HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997
B A K E R S F I E L'D
Alan tandy · City Manager
January 4, 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 BAKERSFI__.~ELD,// KERN ,/~/~~J~IL OF GOVERNMENTS
,/RONALD E. BRUM.,METT, Executive Director
City Manager /.. Regional Transportfition 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
Introduction
The City of Bakersfield, County of Kern and Kern Council of C, overnments, 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.
Project Criteria
1. Identify the State or other qual~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.
2. Describe the design, scope and objective of the project, including the phase of phases proposed
for funding?
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.
3. Is the project eligible for the use of federal-aid funds?
Yes. All of the route adoption, environmental and right-of-way acquisition are eligible.
4. ~q~at is the total project cost and sourc~ of fund~?
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.
5. Will there be private sector funding for a portion of the project and, ~'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.
6. Will the completion cost for the project exceed 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.
7.- Has early work, such as preliminary engineering and environmental analysis been done on the
project?
Conceptual design, engineering feasibility and environmental assessment for the project
have completed.
8. 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.
9. Is the project included in the metropolitan and/or State transportation improvement plan(s),
and ~f so, scheduled for funding?
No schedule for funding. The metropolitan planning organization (Mt'O) 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. Is the project considered by State and/or regional transportation o~tcials 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 and/or regional transportation o~rtcials not given this project ~ient priority
to obtain funding through the normal ISTEA funding process?
Although this project is considered critical, the costs have been prohibitive. Therefore,
scarce funds have been directed to other less costly, but equally important projects.
12. Has the proposed project encountered, or is it likely to encounter and significant opposition or
other obstacles based on environtnental or other types 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 attained?
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. Describe the economic, energy e~Ogciency, 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.
Energy 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-
Safe_tv 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.
15. Will the proposed project require an additional investment in other infr~ntcture projects. If
so, how will these projects be funded?
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.
16. In lieu of the proposed project, what other transportation strategies have been considered by
State and local' transportation o~J~cials?
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.
17. Is the authorization requested an increase to a previously authorized amount for this project, or
would this be the first authorization for this project? Has this project previously received
. federal fundings, commitments regarding future federal funding (such as LOI or Full Funding
Agreement), or appropriations?
This project has not received funding, authorizations or appropriations from federal
funding sources nor has it received commitments regarding future federal funding.
18. If highway Trust Fund revenue are not made available for the project, would you support
gsneral fund revenue for it?
Yes.
-4-
Summary
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 clearly 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
24th ST
TEU'ZTt~ AVN.
AT & SF ~ P~ YAHD
CALIFOENIA AVE.
Rush hour.., a time to avoid being on ~ ~ = = ~
the road in most major cities. Here in
Kern-County, we are still able to get
where we're goin~g without too much
trouble. Our commutes are usually
reasonable, allowing us plenty of
time to enjoy .our families, our life-
styles and after-work activities.
But what happens as our community
continues to grow without any transpor- .~
tation solutions in place? What happens
to our quality of life when we must leave
earlier, rush more and arrive late?
Elements of the Strategy
Because there is not enough funding to toke core of all our ne(
the projects have been prioritized. This way, the funds will be
on what ~ve need most. Projects which are important to the
community ~ but don't have funding w also were prioritized
~o that ~ve con seek funding in a coordinated effort.
Pro~®c~:~ ~nc#uded ~n pBan: Unfunded
Between now and the year 2015, These are hi: for which there
approximately $820 million is anticipated is not sufficient fUnding:
to fund the highest priority projects: ~. 1. Crosstown Free, way (southern ali
~ 1. Kern River Freeway/Connections to :
SR 99 and Existing SR 58 (eastern segment) As part of the Centennial
Corridor (SR 178), the construction bfa sixLl~fie
Construction of the western segment of freeway from east of Union Avenue through
SR 58, from SR 99 to Renfro Road downtown to SR 99
~2. Improvement of Roadways ~2. River Crossings
Widening, extending or re-aligning more Widen bridges over Kern River at Manor
than 80 segments of existing roadways Drive and Chester Avenue; build bridge at
Renfro Road
~ 3. Traffic Operations/Safety Projects
~. 3. New Grade Separations Over/Under
Installation of over 200 new traffic signals Railroads
and a computerized program for adjusting
signals in response to traffic incidents Underpasses or overpasses at nine
and surges railroad-track crossings
~ 4. River, Canal and Railroad Crossings ~ 4. Other Roadway Widenings and
Extensions
Two new bridges over Kern River; additional
bridges over canals. Construction of under- Longer term, additional widenings and
passes or overpasses at railway crossings extensions will be needed to keep pace with
on Oswell Street and Coffee Road traffic growth
~ 5. Roadway Maintenance ~ 5. Beltways
Urgently needed maintenance of existing Purchase rights-of-way for eventual con-
roads and city streets struction of south and east beltways around
Bakersfield (this is in addition to those
~ 6. Expansion of Golden Empire already earmarked for purchase)
Transit Service
~, 6. Additional Roadway Maintenance
Establishment of neighborhood circulation
routes, express crosstown routes and new Available funding will not cover ali needed
transfer centers; purchase of additional buses maintenance on Bakersfield's roadways
~, 7. Connections Between Modes of Travel ~ 7. Additional GET Funding
New intercity rail station downtown and other Some additional funds will be needed in the
intermodai facilities future to operate expanded service to schools,
employment sites and key activity centers
~'8. Ridesharing, Bicycle and Pedestrian
Facilities and Balanced Land Development
The Major Transportation
Investment Strate~ for Metro
Bakersfield is: To gain input on transportation
~a plan that will determine our priorities for the community,
transportation in the future * participants have:
~a prioritized list of transpor~,,~ ~held three public workshops
tation projects needed for our ~
community ~ . ~published three community and distributed newsletters
~the first time major govern- seeking input
ment, transportation and ~addressed more than 20
environmental entities in Kern se~ice organizations, business
County have joined together to
and
civic
associations
address our overall transportation
needs and develop a combined
strate~ Lead Agencies
~the result of a planning process Golden Empire Transit District
that has incorporated the vision Oty of Bakers~eld
of community leaders, business co..ty of Kern
people, interested residents, and ~n Co.nd~
planners c~¢¢fo~.~o Department of Transportation
Control Distri~
our community ~ets its share
of transportation funding in
the future ~olicy Advisory Committee
Bryan Batey
Mel McLaughlin
Supervisor Barbara Patrick
Mayor Bob Price
The Major Transportation Invest- ~o~ Ortiz
ment Strate~ is needed because: Howard Silver
~our population has nearly
doubled during the past quarter
centuw and is projected to nearly
double again by the year 2015
~our transportation system
is essentially the same as it was see
in 1970
~we are losing $15 million
annually in matching government
funds (money we've already paid
in taxes) because we don't have a
local funding source
~E Ttl ~lP fll, ! T~i iil t~A l~Etl SFIEl, fl
I~7 - ,2#15
C~nse~sus [~ ~aj~r Trar~sp~r~a~i~
i
!
[] OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUIgD
While the population of Kern County and Metropolitan Bakersfield has nearly doubled over the last
twenty-five years, the transportation system has remained essentially the same. Though we have
i added some local roads to serve new residential developments and a few more buses for local transit
service, we have not added the kind of facilities and services that will be needed to accommodate
the sizable Metropolitan Area growth that is forecast to take place between now and year 2015.
I While the congestion on Bakersfield Metropolitan Area streets and arterial highways is not yet
intolerable, it is increasing, and it seems clear that unless we agree on a consensus plan now for the
future and agree on how to fund it, the conditions will only get worse. Also clear is the need to plan
I for a total transportation system, one which includes provisions for highway and transit projects, and
possibly even programs designed to effect the demands we make on our transportation system.
