Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04141998 - C153 APR 14 19 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSC=tra FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE r+ Costa DATE: March 30, 1998 Cy^ SUBJECT: 1998 Regional Transportation_Plan SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION ECOM ENDATIONS ACCEPT report from the Committee and REQUEST that the Committee monitor the development of the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan and report to the Board as necessary. FISCAL IMPAC None to the General Fund. BACKG.,ROU D/REASONS FOR RE.CC}{ MENDATIONS The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Commission) is responsible for preparing the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and has initiated an update of the Plan for adaption by September 1998. The purpose of the RTP is to provide a long range vision that will guide major investments in the transportation system of the nine-county Bay Area over the next 20- year period. As you know, your Board's representative on the Commission is Supervisor DeSaulnier. On March 17, the Board of Supervisors referred the 1998 update of the RTP to the Transportation Committee for review and recommendation as appropriate. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _J YES SIGNATURE _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ' `" ACTION OF BOA ON PRIL 14, 1998 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x HER 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 SUPERVISO ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact Person, Steven Goetz, 335-1240 ATTESTED Orig: Community Development PHIL BAT HELOR, CLikk OF Public Works, T.E. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR r BY �'' " E DEPUTY SLG:c:ltre nscom\rtp,bo ell 153 1998 Regional Transportation Plan March 30, 1998 Page Two B-ACOROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDAT10N(=tinu�dl On March 30, the Committee met with Supervisor DeSaulnier and OCTA staff to discuss MTC's administration of the update process. The Committee supported the OCTA actions and requested that the County be advised of MTC's response to the OCTA actions. The Committee is providing this report for the Board's information and recommends that the Board accept this report. The Committee will provide future reports to the Board on this issue if appropriate. County staff note: Since the Transportation Committee met, the Planning Committee of the CCTA reviewed MTC's response to the OCTA actions on the 1998 Update on the RTP. The Planning Committee's report to the CCTA is attached as Exhibit A. This recommendation will be discussed at the April 15 meeting of the CCTA. CCTA Planning C'onindhee Aprli 1,1998 Subject MetroPoll#mtn Transportation Comndulon's(MT ,;')response to Authority's comments on the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)Update. Summary of I sues Authority staff will brief the Planning Committee on M M's response to our Track l proposal. Recommendations That the Planning Committee provide stmt'with further direction regarding Track 1 of the RTP in light of MTC's response letter to the Authority. Financial Implications The RTP will specify approximately$3138 million(escalated)in State and federal funds for Track 1 investments in Contra Costa over the next 28 years. Projects that are to receive State and federal funds in future STIP(State Transportation Improvement Program)cycles must be "consistent"with the RTP in order to receive funding. Options At1A Attachments prefiatinary draft�fiack f project list dated March , opffe,sresponse letter is forthem 1) t',lraft Authority response letter to AM commenting on its proposed project list for Contra Costa. 2) Response letter dated March 20, 1998 from.MTP's Lawrence Dahms,Executive Director regarding the Authority's preliminary draft Track 1 project list submittal 3) Letter dated March 5, 1998 to Larry Dahms, hunsmif ing the Authority's RTP 7rarck 1 proposal Changes From ?ire Planning Committee discussed MT QC's response letter regarding Committee Track 1 of the RTR Tire Committee recommended that the Authority transmit a rya response reiterating Contra Costa's,priorities,requesting clarifflcatlon of the "comprehensive corridor management strategy,"and rea,t wing our desire to have the Route 4 Bypass included*i Track 1. Background MTC is currently working towards adoption of the 1998 RTP by September 1998. A September