HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06031997 - C111 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
.. ....__._•,
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon Contra,.._� ��: �` CostaDirector of Community Development
County
DATE: June 3, 1997 °s~
SUBJECT: Contra Costa Economic Partnership's Transportation White Paper
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
REFER.to the Transportation Committee the Contra Costa Economic Partnership's Transportation
White Paper, Moving Contra Costa's Economy into the 21st Century, (see Exhibit A).
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On May 9, 1997, the Contra Costa Council sponsored a transportation forum featuring
Representative's George Miller and Ellen Tauscher. At that meeting, the Contra Costa Economic
Partnership's Transportation White Paper, Moving Contra.Costa's Economy into the 21st
Century, was distributed. This white paper addresses one of the goals of the Partnership,
which is to improve countywide transportation by developing priorities for projects of regional
significance. The stated purpose of the white paper is "to identify improvements needed to
Contra Costa's portion of the Bay Area's regional transportation system and to quantify the
scope, limits and cost of the various projects." This white paper is the first step in a
collaborative effort to prioritize transportation needs and secure funding to meet those needs.
The Transportation Committee can report to the Board on any issues or actions that may be
appropriate.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE c2"
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
_ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_ APPROVE
OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON June 3, 1997 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 June 3, 1997
Orig: Community Development PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Public Works, T.E. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY
DEPUTY
SLG:c:\transcom\prtnrshp.bo
EXHIBIT A
Contra Costa Eoonomio Partnership
Transportation White Paper
Moving
Contra Costa's Economy
Into the
21 st Century
Prepared for
Contra Costa Economic Partnership IL A
O
c�' s
by O
William R. Gray & Company
In cooperation with Zell &Associates
April 9, 1997
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Funding Transportation Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Contra Costa's Transportation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
EastCounty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Funded Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Unfunded Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
WestCounty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Funded Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Unfunded Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Central County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Funded Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Unfunded Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Summary of Future Needs and Recommended Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Introduction
The Contra Costa Economic Partnership, formed in 1996, is a coalition of business, government
and education leaders in Contra Costa County with the Mission of Retaining and Creating
Quality Jobs for Contra Costa to Maintain the County's Quality of Life. The Partnership has set
the following goals:
Realign the Permitting Process to be"Customer Driven;"
• Retain Basic Industries with High Wage Jobs;
Expand and Attract Emerging High-Tech Industries;
• Link Education and Training to the Skills Needed; and
Improve Countywide Transportation by Developing Priorities for Projects of Regional
Significance.
It is as a result of this last objective that the Partnerships's Transportation Compact Steering
Committee commissioned William R Gray and Company to develop this transportation white
paper. It is the intent that information in this report be used in advocacy efforts by other public
policy groups such as the Contra Costa Council. The Contra Costa Economic Partnership, in
collaboration with the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority,the Bay Area Council and
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission hopes to reach agreement on a priority list of
projects of regional significance in order to take advantage of potentially available state and
federal transportation funds.
At the Partnership's October 31, 1996 Economic Vitality Summit, the over 200 community
leaders from business, government and education in attendance identified the top three priorities
for the Contra Costa Economic Partnership as Jobs, Education and Transportation. The
attendees also indicated that the most important economic development issue for Contra Costa is
"more collaboration on important issues" such as transportation.
As indicated above, one of the goals of the Economic Partnership is to"improve Countywide
transportation"by developing priorities for services and securing funding through existing and
new sources. Three specific transportation objectives were identified in the Partnership's first
year action plan:
CCEP-Moving Contra Cow's Economy into the 2 1`Century Page 1
1. Prioritize projects relative to their economic impact on jobs, secure public input, and
propose actions by relevant transportation agencies and business organizations.
2. Identify funding sources and strategies for implementing regional transportation solutions.
Evaluate extending the Measure C sales tax.
3. Reduce regulatory delay; encourage reform to reduce project costs. Explore partnerships
with public policy organizations such as the Bay Area Council,the Transportation Users
Group, the Tri-Valley Business Council and the Contra Costa Council.
The movement of people, goods and services in and around the greater San Francisco Bay Area
and Contra Costa County is facilitated by a system of highways and freeways, major arterial
streets, buses and rail (BART and Caltrain) as well as ferries and airports(both international and
local). The economies of the Bay Area Counties are interdependent. The Area's highway and
transit systems link housing,job and commercial centers around the Bay and to the rest of the
region. For example, affordable housing needed to support rapidly expanding job opportunities in
the Silicon Valley are provided by Contra Costa and other Bay Area counties. Eastern Contra
Costa provides one of the greatest opportunities for affordable housing within the greater San
Francisco Bay Area.
With strong local leadership and aggressive public-private partnerships, Contra Costa has enjoyed
considerable success in attracting significant state/federal funds for high priority transportation
projects. BART extensions into western and central Contra Costa, the Knox Freeway(Interstate
580),the 680/24 interchange in Walnut Creek, and High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV) lanes on
Interstates 80 and 680 are all examples of projects where funding has been obtained through the
efforts of a strong local public-private partnership.
While significant local, state and federal transportation funds have historically been available to
improve the Bay Area's transportation system, increasing congestion on local streets and roads,
increased demand for transit services and diminishing federal and state revenues led to a number
of"self-help" initiatives, authorizing additional local sales taxes,throughout the San Francisco
Bay Area, including Contra Costa County. These local transportation sales taxes have helped to
finance a number of significant improvements to the region's transportation system.
Funds from Contra Costa's local transportation sales tax(Measure C), as well as other local
sources, have been used to supplement more traditional state and federal funds to complete
important local projects such as the Richmond Parkway, Route 4 over the Willow Pass Grade and
the extension of BART into east county. Still more funds are needed for important economic
development enhancing projects such as Route 4 in east and west county, Interstate 680 in central
county and the critically important east county corridor and connections to Alameda and San
Joaquin Counties.
The primary purpose of this report is to identify improvements needed to Contra Costa's portion
of the Bay Area's regional transportation system and to quantify the scope, limits and cost of the
various projects. This report is intended as the first step in a cooperative public-private effort to
1) prioritize regionally significant local transportation projects and 2) secure additional state,
CCEP-Moving Contra Costa's Economy into the 21`Century Page 2
federal and local funding for improvements to Contra Costa's transportation system. Through
this and follow-up reports, priorities will be suggested and opportunities to secure additional
funding identified and evaluated. Most significantly, opportunities to extend Contra Costa's local
transportation sales tax,Measure C, will be evaluated.
CCEP-Moving Cmtra Costa's Economy into the 2 V Century page 3
2
Funding Transportation
Improvements
Improvements to Contra Costa's regional transportation system have historically been funded
through a combination of traditional sources- state and federal gas taxes and (for the toll bridges
and their approaches)toll revenues. More recently, developer fees, a local transportation sales
tax(Measure C), land secured assessments and other local sources have supplemented funding
from more traditional sources.
Contra Costa, through cooperative public-private partnerships, has a long history of success in
attracting state and federal funds for completion of priority local transportation projects.
