HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-009
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-----.-T
I
1
RESOLUTION NO.
83..9
2
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION
OF AN AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION WITH SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS
RELATING TO PREPARATION OF THE ROUTE 30 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
BE IT RESOLVED 8Y THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
3
4
5
SECTION 1. The Mayor of the City of San Bernardino is hereby
authorized and directed to execute on behalf of said City an Agreement for
6
7
Participation with San Bernardino Associated Governments relating to prepara-
8
tion of the Route 30 Implementation Study, a copy of which is attached hereto,
9
marked Exhibit "I' and incorporated herein by reference as fully as though
set forth at length.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by
the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
regular
meeting thereof, held on the 17th day of ,January
1983, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Council Members Castaneda, Reillv, Hernandez,
t'arks, Ouiel, Hobbs, strickler
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
~U/4/~
/' City Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this /P7~
day of
Januarv
, 1983.
25
Approved as to form:
26
27
~~~~~,~
City Att ney
28
..
~7
e
EXHIBIT ''1'''
AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION
ROUTE 30 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
This Agreement, made and entered into this
~5/..d day of
(')
\ t
!
here-
1983 by and between The City of San Bernardino, a Municipal
inafter referred to as "City", and the San Bernardino Associated Governments,
hereinafter referred to as SANBAG.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the California Transportation Commission has mandated
local governmental jurisdictions within the Route 30 Corridor to develop an
implementation plan for the development of a transportation facility within
the corridor; and
WHEREAS, the Route 30 Group was formed under the sponsorship of
SAN BAG to develop said Plan; and
WHEREAS, City is a member of the Route 30 Group and benefits from
the efforts to generate said plan; and
WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary for the Route 30 Group to retain
the services of the selected consulting firms to assist in the development
of the Route 30 Implementation Plan; and
WHEREAS, SAN BAG has agreed subject to sufficient funding to act as
lead agent for preparation of the Implementation Plan and as such, to contract
with the consulting firms to perform necessary work to develop the plan
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows:
SANBAG SHALL:
1. Act as lead agency in contracting and administrating with the
firms of PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, QUADE AND DOUGLAS, INC., AL HOLLINDEN, ARTHUR
BAUER & ASSOC., ROBERT J. HARMON & ASSOCIATES to develop an Implementation
Plan for Route 30 as described in Exhibit "A" entitled Scope of Services
.
...
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
2. Participate towards the total cost of preparation of the
implementation plan as specified in Exhibit "B" which is attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference.
3. Hold all funds for completion of said consultant's contract
and make progress payments as provided for within said contract.
4. Provide liaison with the Route 30 Group to insure timely
compliance with the provisions of said consultant's contract.
CITY SHALL:
1. Pay to SANBAG $15,000.00 for its share of the total cost of
the consultant's contract for the Route 30 Implementation Plan. Payment
shall be submitted in two payments, the first payment on or before February
15, 1983 and the second payment on or before August 15, 1983. The first
payment shall not be less than fifty percent (50%) of the total amount.
2. Oesignate an Agency Representative and a Technical Representa-
tive to act on its behalf to facilitate community interaction and review of
the plan alternatives for facility type and financing.
3. Make all efforts to insure the timely review of all relevant
material to maintain the project schedule as outlined in Exhibit "A".
4. Review and comment on all relevant stages of the plan develop-
ment and consider adoption of the final Implementation Action Plan.
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED THAT:
1. SAN BAG shall issue a Notice to Proceed on the consultant's
contract only upon determination of the Route 30 Group that sufficient funds
have been deposited or agreed to be deposited to guarantee payment for ser-
vices rendered. SAN BAG shall insure in its contract with consultant that
there will be no contractual obligation imposed on SAN BAG or any participating
agencies in the event insufficient funds are committed to permit carrying out
- 2 -
.
. .
....
the consultant's proposed work.
2. In the event that sufficient funds are not received to complete
the plan or the contract is terminated for cause, funds not expended shall be
returned to the City in proportion to the amount contributed by each agency
to the date of termination.
3. This contract shall inure to the benefit of and be binding
upon the successors and assigns of both parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said parties have executed this agreement on
the date first hereinabove written.
ATTEST:
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
~@/LJ:G$
C.tty Cl erk
Approved as to form:
~~~~f
Clty At orney
SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS
by
ATTEST:
_~~o.~~
~
- 3 -
-.
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Task 1: Identify Facility Coneeot Desittn Ootions and Costs
Purpose: Create a set of specific route development/phasing options in map form
expanding on the results of the past study but focussing on specific facility configuration,
timing, and access options at the local community level. Determine approximate facility
development costs for each option as targets for financing strategies to be developed in
Task 2.
<
Activities: Activities under this task will comprise a concentrated effort to move
as quickly as possible from previous findings on the corridor to specific facility options of
potential local interest.
Startup activities would include: (1) a brief review of the past documentation on the
project, culminating in a very brief synopsis of principal findings as they relate to (a) the
acknowledged transportation role a developed Route 30 would play in the circulation system
of the West Valley area, and (b) the past analyses, deliberations, and information sources
that may be tapped to avoid duplication of effort in this study; (2) detailed consultations
with Caltrans and City and County representatives to update and quickly document the
status of the right-of-way along the entire corridor; (3) assembly of a comprehensive,
annotated list of all aerial photography and mapping available along the corridor; and (4)
detailed consultations with Caltrans on the past thinking on the type of freeway (elevated,
depressed, at-grade, etc.) Route 30 had been contemplated to be along its length.
