for Long-Term Improvements Long-term improvements primarily consist of converting areas that are currently vehicle lanes or medians to areas of pedestrian sidewalks or paths, bike paths, or shared-used sidepaths. In almost all cases there is already a facility present that requires maintenance; the long-term improvements scenario increases the area of the bike and pedestrian facility, and moves it out of the street. Maintenance requirements will be increased, especially given the higher standard that should apply to a major regional Connector, but an entirely new maintenance responsibility is not created, except at the two proposed bicycle and pedestrian bridges. Table 7-3 quantifies the facilities that would be maintained by each jurisdiction after the long-term improvements phase. In some cases the facilities are along residential or commercial frontages where the property owner or tenant is at least partly responsible for maintenance. Table 7-3: Long-Term Improvements Maintenance Responsibilities SEG. DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MAINTENANCE COST/ YEAR TOTAL MAINTENANCE COST/ YEAR 1 Olympic Boulevard, Newell Avenue to S.B. I-680 On/Off Ramps (Lafayette) No Improvements 2.1 Olympic Boulevard, Pleasant Hill Road to Windtree Court (Lafayette) Subtotal $11,782 Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 2,166 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $22 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $31,043 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $3,104 Sidepath Maintenance 1,083 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $2,872 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $108,300 IC INSTALLATION COST / 20 $5,415 Landscape Maintenance 410 LF $900 / 1,000 LF $369 2.2 Olympic Boulevard, Windtree Court to Newell Court (Lafayette/CC County) Subtotal $10,625 Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 2,210 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $22 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $16,752 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $1,675 Sidepath Maintenance 1,178 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $3,123 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $116,100 IC INSTALLATION COST / 20 $5,805 3 Olympic Boulevard, Newell Court to Tice Valley Boulevard/Boulevard Way (CC County) Subtotal $12,143 Sidepath Maintenance 1,792 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $4,752 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $147,825 IC INSTALLATION COST / 20 $7,391 4 Olympic Boulevard, Boulevard Way/Tice Valley Boulevard Intersection to Newell Avenue (CC County) Subtotal $18,558 Sidepath Maintenance 2,170 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $5,755 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $217,000 IC INSTALLATION COST / 20 $10,850 Landscape Maintenance 2,170 LF $900 / 1,000 LF $1,953 5 Olympic Boulevard, Newell Avenue to S.B. I-680 On/Off Ramps (CC County) Subtotal $2,586 Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 1,890 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $19 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $14,326 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $1,433 Sidepath Maintenance 158 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $418 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $14,326 IC INSTALLATION COST / 20 $716 6.1 Olympic Boulevard, S.B. I-680 On/Off Ramps to Alpine Road (Walnut Creek) Subtotal $3,963 Sidepath Maintenance 370 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $981 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $55,500 IC INSTALLATION COST / 20 $2,775 Landscape Maintenance 230 LF $900 / 1,000 LF $207 6.2 [Lane Removal Alternative] Olympic Boulevard, Alpine Road to S. California Boulevard (Walnut Creek) Subtotal $8,583 Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 850 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $9 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $6,443 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $644 Sidepath Maintenance 936 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $2,483 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $93,640 IC INSTALLATION COST / 20 $4,682 Landscape Maintenance 850 LF $900 / 1,000 LF $765 SEG. DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MAINTENANCE COST/ YEAR TOTAL MAINTENANCE COST/ YEAR 7 S. California Boulevard, Olympic Boulevard south to Newell Avenue (Walnut Creek) Subtotal $18,338 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $8,400 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $840 Sidepath Maintenance 694 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $1,841 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $104,130 IC INSTALLATION COST / 20 $5,207 Landscape Maintenance 500 LF $900 / 1,000 LF $450 Bridge Maintenance $300,000 IC INSTALLATION COST / 30 $10,000 8.1[Sidepath Alternative] Newell Avenue, S. California Boulevard to Main Street (Walnut Creek) Subtotal $7,936 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $30,900 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $3,090 Sidepath Maintenance 347 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $921 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $67,710 IC INSTALLATION COST / 20 $3,386 Landscape Maintenance 600 LF $900 / 1,000 LF $540 8.1[Lane Removal Alternative] Newell Avenue, S. California Boulevard to Main Street (Walnut Creek) Subtotal $8,801 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $19,950 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $1,995 Sidepath Maintenance 670 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $1,778 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $100,560 IC INSTALLATION COST / 20 $5,028 8.2[Sidepath Alternative] Newell Avenue, Main Street to Broadway and the IHT (Walnut Creek) Subtotal $13,766 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $60,652 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $6,065 Sidepath Maintenance 64 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $169 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $13,350 IC INSTALLATION COST / 20 $668 Landscape Maintenance 220 LF $900 / 1,000 LF $198 Bridge Maintenance $200,000 IC INSTALLATION COST / 30 $6,667 8.2[Lane Removal Alternative] Newell Avenue, Main Street to Broadway and the IHT (Walnut Creek) Subtotal $16,386 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $59,320 IC INSTALLATION COST / 10 $5,932 Sidepath Maintenance 354 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $938 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $53,040 IC INSTALLATION COST / 20 $2,652 Landscape Maintenance 220 LF $900 / 1,000 LF $198 Bridge Maintenance $200,000 IC INSTALLATION COST / 30 $6,667 9Newell Avenue West of I-680 (CCCounty/Walnut Creek) No Improvements 10Southern Connections to IHT (CC County/Walnut Creek) No Improvements TOTAL ANNUAL PROJECT MAINTENANCE COST - SIDEPATH ALTERNATIVE (ROUNDED UP) $108,280 TOTAL ANNUAL PROJECT MAINTENANCE COST - LANE REMOVAL ALTNERNATIVE (ROUNDED UP) $111,765 TWIC Packet Page Number 149 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | A-1 Appendix A: Community Input A.1 Workshop #1 Approximately 35 people attended the first Community Workshop for the Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study, held on December 5, 2013. The workshop began with an open house, during which meeting attendees could review the project posters and ask questions. Following the open house, County staff and consultants presented a project overview, a summary of the project’s existing conditions, and the design toolkit. Attendees then worked in small groups to discuss and record their observations and ideas on the maps provided. Table A-1 presents the notes from the Break Out Groups. After this working session, a participant from each table reported out key points from their table. At the close of the meeting, consultants provided a summary of the next steps and upcoming opportunities for public engagement. Table A-1: Break Out Group Notes Group 1 Location Notes [General] Polish path example had different pavement types/colors for bikes and pedestrians (photo later provided by commenter) [General] Can the maps and plans be posted on a (County?) website? California (b/w Olympic and Mt. Diablo) California Boulevard has a third lane b/w Olympic and Mt. Diablo – possible route Downtown Walnut Creek Bike parking shortage in Downtown Walnut Creek – more would bike if there were facilities Mt. Diablo South of Mt. Diablo= more intense development; north of Newell = lower density development Mt. Diablo (through Downtown Walnut Creek) Convert one travel lane into a two-way, physically-separated bikeway [graphic drawn on map] Mt. Diablo <<->> California (from Main to Olympic) A lot of extra space [– opportunity for a route] Newell East (b/w California and Broadway) Possible improvements proposed as part of Broadway Plaza Redevelopment Newell West Will people use an alternative facility to Newell West? Newell West Yes, if a Class I separated path and if they are not aggressive / highly competent cyclists Newell West Could help school access Newell West Newell = narrow, but what can be done to improve student access? Newell West 1-way Newell w/ cycle track; would residents be OK lighting Newell? Newell West Newell as Class III? Olympic Road diet on Olympic to extend path Under I-680 Floating cycle track round-a-bout – a suspended grade separated roundabout per Dutch example Group 2Location Notes [General] Preferred off-street facility [General] Accommodate bikes, pedestrians, and wheelchairs – increased width to provide comfortable access [General] Dedicated