Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01062009 - C.27 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee Contra (Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair) ter' Costa DATE: December 15, 2008 County SUBJECT: Status report on State Route 239 federal earmark project SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPT report on the status of the County's State Route 239 federal earmark project, as recommended by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee. FISCAL IMPACT None from the recommended action. The County has received $14 million in federal appropriations for the State Route 239 project. The County will provide the required 11.5 percent match using Road Funds. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Contra Costa County in 2005 received two federal appropriations totaling $14 million for the planning and construction of State Route 239, a future highway that will connect eastern.Contra Costa County with the Central Valley. State Route 239 will extend from State Route 4 in the Brentwood area to Interstate 205 in the Tracy area. The appropriations were received through the efforts of former U.S. Representative Richard-Pombo. The project will require collaboration among Contra Costa, San Joaquin, and Alameda Counties, two Caltrans Districts, and numerous other entities. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X COION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S):/ Su rvis le B. Uilkema ervi or Ma N. Pie ho ACTION OF BOARDON PPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X 0-;AER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND UNANIMOUS (ABSENTZ2�[ZC� ENTERED ON THE INUTES OF THE BOARD AYES: NOES: OF SUPERVISOR ON THE DATE SHOWN: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Contact: John Greitzer (925/335-1201) ATTESTE AVID TW ERK OF cc: Department of Conservation & Development THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Works AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY G:\Transportation\CommitteesNTWIC\2008\Board Orders\jan 13 2009 sr 239 status repo STATE ROUTE 239 STATUS REPORT December 15, 2008 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued) Ultimately, the vision for this project is a new route that can be incorporated into the State Highway System, similar to the evolution of the State Route 4 Bypass project. This Board Order provides a status report on the project as well as background on the County's request for the funds and next steps. County staff is completing the required paperwork to submit to Caltrans in order to access the funds. This process is known as a Request for Authorization, and is required any time the County seeks access to federal grants. Caltrans administers the federal funds, so our request goes to them. The Request for Authorization includes standard forms that must be filled out, and a work plan that outlines how the County will carry out the project. Staff intends to submit the request by the end of the year. Caltrans must review and approve the County's submittal before they grant access to the funds. The submittal is being developed jointly by the Public Works Department and the Department of Conservation and Development. The County requested an earmark for State Route 239 because of growing interest in better highway links to the Central Valley. By 2000, plans and projects were already in progress to better connect East County with points west. These include the State Route 4 Freeway Widening Project(in progress), the State Route 4 Bypass (now completely open to traffic), and the eBART system that is now in the planning and environmental review stages. Given the success in moving these westward connections along,there was increasing discussion on the need for better connections in the other direction as well--from East County to points east. East County roadways were experiencing a significant increase in truck traffic to and from the Central Valley, and this, combined with the rapid growth of East County and limited roadway capacity to the east, led to the desire to seek funding for a major planning effort to improve these connections. Currently the only connections between East County and the Central Valley are undivided two-lane roads (the Byron Highway and State Route 4 east of Discovery Bay). The concept of an improved highway link known as the Brentwood-Tracy Expressway has been included for years in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Regional Transportation Plan, but no progress has been made on planning the route. MTC considered it a long-term, unfunded concept and therefore did not place any priority on it. The County and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority asked Caltrans several times to begin the planning and technical studies for the new route, without success. The County therefore requested, a federal