HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04231996 - C88 •TO': BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Costa
DATE: April 15, 1996 . ;� County
�i
1 Oy.Tq CUtj'�
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Authorize the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign and transmit a letter (see Exhibit B) to
the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Finance Authority expressing overall support for their
Strategic Plan and requesting clarification on several details included in the Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On March 14, 1996, the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Finance Authority (Authority)
requested that its participating jurisdictions review the draft East Contra Costa Transportation
Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan). The purpose of the Strategic Plan (see Exhibit A), is to identify
project priorities, obstacles to project development, a funding plan, and implementing strategies
for work to be financed through the regional transportation mitigation fee adopted by the
participating jurisdictions in 1994. The Authority is responsible for establishing the priorities for
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
X RECOMMENDATION OFB D I E
_ APPROVE
_ OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): J f it Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD ON ApL 23, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact Person, Steven Goetz, 335-1240 ATTESTED April 23, 1996
Orig: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Public Works Department THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ECCRFFA (via CDD) AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY ' DEPUTY
1 -Comments on East Contra Costa Transportation Strategic Plan
April 15, 1996
Page Two
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
use of these fee revenues which are estimated to contribute $189 million toward regional
transportation facilities in the next 20 years. Major priorities are:
Time Period Fee Revenue* Project
1995-2000 $23 million Buchanan Bypass
SR 4 Widening (Bailey to Railroad)
SR 4/Hillcrest Interchange
SR 4 Bypass (Lone Tree to Balfour)
2001-2005 $39 million SR 4 Widening (Bailey to Railroad)
SR 4/160 Interchange construction
SR 4 Bypass (SR 160 to Lone Tree)
2006-2010 $39 million SR 4 Widening (Railroad to Loveridge)
SR 4 Bypass (Balfour to Marsh Creek)
SR 4 Bypass Connector (March Creek to Vasco)
2011-2015 $40 million SR 4 Widening (Loveridge to A St)
2016-2020 $40 million SR 4 Widening (A St to Hillcrest)
SR 4 Bypass Widening (to be determined)
*Fee revenues fund only portions of some projects.
The Transportation Committee supports these priorities identified in the Strategic Plan, with the
understanding that they will be periodically updated by the Authority to reflect changing conditions.
The Strategic Plan specifies that updates will be considered every two years. The Committee also
requests several clarifications in the description of certain details in the Strategic Plan as described
in the draft letter (see Exhibit B).
SLG:c:\transcom\eccrffa.bo
EXHIBIT A
EAST CONTRA COSTA
TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
CIRCULATION DRAFT
Prepared for
EAST CONTRA COSTA REGIONAL FEE & FINANCING AUTHORITY
Prepared by
SMITH & KEMPTON
March 14, 1996
J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Strategic Plan Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SECTION 2 IDENTIFY PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
Program Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Summary of Project Scope Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Facility Needs and Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
SECTION 3 FUNDING
Revenue Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Cash Flow Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Project Expenditure Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Traditional Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Nontraditional Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . 13
SECTION 4 POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION OBSTACLES
Physical (R/W, Utilities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Project Readiness (Environmental, Engineering) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Air Quality and Regional Plan Conformity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
SECTION 5 STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS
Strategic Plan Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Review of Project Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
SECTION 6 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Potential Funding Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Phasing Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Advocacy Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Process Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Party Responsible for Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Attachment A: Fee Revenue Projections Through Year 2020
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
Smith & Kempton has prepared this Strategic Plan as the final in a series of submittals for the East
Contra Costa Regional Fee & Financing Authority (ECCRFFA).
Purpose
The primary purpose of this Strategic Plan is to identify project priorities, obstacles to project
development, a funding plan, and implementation strategies for work to be financed through a
transportation mitigation fee in East Contra Costa County. It includes the chapters prepared for
Working Papers#1 and#2.
Background
The following Strategic Plan is based on input received through a series of meetings with staff from
Contra Costa County, Antioch, Brentwood, Pittsburg, and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
It is also based on general policy direction provided to date by the ECCRFFA Executive Committee
and Board as well as technical input provided by the ECCRFFA Technical Advisory Committee.
As of August 9, 1994, a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement was executed to form the East Contra
Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority. Parties to the agreement included the, Cities of
Antioch, Brentwood,-,and Pittsburg, and the County of Contra Costa. Fee ordinances were adopted.
by each jurisdiction in tandem with the joint powers agreement. The new joint powers authority is
responsible for administering a transportation mitigation fee program for the eastern Contra Costa
County subregion.
The program will involve collection of a fee to mitigate the transportation impact of new development
in East County. The fee will be collected at issuance of a building permit. New single family
residential development will initially be assessed $1780 per dwelling graduating to $4475 per
dwelling unit by 1997. Commercial, office, and industrial development will be assessed between
$0.37 and $0.57 per gross square feet, respectively. The fee revenues will be used in combination
with Measure C, State, and Federal funds, and other local funds to build the regionally significant
transportation projects described in Table 1.
Strategic Plan Goals
The following provides a summary of the Strategic Plan goals for East Contra Costa County.
• Identify a transportation program which includes a phasing of highway and roadway.
improvements designed to meet the overall system needs of East County,
• Implement a transportation system that provides access to future developments in
East County and maintains acceptable travel conditions on the local roadway system
and on the adjacent freeway system.
SMITH&KEMPTON 1
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
Strategic Plan Goals (continued)
• Establish a timetable of critical path elements for program implementation,
• Identify obstacles to project development and describe approaches for resolution,
• Construct the projects in a timely manner as needed to serve the circulation and
access needs of development in East County,
• Implement the overall transportation system within the identified budget through the
use of management measures aimed at improving cost-effectiveness,
• Evaluate the availability and viability of external funding sources, and
• Maximize the opportunity for obtaining external funds by identifying appropriate
sources and developing a strategy for pursuing these funds.
Table 1
TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS FUNDED BY REGIONAL FEE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FEE PROJECT COST
CONTRIBUTION
State Route 4: Widening from 4 to 8 freeway lanes $110 million $234 million
to provide additional capacity for mixed-flow and
High Occupancy lanes and allow further extension
of BART.