Examples of projects funded over the last twenty to twenty-five years through these partnership
efforts include the Concord and Richmond BART lines, the Knox Freeway in Richmond
(Interstate 580), the 680/24 interchange in Walnut Creek,the proposed new Benicia-Martinez and
Carquinez bridges(Regional Measure 1),the widening of Interstate 680 through central County
and High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes on Interstate 80 in west county. To a great degree, the
County's success has been achieved through strong business and political leadership, consensus
and the ability to focus on one or two"regionally significant"projects at a time.
Beginning in the late-1970's,the ad hoc"public-private"partnership that had been so successful in
attracting state and federal funds for important local projects began to recognize that traditional
funding for large scale projects was diminishing. Local governments began working with the
development community to establish impact fee programs. Property owners, recognizing the
benefit of improved transportation infrastructure, agreed to advance funding for a number of
important projects through direct contributions and/or various land secured financing mechanisms
such as Assessment Districts. Examples of projects completed through developer contributions
and/or fee programs include infrastructure around the Pleasant Ifill BART Station, an interchange
on Interstate 680 (Bollinger Canyon Road) and major arterial improvements in Antioch, San
Ramon,Danville, Richmond, Concord and other incorporated and unincorporated areas
throughout Contra Costa county.
Recognizing that significant new funds would be needed to address some of the more significant
transportation needs, the ad hoc partnership in 1986 began to evaluate the possibility of a local
transportation sales tax in Contra Costa County. Proposals were submitted to the voters in 1986
CCEP-Moving Contra Costa's Eomomy into the 21`Century Page 5
and again in 1988 along with an Expenditure Plan of priority local projects"of regional
significance"and a promise that the local funds would be used to leverage additional state and
federal funds for improvements to the County's transportation system. Major projects included
on the Expenditure Plan included Route 4 (west and east),the Richmond Parkway and the
extension of BART to east county. The second proposal, Measure C, was approved by the voters
in the fall of 1988 and has provided significant funding for much needed improvements to the
County's transportation system.
While past efforts have been successful, still more funding is needed to complete critical elements
of Contra Costa County's regional transportation system such as Route 4 in both west and east
county. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority(CCTA), which administers the Measure C
program, has been working in partnership with the local private sector interests to identify
additional funding, beyond that available from traditional statelfederal sources and Measure C, for
high priority local projects. One of these partnerships led to the formation of the East County
Regional Fee and Financing Authority(ECCRFFA). This joint exercise of powers agency, which
includes the cities of Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood as well as the County of Contra Costa,
collects fees from new residential and commercial development in east county to improve the sub-
regional highway system.
CCTA has been working with the County and incorporated cities in central and west county to
establish similar programs in those areas. The West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory
Committee(WCCTAC) has retained a consultant and is working to establish a Sub-regional
Transportation Mitigation Program(STMP)to raise funds for improvements to Route 4 and other
priority local projects. Similar efforts are underway in the tri-valley area and a South County
(Danville, San Ramon and the County)Fee Program is in place.
Even with past success in attracting state and federal transportation funds for important local
projects,the passage of a local transportation sales tax(Measure C) and ongoing efforts to
establish developer fee programs, still more funding is needed to maintain Contra Costa as a
leader in the Bay Area's competitive economic development market. Funding from traditional
state and federal sources in past years has been very limited and available local revenues have not
been sufficient to fund all of the needed improvements to the County's transportation system. An
extended downturn in California's economy resulted in less than expected sales tax revenues.
While groups such as the Economic Partnership, the Bay Area Council and the Contra Costa
Council,in cooperation with CCTA and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC),
have been evaluating potential alternative sources such as variable bridge tolls, toll roads and/or a
regional gas tax to finance transportation improvements in the Bay Area, none of these efforts
have been successful to date. While public and private interests throughout the state recognize
that transportation is a critical statewide issue,the legislature has been unable to reach consensus
on new funding programs.
State and Federal transportation funds in California are programmed by the California
Transportation Commission{CTC)through the biennial State Transportation Improvement
Program(STIP). The CTC is required to allocate funds based upon statutory north-south split
CCEP-Moving Contra Costa's Eoanomy into the 21`Century Page 6
requirements' as well as statutory county minimum'requirements. Because of past successes in
attracting state and federal monies, Contra Costa has been a"surplus county"for years and
effectively precluded from competing for new state and federal funds. Because the federal
program had been focused on completion of the Interstate system, most available state and federal
funds have been focused on completion of improvements to the Interstate Highway System. As a
result, significant funds became available and were programmed for improvements to Interstates
80, 580 and 680 in Contra Costa. Over the past twenty years or so, very little has been available
for improvements to Contra Costa's non-Interstate system highways such as Routes 4, 24, 84,
160, 239 and 242.
This situation has now changed. As a result of a high cash balance in the state highway account,
the passage of Proposition 192 in the fall of 1994, two years of"new"revenues and other factors,
the 1998 STIP promises to be one of the largest ever with new programming capacity in excess of
$3.5 bilhon3. The 1994 and 1996 STIP's allocated significant funds to projects in southern
California. As a result of statutory north-south split requirements, northern California projects
will have an advantage in the early years of the new STIP, particularly those that can be
"delivered"in the early years of the seven year programa.
Because county minimum requirements"zero out"every four years(quadrennium), Contra
Costa's"surplus"status effectively expired with approval of the 1996 STIP. Contra Costa did
not receive it's county minimum in the 1996 STIP and is now considered a"deficit" county.
CTC policy requires deficits be"carried forward" and made up before programing funds for
projects in other counties.
As of December, 1996, Contra Costa's deficit was estimated to be in the range of$30 to $32
million. A review of the overall funding situation by the Transportation Task Force of the Contra
Costa Council found that Contra Costa's share(county minimum) of new state and federal
highway funds in the 1998 STIP (currently scheduled for adoption in December of 1997) could be
in the range of$90 to $100 million. The CTC typically allows counties to propose(or bid)
projects totaling as much as 150% or more of their statutory minimum. As a result, Contra Costa
may be able to bid for as much as $140 to $150 million in new projects in the 1998 STIP.
' The CTC must allocate sixty percent (60%) of available state and federal transportation
dollars to ten southern California counties.
' To provide equity in the allocation of highway funds in California,the statutes require
the CTC to allocate available state and federal transportation funds to counties on a formula basis
over four year quadrennium's.
3 Californians for Better Transportation(CBT),November 8, 1996 Legislative Update.
a Personal conversation, Pete Hathaway, Deputy Director, California Transportation
Commission.
CCEP-Moving Contra Costa's Eomomy into the 21`Century Page 7
In addition to additional state and federal funds through the STIP process, the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority is likely to make as much as$35 to $45 million in new Measure C funds
available for important local projects with a proposed update to their Strategic Plan. The new
money available through the STIP and the ability to program additional Measure C funds provides
an opportunity to fund for a number of important local projects.
In the early years of the Measure C program,the Contra Costa Transportation Authority(CCTA)
sold bonds to advance completion of priority local projects such as Route 4 over the Willow Pass
Grade,the Richmond Parkway and BART to east county and used Measure C funds to leverage
additional state and/or federal funds for these projects. To secure the bonds, the Authority
pledged future tax revenues to cover debt service. In recent years Measure C cash flow has been
a problem because revenues are being used to pay debt service. While new Measure C funds will
be available for programming with the 1997 update to the Authority's Strategic Plan, CCTA's
ability to leverage new STIP monies through the sale of bonds is now limited.