appropriation (earmark) through the office of Representative Pombo to start planning this long-sought highway.The request was successful and the County was awarded $14 million for the project in 2005. Issues with the earmark Although the funds were awarded in 2005, staff did not begin the formal process of accessing the funds until this year due to issues with the way the earmark was written and questions about eligible uses of the funds. These issues are described below. STATE ROUTE 239 STATUS REPORT December 15, 2008 Page 3 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued) 1. The earmarks granted to the County were for a different purpose than the County had requested. The County requested funds for planning, consensus-building and environmental review to determine the preferred alignment for the new highway. However, the appropriations we received are for "study and construction" of the highway (see the attached earmark language in Exhibit A). The County did not envision any construction being performed with the requested funds. This led to unexpectedly lengthy discussions and correspondence with Caltrans on how to resolve the situation. Feedback from Caltrans, as recently as April 2008, was that the County would have to construct the new highway or else we would have to give back the $14 million. However, at a staff-level meeting with Caltrans staff on September 9, 2008, all parties seemed to understand that a new highway from Brentwood to Tracy cannot be built with $14 million. County staff discussed their intent to use the funds for planning, technical alignment studies and outreach to the affected communities, hopefully resulting in consensus on the preferred alignment for the new highway, and for pre-construction activities such as environmental review, preliminary engineering and design, and right-of-way acquisition. After those steps are all complete, it is possible a small amount of funds may be left available for a small amount of construction. 2. County staff also inquired about resolving the"construction" problem through federal legislation that would remove the word "construction" from the earmark language. However, this possibility was complicated by the fact that the earmark sponsor(former Rep. Pombo) is no longer in office. Congressional custom apparently dictates that earmark language is not changed unless the sponsoring member approves of the change, even if he or she is no longer in office. Therefore a legislative solution would have been difficult, and our current congressional representatives did not seem eager to attempt it. This inquiry also contributed to the length of time that has passed between receiving the earmark and our request to access the funds. 3. There also was correspondence with Caltrans about possibly using some of the $14 million appropriation on other critical inter-county needs such as Vasco Road, and a larger planning study that would take into account the long-term growth outlook and transportation needs in eastern Contra Costa County,Alameda County and San Joaquin County. This suggestion was made by a consulting firm under contract to the County, Gray-Bowen and Company, due to the fact that available funding is insufficient for the Vasco Road Safety Improvement Project, and there is a need for inter-county planning on a broad regional context beyond just the need for State Route 239. However, Caltrans indicated that the Federal Highway Administration will only allow the funds to be used for the State Route 239 project as described in the appropriation language. While the larger interregional issues and Vasco Road may be considered as part of the background and context, the focus of the project must be State Route 239. The correspondence with Caltrans on this issue also added to the time that elapsed between the appropriation in 2005 and our Request for Authorization which will be submitted this year. Next steps As a result of the above discussions, County staff has developed a work plan to submit to Caltrans as part of a Request for Authorization to access the funds. STATE ROUTE 239 STATUS REPORT December 15, 2008 Page 4 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued) The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee reviewed the work plan on December 15. Under the work plan, the project will be divided into three phases: 1) Planning, 2) Project Approval/Environmental Document, and 3) Project Development.These phases are named with Caltrans terminology, which staff hopes will facilitate easier, quicker review and approval by Caltrans. The phases are described below. Phase 1 is the Planning Phase including stakeholder identification, outreach, building institutional relationships, establishing a multi-county partnership to oversee the project, and technical analysis and consensus building on the preferred alignment, resulting in a Project Study Report for SR 239. A Project Study Report is a document used by Caltrans that provides a detailed description and cost estimates for a planned state highway. Staff expects to use$3.2 million in earmark funds for Phase 1 (see attached work scope in Exhibit 8). Phase 2 will be the Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA/ED) Phase, which will include environmental clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Protection Act(NEPA). Staff anticipates using approximately $3.8 million in earmark funds for Phase 2, although a more precise cost estimate will be developed at the close of Phase 1. Phase 3 will be the Project Development Phase including design, engineering, and as much right-of-way acquisition and construction as funding will allow. Staff anticipates using approximately $7 million of the earmark funds for Phase 3, although a more precise cost estimate will be developed at the close of Phase 2. Staff and Gray-Bowen had discussions with Caltrans District 4 (the Bay Area district) about the project in September and we have scheduled discussions with Caltrans District 10 (the Central Valley district) on December 16. Gray-Bowen is under contract with the County to provide assistance in gaining Caltrans approval and other interagency coordination duties for the early stages of the project. Informal discussions will be conducted with other transportation agencies such as the Contra Costa Transportation Authority,the San Joaquin Council of Governments,and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission as the County prepares to formally start the project. The project will not formally start until Caltrans has approved the County's Request for Authorization to access the funds. Staff will submit the Request for Authorization by the end of December. It is not known how long it will take Caltrans to review it. The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee suggested staff add the air quality agencies for both the Bay Area and San Joaquin County,to the list of stakeholders that is included in the work plan shown in Exhibit B. That change is reflected in the exhibit attached to this report. The Committee also directed staff to keep them informed on the progress of the project. The Committee recommends the Board of Supervisors accept this report. EXHIBIT A PUBLIC LAW 109-59-AUG. 10, 2005 119 STAT. 1331 Highuav Projects High Priority Projects-Continued No. State Project Description Amount 1912 PA Reconstruct the SR 33,512 interchange in the Borough of Wind Gap..............................._..... $2,000,000 1913 NY Access improvements for terminal located on 12th Ave. between W. 44th.and W. 54th St. in Manhattan.................................................. $3,200,000 1914. IL Completion of the Grand Illinois Trail, Cook County..............................._............................. $1,034,000 1915 CA Construct and improve medians and drainage on Imperial Highway from west border to east border of city in La Mirada ................... $1,360,000 1916 CT Construct Pomfret Pedestrian Bridge............... $80,000 1917 NV Construct Laughlin Bullhead City Bridge........ $1,600,000 1918 PA Design, engineering, ROW acquisition, and construction of the widening of Pennsyl- vania RL 443 Corridor in Carbon County._.. $800,000 - 1919 NY Palisades Interstate Parkway Mitigation Measures for New Square .........................._.. $600,000 1920 CA Reconstruct and widen Del Amo Blvd. to four lanes between Normandie Ave. and New Hampshire Ave.,Los Angeles County .... $2,400,000 1921 MN Reconstruct Unorganized Township Road 488 from CSAH,138,Koochiching County............ $820,000 1922 NY Reconstruction of Empire Boulevard................. $5,120,000 1923 PA Reconstruction of PA 309 from Greenwood Av- enue to Welsh Road ........................................ $2,000,000 1924 TN Construction of 1-69 in Obion, Dyer, Lauder- dale and Tipton Counties _............................. $11,300,000 1925 IL Design, land acquisition, and construction of South Main St,(IL 2)Corridor from Beltline Rd.to Cedar Street in Rockford,IL............... $1,600,000 1926 OH Grading, paving,roads for the transfer of rail to truck for the intermodal facility at Rick- enbacker Airport.........._................................. $12,000,000 1927 MA Reconstruction of Pleasant Street,Watertown $1,600,000 1928 MN Lake Wobegon Trail corridor from Sauk Cen- tre to the Stearns County line ....................... $281,600 RI pI tee Sakoan ge--_....., ._. $1,600,000 ` 1930 CA Con u study and construct CA State Route C``�T 239 from State Route 4 in Brentwood area __J-LL-295 in Tracy area ................................... $4,000,000 1931 MA Geomecn - mtMvs 's"�'Te y enh ments and signal upgrades at Rt 28 and Rt- 106,intersection West Bridgewater............... $1,200,000 1932 WA Fife—Widen 70th Ave. East and Valley Ave. East .............................................................. $800,000 1933 CA Construct two right hand turn for Byzantine Iatino Quarter transit plazas at Normandie and Pico,and Hoover and Pico,Los Angeles $400,000 1934. WA I-90 Two-Way Transit-HOV Project ............... $3,200,000 1935 AL Construct Talladega Mountains Natural Re- source Center—An educational center and hub for hikers,bicyclists,and automobiles ... $600,000 1986 MD Gaithersburg,MD Extension of Teachers Way- Olde Towne Gaithersburg Revitalization ...... $1,120,000 1937 IL Millburn By-Pass(US Route 45 at Gross Lake Road/Millburn Road),Lake County ........._.... $2,060,000 1996 AK Planning, design, and EIS of Bradfield Canal Road...._........_................................................ $2,000,000 S f7 I! 4 f PUBLIC LAW 109-59—AUG. 10, 2005 119 STAT. 1509 Traasportaiion Improvements—Continued No. State Project Description Amount 450. PR Construct sidewalks,curbs and gutters in the Mu- mcipality of Loiza.(PR 1.87 from Mediania Baja to Puente Herrera; Community La Torre, Pinones) ....................._..-. - ................................._..... $000,000 451. PR Extension of PR 833, between the PR-177 and the PR 2.The extension is approximately of 0.8km .. $1,000,000 452. PR Reconstruct various roads throughout the Munici- pality of Bayamon, arduding pavings and cold millings as well as construction of gutters. (PR 2;PR 829; PR 830;PR 861; PR 862;PR 840; PR 29) ........................._............................................... $2,000,000 458. PR Construct extension of 1.04 km to the"Caridad del Cobra"Avenue in Bayamon between the PR 199 and UrL Canes .................................................... $3.000.000 454. PR Roadway improvements for municipal roads in Orocovis..........................: ...................................... $661,000 455. VI ' Christiansted By-Pass Highway,St.Croix .............. $8,000,000 456. VI Upgrade Wes-bast Corridor through Charlotte Amalie, St.Thomas ..............................._.............. $8,000,000 457. UN Lake Street Access to I-35W,Minneapolis.............. $6,000,000 458. ON Construction, including design and ongineering, of an approximately 30,000 sq.8.terminal building to accommodate the Trans-Erie ferry service which departs the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority,Cleveland,Ohio.......................... $6,000,000 459. NY Various transportation projects related to the Des- tiNY USA project................................................... $5,000,000 . 460. CA Construction at Lammers Road and I-205 .............. $5,000,000 461. CA Feasibility study for constructing SR 130 Realign. ment project connecting the central valley and San Joaquin County and Santa Clara county...... $6,000,000 i 462. FL Coconut Rd.interchange 1-75/Lee County .............. $10,000,000 463. AR Improvements to U.S.412 in Northwest Arkansas $6,500,000 _ ; 64. CA Construction of and improvements to State Route 239 from State Route 4 in Brentwood area to I- 205_ 5 in the area of Tracy....._..........._..................... $10,004,000 465. CA Design and construction of Camino Tassajam Crown Canyon to East Town Project.................... $5,000,000 466, CA Engineering right-of-way and construction or I-5s0 1 in the Livermore Valley ......................_................. $6,000,000 SEC.1935.PROJECT FLERIBILI7'Y. (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds allocated for a project described in subsection (b) in a State i i i EXHIBIT B Work Scope: Contra Costa County Federal Earmark Project-- SR 239 (TIP ID: CC-070019) Phase 1—Planning This phase of the project includes stakeholder identification and outreach, developing an inter- agency structure for the project, technical analysis, consensus on an alignment for State Route (SR) 239, and development of a Caltrans-style Project Study Report for SR 239. Task 1. Identify and contact stakeholders for the three-county project area (Contra Costa, San Joaquin and Alameda Counties). Task budget: $10,000 Potential stakeholders include the cities and counties, Caltrans District 4 and District 10, state and federal resource agencies, transportation agencies, councils of government, community or issue- oriented advocacy groups, and others.Attachment I lists all the potential stakeholders identified to date by Contra Costa County. This task will include expanding and completing the stakeholder list as needed,and identifying any issues or concerns each of the stakeholders has regarding SR 239. ♦ Deliverable 1: Final list of stakeholders and initial issues statements. Task 2. Initiate outreach program and develop an inter-agency institutional structure to serve as a steering group for the project.. Task budget: $60,000 Convene the initial stakeholders group. Stakeholders will determine the best structure for a project steering group. This could be a formal structure such as a