Buchanan Road Bypass: Contribute regional 4 million 19 million
share to build new east-west 4 lane arterial south of
Antioch and Pittsburg between Somerville Road
and Kirker Pass Road.
State Route 4 Bypass: Build new 4 lane roadway, 75 million 150 million
9 mile length expressway facility beginning at the
SR 4/SR 4 Bypass/SR 160 interchange southward
bypassing Oakley and Brentwood connecting to
realigned Vasco Road.
TOTAL COST $189 million $403 million
SMITH&KEMPTON 2
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
i 0V
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
SECTION 2 IDENTIFY PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
Program Principles
The following provides a summary of program principles for the Strategic Plan for East Contra Costa
County. These principles will form the basis for the prioritization of projects in this and subsequent
iterations of the Strategic Plan.
1. To the maximum extent possible, leverage ECCRFFA fee revenues with federal,
state, and other local revenues for improvements to State Route 4.
2. Use ECCRFFA fee revenues for the SR 4 Bypass and Buchanan Bypass, leveraging
local revenues as much as possible.
3. Place priority on establishing high state of project readiness to be in best position to
use new funds as they become available.
4. Distribute the revenues equitably throughout the program life.
5. Utilize creative financing, taking advantage of opportunities that arise during the
course of the project, to accelerate program implementation..
6. Reserve a small portion of the ECCRFFA fee revenues to purchase right-of-way for
hardship and protection purposes only.
7. The ability for a project or project phase to leverage other funds is a consideration
in project prioritization.
8. Projects should be phased in such a way to maximize system connectivity.
9. Throughout the course of implementing the Strategic Plan, ECCRFFA fee revenues
should be allocated to allow for comparable progress in the construction of portions
of State Route 4 and the State Route 4 Bypass.
Summary of Project Scope Issues
A number of the projects that are important elements of the transportation system designed to serve
East County are susceptible to changes in definition or delivery schedule based on their current
project development status. Key issues related to project scope are described below.
The scope of improvements along State Route 4 in East County has been defined very conceptually
by CCTA in the Route 4 East Corridor Inventory Report. The scope and cost of those improvements
is subject to change during the process of preparing a Major Investment Study and an Environmental
Impact Statement for the corridor.
While a Program EIR has been completed for the Buchanan Road Bypass, additional environmental
studies are required. The scope and cost of the improvements is subject to change during the
process of preparing a project-specific environmental document for the corridor.
SMITH&KEMPTON 3
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
e .89
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
Although a corridor study and project-specific environmental documents have been completed for
the State Route 4 Bypass project, several contentious issues remain with respect to the alignment
of a key segment of the bypass. Controversy remains over the configuration of the bypass for the
north-south alignment options in the area south of Concord Avenue (e.g., Cowell vs. Nunn
alternatives).
Facility Needs and Timing
The following discussion of facility needs and timing addresses implementation strategies in a
phased approach. The phases are based on five year increments from the Year 1995 through the
Year 2020,when forecasts indicate that the authority will achieve the revenue desired to implement
the three key projects. No prioritization is given to projects within each five year increment, with the
exception of theBuchananRoad Bypass.
Table 2 provides a description of the recommended capital improvement program for the ECCRFFA
through the Year 2020. This includes a project description, estimated cost, and recommended
contribution level from the fee authority. The project phasing is further illustrated on Figure 1. The
focus of the project prioritization is the first two five year periods, given that this strategic plan will
be periodically updated. The key objectives that influenced the prioritization for these periods is as
follows.
• 'Accomplish early construction of needed projects,
• Complete select project development activities to advance project readiness for
those.projects competing for state and federal funding,
• Focus efforts for achieving state and federal funds on State Route 4 Widening and
the State Route 4/State Route 160 Interchange projects, and
• Achieve maximum leverage of authority funds.
SMITH&KEMPTON 4
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
89
NN N N �
0 o c o ca
m
_ J J T
os rn o /V m
N N N N N v
O N O O
DO L O O O
_ r
M
< m
_
� zm
00 A A W W N m
O O (D c0 W
0
O
CD m N Wco A W -nwmN �O -n mm 00co > m � �
(j) C/) Cl) C/) N 0) 0) 0) 0) Nrj) N Cl) (j) N N 0) C/) W
;uX X XM X ;oXXm ;uM X ;uM XZ7 :0C ;u
A A A A A A A A A A A A AAA A A A O
W C Kco WWWv) WW ln � � m
;0 —
(0) �ii vi vNi vNi �n cyn uNi a) r
O O (np
v O
(D c"D a D
0 W
? v O O
a) n� a� Z
mco
CD C m
ca n
co
Cl)DS al
O a) N � N N 7 A p �_ N 7 / 7 LD ' 'm/� �
CD > >. O CD a cc
CD m CD cD m n 0) �]
—a
�D
CL 00 — � N Glp O y. 0 �• N O
Cj) CD
fCDD 7 M pL CD' Co 3 CCD 0
— 0 D 9' , � � � o0o o � �cc ^ moo O _ J� N
m N �. (D O 7 p _= p a p S m O Qo -- 3 O 7
fD CDD a ;, (D y O 7p fD O O " t v 0 TI v N
(A0 -' cD o � � O W0) o 0 � D
o � cn u, c� � � CD Cl)M m C. _qo
oy n n� o c o m D � O
°« 3 30 moo, m Z
s =� , 3 0 z
Ch CD
N
� m
cD
m
o d
C0D
N En m
W N 00 W IV A -+ W K) -+
NA O AA OD 0 (JI 01N1 (A ON V ONUlcc
n
O
Z
� T
Wm
cm
r
N m N O O
O EA
h MA O -4A CO K) Ln r (l1UlL" L" N V (JV1NLnA Z
--
0 d ot��vc N > E V
O v z zs w o z o. c
G tV O Oa :d m O 07
.�•� "fit
CD ) 04C . E N
r
c
3 U 'a tOd O O t' d
y ocaE v 40
«+
y d ` dam t0 dN
O ,v G
�► V
0. �, y
d 0) d N V Occ a 7
C O O r d G
co., ootai
O a� J � o � or, ava E u
00 -0 .6
O r O Et -r- 'a u 0 a 3
d ►. N N V y O O
+d
GO t`O 4(m)v 0 Op'� O O L 4) �/► O r- to
_ .�
s .i E dC C v v d `'C.. G N
ti. O ' � 01 0 y
C G y C y 0 C UNC r C r
tJ) C
� o o y o • E d " y E
N _•• y 'O y O 'O X07
U. Q � m V ��
1Y) O 'so U 0 O
,_, o c0 y
pGo o � �°to �� a � dow to- rn c
coo 2 0 o o s v Cc— to
(.5
v °�
102 «- �
o��- cTi N Er- °' o °' o � tcn
v► v 0 L d d O'U L G N 0 0 Q) 0)
(� C
O N v � C -a ~' N
0 ca
G 0 WOO0O & C 7 'O3 r
QO O- uuoa
V-
u- r , o
0 -0
_
" C
TO ..0.• S3 cr N y 0 O O y t0 y O y
Z E2
Q0QLr►yu�
Nr ° ` -0
2'
0 :2 3Uy-dW ad ZZy o Oocc00m dco o O 0 tm�
t
f- G00. 5.coco y
oIV NG Nv OC
N
t- a o o.o ° ` � �Oo � � °
cnte dE
N .. E cm CM
0~_G G ccE occ m.° o ti3O d N to N
O O G U y ,, O .E 0 (Y O p N G. y � � Q
.. td d Q r. -p 0) 0) O O
F" 011 4 y r 0) 0) y ,O G ", �.- d ~ tO t,. 04
ul y y O O �.. N r N 0to
!V
a
. c •ss'
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
Figure 1
Program Prioritization
EAST CONTRA COSTA REGIONAL FEE
o e AND FINANCING AUTHORITY
ir p Bi STRATEGIC PLAN
__.......... (Do
— B3F
C 0.
