HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 201-93assonus[os o.2 0 1 - 9 3
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY STAFF TO SUBMIT
APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION AND TAKE OTHER
ACTION TO ADD ROUTES OR HIGHWAYS TO 'rtu~
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (NHS) LEGISLATION.
WHEREAS, legislation is currently pending before Congress
concerning the NHS, which system could benefit the City of
Bakersfield if certain highways within our City are identified and
added to such legislation; and
WHEP~EAS, the Chairman of the Congressional Committee on
Public Works and Transportation has directed members of Congress to
submit specific information on certain highway projects by January
7, 1994; and
WHEREAS, City staff is prepared to submit the necessary
responses for any highway additions to the NHS legislation.
NOW, T~RWEFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct.
2. City staff is directed and authorized to submit
specific information on certain highway projects and take other
appropriate action in an effort to add routes or highways to the
NHS legislation.
3. The information provided by City staff in the
previous recital is to be given to Congressman William M. Thomas or
Congressman Calvin Dooley so that the information may be presented
to the Congressional Committee on Public Works and Transportation
by January 7, 1994.
.......... o0o ..........
ORIGINAL
I HE~mY CERTIFYthat the foregoing Resolution was passed
and adopted by the Council of the ~ity of Bakersfield at a regular
meeting thereof held on D~ 15 ~ , by the following vote:
AYES: COUNC~LMEf~ER,~ McDERMOTT, EDWARDS, I~MOND, SMR'H, BRUNNI, ROWLE$, 8ALVAG~10
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
A~STAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS
,~ENT: GOUNGILMEMBER~ ~,, c~ ?.
CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JUDY K. SKOUSEN
Acting City Attorney
ROBERT M.
Assistant City Attorney
City of Bakersfield
RMS:rb
resolutions~S-Jan. 94
ORIGINAL
B A K E R S F I E
Alan Tandy · City Manager
L
D
January4, 1994
The Honorable William M. Thomas
Representative in Congress, 20th District
2209 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Thomas:
The City of Bakersfield wishes to take this opportunity to submit a request for a specific
highway project which was not authorized under previous ISTEA legislation. Our intent is
to submit this project as part of the National Highway System legislation.
The project the City is submitting is a component of a Crosstown Corridor which is a multi-
modal transportation program consisting of both light rail and highway projects. The
objective of the project is to complete the highway portion (State Route 178) of the
Crosstown Corridor by eliminating a "gap" in the federal aid system through Metropolitan
and Downtown Bakersfield.
For many years the Bakersfield Metropolitan area has been living with this highly inefficient
and undesirable situation with respect to traffic circulation with no identifiable funding
source for a project to correct this situation.
We would appreciate your assistance in obtaining authorization and funding for the project
through the pending legislation for the National Highway System.
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD//
' / -'-'-'------- //
City Manager ~
KERN COUN//J2. IL OF GOVERNMENTS
/RONALD E. BRUM.~E"I~r, Executive Director
Regional Transporfition Planning Agency
City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield · California · 93301
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD
CROSSTOWN FREEWAY CORRIDOR
STATE ROUTE 178
APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL FUNDS
IntFoduction
The City of Bakersfield, County of Kern and Kern Council of Governments, are requesting funds
be authorized to support, in part, a multimodal transportation plan to maintain air quality,
quality of life and mobility needs in the metropolitan Bakersfield, Kern County, California.
Consideration for funding support for the highway portion of the plan is requested. The
objective of the project is to complete the highway portion of the plan by eliminating a 'gap" in
the federal aid system (State Route 178) through metropolitan Bakersfield.
The following are responses to the eighteen project criteria for the House Public Works
Committee Authorization Bill.
Proiect Criteria
1. ldent~ the $tat~ or other qualO~d recipient for carrying out the project?
The project will be constructed cooperatively by the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Bakersfield.
D~cribe the design, scope and objective of the project, including the phase of phases proposed
for fund~g ?
The objective of the project is to complete the highway portion of the Crosstown
Corridor by eliminating the "gap' in the federal aid system through downtown
Metropolitan Bakersfield. The Crosstown Corridor is a multi-mode transportation
program consisting of both light rail and highway projects.
The highway "gap" currently exist between State Route 99 and the Freeway portion of
State Route 178. The present connection is made via narrow surface streets. The scope
of this project includes final route adoption, environmental clearance and right-of-way
acquisition.
The final product would be an 8 lane freeway facility connecting to the existing six lane
facility. The project would also include a full freeway to freeway interchange at State
Route 99. The connection point at State Route 99 would coincide with State Route 58.
State Route 58 is presently in the final stages of the route adoption process.
Is the project eligibie for the u~ of f~l~robaid funds?
Yes. All of the mute adoption, environmental and fight-of-way acquisition are eligible.
-1-
4. What is the total project cost and source of funds?
The estimated cost of this phase of the project is $152 million. This phase includes the
route adoption, environmental and right-of-way acquisition.
The estimated cost of the total project is $469 million. This figure includes all
engineering and construction costs, right-of-way, inflation, contingencies and a project
reserve. Currently, no local funding source is identified for this project.
Will there be privat~ ~ctor funding for a portion of the project and, ~f so, how much private
sector financing is being made available for the project?
The Metropolitan Bakersfield Area has a Developer Supported Transportation Impact
Fee program in place for use in large highway projects. The transportation impact fee
program has earmarked $11 million for this phase of the project.