Over the past few years, a number of local sales tax authorities advanced local funds to accelerate
completion of programmed STIP projects with the understanding that they would be reimbursed
once the state funds became available'. As a result of a number of factors,the cash balance in the
state highway account is now very high and suggests a reverse of the previous process. If state
funds could be advanced for local projects, agencies(such as CCTA) could reimburse the state
once local (Measure C) revenues become available. Because the CTC wants to advance projects
in northern California and because a number of local projects have a relatively high"state of
readiness, Contra Costa may be in a somewhat unique position to partner with the CTC and
advance completion of priority local projects. Legislation would be required to implement this
concept.
As indicated in Chapter 1, one purpose of this report is to begin a public-private effort to evaluate
the feasibility of extending Contra Costa's local transportation sales tax program. A recent
decision by the California Supreme Court, which overturned a voter approved extension to Santa
Clara's local transportation sales tax, promises to make this a real challenge. The court ruled that
the proposed extension is a"special taxes"under Proposition 62, and thereby requires a super-
majority(2/3)vote. As a result of this decision, many local elected officials and business leaders
believe that extending Contra Costa's local transportation sales tax(Measure C)will be difficult -
if not impossible.
Responding to continued transportation needs, Santa Clara voters on November 5, 1996
approved two measures designed to address continued local transportation needs. Faced with a
court decision that defines local transportation sales taxes as"special taxes",the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors placed two measure on the ballot. The first(Measure A) proposed
a general increase in the local sales tax(one-half percent) and the second (Measure B)was an
advisory measure outlining a proposed transportation improvement program should funding
' Authorized by Assembly Bill 3090.
CCEP-Moving Contra Costa's Economy into the 21`Century Page 8
become available. The two measures were not linked. Because Measure A proposed a"general"
increase in the sales tax(versus a"special"tax), only a majority(versus a two-thirds)vote was
required. While both measures passed, a challenge is expected.
Again, while past efforts have been successful, additional effort is needed to ensure that Contra
Costa County remains economically competitive with the rest of the Bay Area and the state.
Additional funding is needed to fund critically important improvements to Route 4 in both west
and east county and to complete High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV) lane and auxiliary lane
improvements along Interstate 680 in central county. Significant funding will be needed to
complete the important east county corridor.
Over the next few months and years, elected officials and business leaders in Contra Costa will be
asked to support efforts to attract additional state and local funds and to consider a variety of
traditional and non-traditional funding options. Some of the non-traditional sources that will be
considered include an extension to Contra Costa's local transportation sales tax(Measure C), new
regional gas taxes, toll roads, congestion pricing, High Occupancy Toll (HOT)lanes', increased
and/or variable bridge tolls, new and/or increased developer fees. To provide a context for these
discussions, it is important to understand the scope, cost and relative priority of improvements
that will be required over the next fifteen to twenty years.
' Legislation authorizing the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to implement HOT lanes has
been proposed in the Authority's 1997 Legislative program.
CCEP-Moving Centra Costa's Eomomy into the 21`Cenuuy Page 9
3
Contra Costa's Transportation
System
Contra Costa's regional transportation system includes Major Interstate and State Highways, a
number of significant local arterial roadways as well as fixed rail(BART) and bus transit. In
addition, two regional airports serve Contra Costa County-Buchanan Field in Concord and the
Byron Airport in Byron. Major rail lines pass through the west, north and east county areas and
deep water port access is available in Richmond and along the Sacramento River in northern
Contra Costa County.
MARIN SOLANO
COUNTY COUNTY i
�sna
SAN
JOAOU IN
COUNTY
sa
m o�
a
SAN` OAKLAND
FRANCISCO
r - TO FRESNO
Wd
\ LAS ANGELES
1 SAN JOSE
t
Figure 2 -Regional Setting
Major interstate highways serving the county include Interstates 80, 580 and 680. Major state
highways include Route 24 and Route 4. The county is geographically divided, by topography
and social-economic characteristics, into three distinct geographic sub-regions.
CCEP-Moving Contra Costa's Eoonomy into the 21`CeaWry Page 11
For the purposes of this report,the review of needed transportation improvements is divided into
west, central and east county.
MI
Y4NY t
e Opa1M
t g WEST
D 1 EAST
CENTRAL
•
Figure 3-Contra Costa's Regions
As indicated previously, and noted throughout this report, over the past twenty to twenty-five
years, most of the state and federal monies allocated for local projects has been focused to on the
Interstate Highway system. Very little has been available for improvements to the County's state
highway system, such as Route 4 (west and east).
Examples of some of the major highway projects completed within the past ten to fifteen years
and/or currently under construction using traditional statelfederal sources include:
Project Cost($l m)
The Knox Freeway(Interstate 580) 250
Interstate 680 widening(southern portion) 75
Interstate 680/24 interchange project 315
Interstate 80 HOV lane project(CC portion) 125
Carquinez Bridge replacement(I-80) 300
Second Benicia-Martinez Bridge(I-680) 290
CCEP-Moving Contra Costa's Economy into the 21"CmUiry Page 12
East County
Major regional transportation facilities serving eastern Contra Costa include Route 4,Route 160,
Vasco Road and BART. In addition,two new state highway routes have been identified by the
state legislature that will link eastern Contra Costa County to San Joaquin County and the
Interstate 5 corridor(Route 239) and to Alameda and Santa Clara counties(Route 84). Other
significant transportation facilities in east county include Railroad AvenueXkker Pass Road,
which provides access into central Contra Costa County and Buchanan Road,which provides an
arterial connection between the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg south of Route 4. A new road,
referred to as the Buchanan Road Bypass, is proposed to provide additional capacity in this area.
Route.4 in eastern Contra Costa, often referred to as Route 4 East, is that segment of Route 4
between Route 242 in Concord and the San Joaquin County line near Discovery Bay. Route 4
passes through the cities of Concord, Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood as well as the
unincorporated communities of Bay Point and Oakley. The highway provides access to the
Concord Naval Weapons Station and major industry along the San Joaquin and Sacramento
River. The highway is one of three regional links between the San Francisco Bay Area and
California's Central Valley. Eastern Contra Costa provides affordable housing opportunities for
the rest of the County and well as the entire East Bay Area.
Eastern Contra Costa County has not benefitted as much as central and west county from
traditional state and/or federal funds for transportation projects. The lack of state and/or federal
funding for east county projects is a result of two factors- 1)lower population densities and 2)
most significantly, federal funds in recent years have been directed to completion of the Interstate
Highway System. East county does not have any Interstate highways.
