HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02011994 - TC.4 Report on Revised NOP for the 1994 Regional Transportation Plan EIR
January 24, 1994
Page Two
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
Specific comments on the NOP were revised to reflect recent developments in the
RTP update process. Specific requests for an alternative that includes completion
of the State Route 4 freeway gap closure in West County and a regional commuter
rail system in lieu of further extensions of BART by year 2013 .
The Transportation Committee requests the Board to review the attached response
to the NOP (see Exhibit A) and authorize its signature by the Chair for
transmittal to the Commission. Copies of the response should also be transmitted
to MTC Commissioner Sharon Brown and the Authority. A copy of the NOP (see
Exhibit B) is attached for the Board's information.
SLG:94rtpnop.bo
Exhibit A
O
ex
}....1..7.,..._1993
ruar
y.
Ms. Susan Pultz
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4756
Dear Ms. Pultz:
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has reviewed the
Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report for
the 1994 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Update, and submits
this response for the Commission's consideration. W-begin
y
addressing key peliey issues te be eensidered by the Ge
d eenei,,ae with speeifie—een- 'sing—Erre% the NOP--
....
basedx� ' t� vus::; �n ...t tie
: '.r.:e : .roti.c .n...:.: ah.ih:::address:ed::>:ke:.:><>:: >.:: . >::;::
:.:....::................::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::A:.:.:.::::::::::::::::::::.::...,:::::::::::::,::::::,:::...:::.:::.:::::.:::.:,......... :: .c � :.::: s.su.es.
W.ai. �.:::0 .:6c . .;. .::.: :. s:
:.::.:.:::.:.:...: :.:.:.:........................::.:._::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::.::.:.......................:..::::::::::. :._::::.::::.::::::...............:..:ean. :::: .::::�.n..
th�:> ;� ;
RTP Policy Considerations
The Commission's community forums listed "key policy choices"
that will influence specific projects to be included in the final
RTP. Answers to most of these policy choices cannot be provided
until the evaluation of alternative strategies is completed. The
limited reseurees des-rib"cam-lir-the N9P --'J-i-- a—eemprehensiye
reassessment ef the present transpertatlen investment strategy -t-e
help make-tee—inevitable-tradeefs faeingthe-Bay AFea. Exist'
At this time k '` answers can be provided to three policy
choices descrbe ri the community forums, regardless of the
performance of the RTP alternatives.
The Commission should require subregional growth management plans
before investing in major expansion of the transportation system.
Growth management plans should be required not only to preserve
the congestion relief provided by major expansion to the
transportation system, but also to prevent future congestion from
developing where it presently doesn't exist.;;::::;; ta :ri ;''df
...............................
The Commission should make more of an effort to ensure that there
are sufficiently high existing or proposed land-use densities in
the vicinity of future mass transit extensions. The performance
of existing mass transit systems clearly demonstrates that public
subsidies for these systems are the lowest where more people are
able to live or work close to transit stops.
The Commission should seek new revenues to pay for additional
transportation improvements. The--State-Department of Finanee
s
t- sget1e - pe a�emes. 1 :>:<:: ::><ask>::: r :>:::: :>::> i ::>::tte.. : > : k
:..::.:.::::.............................:....:.:::.::......::..::::::::::::::.::.:::::......................::: :::::::::::::::::::::..:::::::::: ..,:................... .::�' .:... .
atc><::: learl >:::::demonstrai~es:::::<t »::::: »:
:.;;:.:;.;;............;:.;:.:I ..::.;.:::::::;.;::::::.::::::::::::::::::. :.>;:.:.:: .;:.;nee .::€ora d1t' n...a:l;.:.;
.:....:............:.......:. .::.. .:.....:.::::::;:
:Ca*, . ,.::t .;:; 351' lt : : The Boarcl of Supervisors supports
inves igatinc a combination of revenue sources including
additional gas taxes, congestion pricing, new sales tax measures
as well as local or subregional transportation impact fees.
One policy choice not made explicit by the Commission is whether
it should require consolidation of the planning, operation or
maintenance of existing transit operators before investing in
major expansion of the transit system. Is there a need to unify
the operation of different transit systems to serve existing and
emerging transit markets? Are there economies of scale that
could address looming shortfalls for maintaining and operating
existing transit services. Could introduction of new modes of
transit into new service areas be more effectively utilized by
restructuring the provision of transit service in the Bay Area?
The Commission should take this opportunity to develop a regional
strategy for mass transportation to ensure convenient connections
between transit modes and to operate as a unified system.
Concerns Regarding the Notice of Preparation
deseriptlen but e-€€ers-a-eelleet-i-en ef alternative PTejeets
E- n al- mpaetRep , s euld examine the
ef each alternative-at the same evel of
detail as we l F7 be reef red-fer the--Prepesea P J �.
�
rMTG sheula previde an eppertualty fer the-Fra9i-le to eyaluate-a l�
eemmet en theimpaets- ef the—Pref-eek- if the- rej eet--mss f a '
�a
after eireu a.#- the PEER raise- s-mese lees net alien.-€e=
`.peelasure of the- rejeet1rapaetete the publie—a
peeler, hieh weu-ld--extenel-treyend-Traele 1, and wetild be
pessible enly-if mere -evenue-beeame available. it is-Unele �
hew the HOP-prepeeeste evaluate-Traele -2 in the DEIR. Gomments
2 prejeets-wither ineluding infermatien en Traek 2 in the NOP.
The NOP Bpeei€ies aetiens-fie ' neve-#tee} h��eli�t.. :.. t
.�:::::...:.:::::::: :.:gfie
Traek 3:13 and IG a-lte��ivesz the= �c� 'tai> er can> 'W�e ��a'
1�
gz n xa ax�� a xa Ag ee�u nt.:.. n: e... ... s ....
uh 6&6 0ieii :<.; :€: :a:ct ;:t :; ..:. :. .:.
.................I ?.:.£'t.::::..:C#.:::I,Tt . 'OYE .::: I E:1.. t..:
The DEIR should estimate future demand for the
ovemerit o all goods, including sea and air cargo, required to
serve the anticipated economic activity in the Bay Area. The
ability of all alternatives to accommodate this demand should be
assessed, whieh 'may equixe e—s=d�ezatien--ef intermedal
#a
't'es
_ ear -res
eei- regi- the ?;9 to ' <tQr ria >..., : ; ;<::;:<;> >:::;:,..
::::::: :.:::::.::..:.::::::::::......::. .... .................. ::::::.::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::.g ..;a c mmo a ;:3
idhX.
e.. : p ::>< x' gh .:: ncr r .; , tpt� `t '�
:.. >.. ..:.. :;..:::::.:..:.;:.;..
iEtasuree. T1ie HEIR' slioulcI also consider the ability of pipelines
fo accomiYiodate the movement of goods.
The DEIR should evaluate future transportation demand at the
gateways into the nine-county Bay Area (e.g. State Route 160 at
the Sacramento County line, State Route 4 and I-580 at the San
Joaquin County line, etc. ) , the ability of the proposed actions
to accommodate this demand, and their environmental impacts.
Future demand at these gateways should consider the growth in
commuter and non-commuter trips to or from neighboring counties.
Previous travel demand efforts have not adequately considered the
ability of the Bay Area and neighboring counties to accommodate
the labor supply required to satisfy the job growth for each
region and the interregional travel patterns that would occur
from this growth.
The=BEI she •' a a'• ate- he-wets erasernative-aetiens
aetienatm the smpaete of
esnfiZstri This is particularly im ortarit where sections of
:::.....:.:...... . P
highway cannot be expanded any further and could become
significantly overloaded if other freeway bottlenecks are
rel vxi
ed.