Will the completion cost for the project exc~d the amount requested for the project?
As noted in the response to question #4, the total completion cost of the project is $469
million. The first phase of the project requested for authorization is estimated at $152
million.
Has ~ work, such as preliminary enginering and environrn~ntal analys~ b~n don~ on the
project ?
Conceptual design, engineering feasibility and environmental assessment for the project
have completed.
What is the proposed schedule and status of work on the project?
The goal is to complete the route adoption and environmental impact reviews by 1996
and begin right-of-way acquisition in 1996-97.
Is the project included in the rnetropolittm and/or State transpotf~ttion improvement plan(s),
and ~f so, scheduled for funding?
No schedule for funding. The metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the region
has adopted the project into the long range plan. The MPO has conducted corridor
studies that include the project. The project is included in the Metropolitan Bakersfield
2010 General Plan Circulation Element adopted by the City of Bakersfield and the
County of Kern.
-2-
10.
1~ the project considered by State andlot regional transportation offtcial~ as critical to their
needs?
Yes. The Crosstown Corridor is a high priority for the Kern Council of Governments,
the MPO for the region, Caltrans, the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern. The
completion of this 'gap" is a high priority within the corridor.
11.
Why have State a~i/or r~giotud ~rtation oJTtcials not given thi~ project su~ient priority
to obtain funding through the normal ISTF_~ funding proeel?
Although this project is considered critical, the costs have been prohibitive. Therefore,
scarce funds have been directed to other less cosfly, but equally important projects.
12.
Has the proposed project encountered, or is it lil~ly to encounter and signSant opposition or
other obstacles ~ on environmental or other typ~ of concerns?
No. Based on the previous work done on this project in the corridor no significant
opposition is anticipated.
13. How will the project objectives be attain~l?
The objectives of the Crosstown Corridor are: 1) improve travel throughout the
metropolitan area, 2) reduce highway traffic congestion on the surface streets, 3) improve
safety, 4) mitigate environmental impacts, 5) improve the economy, 6) minimize
construction impacts.
14.
D~scribe the economic, energy efftciency, environmental, congestion mitigation and safety effects
associated with completion of the project?
Economic Effects: Access to downtown Bakersfield as a result of this project will
substantially increase especially from the southwest and northwest portions of the
metropolitan area. This will allow 1) business locations in the downtown area to become
more viable, 2) travel in the metropolitan area will be greatly enhanced allowing
increased commerce throughout the southern San Joaquin Valley.
Enerav Efficiency: Currently, traffic must utilize narrow surface streets to make the State
Route 99/178 connection. Reduced operational speeds and increased vehicular delays
increase fuel consumption. This project will significantly reduce fuel consumption and
increase energy efficiency.
Environmental Effects: Increased fuel efficiency and decreased vehicular delay will reduce
emission levels substantially.
Congestion Mitigation Effects: Currently, the surface street connection is highly
congested. In addition, traffic signals located along the route further impact congestion
levels. This project will substantially reduce these congestion levels and mitigate many
traffic related problems now occurring.
-3-
15.
16.
17.
18.
Safety Effects: Traffic Signals located along the surface street portion of the corridor
experience the greatest number of correctable accidents within the metropolitan area.
This project will substantially reduce these accidents.
Will the propoz~d project r~quire an additional investment in other in~turo projects. If
so, how will these projects b~ funehnf?
The Crosstown Corridor is a multi-mode transportation program consisting of both light
rail and highway projects. The objective of this project is to complete the highway portion
of the Crosstown Corridor by eliminating the "gap" in the federal aid system through
downtown Metropolitan Bakersfield. The light rail project identified for this corridor is
being submitted for authorization as a separate project.
Additional infrastructure projects will be necessary in connection with this project. These
generally include tie-in points to the local transportation network. Funding for these tie-
in locations is expected to be funded from local sources.
In lieu of the proposed project, what other transportation strategies have been considered by
State and local transportation o~iols?
Other strategies that have been considered by State and local transportation officials
include a light rail system that connects the northeast and southwest portions of the
metropolitan area through downtown Bakersfield. Both the light rail transit project and
highway project are being coordinated through the regional transportation planning
agency.
Is the authorization r~!uestod an incr~a~ to a previously authorized amount for this project, or
would this be the fu~ authorization for thi~ project? Has thi~ project previoasty received
f~!eral funding~, commitm~nt~ r~nm~g ~ f~d~ral fututing (such as LOI or Full Funding
Agreement), or apl~ropriations?
This project has not received funding, authorizations or appropriations from federal
funding sources nor has it received commitments regarding future federal funding.
If highway Trust Fund revenue are not made available for the project, would you support
general fund revenue for it?
Yes.
-4-
Sumtory
There are several important reason why this project should receive consideration for funding in
the House Public Works Committee Authorization Bill. These reasons include: 1) strong local
community support; 2) local funding commitment; and, 3) the absence of significant negative
environmental factors.
The feasibility study initiated by Caltrans and the local agencies dearly indicates that there is
support for the project by the public and key leaders in the community. Local governments and
the state have demonstrated their commitment to the project by funding a preliminary planning
and environmental analyses. Based on the preliminary analysis, it is unlikely there will be
environmental factors that would kill or significantly delay the project. The support by the
community and positive environmental analysis confirm that the funds requested for this
authorization bill can be spent between now and the reauthorization of ISTEA.
-5-
ROUTE 178 IN BAKERSFELD
ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY