HomeMy WebLinkAbout65-City Administrator
I
CI~ OF SAN BERNARDQO - REQ..QsT FOR COUNCIL 1QION
From: Marshall W. Julian
City Administrator
~: City Administration
Su~act: Approval of Transportation
Improvement Program Expenditure
Plan -- SANBAG
Date: July 11, 1989
Synopsis of PrllVious Council action:
None.
Recommended motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council approve the proposed Transportation
Improvement Program Expenditure Plan for the distribution and administration
of such funds as may be generated by the proposed half-cent sales tax
initiative and urges that the measure be placed on the November ballot for
consideration by the voters of San Bernardino County.
~~I!..r",
Signature
Contect person:
Marshall W. Julian
Phone:
5122
Supporting date atteched:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: '
Ward:
Amount:
Source: (Acct, No.)
(Acct. Descriotionl
Finance:
Council Notes:
^ _..._....... 1....- 1\1...
~
-
CI~ OF, SAN BERNARDICQ - REQUOST FOR COUNCIL ACOION
STAFF REPORT
SANBAG is
to support
additional
county.
asking all cities in the County of San Bernardino
a proposition to be on the November ballot for an
half-cent sales tax to be levied within the
The funds produced would be devoted
construction of streets, highways,
indicated in the attached material.
to the improvement and
commuter rail, etc. as
SANBAGis requesting, at this time, that the Mayor and Common
Council endorse the measure, based on your knowledge of the
need for more and better transportation facilities and the
difficulty in raising funds for these improvements to be
made.
75-0264
..IItI
c~
o
o
o
PROPOSED
SAN BAG Proposed Transportation Improvement Program
LiDe AIIloWlt ProGram
1 1. 658 Billion Total Funds Available
2 (.041) Billion (Less 1% Admin + 1. 5% BOE Collection)
3 1.617 Billion Total Available For Plan
4 (.328) Billion Mountain-Desert Share (Plus 70 Million
STIP)
5 1. 289 Billion Total For San Bernardino V~lley
SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY PROGRAM
6
690, Million
State Fwy/Hwy/IC/Corridor/Contingencies
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
780
190
50
50
Construction
Engineering
Interchanges/Corridors/park & ride
Contingencies
1,070 Subtotal
(280) STIP Forecast (federal/state funds)
(100) Developer Financing
------
------
15 '
690 Sales Tax Needs
16
250 Million
Local Projects
17
150 Million
Major Streets
Commuter Rail
18
100 Million
19
75 Million
Elderly & Handicapped Transit, Including
Senior Fares
20
25 Million
Traffic Management Implementation and
Environmental Enhancement Program
6/30/89 revised
c
Route
I-10
I-10
1-215
1-2l5
SR 30
SR 60
SR 71
Total
u
It
o
o
o
PROPOSED SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY PROJECTS
Seament and pro'iect Descriotion
Amount (1989 $'s)
$10" Million
State Route 30 to Yucaipa Blvd.
Widen One Lane Each Direction
(possible HOV)
Los Angeles County Line to I-15 .$80 Million
Widen One Lane Each Direction
(HOV)
I-10 to State Route 30 $100 Million
Widen One Lane Each Direction;
reconstruct interchanges
(possible HOV)
Riverside County line to I-lO $75 Million
Widen One Lane Each Direction (HOV)
L.A. County Line to I-2l5 $400 Million
Construct Six Lane Freeway
(include HOV) (plus $150 mil. L.A.)
L.A. County Line to Riv. County Line
Widen One Lane Each Direction
(possible HOV)
$25 Million
Riv. County Line to L.A. County line
Construct Six Lane Freeway (include
possible HOV)
$90 Million
$780 Million
(Plus advance construction of projects in STIP and subject to
delay: SR 30 East, SR 60/71 interchange, etc.)
6/30/89 revised
'0
o
o
o
Assumptions/Explanation
~
1 20 yrs at 5% true growth (inflation not included); first
year starts at $50 million
2 ' required by law and BOE (current)
4 Mountain-desert return-to-source, equivalent percent of
STIP available for program projects
5 total available for valley
6 see lines 7 - l5
7 see separate listing of projects (1989 costs)
8 engineering and project development at 25%
9 Program for interchange revisions and corridor
preservation
10 contingency for added projects or cost increases
13 80% of STIP funds available for program projects (20% on
line 4)
14 conservative estimate of new development ~inancing
l6 distribution by population to cities and county (for
unincorporated) for local needs
17 arterial/major streets program administered by SANBAG
18 San Bernardino's share of Los Angeles Commuter rail and
San Bernardino - Riverside - Orange County commuter
rail, to be supplemented by any state or bond program;
plus possible short line development within county
19 for program of discounted senior and handicapped fares
and transit service enhancements for seniors and
handicapped
20 implementation of traffic management program and
environmental enhancement program including corridor
greenbelts, HOV inducements, bike and pedestrian trails,
open space plan development, and air quality-related
inducements including alternate fuel vehicle programs
~
I
6/30/89 revised
0-
o
o
o
SAN BERNARDINO COUN'n' ONE HALF CENT SALES TAX INITJ:ATJ:VE
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
The cities or county must adopt a Transportation Management Plan
that would include the following:
1. A twenty year projected plan and a five-year Transportation
Improvement Plan for their jurisdiction which would identify
proposed capital improvement projects by priority, adopt
traffic level of service goals for the agency, and complete a
traffic study/model for the community. The local
transportation plans are to be coordinated and consistent
with Transportation Plans adopted by SANBAG.