I The participating agencies have looked at several alternative transportation investments (over a 20-
year horizon period) which incorporate different mixes of highway and transit projects in search of
a strategy that would be of the most benefit to the community as a whole. It needs to be stated that
I a Consensus Plan is not a hollow phrase, but one which is taken seriously and designed with the
community's help. Simply stated, the Consensus Strategy has evolved from the process as the most
beneficial package of projects that have the broadest possible benefit to the community and support
I throughout the Bakersfield Area.
greater
Metropolitan
I A. Purpose and 19eed for the Strategy
i Today~ we have more shopping centers, more houses, more jobs, more children, and more schools
than we had in 1970. We also have more travel through our neighborhoods and across town than in
the past. For long-time residents, this increase in traffic congestion is readily apparent. For
I newcomers, Bakersfield is still a lot better than Los Angeles--but is that our standard?
To some, our roads are congested--and are getting more congested with each passing year. To
Iothers, traffic congestion is not a big issue, yet. But what will the future bring? Perhaps we could all
agree on one thing about traffic, congestion, and transportation mobility, we want to maintain what
we have now, and not let conditions get any worse.
I The 1996 Regional Transportation Plan is a "long-range" planning document prepared by the Kern
Council of Governments that consolidates city, county, GET and Caltrans planned and funded
I transportation projects. Hundreds of highway, roadway, pedestrian/bicycle, and bus projects are
included in the plan to be accomplished over the next 20 years. Projects include new bridges across
the Kern River and various canals, improvements to Rosedale Highway, partial construction of the
i SR-58 "Kern River west of State Route further of
Freeway"
99,
grade
separations
roadways
over
or
under railroads, and various traffic signalization projects.
I
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 1
I
.~,
TRANSPOR TA TION S TRA TEG Y FOR METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD !997.20 !5
These are all fine projects but they are not enough to keep up with the 300,000 new residents
expected to arrive over the next 15 years. Traffic congestion will get much worse unless new major
investments in the Metropolitan Area's transportation system and are made between now and year
2015.
Recognizing that the above referenced projects will not be able to maintain basic mobility, i.e., the
quality of transportation that we have today; six local, regional and state agencies have teamed
together develop Transportation Strategy Metropolitan
to
the
for
Bakersfield.
To determine the future transportation needs of Metropolitan Bakersfield, the agencies jointly
conducted the Major Transportation Investment Strategy (MTIS) which included an extensive
analysis of travel in the area. The analysis included an examination of traffic patterns, an evaluation
of altemative transportation systems, and identification of existing and potential sources of revenue.
With the ongoing participation of community groups and the public at large, the agencies then
developed a strategy for implementing those projects that would be the most effective in eliminating
congestion and would benefit the Metropolitan Area as a whole.
The purpose of this Transportation Strategy is fourfold:
· To provide the most appropriate transportation response to projected growth patterns and the
continuing expansion of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area;
· To maintain, and possibly improve transportation mobility to and through the central portion of
Bakersfield which is projected to become increasingly congested as more growth occurs;
· To reduce, or at least not increase, transportation-related air quality emissions; and
· To provide residents with more mobility choices and connections to major travel destinations.
Realistically, there will never be enough transportation money available in the future (even under
the most to eliminate all that will in the
optimistic
scenario)
totally
congestion
OCCur
expanding
ever
Metropolitan Area. Therefore, the challenge will be to manage our public resources (tax dollars)
wisely, and make the best transportation investment choices for our community. Along these lines,
transportation strategy as an important "stepping stone"
the
recommended
should
be
considered
toward better mobility for Bakersfield's future.
The participating agencies have used a very comprehensive process to identify and select the best
package of long-range improvements to implement for the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area. It is the
most significant process of its kind for our community. It requires that we genuinely involve policy
makers of Bakersfield Metropolitan Area and the general public. The results of this process will
determine where and how federal, state and local transportation dollars are spent over the next 20
years.
!
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 2
!
i Tt~A~ISFOt~TA TION STt~A TEGY FOR METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD !997.2015
!
· B. Purposeand Objectives
I The Bakersfield Metropolitan Area will be faced with many transportation challenges in the coming
years. Some of the most crucial challenges are:
I 1. Population Growth. The Bakersfield Metropolitan Area has a population of 382,000 (1995)
and will grow to 612,000 over the next 20 years (2015), an increase of over 60 percent.~ By
I then, Kern County's population will number over 1,000,000 people.