adoption would coincide with MTC's adoption of the updated Transportation Improvement Program (Tip),which will reflect the current State/fede7rat funding cycle. xtn c� isx�su�t�r rt.,�a �.B.S-1 C+C"TA—Planning Committee Apra 1,19" At the March 4 Planning Committee meeting,the Committee approved transmittal of the attached letter to Larry Dahms,Executive Director of MTC. Included in the letter are the Authority's recommendations for$370 million(escalated)in projects to be listed in the RTP. The letter was shared with the Authority and discussed at its March 18*meeting. The Authority agreed with the approach taken in the letter,and also further discussed the issue of how to address Interchange,Arterial,and Intermodal projects in the RTP. The Authority supported use of a"proxy"in the RTP to model smaller Interchange,Arterial,and Intermodal projects for air quality conformity purposes. The goal here is to retain the flexibility that was provided in MTC's 1994 and 1996 RTPs,which allowed the Authority to select$Pacific interchange,arterial,and intermodal pr c jects'from a broad pool of projects. Although the impacts of these projects are quite minuscule in the context of the RTP and MTC's regionalmodel,MTC staff' to date has taken the position that these projects should be identified and specifically listed in the RI 'This approach could potentially limit the Authority's ability to introduce new projects in future funding cycles,since conformity with the RTP is a prerequisite to receipt of state and/or federal funding. In anticipation of possible rejection by MTC of the proxy Concept,the Authority,at its March meeting,moved as follows: • Should MTC require specific projects be listed,request them to incorporate our proxy list into the RTP,and specifically list these smaller projects in Track 1. No further efforts'would'be made at this point to irevise the proxy list` • Clarify for Contra Crista jurisdictions that inclusion of a project in the"proxy"does not represent a commitment to give tate project special priority,nor is it a guarantee of future fimding; implicit in the latter action is that the proxy issue will be dealt with at a later time through amendments to the RlT. As the Authority makes fixture STIP and ISTEA fund programming decisions,smaller projects which would increase capacity,but are not included in the proxy would subsequently need to be amended into the RTP. Where the line will be drawn with respect to project size'is an issue that will probably be addressed on a case-by-case basis through the Bay Area Partnership's Air Quality Conformity Task Force,on which Authority staff'has a seat. *t the time of thb ftmdot w 11' FT(,"s Response As indicated in response-the attached letter,MIC is taking the *f4following position In responses tot yes:our comments: 1) ADU is relke ing Contra da's top priorities by including the Route 4 West($71.3 million) and East($87.7 million)projects in Track 1 of the RTP, 2) AM will include she Rome 4 Bypass as a two-hnie locally,fW ded project in the baseline W, but suggests that the casts a,ftrc nsX,parallel anerlats,arta(orperattional program along the KMo;t t"VATl."d 3.B.5-2 OCTA—Planning Conind tee April 1, 1998 Route 4 freeway corridor be identiftwd and take priority before assigning additional Track I finds to the Bypass. 3) No Regional Measure I funds will be available for the I-80 HO lanes. MTC proposes to split the cost of that project between the Interregional Improvement Program(III'')and the Regional Investment Program. 4) We submitted a list of interchange,arterial, and intermodal projects that we proposed be used as a proxy to represent,for air quality conformity p:aposes, the range of projects that could be funded over a twenty yearperiod AIM has elected to list these projects individually in Track 1. Next Steps The Authority may comment further on the Draft RTP after it has been issued by MM. the current schedule is for the Draft to be available in June 1998, which would allow the Authority to submit farther comments in July. In the short run, the;Planning Committee recommends transmitting a rebuttal to Af 's position, focusing on the Bypass issue(draft letter attached). Other opportunities include testa,fying before MX's Work Program Committee in May or Janne. As it stands, we expect MIC to issue the Draft RTP with only the two-lane Route 4 Bypass included as a locally funded baseline pro,jest. April 16, 1998 Mr.Lawrence Dahms Executive Director Metropolitan Transportation Commission 1131 Eighth Street Oakland,CA 94607.4700 SUBJECT.Preliminary Draft 1998 Regional Transportation Plan Update.