The need for funding to widen and lower Route 4 over the Willow Pass Grade and to extend
BART to east county(Bay Point)provided a major impetus for the ad hoc public-private
partnership referred to in Chapter 2 to propose a local transportation sales tax program for Contra
Costa County(Measure Q. Although Route 4 is technically a freeway between Route 242 in
Concord and the Route 4/160 interchange in Antioch, significant additional improvements are
needed to eliminate substandard design features and to accommodate existing and projected
traffic demand in the corridor. Route 4 between east and central county is heavily congested
during morning and evening commute times. The existing fi-eeway is substandard and in need of
CCEP-Moving Contra Costa's Emnomy into the 21`Century Page 13
significant safety and operational improvements between Bailey Road and Hillcrest Avenue in
Antioch. The highway must be reconstructed before BART can be extended beyond the Bay
Point station.
CCTA has completed, and/or provided funding for,two major east county projects identified in
the Measure C Expenditure Plan-Route 4 over the Willow Pass Grade and the extension of
BART to Bay Point. Because CCTA was successful in leveraging additional state funds for these
projects, some limited Measure C funds remain available for east county projects. CCTA utilized
a portion of these funds to advance project development work and to define the scope and cost of
needed improvements to Route 4. The Authority intends to proceed with additional widening of
Route 4,between Bailey Road and Railroad Avenue in Pittsburg, if Measure C and other funds
become available, within the next few years.
The most significant major new project being planned for eastern Contra Costa is the Route 4
Bypass. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR)for the project was recently adopted by a joint
powers authority composed of the County and the cities of Brentwood and Antioch. This
proposed new expressway will replace existing Route 4 through Oakley and Brentwood. The
proposed highway begins at Route 4 at the interchange with Route 160 and passes to the west of
Oakley and Brentwood. In addition to Route 4,the California State legislature has identified two
additional state highway corridors, Routes 84 and 239, as appropriate to serve eastern Contra
Costa County. Route 84, which was intended to generally follow the alignment of existing Vasco
Road in Contra Costa County, is intended to link the 4/160 interchange in Antioch to Livermore
and Palo Alto over the Dumbarton Bridge. Route 239 is intended to link the 4/160 interchange to
Interstates 5 and 205 near Tracy and provide a link between eastern Contra Costa and the San
Joaquin Valley.
Recognizing the need for improvements to Route 4 and the need for additional transportation
facilities to support residential development planned for eastern Contra Costa,the County, in
cooperation with the cities of Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood formed the Eastern Contra Costa
Regional Fee&Financing Authority(ECCRFFA). The ECCRFFA, a joint exercise of powers
authority, collects fees from new residential and commercial development in East County to fund
new development's share of needed improvements to three major transportation facilities -
Route 4,the Buchanan Road Bypass and the Route 4 Bypass. While the fee program will raise
significant dollars, additional funding is needed to complete these and other improvements to East
County's regional transportation system.
The City of Pittsburg has initiated project development work on the proposed Buchanan Road
Bypass, a proposed two lane arterial parallel to Route 4. The proposed bypass will allow traffic
from Antioch and Pittsburg access to Kirker Pass Road.
Funded Projects
1. Route 4 -Bailey Road to Railroad Avenue. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(CCTA), in cooperation with BART, has completed initial project development studies for
CCEP-Moving Contra Costa's Eoanomy into the 21`Century Page 14
the widening of Route 4 between Bailey Road and Railroad Avenue. CCTA has sufficient
funds available to widen this segment of Route 4 to eight lanes(including two HOV lanes)
within the next few years. The HOV lanes would extend to Railroad Avenue in Pittsburg.
Sufficient rights-of-way will be acquired for the planned future extension of BART in the
median of the freeway. While the project will allow HOV lanes constructed with the
Willow Pass Grade project(Route 242 to Bailey Road)to open and reduce existing
congestion, available funding is not adequate to reconstruct the substandard Railroad
Avenue interchange or to improve Route 4 through Pittsburg.
2. Hillcrest Avenue Interchange. The ECCRFFA Strategic Plan includes funding for Phase II
of the Hillcrest Road interchange project. This project will provide a new loop on-ramp
for northbound Hillcrest Avenue traffic that wants to go west on Route 4 and improve the
existing eastbound Route 4 off-ramp to Hillcrest Avenue.
3. Route 4 -Railroad Avenue to Route 4/160 Interchange(Rmject Development Studies).
The CCTA, in cooperation with Caltrans and the ECCRFFA, is working to complete a
Major Investment Study(MIS) and Project Study Report (PSR) for Route 4 between
Railroad Avenue and the 4/160 interchange. This study includes an initial environmental
analysis of improvements to this portion of Route 4-both major steps in the formal
Caltrans Project Development Process. Upon completion, detailed information regarding
the scope and cost of needed improvements will be available. Detailed studies are
underway for the Railroad Avenue interchange to accommodate a planned future BART
station. Upon completion of these studies, CCTA and Caltrans will be in a position to
protect rights-of-way needed for the future widening and identify appropriate funding and
construction phases.
4. Route 4 Bypass - Antioch to B}mn. Fees collected by the ECCRFFA are being used to
design initial segments of the Route 4 Bypass between Antioch and Balfour Road west of
Brentwood. ECCRFFA's adopted Strategic Plan calls for completion of an initial two
lane segment of the bypass between Lone Tree Road and Balfour Road by the year 2000.
Completion of the bypass as a four-lane expressway between Route 4 and Lone Tree and
construction of a portion of a two-lane roadway between Balfour Road and Marsh Creek
Road are scheduled for 2005. Additional improvements,between Route 4 and Vasco
Road will be completed by 2010. Revenues from ECCRFFA fees will fund approximately
50% of the cost of the proposed improvements. Additional funding from other sources is
needed.
Unfunded Projects
1. Route 4 -Railroad Avenue to Route 4/160. As indicated above, while some additional
mainline widening and one interchange improvement on Route 4 can be completed with
available and projected Measure C and ECCRFFA funds, significant additional revenues
will be required to complete Route 4 to the planned width of six lanes plus two HOV lanes
between Railroad Avenue and the Route 4/160 interchange in Antioch.
CCEP-Moving Contra Costs's Eomomy into the 21`Ceutmy Page 15
Current estimates suggest that needed improvements to this segment of Route 4 will cost
over$230 million to complete. As noted above, the ECCRFFA is collecting fees from
new development for improvements to three major East County transportation facilities,
including this segment of Route 4. The ECCRFFA anticipates collecting approximately
$110 million in fees for Route 4.
Additional funds needed- $120 million
2. Route 4/Route 160 Interchange. This new interchange will connect Route 4 in Antioch to
the proposed new Route 4 bypass.
Additional funds needed - $40 million
3. Route 4 Bypass - Antioch to Brentwood. The ECCRFFA adopted strategic plan predicts
fee revenues of$75 million will be sufficient to fund two lanes of this planned four-lane
facility. The estimated cost of the full four lane highway is $ 150 million.
Additional funds needed- $75 million
4. East County Corridor- Alameda Connection Mute 84). This proposed four to six lane
freeway would generally follow the alignment of existing Vasco Road south of Brentwood
and provide much needed access to the Alameda County portion of the Tri-Valley. Again,
while the legislature has identified the need for the corridor(Route 84) and it is included in
the circulation element of Contra Costa's General Plan and strongly supported in eastern
Contra Costa, a major project in this corridor would be inconsistent with Alameda
County's General Plan. Some opportunity exists for interim improvements to existing
Vasco Road, although they would not be sufficient in the long term.