::::....:..ie h? RTP S ►t d �t... ly �+ s'�3aen t4
The DEIR should discuss any inconsistencies between the level of
growth assumed to occur during the 20-year plan and adopted
General Plans. Th i B is part eu l arl y i mrertant if the DEIR
assumes grewth based en fereeasts prepared by the Asseelatien e4
assurae growth wiII eeeur in areas that a _-4- ____
r.l mix-=-eea� ere
ged
ca::' .;:.
ud. at. .o. a > t
e
��► :���ant;;::�or:>::>�'rack:::::::3 >::>:::>t�xe::>::>�rans o :: . ,,.:.::. . <:><:: :<:::: ::>:.
by state
t
and the prejeet Bpen---
..:::,;::.;';::::::::.::::.::::<::::::%>_..<;;Ix�;Y:♦;�•._::y...;iiGya:;;:;>:•;:::i:'t:;::::;:::::;'>,;>o-<?:''..:;.>:'`:xa'jijii}:Q:?i:4a;.;::y;;;<;;.:;::_:»:;:.;y•;;:;;;:::y;:r:;:;"::f:>::::":;'.::t:;i<•::::•;»>:;5:;;.,,,..::
...<:.:: :.:: : ;;:..:: .: :.;;:::.. <::;:::. ;oar ents.;:.;:.�nc�:�ds�t:>:« ::�dc► .��: :>:>: _�:���3>�. �o
umu1? pas
The DEIR should evaluate future growth in air passengert
'' <><traffic and the ability of commercial airports in'the Bay
h <>< d r tin
Area 'tci accommodate this...growth...............................:.:;.;:.:>:::::;: : D.;;:.;;<:::;;.:::.::�::.>:»::;•;::<;'.<::::::<:;:.;:.:':;:.:•.»::;,.;: .;:�.;:i.:.y1.;�:
is :i:t
The NOP does not include any actions regarding the development of
high speed ground transportation. Previous efforts by the State
(AB-971 Study) have identified potential corridors for high-speed
rail such as the Sacramento-Bay Area Corridor and the Bay Area-
Los Angeles Corridor. Would the DEIR include development of
these corridors for high-speed ground transportation as a Track 1
project (using funds available to the CTC) , a Track 2 project, or
part of the analysis of cumulative impacts?
:.: d�t
1 4�?.:::. 1 .::,.::. t.:::flt.........,., :.:::::::::::::::::..:.:,::......:..:::::....... .:....:::::.::::: :::::: :..:::
>::; the a>::f:achaes::>:: n
but::::assr . s::><:: :drat . .::.: cs::>:<::fa .:>.:::::::::::::::::.::.,:..::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::.:. :..... .....
::: .::::::::::.P..:..:::::::::.::::::. .:::::::::::::::::::.......:.::::::.....::.......,..::::::.::..:::.:::.::::.::::::.:.:::.:..::: :,......
� .::ahs.:.����:::e. .�.�.ua��.::........�..................:..:::.;..:.....::::..::::::::.::::::.:::.p.:::::::::::::::.:::.�.
the �a '.itaz:>;:<: m rfl�r�mentS, t�a��;��:;:.�..f;;
.............
:............:.:......... ........... ................::. ... :.
the.::.�tTP.:::a.�te rna����r �;:•:<:;:::::::.............:::.:::...:::::::::::::::...:...:......:..:::................:.......:::....:.....:::::.:::::::::..::.:::::::::::.:...::.............
:;:.. . ;:._: .tit$nt:x:a ::>:>:, f::>.> Qmetr
n ►t:::ad� , ats : :::.,sdra.s :::: h....::: .::..::::::..:.,:::.,:::...,:::::::::.:::,.:::::::::::;.::..:.::::.::.,:::::.::::..:.,:::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::.:
............... ,...:::::::::::::::::..:::::::::::::::,:.:..:.......::.:..:..::.::.:::.,:..: :::::::.:::::::.:.::::::::•::..:.:::...:. :.......:..... ...:::.::......:.................
: :::::: : :.. :....:.::.: ..:: .:. ..::.:::. .:. .:: :.. ::::: .:,.:
ccmmute »>ra :<:eervCzmtr::: a:
srrdcrs::: ...::
:..: ntraE :::>:<ta : ;>;:.:: au :� a::es;> rh
:::.�::::::::: y::::..::::....::..._......::.:.:......:...:.::::.:..:.:::::
>:t
s
::::: ;:.;:: ;.: a. :<:::of:<::a ert: n': unds:<:<:: e a:re ::ae
r ::>:comm�tn�t�e:s
:;: >; »'<s:::. : »: b;:=::as3 ...e... . ...the
VVI
»:: »c :vsure>:::::: n::« esez :>:::: cntra:... ....sta.... .......
tat.e: at .:::? .; sws.. ::::: a :::. .:: . : ::::::::::.:::.,:::::: Y
:;; ::;: s�ntr�;:<: c�sta:..s
w ......:f-::€fux�d3n.
Y
tsar ...
The Board of Supervisors looks forward to working with the
Commission as one of its partners in developing the 1994 Regional
Transportation Plan Update. Please keep us informed as work on
this update and the DEIR progresses.
Sincerely yours,
Tem Terlaksen, Gha-ice
W-6a `> I
Contra...Costa County Board of Supervisors
cc: Commissioner Sharon Brown
Chair Darrel Tucker, CCTA
Exhibit B
MTC
METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
AWO"a� DATE: December 28,1993
L Waum WnN.ow
CWft Cor,cW* TO: Interested Agencies and Citizens
Taw FOYMS
&"" N I-Bravo" FR Executive Director
M"caiimy
R"m Kum RE: ,NOTICE OF PREPARATION(NOP) OF AN
MW Cafflo' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE 1994
FW NM REGIONAL TRANS ORA ON PL A
p T Tj PLAN tRTP),UPDATE
so FrW CbCoo-
CMy and Cwny
To"tm Due to the addition of an additional alternative to be analyzed,we are issuing
�" o""' this NOP to replace the one dated July 8,1993.
MW�,,,,�� RTP DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS
ChOWWWWrn
sWU am cw",. The MTC envisions the region's transportation network as an integrated
a**D"' multi-modal transportation system which reinforces local land use plans and
k`t ku4 w is sensitive to the environment.
sow"Ca.w.
two;SMWc
C_%* MTC plans to develop the RTP in two tiers. One tier,Track 1,will consist of a
rtm c.k,,,,,o package of projects that could be constructed with the rather limited state and
#WWWWR« federal transportation funding anticipated for the region over the next 20
� years (1994-2013). The EIR will analyze the Track 1 "Project Alternative" and
vw-o.+t three additional Track 1 alternatives in addition to the 'No Project"
U.fty C,,, oon alternative. On Page 2,Section N,of the attached document,the Notice of
"nd Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report,the "themes" used to develop
Amno I.s.Km the 'Project Alternative"and the 3 other alternatives are described. Proposed
t projects for each of these themes are listed by county in Attachment B.
The second tier,Track 2,will not be analyzed in the EIR. Track 2 will include
U a more ambitious planning program for transportation improvements that
ui s,.P.owum would be possible if more revenue became available to the region. Most of
these new revenues depend upon actions that the Bay Area itself would
initiate.Note that in the future,a project can progress from Track 2 to Track 1
carom oL mcw►Y as the region reaches consensus on the project,funding is identified,and the
project is included in future RTP updates(appro)imately every two years).
Thus,projects not included in the 1994 RTP Track 1 may still be considered for
implementation during the next 20 years.Put another way,Track 2 projects do
u"'W=D.Dam not have to wait until year 2014 to move forward.
0*WY cmCWW Dk*C .
WaiNw F.HWN
10m P. Bw MmOCEwm 0 101 Flank"Sn w * O"L wa,G 94607-4700
510/464-7700 9 TDD/TTY 510/464-7769 0 FAX 510/464.7848
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN EIR
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MX)will serve as the lead
agency in preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR)on the 1994
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP). We need to know your views
as to the scope and content of the environmental information that should be
contained within this report.
The project description,location and identification of possible environmental
effects are contained in the attached materials. The contents of the RTP are
prescribed in law,and include:
• a policy element that considers important transportation issues and
describes the desired transportation goals,objectives and policies;
• an action element that describes the programs,actions and responsibilities
associated with plan implementation; and
• a financial element that summarizes the costs of plan implementation
according to realistic projections of available revenues (Government Code
Section 65081).
Written responses on this NOP must be received at MTC offices no later than
February 4, 1994. All responses should include the name and phone number
of a contact person. Please send your comments to Susan Pultz,Project
Manager,MTC, 101 Eighth Street,Oakland,CA 94607-4756.