An initial series of interviews will be held with local agency representatives at the City
Engineer/City Manager level, with early participation at the decision-maker level highly
encouraged. These interviews would be designed to: (1) quickly identify and document
the up-to-the-minute thinking of each agency regarding what it hopes to achieve or attain
within its own jursidiction from Route 30; (2) quickly identify the formal status of Route 30
in existing city circulation or transportation elements or other official policy documents,
including any planning details reflecting expectations or desires about interchange
locations, functional characteristics, connectivity to development areas, etc.; (3) identify
for incorporation into the initial alternatives set any local ideas, regardless of source,
concerning expressed preferences or concerns regarding how and when Route 30 would be
developed through their communities; (4) identify and \leI'My any future facilities intended
to intersect Route 30 that might influence route design options; (5) identify specific route
configuration alternatives senior staff or decision-makers have in mind for examination
under this project; (6) identify major generators or specific community areas whose accessi-
bility to Route 30 or whose impacts from Route 30 are expected to be of special importance
to the local community; and (7) document the anticipated timing and magnitude of major
anticipated new land developments in each jurisdiction.
,
Further consultations would then be held with City Engineers to quickly identify from a
traffic management/traffic planning viewpoint the current status and future plans for
existing arterial streets (particularly Baseline and Highland) that are currently on Route 30.
This will include present and ultimate right-of-way, cross-section, and lane configurations,
identification of controlling intersections and capacity constraints, predominant signal
phases and critical movements, etc. This understanding will be key in developing specific
design options, particularly where phased improvements call for developing only a portion
of the corridor. Signal interconnect status and plans shall also be documented where
relevant.
-7-
.
With the above as background resource information, specific facility design options would
be developed. To this point, previous work has identified the "upper limits" of corridor
development recommended by major sectors of the corridor and has recommended a general
strategy of phasing from west to east and "laterallyj, from arterial to freeway in those
sections where freeway development for ultimate conditions has been recommended. To
avoid "reinventing the wheel," it is prudent to accept those "upper limits" as upper bounds
on the level of facility to be ultimately developed under any option suggested for considera-
tion in this study, barring any strong local reason to the contrary that might be brought up
in the consultations mentioned above. Within those limits, though, (1) the widest possible
latitude in formulating options should be allowed at this point, and (2) the level of detail
should be brought into sharp focus at the local level. The potential for innovation in this
project is key at this juncture. While it is impossible to predict the exact set of options
that would be produced under this task, there are a number of degrees of freedom that
can be identified. The following list is not exhaustive and is only a sample. Varying these
elements could lead to distinctly different options or suboptions.
1. For freeways, the number and location of interchanges, the configuration of interchanges
(diamond, cloverleaf, trumpet, etc.).
2. Again, for freeways, whether the freeway will be depressed with overcrossings at-
grade, elevated with undercrossings at-grade, or at-grade with overcrossings elevated,
etc.
3. For so-called "arterial," whether access can be gained to the new arterial only at
significant cross-streets (and, if so, how many and which ones), or whether access is
available from any intersecting street.
4. For freeways, which streets will overcross the freeway and which will be closed.
5. Whether reversible lanes have any applicability within the corridor for any segment
under consideration.
6. Transition between segments of differing cross-section or functional type of facility.
7. Design standards, and vehicle mix intended to use specific lanes or the facility in
toto.
8. Frontage roads: with expressway or freeway options, should frontage roads be
developed, how would they be integrated. .
For Route 30, a key element is phasing. While the initial thinking on specific route concept
design options will be focussed on ultimate facility configuration, initial phasing
strategies toward those ultimate options should be identified at this point, if only in
narrative form. It is important for local feedback to alternative design concepts to be
able to visualize how the route would/could be developed in stages, what the facility would
look like and how it would operate with the existing system at each stage, and what the
implications would be if route development did not proceed to the next stage for an extended
period of time. Also, conceptual phasing will be important in the consideration of local
financing strategy options in Task 2.
It is important that an option would be defined by a sketch map of the entire corridor
showing actual concept centerline for each new roadway proposed, with diagrammatic
illustration of any ramp connections. Along each new segment the type of facility, type
-8-
.
of access, and number of lanes would be shown. An initial concept cross-section would be
identified for each type of section for initial costing purposes. A supplemental sheet
focussing on each local jurisdiction could be appended as appropriate.
Costs associated with each option would be developed by applying appropriate unit costs
to the various lengths of facility proposed by type. This would be supplemented by lump
sum or other allowances for any special cost sensitive items, such as overcrossing or inter-
change structures, drainage considerations, special earthwork, etc.
Product: Working Paper No.1, Route 30 Desi~ Ootions, containing the following:
Brief summary of the background information identified above
Map sets and narrative on each option, including ultimate configuration,
possible phasing approaches, and cost estimates.
Discussion: The physical facility design options need to reflect both technical and
policy input; the sooner this is done in the process, the greater the opportunity for
deliberation and consensus building with specifics at hand for consideration. The background
information need not be time consuming; Parsons Brinckerhoff has already reviewed a
majority of the Route 30 documents in conjunction with other work the firm has done in
the Western San Bernardino County area and the Los Angeles-San Bernardino County corridors.
The real emphasis in this task is on the development of the options, reflecting the greatest
amount of imagination in putting together plausible and practical systems of high level
arterial/low or high level freeway components as most appropriate to the circumstances
in the corridor. "High Flow Arterial" concepts, as have recently been tested in Orange
County, will be considered in options for Route 30, as will a full range of freeway/expressway/
parkway design options for the high demand sections of the corridor.
-9-
Task 2: Identify Local Financing Strat~ Ootions
Purpose: Assemble all previously developed financial concepts for the Route 30
Corridor, and augment this listing with others which may be conceived by the study team.
Activities: Significant work has been accomplished previously in the conceptual
planning for the Route 30 Corridor. Such work has encompassed both development of
design concepts and strategies for funding and financing corridor implementation. The
principal activity in this task will be to generate a complete listing and documentation of
potential mechanisms to pay for the construction of the Route 30 facility.
Initially, alternatives considered in the Route 30 Study conducted for the California
Transportation Commission will be arrayed. Many traditional and several innovative
approaches were documented, and these will form the core listing. It is clear that locally-
based financial strategies acceptable to the public, the legislature, and the local
jurisdictions will eventually be required to fund the corridor. Thus, we will concentrate
on augmenting the core list with techniques various members of the study team have
developed and/or utilized in previous work throughout the United States for local revenue
generation. At this point in the process, we will consider all potential techniques as a
means of beginning the consensus building process with a full slate of options. As the
process proceeds, many concepts will quickly drop out of further consideration as "fatal
flaws" are noted by participants in the consensus building process. We expect the basic
list to encompass individual sources for generating local revenue, including, for example,
the following:
. Motor fuel tax
. Road tolls
. Transit fares (where transit may be integrated in the
highway concept
. Parking fees
. Vehicle registration fees
. Vehicle property tax
. Sales tax
. Commercial development fees
. Industrial development fees
. Residential development fees
. Benefit assessments
. Personal income tax
. Wage tax
. Payroll tax
. Business license fees
. Severance tax
. Excise taxes
. Vehicle code fines
Product: Working Paper No.2, Local Financint;( Options, will be the principal
product of this task. We do not expect that this paper will contain an evalution of the
appropriateness of the various sources, since we wish to initiate the consensus building
process with little or no influence from the consultant. We may, however, indicate the
relative capability of various sources to generate revenue, based on assumptions regarding
the size of the relevant generation base.
Discussion: We do not envision this task to consume significant time or budget,
since our review indicates that a good base of analytical work exists. In addition, our
-10-
recent work has resulted in a large volume of source material on revenue sources and
magnitudes in Southern California.
-ll-
Task 3: Establish Community Consensus Framework
Puroose: Develop and document the consensus building process which will be
implemented early in the project.
Activities: The principal activity of this task will be to determine and define the
most appropriate mechanisms for developing consensus among jurisdictions having different
objectives (sometimes conflicting) regarding the implementation of Route 30. Given the
controversial and multi-jurisdictional nature of Route 30, the first step in defining the
appropriate consensus building process will be to develop basic understanding and agreement
on the process to be used (i.e., we must first achieve consensus on the process of consensus
building, not unlike the initial determination of the shape of the table to be utilized in
multi-national diplomatic debate). The second step will be to document the approach in a
working paper which will guide the process.
Product: Working Paper No.3, Community Consensus Framework.
Discussion: The process of achieving agreement on complex decisions can take many
different forms, from widespread (costly) public involvement to political cajoling in smoke-
filled rooms. While we do not uniformly advocate either extreme, we believe that the
political arena is the more critical setting for arriving at the definition of an "action
agenda" for implementation of Route 30. This belief is the principal reason for including
Al Hollinden on the team. Often referred to as "Mr. Transportation" in California political
circles, Al has years of experience-and a significant number of successes-to testify to
his capability in working in just this sort of environment. He is well-known, respected,
and trusted throughout the Southern California political setting, particularly among elected
officials. Al will be designated as the official consensus expeditor on the project team.
We believe that the combination of credible analytical work and sensitive political "brokering"
is the key to the development of implementable recommendations for moving forward on
Route 30.
A newly-emerging line of thinking in the area of consensus building for project development
has been well-received recently, and we believe it has merit. Its central tenet is that true
consensus is usually imoossible to achieve where entrenched and conflicting objectives
come into play. However, it is not necessary to achieve true consensus in order to move
forward with the development of a project, only "informed consent;" all parties do not
need to agree, but each must perceive that benefits to be gained from the project will
accrue in his or her direction. It is this understanding that we expect to achieve on the
Route 30 project, and it is in this way that we define the term "consensus."
Nine jurisdictions will be directly impacted by the solution (or non-solution) to the
Route 30 Corridor problem. No two jurisdictions will be affected in exactly the same
manner; impacts which are regarded as positive in one jurisdiction may be regarded as
negative in another jurisdiction. Major concerns in some jurisdicitons are oi little or no
importance in other jurisdictions. Although Route 30 is primarily an east-west corridor
and will greatly facilitate traffic movements in those directions, it has the potential to
greatly alleviate traffic along major north-south arterials and collectors, especially in
Clarement, Upland, and San Bernardino. Impacts on industrial, commercial, and
residential growth will be carefully watched by the juriSdictions, particularly as to how
their own city and their immediate neighboring jurisdicitons are impacted.
Is it impossibie to get agreement between nine jurisdictions? We not only believe that is
is possible to achieve consensus according to the above definition, but we believe that it is
-12-
mandatory in order to insure project success. We believe that there are enough potential
positive impacts and common benefits from such a project to form a base upon which a
consensus can be developed.
The consensus building process is a two-way exchange and the information gathered will
be extremely valuable to transportation planners and facility designers. Early information
regarding concerns relative to negative impacts can be utilized to mitigate and solve
problems that might be very costly if unveiled later in the process.
The consensus development task is a process that differs greatly from the traditional
citizen participation process. However, materials developed for this task, and information
gained from the participants may be extremely useful at a later date to assist in completing
the citizen participation activities mandated by state and federal law.
Specifically, we envision the consensus building process operating in the following way:
The consensus expeditor (CE) will meet with the Route 30 Corridor Committee.