bicycle space to reduce stress [General] Catering to all ages and users – Class I preferred [General] Any safety improvement is a positive [General] Families are most underserved by current facility designs [General] Let’s not only focus on one project California Cycle track (connect w/ BART and Kaiser) Class I path (green line) b/w Newell Court and Tice Valley) Not part of Lafayette Moraga Trail [crossed out on map] Creek ROW Creek has potential for added value, experience Newell (b/w Olympic and California) Opportunity for traffic calming? Newell, Olympic West Potential for couplet with Newell one-way Olympic (b/w Newell and I-680) Challenge area Olympic (b/w Pleasant Hill and Tice Valley) 45 MPH speed limit?; Speed sign? S Main (b/w Olympic and Newell) Cars so slow; feels safer to bike Group 3Location Notes [General] Traffic calming may make certain routes more favorable [General] Cycle track better for families with kids compared to Class II lanes [General] 3 miles is the maximum “walkable” distance Boulevard @ Nicholson, Mt. Diablo, and Oakland Reported collisions Downtown Walnut Creek Route through middle of Downtown might be good or bad (good: access; bad: auto conflicts) Mt Diablo (b/w Boulevard/I-680 and California) Feels like I should drive fast along this stretch Mt. Diablo Mt. Diablo would feel unsafe due to “extension” of freeway speeds Mt. Diablo Fast cars Mt. Diablo, Olympic, Newell Mt. Diablo and Olympic have room; less room for improvements on Newell Newell Improvements on Newell would benefit kids attending Parkmead, Dorris Eaton, Las Lomas, and Walnut Creek Intermediate Newell b/w Lilac & Eastwood Remain 2-way auto traffic Newell b/w Olympic & Lilac 1-way auto traffic, 2-way cycle track, and raised sidewalk TWIC Packet Page Number 150 of 167
Final Report A-2 | Alta Planning + Design Location Notes Newell West One-way EB, two-way cycle track, raised sidewalk on south side; two-way east of Lilac Newell, Lilac Kaiser uses Newell and Lilac for “Live Well, Be Well” walking – potential source of funding Olympic @ I-680 Olympic route preferred if I-680 undercrossing significantly improved Olympic @ I-680 Good route for BART, shopping <IF> safety is significantly improved Group 4 Location Notes [General] How do different jurisdictions affect the plan? (County, City, etc.) [General] Recommend a “Share the Road” initiative upon completion [General] Include the BART station as priority destination [General] What is the real target market? Unless it’s Class I, it’s not family-friendly. [General] Education for motorists is needed Arlington Steep Boulevard (under I-680) Consider signing as an alternate route for road cyclists Broadway (b/w Mt. Diablo and Newell) Mid-block crosswalk (connection to Iron Horse Trail?) Creek ROW Creekside trails preferred for separation when feasible Dewing Park Rd & Olympic Possible pedestrian crossing Eastside of I-680 (b/w Mt. Diablo and Olympic) Potential route I-680 & Olympic Issues with I-680 on- and off-ramps Juanita & Saranap Steep Newell & California Problematic intersection Newell East South side is better [than riding on the north side] Olympic Preferred route is Olympic – Class I as much as possible Olympic (b/w Tice Valley and Newell) Reported speeding Olympic @ Bridgefield/King Crossing used often by kids A.2 Workshop #2 A second public workshop was held to solicit feedback on the Draft Study on September 16, 2014. Feedback received at this workshop includes: I am in favor of such a proposed connection for bikes and pedestrians. Sounds good. Please create a safe way to bike and/or walk between the Lafayette/Moraga Trail and the Iron Horse Trail, especially between Olympic Boulevard/Boulevard Way to Olympic Blvd/Pleasant Hill Road. This is especially important for the kids in the community to safely get around town. Thank you! :) Email in support of Trail Connector. A Trail Connector is a great idea. There is constant high volume ped and bicycle traffic on the existing trails and a Trail Connector would provide a safer more enjoyable environment for these many resident and visiting trail users. Thus a Trail Connector is certainly a reasonable use of tax payers funds. We appreciate the attention and effort towards this solution. Hall Equities Group owns property in the vicinity of Boulevard Way and Saranap Avenue, and is concerned about the potential impacts of a designated bicycle trail to our development plans along our property frontage, and would like to see more information about your plans. I am writing to encourage that the connector between the two trails be designed with the safety of the pedestrians and bicyclists who will use it as the primary consideration. I live in the Parkmead area off Lancaster that would probably be impacted by this connector. With a small child and avid cyclist I would be in favor and most interested in this study I live in the Parkmead neighborhood and am in full support of the proposed Olympic Corridor Trail. I prefer the Paulson Rd route. It takes you to one end of town, it's more off the main roads. The direct route to the Lafayette trials is better. I believe you'll have more users. I support a trail and/or bike lane connecting the Lafayette-Moraga Trail and the Iron Horse Trail (in the Olympic corridor). This will add a lot of benefit to our community and increase safety of children (in particular) when riding bikes along the busy road! Thank you for working hard to make this happen. I support the bike trail on Newell through the Parkmead with some reservations. 1) Newell Avenue is the ONLY access into and out of the Parkmead for several hundred homes. It must remain a two way street because of this. 2) there are already many bicyclists that use Newell. If making this an official bike path will congest Newell with bicyclists and make traffic even more difficult for Parkmead residents than it currently is, why make an "official" bike path? Why not allow it remain less official to ensure a good mix of neighborhood vehicles and bikes? Please add me to the elist. Had I known earlier about the Thursday meeting I would have attended. I have lived in the Parkmead neighborhood for more than 20 years. I walk on either the Lafayette or Iron horse trails on a daily basis. Both my children attended the Parkmead elementary school. The idea of using Newel Ave., between Olympic and S. California Blvd., as a ""connector"" between these two trails is a very, very bad idea. First, the amount of pedestrian and vehicle traffic on Newell today is significant. Especially at peak hours during school drop off and pickup times, and for the various church events held at Hillside Covenant. For anyone who studies this they will notice that during these peak times the cars often will be lined up, bumper-to-bumper from Lilac to Magnolia. At the same time, there are usually a large number of pedestrians, mostly school kids, walking and playing on the narrow pathway along Newell in both directions. Importantly, this pedestrian and vehicle traffic is fundamentally different than the majority of the traffic on and around the Iron Horse and Lafayette trails. In other words, there appears to me to be little overlap between the type of traffic on the trails and the type of traffic on Newell. More importantly, most of the pedestrian traffic on the trails is comprised of joggers, bikers (many are high-speed cyclists in packs) and dog walkers. This type of traffic is not typical of the type of traffic flow in the Parkmead community currently. If this new traffic type is accommodated and welcomed in the Parkmead neighborhood it will change the structure of this family and school oriented community. This will have profound effects on who moves into, and lives in, the Parkmead community. Finally, I believe it would be hard to dispute that if this ""connector"" uses Newell Ave it will have a pronounced effect on the traffic flows and significantly change the character of the Parkmead community as it exists today. I would support this project. TWIC Packet Page Number 151 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | A-3 Our family supports expanding the access to the trails for bicycle use. We are active users of both the Lafayette-Moraga and Iron Horse Trails, but often have to use our cars to bring bikes to the trailheads to accommodate our young daughter, who does not like to ride on busy streets. We would definitely use a safe, continuous trail or one with well designated bike paths. I also believe that improved trails would encourage more bicycle use overall and could see many others taking advantage of the trail system. Separated bike lanes would be best with raised paving(cycyclotracks). Sharrows are not safe because cycles have to share with cars. There is no competition with autos and bikes. Widening the sidewalks along the Olympic corridor. Newell needs widening sidewalks and clear identification of bike lanes. Cyclotracks are raised pavement so they are clearly marked. Paint the lanes green. Lights with separate signals for bikes and pedestrians at the freeway entrances and exits. The traffic on this corridor is definitely fast so separate bikeways would help calm the traffic. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to offer suggestions. This would be a wonder progressive accomplishment that would benefit all, and would help put our city on the cutting edge. We ABSOLUTELY should connect these trails. I support it 110% per cent. Please keep me informed via email. We need to connect Saranap with the rest of humanity too!!! Especially when we will be adding hundreds of new families with the Saranap Village project in the next few years! While I support the OCTCS planning effort to connect the current fragments of trails into a network , the main area within the initial project boundaries - the neighborhood of Saranap - is glaringly absent any proposed class of trails. Our family, and many other we know, see a great need in providing a safe route between Saranap and the Parkmead neighborhoods so children can ride to school safely, and families can enjoy a safe and convenient alternative to using a car. I encourage the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development to revise the OCTCS to include a segment connecting the Saranap and Parkmead neighborhoods in the final design of the trail network. "Comments: I think the Cycle Route within Walnut Creek should go from Olympic to Mt Diablo Blvd (at CVS) and connect to the IHT at Safeways Benefits This would make the shopping center of Walnut Creek more walkable by restricting car access along Mt Diablo This would enable cyclists to directly access and pass through the downtown area This would ease congestion at the corners (Main St and Mt Diablo) – and could even allow the corners to become a piazza space for concerts and sidewalk cafes This would make California, Newell, Broadway and Civic the orbital car routes around the city center – keeping cars away from the inner downtown and separating cars from bikes/pedestrians This would keep cyclists off the California, Newell, Broadway and Civic the orbital car routes around the city center When the CVS lot is redeveloped, a cycle path from Olympic to Mt Diablo could be built (this also could be a piazza) Mt Diablo could become a one lane street in each direction allowing space for wide cycle paths and the free bus, with sidewalk cafes, street performers and market stands. Disadvantages Cars would still need some access to the parking lots and pick up points in downtown" I am particularly concerned about the connector between Crawford Ct and Newell. The current sidewalk/dirt path is insufficient to accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians. In addition, the vegetation is overgrown and should be maintained to increase safety and visibility. The preferred alignment proposal is a very good solution to enable a safe bike/ped connection between the IHT and the Lafayette-Moraga Trail. It utilizes aggressive shifting of lanes and medians to provide space for a quality trail. Tree replacement should be mitigated at a rate of at least 3-1. Removal of traffic lanes (if pursued) could result in backlash against bike facilities in this area. The staging of the phases from west to east is logical. Generous trail width as planned is appropriate for areas of intense use. Congratulations on taking the available "real estate" and reconfiguring it to provide a modern transportation facility for all users! This should be a model for other roads where bike/ped infrastructure is needed. I am a regular bicyclist who lives in the Lafayette Trail Neighborhood and works off the Iron Horse Trail; I bike these routes almost every week during the dry season, and i always use Olympic and usually use Newell. I strongly support your efforts to improve both of these routes, as they have a number of dangerous spots (most dangerous of all is Newell by Trader Joes parking lot). I am beyond pleased that the possibility of a bike/walking connector is under consideration. On 7/22/11 I was knocked off my bike in front of Whole Foods on Newell, just short of the connection to the Iron Horse. The culpable driver tried to leave the scene, and would have, but for the quick action of my husband, who was riding behind and witnessed the entire incident. Unfortunately, the second responding police officer chose (and I do mean chose) to find "no fault" after making the comment that of course "you must have medical insurance. The driver was, and likely still is, a WCPD contractor, which made the whole situation very suspect. Clearly the construction of a bike path, separate from the roadway, would be beneficial to everyone. We are property owners of the home at 1958 Newell Ave , on the northeast corner of Newell and Olympic. According to the Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study, page 26 figure 21, there is a one foot shift to the south along Olympic which would be taken from our property to accommodate more room for the proposed bike lane. We strongly object to this part of the plan. Our home is already perilously close to the fast paced traffic on Olympic Boulevard. Currently, our home is only 8 feet from the roadway where cars travel at 40-50 mph. We have experienced a car crashing through our fence, another hitting cars parked in our driveway, and witnessed many times when pedestrians faced danger. We have documents to support many incidents. The county originally created this problem by granting a variance to the Public Works Department for an 8 ft. setback to our property along Olympic Boulevard in 1965. (Application No. 531-65, Lot 117). While we understand not seeing the future in 1965, since then Olympic has become as a major thoroughfare. The area continues to develop and the traffic density continues to grow. This creates a very evident safety problem for our residence and poses an unreasonable risk. It is unfair in the face of already moving the roadway too close to our home, that this should happen to this location again. Furthermore, setbacks to our property would decrease our property values and make the home difficult to sell as well as creating a risk for public safety and county operation. We would like the Department and Project Managers to acknowledge receiving and reading this letter. It is our hope that continued communications and flexibility on both sides can ameliorate the unfairness of the situation and fully create a safe and attractive bike connector without financial loss or risk to either parties. My primary concern with the Olympic corridor is @ Bridgefield and Olympic - either turning left from Bridgefield onto Olympic or turning left onto Bridgefiled from Olympic. It is almost blind turning onto Olympic from Bridgefield (when making a left). Cars speed along that corridor and, due to slight curve in road, you take your life in your hands when trying to turn left. From Olympic to Bridgefield (making left) drivers get very angry (road rage angry) when they are behind you waiting for you to turn. They try to go around (but they can't). A light or some way to halt traffic for Bridgefield comings and goings would make the area safer for everyone. It is also difficult for pedestrians to get to middle trail without light - and many of those pedestrians are (1) kids or (2) adults with small children/infants. The current right turn from Olympic to Newell is very unsafe for bikes. The narrow turn area should be widened to 3 feet or more in a way to still prevent cars from accessing Newell. First of all, Thank you for your hard work and planning on this project . All of the staff that I have interacted with at the various meetings and workshops have been wonderful. As a Home Owner on Cottage Lane, an avid bicycle commuter, and neighborhood pedestrian I fully support the development the Olympic corridor bicycle connector, It is a critical part of making Walnut Creek (and the region) a vital cycling and pedestrian community with supporting infrastructure. My children love cycling and we use the Olympic corridor multiple times a day. When we travel to downtown Walnut Creek, my children frequently ask if we can ride bike. This infrastructure is being built for them, and they want it. My top priority for the project is protected bike lanes and bike paths the separate cars and bicycles and pedestrians. This promotes walking and cycling by making casual pedestrians and cyclists feel safer and more comfortable. These paths should be on both sides of the street to reduce crossing and support the daily movement of children to the local schools. In support of these objective I would specifically like to see are: Physical barriers, such as guardrails along the bike path to prevent bikes from leaving the path and entering the road (and vice versa), scramble periods during the light cycles to allow bikes to cross the intersection diagonally when the bike path switches sides of the road, and, specifically at the Tice Valley Blvd / Olympic Blvd intersection, dedicated pedestrian crossing times with flashing yellow lights at the intersections that indicate when a pedestrian is crossing the street. Finally, although I understand that it is beyond the scope of the Olympic development, it is important to point out that the development of bike and pedestrian infrastructure along Boulevard way is important for connecting the Olympic corridor to the Saranap neighborhood and the Saranap Village being developed. TWIC Packet Page Number 152 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | B-1 Appendix B: Detailed Cost Estimates B.1 Unit Cost Assumptions Table B-1: Unit Cost Assumptions for Capital Improvements DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT COST OR RATE MOBILIZATION LS 5% GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE LS 2% EROSION CONTROL - INCLUDES ALL BMPS, SWPPP AND REPORTING LS 5% TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 10% Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Sawcut pavement LF $5.00 Remove AC pavement SF $0.80 Remove concrete pavement SF $10.00 Remove fence LF $10.00 Relocate existing utility pole EA $8,000.00 Remove and relocate existing light standard EA $2,000.00 Remove existing storm drain culvert EA $1,000.00 Remove and relocate utility or signal cabinets (up to three) EA $3,000.00 Remove curb/gutter LF $10.00 Remove pavement markings SF $7.00 Tree removal EA $500.00 Remove existing striping LF $2.00 Modify