—Your letter dated March 20, 1998(received March 30, 1998) Lear W.Dahms: Thank you for your response to our proposals for Contra Costa's portion of the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan Update. Overall,we appreciate that the draft Plan includes our highest priorities,freeway improvements to Route 4 West and East,in Track I of the draft. We are, however,quite disappointed with your decision to exclude the State Route 4 Bypass widening project from Track I of that draft. Before allocating Track I funds to the Bypass,you indicated:that Route 4 congestion would dictate formulation of a"comprehensive corridor management strategy.. .[which would include]complementary improvements for transit,parallel arterials,and operational programs that would make the entire[Route 4]corridor work." However,the Authority believes it Im developed an appropriate strategy for the Route 4 corridor,including a staged plan for highway improvements. While we would be pleased to work with MTC regarding further strategies for the+corridor,our decision to seek future State and federal funding eligibility for the SR-4 Bypass reflects a careful consideration of the transportation needs in our East County area. In regard to your comments,the Authority seeks clarfiication about your proposed approach-- has MTC adopted a new policy that"comprehensivefi'solutions must be identified and completely addressed for one problem area,Wore improvements in another corridor can be sought? Ik The SR-4 Bypass is anticipated to become State Route 4. It has an approved PSR and CEQA clearance. Half the cost to construct the Bypass($7S million)is already being shouldered by developer fees,and the fust two-lane phase is included in the RTP baseline as a locally funded project. However,the balance of the cost to complete the project as a four-lane expressway is expected:to come from statelfederal sources. That is consistent with the nexus analysis,which 3.X3.5-xt Mr.Dahms April 16, 1998 - -- - PMeZ assumed approximately 50 percent of the travel demand would be existing and through trips, unrelated to development. The Bypass is a reliever route,slated to replace the existing inadequate two and foto lane SR-4 in central Oakley and downtown Brentwood. It will shift through traffic away from surface streets to a modern,safer,expressway-type facility. Caltrans*route concept report anticipates it will ultimately become Route 4. The Authority therefore strongly believes that s taWfederal dollars are clearly warranted for one-half of the Bypass,and envisions staged improvements in the future to complement initial developer funding. The RTP is a necessary first step to implement that strategy. You have requested that we meet so that MTC staff`can gain a better understanding of the sources of funds and tuning of the SR4 Bypass improvements. We would be pleased to do so at your convenience. This would give us the opportunity to go through the cost estimates,and to explain the Bypass in more detail. We do not,however,agree with your proposal to exclude the SR-4 Bypass,a future state highway,from Track 1. We look forward to meeting with you to discuss this matter;and hope to reverse your preliminary decision to exclude the Bypass from Trach I of the 1998 RTP. Sincerely, ROBERT K.MCCI.FAl7Y Executive Director cc: Authority Commissioners MTC Commissioners Dennis Fay,ACCMA Mike Bvanhoe,SVTA Marty Tuttle,SCCMD Chris Brittle,MTC David Tannehill,MTC Attachments: CCTA's original lector to MTC MTC*s response how to CCTA File: 13.3.3a c:XaAVHZ9aVJM=I"9vs W mr.WPD r53 METROPOLITAN jwaph P.Sort Me"Cmw AW TRANSPORTATION 101 �hStwt CAM OW"G%07-4700 COMMISSION Tei.:S10.464.7700 TTYFTI3D:510.464.7769 Fax S10.46C7W e-mail:infoomx. -py Web dw WWW mmc a.guv jwmn r h1arch 20, 1998 cue. YrrClem CaraY W.Robert .