!
All Fm �,
.... E2
c414. r. • J° Q
Lone ;Tree Way
E1
Balfour Rd
•.� SR 4 Bypass*#
Marsh Creek Rd
E4 "
�• d
•,s
C,
vo
A Buchanan Road Bypass
B SR 4 MIS/EIS
B1 SR 4 Widening from Railroad Avenue to Somersville/Loveridge Road
62 SR 4 Widening from Somersville/Loveridge Road to A Street
B3 SR 4 Widening from A Street to Hillcrest Avenue
C SR 41160 Interchange-Final Design
C1 SR 4/160 Interchange-construction
D SR 4 Widening Phase 1 HOV Lanes from Bailey Road to Railroad Avenue
D1 SR 4 Widening Phase 2 from Bailey Road to Railroad Avenue
E SR 4 Bypass-Final Design and Right-of-Way
E1 SR 4 Bypass 2 lanes from Lone Tree Way to Balfour Road
E2 SR 4 Bypass 4 lanes from SR 4 to Lone Tree Way
E3 SR 4 Bypass 2 lanes from Balfour Road to Marsh Creek Road
E4 SR 4 Bypass 2 lanes from Marsh Creek Road to Vasco Road
F SR 4 Interchange at Hillcrest Avenue
SMITH&KEMPTON 7
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
SECTION 3 FUNDING
Revenue Assumptions
The cash flow projections described below are based on forecasts of fee revenues derived from land
use forecasts that were taken from those most recently provided in several documents including the
Delta Diablo Sanitation District Conveyance System Master Plan, the Brentwood General Plan, and
the Brentwood Capital Improvement Program. Where data was not available, historical growth rates
were used as an indication of potential future development levels.
Three alternative land use scenarios are identified to provide for an assessment of cash flow for a
range of development activity levels. This includes a low, medium, a high growth scenario. Table
3 provides a description of the projected housing growth rates for each of these scenarios.
Table 3
PROJECTED HOUSING GROWTH TREND RANGES
Annual Dwelling Units: East Contra Costa County
AGENCY LOW MEDIUM I HIGH
Antioch 530' 650' 1100'
Brentwood 2402 4903 6804
Pittsburg150' 200' 300'
Discovery Bay 705 1302 1706
Oakley 2307 3102 3656
Bay Point 1002 120' 1906
Other unincorporated areas 258 306 352
TOTAL 1365 1930 2840
SOURCES:
1. Delta Diablo Sanitation District Conveyance System Master Plan(7-14-95)
2. Historical Data(Average for 1990-94)
3. Brentwood C I P(1995)
4. Brentwood General Plan(1993)
5. Historical Data(Average for 1991-94)
6. Historical Data(Average for 1985-94)
7. Estimated at 75%of medium growth level
8. Estimated at 80%of medium growth level
SMITH&KEMPTON 8
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
Fees from residential development comprises approximately 90 percent of the total revenues that
will be collected by the ECCRFFA. Non-residential development (e.g., commercial, office and
industrial uses), which generate the balance of the fee revenues, is assumed to increase in a linear
fashion. The following provides a summary of the build-out development assumed in the cash flow
projections.
• 10.6 million square feet of commercial development
• 15.6 million square feet of industrial development
• 0.78 million square feet of office development
Estimated revenues are generated by multiplying these land use totals by fee rates established by
the ECCRFFA for East County. The fee rates for the ECCRFFA are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4
ECCRFFA FEE RATES
JURISDICTION LAND USE TIME PERIOD FEE LEVEL
All Agencies Commercial All $0.55 er .s.f.
All Agencies Industrial All $0.30 er .s.f.
All Agencies Office All $0.57 per .s.f.
County (except Bay Single-family Through July 24, 1996 $2,553 per unit'
Point), Brentwood, Residential Through July 25, 1997 J$3,376 per unit'
Antioch Thereafter $4,475 per unit'
Pittsburg, Bay Point Single-family All $1,200 per unit
Residential
All Agencies Multi-family All 80% of fees for
Residential single-family
residential
NOTES:
1. The fee for single-family residential is also subject to an adjustment per Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index or an amount
determined by the City Council or Board of Supervisors by resolution as necessary to make the program whole because of this phasing
schedule.
SMITH&KEMPTON 9
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
64
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
Much of the residential development that will occur through the Year 2000 is not subject.to the
ECCRFFA fee, however, as many projects that have received building permits have been exempted.
A summary of the total number of units that are exempt, and thus would not pay any fee, are
described in Table 5.