existing concrete retaining (at I-680 undercrossing) EA $5,000.00 Earthwork Clearing and grubbing SF $0.25 Excavation and grading CY $50.00 Embankment, import borrow CY $30.00 Soil for new landscape areas CY $20.00 Concrete Work and Asphalt Paving - includes concrete curbs, 4" PCC sidewalk, Type I pedestrian ramps, concrete pads, Sidepath Construct curb & gutter LF $55.00 Construct AC curb LF $12.00 Construct 4" PCC sidewalk SF $15.00 Construct 4" AC over 6" AB SF $10.00 Construct new inlet to existing storm drain EA $3,000.00 Aggregate base and shoulder rock CY $50.00 Curb ramp with truncated dome surface EA $1,400.00 Curb extension with decorative pavers SF $15.00 Colored stamped asphalt or concrete SF $15.00 Extend existing storm drain system EA $1,000.00 Construct CMP storm drain pipe LF $60.00 Construct wide curb ramp with truncated dome surface EA $2,000.00 DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT COST OR RATE Hot mix asphalt SF $2.00 Concrete block retaining wall- 3' high LF $150.00 Decomposed Granite - includes trails and surfaced areas with base rock, geotextile fabric, binder, and compaction SF $5.00 Planting 24" box trees with root barriers, tree grates, and irrigation EA $2,200.00 15 gallon trees with protective posts and root barriers, irrigation EA $1,600.00 Landscaping (1 gallon shrubs, 5 gallon shrubs, irrigation) SF $6.50 Irrigation meter/connection, backflow, and controller EA $15,000.00 Retaining Walls Concrete retaining wall SF $150.00 Site Furnishings Benches (bench, footings) EA $1,000.00 Pedestrian light Type 1 (streetlamp style, placed near intersections) EA $6,000.00 Pedestrian light Type 2 EA $2,000.00 Chain link fence - 4' vinyl coated LF $25.00 Timber barrier/wheel stop 8'x8"x8" EA $50.00 R.O.W. fence - 5-strand barbed wire with mesh (dog exclusion) LF $20.00 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. High visibility crosswalk LF $35.00 Repaint stop bars and markings EA $800.00 Painted pedestrian walkway - per 30' with associated signage EA $1,060.00 Buffered bike lane and pavement markings LF $7.58 Bike lane and pavement markings LF $5.25 Miscellaneous Class I trail striping, signage and bollards MI $5,000.00 HAWK/RRFB EA $22,250.00 Gateway monument sign EA $5,000.00 Greenback sharrow EA $300.00 Miscellaneous 4" thermoplastic stripe LF $3.00 Wayfinding signage EA $1,340.00 Yield pavement marking SF $7.00 Green conflict markings LF $14.81 Bridges Provide and install pre-manufactured steel bridge (130'x12') LS $300,000.00 Provide and install pre-manufactured steel bridge (75'x12') LS $200,000.00 Right of Way Acquisition Acquire easements for bridge approach SF $50.00 CONTINGENCY LS 20% SURVEYING LS 5% PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING LS 15% ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, PERMITTING LS 10% TECH STUDIES, MITIGATION LS 2.5% CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. LS 15% TWIC Packet Page Number 153 of 167
Final Report B-2 | Alta Planning + Design B.2 Segment 1: Olympic Boulevard – Lafayette Moraga Trail to Pleasant Hill Road Table B-2: Short-Term Improvements Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $3,422 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $1,369 EROSION CONTROL - INCLUDES ALL BMPS, SWPPP AND REPORTING 1 LS 5% $3,422 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $6,843 Subtotal $15,055 Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Sawcut pavement 100 LF $5.00 $500 Remove AC pavement 80 SF $0.80 $64 Remove curb/gutter 40 LF $10.00 $400 Remove existing striping (no lead present) 3,089 LF $2.00 $6,178 Subtotal $7,142 Concrete Work and Asphalt Paving - includes concrete curbs, 4" PCC sidewalk, Type I pedestrian ramps, concrete pads, Sidepath Construct AC curb 40 LF $12.00 $480 Construct 4" AC over 6" AB 200 SF $10.00 $2,000 Subtotal $2,480 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. High visibility crosswalk 95 LF $35.00 $3,325 Repaint stop bars and markings 6 EA $800.00 $4,800 Buffered bike lane, pavement markings, and signs 5,256 LF $7.58 $39,840 Wayfinding Signage 8 EA $1,340.00 $10,720 Yield pavement marking 18 SF $7.00 $126 Subtotal $58,811 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $83,489 CONTINGENCY 20% $16,698 SURVEYING 5% $4,174 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE 15% $12,523 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $12,523 TOTAL $130,000 Table B-3: Annual Maintenance Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR TOTAL MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR Short-Term improvement Concept Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 5,256 LF $10/1,000 LF $53 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $58,811 IC Installation Cost/10 $5,881 B.3 Segment 2.1: Olympic Boulevard – Pleasant Hill Road to Windtree Court Table B-4: Short-Term Improvements Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $1,762 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $705 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $3,525 Subtotal $5,992 Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Remove existing striping (no lead present) 3,700 LF $2.00 $7,400 Subtotal $7,400 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. Buffered bike lane, pavement markings, and signs 1,850 LF $7.58 $14,023 Miscellaneous 4" thermoplastic stripe 3,700 LF $3.00 $11,100 Green conflict markings 184 LF $14.81 $2,725 Subtotal $27,848 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $41,240 CONTINGENCY 20% $8,248 SURVEYING 5% $2,062 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE 15% $6,186 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $6,186 TOTAL $64,000 Table B-5: Long-Term Improvements Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $30,569 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $12,228 EROSION CONTROL - INCLUDES ALL BMPS, SWPPP AND REPORTING 1 LS 5% $30,569 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $61,138 Subtotal $134,503 Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Sawcut pavement 1903 LF $5.00 $9,515 Remove AC pavement 6,498 SF $0.80 $5,198 Remove fence 400 LF $10.00 $4,000 Relocate existing utility pole 1 EA $8,000.00 $8,000 Remove curb/gutter 925 LF $10.00 $9,250 Remove existing striping 3,700 LF $2.00 $7,400 Subtotal $43,363 Earthwork Clearing and grubbing 3,700 SF $0.25 $925 Excavation and grading 205 CY $50.00 $10,250 Subtotal $11,175 TWIC Packet Page Number 154 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | B-3 DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST Concrete Work and Asphalt Paving - includes concrete curbs, 4" PCC sidewalk, Type I pedestrian ramps, concrete pads, Sidepath Construct curb & gutter 1,903 LF $55.00 $104,665 Construct 4" AC over 6" AB 10,830 SF $10.00 $108,300 Subtotal $212,965 Planting Landscaping (1 gallon shrubs, 5 gallon shrubs, irrigation) 820 SF $6.50 $5,330 Subtotal $5,330 Retaining Walls Concrete retaining wall 2,050 SF $150.00 $307,500 Subtotal $307,500 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. Repaint stop bars and markings 1 EA $800.00 $800 Buffered bike lane and pavement markings 2,166 LF $7.58 $16,418 Miscellaneous 4" thermoplastic stripe 3,700 LF $3.00 $11,100 Green conflict markings 184 LF $14.81 $2,725 Subtotal $31,043 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $745,880 CONTINGENCY 20% $149,176 SURVEYING 5% $37,294 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING 15% $111,882 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, PERMITTING 10% $74,588 TECH STUDIES, MITIGATION 2.5% $18,647 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $111,882 TOTAL $1,250,000 Table B-6: Annual Maintenance Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR TOTAL MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR Short-Term improvement Concept Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 1,850 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $19 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $27,848 IC Installation Cost / 10 $2,785 Long-Term Improvement Concept Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 2,166 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $22 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $31,043 IC Installation Cost / 10 $3,104 Sidepath Maintenance 1,083 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $2,872 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $108,300 IC Installation Cost / 20 $5,415 Landscape Maintenance 410 LF $900 / 1,000 LF $369 B.4 Segment 2.2: Olympic Boulevard – Windtree Court to Newell Court Table B-7: Short-Term Improvements Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $3,238 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $1,295 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $6,475 Subtotal $11,008 Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Remove existing striping (no lead present) 8,840 LF $2.00 $17,680 Subtotal $17,680 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. High visibility crosswalk 155 LF $35.00 $5,425 Repaint stop bars and markings 3 EA $800.00 $2,400 Buffered bike lane, pavement markings, and signs 2,200 LF $7.58 $16,676 Miscellaneous 4" thermoplastic stripe 6,630 LF $3.00 $19,890 Wayfinding signage 2 EA $1,340.00 $2,680 Subtotal $47,071 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $75,759 CONTINGENCY 20% $15,152 SURVEYING 5% $3,788 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE 15% $11,364 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $11,364 TOTAL $118,000 Table B-8: Long-Term Improvements Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $11,971 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $4,788 EROSION CONTROL - INCLUDES ALL BMPS, SWPPP AND REPORTING 1 LS 5% $11,971 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $23,942 Subtotal $52,673 Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Sawcut pavement 1,161 LF $5.00 $5,805 Remove concrete pavement 100 SF $10.00 $1,000 Remove curb/gutter 1,161 LF $10.00 $11,610 Remove existing striping 6,966 LF $2.00 $13,932 Subtotal $32,347 Earthwork Clearing and grubbing 3,483 SF $0.25 $871 Subtotal $871 TWIC Packet Page Number 155 of 167