Lawrence D. Dahms
LDD:SP:jr
mac
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE 1994 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN:
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
I. Response of Notice of Preparation
MTC will accept written comments pertinent to the scope and content of the
environmental information to be included in the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR),received by MTC by January 28, 1994. Comments may be mailed to the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission,Attention: Susan Pultz,101 Eighth
Street,Oakland,CA 94607.
II. Purpose
This letter and its enclosures constitute a Notice of Preparation(NOP) to initiate
an EIR for the proposed 1994 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The EER will
be prepared and processed in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et&q.).
As provided under Public Resources Code Section 21068.5,this EER will be
prepared as a "tiered" EIR. More commonly known as a program EER, the
CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal.Admin. Code Section 15168)describe this as an
approach "which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized
as one large project and are related either: (1)geographically, (2)as logical parts
in the chain of contemplated actions,or(3)in connection with activities carried
out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having
generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways."
Because the project is,in this case,a long range plan,the EER assessment of
physical and social impacts will emphasize regional and corridor scale impacts
associated with the construction and/or implementation of new transportation
facilities and activities, The CEQA Guidelines provide,however,that any
subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the
program EER to determine whether an additional environmental document must
be prepared. Therefore,specific impacts of previously undocumented RTP
project components will be subject to subsequent EIRs.
M. Project Description
The Metropolitan Transportation Comnussion is required,by its enabling
legislation(Government Code Section 66510 et seq)to prepare and adopt
annuallv_a Regional Transportation Plan. The plan must include(but is not
limited to) the following segments of the regional transportation system:
(a) The national system of interstate and defense highways, the
California freeway and expressway system,and other highways within
the state highway system.
-1-
(b) The transbay bridges.
(c) Mass transit systems.
The Commission is required to pay particular attention to the connections among
and between the various modes of transportation(Gov.Code Sec.66511).
Additional legislation in 1977 that affects all regional transportation planning
agencies specifies that regional transportation plans be "directed at the
achievement of a coordinated and balanced regional transportation system,
including,but not limited to,mass transportation,highway,railroad,maritime,
and aviation facilities and services." (Gov.Code Sec.65080). The project study
area for the EIR is the nine-county Bay Area consisting of Alameda,Contra
Costa, Marin,Napa,San Francisco,San Mateo,Santa Clara,Solano,and Sonoma
Counties. A map is included as Attachment A.The last major update was in
1992
An EIR was prepared on the Proposed 1992 Regional Transportation Plan (the
Project) and completed in September, 1991. Subsequently,changes to the Project
were proposed,which required the preparation of a Supplemental EER in
September 1992. In 1993, insignificant changes were made to the 1992 RTP
Project,so a Negative Declaration was adopted in September 1993. The
Proposed 1994 RTP,which should entail substantial changes to the regional
transportation system,requires the preparation of a full EIR. A Notice of
Preparation of an EIR for the Proposed 1994 RTP,dated July 8, 1993,was
submitted for public comment. However,this Notice of Preparation dated
December 28, 1993,replaces that one, as an additional alternative has been added
and designated the "Project" Alternative.
IV. Characteristics of Proposed RTP Alternatives
The EIR will examine a 'No Project" alternative,as required by CEQA,the
Project alternative,and three other "build" alternatives to the year 2013,as
described below. Attachment B lists the projects and programs included in each
of the build alternatives by county.
A. ALTERNATIVE #1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
This alternative includes existing transportation projects plus all major capacity
expanding transit and highway projects that are expected to have signed
construction contracts by December 31, 1993.
B. BUILD ALTERNATIVES(The Project Alternative,and Tracks 1A, 1B,and 1C)
Revenue Assumptions
The federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act(ISTEA) requires
that the RTP be financially constrained--that is,the projects in the plan must be
fundable within reasonable estimates of available revenues over the long range
-2--
Planning period,suggested to be 20 years. All four proposed build alternatives
for the EIR were developed using constrained 20-year revenue projections. They
also reflect an equitable distribution of funds between the nine Bay Area
counties.
The projected 20-year revenues reflect the continuation of existing revenue
sources,and,for Tracks 1A, 1B,and 1C,the passage of new operating assistance.
No other major new sources of money are assumed to become available,such as
new gas taxes,county sales tax rollovers,new bridge tolls,etc.
A large portion of the funds over the next 20 years will be dedicated to
maintaining and operating the existing system,rather than building new
facilities. Major new construction will be advanced primarily through county
sales tax programs and the MTC Resolution 1876 Regional Rail Agreement.
Another constraint,despite the new flexibility provided by ISTEA,is that new
revenues can be spent on transit capital improvements,but not transit
operations. This is a major challenge facing the region.
General Description
All of the four build alternatives reflect the "Track 1" financial constraint,
identified for the region and,individual counties. All the build alternatives also
include a certain set of committed baseline improvements to the region's
transportation system. The baseline improvements common to all alternatives
include projects from the 1994 TIP and asset maintenance/replacement projects
from transit operator short range(10 year)plans. The alternatives include
Transportation Control measures (TCMs)required to attain and maintain federal
air quality standards and also include TCMs in the State Clean Air Plan. The
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)is a federal requirement that affects all
transit operators. The costs of implementing ADA requirements are included in
the RTP financial analysis.
1. ALTERNATIVE #2: 'Track 1 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE"—A
COMPOSITE OF THE OTHER BUILD ALTERNATIVES
The project alternative is MTC's proposed RTP pending further public
review. It honors prior commitments,with the understanding that
maintenance and operation of the existing MTS is the most fundamental
commitment. Substantial investment is proposed for maintaining transit
fleets and facilities and rehabilitating streets and roads in each county.The
Project Alternative also includes projects to improve freight mobility.This
alternative also supports desirable transportation/land use connections by
not including projects that would substantially alter land uses and by
identifying additional studies needed to guide transportation investments
that best serve current land-use patterns for selected corridors in the region.
-3-
The "Project Alternative"further honors long-standing commitments by
supporting:
• projects in the Transportation Improvement Program that are now under
way or past the point of reversal;
• voter-approved county sales tax measures where the commitments are
clear,and where the authorities that are in charge of the sales tax dollars
still support the commitments;
• bridge-corridor improvement projects embodied in Regional Measure
One,
• the region's share of seismic retrofitting of Bay Area bridges;
• operational strategies like Caltrans' traffic operations system,MTC's
signalization and pavement management programs,transit coordination
projects;
• MTC's Resolution 1876, the regional rail extension agreement.
The Project Alternative is a draft that was developed by MTC following
consultation with numerous parties and other public outreach meetings over
the summer. This consultation will continue concurrent with EIR preparation
and following release of the DEIR in March of 1994. The Project Alternative
will be revised if necessary in the Spring of 1994.
2. ALTERNATIVE #3: "Track W—LOCAL PLANS/PRIOR
COMMITMENTS
This alternative was designed to reflect the transportation planning priorities
of Congestion Management Agencies(CMAs),county sales tax authorities,
and other local and regional transportation agencies. Projects included in this
alternative were generally drawn from the following plans and programs:
Congestion Management Programs,Countywide Plans,MTC Resolution 1876
Regional Rail Agreement,Sales Tax Measure Programs,Short Range Transit
Plans,bid lists for the federal Surface Transportation Programs (STP),
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Programs (CMAQ), and state Flexible
Congestion Relief Programs (FCR). Projects to improve freight mobility are
also included.
3. ALTERNATIVE #4: "Track 1B"—MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS
MANAGEMENT
This alternative includes low cost,cost-effective projects that maximize the
existing transportation system's performance. It includes Caltrans' expanded
Traffic Operating System(TOS),Translink fare collection devices on buses,
local arterial traffic signals,and other operating strategies. The alternative
includes high occupancy vehicle(HOV)lanes where they improve highway
operations significantly and transit projects that increase short or long-term
operating efficiencies. Projects to improve freight mobility are also included.
