CCMIN062000 - Laserfiche WebLink

and bring more improvements to Alameda County. (He showed a chart with the Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fees projects in black; the projects that would be funded either wholly or in par~ by the V~ cent sales tax extension were shown in red.) It is an investment in the 1-580 and 1-680 corridors to institute express lanes. IIe said that is a new idea in this area. That means if there is excess capacity in lhe high occupancy vehicle lanes, that excess capacity could be sold, to get people out of the mixed flow lane and to make the whole facility flow more smoothly. Other projects that are being looked at are the east botmd auxiliary lane, the lmn Horse Trail and Transit Project, and an additional investment in the Route 84 projects in Livermore. This means morc than $9 million for local transportation, $1 million thr para-tremsit lilnds, new revenue streams for pedestrian~oicyclc facilities, new revenue streams for operations for LAVTA and ACE and also additional funds for express bus services throughout the County. Many people have asked, with all of the Federal and State ftmds and all of the local lhnds that are generated out here, why do we need the 1/2 cent sales tax? This is actually a good question. For comparison, what he is showing tonight is that the Tri- Valley Transportation Council plan which will generate $70 million over 15 years. The Governor's plan, which is being discussed in Sacramento, would generate about $133 million over 5 years. The State and Federal discretionary funds that the Congestion Management Agency will divvy up over the next 20 years totals about $1.2 billion. A very conservative estimate for the sales tax program here in Alameda County is $1.4 billion. It is larger than any other funding source available. This also comes with a lot of flexibility. It can be used for operations as xvell as for capital investments. It is a great plan, but a lot of other people also think it is a great plmx, and the CMA is very happy abont that. The Bay Area Transportation Land Use Coalition, a group of 60 organizations, support the plan. The Coalition has worked with us to get the plan to a point where they could support it. The CMA is happy to say that both the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense, two organizations that aggressively opposed the 1998 plan, now aggressively support this pimp. The Taxpayers Association has said that an extension of the V2 cent sales tax for transportation is essential to Alameda County's economy. LAVTA has endorsed it. The Silicon Valley Manufacturing group has endorsed this plan, and they have endorsed it because they really believe in local funds and local accountability. They also support it because of the significant investment in transit included in our plan. The Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce, as well as many of the other Chambers of Commerce, have endorsed it. There are 12 cities who have also approved it and he would love to add tonight Pleasanton to tile list of cities that have approved this plan. What would be lost would be very significant. It could be one-half million dollars a year for local transportation, 9% of your pars-transit budget, transit operating fnnds for AC Transit and the ACE t~ain that catmot be back-tilled easily. There is a risk that ACE may not be able to stop in Alameda County if we cmmot step forward and make a commitment of operating funds to make sure that it stops here. There are also significant investments in the 1-580 corridor, the 1-680 corridor and the Ronte 84 corridor in the eastern part of the county. What they are doing is hopefully getting endorsements from all of the cities. They will then bring it to the Board of Supervisors and ask the Board to place it on the November 2000 ballot. This is not a new tax. It just continues an existing tax. If it were to go away, people probably wouldn't cvcn notice it. Pleasanton City Council 7 06/20/00 Minutes