2. I~letro Growth and lraffie Burden. Much of the projected growth in the Metropolitan Area is
I expected to occur at the fringes of the city and, as a result, the Metro Area boundary will be
expanded greatly. Given the expansive nature of this growth, a significant investment in
i Bakersfield's utilities and infrastructure (sewer, water, gas, roads, etc.) will be needed. New
I
transportation facilities, services and maintenance will be needed to handle all of the traffic
generated by these dispersed land uses.
I The Metropolitan Area already consists of 715 miles of city streets and 934 miles of county
roads. Within the Metropolitan Area, State Route 99 has average daily vehicle counts as
I high as 100,000 vehicles per day. Trucks account for as much as 37 percent of the average
daily traffic.-' On State Route 58, trucks presently account for 33 percent of all traffic
through Bakersfield.
I
3. I:undin§ Shortfalls. Realistically, there may never be enough transportation money available
i in the future (even under the most optimistic scenario) to eliminate all future congestion that
will occur in the ever-expanding Metropolitan Area. Therefore, the challenge will be to
manage our public resources (tax dollars) wisely, and make the best transportation
I inVestment choices for our community. The transportation strategy is an important "stepping
stone" toward continued mobility. The Strategy will cost over $1 Billion, but according to
the Kern Council of Governments, a much higher total investment ($2 to 3 billion or more),
I would be required to totally address future congestion by year 2015 if dispersed growth
patterns continue.
I Funding is also at risk for transit. Between FY 1989-90 and FY 1993-94, Golden Empire
. Transit's annual ridership increased by 26 percent, or from 4.7 million passengers to nearly
5.9 million passengers.3 This positive trend is now in jeopardy, as the availability of local,
I
I ~ Estimates developed based on information provided by Kern COG.
e 1996 Regional Transportation Plan, Kern COG.
I ~ California State Controllers Reports.
I
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 3
I
i Tt~ANSFOt~TA TION STt~A TEGY FOB METt~OFL~LITAN BAKERSFIELD ! 997.2~! 5
state and federal money for GET's operations is at risk.
4. Roadway Improvements And Maintenance. A key transportation objective is to aggressively
seek funds for maintaining and improving our transportation system and to establish Kern
as a "self-help" county to raise matching funds in some manner. The Kern County
maintained road system is the second largest in the state with over 3,330 miles, but is 37th
in the amount spent per mile on maintenance. An average of approximately $3,000 per
maintained mile of roadway is .spent annually on preventative maintenance ($10,000,000
total), but this is $2,000 below the statewide per.mile/per year average, cost
The
estimated
to rehabilitate the existing system (new construction, overlays and safety projects) is an
additional $13,500,000 annually. In addition, Caltrans estimates that over half the highways
in Kern County have existing service deficiencies and almost all will become deficient over
the next ten years.
$. Air 0uality. Kern County is classified as nonattainment for both Ozone and respirable
particulate matter. Metropolitan Bakersfield is also classified as federal nonattainment for
carbon monoxide. Approximately 70 percent of the carbon monoxide generated in Kern
County is from motor vehicles.
of One indicator of livability is the assurance of continued
§.
Maintain
£ivability
Community.
mobility throughout the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area. As growth occurs and no
investments in new transportation infrastructure are made, travel times will deteriorate over
more hours of the day.
Given these challenges, the following Metropolitan Transportation Issues have been identified by
local agencies to direct the development of a Consensus Strategy.
I Issue 1: Growth of the Metropolitan Area and the continued sprawl of development
and activity centers.
'1 Issue 2: Growth in Internal and External Travel Markets, primarily journey to work, ·
·
but also school/university, shOpping, trips as well as truck traffic.
'1 Issue 3: Orientation of Travel. The fastest growing travel markets will be on the west
side of town, and east-west cross-town travel, for all trip purposes, will
i increase.
Issue 4: Geographic Constraints/Barriers. SR-99 is a barrier that limits cross-town
travel options and cross-town roadway capacity. The Kern River, railroad
I lines, and rail yards also funnel travel into concentrated corridors.
I Issue §: Growth in Cross-Town Travel will exceed the peak-period carrying capacity
in the central Metropolitan area. In the coming years, traffic congestion will
I
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 4
I
grow and air quality may worsen.