-4-
C ALTERNATIVE#5: "Track 1C"—TRANSPORTATIONILAND USE
COORDINATION
This alternative reflects one option for better serving existing and planned
land use in the region. It emphasizes transit,highway and arterial
improvements that support city-centered development and intra-county
commutes throughout the region,with decreased emphasis on projects that
facilitate long-distance commuting. It aids mobility in areas where dense
development exists. Transit improvements where there is potential for dense
development or redevelopment to support transit is another objective of this
alternative. Some highway projects that support more rural settings as well
as freight movement are also included.
V. Potential Environmental Impacts
Attachment C,the Environmental Analysis Checklist,identifies environmental
impacts that may or may not be associated with implementing physical or
operational elements of the Regional Transportation Plan.
Attachment A
LOCATION/JURISDICTION OF
MTC REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
o .
A
SONOMA 11.rus� ,s
ww�
R
SWI t .
BOLANO
' ,�, rwrarr 1Z ( rwe 11
—• / 110
37 Nr
. rile
YAItlN �•�, Q�.
M s
1�vneNe
w�u CONTRA !
COSTA M
BAN OrMe� �
FRANCISCO
Lkw.
>rn �
ALAMEDA
wre
---------------
m M
1rn
ues+ X
� 4re
BAN �" r
MATED 1
! BANTA
• CLARA
y, 17
,
LEGEND
•.���• Bay Area Rapid Transit(BART) er.1
••�••�•••�� CalTraln ,Y
San Francisco Municipal Railway(Muni Metro)
ss
----- Santa Clara Light Rail Transh(SCLRT)
V=ywr"M
-7-4
ATTACHMENT B
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
0
Alameda County
Compadson of Alternatives
Total RTP Tract Other Track Track Track
Major Proect/Proram Cost 1 Funds Funds 1a 1b 1c Project
Highway/Local Streets&Roads
• Hayward Bypass(Stage 3:4-lane expressway) 60.0 60.0 0.0 X
Hayward Bypass (Stage 3:4-lane expressway) 70.0 70.0 0.0 X
•Widen 1-880 to Santa Clara County(1) 75.0 75.0 0.0 X
Widen 1-880 to Santa Clara County(1) 20.0 20.0 0.0 X
•1-680-1880 connector(Right of Way) 5.5 5.5 0.0 X X
• Widen Route 238(1) 25.0 25.0 0.0 X
•Widen 1-238(1-580 to 1-680)4 to 6 lanes(Phase 1) 30.0 30.0 0.0 X
• High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes on 1-80' 40.0 40.0 0.0 X
•1-80 HOV access-University Ave' 65.0 65.0 0.0 X
• 66th Avenue 1-880-Alameda connection 20.0 20.0 0.0 X
• Mission Boulevard widening&Rte 84 expressway(1) 60.0 60.0 0.0 X
• I-580/1-680 interchange hook ramps 6.0 6.0 0.0 . X
1-580/1-680 interchange hook ramps 16.0 16.0 0.0 X
• 1-580 Auto/Truck Separation Lane(1580/1-205 IC) 12.0 7.0 5.0 X
• Truck lanes on 1-580 over Altamont Pass 12.0 12.0 0.0 X
• Mandela Parkway extension 8.0 5.0 3.0 X X
•MTS Streets&Roads Construction (major roads) 80.0 80.0 0.0 X
MTS Streets&Roads Construction (major roads) 80.0 20.0 0.0" X
• Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation (major roads) 107.1 45.1 62.0 X X X X
• Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation (minor roads) 933.7 144.5 540.8" X
Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation (minor roads) 933.7 40.0 540.8" X
• Rte. 84 Improvement including Rte.84/1-580 connection 30.0 30.0 0.0 X
Rte. 84(Livermore) Improvement Including Rte. 84/1-580 30.0 20.0 10.0 X
Connection
• Rte. 84 Parkway(Right of Way) (Phase 1) 5.0 5.0 0.0 X
• Access improvements to City of Alameda 20.0 20.0 0.0 X
• EB 1-80 HOV Lanes through 580/80880 Distribution 40.0 40.0 0.0 X
Structure
Transit
• AC Transit Comprehensive Service Plan' 35.0 20.0 0.0" X
AC Comp Service Plan w/bus service on 1-80' 14.0 14.0 0.0 X X
• AC Transit Capital Program Shortfall' 114.0 114.0 0.0 X X X
AC Transit Capital Program Shortfall' 109.0 109.0 0.0 X
• AC Transit operating&maintenance shortfall(partial)' 88.1 73.2 0.0" X
AC Transit operating&maintenance shortfall(total)' 88.1 88.1 0.0 X X
• AC Transit Telegraph Corridor trolley buses* 35.0 35.0 0.0 X X X
• AC Transit Foothill/Bancroft trolley buses' 40.0 40.0 0.0 X X X
• AC Transit Broadway/College Corridor trolley buses' 40.0 40.0 0.0 X
• AC Transit MacArthur Corridor trolley buses' 65.0 65.0 0.0 X
• AC Transit LRT in San Pablo Corridor(Ala share)' 180.0 180.0 0.0 X
• AC Transit LRT in East 14th St.Corridor(Phase 1)' 150.0 150.0 0.0 X
• AC Transit Centers' 10.0 10.0 0.0 X
• Intermodal Transit Centers' 10.0 10.0 0.0 X
• BART capital Improvements' 54.2 54.2 0.0 X
• BART Dublin extension (second station)' 28.0 28.0 0.0 X
• BART extension to Warm Springs(one station)' 388.0 368.0 0.0 X
• BART-Oakland Airport connector* 203.0 203.0 0.0 X
• BART Capital Program Shortfall' 162.0 122.0 0.0 X
•South Bay LRT System(Fremont to Milpitas)(2)' 635.0 635.0 0.0 X
• Amtrak Capitol Rail Service Upgrade136.0 136.0 0.0 X
KK: 12/27/93
Alameda County
Comparison of Alternatives
Total RTP Talc Other Track Track Track
Major Pro ect/Pro ram Coat 1 Funds Funds 1a 1b tc Pro act
• Amtrak Capitol Rail Connection to Union City BART' 12.0 12.0 0.0 X
• Amtrak Capital Intercity/Commuter Rail Service(3)• - - X
• Local Transit Op's(LAVTA,Union City)' 40.0 40.0 0.0 X
Local Transit Op's(LAVTA,Union City)' 50.0 50.0 0.0 X
Local Transit Op's(LAVTA,Union City)* 80.0 60.0 0.0 X
• Americans with Disabilities Act transit services# 230.0 20.0 0.0" X X
Americans with Disabilitles Act transit servi es#I 230.0 80.0 0.0" X
Pending Corridor Study Results
• Fremont-South Bay Connection' TBD 348.5 X
Other
• Traffic Operations System* 75.0 75.0 0.0 X X
• Seismic retrofit of Bay Area bridges 25.6 25.8 0.0 X X X X
• Port of Oakland intermodal Container Terminal(4) 41.0 7.0 34.0 X
Port of Oakland Intermodal Container Terminal 41.0 20.0 21.0 X
• Fremont Weigh-in-Motion Facility on 1-880 1.5 1.5 0.0 X
Fremont Weight-in Motion Facility on 1-880 1.0 1.0 0.0 X
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects' 3.0 3.0 0.0 X X X X
• Transportation Control•.Ieasures for air quality' 51.0 51.0 0.0 X
Transportation Control Measures for air quality' 71.0 71.0 0.0 X
Transportation Control Measures for air quality' 10.0 10.0 0.0 X
Note: Total Cost Is the amount required to fully fund the project or program as defined.
Track 1 RTP Funds indicate the portion of Total Costs for which MTC will be mailing discretionary funding choices over the next 20
years.The discretionary Track 1 RTP Fund revenue sources may include: STIP,STP/CMAQ,SB 602 and Resolution 1876 funds.
Other Funds Include local sales taxes and subventions and other non-RTP sources for all Ahematives. Other Funds for the Project
Alternative also include Resolution 1876 funds.
Ali amounts are shown in millions of escalated dollars.
Projects currently funded with STIP,STP/CMAO or local revenues are not shown.