Final Report B-4 | Alta Planning + Design DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST Concrete Work and Asphalt Paving - includes concrete curbs, 4" PCC sidewalk, Type I pedestrian ramps, concrete pads, Sidepath Construct curb & gutter 1,161 LF $55.00 $63,855 Construct 4" PCC sidewalk 100 SF $15.00 $1,500 Construct 4" AC over 6" AB 1,1610 SF $10.00 $116,100 Construct wide curb ramp with truncated dome surface 4 EA $2,000.00 $8,000 Subtotal $189,455 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. Buffered bike lane and pavement markings 2,210 LF $7.58 $16,752 Subtotal $16,752 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $292,098 CONTINGENCY 20% $58,420 SURVEYING 5% $14,605 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING 15% $43,815 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, PERMITTING 10% $29,210 TECH STUDIES, MITIGATION 2.5% $7,302 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $43,814 TOTAL $490,000 Table B-9: Annual Maintenance Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR TOTAL MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR Short-Term improvement Concept Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 2,200 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $22 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $47,071 IC Installation Cost / 10 $4,707 Long-Term Improvement Concept Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 2,210 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $22 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $16,752 IC Installation Cost / 10 $1,675 Sidepath Maintenance 1,178 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $3,123 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $116,100 IC Installation Cost / 20 $5,805 B.5 Segment 3: Olympic Boulevard – Newell Court to Boulevard Way/Tice Valley Boulevard Table B-10: Short-Term Improvements Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $6,018 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $2,407 EROSION CONTROL - INCLUDES ALL BMPS, SWPPP AND REPORTING 1 LS 2% $2,407 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $12,037 Subtotal $22,870 Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Sawcut pavement 160 LF $5.00 $800 Remove concrete pavement 48 SF $1.00 $48 Remove pavement markings 120 SF $7.00 $840 Remove existing striping (no lead present) 5,372 LF $2.00 $10,744 Subtotal $12,432 Concrete Work and Asphalt Paving - includes concrete curbs, 4" PCC sidewalk, Type I pedestrian ramps, concrete pads, Sidepath Construct AC curb 160 LF $12.00 $1,920 Construct 4" AC over 6" AB 320 SF $10.00 $3,200 Curb Ramp with truncated dome surface 4 EA $1,400.00 $5,600 Subtotal $10,720 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. High visibility crosswalk 371 LF $35.00 $12,985 Repaint stop bars and markings 5 EA $800.00 $4,000 Buffered bike lane, pavement markings, and signs 3,955 LF $7.58 $29,979 Bike lane, pavement markings, and signs 190 LF $5.25 $998 HAWK/RRFB 2 EA $22,250.00 $44,500 Wayfinding signage 2 EA $1,340.00 $2,680 Yield pavement marking 38 SF $7.00 $266 Green conflict markings 122 LF $14.81 $1,807 Subtotal $97,214 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $143,236 CONTINGENCY 20% $28,647 SURVEYING 5% $7,162 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE 15% $21,485 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $21,485 TOTAL $223,000 TWIC Packet Page Number 156 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | B-5 Table B-11: Long-Term Improvements Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $15,012 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $6,005 EROSION CONTROL - INCLUDES ALL BMPS, SWPPP AND REPORTING 1 LS 5% $15,012 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $30,025 Subtotal $66,054 Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Sawcut pavement 1,170 LF $5.00 $5,850 Remove AC pavement 1,125 SF $0.80 $900 Remove concrete pavement 200 SF $10.00 $2,000 Remove existing storm drain culvert 1 EA $1,000.00 $1,000 Remove and relocate utility or signal cabinets (up to three) 2 EA $3,000.00 $6,000 Remove curb/gutter 1,170 LF $10.00 $11,700 Tree removal 11 EA $500.00 $5,500 Remove existing striping 1,170 LF $2.00 $2,340 Subtotal $35,290 Earthwork Clearing and grubbing 8,730 SF $0.25 $2,183 Subtotal $2,183 Concrete Work and Asphalt Paving - includes concrete curbs, 4" PCC sidewalk, Type I pedestrian ramps, concrete pads, Sidepath Construct curb & gutter 2,010 LF $55.00 $110,550 Construct 4" PCC sidewalk 9,855 SF $15.00 $147,825 Construct new inlet to existing storm drain 1 EA $3,000.00 $3,000 Curb ramp with truncated dome surface 1 EA $1,400.00 $1,400 Subtotal $262,775 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $366,302 CONTINGENCY 20% $73,260 SURVEYING 5% $18,315 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING 15% $54,945 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, PERMITTING 10% $36,630 TECH STUDIES, MITIGATION 2.5% $9,158 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $54,945 TOTAL $613,556 Table B-12: Annual Maintenance Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR TOTAL MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR Short-Term improvement Concept Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 3,955 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $40 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $97,214 IC Installation Cost / 10 $9,721 Sidepath Maintenance 160 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $424 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $3,200 IC Installation Cost / 20 $160 Long-Term Improvement Concept Sidepath Maintenance 1,792 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $4,752 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $147,825 IC Installation Cost / 20 $7,391 TWIC Packet Page Number 157 of 167
Final Report B-6 | Alta Planning + Design B.6 Segment 4: Olympic Boulevard – Boulevard Way/Tice Valley Boulevard to Newell Avenue Table B-13: Short-Term Improvements Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $17,042 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $6,817 EROSION CONTROL - INCLUDES ALL BMPS, SWPPP AND REPORTING 1 LS 5% $17,042 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $34,083 Subtotal $74,983 Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Sawcut pavement 1,370 LF $5.00 $6,850 Remove AC pavement 8,780 SF $0.80 $7,024 Remove concrete pavement 560 SF $1.00 $560 Remove curb/gutter 1,370 LF $10.00 $13,700 Remove existing striping (no lead present) 2,740 LF $2.00 $5,480 Subtotal $33,614 Earthwork Soil for new landscape areas 152 CY $20.00 $3,040 Subtotal $3,040 Concrete Work and Asphalt Paving - includes concrete curbs, 4" PCC sidewalk, Type I pedestrian ramps, concrete pads, Sidepath Construct curb & gutter 1,390 LF $55.00 $76,450 Construct 4" AC over 6" AB 14,540 SF $10.00 $145,400 Curb Ramp with truncated dome surface 1 EA $1,400.00 $1,400 Subtotal $223,250 Planting Landscaping (1 gallon shrubs, 15 gallon trees, irrigation) 4,110 SF $6.50 $26,715 Irrigation meter/connection, backflow, and controller 1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000 Subtotal $41,715 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. Bike lane, pavement markings, and signs 5,138 LF $5.25 $26,972 Miscellaneous 4" thermoplastic stripe 2,740 LF $3.00 $8,220 Wayfinding signage 3 EA $1,340.00 $4,020 Subtotal $39,212 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $415,814 CONTINGENCY 20% $83,163 SURVEYING 5% $20,791 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE 15% $62,372 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $62,372 TOTAL $645,000 Table B-14: Long-Term Improvements Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $15,445 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $6,178 EROSION CONTROL - INCLUDES ALL BMPS, SWPPP AND REPORTING 1 LS 5% $15,445 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $30,890 Subtotal $67,958 Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Sawcut pavement 158 LF $5.00 $790 Remove AC pavement 13,020 SF $0.80 $10,416 Remove concrete pavement 200 SF $10.00 $2,000 Remove curb/gutter 158 LF $10.00 $1,580 Subtotal $14,786 Concrete Work and Asphalt Paving - includes concrete curbs, 4" PCC sidewalk, Type I pedestrian ramps, concrete pads, Sidepath Construct curb & gutter 158 LF $55.00 $8,690 Construct 4" PCC sidewalk 474 SF $15.00 $7,110 Construct 4" AC over 6" AB 21,700 SF $10.00 $217,000 Extend existing storm drain system 4 EA $1,000.00 $4,000 Subtotal $236,800 Planting Landscaping (1 gallon shrubs, 5 gallon shrubs, irrigation) 6,510 SF $6.50 $42,315 Irrigation meter/connection, backflow, and controller 1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000 Subtotal $57,315 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $376,859 CONTINGENCY 20% $75,372 SURVEYING 5% $18,843 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING 15% $56,529 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, PERMITTING 10% $37,686 TECH STUDIES, MITIGATION 2.5% $9,421 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $56,529 TOTAL $632,000 TWIC Packet Page Number 158 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | B-7 Table B-15: Annual