Table 5
ECCRFFA FEE CREDITS BY JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION FEE CREDIT UNITS TDEVELOPMENT TIME FRAME
Brentwood 900 units 300 By Year 2000
300 By Year 2005
300 By Year 2010
Antioch 1,599 units All By Year 2000
Oakley 890 units All By Year 2000
Discovery Bay 43 units All By Year 2000
Cash Flow Projections
Table 6 provides a summary of the projectedt cash flow for East County transportation projects based
on ECCRFFA fee revenues. More detailed cash flow tables for each of the three scenarios are
provided in Attachment A. The revenue projections indicate that the slow growth scenario would
generate $124 million, the medium growth scenario $181 million, and the high growth scenario $265
million by the year 2020.
Table 6
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY REVENUE PROJECTIONS
AVERAGE ANNUAL HORIZON YEAR FOR TOTAL
RESIDENTIAL $189 MILLION IN REVENUES BY
SCENARIO GROWTH REVENUES YEAR 2020
Low Growth 1365 units 2032 $124 million
Medium Growth 1930 units 2021 $181 million
High Growth 2840 units 2013 $265 million
The medium growth scenario will be utilized for future project prioritization efforts to be completed
SMITH&KEMPTON 10
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
for the Strategic Plan. This scenario indicates that the horizon year for raising $189 million in
revenue through the ECCRFFA is the Year 2021, given average annual residential growth rates of
1,930 units in East County.
Project Expenditure Requirements
The program expenditure requirements identified in the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement that
established the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority call for the Authority to
contribute$189 million to three projects. This includes $110 million to State Route 4 improvements,
$75 million to the State Route 4 Bypass, and $4 million to the Buchanan Bypass. The document
indicates that the total cost of constructing these facilities is $403 million, requiring that an additional
$214 million in revenue be secured from other sources to complete the program.
Traditional Funding Sources
Traditional funding sources are summarized as follows based on whether the funding decision is
made by a local, regional, state, or federal agency.
Local Funding Sources
• Sales tax revenues-the.Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) receives and
programs sales tax revenues generated locally for transportation projects. The 1993
Strategic Plan identified three Measure C projects along Route 4 in East Contra
Costa County: the Willow Pass Grade Lowering, the Bailey Road interchange, and
an HOV lane between the Bailey and Railroad interchanges. These projects total
approximately $183 million.
• Gas tax revenues - Contra Costa County and the Cities of Brentwood, Antioch, and
Pittsburg receive and programs a portion of the gas tax revenues collected by the
State of California. The gas tax will provide approximately $2.5 million annually for
these jurisdictions in East County. To date, gas tax funds have not been used for
regional transportation improvements in East County. The potential exists for the
availability of additional gas tax revenues, depending upon what actions might be
taken by the state legislation in future years. It is unclear whether any new gas tax
revenues would be available for use in constructing the three ECCRFFA projects.
• Assessment district - the generation of revenues through establishment of
assessment districts, and use of those funds by developers to directly construct
transportation projects, has been a primary funding source used to construct
roadways in East County.
SMITH&KEMPTON 11
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
• Impact fees-development impact fees are the second primary source of funds used
to construct roadways in East County. The Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and
Pittsburg all collect traffic impact fees for local roadway projects.
• Development Requirements/Exactions - development-related mandates to construct
specific facilities or to provide right-of-way for a long-term project is the last of the
current funding sources for constructing roadways in East County.
Regional Funding Sources (Metropolitan Transportation Commission)
• ISTEA- STP-a formula/block grant who funds can be applied to most classifications
of roadways. This essentially replaces the now-eliminated federal-aid primary, urban,
and secondary program.
• ISTEA-TEA- a ten percent set-aside of STP funds for projects that would enhance
the environment. Relevant projects that qualify for these funds include pedestrian
and bicycle facilities as well as landscaping.
State/Federal Funding Sources
• Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR) - provides for both roadway and transit capital
projects on and off the state highway system. These funds are programmed in even-
numbered years (i.e., 1996, 1998) into the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). Projects funded
by the STIP are typically funded in the last two years of the seven year program (i.e.,
new projects in the 1996 STIP would be funded in 2002 and 2003).
• State/local partnership program - provides for construction costs only for roadway
projects both on and off the state highway system. These funds are programmed
annually by the CTC at a level of approximately $100 million per fiscal year. All
eligible projects are placed on a statewide list and a proportional reimbursement
made on a proportional basis. A reimbursement ratio of approximately 5-10 percent
has been experienced in past years. Eligible projects must either increase capacity,
extend service to a new area, or extend the useful life of a roadway by 10 years.
Projects may not be reimbursed by this program if they are receiving any other State
funds.
• Traffic System Management (TSM) - provides for capital costs for eligible projects
such as freeway auxiliary lanes and arterial improvements. These funds are
programmed annually by the CTC at a level of approximately $100 million per fiscal
year.
• Environmental Enhancement provides for capital costs for eligible projects such as
landscaping improvements. These funds are programmed annually by the CTC at
a level of approximately $5 million per fiscal year.
SMITH&KEMPTON 12
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
• Demonstration Proiects - with the upcoming reauthorization of ISTEA legislation in
1996, projects could be forwarded through the local congressional delegation as a
candidate demonstration project. It should be noted, however, that no demonstration
projects were included in the recent Appropriations legislation forwarded to President
Clinton by the U.S. Congress.
Nontraditional Funding Sources
The following funding sources are non-traditional based on experience with transportation funding
options in California. These funding options would have to overcome significant political opposition
to be implemented.
• Tolls - the application of tolls on existing state highway facilities has not been tried
in California, with the exception of bridge facilities. This concept would require new
legislation to allow the application of tolls by either the state or a regional body such
as MTC.
• Congestion pricing - the application of variable tolls or charges on existing or future
state highway facilities, which would be higher for those travelling during peak
periods, has also not been tried in California.
SMITH&KEMPTON 13
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
SECTION 4 POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION OBSTACLES
Physical (R/W, Utilities)
Physical obstacles such as right-of-way acquisition and utility constraints may affect the development
schedule for the Buchanan Road Bypass, the State Route 4, and State Route 4 Bypass projects.