#rioCleary � � „w• y K 3 lOdti A++erlt � +' _ u . Executive Director W30 Q . . Contra Costa Transportation Authority CW.Q1Ss& 130 Treat Boulevard � asko"j.AV ' � Walnut Creek,CA 94596 ;.. ,. „''r ad"ofCom RE: Preliminary Draft 1918 Update—Your Letter Dated March 4, 111$ Mmw M Gkw#W Dear Bob: Thank you for your comments regarding the 1998 Regional.Transportation Plan and Track X00 Mwir Z. As you know,the development of the RTP is an ongoing process,and we will not be releasing our draft until June 1998 after further public outreach. Our discussions with you T and other counties to date have been geared to developing a better understanding of current ` "° ""°'' nwcounty and transit operator priorities and to seeing how these priorities might fit�+rithin May V.xW9 projected funding constraints. ,wr.c kY=ems �Mmoom Attachment I is the most recent working version of Track 1 investments for Contra Caste `mads uclawcaftV County. We understand that the County's two highest priorities are the f other expansion of AmNUiA&d Route 4 east of RAilroad Avenue to Route 160 and the upgrading of Route 4 between Cummings Sky"y and I-84 to full freeway standards. Consistent with these priorities, Table I identifies now Track i funding for the_se projects.In consider additional changes r to Table 1,we will need more information. Fust,the Transportation Authority is currently in the process of completing a WOr Investment Study for Route 4 between Railroad Ave.and Route 160. While we have seen some preliminary information on the cost of widening of Route 4 under various > configurations,a comprehensive corridor st tegy would also include r, complementary improvements for transit,parallelarterials and operational programs that s would make the entire corridor wo&it seems prudent to accurately determine these costs and provide for thew needs fast before new Track 1 funding for the Roue 4 Bypass. Lowmw n'DOWno RTP includes the 2 lane,locally fimded Route 4 Bypass P based on aprevious wism F. request from the county.The shortfall:for the entire 4-lane project was initially reported as $75 million,but appears to have changed in r+eecnt discussions with county staff With regard to the specific cost estimates for the Route 4 Bypass,we would like to meet with yo. Mr.Robert K. McCleary Manch 20, 1998 Page 2 to gain a better understanding of the current sources of funds and timing of contemplated improvements. Your letter requests Regional Measure 1 funding for the 1-80 HUY lane,but we have Previously indicated that there are no Regional Measure 1 funds available.As shown in Table 1, MTC proposes splitting the cost of this project between the Interregional Improvement Program(IIP)and the Regional Investment Program. Finally in a recent bull,several Contra Costa legislators have requested;Caltrans to develop a PSR for the Caldecott Tunnel 4*bore. This suggests that this project may become a higher priority for funding in the RTP horizon and could compete with other projects in the county. Treatmenl 4f Io&Cl, ge.Irtt+ertq%W aid Arttxial imnv== Your letter states that MTC is interested in identifying all projects exceeding$10 million in cost. As discussed with the Partnership,our interest is limited to sig cant capacity- increasing projects on the Metropolitan Transportation System('&1"I'S). In order to streamline the process of determining which projects are"significant",we agreed that, unless otherwise assumed,all capacity increasmg projects on the.MTS that exceed$10 million in current dollars would be deemed significant and should be individually identified. We previously agreed that noon-capacity arterial'improvements could be included as a"lump sum"set aside in the RTP in that they would not affect air quality. Thus,we have included $30 million in A wding for non-MM arterials in the 1-80,1-680,and Route 4 corridors. However,MTC staff still believes that individually identfyng significant MTS capacity- increasing projects in the RTP is a reasonable and necessary approach for the following reasons: • We agree that over twenty years it is probably difficult to do mnine all the arterial projects in the RTP,but there should be an angering process am the county to resolve these issues before the RIP is formality updated. • Discussing tradeoffs between transportation'investments in the region should involve the disclosure of significant projects which have the potential to shift the mix and flavor of transportation investments. This disclosure also permits-meaningful public participation in commenting on the RTP. • We can use proxies for air quality analysis as you suggest(Nate that BPA regulations require"regionally significant"Proxy projects to be explicitly'included m the air quality model). • A prioritization of lwt"I S projects exceeding the$14 million threshold is important, because only those projects jL1Wd in Track l will be eligible for falderal and state Banding. + Mr.Robert K. McCleary March 20 1998 Page. I Thank you