Estimated cost - $400 to $600 million
5. East County Corridor- San Joaquin.Connection(R=e 239). This proposed four lane
freeway generally follows the alignment of existing Byron Highway and will link east
Contra Costa County with San Joaquin County and Interstate 5, California's major north-
south interstate highway.
Estimated cost - $250 million
6. Buchanan Road Bypass. This $18 to $20 million project would be jointly funded by the
City of Pittsburg and the ECCRFFA. The Fee Authority's adopted Strategic Plan includes
a$4 million contribution to the project. Additional funds are likely to be required.
Estimated cost - $18 to $20 million
CCEP-Moving Centra Costas Economy into the 21'Ceahuy Page 16
5
West County
West County's regional transportation system consists of Interstate 80, Interstate 580, Route 4,
the Richmond Parkway as well as a number of major local arterial roadways, including San Pablo
Avenue and San Pablo Dam Road. BART's Richmond line serves western county residents.
Over the years,Western Contra Costa County has benefitted with traditional statelfederal funding
for a number of large transportation projects. Among the most significant is the now complete
Knox freeway(Interstate 580), a new freeway through the City of Richmond that provides access
between Interstate 80 in Alameda County and the Richmond-San Rafael bridge. Caltrans is in the
process of completing major improvements to Interstate 80, including a High Occupancy Vehicle
(HOV) lane between the Bay Bridge in Alameda County and Willow Avenue in Hercules. In
addition, Caltrans has proposed to replace the oldest of the two bridges over the Carquinez Straits
and add a westbound HOV lane on the new bridge. Unfunded projects along the Interstate 80
corridor in(between El Cerrito and Crockett)include the San Pablo Avenue interchange, and
HOV lanes between Willow Avenue in Hercules and the new Carquinez Bridge.
The Richmond Parkway, an expressway between Interstate 80 near Hilltop Drive in Richmond
and Interstate 580 near the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, is nearing completion. This $175
million project was a high priority project in Contra Costa's Measure C program and is being
funded through a combination of state and local funds. With the exception of an interchange at
San Pablo Avenue,the project is fully funded.
The only other significant west county project is Route 4 West project between Interstate 80 in
Hercules and Cummings Skyway. This segment of Route 4 is a winding, narrow two-lane
roadway. It is heavily congested during morning and evening commute times. Route 4 is the only
east-west link between west county and central county. Route 4 was previously improved to full
freeway standards between Cummings Skyway and Interstate 680 in Central County. The
Measure C Expenditure Plan calls for Route 4 west to be improved to"full freeway standards"
between Cummings Skyway and Interstate 80.
A Caltrans Project Study Report(PSR)was completed in 1993 to define the scope and cost of
needed improvements to this segment of Route 4. While the Expenditure Plan calls for upgrading
this portion of Route 4 west to full freeway standards, funds allocated by the Expenditure Plan
CCEP-Moving Contra Costa's Eoanomy into the 21`Centtny Page 17
($45 million, 1988$) are not sufficient. CCTA has estimated the cost of improving this segment
v of Route 4 to full freeway standards at $112 million in 1996 dollars.
Because local funding to improve Route 4 west was limited, CCTA staff has been working with
Caltrans and the City of Hercules to define a strategy to phase implementation of improvements
to Route 4 west. A$65 million"Phase I"project has been identified that will improve Route 4 to
fully divided conventional highway(Parkway) standards. As with the recently completed
Richmond Parkway, one or two traffic signals may be required to address safety issues. The full
freeway would be completed as"Phase II" of the Route 4 West Improvement Project when
additional funds become available. While a majority of the Phase I (conventional highway)
improvements are compatible with Phase 11 (full freeway), somewhere between $4 and $8 million
would be expended unnecessarily if funding for Phase H is not available before Phase.I goes to
bid.
Because the estimated $65 million cost of the Phase I improvements exceeds available Measure C
funds, additional funding is required for the proposed Phase I (conventional highway) of the
Route 4 West Improvement Project. CCTA staff is assuming that sufficient state and/or federal
funds will be available for the Route 4 project through the 1998 STIP'.
Both the Phase I and Phase II of the Route 4 West Improvement Project is being evaluated in an
environmental document being prepared by CCTA. CCTA has advised that, at present,the final
.environmental document will clear only the Phase I (conventional highway) project due to Federal
Highway Administration(FHWA) regulations related to"fundable projects'." A Supplemental
Environmental Document (SEIS)will be required before the Phase II (full freeway) project can
proceed. CCTA staff advises that the required SEIS would require six to nine months to
complete once funding for the project is identified.
West county residents(and others in the region)are served by the Richmond BART line and
Intercity Rail Service-the Capitol Corridor. While BART has evaluated a number of potential
alternative alignments for an extension of the Richmond line, no funding has been identified.
Estimates suggest that extending BART to Hercules could cost as much as $1.5 billion. The
legislature recently approved a bill under which BART will take over operation of Caltrans
intercity rail service-the Capitols. BART has announced plans to provide additional passenger
service in the corridor. At this point, this appears to be a much more cost effective way to
' The Route 4 West project is a priority for new STIP funding-Paul Maxwell, Deputy
Director of CCTA.
s A project must be included in MTC's financially constrained Regional Transportation
Plan(RTP) or the federal TIP to be considered"fundable." If the CTC should include the Phase
11 project in the federal TIP, it would be considered"fundable."
CCEP-Moving Contra Costa's Eoonomy into the 21`Century Page 18
provide rail service to northwestern Contra Costa than extending the Richmond BART line'.
Additional improvements are needed at the Richmond BART station to facilitate transfers
between the Capitol Corridor and BART. A new station is planned for West County1Q, although
no funding for the project has been identified.
Funded PW-0100ft
1. Interstate80O� V Project. Construction of continuous High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV)
lanes between Willow Avenue in Hercules and the Bay Bridge toll plaza in Oakland are
underway. Various segments are scheduled for completion in 1997 and the entire$335
million project should be complete by late 1998.
2. Route 4 West-�'�I (&Uy divided conventional hi;-liwav). While the Measure C
Expenditure Plan calls for upgrading Route 4 west to full freeway standards between
Cummings Skyway and Interstate 80, local transportation sales tax funds are insufficient
to fund the full freeway improvement. Because of signficant congestion, operation and
safety issues, CCTA has proposed to"phase"improvements to this segment of Route 4 so
that some of the more critical capacity and safety issues can be addressed as quickly as
possible.
Phase I of the Route 4 West Improvement Project will improve the highway to filly
divided conventional highway standards between Cummings Skyway and Interstate 80.
One or two traffic signals may be required in Phase I to address some of the more
significant safety issues. For the most part, Phase I is consistent with the ultimate
freeway. Phase H would upgrade the conventional highway to full freeway standards(see
below) once funding becomes available. It is important to note that available Measure C
.funds are not sufficient to complete the Phase I project and that supplemental funding
must be secured before the proposed project can be completed 11
Supplemental funds required-$25 million
3. CaUuinez Bridae_. Caltrans has been evaluating options with respect to seismically
retrofitting the two existing Carquinez bridges to bring them up to current standards.
Regional Measure 1 includes funds to replace the oldest of the two bridges(constructed in
1927). Because of increased concern with respect to maintenance and seismic issues with
this bridge,Caltrans is accelerating completion of the new bridge as a"seismic retrofit"
project. The new bridge, proposed for construction to the west of the two existing
9 Interstate 80 Corridor Study,Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 1996.
10 Draft Capitol Corridor Business Plan,BART, 1995.
11 CCTA intends to request supplemental funding through the 1998 STIP process.
CCEP-Moving Contra Costa's Eonnomy into the 21"Century Page 19
bridges, is estimated to cost $180 million. Seismic retrofit work on the newer of the two
bridges(completed in 1958), should begin in the Spring of 1997.
Unfunded Projeaft
1. Route 4 West Phase U(Full Freeway). Upon completion of the Phase I project
(conventional highway), upgrading Route 4 to full freeway standards(Phase H)as
envisioned in the Measure C Expenditure Plan is estimated to cost $47 million.
Additional funds required- $47 million
2. Interstate 80 HOV Lanes-Willow Avenue to Cummings S ay. High Occupancy
Vehicle(HOV) lanes are proposed along Interstate 80 in the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission's Regional Transportation Plan(RTP). HOV lanes are under construction
between the San Francisco Bay Bridge and Willow Avenue in Hercules and will be
completed between Cummings Skyway and Solano County in conjunction with the
Carquinez Bridge project. Upon completion of these projects, the addition of HOV lanes
between Willow Avenue and Cummings Skyway is likely to become a priority. This
segment of Interstate 80 is considered part of the approach to the Carquinez Bridge and
Regional Measure 1 funds could be available.
Estimated Cost - $48 million
3. Richmond ParkwaylSan Pablo Avenue Interchange. This proposed interchange is
necessary to separate traffic from two major West County highways-the Richmond
Parkway and San Pablo Avenue.
Estimated cost- $12 million
4. Interstate 80/Route 4 Interchan$e. This project would reconstruct the existing sub-
standard interchange to current standards. The capacity of the existing ramps would be
increased.
Estimated cost - $TBD
5. Interstate 80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange. This project will upgrade and reconfigure
the existing interchange to current standards and improve the connection between these
two regional routes.
Estimated cost - $16 to $25 million
6. Capitol Corridor/BART. As indicated above, extending BART's Richmond line to
Hercules and/or Crockett within the next 20 to 30 years is not financially feasible. Near
term rail transit in this corridor will be provided through upgrades to the e)dsting Capitol
Corridor intercity service. Existing stations in Richmond and Crockett will require
upgrading. A new station is planned for Hercules. Cost estimates for needed capital
improvements are not currently available. Estimated cost - $TBD
CCEP-Moving Contra Costa's Economy into the 21`Century Page 20
Centra/ County
Central County's most significant transportation facilities include Interstate 680, Route 24, Route
4 and BART. Interstate 680 is a major north-south corridor which passes through the cities of
Martinez, Concord,Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Danville and San Ramon as well as the
unincorporated communities of Pacheco and Alamo. Interstate 680 provides access to Alameda
and Santa Clara Counties to the south and Solano County and Sacramento to the north.
Because of Interstate 680, significant state and federal funds have been available for projects in
central county. Major improvements to Interstate 680 in south county were completed within the
last few years and a$350 million total reconstruction of the 680/24 interchange in Walnut Creek
is underway.
Other major transportation corridors serving central county include Route 4, which passes
through Martinez and Concord and links cities in Central County to both western and eastern
county areas. Route 24 links central county to the East Bay through the Caldecott Tunnel.
Route 24 passes through the cities of Orinda and Lafayette. Central County is served by BART's
Concord line with stations serving Orinda,Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Pleasant ITill, Concord, and
North Concord/Martinez.
A number of major local arterial roadways supplement central county's state and interstate
highway system. Most significant is Ygnacio Valley Road, a major east-west corridor that
provides access between central and east county over Kirker Pass. Other major central county
arterial roadways include Treat Boulevard,Pleasant Hill Road, Taylor Boulevard, San Ramon
Valley Boulevard, Crow Canyon Road and Alhambra Valley Road. Measure C funds have been
utilized to improve a number of interchanges and/or arterial roadways in central county. For the
most part, central county's arterial roadway system is complete and no major new capacity
enhancing projects are proposed or planned. In those areas where additional improvements might
be possible, local agencies have concluded that other factors(noise and other environmental
factors, quality of life, etc.)make additional improvements undesirable.
Central county cities have decided to focus on additional improvements to Interstate 680 and the
state highway system as well as transit improvements as the most appropriate way to address
congestion problems in Central County. In this regard,High Occupancy Vehicle lanes(HOV
CCEP-Moving Contra Costa's Economy into the 21`Century Page 21
lanes) are being considered for Interstate 680, (north of the 680/24 interchange) and on
Route 242 through Concord to connect with an HOV lane being planned for Route 4 in East
County.
The 680/4 interchange in Pacheco is sub-standard and will need to be reconstructed within the
next five to ten years. In addition to the 680/4 interchange, other improvements needed along
Interstate 680 in central county include a High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV) lane between Pleasant
Hill and the Benicia-Martinez bridge(discussed above) and auxiliary lanes between the 680/24
interchange in Walnut Creek and the 680/580 interchange in Alameda County. The need for
auxiliary lanes along 680 south was identified by Caltrans during completion of traffic studies for
the recently competed HOV lane project(south of Rudgear Road). Caltrans decided to proceed
with the HOV lane project without the auxiliary lanes so that the project could be completed
within time frames established by the CTC (i.e. before completion of improvements to the 680/24
interchange). Studies completed by CCTA confirm the need for auxiliary lanes along this portion
of Interstate 680.
While physically located in Alameda County, the Interstate 680/580 interchange in Pleasanton is
critical to central Contra Costa's transportation system. The existing interchange is sub-standard.
$120 million in improvements are needed to address significant morning and evening congestion
problems. Because a number of Contra Costa residents work in Alameda County and a number
of Alameda County residents work in Contra Costa, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council
(TVTC), a two County joint powers agency, has been working to address funding for the 680/580
interchange. The TVTC has been working to establish a subregional traffic impact fee similar to
that developed by the ECCRFFA to fund high priority local projects.
Route 242 is a short freeway that passes through the City of Concord and links Interstate 680 in
Pleasant Hill to Route 4 in north Concord. Measure C funds are available to widen the existing
four lane freeway to six lanes. The improvements are needed to accommodate traffic increases
anticipated upon completion of improvements to the 680/24 interchange in Walnut Creek and to
accommodate traffic projected from approved development in eastern Contra Costa.
Improvements to the Concord Avenue interchange are currently underway.
Route 24,between Walnut Creek and Orinda, is currently an eight-lane freeway. BART is
located within the median of the freeway. Other than the addition of a HOV lane and some minor
ramp and interchange improvements, no major improvements are planned for this portion of
Route 24.