' Issue §: Financial Resources. Limited funds require finding the optimal solutions to
emerging transportation problems (capital, operating and maintenance).
Issue ?: Balanced Transportation and Good Multimodal Connections. The variety
and extent of possible multimodal connections will grow in the future and are
key to the fabric of good transportation in the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area
in the future.
C. Funding Shortfalls
The big question is, where is the money to come from for the transportation projects envisioned by
the strategy? Cost estimates range from $940 million to $1.5 billion, or even more. Current
expectations are that approximately $860 million will be available from anticipated funding sources
for both roadway and transit projects. But with curtailments in state and federal appropriations for
transportation, and the considerable demands on local financial resources, it will be very difficult
to obtain the necessary additional money. Realistically, there probably never will be enough funds
available for everything that should be done to eliminate traffic congestion in the ever expanding and
growing Metropolitan Bakersfield Area. In developing the strategy, the principal challenge was to
make sure that the investments produce the best possible transportation system for the Bakersfield
Metropolitan Area.
In addition to new roadway and transit projects, the proposed strategy takes into account the urgent
need for and rehabilitative maintenance of existing roads and city streets. Metropolitan
preventive
Bakersfield contains 934 miles of county roads, 715 miles of city streets and segments of several
state routes. Deterioration of the roadways is increasing because of age and deferred maintenance
due to funding shortfalls. About $487 million will be needed between 1997 and 2015 just to
maintain and rehabilitate the roadways. But funding remains critically inadequate despite aggressive
efforts to obtain more money. A shortfall of $115 million is expected.
Funding will probably be available to purchase more buses so Golden Empire Transit (GET) can
meet future demands for its service. However, there will not be enough money between now and
year 2015 to operate an expanded GET service. There will be a shortfall of $46 - $78 million in
GET operating funds.
The Metropolitan Area has an opportunity to develop a community consensus on short- and long-
term transportation priorities for the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area through this Transportation
Strategy. Once a consensus emerges, local leaders can then begin building public support for
funding needed for high priority transportation improvements.
I
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 5
I
TRAI~$PORTA TION STRATEGY FOR I~1ETROPOLITA~I BAKERSFIELD ! 997.201
RECOMMENDED LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY
FOR METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD
The 18.year strategy for Metropolitan Bakersfield proposed by the six participating agencies has
eight basic components:
FUNDABLE ROADWAY PROJECTS. High-priority roadway projects for which funding will
probably be available by year 2015. The projects are listed in detail in the Appendix to this
report.
UNFUNDED HIGH-BENEFIT ROADWAY PROJECTS. Important Metro Area Roadway projects for
which funding should be sought.
MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING ROADWAYS. Intensification of preventive and rehabilitative
maintenance programs to preserve existing roads and streets.
FUNDARLE TRANSIT COMPONENT - EXPANSION OF GOLDEN EMPIRE TRANSIT (GET) SERVICE.
Addition of bus routes, transportation centers and vehicles to meet the needs of the growing
Metropolitan Bakersfield population.
UNFUNDED TRANSIT COMPONENT. Additional funds will be needed for operating an
expanded GET bus system in the future.
CONNECTIONS BETWEEN TRANSPORTATION MODES. Creation of more transit hubs for
convenient transferring from one bus route to another and between buses, AMTRAK and a
possible future high-speed
rail
line.
RIDESHARINGINON-MOTORIZED MODES AND PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES.
Development of more pedestrian and bicycle lanes and other facilities.
LAND-USE ELEMENT. Encouragement of mixed-use, infill and other balanced land
development to minimize the increase of vehicular traffic.
The recormnended long range transportation strategy incorporates a higher developer fee program
approved in February 1997. Some of the estimated $230 million in local funds that will be generated
by the program could be used to "match" additional state and federal transportation funds on a
project by project basis.
!
