My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 00059
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
RES 00059
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/6/2005 4:54:39 PM
Creation date
6/1/2000 12:00:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
5/16/2000
DOCUMENT NO
00059
NOTES
TRI-VALLEY
NOTES 3
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Adion Plan Update <br /> <br />project and help get additional State or federal funding. Projects 4 and 5 are not yet in <br />Track 1 of MTC's Regional Transportation Plan. <br /> <br />Each jurisdicrion may rerain up to 20 percent of TVTDF revenues it collects. This share of <br />the fees must be used to fund the development or construction of one the 11 projects listed <br />above. ~ ITVT~F ~as paid off ACTA and by press time will also have paid off Dublin and Pleasant ~ <br />It \.contnbutlOnstoACTA. \~ l)W\il\jr)'" on or <br /> <br />,As; vf Del:t:I1IDn J 1, 199.8, the TVTDF had gCw...l<1rcd 368m) 1.... IlI11I1VII. 1 rw;o>ugn me end <br />of FY 2012/2013, the TVTDF is forecast to generate about $56.7 million to fund identified <br />projects in the Tri-Valley. The estimated cost for all eleven identified regional projects, <br />however, is $466.1 million, far greater than expected fee revenues. Even with other sources <br />of funding including Measure C), the SEP estimates a shortfall of about $300 million. Even <br />if Alameda County voters approve a new Measure B, the shortfall will be in the $150-175 <br />million range. <br /> <br />Under the initial TVTDF fee schedule, single-family residential uses were charged $1,500; <br />multi-family residential uses were charged $1,050; retail, commercial and office uses were <br />charged $1.00 per square foot; and industrial uses were charged $0.75 per square foot. All <br />other uses were charged $600 per peak-hour trip generated. The fees are escalated with <br />increases in inflation in construction costs. <br /> <br />SHARED FACILITIES <br /> <br />Implementation of much of the planned arterial system will be the direct responsibility of <br />new development. Many of the arterials, however, are shared among jurisdictions. <br /> <br />For each of these improvements, a negotiated agreement needs to be reached about cost <br />sharing between jurisdictions. The cost-sharing approach could be based on which jurisdic- <br />tion's traffic is expected to use the facility, or it could be based simply on the boundaries <br />within which the facility lies, or a combination. These agreements should be negotiated in <br />advance so that when development takes place, the responsibility for road improvements is <br />clear. <br /> <br />Monitoring Transpartation Service Objectives <br /> <br />The Transportation Service Objectives (TSOs) are the heart of the TVTP. While certain <br />growth assumptions are a part of the plan, they serve merely to guide the specification of a <br />planned transportation system and financing program. The TVTP does not control growth <br />directly but indirectly through the TSOs. <br /> <br />Under existing conditions, the TSOs relating to freeway and intersection levels of service <br />are largely being met. Future growth should be matched with road improvements so that <br /> <br />Page 68 <br /> <br />18 April 2000 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.