`State or federal transportation control measure
"Funding shortfall remaining
*The Project Alternative assumes no new funds for transit operating costs in Tract 1.Projected 20-year operating shortfalls which reflect
the operators'total operating costs for providing fixed route and ADA services are included in Track 2 of the RTP.
(1)Provides a stand alone,fully operational segment of a larger ultimate project
(2)Exact mode and alignment not yet determined
(3)Assumes six state-sponsored Capitol service roundtrips/day betweem Sacramento and San Jose by year 2000.
(4)Preliminary estimate:total costs and cost-sharing among different counties and state to be determined
KK: 12/27/93 _1
Contra Costa Coun : Com arison of Alternatives
Total Track Other Track Trackre ro act
Ala or Pro ect/Pro ram Coat 1 Funds Funds 1a lb 1c
Highway/Local Streets&Roads
• Route 4 Widenings(portions are HOV) 173.6 151.0 22.6 X
• Route 4 HOV lanes from SR 242 to Bailey Rd.' 10.4 10.4 0.0 X
• Route 4-Parallel arterial and Interchange Improvements 9.5 9.5 0.0 X
Route 4-Parallel arterial and Interchange Improvements 37.4 33.0 4.4 X
Route 4-Parallel arterial and Interchange improvements 70.0 70.0 0.0 X
Route 4-Parallel arterial and interchange improvements 62.4 33.0 29.4 X
• Route 4 West safety/realignment project 116.6 25.0 91.8 X
(non-capacity Increasing)
• 1-680-HOV Lanes from Rte 242 to Benicia Br.' 41.6 20.0 21.6 X X X
• 1-680 parallel arterial and Interchange Improvements 176.7 105.0 71.7 X
1-680 parallel arterial and Interchange Improvements 176.7 61.9 71.7" X
1-680 parallel arterial and Interchange improvements 55.0 55.0 0.0 X
• 1-680 Auxiliary lane 76.9 39.8 37.1 X X
• 1-80 High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Extension' 65.2 81.3 3.9 X X
1-90 High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Extension* 85.2 85.2 0.0 X X
• 1-80 Parallel Arterial and interchange Improvements 4.5 4.5 0.0 X
1-60 Parallel Arterial and interchange Improvements 9.0 9.0 0.0 X X
• 1-80 -HOV Lane extension to Carquinez Bridge85.2 81.3 .3...9 X
• Richmond Parkway(Phase 6) 33.0 33.0 0.0 X
• Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation(major roads) 84.4 35.5 48.9 X X X X
Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation(minor roads) 843.3 117.0 488.4" X X
Transit
• 1-80 HOV express bus service' 31.1 31.1 0.0 X X
1-80 HOV Express Buses(capital costs only)(1)' 31.1 5.7 0.0
• 1-680 corridor.expand CCCTABART feeder bus' 51.9 51.9 0.07 X
• BART Capital Improvements' 26.6 26.6 0.0 X
BART Capital Program Shortfall' 102.0 77.0 0.0" X
• AC Transit Capital Program shortfall* 16.1 16.1 0.0 X X X X
• AC Transit Operating Shortfall' 12.5 12.5 0.0 X X X
• CCCTA Capital shortfall' 17.5 17.5 0.0 X X X X
• Light rail system from Oakland to Hilltop in Richmond' 200.0 200.0 0.0 X
• Amtrak Capitol Service Upgrade (San Jose-Sacto)' 68.0 68.0 0.0 X
• Amtrak Capitol Intercity/Commuter Service' - - - X
• Americans with Disabilities Act transit services# 30.0 1.3 0.0" X X
Americans with Disabilities Act transit services# 30.0 10.1 0.0" X
•Translink' 0.2 0.2 0.0 X X X X
•Martinez Intermodal Facility' 10.0 5.0 5.0 X
Martinez Intermodal Facility' 20.8 15.8 5.0 X
Operational Improvements
• Traffic Operations System on Rte 4,Rte 24,1-680, 44.6 44.6 0.0 X X
1-580,and 1-80'
Other
• Seismic retrofit of Bay Area bridges 16.0 16.0 0.0 X X X X
• Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects' 4.0 4.0 0.0 X X X
Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects' 5.0 5.0 X
•State Transportation Control Measures' 5 5 0 X
State Transportation Control Measures' 1 10 101 01 1 X I X
Note: Total Cost is the amount required to fully fund the project or program as defined.
Trade 1 RTP Funds indicate the portion of Total Costs for which MTC will be making discretionary funding choices over the next 20 years.The
discretionary Trade 1 RTP Fund revenue sources may include: STIP,STP/CMAQ,S8 602 and Resolution 1876 funds.Other Funds include local sal
taxes and subventions and other ran-RTP sources for all Alternatives. Other Funds for the Project Alternative also Include Resolution 1876 funds.
All amounts are shown in millions of escalated dollars. Project currently funded with STIP, STP/CMAQ or local revenues not s
#The Project Alternative assumes no new funds for transit operating costs in Trade 1.Projected 20-year operating shortfalls which reflect
the operators'total operating costs for providing fixed route and ADA services,are.induded In Trade 2 of the RTP.
'State or federal transportation control measure".Funding shortfall remaining
(1)Operating costs funded in Trade 2
-11-
Marin County
Comparison of Alternatives
Total RTP Track Other Track Track Track Project
Me or Pro ect/Pro ram Cost 1 Funds Funds la lb 1c
Highway/Local Streets S Roads
• High Occupany Vehicle Lane Gap Closure on 101 42.4 42.4 0.0 X X X
• Arterial Improvements/Signalization(minor)' 1.6 1.6 0.0 X X
Arterial improvements/Signalization(major)' 2.9 2.9 0.0 X X
• Streets 8 Roads Rehabilitation(major roads) 70.6 29.7 40.9 X X X X
Streets 8 Roads Rehabilitation(minor roads) 258.6 53.5 149.8" X X
Streets 8 Roads Rehabilitation(minor roads) 258.6 18.5 149.8" X
Streets&Roads Rehabilitation(minor roads) 258.6 19.9 149.8" X
Transit
• GGBHT Downtown SF Bus Storage Facility 10.0 10.0 0.0 X X
• GGBHT Capital Improvement Program' 263.5 28.3 218.4" X
GGBHT Capital Improvement Program(full funding)' 263.5 45.1 218.4 X X
• GG13HT/MCTD Capital Improvement Program' 237.5 42.4 195.1 X
• Americans with Disabilities Act transit services# 30.0 2.5 0" X X
Americans with Disabilities Act transit services# 30.0 9.9 0" X
• GGBHT Translink' 3.5 3.5 0 X X X
GGBHT Transkiink' 4.5 4.5 0 X
Operational Improvements
• Expanded Traffic Operations System' 5.0 5.0 0.0 X X X
Other
• Seismic retrofit of Bay Area bridges 5.2 5.2 0.0 X X X X
• State Transportation Control Measures' 1.7 1.7 0.0 X
• State Transportation Control Measures(expanded)* 3.4 3.4 0.0 X X
• Bicycle/Pedestdan Projects' 1.6 1.6 0.0 X X X X
Note: Total Cost is the amount required to fully fund the project or program as defined.
Track 1 RTP Funds Indicate the portion of Total Costs for which MTC will be making discretionary funding choices over the next 20
years.The discretionary Track 1 RTP Fund revenue sources may include: STIP,STP/CMAQ,SB 602 and Resolution 1876 funds.
Other Funds include local sales taxes and subventions and other non-RTP sources for all Aftematives. Other Funds for the Project
Alternative also include Resolution 1876 funds.
All amounts are shown in millions of escalated dollars.
Projects currently funded with STIP.STP/CMAQ or local revenues are not shown.
'State or federal transportation control measure
#The Project Alternative assumes no new funds for transit operating costs in Track 1.Projected 20-year operating shortfalls which reflect
the operators'total operating costs for providing fixed route and ADA services are included in Track 2 of the RTP.