As a preferred alignment for the Buchanan Road Bypass has not yet been adopted by the City of
Pittsburg, specific physical obstacles that may affect the project development process can not be
identified at this time. The physical obstacles that are factors for consideration in the identification
of a preferred alternative are hilly terrain, right-of-way needs, and Pacific Gas and Electric power
lines in the corridor.
The acquisition of substantial right-of-way, through developed areas, will be required for the State
Route 4 project. The segment between the Railroad and Loveridge interchanges, in the City of
Pittsburg, has the greatest number of homes and businesses to be purchased. No right-of-way has
been purchased to date along this portion of the State Route 4 corridor. The relocation of power
lines will likely be required on both sides of the freeway, with most of the work occurring on the north
side. A substantial number of bridge structures along the corridor, particularly at interchanges in the
City of Antioch, will have to be replaced. The existing railroad crossing between the Loveridge and
Harbor interchanges will have to be modified. The final phase of construction for the SR 4/Hillcrest
interchange will require the relocation of a BART park-and-ride lot.
The right-of-way required for the State .Route 4 Bypass project is predominantly located in
undeveloped portions of the county. Isolated portions of the right-of-way have been dedicated and
acquired to date, with the largest proportion concentrated between Lone Tree Way and Balfour.
Sufficient right-of-way has not been acquired to allow for development of a usable segment without
further acquisition. Water pipeline, drainage canal, and sewer facilities will likely have to be
relocated to allow for construction of segments of the bypass.
A summary of the potential obstacles to development related to physical constraints are as follows.
• Acquisition of right-of-way for all three projects. It should be noted that right-of-way
acquisition can only proceed at this time along the SR 4 Bypass corridor and for
selected interchanges (SR 4/SR 4 Bypass/SR 160, SR 4/Hillcrest) along State Route
4 since a preferred alignment has not been adopted for the Buchanan Road Bypass
and environmental documents have not been prepared for the SR 4 widening project.
• Utility relocation for all three projects.
• Replacement or modification of bridge structures for the SR 4 project.
SMITH&KEMPTON 14
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
Project Readiness (Environmental, Engineering)
A Program EIR has been adopted by the City of Pittsburg for the Buchanan Road Bypass.
Preliminary engineering and environmental studies are being conducted to determine a preferred
alignment. In conjunction with these efforts, a General Plan Amendment will have to be processed
for the segment of the bypass located in Contra Costa County.
Environmental and preliminary engineering documents have been completed for the State Route 4
Bypass project. The construction of initial segments of the bypass, particularly the portion between
Lone Tree Way and Balfour, may require the preparation of focused supplemental environmental
studies such as an assessment of near-term (appro)dmately year 2005) traffic impacts. Final design
documents will be prepared for individual segments as funds are available to allow them to proceed
to construction.
A joint effort, between the East Contra Costa Fee and Finance Authority (ECCRFFA) and the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority(CCTA), is currently underway to conduct planning, engineering and
environmental studies for the eastern portion of the State Route 4 corridor. This will include the
preparation of Major Investment Study(MIS), preliminary engineering documents, and environmental
studies. The CCTA has completed environmental studies for the segment between the Bailey and
Railroad interchanges and is preparing an environmental document for circulation.
The engineering process could affect the time required to implement freeway projects such as the
State Route 4 project, the SR 4/Hillcrest interchange, and the SR 4/SR 4 Bypass/SR 160
interchange. This is due to the time required to complete the Caltrans project development process.
This process includes the development of a Project Study Report (PSR)that serves as a master plan
for the freeway or interchange design, a Project Report (PR) that provides preliminary engineering
plans, and final design documents that would have to be either prepared or reviewed by Caltrans.
The widening of State Route 4 will require the completion of all three project development stages,
while PSR documents have been completed for the two interchange projects.
The City of Antioch is overseeing the preparation of project development documents for the SR 4/SR
4 Bypass/SR 160 interchange. The schedule for the interchange currently calls for the PSR to be
completed by August of 1996, and the PR to be completed by the Spring of 1997.
A summary of the potential obstacles to development related to project readiness are as follows.
• Completion of environmental documents and permits for the Buchanan Road Bypass
and the State Route 4 projects.
• Completion of the Caltrans project development process in a timely fashion for such
projects as the State Route 4 widening, the SR 4/1-lillcrest interchange, and the SR
4/SR 4 Bypass/SR 160 interchange.
SMITH&KEMPTON 15
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
Air Quality and Regional Plan Conformity
The 1994 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) prepared by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) states that the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the California
1988 Clean Air Act"require the region to have plans showing how dean, healthy air will be achieved.
Under federal air quality procedures, MTC must show how long-range transportation plans (the
RTP), fund programming documents (the TIP), and projects help achieve the national air quality
standards. This process is called demonstrating "conformity"with air quality plans."
The Buchanan Road Bypass and State Route 4 projects in East Contra Costa County are not
included in the RTP and MTC staff does not currently plan to include them in the 1996 RTP Update.
These transportation projects cannot proceed to the environmental and subsequent construction
stage, based on air quality laws, until they are included in a conforming regional plan. CCTA is
working with MTC to secure inclusion of the State Route 4 Bypass in the 1996 RTP Update.
The inclusion of these projects in future RTP Updates is complicated by two factors. First, all
projects included in the RTP must be able to show full funding. This may require the incremental
inclusion of fundable segments of the State Route 4 Bypass and State Route 4 projects in the RTP.
Second, new standards resulting from the 1990 Clean Air Act are now being implemented for the
first time. All future conformity determinations for the MTC region will have to meet these new,
tougher standards.
The Buchanan Road Bypass, the State Route 4 Bypass, and the State Route 4 projects are all
included in both the County Congestion Management Plan and the County Comprehensive
Transportation Plan.
A summary of the potential obstacles to development related to air quality and regional plan
conformity are as follows.
• Accomplishment of regional approval and the subsequent air quality conformity
determination for the Buchanan Road Bypass, the State Route 4 Bypass, and the
State Route 4 projects.
SMITH&KEMPTON 16
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
SECTION 5 STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS
The following section provides a discussion of the transportation facility strategic planning process
for the East Contra Costa Regional Fee & Finance Authority. This process involves a regular update
of the Strategic Plan and a mechanism for reviewing project priorities in keeping with future
circumstances.
Strategic Plan Update
It is recommended that the key elements of the Strategic Plan, including the funding plan and the
associated project priority list, be updated every two years. This will allow the member agencies to
respond to changing conditions with respect to project delivery, development patterns, and the
availability of external funds.
Preliminary engineering and environmental documents should be prepared early within each five year
stage. These documents should provide the basis for establishing a firm project cost estimate and
schedule that can be submitted by the member agency for the purposes of developing a five year
capital improvement program that would update annually. The capital program should include a
description of project scope, funding availability, and schedule.
Review of Project Priorities
The project priorities identified in Table 2 are,based on an estimate of development absorption rates
and revenue projections as described in Section 3. The actual construction start date for individual
improvements should be based upon the generation of fee revenues as development occurs and/or
revenue from other sources.
It is recommended that the overall program priorities be adjusted to reflect current development and
funding conditions as the Strategic Plan is updated every two years. Factors which may influence
project prioritization include the level of project readiness, the pace and location of new development
activity, and the availability of funds from other sources. The following principles, which are based
on the overall program principles, provide guidance for future revisions to the project priorities.
• Distribute the revenues equitably throughout the program life,
• Give priority consideration for advancing fee revenues to projects or project phases
that are able to leverage other funds,
• Give priority consideration to projects that have completed their environmental and
design documents,
• Phase improvements to SR 4 to allow for maximum opportunity to leverage outside
funds,
• Allocate fee revenues to allow for comparable progress in the construction of portions
of SR 4 and the SR 4 Bypass, and
• Give priority consideration to projects that provide system connectivity.
Priorities should also be established on an annual basis for the funding of activities within each five-
SMITH&KEMPTON 17
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
year stage. The first step in this process would be the submittal of an annual funding request by
each member agency with projections of funding needs over the subsequent five year period.
ECCRFFA staff would then review these requests based on a cash flow analysis and the program
prioritization principles described above. This evaluation will identify the prioritization of project
funding on an annual basis for the subsequent five year period as well as provide an assessment
of whether the Agency's cash flow position will allow for any funds to be advanced or whether a
reimbursement process will be necessary in the subsequent one year period.
SMITH&KEMPTON 18
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
SECTION 6 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
The following section provides a discussion of various funding and phasing options, strategies for
implementation of the Strategic Plan program, and identifies the party responsible for individual
project implementation.
Potential Funding Options
Two funding options were considered for implementing the projects described in Table 2: a "pay-as-
you-go"scenario and a"debt-financing"scenario. The pay-as-you-go scenario is the recommended
approach for the initial stage of the program and is the basis for the prioritization presented in this
document. Under this scenario, approximately $23 million in fee revenues would be available to
construct projects in the first 5-year period and $39-40 million in the subsequent 5-year periods.
Although the debt-financing scenario would allow for the completion of projects at a faster pace, it
would reduce the overall scale of the program because of the funds that would have to be diverted
to.pay interest on the bonds issued to advance construction. The high cost of borrowing to bond
against developer fee revenues, which are not considered a steady source of income, would also
likely compel the use of an alternative local revenue stream which would be backfilled with the fee
revenues. The following alternatives for limited bonding should be explored further, however, to
assess their feasibility in accelerating program implementation.
• Borrow surplus funds as available from member ECCRFFA agencies and repay at
a favorable rate,
• Increase fee revenues to pay debt costs, and
• Identify other local public or private revenue source to pay debt costs.
Phasing Options
The following discussion of phasing options includes a summary of staging issues for State Route
4 and the State Route 4 Bypass.
State Route 4
In general, the widening of State Route 4 is planned to occur in a sequential manner from the
westerly project boundary at the Bailey interchange to the easterly project boundary at the State
Route 160 interchange. Exceptions to this phasing include the construction of improvements at the
Hillcrest and SR 4 Bypass/State Route 160 interchanges which are planned to be funded in the first
and second five-year increments, respectively. The Hillcrest and SR 4 Bypass/ interchange projects
should be designed to accommodate the ultimate SR 4 widening project.
-The key issue for the first segment of the SR 4 widening project, between the Bailey and Railroad
interchanges, is determining the scope of the project. CCTA has proposed the construction of a $30
million initial project that would extend HOV lanes from their planned terminus at the Bailey
interchange to immediately west of the Railroad interchange. This project would not include the
SMITH&KEMPTON 19
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
median widening to allow for a subsequent BART extension or widening of SR 4 under the Railroad
interchange. Contra Costa and ECCRFFA are currently exploring the feasibility of a $75 million
project which would accomplish all of these improvements. The $75 million project would require
a substantially larger funding commitment from CCTA, including allocation of remaining resources
from the commuterway and BART extension projects.
The second phase of the SR 4 widening project is the segment between the Railroad and Loveridge
interchanges. As noted earlier, this segment of the SR 4 project has the greatest number of homes
and businesses to be acquired. ECCRFFA should implement a hardship right-of-way acquisition
program for SR 4 that would focus their efforts on acquiring properties on these first two segments
as they become available.
The third phase of the SR 4 widening project is the segment between the Loveridge and A Street
interchanges. This segment includes three closely spaced interchanges in downtown Antioch which
may influence the alignment of the widening.
The final phase of the SR 4 widening project is the segment between the A Street and SR 4 Bypass/
interchanges. The presence of frontage roads along both sides of SR 4 between the A Street and
Hillcrest interchanges will constrain the options for widening the initial portion of this final segment.
State Route 4 Bypass
Initial construction of the SR 4 Bypass .would be funded in four discrete segments as described
earlier.
• Lone Tree to Balfour
• SR 4 to Lone Tree
• Balfour to Marsh Creek
• Marsh Creek to Vasco Road
The State Route 4 Bypass Joint Powers Authority will take the lead in overseeing all design and
construction activities for the State Route 4 Bypass project. Coordination between design and
implementation efforts on the initial SR 4 Bypass project from Lone Tree to Balfour and the City of
Antioch's efforts on the Hillcrest and SR 4 Bypass/SR 160 interchanges is recommended.