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 6
I
I TBA~ISFORTA TIO~I STRATEGY £OR METROFOLITA~I BAKERSFIELO !££72§ !§
A. Fundable Roadway Components
Based on current funding expectations, nearly $746 million will be local, state,
available
from
and
federal sources to build the highest priority highway and street projects throughout the Bakersfield
Metropolitan Area between now and year 2015. The Transportation Strategy has identified four
categories of high priority roadway projects. These are listed on the following pages and shown in
the attached map.
1. Build SR-58 Western Segment (Kern River Freeway). One of the most beneficial roadway
projects for Metropolitan Bakersfield is the Construction of the SR-58. The project links up
with the Centennial Transportation Corridor and has been defined in a series of past route
studies and environmental analyses. As defined, it would extend from SR-99 to the west
along the Kern River alignment (6 lanes from SR-99 to Renfro Road and as 4 lanes from
Renfro Road to I-5). The Kern River alignment would be connected with the existing east
leg of SR-58 by means of connecting lanes (and interchanges) along SR-99. The benefits of
constructing SR-58 are several fold. They include:
· Safety and Arterials such as Rosedale Highway, Truxtun Avenue and Stockdale Highway and
Traffic Flow Benefits. Removing traffic (especially truck traffic) from City Streets and
moving it to a separate-grade separated roadway.
· Expanding Cross-lown Capacity. The SR-58 would add badly needed cross-town traffic
capacity available to absorb future cross-town traffic growth.
· Improving the Reliability of Crosstown Travel for Emergency Vehicles and All Traffic and
improving overall travel times during peak hours of the day.
2. Roadway Widenings, Extensions and Realignments
· Widen bridges/interchanges on Panama Lane at SR-99, White Lane at SR-99, Olive
Drive at SR-99, SR-58 at Fairfax Road and at .F_airfax Road and Alfred Harrell Highway;
· SR-119 from Buena Vista to SR-99;
· SR-184 from Panama to State Route 58;
· Widen SR-178 to 4-lanes with interchanges (Morning Drive and Fairfax Road) from east
of Oswell Street to Morning Drive. Construct SR-178 on a new alignment (Kern Canyon
Expressway) from Morning Drive to Alfred Harrell;
· Widen segment ofSR-58 SR-99 to to lanes;
from
Cottonwood
Road
from
4
6
· Major widening projects to Rosedale Highway, Weedpatch Highway, and Taft Highway;
· Approximately 50 strategic minor widenings of streets throughout the Bakersfield
Metropolitan Area; and
· Additional street improvements and signals would be constructed by developers as
development occurs.
!
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 7
I
i TA TION S TRA TEG Y FOR METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 1997-2015
TRANSPOR
I 3. Traffic Operations/Safety Projects
· 213 new traffic signals throughout the Metropolitan Area (this includes the 62 signals in
I the Existing Plus Programmed category); and
· A full Metropolitan-Area-wide computerized traffic control and monitoring signal
i program (SMART STREETS), which allows for "real time" adjustments to the signal
system in response to incidents or traffic surges.
i 4. Grade Separations and River Crossings
· Two Grade Separations at railroad tracks at Oswell Street & Coffee Road;
I · Construct River Crossings at Mohawk and Allen Road; and
· Numerous Canal crossings and safety projects.
i As mentioned above, nearly $746 million will be available between now and year 2015 to build a
number of roadway projects needed around the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area. The list of projects
shown above and detailed in the Appendix to this report is projected to solve about 50 percent of the
i most severe congestion. Even with this substantial investment, these projects will only get us a little
over halfway to being able to maintain a healthy transportation system that is both reliable and free
of congestion. As shown below, congestion in the year 2015 will become pervasive if only short term
iprojects are built with a projected 150 roadway locations suffering from severe traffic backups during
afternoon peak hours. This compares to only 3 different links experiencing severe afternoon peak
congestion today as shown below.