He will discuss funding (up to date state and federal projections) and discuss a
menu of potential local financing methods. The major goal of the meeting will
be to gather information from the Committee regarding concerns relative to
both the freeway itself as well as financing the freeway. Discussion will also
deal with the impacts if no facility is built.
The political representatives of the corridor juriSdictions will be asked to host a
meeting (study session) in their city involving the CE where the format would
be similar to above. It is recommended that council members, planning
commissions, and key city staff be present. Representatives of the chambers of
commerce and other organizations could also be invited. The CE will also meet
with the two County Supervisors that represent this area and their staffs.
There will be a continuous interaction and exchange of information between the
technical study team, the CE, and other study staff throughout the course of
the study.
The political representatives on the Route 30 Corridor Study Committee will be
used as the primary conduits for the continuing information program. Clear,
concise reports will be prepared by the CE which outline not only progress but
problems encountered as well. Letters or memos will be prepared for these
representatives to transmit the reports and, thus, keep the opinion-leader
segment of the community informed. The CE will meet at periodic intervals
with the Corridor Committee.
The CE will be available to assist the Committee members whenever problems
arise.
Objectives which will be achieved through this consensus development process are:
· To gather information and mitigate the elected officials concerns;
· To provide clear, concise information that will allow elected officials to make
rational decisions; and
-13-
.
. To provide information that will allow elected officials not only to defend their
actions and support, but to become advocates of the process. Solid support and
backing by the elected officials and other opinion leaders will provide the leader-
ship to insure the success of this study.
-H-
Task 4: Conduct Benefit/Burden Ana1~
Purpose: Identify who benefits from the implementation of Route 30, and who bears
the final incidence of alternative sources of financing. This identification will provide the
primary basis for evaluting and recommending financing strategies keyed to alternative
design options for the corridor.
Activities: We will prepare an analysis for each financing source being considered
so that the participants in the consensus building process will have a basis for determining
the equity implications of each. In addition, we will describe the relationship of each
revenue source to transportation benefits and to incidence of fiscal burden, and we will
estimate a range of rates and total revenues over a pre-determined planning period.
Product: Working Paper No.4, Benefit/Burden Analysis. will describe the financial
characteristics of potential local revenue sources.
Discussion: Empahsis on the identity of beneficiaries of improved transportation
service must be balanced by the practical consideration of whether charges can be levied
on certain groups for the benefits they have received. This task will begin with funding
and financing options documented in Task 2. These mechanisms will be classified in greater
detail regarding the relationship between final incidence of the transportation burden and
enjoyment of benefits.
The question of final incidence of burden, or cost, deserves special emphasis, particularly
with respect to certain types of charges affecting business, as opposed to individual income.
("Final incidence" refers to the firm or individual ultimately experiencing a reduction in
income as the result of a charge or tax.) A case in point is the use of development fees.
Classical economic theory would suggest that development fees are passed back to the
landowner rather than passed forward in the form of higher prices. In practice, in highly
inflationary times, and given that the real estate market is an "imperfect market" in the
sense of buyer and seller having equal information, the charge of development fees may
be passed forward in the form of higher prices. Both theory and practical observation
confirm that whether development fees are passed backward or forward, they are not a
levy on developers' profits. This fact must be understood before either the equity or the
political acceptability of development fees can fully be evaluated.
A similar type of problem exists in the allocation of any benefit created by a transportation
improvement. Direct benefits from local improvements--canbe assigned to a geographically-
bounded group of residents, workers, or property owners with reasonable precision. A
regional facility, however, will create benefits to several variously-defined geographical
groups, both users and non-users. This creates the problem of determining not so much
who benefits, but by how much each benefits, relative to the other.
The analysis will explore alternative methods of allocating benefits among groups ranging
from local beneficiaries of new access (primarily landowners) to all regional residents and
businesses. Such allocations will not only help determine appropriate burden levels, but
appropriate financing mechanisms, as well. In this way, the issue of cost and benefit
allocation will be approached from both directions.
The analysis in Task 4 will both provide numerical results and an evaluation of the policy
implications of these results. While it is expected that a final allocation of burden will
necessarily be accomplished through the political process, the material prepared as part
of this task will assist in clarifying the choices and trade-offs involved in selecting among
alternative financing scenarios.
-15-
,
IV e expect to classify beneficiary groups and burden groups in the corridor area into classes
which exhibit similar transportation-related characteristics or would be affected similarly
by development of Route 30. One approach would be to use the following simple categories:
. Households
. Industry
. Landowners
These categories could then be further subdivided by location, and the consensus building
process would thus be able to draw upon specific knowledge of the relative level of transpor-
tation benefits and financial burdens that accrue to various areas and jurisdictions impacted
by corridor development.
In addition to the complex analytical work, we will draw on our recent public opinion surveys
in Southern California to understand how the pUblic-at-large views the concept of benefit/
burden. Undoubtedly such knowledge will be helpful to political leaders in making decisions
on financial strategies. For example, our surveys revealed that voters' perceptions often
do not parallel reality (an important notion when voters are asked to ratify expenditures),
particularly in regard to financial burden. Almost three-quarters of the voting public
favor a one-half cent sales tax increase over a fifteen-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax increase,
although the out-of-pocket financial burden is approximately equal for a two-car family in
the $35,000 income range.
-16-
,
Task 5: Select Candidate Design and Financial Alternatives
Puroose: Develop a recommendation specifying several candidate highway/freeway
designs and companion financing plans which can be detailed in specific terms, enabling
community leaders to evaluate explicit actions necessary for implementing each of the
candidate schemes.
Activities: The primary activity in this task will involve the consensus building
process. Based on the array of design options developed in Task 1, the listing of financing
options developed in Task 2, and the benefit/burden analysis conducted in Task 4, we will
work with the corridor jurisdictions in selecting those most promising design/financial
plan candidates for implementation planning in Phase II.
The most effective means of making this decision/recommendation is through a process of
evaluation which can be discussed with individual jurisdications in a simple and straight-
forward manner. Such an evaluation should present results-as discussed above-in a way
which indicates the benefits and costs which are likely to accrue to the constituency of
various elected officials and/or community descision-makers. Design concepts will be
evaluated by means of several broad criteria:
. Performance (capacity, level-of-service, accessibility, etc.)
. Impact (social, economic, environmental)
. Implementaiton pot!!ntial
. Cost
Financial sources, though somewhat more difficult to evaluate, will be compared
according to the following criteria:
. Revenue potential and diversity
. Flexibility/timing of implementation
. Flexibility/applicability of funding sources
. Voter attitudes
. Political/legal feasibility
. Ease of administration
. Benefit/burden equity
. Economic development/growth
. Economic impact/externalities
. Fiscal impact
Product: An Interim Reoort for the project will be produced at the conclusion of
Task 5, summarizing progress to date and containing recommendations on a "short list" of
options to be designed in detail in Phase 11.
Discussion: We have considerable experience in using evaluation techniques with
political leaders to develop recommendations. Rather than the more typical group
process, we believe the approach in this program should be to work on a more one-to-one
level with key representatives of corridor jurisdictions.
-17-
Task 6: Preoare Altemative Facilitv Desi$)S
Puroose: Detail the facility design alternatives emerging from Task 5 and perform
appropriately detailed cost estimates as input to Task 7.
Activities: This task will comprise the steps necessary to convert the "lead candidate"
facility designs emerging from Task 5 into preliminary plan details suitable for demonstrating
traffic circulation aspects at key locations, for refining cost estimates as input to Task 7,
and for assessing local facility impacts as part of the information base for local evaluation
in Task 8. It is envisioned that perhaps three ''lead candidates" may emerge from Task 5,
possibly representing "low", "medium", and "high" (relative) levels of funding required. It
is not possible to predict the number of options or the degree of difference between the
options from Task 5, but the Objective would be to advance each alternative to the point
where significant plan layout details (right-of-way lines, edge of pavement lines, etc.)
could be illustrated on aerial photograph prints or other suitable mapping base. The degree
of concurrence the project would be able to achieve through Task 5 may allow the design
details to be displayed and detailed at a finer scale than if there are several highly
divergent alternatives. Flexibility in the display detail may need to be left open until that
point is reached.
Each alignment/facility option would be laid out in plan view according to design standards
appropriate for the class of facility proposed. Where a concept option calls for considera-
tion of a set of design standards that may differ from conventional practice, such as a
freeway-type facility proposed with less than full freeway design standards, consultations
prior to design layout would be necessary with Caltrans and other technical agency represen-
tatives as appropriate. The purpose of thses discussions would be to (1) explore the design
deviations contemplated and the cost and safety factors surrounding each; (2) identify
those which are least detrimental if sacrificed; and (3) explore regulatory or warning
devices or other mitigating factors to alleviate the effect of reducing the design standard.
While the facility concept design options in Task 1 were identified as lines on a map, the
level of detail in this task would be taken to actual plan layout of the facility's extent for
each segment. One possible display format would be plan sheets at 1"=200', with the layout
overlaid on a strip air photo of the corridor. On the same sheet could be displayed
pertinent details of key sections. Supplemental sheets of key interchange/intersection
areas at larger scales could be provided.
In addition to providing a better quantity basis for unit cost estimates of development, the
level of detail developed in this Task would (1) permit the identification of lane configura-
tions and signal phasing at key intersections and ramp terminals; (2) provide approximate
profile details; and (3) allow permissible turning movements and access routes to the
corridor facility to be defined.
Another key element of detail that would be added in this Task is the physical layout of
the interim stages of each option. A display configuration similar to that described above
could be employed.
A tabular format keyed to the plan graphic could portray the key operational aspects of
each segment and could be employed to identify the relative impact factors related to
each option. Operational aspects could include the design speed, anticipated peak period
level of service, anticipated critical intersection movements under the planned configura-
tion, ect. Impact aspects would be oriented to the impact category listing in the
predecessor Route 30 corridor work, and would call out aspects of the various options
rated against those impact categories.
-18-
As part of this Task, the details of the previous traffic modeling work will need to be
examined in greater detail, and judgments will need to be made on the sensitivity of local
demand to actual facility configurations. This would be accomplished through review and
adjustment of existing information; it is not deemed either necessary or desirable to engage
in further traffic modeling at this time.
Product: A working paper and associated plan layouts giving facility design details
in plan view for costing, local agency evaluation, and further financial planning.
Discussion: Flexibility in the determination of the format of the plan presentation
materials will be necessary as discussed above, to best balance the level of effort per
alterntive, against the number of alternatives under consideration. Also, a good set of
aerial photography will be important.
-19-
Task 7: Prepare Alternative Financial Plans
Purpose: Detail the financial plan alternatives emerging from Task 5 and develop
programs and policies with sufficient detail to prepare implementation guidelines in Tasks 9
and 10.
Activities: This task encompasses the preparation of financing "packages" keyed to
the lead candidate facility designs being detailed in Task 6. With the principal purpose of
the project geared toward implementation, the content of the financial plans will consist
of action-oriented steps which must be taken to secure a variety of funding schemes for
facility development.
Product: Technical Memorandum No.6, Financial Plan Alternatives.
Discussion: It is anticipated that each financial program will consist of several
revenue sources used in concert to produce sufficient funds for corridor development.
Clearly, the design options of lower cost, requiring a smaller revenue stream, may consist
of a shorter list of sources. Alternatively, it may be appropriate for the region to
consider a permanent transportation revenue source, producing annual yields that could be
used for other facilities (highways and transit) once the portion required for Route 30 has
been provided. This could be true both incrementally, as facilities are developed in a
staged fashion, or in series, once Route 30 has been completed. It is important to
consider this option if only because the creation of a general revenue source (e.g., sales
tax) will require a region-wide vote, and the success of such a ballot measure could be
more likely if facilities benefiting a larger segment of the population were shown as part
of the development plan in addition to Route 30. We believe that an ultimate
configuration of Route 30 of reduced scale (arterial or parkway) can be funded without
such voter action, but a full standard freeway configuration is significantly cost-intensive
such that a general revenue source may be necessary to complement more targeted, user
or "area of benefit" revenue generation mechanisms.
The revenue sources ultimately selected to comprise the financial plans will be those
which were favorably received (or ''least Objectionable") to decision-makers during the
evaluation conducted in Task 5. Our recent survey work tells us which are totally
unacceptable to the public and which are somewhat more feasible under certain
conditions. Also, our recent targeted research on benefit assessment districts,
development fees, toll road authorities, local option gasoline tax, and implications of
recent court decisions on voter action for approvals of neW- taxes, will. enable a great deal.
of insight to be brought by our team to this task.
Another critical area to be examined is the comparison between pay-as-you-go vs. debt
financing. Experience suggests that pay-as-you-go financing can be acceptable Where a
facility is to be staged over a comparatively long period of time, and in today's post-
Proposition 13 era is significantly easier to obtain than the committment to long-term
bond financing. An exception is a toll road, where a toll authori.ty, on the basis of a
favorable traffic and earnings report, could float revenue bonds to secure up-front cash.
These various options for financing, together with the design plans for the facility
developed in Task 6, will be explored in depth in the community consensus building process
carried through in this phase of the project.
-20-
Task 8: Determine Community/ A~ency Views on Des~~ Pa~
Puroose: Provide a continuing process wherein key decision-makers, elected officials,
and community opinion-leaders can work with the Route 30 Group and the project team to
develop recommendations on the alternatives developed in Tasks 6 and 7 which have the
greatest likelihood of implementation and community consensus.
Activities: Although this task is shown as a discrete work element, it will actually
be operating in an integrated fashion with the design and analytical work being performed
in Tasks 6 and 7. As described earlier in the proposal, the consensus building program is
key to achieving eventual action on Route 30. It is particularly important in this phase of
the project, when we will be getting close to formulating final recommended actions. The
activities to be carried out were described in the description of our proposed consensus
building program in Task 3, and will not be reiterated here.
Product: No specific product is due to be produced in this task, since it accompanies
Tasks 6 and 7. However, the input received through the process will be used directly in
Tasks 9 and 10.
-21-
Task 9: Deve10D Benefit/Burden Distribution ~am
Purpose: Establish the framework for an equitable, practical, and implementable
time-phased program of revenue generation for the Route 30 configuration most acceptable
to the corridor jurisdictions.
Activities: The principal activity in this task will be the development of the basic
program structure for funding Route 30 which then will be documented as an action plan
in Task 10. With the region having clearly expressed the need for and desirability of
Route 30-whatever the decision on ultimate configuration-the primary challenge will be
developing a menu of revenue generation techniques which fairly equate benefit to financial
burden. lt is falr to say that no form of consensus can be achieved if most of the affected
jurisdictions feel that the benefit/burden ratio is unfair. Thus, we will focus through the
consensus building process on recommending such a fair and equitable approach, balancing
this with the need to also assure a sufficient and continuing revenue stream.
Product: Technical Memorandum No.7, Benefit/Burden Distribution Pro!;l'am. We
expect this particular deliverable to be scrutinized in greater detail, and by more parties,
than many of the other products of the study. Major developers, for example, will wish to
be appraised of our thinking on this subject, and such input will be critical to the formula-
tion and subsequent acceptance of the Route 30 Action Plan to be produced in Task 10.
Discussion: We believe there are two basic classes of revenue generation
mechanisms which can be tapped for Route 30 implementation (and for other
transportation facility projects, as well):
. General revenue sources, such as sales tax, payroll taxes, and, to a certain
extent, gasoline tax, etc.
. Special revenue sources, such as assessment districts, development fees, tolls, or
other mechanisms, which assess users and/or beneficiaries more specifically than
general revenue sources.
If a determination is made that a particular facility is of significant regional value-or is
part of a comprehensive array of proposed regional facilities-it may be possible to
achieve voter approval to implement a general revenue mechanism. Recent court
decisions (e.g., LACTC vs. Richmond) have suggested that a jurisdiction or agency which
has no legislative authority to levy a property tax (sucln'iifthe Los Angeles County
Transportation Commission); is not a "special district" and thus the two-thirds majority
vote requirement approval as part of Proposition 13 does not apply. The Supreme Court
admonished, however, that in future cases it would look to see if any institutional
arrangements were established to circumvent the two-thirds majority requirement and
levy a tax (such as a sales tax) to replace preperty tax. Thus, it is unlikely that a simple
majority vote would be acceptable unless the conditions-and the levying body-were
closely parallel to the Los Angeles County situation. .
A more likely situation for the implementation of Route 30, however, is at least partial
reliance on funding mechanisms which rely on special revenue sources as defined above.
It is in this area where matters of equity become important: there must be "rules" for
determining the amount of benefit received from facility construction in order to
determine the proportional financial burden which is equitable. In developing areas, this
process takes on characteristics which make it considerably more difficult to achieve than
traditionally-applied assessment districts in which new or upgraded capital facilities are
-22-
deemed necessary by a reasonably well-defined constituency. The establishment of these
"rules" will be the principal function of this task. Of great value in this endeavor will be
the experience of Robert Harmon, whose organization has developed and implemented
some of the more innovative transportation cost-sharing mechanisms for private and publici
private financing in the United States.
-23-
Task 10: Preoare Route 30 Action Plan
Purpose: Prepare final documents for the Route 30 Implementation Program.
Activities: The principal activity of this task is to develop the draft final report
and, after appropriate review, the final report documents. The format, as indicated, will
be different than a traditional final study report. Instead, we view it as a guidebook of
specific actions to bring about the recommendations resulting from the consensus among
the corridor jurisdictions.
Products: Draft and Final Reports
Discussion: The Action Plan will specify "who" as well as "what" and "when." Responsi-
bility for specific steps in implementation will be suggested. Timing for each step will be
estimated based on specific project requirements and the nature of the roles to be played
by key local, regional, and statewide jurisdictions. It is anticipated that the
implementation plans will permit action to begin shortly after adoption of a particular
financing program, ultimate design configuration, and staging plan. In particular, we feel
that upon completion of this project, the Route 30 Group will be in position to move into
preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates for the facility and institute steps to
deal with institutional arrangements to move forward with financial programming.
.
-24-
. ~
SCHEDULE AND DELlVERABLES
We have included two alternative schedule charts for the project on the following pages.
Assuming initiation of work in January, 1983, it is possible for the work program, as
proposed, to be essentially completed by June 30, 1983. As shown, we have proposed delivery
of the draft final report at the end of June and have allowed the month of July for review.
Given the nature of the consensus building process which must occur, however, together
with the complex design and analytical work which is required, we believe that the six-
month schedule may be overly optimistic. Achieving consensus on a project as contro-
versial as Route 30 requires a critical path through a number of political environments
which might be better played over a slightly longer time period.
Should consent from the California Transportation Commission be achieved in extending
the completion date of the project, we have included an extended schedule chart showing
a preferred schedule for performance of required services. We believe a completion date
of October 31, 1983, provides sufficient time to assure that the consensus building process
is appropriately implemented.
The schedule charts indicate our proposed timing for submittal of deliverables. We believe
that continual delivery of working papers and reports is necessary to support the development
of consensus. Thus, we have shown the delivery of seven working papers, an interim report,
and a final report produced initially in draft form for review and modification.
Specifically, assuming a project start date of January 1, 1983, our deliverable schedule is
shown on the following page.
-25-
..., ..., ..., ..., ..., '0 ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., '0
g: g: g: g: g: :T g: g: g: g: g: :T
,.,. ,.,. ,.,. ,.,. ,.,. g: ,.,. ,.,. ,.,. ,.,. ,.,. g:
- l!' !'l' ::' ~ '" en ~ !:' !:' '"
i? !? .. ::' -
I
- (')
'0 'OCl >Cl '0 Cl'O 3 ":l'" Cl(') ~~ "'- 0- 0 '0
., ., '" -", ., f'j 'g. ~. eo Ii 0 _0. ",0. 0 ~
~ ~< -- ~ '" h ~~ ., '" e.g n
'" '" :s-~ .. 0 ~ 0
.. eo "., 3 -- oc: ....
308 ~ 3 '" ,,- 0" ~fl- ~~ a,:;- t'j
'" '" 0 ~.(') ~ Q
- ~. liD e.~ >- o:r
~ Cl ~." > e ot" ~..., '"
0 < '" ... - [e. *(') ....
'" "'(') - - ee: ",0 0.::; ~. ...,
c " ~ ~ o' ~= 0 =~ "
- ~ t:lo " -g- 3 n= '" g;
'" l& 3 ~ ~- Iii' I!. 0 a;:: 3
'" - '" 3 a:=! :>;
Q 0; ~'3 - - ~ ~ '" Cl ~. ft~ '"
~~. ~. ~. '" g " '"
> [ < < =t1 " ...
" '" '" < IX l!. - ~
- ~.- ..., ..., ~' IX ~, '< "
g' '" g~ ~, ~,
~. .. ~ - (') ~ .@
" " .... 0
Cl E: [ ~ -
'" "O'l
i Iii' ~.", ~ t:l
r:;- " " [ a IX
O'l"
6' ",'< '" !;i ~'
c "'< [
- " ~.
~, li'"
0
" m~
"
I .
....
l:'ncnrnrn >
6-6-6-s. :z:
3333 .
... -. ........ ~i'
,...,....,....,....
""1:15'~ ...,
-.... ,.... Q t" . t'j
i~~'" ~ C:l
:::':!.:s: C'l
~:=!3~ t'j .
:z: '"
"''':=", 1:1 2: :;
Sll!.<'> '" >
-:='8~ "" g;
",'" ... . t=:l
'8- ...
... I 0 >
-
'"
.00. i ""
1:=
I'" ~-
S,
<'> 0<
:e
- , .
~
. :z:
- I.
