Laserfiche WebLink
Item 6f <br />Ray Street Widening at Main Street. (SR95:317) <br /> <br /> This item was continued to the 10/17/95 agenda. <br /> <br />Item 6g <br />Status Reoort on the 1-580/680 South-to-East Direct Connector Flyover ProieCt, <br /> <br /> Randall Lure presented the staff report. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis questioned the local match information. Is the match identical for the various <br />options? <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum stated the match is identical for all alternatives. The project was a $54 million <br />project; $10 million was local match. As the project has increased in cost, the local match has <br />remained the same. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked if the City got credit for the Hacienda interchange in Phase I and needs <br />to collect local match from adjacent jurisdictions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum replied yes. Where the Hopyard access was lost from the flyover, the City <br />would have been allowed to use the cost to construct the Hacienda interchange as a contribution <br />to the local match because it was necessary. However under Option 2, which keeps the Hopyard <br />access, credit is not being allowed by the Transportation Authority. Staff believes that credits <br />might be applied on Pleasanton's behalf even with the Option 2 alternative. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked what the value of the match was that the City would have been <br />credited with under the Option 1 alternative. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lure stated that if the City had agreed to the Option 1 alternative, the local match <br />could have been met entirely by credits from the other interchanges. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti questioned what type of progress is being made on this. Can the deadline <br />(end of 1995) be accomplished? <br /> <br /> Mr. Lure replied that staff is proceeding through the Tri-Valley Transportation Council <br />and other agencies who agree this is a priority project. Staff has been working to develop an <br />equitable strategy for apportioning the costs between agencies. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti questioned if there was a way to pursue the interchange credit. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lure stated there was not a way to pursue the direct costs of the Hacienda <br />interchange under the build two alternative. Staff believes that other costs could be expended <br />by NPID to construct some of the interchange work that may still be eligible for credit. <br /> <br />09/19/95 - 11 - <br /> <br /> <br />