"Funding shortfall remains
KK: 12/27/93
-12-
Napa County
Comparison of Alternatives
Total RTP Track Other Track Track Track Project
Major Project/Program Cost 1 Funds !Funds 1a 1b 1c
Highway/Local Streets&Roads
• Route 22129 Interchange(Phase 1 and 2) 15.0 15.0 0.0 X X
• Route 12 Widening(2 to 4 lanes) 12.7 12.7 0.0 X X X
• Route 1229 Interchange 20.0 20.0 0.0 X
• Route 29 Operational Improvements 5.0 5.0 0.0 X X
• Maxwell Bridge 5.5 5.5 0.0 X X
• First Street Overcrossing 2.4 2.4 0.0 X X
• Arterial Improvements 7.5 7.5 0.0 X
• Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation (major roads) 65.8 27.7 38.1 X X X X
Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation(minor roads) 171.0 23.8 99.1" X
Transit
• Transit Service Center 2.3 2.3 0.0 X X X X
• Intercity Bus Upgrades* 7.5 7.5 0.0 X
Intercity/Intercounty Bus Upgrades' 10.0 10.0 0.0 X
• Translink(Napa City&NVT services) 0.2 0.2 0.0 X X X
• Americans with Disabilities Act transit services# 23.6 7.6 0.0" X
Americans with Disabilities Act transit services# 23.6 5.0 0.0" X
Operational Improvements
• Signalization Projects* 0.5 0.5 0.0 X
Signalization Projects' 1.5 1.5 0.0 X X X
• Trancas Internodal Facility' 0.7 0.7 0.0 X X X X
• Traffic Operations System* 2.5 2.5 0.0 X X X
Other
• Seismic retrofit of Bay Area bridges 3.0 3.0 0.0 X X X X
• Bicycle/Pedestdan Projects* 0.9 X X X X
• State Transportation Control Measures' 0.8 0.8 0.0 X
State Transportation Control Measures' 1.7 1.7 0.0 X X
Note: Total Cost is the amount required to fully fund the project or program as defined.
Track 1 RTP Funds indicate the portion of Total Costs for which MTC will be making discretionary funding choices over the next 20
years.The discretionary Track 1 RTP Fund revenue sources may Include: STIP,STP/CMAQ,SB 602 and Resolution 1876 funds.
Other Funds include local sales taxes and subventions and other non-RTP sources for all Aftematives. Other Funds for the Project
Alternative also include Resolution 1876 funds.
All amounts are shown in millions of escalated dollars.
Projects currently funded with STIP,STP/CMAQ or local revenues are not shown.
*State or federal transportation control measure
#The Project Alternative assumes no new funds for transit operating costs in Track 1.Projected 20-year operating shortfalls which reflect
the operators'total operating costs for providing fixed route and ADA services ars included in Track 2 of the RTP.
^Funding shortfall remains
KK: 1227/93 -13-
San Francisco County
Comparison of Alternatives
Total RTP Trade Other Tract Trach Track Project
Major Proect/proram cost 1 Funds Funds 1a 1b 1c
Highway/Local Streets S Roads
• Arterial improvements/Signalization• 10.2 5.2 5.0 X X X
Arterial Improvements/Signalization• 10.0 5.0 5.0 X
• Doyle Drive Improvements(right-d-way only) 3.0 3.0 0.0 X
Doyle Drive Improvement(right-of-way only) 12.0 3.4 0.0" X
• Local Streets 8 Roads Rehabilitation(major roads) 44.2 18.6 25.6 X X X X
Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation(minor roads) 237.6 34.8 137.6" X
Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation(minor roads) 237.6 93.3 137.6" X
Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation(minor roads) 237.6 42.2 137.6" X
Transit
• Muni Operating Shortfall(1)• 371.2 179.1 26.2" X
Muni Operating Shortfall(increased share)• 371.2 345.0 26.2 X X
• Muni Capital Replacement Program Shortfall(1)• 505.6 24.5 481.1 X X X
Muni Capital Replacement Program Shortfall' 427.0 24.5 448.2 X
• Muni- 15 expansion trolleys* 16.0 16.0 0.0 X X X
• Muni-24 expansion light-rail vehicles' 91.9 91.9 0.0 X
Muni-24 expansion light-rail vehicles' 91.9 26.0 0.0 X
• Muni-Metro East Facility/Illinois St. Bridge 168.1 122.7 45.4 X X X
16th St underpass*
• Muni-Geneva/Green Modifications-Phase 2• 28.0 28.0 0.0 X X X X
• Muni-Translink• 12.0 12.0 12.0 X
Muni-Translink• 13.9 13.9 0.0 X
• Carrrain Upgrade/Downtown Extension(SF share)(2)• 85.5 65.5 0.0 X X
CalTrain System Upgrade (SF share)(3)• 57.5 57.5 0.0 X
• CalTrain Capital Improvements(SF Sham)* 1.0 1.0 0.0 X X X
CalTrain Capital Improvements(SF Share)' 5.2 5.2 0.0 X
• BART Capital Improvements* 14.2 14.2 0.0 X
BART Capital Program Shortfall* 88.0 66.0 0.0^ X
• Americans with Disabilities Act transit services# 0.0 0.0 0.0 X X X X
Other
• Expand Traffic Operations System(partially funded)' 1.1 1.1 0.0 X
Expand Traffic Operations System(fully funded)* 3.0 3.0 0.0 X X X
• Seismic retrofit of Bay Area bridges 14.0 14.0 0.0 X X X X
• Bicycle 8 Pedestrian Improvements* 4.0 4.0 0.0 X X
Bicycle&Pedestrian Improvements' 5.0 5.0 0.0 X
Bicycle&Pedestrian Improvements(expanded program) 8.0 8.0 0.0 X
• SF Port Projects(Railroad tunnel improvements) 1.2 1.2 0.0 X X X
SF Port Projects(Railroad tunnel improvements) 1.3 1.3 0.0 X
• State Transportation Control Measures' 6.1 6.1 0.0 X
State Transportation Control Measures(expanded) 12.2 12.2 0.0 1 X X
Note: Total Cost is the amount required to fully fund the project or program as defined.
Track 1 RTP Funds indicate the portion of Total Costs for which MTC will be making discretionary funding choices over the next 20 years.The dis-
cretionary Trade 1 RTP Fund revenue sources may include: STIP,STP/CMAs,SB 602 and Resolution 1876 funds.Other Funds include local sales
taxes and subventions and other non-RTP sources for all Alternatives. Other Funds for the Project Alternative also include Resolution 1876 funds.
All amounts are shown in millions of escalated dollars.Project currently funded with STIP,STP/CMAO or local revenues not shown.
NADA Transit services shortfall covered by operating revenue and sales tax program on Trades la,b,and c.
*State or federal transportation control measure
".Funding shortfall remaining
(1).The Project Alternative assumes no new funds for transit operating costs in Trade 1.Projected 20-year operating shortfalls reflect the operators'
total operating costs and are included in Tract 2 of the RTP.
(2)JBP has not agreed to a funding formula for sharing costs of Downtown Extension;County's share would be for a downtown
connection with available sources and uses of funds.RTP funds include County set aside for CalTrain.
(3)Future system improvements to be determined by the JBP.
