HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03111997 - C63 Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ' %
Costa
FROM: Mark DeSaulnier, Supervisor, 4th District County
DATE: March 11 , 1997
SUBJECT: State Toll Bridge Revenues
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Refer to the Transportation Committee a request from the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission to consider a resolution in opposition to the diversion of Regional Measure
1 funds for the seismic retrofit of state bridges.
FISCAL IMPACT
None to County General Funds. Diversion of Regional Measure 1 funds for seismic
retrofit would delay implementation of the bridge projects for the Carquinez and
Benicia-Martinez Bridges.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
In 1988, voters of the Bay Area approved Regional Measure 1 , which increased the
tolls on all state-owned toll bridges in the Bay Area to a uniform one dollar rate. The
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: VAAAfM
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): Mark DeSaulnier
ACTION OF BOARD ON: APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED r OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
_ 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.
Orig Dept: Community Development ATTESTED 11 4 1
Contact: Ernest Vovakis, 335-1243 PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK dF
cc: Public Works Dept. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
c �
State Toll Bridge Revenues
March 11, 1997
Page 2
excess funds generated by this toll increase were committed to a number of specific projects, including
construction of a new span for the Benicia-Martinez Bridge, reconstruction or replacement of the
western span of the Carquinez Bridge, and other improvements to Bay Area bridges and related facilities.
Since the 1989 Loma Prieta and the 1994 Northridge earthquakes, seismic retrofit of state bridges has
become a high priority. In 1996, voters approved Proposition 192, a $2 billion bond measure for this
purpose. However, it has been determined by Caltrans that those funds will not be sufficient to retrofit
all the bridges. Legislators are looking at various other funding sources, including Regional Measure 1 .
The Metropolitan Transportation Committee has requested its members to adopt a resolution in
opposition to this use of Regional Measure 1 funds.
` FEB-24-1997 09:59 SUPV. DESAULNIER P.01i02
t o ��- x'63
t� r�
METROPOLITAN Jo.spbP.Boa
FB ' B B97 TRANSPORTATION loll Saaet
O.Id.ad,G94o0f-4a0D
MISSION MfhS10.464.7700
1•� TriDnWiS10.464.7769
Fm 510.464.7848
Memorandum
TO: Commission „ n �` DATE: February 12,1997
FR: Executive Director ( � j�
��'�..lULC/ ���'�,vi W.I.: 20110
RE. Defending Regional Measure 1, ,
9&,4L. & --57(t'4J
The California Legislature is now considering a range of options to fund the seismic retrofit
needs of the state's highways and bridges,including the diversion of existing toll revenues.
Please express your opposition to any diversion of Regional Measure 1 funds by adopting
the attached draft resolution at your county's board of supervisors,council of mayors,
congestion management agency,or other appropriate local forum and sending a copy to
Senator Kopp,Senator Lockyer and your elected state representative.
Background
The five state-owned bridges in the Bay Area and two other toll bridges in Southern California
are part of a statewide network of some 900 state-owned highway spans that have been
targeted for seismic upgrades. Caltrans currently estimates that the statewide cost to retrofit
the toll bridges is approximately$2.1 billion Proposition 192,approved by California voters
in March 1996,pprovides$650 million to fund the toll bridge retrofit program,leaving a deficit
of approximately$1.4 billion The$1.4 billion toll bridge deficit should be closed with an
equitable combination of non-toll and new toll revenue it order to protect the Regional
Measure 1 program and administration of the existing toll revenue should be'transferred from
state to local control to ensure continued protection of these voter-approved funds.
Much of the voter-approved Regional Measure 1 highway program has already suffered
significant delays—delays that have allowed construction costs to rise. While Some
elements of Regional Measure 1 are finished—two BART stations,the Richmond Bypass in
Contra Costa County,the San Mateo Bridgge west approach,and the West Grand Avenue
Connector in Alameda County near completion—none of the major bridge projects of the
Regional Measure 1 highway program have yet begun. Any proposal to divert Regional
Measure 1 funds to seismic retrofit would cause further delays and project cost increases.
The bullet points in the attached resolution's resolved clause.are based on MTC's adopted
1997 legislative program. Please also send a copy of any adopted resolutions to MTC. If you
have any questions or need further information,please contact Kate Breen,at 510/464-7877.
Lawrence D.Dahms
u��/Iw/GMaIiM1
Attachment(sample resolution)
FEB-24-1997 10:00 SLJPV. DESAULNIER P.02/02
Sample Resolution in Support of.Fraervmg Regional Measure 1 rnmcling
Whereas,m November 1988,Bay Area voters approved Regional Measure 1 and authorized a
standard bridge auto toll of one dollar($I)for the seven state-owned Bay Area toll bridges and;
Wheras,the additional revenues generated by the toll increase were identified for highway and
bridge improvements,public transit rail extensions,and other projects to reduce traffic
congestion on the Bay bridges and;•
Whereas,the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989 and Northridge earthquake of 1994 increased
pressure to fund seismic safety needs statewide,now therefore,be it
Resolved,that the endorses the following principles regarding
bridge tolls and seismic retrofit funding:
• The statewide shortfall needed to fund seismic retrofit of the state's toll bridges should be
closed with an equitable combination of non-toll and new toll revenue in order to protect
the Regional Measure 1 program
* Any toll increase on the Bay Bridge should include a higher peak period toll to reduce traffic
congestion.
• Recent construction experience on the Bay Bridge reinforces the notion that the funding
package should include a traffic mitigation program of additional transit and ridesharing
services;and
• To protect bridge toll revenue from any future diversions,all existing toll revenue from
Bay Area bridges should transferred from the California Transportation Comission to the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission for administration,
IDD/KDAWGMAMI/Att
TOTAL P.02