2. The local agency must adopt a development financing mechanism
that would require all future development to pay for needed
transportation facilities as a result of the development.
3. Local plans funded under this program should place emphasis
and give priority to improving traffic level of service on
existing streets and roads prior to funding new development
needs.
4. Local plans should also integrate to regional plans and
requirements and should consider growth pOlicies, , job-housing
balance, and air quality goals.
Revised 6/15 Wes McDaniel
"0
o
o
o
DRAF'l' RAJ:L LANGUAGE
Commuter rail expenditures shall include:
Purchase or other preservation of rail rights of way for
transportation purposes, with specific focus upon:
the San Bernardino - West Valley - Los Angeles corridor
the San Bernardino - Riverside - Orange County corridor
"short lines" and linkages within San Bernardino County
Development of a comprehensive rail transit plan, including
consideration of a possible West Valley - Orange County
corridor
Upon positive findings by an independent consultant or agency of
cost efficiency and service effectiveness, adopted by a two-
thirds vote of SANBAG, excepting the Mountain-Desert members,
expenditures may also include:
Track, station, signal and other improvements
Acquisition or lease of equipment
Securing track usage rights on non-owned tracks as necessary
Actual operation, preferably by private contract, of
commuter rail operations
Expenditures related to the "Aerobus" or other non-
automotive transportation system from the Valley to the
mountains
Commuter rail funding from state and federal sources shall
aggressively be sought. Local program funds which may be found
to be in excess of need from time to time may be transferred to
the transit category for use in commuter transportation.
6/15 revised Wes McDaniel
..
0-
Chino
Colton
Fontana
Grand Terrace
Highland
Loma Linda
Montclair
Ontario
Rancho CUcamonga
Redlands
Rialto
San Bernardino
Upland
(Yucaipa)
SBdo. Co.
o
o
San Bernardino County Valley Area
Local and Arterial Programs
20 Year Estimate
20 Yr.
Local $'s
$15,125,358
$10,048,482
$2.0.,779,478
$2,893,952
$7,149,733
$3,714,780,
$6,876,301
$33,115,618
$27,910,022
$15,945,653
$17,139,584
$40,950,796
$17,042,31l
$l5,457,153
$l5,850,778
20 Yr. (1)
Art. $'s
$9,075,215
$6,029,089
$l2,467,687
$1,736,371
$4,289,840
$2,228,868
$4,125,781
$19,869,371
$16,746,013
$9,567,392
$10,283,751
$24,570,478
$lO,225,387
$9,274,292
$9,510,467
20 Yr. (1)
Total
$24,200.,572
$16,077,571
$33,247,164
$4,630,324
$11,439,573
, $5,943,649
$11,002,082
$52,984,990
$44,656,036
$25,513,044
$27,423,335
$65,521,274
$27,267,698
$24,731,445
$25,361,244
o
1st Yr.
Local
$455.990
$302,936
$626,447
$87,245
$215,546
$111,991
$207,303
$998,350
$841,415
$480,720
$516,714
$1,234,560
$5l3,78l
$465,993
$477,860
$250,000,000 $150,000,000 $400,000,000 $7,536,850
(1) Programming of Arterial Funds is not based on population, but pre-
sumably would be proportionate over the twenty year life o!
the measure.
07/04/89
-
,
'\ '0
o
o
o
PJ:OpOsed ba1lot language (to be refined and reduced) ;'
For the purpose of achieving traffic relief NOW, meeting highway,
.
rail, and Senior transit needs, increasing safety, and improving
air quality by providing essential countywide transportation
improvements, including:
1. Construction of the Foothill Freeway (Route 30), the Route 71
Corona Freeway, and reconstruction and widening of 1-2lS
through San Bernardino;
2. provision of cost-effective commuter rail service to Los
Angeles and Orange Counties;
3. Providing increased transit service and guar~nteeing reduced
fares for seniors and the handicapped;
4. ASSuring that all tax money raised in the mountain-desert
area shall be spent only on projects in that area, determined
by representatives from that area;
S. Widening I-10, I-2lS, and Route 60;
6. Increased safety and traffic capacity through improvement,
resurfacing, and improved maintenance of local streets and
roads in each city and in unincorporated areas;'
7. Assuring acceptable traffic levels through a comprehens'ive
plan;
8. Requiring that new development pays its fair shar~;
9. Improving quality of life by improvements such as
landscaping, sound walls, bike trails, and open space
planning
JIg
'.0-
o
o
o
shall the San Bernardino county Transportation ~ommission be
authorized to establish by Ordinance No. A a one-half of one
percent transactions and use tax for a period not to exceed
twenty years, to be used solely for transportation improvements,
establish an appropriations limit for the Commission of
$250,000,000 and be authorized to issue limited tax bonds not to
exceed in aggregate principle at anyone time in the amount
outstanding of $500,000,000 to fund improvements consistent with
the Expenditure Plan?
YES I
Revised 6/15 Wes McDaniel
NO I