KK: 12/27/93 -14-
San Mateo County
Comparison of Alteratives
Total RTP Track Other Track Track Tract Project
Major Proect/Proram Cost 1 Funds Funds 1a 1b 1c
Highway/Local Streets A Roads
• Coastside Roadway Improvements(partially funded) 55.7 5.9 6.0 X
• Route 84 Improvements 104.0 43.0 61.0 X
• Route 92 Improvements 51.6 16.6 35.0 X
• 101280 Interchange Modifications(partially funded) 250.6 50.0 200.6 X
• Routes 92,101 &280 Interchange modifications 250.6 50.0 64.7 X
(partially funded)
• Auxiliary lanes(partially funded) 268.8 60.0 208.8 X
Routes 92&101 Auxiliary Lanes(partially funded) 268.8 60.0 129.1 X
• Arterial Improvements/Signal timing* 9.0 9.0 0.0 X X
Arterial Improvements/Signal timing (expanded)* 16.0 16.0 0.0 X X
• Local Streets&Road Rehabilitation(major roads) 69.8 37.8 52.0 X X X X
Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation (minor roads) 504.5 142.2 344.2" X
Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation (minor roads) 504.5 42.2 344.2" X
Transit
• Caltrain Upgrade/Downtown Extension 427.0 427.0 0.0 X
(SM share)(1)(2)`
Caltrain Upgrade/Downtown Extension(SM share)(1)• 427.0 427.0 X
CarTrain System Upgrade (SM share)(2)(3)• 427.0 427.0 0.0 X X
• CalTrain Grade Separations 371.4 60.0 150.5" X
CalTrain Grade Separations 371.4 160.0 150.5" X
CarTrain Grade Separations 371.4 160.0 150.5" X X
• BART-to-SFO(capital shortfall)(4)• 267.5 37.9 229.6 X
BART-to-SFO(capital and operating shortfall)* 333.7 104.1 229.6 X X X
BART-to-SFO(SM Capital Shortfall)* 104.1 37.9 0.0 X
• Translink• 3.2 3.2 0.0 X
• Expanded Rail/Bus shuttle service* 10.0 10.0 0.0 X X X
• Americans with Disabilities Act transit services# 0.0 0.0 0.0 X X X X
Other
•State Transportation Control Measures(5)• 8.7 8.7 0.0 X
State Transportation Control Measures(5)' 17.4 17.4 0.0 X X
•.Expanded Traffic Operations System' 42.0 42.0 0.0 X X X
• Seismic retrofit for Bay Area Bridges 14.0 14.0 0.0 X X X X
• Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements' 7.0 7.0 0.0 X X X X
Note: Total Cost is the amount required to fully fund the project or program as defined.
Track 1 RTP Funds indicate the portion of Total Costs for which MTC will be making discretionary funding choices over the next 20
years.The discretionary Track 1 RTP Fund revenue sources may include: STIP,STP/CMAQ,SB 602 and Resolution 1876 funds.
Other Funds Include local sales taxes and subventions and other non-RTP sources for all Aftematives. Other Funds for the Project
Alternative also include Resolution 1876 funds.
All amounts are shown in millions of escalated dollars.
Projects currently funded with STIP,STP/CMAO or local revenues are not shown.
'State or federal transportation control measure
"Funding shortfall remaining
*Costs covered by sales tax revenue in afl alternatives.
(1)JBP has not agreed to funding formula for sharing costs of Downtown Extension.County's share would be for a downtown
connection considering available sources and uses of funds.RTP funds Includes county sates tax set aside for CalTrain.
(2)Local fund6ng for Caltrain through MTC Resolution 1876.
(3)Future system improvements to be determined by the JBP
(4)Operating shortfall of 66.2 million would need to be met through SamTrans revenue increase or cost reductions
(5)Eligible projects would include transit centers(STCM 13),telecommuting centers(STCM 20),land use planning studies(STCM 18),
clean fuel buses and Youth transit tickets(STCM 10)and regional transit coordination projects to be defined in consultation
with MTC(STCM 13).
KK: 1227/93
15
Santa Clara County
Comparison of Alternatives
s
Total RTP Track Other Track Track Track Project
Major Project/Program Cost 1 Funds Funds 1a 1b 1c
Highway/Local Streets&Roads
• Traffic signal interconnection at high-volume locations* 25 20 5 X
• County Expressway improvements 80 64 16 X
• US 101 auxiliary lane between SR 87 and Trimble Rd. 9 8 1 X X
• 1880/Dixon Landing Road Interchange mod.(SC share) 44 4 40 X X
• Widen US 101 •south San Jose 54 27 27 X
• Arterial and freeway spot widenings on the M.T.S. 63 50 13 X X
• SR 237&SR 85 improvements('0kr Measure A) 360 105 255 X
• Interchange improvements 32 26 6 X
Interchange improvements 24 19 5 X
• HOV lanes on expressways,Routes 237,87 and 85* 94 75 19 X
HOV lanes on expressways,Routes 237,87* 87 69 18 X
• Arterial Intersection Improvements on the M.T.S. 31 25 6 X X
• Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation(major roads) 91 38 53 X X X X
Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation(minor roads)(1) 1254 264 726^ X
Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation (minor roads;(1) 779 53 726 X
• N Shoreline Southbound Off Ramp/US 101 8 7 1 X
in Mountain View
•SR 85 HOV Widening between Dana St and US 101* 7 6 1 X
•SR 237/1880 Interchange 116 12 104 X
• New Highway 152 100 100 X
Transit
• CaiTrain Upgrade/Dntwn Connection (SC share)(1)* 326 326 0 X
CafTrain System Upgrade(SC share)(i)* 285 285 0 X X X
• SCCTD capital replacements* 495 48 447 X X X
• SCCTD operating&maintenance shortfall* 316 69 "" X
SCCTD operating&maintenance shortfall, 316 74 A" X X
• Vasona Light Rail Extension* 295 148 148 X X X
Vasona Light Rail Extension* 227 45 182 X
• Capitol/Evergreen/Downtown Corridor Project* 630 326 304 X
Caphol/Evergreen/Downtown Corridor Project* 630 325 305 X
• Downtown Evergreen Corridor Project* 279 139 140 X
• Sunnyvale Light Rail extension* 300 145 155 X
Sunnyvale Light Rail extension* 300 155 145 X
Sunnyvale LRT* 205 164 41 X
• LRT Ext.connecting with BART in Alameda Co. * 239 100 139 X
(Santa Clara County share)
• CatTrain Gilroy Phase It* 80 80 0 X
• Express bus(capital costs)* 15 7 8 X
Express bus(capital costs)* 15 12 3 X X X
• Amtrak Capitol Rail Service Upgrade(SC Share)* 34 34 0 X
Amtrak Capital Interchy/Commuter Rail Service* — — — X
Amtrak Caphal/LRT Intermodal connection* 34 34 X
• Transit radios,LRT double-tracking,grade crossing* 20 10 10 X
Transit radios* 15 6 9 X
• Americans w/Disabilities Act(ADA)transit servkms(2)* 330 0 330 X X X X
• Alameda LRT double-tracking* 5 4 1 X
• Transit Center at Mountain View CalTrain* 5 4 1 X
KK: 12/28/93 -16-
Santa Clara County
Comparison of Alternatives
Total RTP Trade Other Track Track Tract Project
Major Proect/Proram Cost 1 Funds Funds 1a lb tc
Pending Corridor Study Results
• Fremont-So. Bay Rail connection to BART' TBD TBD 136 X
• Route 101/CalTrain Corridor,South of San Jose 51 33 18 X
Operational Improvements '
• Expressway video surveillance 6 5 1 X
• Translink Initial capital costs* 6 6 0 X X
• Traffic signal synchronization on 6 expressways* 58 29 29 X
Traffic signal synchronization on 8 expressways' 64 35 29 X
• TOS on US 101 between Lawrence Expwy and SMCol 12 12 0 X X
• Freeway ramp Improvements(including metering) 21 16 5 X X
• Traffic signal synchronization on 6 expressways* 64 35 29 X
• Traffic signal interconnection at high-volume locations* 25 20 5 X
Other
• Park-and-ride lots' 6 5 1 X
• Bike/pedestrian creek trail improvements' 2 2 0 X X
• Seismic retrofit of Bay Area bridges 30 30 0 X X X
• State Transportation Control Measures(3)• 13 13 0 X
State Transportation Control Measures(3)• 21 21 0 X
State Transportation Control Measures(3)* 1 261 26 0 1 1 X
Note: Total Cost is the amount required to fully fund the project or program as defined.
Track 1 RTP Funds Indicate the portion of Total Costs for which MTC will be making discretionary funding choices over the next 20
years.The discretionary Track 1 RTP Fund revenue sources may include: STIP,STP/CMAO,SB 602 and Resolution 1876 funds.
Other Funds include local sales taxes and subventions and other non-RTP sources for all Alternatives. Other Funds for the Project
Alternative also Include Resolution 1876 funds.
All alternatives assume Measure A Sales Tax Program is valid.All amounts are shown In millions of escalated dollars.
Projects currently funded with STIP,STP/CMAQ or local revenues are not shown.
*State or federal transportation control measure
"Possible funding shortfall remaining;project downsizing or resooping should be considered
""Figures to be provided after MTC staff financial review of Santa Clara Co.Transit District-November 1993.