Maintenance Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR TOTAL MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR Short-Term improvement Concept Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 5,138 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $51 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $39,212 IC Installation Cost / 10 $3,921 Sidepath Maintenance 1,510 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $4,005 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $145,400 IC Installation Cost / 20 $7,270 Landscape Maintenance 1,370 LF $900 / 1,000 LF $1,233 Long-Term Improvement Concept Sidepath Maintenance 2,170 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $5,755 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $217,000 IC Installation Cost / 20 $10,850 Landscape Maintenance 2,170 LF $900 / 1,000 LF $1,953 B.7 Segment 5: Olympic Boulevard – Newell Avenue to I-680 Table B-16: Short-Term Improvements Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $4,4256 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $1,770 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $8,852 Subtotal $15,048 Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Remove existing striping (no lead present) 5,994 LF $2.00 $11,987 Subtotal $11,987 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. Bike lane, pavement markings, and signs 3,746 LF $5.25 $19,667 HAWK/RRFB 2 EA $22,250.00 $44,500 Miscellaneous 4" thermoplastic stripe 4,121 LF $3.00 $12,362 Subtotal $76,528 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $103,563 CONTINGENCY 20% $20,713 SURVEYING 5% $5,178 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE 15% $15,534 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $15,534 TOTAL $161,000 Table B-17: Long-Term Improvements Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $40,624 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $16,249 EROSION CONTROL - INCLUDES ALL BMPS, SWPPP AND REPORTING 1 LS 5% $40,624 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $81,247 Subtotal $178,744 Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Sawcut pavement 5,919 LF $5.00 $29,595 Remove AC pavement 9,450 SF $0.80 $7,560 Remove concrete pavement 18,900 SF $5.00 $94,500 Remove and relocate existing light standard 5 EA $2,000.00 $10,000 Remove and relocate utility or signal cabinets (up to three) 1 EA $3,000.00 $3,000 Remove curb/gutter 5,919 LF $10.00 $59,190 Tree removal 6 EA $500.00 $3,000 Remove existing striping 7,560 LF $2.00 $15,120 Subtotal $221,965 TWIC Packet Page Number 159 of 167
Final Report B-8 | Alta Planning + Design DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST Concrete Work and Asphalt Paving - includes concrete curbs, 4" PCC sidewalk, Type I pedestrian ramps, concrete pads, Sidepath Construct curb & gutter 5,919 LF $55.00 $325,545 Construct 4" PCC sidewalk 9,450 SF $15.00 $141,750 Construct new inlet to existing storm drain 5 EA $3,000.00 $15,000 Colored stamped asphalt or concrete 5,619 SF $15.00 $84,285 Subtotal $566,580 Planting 15 gallon trees with protective posts and root barriers, irrigation 6 EA $1,600.00 $9,600 Subtotal $9,600 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. Buffered bike lane and pavement markings 1,890 LF $7.58 $14,326 Subtotal $14,326 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $991,215 CONTINGENCY 20% $198,243 SURVEYING 5% $49,561 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING 15% $148,682 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, PERMITTING 10% $99,121 TECH STUDIES, MITIGATION 2.5% $24,780 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $148,682 TOTAL $1,661,000 Table B-18: Annual Maintenance Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR TOTAL MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR Short-Term improvement Concept Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 3,746 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $37.46 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $76,528 IC Installation Cost / 10 $7,653 Long-Term Improvement Concept Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 1,890 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $19 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $14,326 IC Installation Cost / 10 $1,433 Sidepath Maintenance 158 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $418 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $14,326 IC Installation Cost / 20 $716 B.8 Segment 6.1: Olympic Boulevard – I-680 to Alpine Road Table B-19: Short-Term Improvements Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $3,960 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $1,584 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $7,921 Subtotal $13,465 Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Remove existing striping (no lead present) 3,470 LF $2.00 $6,940 Subtotal $6,940 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. High visibility crosswalk 770 LF $35.00 $26,950 Bike lane, pavement markings, and signs 1,730 LF $5.25 $9,083 Gateway monument sign 6 EA $5,000.00 $30,000 Wayfinding signage 2 EA $1,340.00 $2,680 Green conflict markings 240 LF $14.81 $3,554 Subtotal $72,267 SUBTOTAL $92,672 CONTINGENCY 20% $18,534 SURVEYING 5% $4,634 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE 15% $13,901 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $13,901 TOTAL $144,000 Table B-20: Long Term Improvements Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $31,072 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $12,429 EROSION CONTROL - INCLUDES ALL BMPS, SWPPP AND REPORTING 1 LS 5% $31,072 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $62,144 Subtotal $136,717 Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Remove concrete pavement 3,160 SF $10.00 $31,600 Remove and relocate utility or signal cabinets (up to three) 2 EA $3,000.00 $6,000 Remove curb/gutter 160 LF $10.00 $1,600 Modify existing concrete retaining (at I-680 undercrossing) 1 EA $5,000.00 $5,000 Subtotal $44,200 TWIC Packet Page Number 160 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | B-9 DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST Earthwork Excavation and grading 425 CY $50.00 $21,250 Subtotal $21,250 Concrete Work and Asphalt Paving - includes concrete curbs, 4" PCC sidewalk, Type I pedestrian ramps, concrete pads, Sidepath Construct 4" PCC sidewalk 3,700 SF $15.00 $55,500 Colored stamped asphalt or concrete 7,700 SF $15.00 $115,500 Construct wide curb ramp with truncated dome surface 8 EA $2,000.00 $16,000 Subtotal $187,000 Planting Landscaping (1 gallon shrubs, 5 gallon shrubs, irrigation) 460 SF $6.50 $2,990 Subtotal $2,990 Retaining Walls Concrete retaining wall 2,440 SF $150.00 $366,000 Subtotal $366,000 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $758,157 CONTINGENCY 20% $151,631 SURVEYING 5% $37,908 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING 15% $113,724 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, PERMITTING 10% $75,816 TECH STUDIES, MITIGATION 2.5% $18,954 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $113,724 TOTAL $1,270,000 Table B-21: Annual Maintenance Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR TOTAL MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR Short-Term improvement Concept Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 1,730 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $17 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $72,267 IC Installation Cost / 10 $7,227 Long-Term Improvement Concept Sidepath Maintenance 370 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $981 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $55,500 IC Installation Cost / 20 $2,775 Landscape Maintenance 230 LF $900 / 1,000 LF $207 B.9 Segment 6.2: Olympic Boulevard – Alpine Road to S. California Boulevard Table B-22: Short-Term Improvements Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $2,043 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $817 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $4,086 Subtotal $6,945 Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Remove existing striping (no lead present) 7,055 LF $2.00 $14,110 Subtotal $14,110 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. High visibility crosswalk 360 LF $35.00 $12,600 Buffered bike lane, pavement markings, and signs 1,340 LF $7.58 $10,157 Bike lane, pavement markings, and signs 390 LF $5.25 $2,048 Greenback sharrow 4 EA $300.00 $1,200 Green conflict markings 50 LF $14.81 $741 Subtotal $26,745 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $47,801 CONTINGENCY 20% $9,560 SURVEYING 5% $2,390 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE 15% $7,170 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $7,170 TOTAL $75,000 Table B-23: Long-Term Improvements Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $11,250 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $4,500 EROSION CONTROL - INCLUDES ALL BMPS, SWPPP AND REPORTING 1 LS 5% $11,250 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $22,500 Subtotal $49,500 Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Sawcut pavement 910 LF $5.00 $4,550 Remove AC pavement 8,500 SF $0.80 $6,800 Remove concrete pavement 864 SF $10.00 $8,640 Remove curb/gutter 850 LF $10.00 $8,500 Remove existing striping 2,550 LF $2.00 $5,100 Subtotal $33,590 TWIC Packet Page Number 161 of 167
