Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04171990 - 1.64 1-064 TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Contra ltra Harvey E. Bragdon, Director Community Development Department Costa DATE'. County April 17, 1990 v � ��J SUBJECT: Benicia/Martinez Bridge Task Force. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(.S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION• Accept status report on the Benicia/Martinez Bridge Task Force. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS/BACKGROUND: On April 4 , the Benicia/Martinez Bridge Task Force held a meeting to 1) review the alternative toll plaza designs for the second span of the Benicia/Martinez Bridge, 2) review the status to travel projections for the corridor, and 3) the potential impact on the controversy. over the I-.80 freeway project through Contra Costa and Alameda counties. Supervisor Fanden requested staff to provide the Board of Supervisors with a summary of the meeting. Caltrans reviewed six alternative toll plaza designs. There will be four toll booths--for each traffic lane to ensure no backups due to toll collection. All alternatives will be designed to accommodate electronic toll collection through automatic vehicle identification. All toll plazas will accommodate bypass lanes for high occupancy vehicles. All bridge alternatives will be designed to accommodate future rail transit operations across the Strait. The first alternative has a toll plaza located in Contra Costa, north of the Marina Vista interchange, collecting tolls in the northbound direction, and with the new span located east of the existing span (and east of the SPRR bridge) . No wetlands are impacted. Some potions of the Stauffer Chemical complex may be impacted. The only difference in the second alternative is the new span is located west of the existing span. The second alternative would require removal of a Tosco oil storage tank. This alternative has the simplest construction staging since the operation of the existing toll plaza on the north side could continue undisturbed during construction of the new toll plaza. The environmental document will include an evaluation of emissions from the Stauffer Chemical complex on the bridge structure, bridge traffic, and toll takers. Orig.Dept:CDD-TP HEB/SLG:bridge.bo CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: QQ- YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOM101rIONJ BO MITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE S : ACTION OF BOARD ON APR T= APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: ®gNNOOES. ANDENTEREDON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ral—Lei NNVi�De ion ffiaUZBW)ISORI ON THE DATE SHOWN. State Legislative Delegation (via CDD)q., APR 17 1990 cc: Crockett Improvement Assoc iationAT(T-Yf C:DB,) --- --- --- - Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY ,DEPUTY M382/7-83 Board of Supervisors April 17, 1990 Benicia/Martinez Bridge Task Force Page Two No alternative was developed with a toll plaza located on the Contra Costa side and collecting tolls in the southbound direction because of safety hazards from heavy truck traffic. Trucks would have difficulty stopping at a toll plaza located at the base of the bridge's 4 . 5 percent downhill grade into Contra Costa. All remaining alternatives have toll plazas located in Solano County. The third alternative has a split toll plaza in Solano County with toll booths on both I-780 and I-680, collecting tolls in the southbound direction, and with the new span east of the existing span. A separate flyover for trucks from southbound I-680 would be needed to keep trucks from the center bridge lanes as I-680 merges with I-780. Toll collection costs, currently at $1 million annually, would be significantly higher with a split toll plaza. The fourth alternative has a combined toll plaza in Solano County, collecting --tolls in the southbound direction, and with the new span east of the existing span. The toll plaza location requires moving the I-680/I-780 interchange hundreds of feet north of its present location. The fifth alternative has a combined toll plaza in Solano County, collecting tolls in the northbound direction, -and with the new span east of the existing span. This alternative is particularly costly because much of the toll plaza complex would be on a bridge structure over the water. Three additional alternatives were developed that are identical to the last three, but with the new span west of the existing span. Caltrans will develop 8.5 x 11 inch sketches of the toll plaza alternatives for mass distribution. Caltrans has published a newsletter, The Bridge Connection, to keep interested individuals and organizations informed of the project's status (see Exhibit A) . The next edition will be released this month. Work has begun on the project's Environmental Impact Statement. The alternative to construct will be selected after review of the EIS. Solano County staff gave a report on growth trends and travel behavior in Solano County. Caltrans has considered this growth in its Year 2015 travel forecasts prepared for . the bridge project. These travel forecasts are now under review by Caltrans. Caltrans gave a status report on the I-80 High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane project. MTC staff distributed criteria that MTC will require as criterial for the I-80 project redesign (see Exhibit B) . Caltrans staff believes an project acceptable to all parties has been developed, consisting of a continuous HOV lane in both directions between State Route 4 and the Bay Bridge. Caltrans doesn't believe significant diversion will occur from I-80 to the I-680 corridor.