The Caldecott Tunnel complex, which links central Contra Costa to Oakland and San Francisco,
consists of three, two-lane tunnels. Because of a significant directional split during morning and
evening commute times, Caltrans is able to reverse the direction of one of the tunnels and provide
four lanes of capacity on Route 24 in the peak commute direction. Over the past few years,
increased job opportunities in Walnut Creek and San Ramon have increased the so-called
"reverse"commute and are beginning to reduce the historically high morning and evening
directional split. As a result, congestion (in the reverse commute direction) on Route 24 has been
CCEP-Moving Contra Costa's Economy into the 21•Century Page 22
steadily increasing over the past few years. While the Expenditure Plan approved by Contra
Costa voters with Measure C in 1988 would allow a loan of funds to Caltrans to commence
preliminary studies, no work has been completed to date. Estimates completed by Caltrans in
approximately 1986 or 1987 suggest that the cost to complete a fourth tunnel may be in excess of
$400 million. Given the high cost, some consideration to toll financing and/or the concept of a
High Occupancy Toll (HOT)tunnel should be considered in the future.
A major project to seismically retrofit the existing Benicia-Martinez bridge is scheduled to begin
in the Spring of 1997. In addition, the 1988 voter approved Regional Measure 1 program
contains funds for a second bridge between Martinez and Benicia. Caltrans has completed the
necessary environmental evaluation of the second bridge and construction could begin as early as
late 1998 or early 1999. Assuming construction begins on schedule, the second bridge would be
complete by 2001. Upon completion of the bridge, Interstate 680, over the Carquinez straits,will
have four lanes in the southbound direction(into Contra Costa)and five lanes in the northbound
direction(out of Contra Costa). The existing toll plaza is to be relocated to the south side of the
bridge. The second bridge is estimated to cost $290 million.
The Lamorinda Area is comprised of the communities of Orinda, Moraga and Lafayette. Because
support for a proposed major new highway in the area was unclear, the Measure C Expenditure
Plan set aside funding and required completion of the Gateway-Lamorinda traffic study before any
"regional"Measure C funds could be spent in the Lamorinda Area. The adopted Lamorinda
Traffic Program calls for actions and measures to mitigate traffic congestion between SR 24 and
the Town of Moraga. In developing the Lamorinda Traffic Program, the three communities
evaluated potential capital projects, operational improvements and transit programs. While a
number of local improvements were identified and a school bus program developed,the study
concluded that no additional major new regional facilities are needed in the area.
Funded Projects
I. 680/24 Interchange. This $315 million project is scheduled for completion in 1998. The
project is completely reconstructing and reconfiguring the existing interchange complex as
well as major portions of Interstate 680 through Pleasant Hill. The Monument Boulevard
interchange in Pleasant Hill is being reconstructed. The project is one of the largest
interchange reconstruction projects in California. Upon completion, Interstate 680 will be
six lanes wide through the interchange and ramps to/from Route 24 will be three lanes
wide. Interstate 680,between Rudgear Road in Walnut Creek and Willow Pass Road in
Concord, is being widened in conjunction with this project.
2. Concord Avenue Interchange/Route 242. This project is reconstructing the existing
Concord Avenue interchange. Upon completion, existing sub-standard ramps will be
relocated, and Concord Avenue under the freeway will be widened.
CCEP-Moving Cantrs Costa's Eoanomy into the 21`Century Page 23
3. Route 242 Improvements. This project will widen Route 242 to six lanes between
Interstate 680 in Pleasant Hill and Route 4 in north Concord. The new lanes may be HOV
lanes.
4. Benicia-Martinez Bridee. A second bridge is proposed to be constructed to the east of the
existing bridge. The new bridge will provide five lanes for northbound traffic. The
existing bridge will be restriped to provide four southbound lanes, as well as a separate
area for bicycles and pedestrians.
Unfuncf&W Projeots
1. I-680 Auxiliary, Lanes-Rudgear Road to Alameda County Line. This project will provide
auxiliary lanes between the existing off-and on-ramps along Interstate 680 between
Rudgear Road in Walnut Creek and Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon. Caltrans identified
the need for this project in studies completed in conjunction with the design of the recently
completed HOV lane project on this segment of Interstate 680. This project is likely to
become a much higher priority upon completion of the 680/24 interchange project.
Estimated cost - $50 to $70 million
2. I-680 HDV Lanes-Martinez to Concord. This project would construct HOV lanes along
Interstate 680 and complement improvements being completed to the 680/24 interchange
and the proposed second Benicia-Martinez bridge project.
Estimated cost - $25 million
3. Interstate 680/Route 4 Interchaneg Complex. This project would reconstruct the existing
substandard interchange in Pacheco. Project can be implemented in stages.
Estimated cost- $100 to $200 million
CCEP-Moving Contra Costa's Eomomy into the 21'Century Page 24
Summary of Firture Heeds and
Recommended Strategies
As indicated in this report, most of the significant improvements to Contra Costa's regional
transportation system have been funded through a combination of state and federal gas taxes and
bridge toll revenues. More recently, developer fees, a local transportation sales tax(Measure C),
land secured assessments and other sources have been used to supplement funding from the more
traditional sources.
Through cooperative ad hoc public-private partnerships, Contra Costa has a history of success in
attracting significant state and federal funds for completion of priority transportation projects.
This success has been achieved through leadership, consensus and the ability to focus on one or
two"regionally significant"projects at a time. While past efforts have met with success, still
more effort is needed to complete critical projects on Contra Costa County's transportation
system.
Even with past success in attracting state and federal funds for important local projects, a lova:
transportation sales tax(Measure C) and ongoing efforts to raise funds through developer fee
programs, additional funding is needed to maintain Contra Costa as a leader in the Bay Area's
competitive economic development market. Funding from traditional state and federal sources in
past years has been limited and available local revenues have not been sufficient to fund needed
improvements to the County's transportation system.
State and Federal transportation funds in California are programmed by the California
Transportation Commission(CTC)through the State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP). The CTC allocates funds based upon statutory requirements. Because federal programs
have been focused on completion of the Interstate system, most available funds have been used to
complete improvements to Interstates 80, 580 and 680. Very little has been available for
improvements to Contra Costa's non-Interstate system highways such as Routes 4, 24, 84, 160,
239 and 242.
Additional funding is needed for critically important improvements to Route 4 in both west and
east county, as well as HOV and auxiliary lane improvements along Interstate 680 in central
CCEP-Moving Contra Costa's Economy into the 21`Cenwry Page 25
county. As a result of a number of factors,the 1998 STIP is likely to be large with significant
new funds available for high priority local projects.
Previous chapters of this report identified and discussed a number of regionally significant
projects throughout Contra Costa County. The following is a summary of unfunded(and partially
funded) regionally significant highway projects in Contra Costa County. Estimated costs are in
millions of 1996 dollars:
East County
Route 4-Railroad Avenue Interchange. Measure C funds are available $55 to $80
to widen to eight lanes(with two HOV lanes)between Bailey Road and
Railroad Avenue. Additional funding is needed to complete the
Railroad Avenue interchange.
Route 4 -Railroad Avenue to 4/160 interchange. This project would $200±
complete Route 4 to the planned width of eight lanes(with two HOV
lanes).
Route 4/Route 160 Interchange. This is a new interchange connecting $40
existing Route 4 to the proposed East County.Corridor(Route 4
bypass) and would be partially funded by the ECCRFFA.