A strategic right-of-way acquisition program, identifying potential hardship and/or "friendly"
acquisitions as well as anticipated dedications, should be prepared. ECCRFFA should implement
a hardship right-of-way acquisition program for all four segments of the SR 4 Bypass as property
becomes available.
SMITH&KEMPTON 20
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
Advocacy Plan
The following strategies address recommended funding actions for transportation projects in the
Strategic Plan program. The section includes a context for future funding opportunities based on
anticipated legislative activity in 1996.
Anticipated Legislative Activity
Recent funding shortfalls in the state transportation program forced the California Transportation
Commission (CTC) to place a temporary hold on all projects funded through the 1996 State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). To respond to this shortfall, the governor and the
legislature placed Proposition 192 on the ballot in March, 1996. This $2 billion bond measure would
provide funding for seismic retrofit of toll and highway bridges across the state, ending the recent
trend of diverting substantial funds from the state highway account for this purpose. Should this or
other similar funding increases be implemented in 1996 or 1997, new projects will likely be added
in the 1998 STIP process for the first time in six years.
Several alternatives are being considered should Proposition 192 fail to be approved. Senate Bill
146 (Senator Maddy), which authorized the bond measure, provides for a measure to be
automatically placed on the November, 1996 ballot if Proposition 192 fails. A gas tax increase of
approximately five cents per gallon is also being considered for the ballot if the bond measure fails.
Other mechanisms being considered to provide new revenues for transportation purposes include
congestion pricing and toll roads.
State/Local Partnership
The state/local partnership program funds are awarded annually and vary depending upon the level
of funding and the number of project applications. This program requires a significant level of
administrative oversight. The first step is the annual application process. Once funds have been
allocated for a project for a given year, the project has to be monitored to ensure that it can be
awarded for construction in the designated year. In June of each year, those projects that can not
be awarded during the following year must be withdrawn, and the project would have to be
subsequently resubmitted for funding. If this process is not followed and a project can not be put
out to bid in the designated year, the applicant would lose the ability to apply for partnership funds
for a three year period. It should be noted tat this program may be subject to elimination either
through legislation or in the state budget process.
Flexible Congestion Relief(FCR) Program
The State Route 4 project would be a candidate for FCR program funds awarded by the California
Transportation Commission (CTC)through their State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
The SR 4 widening would provide relief to projected congestion levels due to anticipated growth in
East Contra Costa County. FCR funds typically require a local match of 50 percent. The STIP is
updated by the CTC every two years in even-numbered years. The first step in the process is the
SMITH&KEMPTON 21
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
identification and nomination of projects from throughout the nine-county Bay Area region by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to the CTC. The CTC reviews these initial
submittals, provides feedback to MTC, and then holds a series of hearings on the STIP for public
input. If FCR funds are successfully acquired, funds are not typically available until the last two years
of the seven-year STIP. Local funds (e.g., either through excess available funds or other local
revenues) could be used to advance construction of portions of the facility, with a reimbursement
agreement with the CTC allowing for subsequent repayment of the state share of costs in the
programmed years.
CCTA'Revenues
It is recommended that the Authority work with the CCTA to get a commitment on the use of
uncommitted sales tax revenues originally intended for the commuterway project and BART
improvements in the State Route 4 corridor. The objective would be to apply these funds to
improvements along State Route 4 between the Bailey and Railroad interchanges.
Process Management Strategies
The following section outlines process management actions designed to address some of the
obstacles to project delivery described in Section 4.
Air Quality Conformity
The accomplishment-of regional approval and subsequent air quality conformity determination for
the State Route .4 widening and the Buchanan Bypass are potential obstacles to project
implementation. New standards resulting from the 1990 Clear Air Act are now being implemented
for the first time. All future conformity determinations for the Bay Area region will have to meet these
new, tougher standards. The first stage in the air quality process will be to get regional approval of
the projects. Subsequently, these projects should be incorporated by MTC into the Regional
Transportation Plan conformity process.
Route 4 MIS Process
A Draft Request for Proposals has been prepared in a joint effort between the ECCRFFA and the
CCTA for the purpose of retaining a consultant to conduct planning, engineering and environmental
studies for the eastern portion of the State Route 4 corridor. Project management, advocacy, and
troubleshooting efforts will be required by both agencies to maintain an aggressive delivery schedule
for these project development activities. Upon completion of these studies, environmental
documents should be prepared both to allow for hardship right-of-way acquisition and for
construction of fundable segments.
SMITH&KEMPTON 22
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
Buchanan Road Road Bypass
Preliminary engineering and environmental studies are being conducted by the City of Pittsburg to
determine a preferred alignment of the Buchanan Road Bypass. The accomplishment of
construction dates in the initial five year period will require an accelerated project development
process with ongoing coordination with the ECCRFFA and Contra Costa County to avoid obstacles
in critical areas such as the selection of a preferred alignment, facility design, environmental impacts,
and right-of-way design.
SR 4/SR 4 Bypass/SR 160 Interchange
Preliminary engineering and environmental studies are being prepared by the SR 4 Bypass JPA to
determine a preferred geometric configuration. The accomplishment of construction dates in the
second five year period, as planned, can be achieved under the standard project development
process assuming no major obstacles arise. This process would require ongoing coordination with
Caltrans, the ECCRFFA, Contra Costa County, and the City of Antioch to avoid obstacles in critical
areas such as facility design and right-of-way design.
Party Responsible for Project Implementation
Table 7 identifies the-agency or agencies responsible for implementing individual projects and project
phases. This includes the preparation of environmental and engineering documents as well as
oversight of the construction process. The identification of project responsibility is based primarily
on project location. Individual agencies are generally identified as the responsible party for all
improvements within their boundaries. Where multiple project sponsors are indicated, the primary
sponsor is indicated first in bold.
