Title
Department of Transportation recommending the Board consider the following:
1) Receive an update on the U.S. 50/Cameron Park Drive Interchange Improvement Projects, (Capital Improvement Program Project No. 72361 and No. 72367); and
2) Provide direction on the project alternatives and evaluation criteria included in the Project Decision Matrix developed thus far. (Est. time: 1 1/2 hours) (Refer Legistar File 09-1523, 1/25/10, Item 1)
Body
Fiscal Impact/Change to Net County Cost:
This is an informational workshop; there is no fiscal impact and no change to Net County Cost associated with this item.
Background:
This is a continuing update on the Cameron Park Drive Interchange projects previously presented at the Board of Supervisors meetings on January 25 and August 23, 2010.
In order to achieve a twenty year Level of Service (LOS) of E at the Cameron Park Drive Interchange, three project alternatives were studied by the Department of Transportation in the Project Study Report/Project Development Support (PSR/PDS) dated October 2008. Based upon the information developed in the PSR/PDS, the cost estimates for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project #72361 - U.S. 50/Cameron Park Drive Interchange Improvements Phase 1, and CIP Project #72367 - Cameron Park Drive Widening, Durock Road to Coach Lane, have risen from an estimated combined total of $24.8 million in March 2006 to the current estimated amount of $68 million.
The need to widen Cameron Park Drive and the close proximity of existing local road intersections, residences, and businesses to the interchange may impact a number of parcels, as well as traffic flows, in the project area. This will negatively impact the surrounding community, while also increasing the cost of the combined projects.
There are several other alternatives that might be analyzed, but they may not achieve the twenty year LOS E life required in the General Plan, or be acceptable to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). However, they could be less expensive than the current estimate of $68M.
Reason for Recommendation:
At the January 25, 2010 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Department presented the estimated costs for the PSR/PDS projects, along with various issues and alternatives associated with the Cameron Park Drive Interchange projects. Board direction after the presentation was for the Department to return with a list of additional alternatives and criteria, while taking into consideration the project costs, regional and local transportation needs, negative impacts to the community and other community needs. The Board also directed the Department to return to the Board with the new list of alternatives and criteria so the Board could insure their issues and concerns are addressed.
On August 23, 2010, the Department presented an expanded matrix of alternatives and evaluation criteria for Board review and guidance. The Board recommended that the Department reduce the number of alternatives and criteria in the next preliminary evaluation step. The Board requested the Department consider the following criteria in addressing the alternatives: 1) consider accessibility to areas identified for economic development, commercial corridors, and multi-modal transportation; 2) avoid impacts to residential areas; 3) minimal Caltrans involvement; 4) improve circulation and capacity; 5) reduce the Traffic Impact Mitigation (TIM) fees; and 6) increase capacity for commercial development.
This presentation will focus on reviewing evaluation results for the alternatives shown in the Decision Matrix at the August 23, 2010 Board meeting. The Department is requesting the Board review and provide feedback on the preliminary evaluation results and provide guidance on which alternatives to evaluate more thoroughly.
The Department will then complete a more in-depth analysis of the recommended alternatives to include gathering input from members of the public, other stakeholders, and Caltrans. The Department plans to return to the Board in January or February of 2011 with recommendations as to which alternatives merit a PSR-level analysis.
Contact:
James W. Ware, P. E.
Director of Transportation
Concurrences: N/A