Buchanan Road Bypass. This is a planned new arterial roadway parallel $18 to $20
to Route 4 between Antioch and Pittsburg and would be partially
funded by the ECCRFFA.
Route 4 Bypass- Antioch to Brentwood. This is a four lane roadway $75
around Oakley and Brentwood and would be partially funded by the
ECCRFFA.
East County Corridor- Alameda Connection(Route 841. This would be $400 to $600
a new four to six lane freeway between Brentwood and Livermore
along existing Vasco Road corridor.
East County Corridor- San Joaquin Connection(Route 239). This is a $250
new four lane freeway between Brentwood and Tracy along existing
Byron Highway.
West County
Route 4 West -Phase I(conventional hi wav). This project would $25
improve Route 4 to fully divided conventional highway(Parkway)
standards. Traffic signals would be installed if required. Additional
funds is needed to supplement available Measure C funds.
CCEP-Moving Contra Costa's Eoonomy into the 21`Century Page 26
Route 4 West -Phase II (full freewa ). This project would upgrade the $47
Phase I(conventional highway)project to full freeway standards as
envisioned in the voter approved Measure C Expenditure Plan.
1-80 HOV Lanes. This project would complete High Occupancy $48f
Vehicle(HOV)lanes between Willow Avenue in Hercules and the new
Carquinez Bridge.
Richmond Parkwav/San Pablo Avenue. A new interchange is required $12f
to separate traffic on these two busy arterials.
I-80/Route 4 Interchange. Reconstruct existing interchange to connect $75t
to Route 4 West (included in the Measure C Expenditure Plan).
1-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchanee. Upgrade existing interchange $20f
to current standards.
Central County
I-680 Auxiliary Lanes -Rudgear Road to Alameda County Line. $50 to $70
Provide auxiliary lanes between Rudgear Road in Walnut Creek and
Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon.
I-680 HOV Lanes. Add HOV lanes between Concord and Martinez. $25t
I-680/Route 4. Reconstruct the existing substandard interchange. $100 to $200
The following map illustrates these projects:
1001SR4 M NOV SR 4 1600 Nov JR4 RAOROAD OR 4
LATER. LAMES WEST LANES
LATER AVE Hf, EASE
R10h PKWY
SPA M.
SR4H60
KKR.
l
• atNCNUVNAN
WEST IWPASS EAST
CENTRAL SR486-
PASS
UNNSPOR
LATER.
8R k
SR 216
1660 AMX
LANES
Figure 4 - Major Transportation Projects
CCEP-Moving Contra Costa's Economy into the 21`Century Page 27
The total cost of needed future improvements is well in excess of$1.5 billion. While some $100
million or more may become available through the 1998 STIP, and CCTA will program between
$40 and $45 million in additional Measure C funds for priority projects, more funding is needed.
Given efforts in both Washington and Sacramento to encourage funding from local sources, it is
likely that developer fee programs will continue(and be expanded)and an extension to Contra
Costa's local transportation sales tax program,Measure C,will be proposed.
Over the past few years, the Contra Costa Council, in cooperation with groups such as the
Coalition of Labor and Business(COLAB),the Homebuilders Association(HBA), Central Labor
Council, the Association of Realtors, and the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association has been
focused on improving Route 4, in both west and east county. The Council identified the Route 4
corridor as the highest-priority unfunded project in Contra Costa County because it links three
major geographical areas of the county and because improvements are needed to keep Contra
Costa economically competitive with the Bay Area and the rest of California. CCTA has
supported efforts to focus attention on Route 4 and, over the past few years, has been working to
advance the state-of-readiness of a number of important projects in the corridor.
Because of opportunities presented with the 1998 STIP, consideration must be given to utilizing
the previously successful"partnership"approach to ensure that the County receives as much
STIP money as possible for high priority local projects. While the 1998 STIP presents an
opportunity,this report identifies a number of challenges. Some of the more significant
(challenges and opportunities) include:
► Establishing a priority list of local projects presents a challenge.
► The potential for significant new state/federal funds in 1998 STIP is an opportunity(the
relatively high state of readiness of a number of local projects should position Contra
Costa to complete well for new STIP funds).
► Current cash flow problems with Measure C revenues is a challenge. Aggressive bonding
in the early years of the Measure C program required the Authority to"pledge"future
revenues to cover debt service. As a result, current revenues for priority projects are
somewhat limited. A strategy to address this situation is needed.
► Efforts of CCTA and others to establish sub-regional developer fee programs is a major
challenge. The business community needs to monitor and support these efforts and
participate to ensure sensitivity to economic development issues.
► Maintaining a strong public-private partnership provides both challenges and
opportunities. The business community needs to participate actively in presentations to
CCTA, MTC and the CTC.
► In light of recent court decisions, efforts to extend Contra Costa's local transportation
sales tax program(Measure C)will present a real challenge. Options and opportunities to
address this situation must be identified and evaluated.
► Expanding the successful"Contra Costa Partnership"to include Alameda and San Joaquin
counties is a challenge that could result in significant opportunities for all parties with
respect to economic development opportunities in the East Bay Area.
CCEP-Moving Contra Costa's Eoonomy into the 21`Century Page 28
. u
The above discussion suggests a number of specific action steps over the next few months
including:
► Prioritize local projects for CCTA,MTC as well as our legislative and congressional
delegations in conjunction with the 1998 STIP process.
► Schedule legislative briefings, in cooperation with groups such as the Contra Costa
Council,to secure support for important local projects and strategies.
► Work to reinforce established public-private partnerships and cooperate with CCTA in
presentations to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC) and the California
Transportation Commission(CTC).
► Work with the.Bay Area Council and others in support of efforts to identify and secure
additional revenues for important local and regional transportation projects.
► Continue efforts initiated by the Economic Partnership and others to identify options and
evaluate the possibility of extending Contra Costa's local transportation sales tax.
► Prepare a draft Expenditure Plan(for discussion purposes)to provide a focus on potential
benefits for such a proposal.
One of the most significant near term challenges is development of a list of priority local projects
for consideration by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority(CCTA)in conjunction with their
development of specific proposals to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC) and
the California Transportation Commission(CTC)with respect to the 1998 State Transportation
Improvement Program(STIP). The following is a suggested list of"principles"for consideration
in establishing a priority list of projects for the 1998 STIP:
1. Projects identified in the 1988 voter approved Expenditure Plan for Measure C should
receive priority for available funding.
2. Projects should demonstrate broad economic benefit to the County in the movement of
people, goods and services in order to receive a high priority.
3. Projects must be technically feasible and"deliverable"in accordance with applicable
state/federal standards within the time frames required for available funding.
4. Projects which link two or more geographic sub-regions of the county and/or link Contra
Costa to another county should have priority over other projects.
5. Projects which provide identifiable safety improvements to existing unsafe roadways of
regional significance should have priority.
6. Projects that can attract state and/or federal money or leverage available Measure C funds
should have priority over other projects.
7. Competing projects which have significant local funds should be considered in establishing
priorities.
CCEP-Moving Oxam Costa's Eomomy arto the 21'CwUuy Page 29