Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 06101986 - X.18
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 10, 1986 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Draft SB 878 Expenditure Plan Harvey E. Bragdon, Acting Director of Community Development, transmitted to the Board a copy of the Draft SB 878 Expenditure Plan recommended by the Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein) . IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that receipt of the Draft SB 878 Expenditure Plan is ACKNOWLEDGED. cc: Community Development Director County Administrator 1 hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Superys on the date shown. ATTESTED. 69 /9 PHIL BAfAbHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By , Deputy CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: June 10, 1986 FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Actina Director SUBJECT: Draft SB 878 . Expenditure Plan BY: Barbara A. Neustadter, Deputy Direc U Transportation Planning Division Recommendation The Board of Supervisors consider the draft SB 878 Expenditure Plan recommended by the Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (CCTAC) . No action is recommended at this time. The Plan will be brought back to the Board at a later date for action. Background CCTAC adopted a recommended Draft SB 878 Expenditure Plan at its June 6th meeting. The Plan is currently being transmitted to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC ) , all the cities, all interested agencies and parties. The Plan will need to be approved by the Board of Supervisors inAugust in order for a Retail Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance to be placed on the November 1986 ballot. cc: Harvey Brandon T/P Staff RC :dsp m.BOAsb878 I ` AA contra costa transportation adviJory committee e- 4YM FLOOR, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. NORTH WINO, 661 FINE STREET, MARTINEZ, CALIF. 91567.0096 June 4, 1986 TO: `4etr000litar TrensDortation Commission Chairman and Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County; Mayers and City Council Members of Contra Costa County; and All interested Parties FROM: Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee SUBJECT: Recommended SS 878 Expenditure Plan for Contra Costa Countv After months of meetings and intense work by the cities and the County of Contra Costa, the Conr"erence of Mavcrs, the 5oard o' Super visors and CCTAC , the I e I- . ,Draft Expenditure "lan is submitted for vour review and aooroval . ;his Pian has beer reviewed and refined in a series of meetinas and public hearinc_ s by the Conference cf "avors -inc ^v CCTAC . Pursuant to the croodsec legislation,, SF 878, the attached ExDenci-ure Plan has the following elements: A list of essential countywide transportation projects in priority oroupincs with their respective sponsoring agencies. An estimate of the cost of each project. An estimate of the current sources cf State and Federal assistance available to complete these projects. A recommendation on the amount of the er000sed tax and the time period for which the tax will be assessed. A recommendation regarding who should administer the tax and the composition of the administering body. A recommendation as to whether or not bonding authority should be sought. 4 Y Revised 6/9/86 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DRAFT SB 878 EXPENDITURE PLANa ROAD PROJECTS Description Sponsor Cost Estimate Completion of State Route d to full freeway Caltrans(Countv)h g 54,000,000e standards between I-80 and Cummings Skvwav and between Concord and West Pittsburg (over the Willow Pass to Bailey Road) ,Accelerate the completion of the 680/24 CALTRANS(Coun,tvl`' 30,000,0001) interchanae Accelerate the completion of I -80 HOV lane CALTRANS(Ccuntv)h 20,000,0001) Crg iec� i&r of wav accuisition for State Ratite 4 icuntV -,Q00,l00 rerguting from �ntigch to Brentwood to Syron Construction of worth Richmond Bypass (State Richmond/County 15,000,000 Route 93) between the new Knox Freeway (near Joint Powers the Richmond/San Rafael Bridge) and I-80 Agreement near Hilltop Improvements to State Route 242 Caltransh 25,500,000 (Concord/County) I-680 Interchanges: E1 Cerro Boulevard; Danville/San Ramon 25,000,000 Diablo Road; Crow Canyon, Alcosta Boulevard including park/ride lots Improvements to Major Arterials: San Ramon San Ramon/Danville 24,000,000 Boulevard; Crow Canyon; Alcosta Boulevard ImprovQments to Yonacio Valley Road corridor Walnut Creek/ 36,000,000 between Concord Blvd. and I-68O Concord/ in Walnut Creek County Gateway Lamorinda Cities 2,000,000 Environmental assessment and analysis of project alternatives, preliminary engineering as required Implementation of preferred project alternative Lamorinda Cities 17,000,OOC (Lamorinda cities to jointly review and establish criteria for project implementation) 1 Olympic Boulevard, Pleasant Hill Road to Walnut County 4,000,000 Creek city limits San Pablo Dam Road couplet - Appian Way to I-FO County 4,000,000 TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS Extension of Pail System through North County/BARTh 185,000,000d&q Concord to Eastern Contra Costa County Additional BART parking along_ Concord and BART/Countvh 35,000,000d&f Richmond corridors includira extension park/ride lets Commute alternatives, such as, carpools, County 19,000,000c van enols , other transoortation alternatives ircludir.c. local corridor nark/ride lots by local jurisdictions to `ped BART stations; ranS' = `undiro for capital imorovemerts , a+ a 50 percent match for transit 4nd naratransit agencies; and feeder service to BART stations, park/ride lets and major employment centers OTHER Right of way acquisition and improvements County 10,000,000 for various types of transportation corridors, serving Western Contra Costa County Continaencv Fund ( including preliminary County 5,500,000 engineering, cost over-runs , environmental assessments ) GRAND TOTAL --- 3590,000,000 2 t CONTINGENC v PROJECTS Based or. Reimbursements, Grants and Increesed Revenues: Funds may become available through the reimbursement of funds expended to accelerate projects or funds from currertly uranticloated arart sources and increased revenues. The following projects have funding priority, but are not listed in priority order: Eastern Contra Costa Courtv Pail Extension in Transit (to a maximum of 515,000,000) ; State Route e, Picht of Wav Antioch to Byron (55,000,000); Imorovements SR/2e..2; 1-0580 Corridor Improvements including Interchanoes and Major Arterials; Olympic Boulevard; San Paolo Dam Roar' T-80 to Appian (52,000,000) ; and projects listed on the Managers and Engineers Countywide Prioritv List for Roar' Projects. After full financial procrammino of the above projects if revenues exceec projections, the foilowino projects would be all or partially funded, in increments, as a priority based on the monies available: Tf rail extersior to East �ounty becomes CALTRANS(County)h 1 %.000.000 inreacib 'e, wi;'er aro' tmor.ve `tate Route tv ccircle_a, six anes from Saiie" Road tJ G Stree� ir. Anriccn Accelerate and construct 1-620 widenino CALTRANS(Countv)h 130.000 000 Transit funding for capital improvement; at a County 1_,000,000 50 percent mate^ for transit and paratransit agencies ootnotes a. k4ministreticn of the sales tax under the proposed ieaislaticn shall not exceed one percent (l"-) Of the tax generated over 15 veers (current estimate 56,000,000) . b . Funding will oe advanced to the State, as appropriate, to accelerate the completion of a project which may already be funded ov other sources of money. Funds will be returned to the proposed County Transportation Authority (CTA) in project form. C. Commute alternatives funding it this category is available to all oublic agencies providina they have a TSM ordinance and provisions for a TSM coordinator. d. SB 878 reouires BART to match local funds with 50 'percent "BART" funds from Federal , State, BART, or sources other than County Sales Tax monies for projects to be constructed by BART. Matching funds provided by the Authority are limited as follows: S75 million Concord to North Concord; 5125 million North Concord to Eastern Contra Costa County as determined by the funded Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Impact Statement/Report currently in Preparation. e. S2 million funded from BART; S2 million to be funded from the Navy. Z c f. Additional funds for State Route 4, Antioch to Byron, may be oenerated throua_h the community development process. a. Rail project sponsors may include the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and/or BART and/or Tri-Delta Transit throuch the establishment of a Joint Powers Agreement. h. Sponsorship which is lister' with more than one acencv shows the responsible aoency, as well as the benefiting aoency who may participate in the development anc con- struction of the project. t 4 The sever. City representatives would be selected from above as follows: Two would be selected from the 'Test County Cities. Two would be selected from the East County Cities. One would be selected from those cities designated as North Central . One would be selected from those cities designated as South Central . One would be selected from among all the cities in the Central portion of the County. A number of other points are salient to this recommendation: (1) No City would have more than one representative on the Authority; (2) The representatives must be elected officials who are servina_ on a Council durina the time of their appointment; (3) Representatives must be nominated and approved by a majority of the City Councils in their aeocraphical area; (a) .all terms would be for two years. Anv incumbent seekina to remain on the Authcrity would ave to again oe approved by a majority of the " hies in `heir eeeoraohical area; (5) All votes ny the Authority would have to be approved tiv an absolute two/thirds majority of the Authority "Board (six members of nine) . (6) Alternates for each incumbent shall be from the respective appointing_ body (bodies) . c) All projects funded in the Expenditure Plan are Priority One. All Contingency Projects based on reimbursement, arants or increased revenues are Priority Two. d) The new County Transportation Authority will be authorized to bond for the entire 15 year period and up to the fundiro available for the 15 year period. The Authority shall also have the ability to reouire BART to charge for oarkina and be reimbursed for the amount loaned to construct parking spaces. Interest accruiro to the sales tax revenue account will remain in the account to support Authority projects and activities. e) The new Countv Transportation Authority shall have the ability to loan funds to jurisdictions upon the execution of a mutually agreeable loan arrangement. TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ANALYSIS FUNDING SHORTFALLS One of the reauirements of SB 878 is that the expenditure olar_ aemonstrate that =ederal , state and local funds are "insufficient" to implement the traffic and trarsDortation projects proposed for completion in t^e Countv' s e=e_nditure plat.. The following demonstrates that the additional funds that would be generated by t_he adoption of a Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance in Contra Costa County are necessary in order to fund major highway and transit projects in the Count and proposed for completion under this expenditure plan. TRANSPORTATION NEEDS The Countv has identified some 52 . 9 billion in needs on Contra Costa County' s freeway, highway and transit systems . Of this amount , some S1 . 65 billion is needed for improvements to the freeway and 'highway system, S578 million is needed for improvements to the arterial roadway system and approximately $1 . 6 billion is needed for imorovements to the Countv' s transit system ( BART, buses , etc . ) . Of this total , some 5478 ail-ioP. -__ state and federal funds have been allocated to improvements to Contra Costa' s highway system. insofar as Contra Costa ' s freewav and :.ighway system is concerned, the County ' s .:ajor needs ( over t?^.e next :5-20 years ) include, Dut are -or necessarily _invited to , tZe foiowi.^.g: Prolec. Cast (Mil:ices) firms A!Ioeated reEiYdys and al3+lays _-6a0 - San Ramon to wai*nit S37 $37 Creek 7-6a0/24 nte_rchange 140 140 L-6a0 - Walnut Creek to Concord 120 120 I-680/4 interciNange 92 17 7-680 - Concord to Martinez 21 21 Beticia Bridge parallel spar: 250 0 State Route 4 - Cunmings to 49 0 -30 State Route 4 - Concord to 47 0 '.vest ?ittsourg State Route 4 - west Pittsburg 104 0 to Antioch State Route 4 (new aiigrmtent) - 100 0 Antioch to Byron June 9, 1986 SB 878 EXPENDITURE PLAN RECOMMENDATION Recommendation For Sales Tax The Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (CCTAC ) has found that a Retail Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance would be necessary to fund the list of essential count nide transportation proiects. The CCTAC recommends that: a) A 1/2 cent sales tax ordinance be placed on the November 1986 ballot to last for a period of 1E years to fund essential and needed transportation projects in Contra Costa County; b1 A. County Transocrtation Authority Should be created to administer the funds nu-suant +o SS IS78. it. iS also recommended, that ±hc ccmposly for of t 2 Authority �ne as follows : The 'ranseortatien Aut"arity Would be composed of two members of the Board of Supervisors appointed by the Board, and seven City Council members , selected as described below. WEST CENTRAL EAST (NORTH CENTRAL) E1 Cerrito Clayton Antioch Hercules Concord Brentwood Pinole Martinez Pittsbura_ Richmond Pleasant Hill San Pablo Walnut Creek (SOUTH CENTRAL) Danville Lafayette Moraaa Orinda San Ramon '^o=°✓- Cost (M_iiiors) :LTrs Allocated' reeriJays and -icanpiys State ?.cute 24 - additional S275 SO bore at Caldecote ��^nsi Zterstate 5d0 (Knox ?reewav) 115 115 :nterstate 80 (FTZV project) 200 28 Route 34 - 3vron to Cotumty 100 0 line (Vasco ?pad) TOTAL S1,650 S478 Local Arterials vgraclo Vaiiev Road $47 SO North Ric-mond 3wass 49 0 Other :oca.l anter-jais 482 0 (see ADDendz x A) 2'CTAL S5 7 8 s0 :985 S= ;_^_sonar as Contra Costa Countv ' s transit needs are concerned, the noiiowi-g projects :ave been identified : ?ro'ece Cost (W3l2iors) :=tars Allocated* SART extension - Noma S397 Slsb* Concord to west ?ittsbur3 3AFC extension - 3.ic:�aond 270 0 to rilltoo 3AR_ extension - west 500 0 ?:tesbu rg to Antiocz ;might Raii Transit System - 400 0 San Ramon Valley ::arsit canieai needs (new 20 0 eat"I=ent t :arsit c?erat=-g needs 12/yr 0 TOTAL *Alternatives Analysis has been funded ** Transit Operating needs not included .in total _.. acc_t_on to ..e aceve , tae Metroboiitan _.arsportation Cor..mission has _Ce.^.t___=C and do c* 'ientea major =Lrnet _eeds in -:e area o= t ••- operatior and ma cenance of the County' s local street and :bad system. OTHEP. 7-MM:NG SOURCES ( Highway) The ?STC has advised Contra Costa County and its cities that it would be reasonable to expect 31-5 to 31- 71 mi___Jon per year in Federal Aid nterstate (?A1) and Federal Aid Urban ( FAU) highway funds over tae 1-5 year life of the sales tax. .n addition, basea on previous history, Contra Costa County and its cities can expect amproxiaately $2 . 3 million per vear in 3'AU monies for use on local arterials (FAU system) and approximately S800 , 000 mer year in Federal Aid Secondary (FAS ) monies for use on the FAS system of highways . If all of these funds were to be available to Contra Costa County, some S275 to S300 million i_.^. funds could "reasonably be expected" to be available to assist the county and its cities in funding capital isprovements to its freewav and expressway system. Applying tris figure to the S1 . 1- 72 billion in unfunded needs identified above ( =reeways and _^_ig:^.ways) tae Count-7 :could still have some 5772 million "unf,,:ndea needs" on -LS =reewav and ^ignway systems . The Cast 4 these "u^met ^eels " projects is Far in excess of tae 'reasonadie ex=ec-zed revenue" ^ro;ections from N"'C _._ adC_t_..._ tp t.e above , _t Is _-pert3nt tp note tn3t CJnt.3 CJsta CC=—'Zy Is a sir• _ -s 3 ,=er t ne Coun'-r 2rov:s_C-s ..: 33 _900 PST=_ sa-ws Can-,_a C-sta Cour. some 3:7 me:cent over _ ts County M_4nZ u t:e _7ao-d9 to _990-9i --u c'.:en_._ a. as a resui- , the Chi_:or^_ia ra^s^ortat:cn Cammissic ( C C) _o____es wi:l tend to favor de-4-4 .-i': Counties aha zaerefore, Contra Costa Ccua7 .S , ik elv to receive less 7^an tae allocations suggested above. .t is therefore exa_ ected t.:at Contra Costa. County will receive less than its "fair share" of new state and federal highway :encs over the next few years - at least until .tae deficit County situation under tie "County ainim:ums" in S3 2:5 changes . TM.e unmet needs in the area of operations and maintenance of the local roaa system is very signi:4cant . Any increases is the gas tax would, to a large extent , be required to address operation and maintenance needs . ?his :act , combined with the S578 million in unmet capital heeds on the County' s local arterial system, cieariy demonstrates that sigai!icant local funds will not be available for the projects proposed for completion under this expenditure plan. OTaER ?QNDT_NG SOURCES ( Transit', The funding available to transit operators has suffered significant cutoacks in rec2nt years including 1985185. ',Jhiie ooeratina suosidies .have beer hard 'nit, funds for capital improvements to maintain and enhance existing systems has also significantly decreased. Funding for "New Starts and Extersions" has also peen severelv restricted. :n addition the Uroan Mass Transoor-ation Administration has imposed a series of evaluation ,:r;teria intended to determine the viability of new major capital 'nvestments in 'rsnsit. This criteria includes extensions to existing systems such as Bart. reouirements ghicn include comolz--- ,on of an uMTA SCOR50 2^ 2'^a7iyP.5 Si; are Costly and "me Consuming and do :'lot er.s-re approval -J _Tr-Geed •4i'h _ons:ruction project with federal financial participation. 'While UMTA nas approved 'ter„atives Analysis (1 .5 million-funded through Sections 9 and S and local sourcesi 'he ?ittsburoh-Antioch Extension, there is no provision and no guarantee of `=daral support for the construction of the project (approximately 5900 million) , or even support for a Minimum Operatina Seament (MOS) estimated to cost ;400 million. There is another rail extension in the County which does not have an approved Alternat- ives Analysis and which is most likely not eligible for federal consideration until the completion of the BART Alternatives Analysis in Eastern Contra Costa Count,/. destern Contra Costa County has advocated for a rail extension in the I-£0 Corridor -:) alleviate serious traffic cona_estion resulting from continued new development in the corridor in both Contra Costa and Solano Counties. This extension is estimated at 5270 million. it is clear that the federal government is attemotino to aradually reduce and ultimately eliminate its role in suoportina transit capital improvements and to suocort trans ;` coeraticns. _eC:' aCn _ 'ands rave Ceen reCUCed reSUl ;,?nC in increased raCiCnal iCr -'�rCS an.; r%,anCa _ ”,e Fav :ro?. _.c S- -Jncs r_ S 2C'. _ I v xS. .nsys'Frs ' ' 'S 'au4nment 5e04^s t0 ace and ,�u5t he replaced _and as Capital plants :%,st be '^enOVa.-eC `o ensure maxiimum labor product vi`_y. Sec-:4cn 2 discreT_ionary funds are ,nCreasinaly difficult t0 Cbtain and pro PC`.S must Compete in the national arena. i5 a :^esult it iS dl?flcult to Cbtain funcs for .major systems enhancements and. almost impossible for 'Jew Starts and Extensions as the reouirements are intentionally difficult to fulfill. The net result is that Centra Costa County has a minimum unmet rail transit need of SI.170 billion. ; J CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Page 2 of 2 r , SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN COUNTY-'AIDE PRIORITY LIST FOR ROAD PROJECTS Cost No. Project Jurisd. Points In Mil 114 Bailey Rd. (CO) 12.6 0.7 127 Cowell Rd. (CO) 12.5 3.6 50 Pleasant Hill Rd. (L) 12.45 1.5 35* Clayton Rd.-Ph. 2 (*Incl. 35 & 36) (CL) 12.4 6.9 130* Farm Bureau Rd. (*Incl. 130 & 131) (CO) 12.3 1.9 32 Pacheco Blvd. (MA) 12.15 4.4 111 A Street - Grade Separation (A) 12.1 4.3 119 Clayton Rd. (CO) 12.0 2.0 120* Clayton Rd. (*Incl. 120 & 121) (CO) 12.0 6.4 113 G Street (A) 12.0 0.7 11 San Pablo Dam Rd. (SP) 11.85 1.5 53 Gateway Parkway (0) 11.77 7.0 63* Diablo Rd. (*Incl. 63, 64 & 65) (D) 11.7 1.6 125* Concord Blvd. (*Incl. 125 & 126) (CO) 11.7 5.2 8 Giant Rd. (SP) 11.58 4.9 91 Sonersville @ Hwy. 4 Modification (A) 11.5 4.0 38 Pine Hollow Rd. (CL) 11.39 .8 16 Barrett Ave. (R) 11.2 2.4 68 Camino Tassajara (D) 11.16 1.0 52 Brookwood Rd. Realignment (0) 11.05 1.i 33 Alhambra Ave. (MA) 11.0 5.7 146 Willow Pass ?d. (CO) 11.0 1.0- 53 .655 Canyon Rd. (MO) 10.8 .6 19 Carlson Blvd. (R) 10.75 2.3 23 San Pablo Ave. (R) 10.75 1.8 76 Crow Canyon Rd./I680 Overpass (SR) 10.55 1.3 24 Gertrude Ave. (R) 10.25 .5 77 E. Fourteenth St. r (PT) 9.84 1.9 51 Camino Pablo Realignment (0) 9.67 4.0 21 Garrard Blvd. (R) 9,5 ,7 42 Taylor Blvd./Pleasant Hill Rd. (PH) 9.14 1.5 71* San Ramon Valley Blvd. (*Incl.62,71,72 & 73) (SR) 9.1 7.7 13 E1 Portal Dr. (R) 8.9 .3 80 Buchanan Rd. Bypass (PT) 8.9 4.5 100 Pleasant Hill Rd. (CCC-C) 8.81 6.0 99 Olympic Blvd. (CCC-C) 8.74 4.0 2* San Pablo Ave. (*Incl. 2, 3 & 5) (H) 8.7 4.7 98 Boulevard Way/Tice Valley Widening (CCC-C) 8.49 6.0 37 Marsh Creek Rd. (CL) 8.38 1.5 109* Hillcrest Ave. (*Incl. 109 & 110) (A) 8.1 4.9 81 Willow Pass Rd./Range Rd. (PT) 7.75 14.2 59 St. Marys Rd. (MO) 7.7 1.6 1 Willow Ave. (H) 7.7 .5 97 North Richmond Bypass (CCC-W) 7.01 4.0 25* North Richmond Bypass-Ph. 1 (*Incl.25,26,27, (R) 6.8 52.1 28 & 29) 74* Alcosta Blvd. (•Incl. 74 & 75) (SR) 6.1 3.9 54 Rheem Blvd. (MO) 5.2 1.0 95 Vasco Rd. Widening (CCC-E) 4.99 15.0 34 Hwy 680 On-Off Ramps (MA) 4.85 2.1 4 Sycamore Ave. (H) 4.4 .6 31 Reliez Valley Rd. (MA) 1.05 4.5 �T CONTRA COSTA CCLWrY Page 2 of 2 SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN COUNTY-'RIDE PRIORITY LIST FOR ROAD PROJECTS Cost No. Project Jurisd. Points In Mil 114 Bailey Rd. (CO) 12.6 0.7 127 Cowell Rd. (CO) 12.5 3.6 50 Pleasant Hill Rd. (L) 12.45 1.5 35* Clayton Rd.-Ph. 2 (*Incl. 35 & 36) (CL) 12.4 6.9 130* Farm Bureau Rd. (*Incl. 130 & 131) (CO) 12.3 1.9 32 Pacheco Blvd. (MA) 12.15 4.4 111 A Street - Grade Separation (A) 12.1 4.3 119 Clayton Rd. (00) 12.0 2.0 120* Clayton Rd. (*Incl. 120 & 121) (CO) 12.0 6.4 113 G Street (A) 12.0 0.7 11 San Pablo Lam Rd. (SP) 11.85 1.5 53 Gateway Parkway (0) 11.77 7.0 63* Diablo Rd. (*Incl. 63, 64 & 65) (D) 11.7 1.6 125* Concord Blvd. (*Incl. 125 & 126) (CO) 11.7 5.2 8 Giant Rd. (SP) 11.58 4.9 91 Sanersville 4 Hwy. 4 Modification (A) 11.5 4.0 38 Pine Hollow Rd. (Cr) 11.39 .8 16 Barrett Ave. (R) 11.2 2.4 68 Cams..^.o -issa,;ara ^2 3rookwocc :d. Real,_g=ent 33 Alhambrs Ave. (MA) __.0 5.7 146 Willow ?ass ?Z1. (CO) .0 1.6 55 Canyon Rd. (1i0) 10.3 .6 19 Carlson 31vd. (R) 10.75 2.3 23 San Pablo Ave. (R) 10.75 1.8 76 Crow Canyon Rd./I680 Overpass (SR) 10.55 1.3 24 Gertrude Ave. (R) 10.25 .5 77 E. Fourteenth St. (PT) 9.84 1.9 51 Camino Pablo Realignment (0) 9.67 4.0 21 Garrard Blvd. (R) 9.5 .7 42 Taylor Blvd./Pleasant Hill Rd. (PH) 9.14 1.5 71* San Ramon Valley Blvd. (*Incl.62,71,72 & 73) (SR) 9.1 7.7 13 E1 Portal Dr. (R) 8.9 .3 80 Buchanan Rd. Bypass (PT) 8.9 4.5 100 Pleasant Hill Rd. (CCC-:) 8.81 6.0 99 Olympic Blvd. (CCC-C) 8.74 4.0 2* San Pablo Ave. (*Incl. 2, 3 & 5) (H) 8.7 4.7 98 Boulevard Way/Tice Valley Widening (CCC-C) 8.49 6.0 37 Marsh Creek Rd. (CL) 8.38 1.5 109* Hillcrest Ave. (*Incl. 109 & 110) (A) 8.1 4.9 81 Willow ?ass Rd./Range Rd. (PT) 7.75 14.2 59 St. 5farys Rd. (MO) 7.7 1.6 1 Willow Ave. (H) 7.7 .5 97 Porth Richmond Bypass (CCC-W) 7.01 4.0 25* North Richmond Bypass-Ph. 1 (-Inc1.25,26,27, (R) 6.8 52.1 28 & 29) 74* Alcosta Blvd. ('Incl. 74 & 75) (SR) 6.1 3.9 54 Rheem Blvd. (5S0) 5.2 1.0 95 Vasco Rd. Widening (CCC-E) 4.99 15.0 34 Hwy 680 On-Off Ramps (MA) 4.85 2.1 4 Sycamore Ave. (H) 4.4 .6 31 Reliez Valley Rd. (MA) 1.05 4.5 bJ . CONTRA COSTA RAIL TRANSIT 1 i i BART Planning Department December 12 , 1985 1. Contra Costa Transit Guideway Projects Project Estimated Cost North Concord BART S 158m W. Pittsburq BART 239m 397m San Pablo FART S i4 Hilltoo BART '25m S 270m San Ramon SRV S 400m ;.4oprox.) r S1067m 2. Potential Program Fundinq 15 Year Total 33% of new half cent sales tax S 150m State and Federal at 75% match rate 450m S 600 San Mateo Colma Connection Charqe S 30m Additional Federal at 75% match 90m $ 120m S 820m ti 3. Potential Project Packages a. With Federal participation Uses: N. Concord/W. Pittsburg BART S 397m San Pablo/Hilltop BART 270m San Ramon R .O.W. + 43m S 700m Sources: Contra Costa sales tax S 150m State and Federal match l50m S 600 b. Without Federal participation Uses: N. Concord BART S 158m Lower :} ighway 4 grade 18m S 176m Sources: Contra Costa Sales Tax S 150m San Mateo Connection Charge 30m S 180m RES0LVTI0NS I iY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA At IH Adopted this Order on May 20, 1986 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson and Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None RESOLUTION NO. 86/282 SUBJECT: Approval of the Proposed SB 878 Expenditure Plan Proposed Process Whereas, the Senate Bill (S8 8781 would allow Contra Costa County to develop a County Expenditure Plan pursuant to a specified process of local input and review; and Whereas, a specified Expenditure Plan process has been developed by the cities and County of Contra Costa through their Managers and Engineers Committee and the Public Managers Association; and Whereas, the proposed process has been adopted by the Contra Costa Transpor- tation Advisory Committee (CCTAC) and by the Conference of Mayors; and Whereas, the CCTAC recommends the Coard of Supervisors adopt the proposed process; Now, therefore be it resolved, that the Board of Supervisors ADOPT the proposed Expenditure Plan process, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. (.hern0y certify that this is a fru*andeorreoteopyof an action taken snd?nlIn Gd on the mlm-tee of the Board of Suparvbcre on the date shown. ATTESTED: QO. iglr(- PHIL SAm7,EL ,ctork cf the Bo.3r3 of Supervisors and County AdIrtwstrator n'^I By S .wn 1 r,t�. S Y Deputy Orig. Dept.: Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (CCTAC) TT:RC:dsp(S.9.86) ResS8878.t8 cc: County Administrator Community Development Department Public Works Department RESOLUTION NO. 86/282 ?Raa'os �� I } v ! 1 i f i i t 1 i noct'.sJJ??. uu .AP?ROVAL ri l ,: CONFERENCE OF MAYORS RESOLUTION SUBJECT: Approval of the Proposed SB 878 Expenditure Plan Process Whereas , Senate Bill 878 (SB 878) would allow Contra Costa County to develop a County Expenditure Plan pursuant to a specified process of local input and review; and Whereas , a specified Expenditure Plan process has been developed by the cities and County of Contra Costa through their Managers and Engineers Committee and the Public Managers Association; and Whereas , the proposed process has been adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (CCTAC ) and by the Board of Supervisors; and Whereas , the Conference of Mayors has unanimously approved tie process at the 'lay 1 , 1986 meeting; Now therefore be it resolved that the Conference of .Mayors adopted the proposed process. Attest Mayor Menesini President Conference of Mayors RC:dsp COMresol TtzE 30ARD Or SUPE.RVISORS Or CONTRA COSTA COUNTY , CALI?ORNIA Adopted this Order onJune 3 , 198b by ".e ;o1 , cw=^g 'rote : AYES : NOES : ABSENT : ABSTAIN : RESOLUTION 10. SUB TECT S8 378 ;v^r__REAS Pub-lic Ut_L=ies Cede Sect_cn 131020 , as __ _s c=csad 'Z= added 'v Senate 3___ 378 of the 198�-_98b Sec^_a= Se55: .. the ,eCi513tur� , -ZaU4 res 7:,-= 3car =eSC__-_..n, an ax=ec::ec SCneCu_e t 'e .:Sed fZZ sp - _a,._ .. eY=e' .___re __.. a_. . _ _a _nC a _ _ cs_ _.:ie .:u_.. .e _nc easec CV _ ..e.^.- '.vd=REAS SUCK a SC hedu',e has eea devel^Ded and zhe Ccatra Ccsta _ransp -- i--e� arc Crt3�_�.P. nGV SC- T �.:;R1IS1 ,�_ .., , wl.. EAS the 3oard of Superviscrs =_ads the prcpcsed schedule 3CCe�taDle; NCW, THEREFORE, 3E T_'1' 'ZTSOL'JED by the Ccnt_a Costa Ccun t- Board cf- Sunerviscrs that the schedule which is at=ac hed mc --'-is reSoluzi4cn and _acc--morated 'nereia ;v .e.erence is a=zr-_Ved and established =ursuanc :0 Section 131020 CL the Public Jtilit_es Code. Sn1=S 7 AX 'I F.2.S RE May 2? PMA - take art 'Or on recommendation fr:m '"a—ers/ nc4neers l,pmmittee (ME'C ) on r'nresertation, eXpenCT =Uro r (cn etc. May 22 CC TAC - consider draft project list - formaI 'y distribute draft to Conference of Mayors (CCM) , ?nd city councils and 2oard of Suoervisors mor consideration continue hearinc "ay 29 Conference of Mayors (CC,14 (Martinez City 'ail ) Report frc.-n ad hoc ."avors croup on representation and type of acency ',ITC vs Ccur-y Trenspertat .on Authcr"v (C-. ni p,,.:<c,'lco" ex.en of - reCeiVeenr� �rCtTi M - V c: cr, t _ - ."Td. �_'�<? a i^ Jr Oral' ix :Jre 2!7 June E Mayors Conference - ccr't discussion on excendTt;;re clan motion on axoenditure clan June 6 CCTAC meets and adopts and transmits expenditure clan to MTC , city councils and :card of Suoervisors (San Ramon Valley Unified School Oistrict - 3eard .<m. - 699 Old Orchard Crive, Danville, 9am to noon) ideek of Jure 11 MTC 'Work Procram and Plan Revision Committee ',leek of June 16 MTC Transportation Finance Committee June 2c MTC approves expenditure pian June-.�uly 22 City Counc4ls/3oart deliberat'ors and act'cr, ty "'solur4cn, -in expendituir,? Alar Aucust :f majority of the Soar,^' and ,7t�jQrit.J rf :� c5 "a?re52rLi^� ? majority of the ceoulation adopt the expenditure _ian, the ':,ard publishes the clan and authorizes placing :measur? 7n the ca 'ot August 3 Clerk of ': e Soar^ daces "ensure on the nal 'ot PC :dso(_.28.56) S3872schedule The Board of Supervisors Contra Phil Batchelor a aoar Cleof the Board Costa and County Administration Building County Administrator µt5 372.2371 651 Pine St., Room 106 County Martinez, California 94553 Tan Pews, tat Distinct Nancy C. FshAen,2nd Diatrict Roba I. SOW*".3rd District w, Surr wrght.MePwc, 4th District Torn TeRersoh, 5N Dlmict ;i MINUTES OF THE CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING OF JUNE 59 1986 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA The June 5 , 1986 , special meeting of the City Selection Committee (noticed in accordance with provisions of the Brown Act by the Permanent Secretary of the City Selection Committee) , was convened at 7 p .m. by Chairman Ron Mullin at the Concord Senior Citizens Center, 2727 Parkside Circle, Concord . A roll call showed those listed as present : Mayor/Representative City Representing Mayer Joel teller Antioch Mayor Nathan. Fisher Brentwood Mayor James Parsons Clayton Mayor Ron Mullin Concord Mayor Sussana Schlendorf Danville Vice Mayor Anna Howe E1 Cerrito Mayor Charles Collins Hercules Mayor Dick Holmes Lafayette Mayor Michale Menesini Martinez Mayor Margaret Depriester Moraga Mayor Richard Heggie Orinda Mayor Richard Nelson Pinole Mayor Taylor Davis Pittsburg Mayor John Mulhall Pleasant Hill Mayor Lonnie Washington Richmond Mayor Harvey Armstrong San Pablo Mayor Wayne Bennett San Ramon Mayor Mary Lou Lucas Walnut Creek The purpose of the meeting was to approve the attached sche- dule to be used for completion of the tasks leading to the adop- tion of a transportation expenditure plan and placing a proposition on the ballot calling for an election to determine whether the sales tax should be increased by 1/2 cent to finance such an expenditure plan. Because of the expedient need to approve the schedule, members of the City Selection Committee concurred on the appropriateness in bringing this matter to their attention. There being no discussion, the Chairman called for the vote . All members of the City Selection unanimously approved the attached schedule. The Chairman announced the appointment of the Contiguous City Delegate to the Airport Land Use Commission to be continued to July 3 , 1986 . The meeting terminated at 7:05 p .m. Respectfully submitted , Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and Permanent Secretary of the City Selection Committee By Deputy SCHEDULE FOR CONTRA COSTA SALES TAX MEASURE May 22 PMA - take action on recommendation from :Maraaers/Engineers Committee (MEC ) on representation, expenditure plan, etc. May 22 CC TAC - consider draft project list - formally distribute draft to Conference of Mayors - (CCM) , rnd city councils and Board of Supervisors for ccrsideration - continue hearino May 29 Conference of Mayors (COM) (Martinez City Hall ) Rete from ad hoc Mavors croup on representation and type of ac ency MTC vs County Trtnsportaticn Authority (CTA) NcrkSnC%" exCene' ture Dlar S. , reS . SSL'eS reCrPSe.^._a_:Cr ane type Cf °CerCV MTC or rte_ May 2C CCT, - con" of �uDlic hearing (AntiecL. City Hall cam-!lam) - receive commerts from CCI" - may take action on draft expenditure plan June : Mayors Conference - cdn't discussion on expenditure plan - motion on expenditure plan June 6 CCTAC meets and adopts and transmits expenditure plan to MTC , city councils and Board of Supervisors (San Ramon Valley Unified School District - Board Rm. - 699 Old Orchard Drive, Danville, 9am to noon) Week of June 11 MTC 'Mork Program and Plan Revision Committee Week of June 16 MTC Transportation Finance Committee June 2F MTC approves expenditure plan June-July 22 City Councils/Board Deliberations and actior, by resolution, on expenditure plan August c If majority of the Boar ' and majority cf cities representing a majority of the populatir adopt the experditurp plan, the Board publishes the plan and authorizes placing measure on the ballot August 2 Clerk of the Board places measure on the ballot PC :dsp(S.28.86) S8878schedule contra corta _transportation advirory_ committee CCTRC 4TH FLOOR. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. NORTH WING. 651 FINE STREET. MARTINEZ. CALIF. 31567.009$ Recommended Draft SS 87R Expenditure Plan For Contra Costa County At its June e, 1986 hearing, the Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (CCTAC ) adopted the fcllowino recommendaticrs for transmittal to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC ) , the cities and County of Cortra Costa for review and approval : 1 ) Adopted e project expenditure plan based upon a 1/2 cent sales tax that will last up to ' S years; ?' Delegated staff the authority to refine and define the larouace, of the draft Expenditure Plan; Recpmmercpe that e County Trarsocrtatlor A.uthcrity be ?Qrror wit,, nine member bcdv cpmoosed of members from the Sparc of Suoerv4 scrs art the council members from the cities of Contra Costa County; a) Recommended that bondino be available to the authority; that t^e authority have the ability to make loans; and 5) Concurred with the chances recommended by the Conference of Mavors on the Expenditure Plan and the composition and membership of the County Transportation Authority. Attest : Tom Torlakson, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee Attest: Robert Chung tart Contra a Transportation Advisory Committee SB878resolDraft PROJECT JUSTIFICATIONS STATE HIGHWAY 4 IMPROVEMENTS (EASTERN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY) Project Sponsor: Contra Costa Countv Project Description: This proiect consists of 1 constructina a 6 lane r.l,dl -u"- •• Pittburg` -... psi Pai:barc freeway between Concord and Pittsburo. The portion of the freeway over the summit will be reconstructed r, at a lower orade and will �,.... provide a wide median for ° rail transit to Eastern " Contra Costa County. Two additional lanes will Concord SCALE be added to the existing A """ ' I ' lane freeway from the ,^.. •° "." summit to eailev <oad in Pittsburo. Project Cost Estimates: S57 million Project Objectives: * To relieve severe congestion durina =mmute periods. * To allow for a proposed rail transit proiect to cross the Willow Pass summit. * To allow sufficient right of way for the proposed rail transit project. * To improve traffic safety on the narrow a lane segment of Highway 4 at Willow Pass. STATE ROUTE 4 IMPROVEMENTS (WESTERN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY) Project Sponsor: Caltrans/Contra Costa County Project Description: �- •..�. This project Consists of the construction -OeocKerT _ of a four lane freeway between Interstate _ ` 1 `r 3ENICIA- :.. 80 and Cummings Skyway in Hercules. It aooeo �1 connects to the existing 4 lane freeway to the Past. The planned roadway will be HERCULE^ = rt �-MAaTINEZ generally to the north of the existino 2 lane hi shwa v, PINOL Project Cost Estimates: Sal million EI. SOSRANTE-�11� Project Objectives: * To 4morove traffic safety on this seoment of 'oute in areolas , especially at the railroad crossings . ' * To provide for uninterrupted traffic flow for residents using the hiahwav, IMPROVEMENTS TO STATE ROUTE 4 IN EASTERN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Project Sponsor: Contra Costa County Project Description: Pillis�urg This project will AY nfioEll-- ...... .......... ... continue the lane widening of Hichway from Concord to g 'M 11 BailevRoad. Startino from the 8 a i ley ii:ALE Road interchanae , H i a h W a V a will widened to 6 lanes to the " G " Street i r t e r c a n o e it Articch. Trt--rch2rces �,ithin the Project limits will be modified to allow for the widening and to improve safety and oceraticn. The crciect will also pur-Ilase erouch richts of way 'C L allow a -ail transit -,rc,4:p.ct in the m.ediar or alcros4da the highway. Project Cost Estimate: $124 million Project Objectives: To reduce spillover traffic on arterials (e.a. Leland Avenue, Willow Pass Road, West 10th Street) in Eastern Contra Costa County thereby reduce accidents and improve traffic flow in these arterials. To relieve corgestion on the segment of Highway d between Bailey Road and Railroad Avenue. To imorove traffic safety at the interchanges. To reconV-ruct segments of the freeway that are substandard according to today' s standard. ,L �J B A Y ST • SN..04 M �L< Ralao IMIOY.OMM 11111111 iiiii,I SM. I'll Pftwwwmartinaz `h. >,o,too Flub v F ; S.r4 A s Jo Mwr .Marr Hiv.s%.`)i .,C�..`1.,„/.P ` _.er� c;r j Pittsburg ..,e j� e,. �✓( •� \ C?, .. _ ✓ > `� `4vde '.. ntiQ f� ittsburg e b ,ar.I sr WO *•�% c 'c,��..r ' r` Com d Nartl tt 1 ,tr 7 ww«a. . ism '> d d «rah .n ; a.: rr Ila �f P7Cu9 _.7,111 co 0?e �/ CGwf.'pYe 4 Ma0. ��. � rafl � � Cuf reCa•{� yNawnpul xs..L LOCATION MAP IMPROVEMENTS ON INTERSTATE 6801HIG14WAY 24 Project Sponsor: Caltrans/Contra 'Costa County Project Description: s The project is located in Walnut Creek on Pfeasaat; ` Interstate 680 from Ruda_ ear Read to North Neu Main. Street and on Hiahwav 2a from Pleasart Hill Road to Interstate 680 . J Caltrans has a project to reconstruct this freeway to freeway irtercharce. When u = •°' completed, there will be three traffic =� lanes 'r all directions and the short _ merair. a at the Newell AvenuP and Yanac'o Malley Road intercharaes will be s corrected. TMe pre;Pct is scheduled to '•]r} n iv. •r a Q �• 1 rot 1� r stu, _ cons uc`ion S� and �; be subst;ntiaily ccmrleted until 1993. Ti "12ye te exoenditure olan will acvarce furds to Caltrans for right-of-way purchase.C �-of-way h . This = �;:� •'• .;., ..•: advance will move the completion of the project ahead by as much as 18 months . Ga A. Project Cost Estimates: $30 million \ Project Objectives: * To move a State funded project ahead +G ALZ of schedule so that congestion will be relieved at an earlier date. MI's" z ' MILES [ILCYEiTVS ° 2 ] S 3 ! R1LOY8TFJt! o� 1 '� '° f Cs Sek `%6 \i'�••. , �i, ` yp d�P� �,�v►+�hi eivy ' —`. roo.r s• „wpvR wa,nV / "% �.c�.�r,�'`�:....i~ �1/e'��� �r.�c" I x,ae 1 `.Y r 5 �.r 1 0/+`J ••.... "'elf. ,., + 1 •q! p�bCtn • `` }i\. :F` `- w�` / ;• � °,/ � � � a.uow ..�t3r eta �\ o p.\Basant'+:er ,t$ 'k'- .,�j� �.--•e aeuvD '\ � y � �,«� \ eQG *,�/,7'!',H't\\� r+e�.�,).t, •.., t a i,ri wu. \af� ` ii.'' �1t�,m ^ 'Y �J •w„ �~Q R� \��� 4a CY ` �.I_y��f 'toi �� �.r's wca n " `"` /"� h h c 5b"�.w+a Y � aZ � •.�•l�/ r.-_�w��k� l { _s ,e'= �• x P z ��Q�•�wwt4+ L�� ��, e 1� w IMPROVEMENT TO INTERSTATE 80 Project Sponsor: Caltrans/Contra Costa County HERCULES �O PINOLE -1 Project Description: The project is located at Interstate 80 in Western Contra Costa County in the y �,— cities of E1 Cerrito, Richmond, San Pablo y;; ., EL SOBRANTE and Pinole. Caltrans has a project to construct commuter lanes, auxiliary lanes and intercharoes modifications to r;o� Interstate 20. The project is scheduled �"•' ' � to start construction in 1988 . The environmental document for the project was approved in 198? are encireerira work RICHMOND is almost cemoleted. The only reason for the delay is because of lack or funds. To .`. EL CERRITO have an early relief to cormuters usinc the freeway, `ho 2xcenditure Plan wit ' provide fords to advance project ,ALBANY construction. ;`-- , BERKELEY _•. Project Cost Estimates: $20 million Project Objectives: KALE * To advance construction schedule so that traffic congestion relief can. occur 18 months ahead of schedule. S1 k'i tr` �r •r Musks ' ...er.<.. .....p. ^ •\ t Martinez c � AT b° rwu 'Pechec �4 • r� C Met')Nut.Site Iam P.W .wN • 11 (� `'• r r $ie P71I WNt(} .v To �r6 r 7 r. 4.N.. G1. V .p = •r. Y` ` M. AiSS /• .D III.fI err Dura°. Gq Rich on ,. ° t �.. Ri wiliest rrOLLl • i...l a Snn Pohln . t0 �C('IIr•.I M M 'A' W zi Alitr t ' Rrionrs Res .b �•M �^e II i oI No d s 4b p(.� i� Rrxnnir 1✓ •v °�� g J S je ^ow..r 1I tel C.m M/ '(. r..\y'�7 % Z1 iarl.t �f � w.l°r cra 4 `^Cy'\.n(s R.rNer{ Lt . u��I q 1�3 t• o <�TUs LOCATION MAP STATE ROUTE 4 REALIGNMENT (ANTIOCH TO BYRON) Project Sponsor: Antioch, Brentwood and County ANTiOCH Project Description: 0 A K LEY Thi s project wi 11 provide funds to a purchase the richts of way for the future —KNIGHTSEN realianment of Route 4 from Antioch to Bvron. 3PENT'NOCO Project Cost Estimate: million Project Objective: 7c relief traffic corcestion on the SYRCN existing Hichwav 4 which has oriv 2 traffic lanes and is experiencino 23,000 vehicles per day. To preserve the residential communities of Oakley end Brentwood by realigning Highway 4 to by pass the reichborhood. (',a111dSYdlE Ti �,r:TL1a0 E ,� �t Istdntl / van SicklB � �a 1 i / Honker Island TOP>.n � p%, 161610 �e�a � f faG� t., Sf r. say 1 S,QC _ aC 7Z, � �oN••/j` �S�ao�_�'^'! a Srar Snse CiRsstene State 5emen eme hanagament r NtarM Q Area Regrontl � / )• ,� >11ESt y.JRA.Sharlm+e •tom G � -F < GATEWAY PitlSbuT$ w taTX sr ,f _.nLL�aY 9A5SRO.rN. < r ~A Rs.tIQ h.'.,. -- na '-•�\.��.. Big PARR$IpEoat+E 13Rrrak .� Dfjti� ^u'tn •w\,�_I4"� A'.'s F � RX 5T. .7�•_^ (�1 � ' °t�h � 13 cln a•"? R rAXTK?CN XY_ (1 H p 5 n J r�tt$b�g� wtLeua 4� �E6iN0 _ "d % W 6, Co.' Sa1H i 5T. viCTpRY n �xr a L LANG pp P pa" ST. — !P¢ Oak{ R of I tAD +� z ! CYPeE55 ii i ; CYPRESS % R0. '•� ! !I A A �:� 91,50 ST� sy� i 1a canG ;z ,Rani COaTO RO. Costa(`D \ < x Yon ,\ YUWGAN NrLt t'". S{wuCtpal ! t nu+ f� , LT .R,gri: a0 j r;entre.Cer -,i; Res t w 2^ i o �! t.ae po �'^ 3* r .'D/r k..anon :31 L tii .w OE \' O RM LC"'E _a EE w•Y i 's CAN � � Pr• !i�<(r. ,, Rn ig Antroan SLnsEt � RO. %Aw ` (o mti• 1 a c L arrocn Q! Y a ` 1 �My�,r}� ionP{ ,",�rtsttit '1 sV ei1 Bit �4 d Clayton `l3 Qbr"( _ 9aENTw000 aY. i , � / OA4Nh aA�FOUR � CXApBA FOUR cz'. j•. C(AV AE RD Z�< o Cr. A H 0 :.CNCORO m ti eg70XE3 � Q� N ,�! Stitt ; YALLE>" / ? / NARSN :•y -_ CAEEK RO. I Game Refuge ��/" p„ iz •--- Z ' '¢SR N O �` wvrP K...rtarr CREEK M#, Q�t/b 10 9 ` EVER p0. 7 R i o ptAH10 y90 CAEE t{a0 f t 14 {�/E It \\ Srton -^CI SCttn�i '~1 ark YN,e eww" �1 5oln'N onE BLACK Tt F r J _ ti Hilts .`�'tgeeaei ;• �� OYSTER •OrNr _.. ? pas y i •C! �O `c / SIG OSO iG [�f ( w r �rASSAaARA! 1}' J a �i // Brthany yNt3MLA, � tT NORTH RICHMOND BYPASS (PROPOSED STATE ROUTE 93) Project Sponsor: City of Richmond and Contra Costa County Project Description: _:--..-'"=..-... -_� —"- • ._ � The project will provide a major 4ul '<. =.;s: .;._ lane new arterial hiahwav between Interstate 80 near the Hi 1 ltop I " .:.. :::»:>:'' ReaionaI Shoppino Center and Interstate 580 (John Knox Freeway) at Castro Road in Point Richmond. The roadway will follow the general alignment established for legislative --` —a ,:_........... State Route 93. . 'PAS L0 Project Cost Estimate: m a u � j+ �1 C SI n C Project Objective: 6.> * To provide a truck bypass between the industrial center in Richmond and the Interstate 80 . Currently, RIICHMOM . trucks are using neighborhood streets d i s r u p t i n a the - STATE RTE. 77 communities. * To relief traffic congestion on Interstate 80 in Richmond by providing a direct route from Pinole to San Rafael Bridge and the industrial area next to the bridae. * To enhance economic development. QA/ Ty co Benic 05 COUNTY �f �+ State C0S7 A COUNTY .�BRtoaE (TOLL) " Cama 00 Crockett Lone Tres Point QTm a , c9 G 'o P A B U BAY Rodeo s STH St. S,4.h Hercules yP� h, � San Pabfo Bay >L��p Rodeo Pinola-point Wilson Pt.Regional Pk. A r Point Pinole pp;: Regional Park 1 ►��le 1 4 MAIN ST. 1 + 28 �9aQh i AT(^`S TARA HILLS PlNOLE' ¢� S * �.�78 4 RD A Avja F N = / C mac ' 4 fI/ 1 � Q '' HILLTOP � GALLEY PrP '1 2 0 Sobrante1 Point San Pabtol P,RR 1 'tc ,Sa Rp qe IM Sanr Iry �� $qN r'ab1oe 69 ¢ I(0 RANCH KET Ay Q Z 4�Co CFSSP New \ = Kennedy Grove = w Mc9RYQ ay Reg ronal 'Qi R i c h m n d Rich ondAV. �Pc. Area aO�, e : o y San Pablo EL ROLL) / MAC- CN p a R a-!: 'vZ T AVS O .,�' 8 Brione 0 c� oa Reservoir . — N CUTTING El Co dieerY+Atltlar Q HOFFMANj 7 E1 Cerm deL= $ % RaQionW Park < z Point ° r T Richmond �-� v Y 'p,. } a Pt.isebe! E1 e i W ��/ y�t i s t It o Z ,► arm*$ l& t A Mortal m azo tyF� u+ q, yro Regional Perk tic �� -. q,n a 1 �6 Golden Gats Fiwa 'r' I L A7 � G% M/ y Berke ' S =- taltfiurr ' Orit ortha* »yon Reg Part v S*Hr&by MOM&/ � uNi v � Open rsH Z,7tq% Iri► �g sBerk ey UA �N 9 ! # 223 =i o' Lake �� Pk1lrN 13 AV- Tames { -+ IMPROVEMENT TO STATE ROUTE 242, (OLIVERA TO GALAXY) Project Sponsor: City of Concord C' Project Description: CONCORD This project consists of operational improvements on State Route 242 between Clivera Road and Galaxy Way. The proiect PLEASANT HILL'Ur j will include modifying existing interchanges and add auxiliary =` lanes on. Route 242. Project Cost Estimate: LAFAYETTE WALNUT CREEK 525.5 million _' Project Objective: * To increase freeway safety and efficiency by moving the meraing traffic to auxiliary lanes. * To increase freeway safety by providina better off ramps so that traffic will not back uo on the freeway. r * To improve local arterial circulation in the vicinity of the freeway. �. N.G.r W — \ CN... .rune rIlk ow. \�= 10 r0.1 O.C.00 � ti \� •�� ..MI west a\ • w.� ;\ �� ``-..cmc +r. ++ P)tt Sbet4 ru°sr ..sa .D. Clyde 13 Matiau ^.otc° .9 4\\ S1.c n° ittsbulg� a tr wn ..,ea ...TM�'AA c'r'° ConcWd NwN24 \\ a e ` fie .� t m stair r/\ °o \\wesor s. Sf.fa \ N.r1 Nit1.sat /) 4 v� `� .t� v��� r s faCGff) KW'4.\� n' t rq r'DCs.f rer(I< +� t 3 ad „C a • Q f 1.Now o. C cord 4 r rt ..t t Btiata 'r a+^• r atoa..w 4, 'D F`' �d.v.no.n T7iutt) Alias, Prtatrtt lei i.G� r"Ea. 4 Ia Hill ty, .� + \ :%�► r.w,m.w, r>w LOCATION MAP INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION — INTERSTATE 680 Project Sponsor: City of Danville, City of San Ramon and Contra Costa County '7 j Project Description: LAFAY=TTS t 'WALNUT CHEEK To modify the existing interchanges to improve operational efficiency and to increase traffic safety. The followiro interchanges will be modified: A.lcosta Boulevard, Crow Canvon Road, Diablo Road, ALAMO E1 Cerro Boulevard and Stone Valley Road. , Project Cost Estimate: oANv,LLa _',_.._:, S25 million Project Objections: \ * Te improve efficiencies of the interchanges to reduce delay and to '� reduce the impact on the operation of the freeway. SAN RAMON * To increase safety .by converting existina interchanges to suit the more unbanized setting in Contra Costa County. SPR .�G J rette 9flz "meq 'y�. Walnut Greek � 9� 24 ou.BLd at eL Oiablo =f L 8� s44, �? ° o Sr y O�C't! t�14 foothills y ~?F Q �R�s a � F� M e`• � , -p P Regional A VAL[Ey p'E' tbl Aark no 0 9N BLVD. t t tt N;a 'yG Jp R NA INS �\ iy fIpNPEA DR. b i O r 6 Alamo '� sro"r 82 Alamo > N t. 81 ° aao. >ks Rn,_- Z 3O"TM1 art ON 00gr ry'a Co/�e4e < w Q r24 cS'o \ =a aza 1 e°L[11vQER .esj.Tr#X?d$ ? \� p 8� r Diablo Ckkf4 'k 1 wi irrnef3 r CAMO J E d LLE,Y �`y •, C,, �+yr ° �y tIAPPr aneandr ♦ cF C3 'rr ; I RAMAGE PK. T1 1401 j Reservoir Sat bm o i ( Bishop Ranch T T a RegianaJ PahtEYtOE0 rk 7r A 7 87 C 2 ;»x OQ Mt c ;rev O 01'Y �L 0 lSal�{� • - Cull Canyon O �l� r .1•r s.. Reg. Rec. Area ° � � r EVEN HILLS Cas q V lley r �AVsET „ , o Dublin 89 .n VAI r.. ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENTS IN SAN RAMON VALLEY Project Sponsor: Citv of narville and City of San Pamon Project Description: The project consist of the widenira of San Ramor Valley Boulevard in the city limits of Denville and San Ramon. Crow Canvon Road from Contra Costa County line to Bollinaer Canyon Road and Alcosta Boulevard it the city of San Ramon . These major arterials will be widen to 4 or 6 lanes and some of the intersections will be modified to accommodate anticipated traffic. Project Cost Estimate: e24 m4ll -1cr .. .... ............. Project Objective: 71 To provide a uniform d to 6 lane roadway to eliminate bottlenecks. To provide a parallel route to Interstate 680 to ease concestion. a +aiYn, Ir •, r a i �f � 'P+artt °w.' �---�•✓ 'li v �(+ M 'V�].rypP� 'i Pyi,. ,\ uPcsv� ` .. 4b- ;- YwP I�, y ���Y'• � J ttJ i y ^/o { _�,/ t sv. •,.rp. v.uty xw 5YY"�"°"vuµr ( ` roPrYY,t Mt . ey� d '� �naa ♦ YY± a � p` � Fro°' 1 J � • V rIwo ilp Q Lp� p"T O T YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Project Sponsor- Cities of Walnut Creek and Concord and Contra Costa County Project Description: ✓� :'� The Yonacio Valley Read corridor S improvements includes three phases. Phase One is to convert the downtown HiOa' ' Walnut Creek portion of Yonacio arms Vallev Road into a one way couplet N/.. .: thereby addino more capacity to the road. ' �\ Phase Two of the project will replace the traffic siorals on the ; one ;iav ccuolet ,.,14th new state of the art controllers to optimize the = WainutCreeK fficierc • of the in N e intersection ". operation. Phase Three of the project includes \ .ww,ne 4 improvements to other intersections on Yonacio Valley Road between Clayton Road and downtown Walnut Creek . Project Cost Estimate: $36 million Project Objective: * To alleviate traffic conaastion in the Walnut Creek downtown area on this recional east-west route. * To improve traffic flow on the entire Yonacio. Valley Road corridor. �C cord re .T{ by b CQ'COrQ /// a r t vita*' aHill p�° Y�'► ,a,a� + ,. oarwY a G r dYtr w< lag b + A. I wig ( W Q.A. r0 VaWo .1 yY= /2aa� b S.. CrQQ9 •q .5� Aria. 74 �� Us Walnut Creels cry 3 ,,;;Aftwo 24 �,`t �iU7trf w 1. � ." •b � pew A(t\pZ;a{/. `i`` '."" y a�L ~Onads�` Orit1Qf.�,ttt 'r^'e •ro '�y Yvtc. +wci.�' N•swn•r :�• wurer aeto — (VV�^' aS lot sr ' 1 • % T9r1 t' $iCY1/NMtl rQQ P MY�at w i 93mom npww awu.. < 4 .J4 r AIU.oe. \7 a•o„0 M . F 4 el er {1yM1 b r<tt ; 3mft QOM ¢ aa.ww'F <Y ftt s�^� .• _ 7 'e. S t N �T 4 .e \\ LOCATION MAP GATEWAY PROJECT Project Sponsor: Cities of Lafayette , Moraaa and Orinda 24 Project Description: LAFAYETTE The project is desioned to ORINDA ' relief traffic concestion on the arterials linking . Moraga to Route 24 throuoh the communities of Lafayette and Orirda. 4t This proiect is divided 4 4 1 0 irto two :chases . The 4 f i r s t p ^ a s e comprehensive aralvs4 ,s of MORAGAJ the traffic 'situation f"Jrn which alterr-atives gill be developed. Invirormental assessment o f 11 e s a ...... a e r r. a t i v e s will be conducted . A oreferred alternative will evolve from these analysis which will also have to he aareed to by the three cities in the area. Phase Two of the project will be the actual implementation of the selected alternative. Project Cost Estimate: S19 million (e2 million is set aside for alterratives analysis) Project Objective: To alleviate traffic ccnaestion on Moraoa Way and the Moraga Road/St Vary' s Road corridor. To perserve the neichborhoods surroundira these two corridors in Orinda and Lafayette. To improve traffic safety in these two corridors where they are currently experiencing above average accident rates. OLYMPIC BOULEVARD WIDENING Project Sponsor: ('ortra Costa County Project Description: STATE RTE- 2Z',. ALNUT This project will widen Olympic CREEK Boulevard from Pleasant Hill Road R in Lafayette east to o, LAFAYETTE Interstate 680 in lolalnut Creek . The existino roadway will be widened to four lanes with a landscaped median . Mos t 1% of the richt of way for this 0Ir project has already been A ,,. O accuired. 