Joint Exercise of Powers Agency similar to the State Route 4 Bypass Authority that was created to oversee construction of the State Route 4 Bypass in eastern Contra Costa County, or it could be a less formal structure such as a steering committee based on a memorandum of understanding. The participants will determine the best structure for the group. The task budget ,of $60,000 assumes the highest-cost structure, which would be the creation of a Joint Exercise of Powers Agency. This alternative will require substantial legal assistance. The legal assistance will be provided through the Contra Costa County Counsel's Office. A technical advisory committee also will be created as part of this task. ♦ Deliverable 2: Document creating the institutional structure for a steering group, such as a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. Task 3: Develop Travel Demand Forecast Model. Task budget: $150,000 This task will including the hiring of a modeling Consultant to evaluate potential options for dealing with the unresolved issues of how the Contra Costa County Congestion Management Agency model estimates travel demand between the Bay Area and San Joaquin County. The CCTA model includes nine counties in the Bay Area (Contra Costa, Alameda, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Solano, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco). The CCTA model represents travel to and from San Joaquin County using external "gateway" which provide fixed travel demand forecast. Because these forecasts are static, there is no way to test how different land use scenarios or roadway improvements would affect traffic flows between the counties. This task will involve the affected Congestion Management Agencies, regional and state agencies. Opportunities for shared costs will be examined. The deliverable will be a travel demand forecast procedure that provides forecasts suitable for compliance-with CEQA and NEPA. ♦Deliverable 3-1: Technical travel demand forecasting procedures. Task 4. Select Project Consultant or team of consultants and initiate consultant work. Task budget: $30,000 Phase I will require a combination of skills including general transportation planning, highway engineering, community outreach, technical analysis, and knowledge of transportation funding sources. Given the wide range of skills that will be required, it is expected that a team of consulting firms will be hired rather than one individual firm. Contra Costa County has a program and policy in place to encourage small-business and minority-owned business recruitment, and we have mailing lists of qualified consultants as part of this program. The interagency steering group create in Task 2 will be asked to participate in selecting the consultant team. The consultant will be involved in all remaining tasks shown in this Scope of Work. One of the consultant's first tasks will be to assist in the development of a Public Participation Program, to determine how and when input will be received from community groups and individuals who are not part of the interagency steering group or the Technical Advisory Committee. The Public Participation Program will be subject to approval by the interagency steering group. ♦ Deliverable 4-1: Consultant contract for Phase 1 including detailed consultant work scope. ♦ Deliverable 4-2: Public Participation Program Task 5. Develop issue paper on SR 239 in the context of the regional highway network. Task budget: $150,000 This task will involve both background research and consensus-building on the role that SR 239 should serve in the context of the regional and interregional highway networks. For example, SR 239 could serve as a new truck route for freight; a stimulus for economic development in the region's industrial areas; a reliever for some I-580 interregional traffic between the Central Valley and Bay Area; a route for commuters in future growth areas such as Mountain House; or a quicker higher-capacity route from existing regional roads to the Central Valley highway network. This task will take into account the adopted general plans and policies of the participating jurisdictions and agencies, other appropriate plans and studies that have been completed. The function and purpose of SR 239 will be evaluated in relation to the surrounding state and interstate highway network including I-580, SR 4, SR 84/Vasco Road, and other relevant routes. The issue paper will include information on any already-planned or anticipated improvements to the highway network, and identify opportunities to obtain funds to deliver the SR 239 project. Travel forecasts will be prepared that will take.into account growth in freight and commuting. Opportunities for public-private partnerships and toll financing will be evaluated. This task will fulfill the systems and regional planning requirements as described in the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual. The task will lead to the development of an issue paper that will provide information on all of these topics, highlight the functional role of SR 239, and provide the purpose and need statement for the project. ♦ Deliverable 5: Issue paper on SR 239. Task 6: Perform Caltrans-stvle Project Study Report for SR 239. Task budget: $2 million The PSR process will include'the identification and analysis of alternative alignments for SR 239, resulting in recommendation of a preferred alignment to be carried forward into Phase 2 of the Federal Earmark project, which will be the Project Approval/Environment Document (PA/ED) Phase. The PSR will be prepared to fulfill state requirements as described in the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual. The PSR will be based on policy guidance provided by the interagency steering group, thorough technical analysis performed by the consultant team and vetted by the Technical Advisory Committee, and other relevant information. It will define the scope of the project and provide planning-level cost estimates for all the alternatives and a preliminary inventory of known environmental issues to provide a foundation for the PA/ED Phase. ♦ Deliverables 6-1-a through 6-1-x: Reports and technical memoranda as needed ♦ Deliverable 6-2: Project Study Report for State Route 239 Task 7: Develop a Funding and Implementation Plan for SR 239. Task budget: $50,000 The Funding and Implementation Plan will be based on the PSR. This task also will include the use of existing reports and information about known funding sources, and exploring potential new funding sources. ♦ Deliverable 7: Funding and Implementation Plan for SR 239 Task-by-task schedule and budget Estimated Earmark Local Task Completion task cost funding match (88.5%) (11.5%) 1. Stakeholder identification Jan-09 $10,000 $8,850 $1,150 2. Develop institutional structure * Sep-09 $60,000 $53,100 $6,900 3. Develop intercounty travel demand forecasting model ** Dec-09 $150,000 $132,750 $17,250 4. Consultant selection/project initialization Jan-10 $30,000 $26,550 $3,450 5. Issue paper Dec-10 $100,000 $88,500 $11,500 6. Project Study Report Dec-11 $3,250,000 $2,876,250 $373,750 7. Funding/Implementation Plan Dec-1 1 $50,000 $44,250 $5,750 Totals Dec-I1 $3,650,000 $3,230,250 $419,750 * -- For Task 2, the timeline for completion and estimated task cost assume the structure will be a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, which will require legal assistance and will take longer to formalize than less formal structures because it will require approval by the governing bodies of all participating jurisdictions and agencies, and development of governing procedures, a system for voting and taking actions, and other operating details. If a less complex structure is selected, the time for completion and task cost likely will be less. ** -- Tasks 2 and 3 will be conducted concurrently. Task 3 will involve the hiring of a Modeling Consultant specifically to perform Task 3. This will be a separate contract from the Project Consultant hired in Task 4 to perform the rest of the project. ATTACHMENT 1 List of potential stakeholders identified for SR 239.Federal Earmark Project Alameda County Alameda County Congestion Management Agency Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Byron Airport (Contra Costa County Public Works Dept.) Byron Municipal Advisory Council Caltrans District 4 and District 10 Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley in Contra Costa County City of Livermore in Alameda County City of Tracy in San Joaquin County Clifton Forebay—California Water Project Congressional District 10 and District 11 Offices Contra Costa County Contra Costa Transportation Authority Discovery Bay Community Services District East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Association Federal Aviation Administration Greenbelt Alliance Metropolitan Transportation Commission Mountain House Community Services District Port of Stockton Property Owners Resource agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CA Department of Fish and Game) San Joaquin Council of Governments San Joaquin County San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (ACE Train) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Sierra Club State Legislators' Offices Tri Delta Transit TRANSPLAN Committee (transportation coordinating group for eastern Contra Costa jurisdictions) Trucking industry Union Pacific Railroad Utility districts The stakeholder list above is an updated version of a stakeholder list developed by Contra Costa County in 2006 as part of our Route 239 Reconnaissance Report. That report was based on preliminary consultation with Alameda County, San Joaquin County,the Cities of Brentwood, Tracy and Livermore, and the unincorporated community of Mountain House in San Joaquin County.