Laserfiche WebLink
17 <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked why the State would insure a private company <br />of a profit ratio of 20% over a 20-30 year period. If the road is <br />necessary and studies show that it's needed, Measure B said we <br />should have it, and the voters approved it. Why wouldn't the State <br />find a way to fund it other than with private monies? <br /> <br /> Mr. Helmsley answered that the toll road would have to go <br />through the process of competing with other needs within Alameda <br />County and the East Bay such as 1-580, 680, 880, and 80, which <br />would take priority over this road. Even though the gas taxes had <br />been increased, the funding is not available and would not be for <br />the next 20-30 years. <br /> <br /> Mr. Parker stated that if the road is only from Sunol to 1-580 <br />then it would not be long enough to support any commercial <br />development. He pointed out that there would be no direct revenue <br />from the freeway because it is privately owned. The Company would <br />be obligated to pay an in-lieu tax of 1.2%. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked what the speed limits would be and if the <br />Highway Patrol would enforce the speed. <br /> <br /> Mar. Parker said that this would be a state highway and policed <br />by the Highway Patrol. The speed limit would be between 55-60 <br />miles per hour. <br /> <br /> John Stein, 1334 Kathy Court, Livermore, Livermore City <br />Councilmember, indicated that although the Toll Road Company had <br />commented that there was no intent to take Measure B funds, it has <br />refused to acquire the Isabel right-of-way. He believed that the <br />road would only create more traffic impacts. One of the stated <br />goals of the Toll Road Company was that the road is to divert <br />traffic off the 1-880/I-680 Corridor to increase its revenue <br />stream. This would indeed divert traffic through Fremont, <br />Livermore, and Pleasanton as well as creating traffic impacts at <br />both ends of the Phase I project. He stated that the City of <br />Livermore was concerned with truck traffic as well as vehicle <br />traffic. The air quality would only worsen, which could affect the <br />residents and the vineyards. The increased cost of going north or <br />south is a great concern as well. The cost, as proposed, would be <br />$1.00 to $2.00 each way. Santa Clara, San Jose and the Santa <br />Clara Congestion Management Agency had specifically opposed this <br />road because they are concerned about the diversion of public funds <br />to a private agency. Mr. Stein stated that the tolls were <br />uncontrolled and it was suggested that the Company would use demand <br />pricing. The base rate of return plus incentive agreement totals <br />a 27.25% rate of return. This is considerably more than any other <br />public utility in the State as well as in the country. He urged <br />Council to oppose the toll road or take no action until an EIR is <br />performed. <br /> <br />9/1/92 17 <br /> <br /> <br />