SMITH&KEMPTON 23
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
EAST CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
Table 7
PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
PROJECT SEGMENT RESPONSIBLE PARTY
Buchanan Road All Pittsburg
Bypass
SR 4 Bailey to Railroad CCTA/Pittsburg/County/Caltrans
Railroad to Loveridge CCTA/Pittsburg/County/Caltrans
Loveridge to A Street CCTA/Antioch/County/Caltrans
A Street to Hillcrest CCTA/Antioch/Count /Caltrans
SR 4 Bypass Lone Tree to Balfour 'SR 4 Bypass JPA
SR 4 to Lone Tree of
Balfour to Marsh Creek of
Marsh Creek to Vasco "
SR 4/SR 160 - SR 4 Bypass JPA
Interchan e
SR 4/1-lillcrest - Antioch/County/Caltrans
Interchange
SMITH&KEMPTON 24
Circulation Draft
March 14, 1996
To.
ATTACHMENT A
FEE REVENUE PROJECTIONS THROUGH YEAR 2020
ECCRFFA REVENUE PROJECTIONS FOR 1995-2020 IN 5 YEAR INCREMENTS
• LOW GROWTH SCENARIO REVENUE FORECAST
AGENCY LAND USE 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 TOTAL
Antioch Res—Lo 3520850 11858750 11858750 11858750 11858750 50955850
Brentwood Res—Lo 3015000 4027500 4027500 5370000 5370000 21810000
Pittsburg Res—Lo 892500 892500 892500 892500 892500 4462500
Disco. Bay Res—Lo 1089850 1566250 1566250 1566250 1566250 7354850
Oakley Res—Lo 2459140 5146250 5146250 5146250 5146250 23044140
Bay Point Res—Lo 595000 595000 595000 595000 595000 2975000
Other Uninc. Res—Lo 443750 559375 559375 559375 559375 2681250
All Commercial 1166000 1166000 1166000 1166000 1166000 5830000
All Office 88464 88464 88464 88464 88464 442320
All Industrial 936000 936000 936000 936000 936000 4680000
Subtotal Residential 12016090 24645625 24645625 25988125 25988125 113283590
Subtotal Non—Res. 2190464 2190464 2190464 2190464 2190464 10952320
TOTAL 14206554 26836089 26836089 28178589 28178589 124235910
CUM. TOTAL 14206554 41042643 67878732 96057321 124235910
MEDIUM GROWTH SCENARIO REVENUE FORECAST
AGENCY LAND USE 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 TOTAL
Antioch Res—Med. 5530850 /4543750 14543750 14543750 14543750 63705850
Brentwood Res—Med. 7202500 9621250 9621250 10963750 10963750 48372500
Pittsburg Res—Med. 1190000 1190000 1190000 1190000 1190000 5950000
Disco. Bay Res—.Med. 2154850 2908750 2908750 2908750 2908750 13789850
Oakley Res—tiled. 3879140 6936250 6936250 6936250 6936250 31624140
6av Point Res—Med. 714000 714000 714000 714000 714000 3570000
Other Uninc. Res—bled. 532500 671250 671250 671250 671250 3217500
All Commerc;ai 1166000 1166000 1166000 1166000 1166000 5830000
All Office 88464 88464 88464 88464 88464 442320
All Industrial 936000 936000 936000 936000 936000 4680000
Subtotal Residential ^1203840 36585250 36585250 37927750 37927750 170229840
Subtotal Non—Res. 2190464 2190464 2190464 2190464 2190464 10952320
TOTAL 23394304 38775714 . 38775714 40118214 40118214 . 181182160
CUM. TOTAL 23394304 62170018 100945732 141063946 181182160
HIGH GROWTH SCENARIO REVENUE FORECAST
AGENCY LAND USE 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 TOTAL
Antioch Res—High /3068350 2612500 24612500 24612500 24612500 111518350
Brentwood Res—Hiah 10385000 13872500 13872500 15215000 15215000 68560000
Pittsburg Res—Hiah 1785000 1785000 1785000 1785000 1785000 8925000
Disco. Bay Res—Hiah 2864850 3803750 3803750 3803750 3803750 . 18079850
Oakley Fes—Hign 4855390 8166875 8166875 8166875 8166875 37522890
Bay Point Res—Hich 1130500 1'30500 1130500 1130500 1130500 5652500
Other Uninc. Res—Rich 621250 783125 783125 783125 783125 3753750
All Commerciai 1166000 1166000 1166000 1166000 1166000 5830000
All Office 88464 58464 88464 88464 38464 442320
afl Industnal 936000 936000 936000 936000 936000 4680000
Subtotal Residential ;57103.10 4154250 5.1154250 55496750 55496750 254012340
Subtotal Non—hes. '190.16.1 2190464 21190464 2190464 219046.1 10952320
TOTAL X6900804 =63.4714 56344714 X7687214 5768714 ,64964660
CUM. TOTAL -59008"-: -'3245518 149590232 "07277.146 264964660
Smith & Kempton Page t 02—Nov-95
I
' EXHIBIT B
April 23, 1996
i
Ms. Barbara Guise, Chair
East Contra Costa.Regional Fee and Finance Authority
c/o Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, N. Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Ms. Guise:
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has reviewed the Circulation Draft of the
East Contra Costa Transportation Strategic Plan and endorses the project priorities it
establishes for the use of the regional transportation fee revenues. The Board also
requests clarification on the following details contained in the Strategic Plan.
Page 6: Footnote 3 on this page identifies the possibility to advancing the State Route 4
widening project between Bailey and Railroad prior to Year 2000. Consideration should
be given to constructing the westbound lanes, beginning at the Railroad Avenue on-ramp,
as an initial phase. This would allow opening of the westbound HOV lane to State Route
242 and may also benefit eastbound traffic when the additional carpoolers attracted to the
westbound HOV lane in the morning, return in the evening. Such phasing of this project
appears consistent with the Strategic Plan.
Page 11: Should the Strategic Plan acknowledge the availability of the remaining Measure
C-1988 revenues allocated for the East County BART extension to help fund widening of
State Route 4? This category of funds is mentioned on page 6, but not on page 11 where
Measure C-1988 sales tax revenues are reviewed as a source of funding.
Figure 1: Clarify the priorities and segments of the State Route 4 Bypass where it includes
widening Marsh Creek Road west of its intersection with State Route 4. This comment
also applies to Page 20.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Strategic Plan and congratulations on this good
work!
Sincerely,
Jeff Smith, Chair
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
JS/SLG:jAsgoet\guise.t4