for your comments on Track 2. There may be some confusion in terms of what MTC proposes to include in our LIR analysis for Track 2. The EIR"Sales Tax"alternative will include those counties that have or ere close to defining a sales tax plan and are planning to go to the voters in the near future. As you point out,Contra Costa has not yet embarked on this discussion,and we would not be including any new Contra Costa County projects in our Track 2 EIR analysis. Finally,over this spring and summer we will continue to work with you to develop the 1998 RTP. We are planning three subregiona] 1998 RTP workshops in April-early May and then a workshop in each County tater in June after the draft RTP is released. if you have any questions,don't hesitate to call me or Craig Goldblatt of my staff at(5 10)464-7837. Sincerely, `ALawlrece D.Dahms + Executive Director cc: Commissioner DeSauln ier Commissioner Wright Dennis Pay Nllke Evanhoe Many Tuttle Chris Brittle David Tannehill . ,.5-g 4., I 5 ,3 --If jM , . f NN t , wN � t f f i ! N a + » M M M M M'M N N M i► M M M M»I»FN (( M f4 N » M » N N Y° »NM. s wr do CONTRA COSTA COMMONERS: TRANSPORTATION AUTHO ITY Sarball:claw t Mph 4, 1998 CAadk Abnow t7oe chairMr.Lawrence Dahm:s Executive Director 1Aw rron Metropolitan Transportation Commission .TAW XW*9 101 Eighth Street Joe cowlamma Oakland,CA 94607-4700 Donna Otrbtr SUBJECT.. Preliminary Draft 1998 RTP Update--Track 1 and Track 2 Project Priorities ♦fXk Orro0erg L)eat'Mr . Sne LA*ha k AW Payton With this,lett6r we are transmitting our preliminary project recommendations for Track I and comments on Track 2 of the 1999 Regional Transportation Plan(RTP)Update to MTC,for JWk Pkme incorporation into the grafi:RTP. We also seek clarification froth MTC on how it will treat fiennam wehn interchanges and arterial improvement projects for the purposes ofair quality conformity,and suggest that past practices allowing aggregation of such projects continue. XokFtMCC%Wy air Changers to the Bsellne It is our understanding that the 1998 RTP Update will include the entire 1998 STfP in the Baseline scenario. Accordingly,the following two major projects which fonneicly wesre in Track 1 of the 1996 RTP should be moved to the Baseline scenario of the 1998RTP Update. • The J-W HCtV lane project f om North'Main t0'Manna`lista;, Reconstructing the Railroad Avenue interchanges on SR 4,and widening to 8 lanes to west of Loveridge Road(including an ROV tans). "a Additional modificadons to the Baseline molude two new 104 percent locally Amded;proJc �i both in the City of Con cord,and a change to the description of the locally-fimdexl,near team a Route 4 Bypass project: t3+tE1'tYrrt Bind. s"ISO Comm erce Avenue extension to Willow Paras Road; • W ON* • Panoramic Drive extension from North Concord BART to Willow Pass Road, CA 94W and Routes 4 Bypass:Routes 4/160/Bypass Interchange to I onetree Way,4 lanes; s10-s39-"70 Lonearoe Way to Vasco I os4 2 team all on now a€i ernt. ie 510-"$-3M Tires 1 Project Priories The attached table shows o&hi priority pri ty projocts for htcluslon in Track l of the 1998 draft RTP. 'the list fits within the level of funding elated to be avallAte by MTC for Contra Costa,$874 million,Aftr deducting$110 million as a"ata#-aside"for finure transit capital xn&.5-tri Mr.Dahms Mauch 4, 1998 Pane needs. Expanding State Route 4 which experiences safety,problems to the wag,and capacity Problems to the east,is our number one priority. Due to the significant new funding capacity of the Track I revenue estimate, we now believe that completion of SR 4 to a 4-lane freeway from 1-80 to the CUM ings Skyway can be accommodated in Track 1. Eastward;expansion of SR 4 to 8 lanes from went of Loveridge Road to Somersville(with H©V) and 6 lance(mixed flow)to SR 160,is another key Track'I improvement for this vital link. We also propose upgrading portions of the 2-lane SR 4 bypass(a Baseline project)to a 4-lane expressway in Track 1,including now interchanges at Laurel Road and Lune Tree Way. Other priorities are listed below: • Completion of the 1-80 HOV lanes f om SR 4 to the Carquinez Bridge is a high priority fbr Contra Costa;however,as we made akar during the 1994 and 1996 RTP efforts,we advocate use of bridge toll funds as the most appropriate revenue source for this project;or,potentially,IIP funds. • We also propose to keep the I-690 auxiliary lanes from Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Road(Danville/San