0 Project Cost Estimate: N S4 mill4or Project Objectives: Improve access to Route 24 and Interstate 680. Provide adeauate capacity for the plapned freeway access following the reconfiguration of the 1-680/24 irterchance. Increase the capacity of Olympic Boulevard to relieve concestion on the residential streets in the area. Provide a detour route durfra the planned 5 year construction of the 1-680124 interchance. Imorove local bus transit routes and provide access to BART stations in Lafayette and Walnut Creek . • r a�. 3 `— 0#5 � wwk* if Q44�W o\�o`r�y�r—a�r1 WVO- 1 i A .,,�, s _ `? ©N 1 fIYI j SAN PABLO DAM ROAD BYPASS Project Sponsor: Contra Costa County Project Description: This project will construct co 0 a bypass roadway south of EL San Pablo Dam Road from = SOBRANTE Appian Way west to El Portal Drive. The bypass road. e4 ..°R• :'':::...... ............. 44f will provide two one-way PORTAL,. . ............ traffic lanes for east SAN PABLO P41%6 RD. b o u r d traffic: and, Sari Pablo Darr. Read will provide three one-way traffic lanes for west V . bound traffic. N Project Cost Estimate: S,1 mi7lior Project Objectives Relieve conaestion in this business section of San Pablo Dam Road. Improve access to Interstate 680 at tJe El Portal Drive interchance. err•n. _1`1 lie Martinez �M aaia t 1 d �"ey ��m� • t1� $ $` xe a+ree' ♦7 0 +nau ^totE t rw•" lirr r7L' "e Rr�E " `. '•�\ e a s ;jr � \\ JOM1n MVV i r N407 Hot,site e, El\5abrants � f fj r` is 1 ib9 L i1)•MT \r•we tM° }} rr. CIA A sff P7111�: 's'y y 9 �� erwor ,:}rrt e•to Yfeet7 "Y Yp U-2.Now 7 tL. "•nntirte•Grow u7nw4 04116 s ° ~ � 1, t •rRFChY�f +". o +o� ►saRpyt j�� 2y Son Pon �Oqt II P I•rtt� M8riann Rrs. .y C.yt �^enr I }� r r b tr£ + Rrwennrtr - aR7eeo � iz ,r Dee v...•wrLI m E C is \ \ C•\ �w we {I( d � ref. .o srtYn `< Wwe ! jarlat f? "u (((yyy \\ er4e`i lewlw 81 e m r// 11 i" w LAtay*m \ � � •u�i!`� t tflt�l }u e 7� /l Iww•e Uwe hkt+ .. w i1'e'"f i9 ��M 1.•�r r�t �����'F _ ��r tee_....\YG �..y� LOCATION MAR r RAIL EXTENSION THROUGH NORTH CONCORD TO EASTERN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Project Sponsor: BART Contra Costa Courtv Project Description: A rail extension from the existina Concord BART Station through North Concord to Eastern Contra Costa County. The project will be defined throuch the currently funder' Alterratives A.ralvsis/Ervironmental Impact Statemert/Report currently in preparation. The AAfEISiR is anticipated to be completed in 21 ronths. Project Estimate: S135 million !to be ratched by BART,) . Project Objective: To relieve traffic congestion through the creation of a fixed Guideway system to Eastern Contra Costa Countv. fiord Nlrar waaaonl7 ... C1xaw erre / zi r� 'Nest P•po.r \ Pittsburg <. ac .ss•.a. •r,".. 5 ,\Cly t-' •nu°w .wa w • .wm'---��a ^�n�-��yy�.: Marti el aE[I^"o ittsburg. ? � t �atj ,l \,72 atm 1, 9 { 2 a � n f l Y" I 4 6 c[1an.n 11 • ii-,y/E r11 Joon umr+c � P7C17eCb ,p ri� �Wsaoona, Srarion �� sl u ., \ Nar1 Nor.Sera .[ wa .re 3 1i '+[, \\ i wlaaw iaa oc moo.o cWt. ti 19O+' f ° , m.cav\♦ ww t. �. 1 'o Ip. 3\• . C•.f..4'r■ •I %w''a[�a�^, 3 I •.P 4 �4B\Z .,.° �s a` :?.s.P.rF.. ♦� ?M 31 i C mold ."+ \ \ i�' • °a .,J !Aao.1 a •rss S`a 2I. 9(//1 , .74 4f4 Y cord s° b C,'�i Careaa a 8 r 1 a a f 1 Jr +auTso- °nEOO v r� •\�.Psr M GJ I a w r n J At 1 a a i ( pPleasant ,no..Ta.°'4 8 e �O o" ?�°OWN .�[s r.as P[eserrr I,'d 11111 ar :4 ', r e �# nouorr o .e u c ,v as n m arF' 'O �yp - /r ark v� p f Nip !, log q <g inN ulEr r,IF r. LOCATION MAP ADDITIONAL BART PARKING ALONG CONCORD AND RICHMOND CORRIDORS INCLUMING EXTENSION PARK/RIDE LOTS Project Sponsor: BART Contra Costa County Project Description: (see attached list) Construction of parking structures and surface Parking lots. Project Estimate: S35 million (to be matched by BART pursuant to SB 878. Project Objectives: Increase access to rail transit at existing stations and create satellite park/ride lots to support bus service. Candidate BART Parking Projects For Funding Under SB878 Planned Currently Total Fundeo Project Location (City) Spaces S aces' Richmond Line E1 Cerrito 1,385 225* Concord Line Orinda 700 0 Lafayette 11070 550* Walnut Creek 1 ,130 0 Pleasant Hill 1 ,250 1,250* Concord 1 ,985 600* West County Park/Ride Hercules 500 500* East County Park/Rides Pittsburg 200 200* Antioch 250 250* San Ramon Valley Park/Rides , Danville 400 0 San Ramon 300 0 Undetermined Location( s) 1,600 1 ,600� PHS Replacement ------ ------ Total Spaces 109770 52175* Estimated Cost 5907000,000 *Currently for programmed BART funds 543,030,000 L 'k 4 COMMUTE ALTERNATIVES; TRANSIT FUNDING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS (50% MATCH); FEEDER BUS SERVICE Project Sponsor: Contra Costa County Project Description: Transportation System P4aragemert (TSM) is the name ai >en to the concept of more efficiently usira existina trensportation systems by .means other thar large-scale new corstructicn. TSM embraces a host of measures, all with the purpose of seeking to achieve better results from existina facilities rather than by creating rew hiohways and trarsit- systems. These ,.-P.asures tend to ^e subtle, low Cost, and mery ere rapid ly i,^0lementabte compared to new Capltc': corstruc"on. All tend to have minimal or ro rioht-of-wav space required as thev are fitted into or on existina systems or are simply policies applied to whole areas. TSM measures include: Ridesharino (car/van pool ) ; encouraaina transit, cvclina and walkina; Parkino Manacement; and, staaaered and flexible work hours. The basic aim of the TSM program is to (a) increase the number of passenger trips without increasing the number of vehicle trips, and (b ) minimize the peak hour rush by spreading the .peak over a longer period. Transit furdino_ for Capital Improvements (50% match required ) funds may be authorized by the Authority to local transit operators and jurisdictions for transit capital improvements including buses for transit and paratransit agencies. Feeder Bus Service funds may be made available by the Authority to fund bus services. Buses may be utilized for shuttles to BART, midday lunch time shuttles in downtown areas or laro_e business complexes, subscription buses, and express commute buses. Project Estimate: $19 million plus required matching funds. Project Objectives: To enhance the existina transportation network to achieve areater efficiency and to support transit as a viable alternative to the automobile. `f RIGHT OF WAY ACOUISITION AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS SERVING WESTERN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Project Sponsor: Contra Costa County Project Description: A.ccuisition of richt of way to support transportation improvements including but not limited to a 'nest County rail extension and the Contra Costa railroad. Project Objective: To preserve transportation corridors for future development.