Final Report B-10 | Alta Planning + Design DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST Concrete Work and Asphalt Paving - includes concrete curbs, 4" PCC sidewalk, Type I pedestrian ramps, concrete pads, Sidepath Construct curb & gutter 850 LF $55.00 $46,750 Construct 4" AC over 6" AB 9,364 SF $10.00 $93,640 Construct new inlet to existing storm drain 3 EA $3,000.00 $9,000 Construct wide curb ramp with truncated dome surface 2 EA $2,000.00 $4,000 Subtotal $153,390 Planting Landscaping (1 gallon shrubs, 5 gallon shrubs, irrigation) 2,550 SF $6.50 $16,575 Irrigation meter/connection, backflow, and controller 1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000 Subtotal $31,575 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. Buffered bike lane and pavement markings 850 LF $7.58 $6,443 Subtotal $6,443 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $274,498 CONTINGENCY 20% $54,900 SURVEYING 5% $13,725 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING 15% $41,175 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, PERMITTING 10% $27,450 TECH STUDIES, MITIGATION 2.5% $6,862 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $41,175 TOTAL $460,000 Table B-24: Annual Maintenance Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR TOTAL MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR Short-Term improvement Concept Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 1,780 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $18 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $26,745 IC Installation Cost / 10 $2,675 Long-Term Improvement Concept Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Sweeping 850 LF $10 / 1,000 LF $9 Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $6,443 IC Installation Cost / 10 $644 Sidepath Maintenance 936 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $2,483 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $93,640 IC Installation Cost / 20 $4,682 Landscape Maintenance 850 LF $900 / 1,000 LF $765 B.10 Segment 7: S. California Boulevard – Olympic Boulevard to Newell Avenue Table B-25: Short-Term Improvements Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $328 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $131 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $656 Subtotal $1,115 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. Greenback sharrow 4 EA $300.00 $1,200 Wayfinding signage 4 EA $1,340.00 $5,360 Subtotal $6,560 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $7,675 CONTINGENCY 20% $1,535 SURVEYING 5% $384 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE 15% $1,151 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $1,151 TOTAL $12,000 Table B-26: Long-Term Improvements Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $28,309 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $11,324 EROSION CONTROL - INCLUDES ALL BMPS, SWPPP AND REPORTING 1 LS 5% $28,309 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $56,618 Subtotal $124,560 Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Sawcut pavement 250 LF $5.00 $1,250 Remove AC pavement 1,730 SF $0.80 $1,384 Remove concrete pavement 4,240 SF $10.00 $42,400 Relocate existing utility pole 2 EA $8,000.00 $16,000 Remove and relocate existing light standard 5 EA $2,000.00 $10,000 Remove and relocate utility or signal cabinets (up to three) 2 EA $3,000.00 $6,000 Remove curb/gutter 490 LF $10.00 $4,900 Tree removal 14 EA $500.00 $7,000 Subtotal $88,934 Earthwork Soil for new landscape areas 55 CY $20.00 $1,100 Subtotal $1,100 TWIC Packet Page Number 162 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | B-11 DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST Concrete Work and Asphalt Paving - includes concrete curbs, 4" PCC sidewalk, Type I pedestrian ramps, concrete pads, Sidepath Construct curb & gutter 410 LF $55.00 $22,550 Construct AC curb 160 LF $12.00 $1,920 Construct 4" PCC sidewalk 6,942 SF $15.00 $104,130 Construct new inlet to existing storm drain 1 EA $3,000.00 $3,000 Construct wide curb ramp with truncated dome surface 2 EA $2,000.00 $4,000 Subtotal $135,600 Planting 15 gallon trees with protective posts and root barriers, irrigation 14 EA $1,600.00 $22,400 Landscaping (1 gallon shrubs, 5 gallon shrubs, irrigation) 1,500 SF $6.50 $9,750 Subtotal $32,150 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. High visibility crosswalk 240 LF $35.00 $8,400 Subtotal $8,400 Bridges Provide and install pre-manufactured steel bridge (130'x12') 1 LS $300,000.00 $300,000 Subtotal $300,000 Right of Way Acquisition Acquire easements for bridge approach 1,000 SF $50.00 $50,000 Subtotal $50,000 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $740,744 CONTINGENCY 20% $148,149 SURVEYING 5% $37,037 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING 15% $111,112 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, PERMITTING 10% $74,074 TECH STUDIES, MITIGATION 2.5% $18,519 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $111,112 TOTAL $1,241,000 Table B-27: Annual Maintenance Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR TOTAL MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR Short-Term improvement Concept Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $6,560 IC Installation Cost / 10 $656 Long-Term Improvement Concept Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $8,400 IC Installation Cost / 10 $840 Sidepath Maintenance 694 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $1,841 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $104,130 IC Installation Cost / 20 $5,207 Landscape Maintenance 500 LF $900 / 1,000 LF $450 Bridge Maintenance $300,000 IC Installation Cost / 30 $10,000 B.11 Segment 8.1: Newell Avenue – S. California Boulevard to S. Main Street Table B-28: Short-Term Improvements Concept DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $45 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $18 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $90 Subtotal $153 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. Greenback sharrow 3 EA $300.00 $900 Subtotal $900 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $1,053 CONTINGENCY 20% $211 SURVEYING 5% $53 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE 15% $158 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $158 TOTAL $2,000 Table B-29: Long-Term Improvements Cost Estimate – Sidepath Alternative DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $12,387 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $4,955 EROSION CONTROL - INCLUDES ALL BMPS, SWPPP AND REPORTING 1 LS 5% $12,387 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $24,774 Subtotal $54,503 Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Sawcut pavement 830 LF $5.00 $4,150 Remove AC pavement 3,650 SF $0.80 $2,920 Remove concrete pavement 1,314 SF $10.00 $13,140 Relocate existing utility pole 2 EA $8,000.00 $16,000 Remove and relocate existing light standard 2 EA $2,000.00 $4,000 Remove and relocate utility or signal cabinets (up to three) 1 EA $3,000.00 $3,000 Remove curb/gutter 730 LF $10.00 $7,300 Tree removal 3 EA $500.00 $1,500 Remove existing striping 3,650 LF $2.00 $7,300 Subtotal $59,310 Earthwork Soil for new landscape areas 66 CY $20.00 $1,320 Subtotal $1,320 TWIC Packet Page Number 163 of 167
Final Report B-12 | Alta Planning + Design DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST Concrete Work and Asphalt Paving - includes concrete curbs, 4" PCC sidewalk, Type I pedestrian ramps, concrete pads, Sidepath Construct curb & gutter 950 LF $55.00 $52,250 Construct 4" PCC sidewalk 4,514 SF $15.00 $67,710 Construct new inlet to existing storm drain 2 EA $3,000.00 $6,000 Colored stamped asphalt or concrete 330 SF $15.00 $4,950 Construct wide curb ramp with truncated dome surface 2 EA $2,000.00 $4,000 Subtotal $134,910 Planting 15 gallon trees with protective posts and root barriers, irrigation 6 EA $1,600.00 $9,600 Landscaping (1 gallon shrubs, 5 gallon shrubs, irrigation) 1,800 SF $6.50 $11,700 Subtotal $21,300 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. High visibility crosswalk 570 LF $35.00 $19,950 Miscellaneous 4" thermoplastic stripe 3,650 LF $3.00 $10,950 Subtotal $30,900 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $302,243 CONTINGENCY 20% $60,449 SURVEYING 5% $15,112 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING 15% $45,336 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, PERMITTING 10% $30,224 TECH STUDIES, MITIGATION 2.5% $7,556 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $45,336 TOTAL $507,000 Table B-30: Long-Term Improvements Cost Estimate – Lane Removal Alternative DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $11,098 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $4,439 EROSION CONTROL - INCLUDES ALL BMPS, SWPPP AND REPORTING 1 LS 5% $11,098 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $22,195 Subtotal $48,830 Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Remove AC pavement 4,380 SF $0.80 $3,504 Remove concrete pavement 1,314 SF $10.00 $13,140 Remove and relocate utility or signal cabinets (up to three) 1 EA $3,000.00 $3,000 Remove curb/gutter 730 LF $10.00 $7,300 Remove existing striping 3,650 LF $2.00 $7,300 Subtotal $34,244 DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST Concrete Work and Asphalt Paving - includes concrete curbs, 4" PCC sidewalk, Type I pedestrian ramps, concrete pads, Sidepath Construct curb & gutter 950 LF $55.00 $52,250 Construct 4" PCC sidewalk 6,704 SF $15.00 $100,560 Construct new inlet to existing storm drain 2 EA $3,000.00 $6,000 Colored stamped asphalt or concrete 330 SF $15.00 $4,950 Construct wide curb ramp with truncated dome surface 2 EA $2,000.00 $4,000 Subtotal $167,760 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. High visibility crosswalk 570 LF $35.00 $19,950 Subtotal $19,950 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $270,784 CONTINGENCY 20% $54,157 SURVEYING 5% $13,539 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING 15% $40,618 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, PERMITTING 10% $27,078 TECH STUDIES, MITIGATION 2.5% $6,770 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $40,618 TOTAL $454,000 Table B-31: Annual Maintenance Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR TOTAL MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR Short-Term improvement Concept Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $900 IC Installation Cost / 10 $90 Long-Term Improvement Concept – Sidepath Alternative Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $30,900 IC Installation Cost / 10 $3,090 Sidepath Maintenance 347 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $921 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $67,710 IC Installation Cost / 20 $3,386 Landscape Maintenance 600 LF $900 / 1,000 LF $540 Long-Term Improvement Concept – Lane Removal Alternative Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $19,950 IC Installation Cost / 10 $1,995 Sidepath Maintenance 670 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $1,778 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $100,560 IC Installation Cost / 20 $5,028 TWIC Packet Page Number 164 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | B-13 B.12 Segment 8.2: Newell Avenue – S. Main Street to Broadway Avenue/Iron Horse Trail Table B-32: Short-Term Improvements Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $276 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $110 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $552 Subtotal $938 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. Greenback sharrow 5 EA $300.00 $1,500 Wayfinding signage 3 EA $1,340.00 $4,020 Subtotal $5,520 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $6,458 CONTINGENCY 20% $1,292 SURVEYING 5% $323 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE 15% $969 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $969 TOTAL $11,000 Table B-33: Long-Term Improvements Cost Estimate – Sidepath Alternative DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $20,903 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $8,361 EROSION CONTROL - INCLUDES ALL BMPS, SWPPP AND REPORTING 1 LS 5% $20,903 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $41,807 Subtotal $91,974 Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Sawcut pavement 850 LF $5.00 $4,250 Remove AC pavement 1,000 SF $0.80 $800 Remove concrete pavement 1,825 SF $10.00 $18,250 Remove and relocate existing light standard 2 EA $2,000.00 $4,000 Remove curb/gutter 850 LF $10.00 $8,500 Tree removal 6 EA $500.00 $3,000 Remove existing striping 1,184 LF $2.00 $2,368 Subtotal $41,168 Earthwork Soil for new landscape areas 24 CY $20.00 $480 Subtotal $480 DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST Concrete Work and Asphalt Paving - includes concrete curbs, 4" PCC sidewalk, Type I pedestrian ramps, concrete pads, Sidepath Construct curb & gutter 850 LF $55.00 $46,750 Construct 4" PCC sidewalk 890 SF $15.00 $13,350 Construct new inlet to existing storm drain 1 EA $3,000.00 $3,000 Colored stamped asphalt or concrete 1,185 SF $15.00 $17,775 Construct wide curb ramp with truncated dome surface 3 EA $2,000.00 $6,000 Subtotal $86,875 Planting 15 gallon trees with protective posts and root barriers, irrigation 6 EA $1,600.00 $9,600 Landscaping (1 gallon shrubs, 5 gallon shrubs, irrigation) 660 SF $6.50 $4,290 Irrigation meter/connection, backflow, and controller 1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000 Subtotal $28,890 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. High visibility crosswalk 360 LF $35.00 $12,600 HAWK/RRFB 2 EA $22,250.00 $44,500 Miscellaneous 4" thermoplastic stripe 1,184 LF $3.00 $3,552 Subtotal $60,652 Bridges Provide and install pre-manufactured steel bridge (75'x12') 1 LS $200,000.00 $200,000 Subtotal $200,000 Right of Way Acquisition Acquire easements for bridge approach 1,000 SF $50.00 $50,000 Subtotal $50,000 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $560,039 CONTINGENCY 20% $112,008 SURVEYING 5% $28,002 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING 15% $84,006 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, PERMITTING 10% $56,004 TECH STUDIES, MITIGATION 2.5% $14,001 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $84,006 TOTAL $939,000 TWIC Packet Page Number 165 of 167
Final Report B-14 | Alta Planning + Design Table B-34: Long-Term Improvements Cost Estimate – Lane Removal Alternative DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $20,639 GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $8,256 EROSION CONTROL - INCLUDES ALL BMPS, SWPPP AND REPORTING 1 LS 5% $20,639 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $41,279 Subtotal $90,813 Sitework, Demolition and Removal - includes all demolition, site preparation for all construction; relocation or re-setting of utilities; temporary construction fencing. Sawcut pavement 250 LF $5.00 $1,250 Remove AC pavement 2,500 SF $0.80 $2,000 Remove concrete pavement 240 SF $10.00 $2,400 Remove existing striping 740 LF $2.00 $1,480 Subtotal $7,130 Earthwork Soil for new landscape areas 24 CY $20.00 $480 Subtotal $480 Concrete Work and Asphalt Paving - includes concrete curbs, 4" PCC sidewalk, Type I pedestrian ramps, concrete pads, Sidepath Construct curb & gutter 850 LF $55.00 $46,750. Construct 4" PCC sidewalk 3,536 SF $15.00 $53,040 Construct new inlet to existing storm drain 1 EA $3,000.00 $3,000 Colored stamped asphalt or concrete 1,185 SF $15.00 $17,775 Construct wide curb ramp with truncated dome surface 3 EA $2,000.00 $6,000 Subtotal $126,565 Planting Landscaping (1 gallon shrubs, 5 gallon shrubs, irrigation) 660 SF $6.50 $4,290 Irrigation meter/connection, backflow, and controller 1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000 Subtotal $19,290 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. High visibility crosswalk 360 LF $35.00 $12,600 HAWK/RRFB 2 EA $22,250.00 $44,500 Miscellaneous 4" thermoplastic stripe 740 LF $3.00 $2,220 Subtotal $59,320 Bridges Provide and install pre-manufactured steel bridge (75'x12') 1 LS $200,000.00 $200,000 Subtotal $200,000 DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST Right of Way Acquisition Acquire easements for bridge approach 1,000 SF $50.00 $50,000 Subtotal $50,000 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $553,598 CONTINGENCY 20% $110,720 SURVEYING 5% $27,680 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING 15% $83,040 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, PERMITTING 10% $55,360 TECH STUDIES, MITIGATION 2.5% $13,840 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $83,040 TOTAL $928,000 Table B-35: Annual Maintenance Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR TOTAL MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR Short-Term improvement Concept Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $5,520 IC Installation Cost / 10 $552 Long-Term Improvement Concept – Sidepath Alternative Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $60,652 IC Installation Cost / 10 $6,065 Sidepath Maintenance 64 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $169 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $13,350 IC Installation Cost / 20 $668 Landscape Maintenance 220 LF $900 / 1,000 LF $198 Bridge Maintenance $200,000 IC Installation Cost / 30 $6,667 Long-Term Improvement Concept – Lane Removal Alternative Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $59,320 IC Installation Cost / 10 $5,932 Sidepath Maintenance 354 LF $2652 / 1,000 LF $938 Sidepath Pavement Maintenance $53,040 IC Installation Cost / 20 $2,652 Landscape Maintenance 220 LF $900 / 1,000 LF $198 Bridge Maintenance $200,000 IC Installation Cost / 30 $6,667 TWIC Packet Page Number 166 of 167
Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | B-15 B.13 Segment 9: Newell Avenue – west of I-680 Table B-36: Short-Term Improvements Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST MOBILIZATION 1 LS 5% $402. GENERAL CONDITIONS, BONDS AND INSURANCE 1 LS 2% $161 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS 10% $804 Subtotal $1,367 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. Wayfinding signage 6 EA $1,340.00 $8,040 Subtotal $8,040 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $9,407 CONTINGENCY 20% $1,881 SURVEYING 5% $470 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE 15% $1,411 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $1,411 TOTAL $15,000 Table B-37: Annual Maintenance Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR TOTAL MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR Short-Term improvement Concept Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $8,040 IC Installation Cost / 10 $804 B.14 Segment 10: Southern connections to the Iron Horse Trail Table B-38: Short-Term Improvements Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST COST Mobilization 1 LS 5% $402 General Conditions, Bonds and Insurance 1 LS 2% $161 Traffic Control 1 LS 10% $804 Subtotal $1,367 Signs and Pavement Markings - includes painted traffic lines and markings on pavement, and traffic signage. Wayfinding signage 6 EA $1,340.00 $8,040 Subtotal $8,040 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $9,407 CONTINGENCY 20% $1,881 SURVEYING 5% $470 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE 15% $1,411 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ADMIN. 15% $1,411 TOTAL $15,000 Table B-39: Annual Maintenance Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR TOTAL MAINTENANCE COST/YEAR Short-Term improvement Concept Signs, Striping, and Pavement Markings $8,040 IC Installation Cost / 10 $804 TWIC Packet Page Number 167 of 167