Ramon)in Track 1. Subject to matching commitments by Alameda CMA,the Authority also supports the first phase of funding for safety improvements to Vasco Road I between the Contra Costa County line and the City of Livermore. Treatment of Interchange,Intermodal and Arterial Improvements Trade I of the 1994 and 1996 RTPs for Contra Costa identified broad categories of interchange and arterial improvements by corridor and assigned projected Track I revenues to them; however,the RIP did not'list specific projects within those categories. in recent discussions at the Pattfunhip Planning and Operations Committee,MTC staffrequestod that we specifically identify my miect that exceeds$10 million is cost,or which would affect the transportation modeling results(and,presumably,air Quality conformity analysis). CoMeivably,projects that cast less than$10 million could affect air quality,and therefore would need to be listed. MTC would then conduct its ai Mr.Dabrns March 4, 1998 Page 3 This approach,however,also has several disadvantages: • it forces the CMAs to make de facto programming decisions on potentially modest projects,before an adequate analysis of project effectiveness,feasibility and readiness is available. * It requires that the CMAs prejudge the next nine S'I IP cycles,effectively undertaking a detailed 20-year programming process. • It presumes that JA's computer traffie model(WI`CFCAST)can mmingful distinguish e-premed changes such as intersection unprove a nN W*nbange modifications,and enhancements to intermodal faailities;a level of sensitivity clearly beyond its true capability. It is extremely difficult for us to predict exactly which arterial,interchange improvement,and intermodal projects should be included in Track 1. We thcmfore propose drat,for air quality conformity purposes,the following projects be modeled as a"proxy"for the aggregated$60 million included in our list for interchange,intermodal and arterial improvements,but that these projects be listed in the RTI'as"proxy"projects representing a larger universe of future potential projects. • In West County: -- Appian Way:widen from 3 to 4 lanes from San Pablo Darn Road to 1-90;and — Richmond Intermodal Facility enhancemenrt. In Central county. — Alhambra Avenue.widen:from SR 4 to McA.lvey; — Pacheco Blvd.widen to 4 lames,Blum to Arthur,and -- Ygnacio ValleyAU rker Pass Road.widen from Cowed!to Clearbrook. In Southwu n County,I-UWAlcosta Boulevard Interchange improvements. • In East County,assume in the MTCFCAST modd,a five percent cspa+city increase along I:irke r'Pas tAilroad Avenue,L land Road,James Donlon Boulevard,Somerrsville Road, Lone Tree Way,Brentwood Boulevard,and Walnut Boulevard.--Tris would allow air quality conformity of future arterial improvements on the Lute 4 corridor,while interchanges would be conformed through the specific SR 4 widening project listed in Track 1. To undertake a formal prioritization process for arterial,intermodal and,intencharege improvement projects would take at least a couple of months,and could be quite controversial. We are reluctant to undertake such an effort without a clear indication fpm you that this is abohOly necessary. We would urp dust MIC use our proxy for air gwrlity modeling purposes,as a vehicle to conform our yet -be identified anal and interchange preject priorities,which will evolve is ficture STIP cycles. If this is unacceptable,we seek further clarification on which types of projects would meed to be specifically listed in Truk 1 in order to be considered as coir orming,when flrture<requests for fumdmo are proffer. Mr..Dahms March 4, 1998 Detailed cost infomration,Owfuming that the above proxy list fits within a $60 million Track 1 budget constraint,is attached. Ira& In Contra Costa,discussions on Track 2 have,to this point,been general in nature.Our preliminary comments are as follows: • We support adding a 4*bore to the Caldecott Tunwl,as shown in MTC*s preliminary description of Track 2. • We recommend inclusion of the Buchanan Bypass in Track 2. • Please refer to the Brentwood Bypass as the SR 4 Bypass. We are proposing that the expansion of that facility from 2 to 4 lanes,with new interchanges at Laurel Road and Lone Tree Way,be included in Track 1,rather than in Track 2 as the MTC preliminary draft documents show. Beyond that,we have not set any,priorities within the financial constraint of a Measure C sales tax rollover or a new regional gas tax.These priorities could only be decided upon with a clear definition of f inure revenue figures in hand. We note that the Measure C sales tax is in force until the year 2009. Therefore,at this juncture,definition of project list for a potentialsales tax roll over is only beginning to become a major discussion item for the Authority. Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to the RTP Update process. We look forward to your response on the above issues,and an opportunity to work closely with you to insure that Contra Costa's highest priorities are considered in the air quality modeling for the Draft EM. If you have any concerns,we would appreciate hearing froom you at the earliest possible time-- preferably before the,March 18, 1998,Authority meeting. Sincerely, Rt�BERT K.McC Y Executive Director cc; Authority members Han.Mark DeSa ulnier Hon.'Sharon Brown Dennis Fay,ACCMA Milm Evanhoe,9VTA Marty Tuttle,SCCMll Chris Brittle,WM David Tannehill,WC File. PRELIMINARY 'DRAFT 4-Mar-98 TRACK. I INVESTMENTS 1998 fteglonal Transportation Plan for Contra Costa County Project costs and revenues shown in millions of escalated dollars Other Pro aarct Totari Cost Fu i Track 1 Total h .• . ,th New express buses(rtapltarl only) $25.0 $0.0 $25.0 1-80 Ht3V lanes,5R 4 to Carriuinez Bridge $39.4 $0.0 $39.4 AC Transit enhanced service,San Pablo Avenue $3.4 $0.0 $3.4 1-30:in .MI e,Intermodal&artery! ears 3 $10.0 $0,0 $10.0 IIIh SR 4 West widen to full freeway $77.3 $6.0 $71.3 5R 4 East 8 lanes to Somer sville(with HOV} 6 lanes $131.9 $65.9 $65.9 beyond(4) SR 4 Bypass:widen to 4 lanes&now interchanges $41.4 $5.9 $35.5 SR 4:E change,Intermodal&arterial 3) $25:0 $0.0 $2&0 ..h .M1. !is .!.- $•`i: I-680 pary L.anes, l7'iablo Rd to Bea�inger Crru�yon $72.9 524.0 $48.9 SR 24 auxiliary lanes,Gateway Blvdto Brookwood Rd $10.3 $0.0 $10.3 I-uc 0:Interchan1m Intermodal&arterial pr of ects(3) $25.0 $0.0 $25.0 IND.=111101 Vasco Rd`Improvements 1n Alameda County(5) $5.8 $0.0 $5.8 WO&-Arterial!Mproyernenu $5:0 $0.0 $5.0 Total $472.4 $101.9 $370.5 AvWlable'Track f Riwenues(d) Appraxknat* $370.0 (1) "Otter Funds"are from local sales taut revenuers and Impact few (2) 'Track 1 Funds!we from STP,CMAQ.TIP and UP (3) A suggested'proxy'Ust of'Interchange,Interum)dal and arterial projects for auralyzing atr,quality conformity Is* a)widen Appian Way from 3 to 4 lanes from San Pablo loam Road to 1-80 b)Nchmond Intermodal Transfer Station c)widen YVuclo Valiey/Kirker'Pass from Cowell'to Clea rbrook d)widen Alhambra Avenue fent SR 4 to McAlvey e)widen Pacheco Blvd from Blum to Arthur f)Improve the 1- 3 Alcosta k ter dmp g)a 5%capacity increase on parallel arterials to SR 4 East Kirker Pass,Railroad Avenue,end Road,,wines Donlon Boulavard,SomervAte Road,tone Tree Way,Brentwood and Walnut Boulevard • (4) SR 4 widening projects assume 50%of cast will be locally funded (5) Contingent on Alameda County match of$5µ8 M (6) Assumes"takedcwsrne of Contra C**Ws share of 75%of BART and 100%of AC Transh cm l shortfalls W Baseline Projects for the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan Cones Cosfar County 4-Mar.S►8 def Stags 1-6t MR 24 Interchange Under Construction l•6W lnterchange%over rossing knprove enta Under Construction Richmond Parkway:Please 18 south+&Phase 4 Under Construction Oak Park Blvd``overcrossing ksrovements Locally Funded Gateway Lamorinda Traffic Programs Locally funded SR+RR Arra VC lmprovern eats,widen to Loveridge Locally Funded SR 24.auxiliary lane(Initial stages of design ordy) Locally Funded SR 4 Bypass:I/C 0 SR 4/1,60.4 lances to Lona Trm Way,2 t*cat1y Funded to Vasco Road.all on new nmem Bollinger Canyon Rd extend,Alcosta to Dougherty Lowly Funded L tm ty Rd:widen to 6 lanes.Red"Flow to AkWmda Locally Funded Windermere Pkwy:construct 4 lanes Wcadly Funded East Branch:construct 4 lanes,Bollinger to Camino Tassalam Locally Funded SR 242:mbc"flow lane Locally Funded 1=680.HOV lanes,Benicia-Martinez Sri*to N.Main STIP Funds Unicaa-Martinez Bridge:construct 2nd span STIP Funds Carquinez Bridge:replace west bridge,add HOV MP Funds Amtrak Capital Corridor.expand service STIP Funds SR 4 TOS STIP Funds SR 4:widen to 8 lanes(2 HOV),Salley to RR STIP Funds Martinez Intermodal Facility STIP Funds SR 242:Concord ramps and auxiliary lane STIP Funds r FLn i+4 H V► ih N i+�l �h H 16 inup , ro 404 44 44 40fk ow 40'0 at Ul 401k H 44 MT 404 404 H Ci v ir4 { tit tt4 H. 404 tat fA , - .- . (e ......... .......... .............. . . ..