....
c:: '"
t" :;
r--- .- ~t- g;
. > t=:l
c::l =
I C'l
-~ i~
'"
- -:S, t=:l
<'> '"
:e
:=
"'I 0
:S'I Q
~-1
-
1:1
:t-
...,
t<:I
en
::<:
H
t"
t"
tl1
t<:I
:t-
o
c..,
c::
en
..,
t<:I
o
..,
o
GJ
"'J
t"
t<:I.
n
..,
:t-
n
..,
c::
E:
Ul
..,
:t-
::0
..,
H
Z
G1
~
..,
t<:I
:=
~ 0
~ c::l
...,...;
~ t=:l
2: '"
t:l Q
t=:l~
1:1 'tI
'tit"
:= t=:l
oS:
C'l ~
~ ...,
> >
s:: d
'" 0
~:z:
t=:l'tl
1:1 :=
~o
l'll~
>
s::
SCHEDULE OF DELlVERABLES
APPROXIMATE DELIVERY DATE
DELIVERABLE TITLE Compressed Extended
Schedule Schedule
Working Paper No.1 Route 30 Design Concept Options Jan. 25, 1983 Feb. 1, 1983
Working Paper No.2 Financing Strategy Options Jan. 25, 1983 Feb. 1, 1983
Working Paper No.3 Community Consensus Framework Feb. 1, 1983 Feb. 15, 1983
Working Paper No.4 Benefit/Burden Assessment Mar. 1, 1983 Apr. 1, 1983
Report Interim Report Mar. 15, 1983 Apr. 15, 1983
Working Paper No.5 Facility Design Alternatives May 10, 1983 Jun. 30, 1983
Working Paper No.6 Financing Program Alternatives May 20, 1983 Jul. 15, 1983
Working Paper No.7 Benefit/Burden Distribution Program Jun. 15, 1983 Aug. 15, 1983
Report Draft Pinal Report Jun. 30, 1983 Sept. 30, 1983
Report Final Report Jul. 31, 1983 Oct. 31, 1983
DATES WILL BE ADJUSTED TO REFLECT ACTUAL STARTING DATE
-28-
. .
ORGANIZATION, MANAGEMENT, AND STAFFING
The organization chart on the following page provides an overview of our management,
project organization, and staffing. Effective quality and cost control for the Route 30
Implementation Program will depend chiefly on the ability of this team of knowledgable
professionals to interact closely in the execution of a series of related tasks, while
applying specialized skills to particular discipline areas. Appendix A contains detailed
resumes for each of the proposed project staff listed below:
r
r
PROJECT STAFF
Page No.
Staff Member Project Role of Resume
Michael Schneider Project Director A-I
Robert Goedhart Highway Planning and Design A-4
Al Hollinden Agency Coordination and A-7
Consensus Building
Robert Schaevitz Financial Strategies and A-9
Institutional Issues
Robert Bramen Transporta tion Analysis A-ll
Anthony D'Alessio Highway Design A-13
Viktoras Kirkyla Highway Alignment and Utilities A-15
Brian Van Weele Hydrology and Drainage A-17
John Belvedere Structures A-19
James Douglas Traffic Engineering A-21
Julie Hoover Community Involvement A-23
Judith Olney Impact Analysis A-26
Arthur Bauer Legislative and Institutional A-29
Analysis
Robert Harmon Transportation Finance A-31
Joseph Harmon Funding Analysis A-33
..
.
-29-
;
::i!
<
~
"
o
~!-o
""~
z<
0=
1=(,,)
<z
!-oo
ZI=
~<
~~
...Z
""<
::i!"
-~
:;0
~
5
o
~
.!!l
i:l 1.,. c ~
Z 0 ]
<gj 0:1
1:2 1: c .9 <:
gj~ '.::.9 ~ II t:.?
-en $:
"r!! I~'~ "
~ '6
~... < . ;:] c
<< - ~ii: "
- ....5< '"
~z (,,)
!;;e en
!-o 5 c
....... 0
~ II e e
:si: ~ :; ..
al 1; ~
(,,)~ 0 al =
~:s ~ :; ... .c
II "-
:s fj '8 "
roo .. !l
< ~ ..,
...
c
.,
e
i:l ., ...
I "
Z .,
~ <" e
~ ~ Zz ~
"" i:l ~ 0- Z ~ ~
&l I=i:l
~ . <= ~ '~ <
0 Z ~ :s~ i:l ...
~ = .el Z e "
" (,,) , i:lal ::l e 2-
en i:l , ~en
.. ... 0 e
M ..: ti ! o~ 9 (,,) -
~ ... r 0:>: -
5 ~ ~ (,,)~ ...
< .., ><[,;J
0 = 0 <
~ (,,) ~ I (,,)0 ~ j
- "" Z(,,)
::i! ~
" 0
< = .c
., ...
~ '6
"
.., ..,
,!!l g>"
~ :!
Z ] ... 'f
c
" < ., i:l
~ So e
c So ""
i:l .... ,9 .~ c
~ ... ;::l~ co .!f
i:l .9 i:l <,- ~ !l
Z < ... ..
- .. >- ~3 E " .,
< - t co
::l ,., ,.,'" "0 -.=g
" ~ -~ -6 " i'~
z 0 ~ ..."" ~ .5
- {;. .- "
z " = = co en ....~
Z ~
<
..:l .... "
0.. ~ c <l ., ~
- 0 ..
>< ~ " .~ " "
<: => e ~ "" 3'
0 '" oS "
~ 0:: .. ;: >- c > 0
= al 1:: co <l 0
~ ... Cl ;> => !l
.. :;a "
~ >- '" .z e
" '" ~
0 0 :> 0 '"
0:: .... .... ....
.
., . ' .
EXHIBIT B
COST SPL IT
ROUTE 30 CORRIDOR STUDY
San Bernardino County
$ 20,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
10,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
10,000
7,500
7,500
15,000
20,000
$180,000
SAN BAG
Los Angeles County Transportation Commission
Los Angeles County
California Transportation Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Upl and
City of Fontana
City of Rialto
City of Claremont
City of La Verne
City of San Bernardino
Private Industry