(1)Joint Powers Board has not agreed to funding formula for sharing costs of Downtown Extension.
County's share would support Caltraln upgrade for a downtown extension,considering available sources
and uses of funds.RTP funds include Measure A set aside for CaiTraln capital and operating costs
(2)ADA costs covered by operator revenues and Measure A sales tax program
(3)Exact projects to be determined.
KK: 12/28/93
-17-
Solan County
Comparison of Alternatives
Total RTP Track Other Track Track Track Project
Major Proect/Prorain Cost 1 Funds Funds 1a 1b 1c
Highway/Local 8tnws&Roads
• Construction of Route 29/37 Interchange 30.0 30.0 0.0 X X
• 1-80 Interchange Improvements 40.0 30.0 10.0 X
• 1-80 Reliever Route 18.7 12.7 6.0 X X X
• Widen Route 12 between Red Top and Napa 17.9 17.9 0.0 X X X
• 1-80/680 Interchange improvements 5.0 5.0 OA X X X
• Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation(major roads) 65.8 26.8 39.0 X X X
Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation(major roads) 63.5 26.8 36.7 X
Local Streets&Road Rehabilitation(minor roads) 432.1 17.2 250.3" X
Local Streets&Road Rehabilitation (minor roads) 432.1 25.8 0.0" X
Local Streets&Road Rehabilitation(minor roads) 432.1 27.6 250.3" X
Local Streets&Road Rehabilitation(minor roads) 432.1 60.0 250.3" X
• Arterial Improvements 23.0 23.0 0.0 X
ArteriaVlnterchange Improvements 40.0 30.0 10.0 X
Transit
• Southern Pacific Branch Line/Station Right-of-Way 12.0 12.0 0.0 X
• Minor increase in Express Bus Service on 1-80/680' 0.9 0.9 OA X X
Major increase In Express Bus Services on 1-80/680' 35.0 35.0 0.0 X
• Amtrak Capitol Rail Service upgrade' 24.0 24.0 0.0 X X
Amtrak Capitol Intercity/Commuter Rail Service* - X
•Vallejo Transit capital shortfall" 17.1 17.1 0.0 X X X X
• Transit capital shortfall(other operators)' 16.0 18.0 0.0 X X X X
• Construct Rail Stations in Fairfield,Benicia,Dixon* 8.0 8.0 0.0 X X X X
• Americans with Disabilities Act transit services# 17.5 1.8 0.0^ X X
Americans with Disabilities Act transit services# 17.5 5.8 0.0" X
• Translink(Vallejo,Fairfield,Benicia transit systems)* 0.5 0.5 0.0 X X X X
• Upgrade Intercity transit services* 23.0 23.0 0.0 X
• New buses for 1-80/680 express bus services(1)• 35.0 7.0 0.0" X
Other
• Traffic Operations System on Route 37* 3.0 3.0 0.0 X
Traffic Operations System on 1-80/680/780/Rt 37' 13.0 13.0 0.0 X X X
• Signalization• 2.0 2.0 0.0 X X X X
• Rideshadng/Pe"icycle Projects' 8.5 8.5 0.0 X X X X
• Seismic Retrofit of Bay Area Bridges 7.8 7.8 0.0 X X X X
• State Transportation Control Measures' 2.3 2.3 0.0 X
State Transportation Control Measures' 4.6 4.6 0.0 X X
Note: Total Cost is the amount required to fully fund the project or program as defined.
Track 1 RTP Funds Indicate the portion of Total Costs for which MTC wiN be making discretionary funding choices over the next 20
years.The discretionary Track/RTP Fund revenue sources may include: STIP,STP/CMAO,SS 602 and Resolution 1876 funds.
Other Funds include local sales taxes and subventions and other non-RTP sources for all Alternatives. tither Funds for to Project
Alternative also include Resolution 1876 funds.
All amounts are shown In millions of escalated dollars.
Projects currently funded with STIP,STP/CMAO or local revenues are not shorn.
#The Project Alternative assumes no row funds for transit operating costs in Track 1.Projected 20-year operating shortiaNs which reflect
the operators'total operating costs for providing fixed route and ADA services are Included in Track 2 of the RTP.
'State or federal transportation control measure
Funding shortall remaining
(1)Operating costs funded in Track 2
KK:12/28/93
I
Sonoma County
Comparison of Alternatives
Total RTP Track Other Track Track Track Project
"or Proect/Proram Cost 1 Funds Funds 1a 1b tc
Highway/Local Streets a Roads
• Unfunded portion of High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes* 20.4 20.4 0.0 X
Construct new High Occupancy Vehicle lanes* 34.2 34.2 0.0 X
• Sebastopol Bypass 14.8 14.8 0.0 X
• Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation(major roads)(1) 132.3 55.7 76.6 X X X X
Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation(minor roads)(1) 599.0 63.9 347.0" X
Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation(minor roads) 599.0 61.2 347" X
Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation (minor roads)(1) 599.0 109.0 347.0" X
Local Streets&Roads Rehabilitation(minor roads)(1) 599.0 110.8 347.0" X
• Highway 101 Interchange improvements 20.0 20.0 0.0 X
Transit*
• Transit operations shortfall for existing service 53.8 5.8 0.0" X
(partial funding)(1)•
Transit operations shortfall for existing service 53.8 53.8 0.0 X X
(full funding)(1)•
• Northwest Pacific RR right-of-way purchase(2) 19.5 8.1 11.4 X X X
• Improve Intra-city transit service(3)• 25.0 25.0 0.0 X
• Americans with Disabilities Act transit services# 42.2 4.4 0.0" X X
Americans with Disabilities Act transit services# 42.2 13.9 0.0" X
• Golden Gate Transit capital shortfall* 19.8 19.8 0.0 X
• Translink(Sonoma,Santa Rosa, Petaluma, 0.8 0.6 0.0 X
Sebastopol transit operators)*
Pending Corridor Study Results
• Marin/Sonoma 101 Corridor Improvements 80.0 80.0 0.0 X
Operational Improvements
• Sig nalization/channelization projects* 6.9 6.9 0.0 X
Signalization/channelization projects' 20.0 20.0 0.0 X X X
• Traffic Operations System on Route 37• (2) 3.0 3.0 0.0 X X
Other
• Seismic retrofit of Bay Area bridges 9.4 9.4 0.0 X X X X
• Bicycle projects in current programming documents 3.7 3.7 0.0 X X
(partial funding)*
Bicycle projects In current programming documents 17.0 10.0 7.0 X
(partial funding)'
Bicycle projects from failed sales tax measure 10.0 10.0 0.0 X
(partial funding)'
• Develop countywide transportation plan 0.2 0.2 0.0 X X
Develop countywide transportation plan 0.5 0.5 0.0 X
• State Transportation Control Measures(4)• 1.9 1.9 0.0 X
State Transportation Control Measures' 3.8 3.8 0 1 X I X
Note: Total Cost Is the amount required to fully fund the project or program as defined.
Track t RTP Funds Indicate the portion of Total Costs for which MTC will be making discretionary funding choices over the next 20 years.The
discretionary Track 1 RTP Fund revenue sources may include: STiP,STP/CMAO,SS 602 and Resolution 1876 funds.Other Funds include local sa
taxes and subventions and other non-RTP sources for as Ahematives. Olhw Funds for the Project Alternative also include Resolution 1876 funds.
All amounts are shown in millions of escalated dollars.Projects currently funded with STIP.STP/CMAO or local revenues are not shown.
'State or federal transportation control measure
#The Project Alternative assumes no new funds for transit operating costs in Track 1.Projected 20-year operating shortfalls which reflect
the operators'total operating costs for providing fixed route and ADA services are Included In Track 2 of the RTP.
"Funding shortfall remaining
(1)Total cost includes combined annual operating shortfalls for Santa Rosa,Sonoma County,Petaluma,and Golden Gate transit systems
cumulatively escalated through year 2013.
(2)Combination of state/federal earmarks which require local match
(3)Includes estimated shortfalls for expanded Santa Rosa and Petaluma transit services.
KK: 12/28/93
-19-