I Given the assumption that present lund use trends will continue and an ever increasing strain will
be placed on the transportation system, a total solution to congestion is not financially realistic.
i However, the recommended strategy does much to eliminate future traffic congestion. Less urban
sprawl in the future would place less of a burden on the roadway system.
i Projected Roadway Links With Congestion During Peak Periods for the Bakersfield
Metropolitan Area in Year 2015 (Links vary in distance from two blocks to one mile in length)
I Existing
Plus Short
Term Year 2015 Fundable
I Today Projects Roadways
With Moderate Slowing or Worse
i AM Peak Period 14 164 100
PM Peak Period 40 367 267
I With Severe Congestion
I AM Peak Period 2 56 25
i · PM Peak Period 3 150 64
I
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 8
I
PlO
i TRAI~SFORTA TION STRATEGY FOR METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD !997.2015
B. Unfunded Roadway Components with High Benefits
If more funding can be found, we will add other high priority roadway projects such as the SR-178
Cross Town Freeway in the Centennial Transportation Corridor, strategic roadway grade separations,
river and canal bridges and roadway widenings and extensions to the fundable list of projects
described earlier. Although some of these strategic roadway projects for the Metropolitan Area may
have some local funding from the fee program, none have secured matching state and federal funds.
High Priority Roadway projects for the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area are shown on the attached
map and include the following:
1. SR-178 Cross Town Freeway (Southern Alignment). A new 6-lane cross-town freeway using the
previously identified SR-178 alignment as specified in the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) and the City's Year 2010 General Plan Circulation Element is a key component of the
Centennial Transportation Corridor. The Cross-Town Freeway would add additional capacity
for traffic and would 24th Street Arterial the
east-west
replace
a
possible
Super
primary
as
central Bakersfield roadway project. This alignment runs from east of Union to SR-99 along
the Burlington Northem.Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad yard alignment. Only ten million dollars
is currently identified in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for this project and $4.66
million is earmarked in the new developer fee program. Therefore, significant funds would
need to be generated.
The addition of the SR-178 Crosstown Freeway (southern alignment) which connects with
the SR-58 Kern River Freeway, creates a continuous crosstown freeway link (the Centennial
Transportation Corridor) that would relieve significant traffic from several parallel arterial
roadways and city streets such as California, Truxtun and 23/24th Streets.
The Centennial Transportation Corridor is the major intermodal and multi-modal corridor in
the Kern Region. The Centennial Transportation Corridor includes both highway and rail
facilities. The Corridor is the main rail and truck freight corridor for agricultural products ·
from the San Joaquin Valley to the Midwest and Eastern markets. Additionally, the Corridor
connects to the daily San Joaquin Amtrak passenger trains.
The Centennial Transportation Corridor Project consists of an un-constructed multi-modal
tranSportation corridor through the Metropolitan Bakersfield Area. The completion of the
Centennial Corridor will close the in SR-58 and SR-178. SR-58 is the
Transportation
main connection in the San Joaquin Valley between Interstate 15/40 near Barstow, California
and Interstate 5 West of Bakersfield. SR-178 is the main access to the Burlington
Northern/Santa Fe freight yard, the Union Pacific/Southern Pacific freight yard and the
Amtrak passenger station. Improved vehicle carrying capacity in key travel corridors which
will help cross-town traffic flow particularly on the westside where SR-58 (Kern River
Freeway) will remove auto and truck traffic from parallel surface streets.
!
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 10
I
i TRANSFORTA TION STRATEGY FOB METROF£LITAN BAKER$£1ELL~ !££72~! §
i An important measure of future system performance and reliability is mobility (travel time)
from one point in the Metropolitan Area to another during busy times of the day. Today
during the busy morning rush hour, it takes approximately 30 minutes to travel from the west
I side of town (Stockdale Highway/Renfro Road) to East Hills Mall approximately 13 miles
in distance. In year 2015, short term projects will not be enough to maintain today's mobility
as shown below. With only short term improvements, the above mentioned trip is projected
I to lengthen by 50 percent' to 45 minutes during peak times of the day.
As shown below, the strategies' recommended projects improve east/west mobility. When
I the SR-178 Crosstown Freeway (southern alignment) and SR-58 (Kern River Freeway) are
included, the above crosstown trip will take an estimated 24 minutes, better than today in
spite of the great increases in overall traffic projected by year 2015 and a 21 minute
I improvement over the existing roadway system plus short term improvements.
Projected AM Peak Travel Time (in minutes) From the West Side to the East Side of Bakersfield (Rosedale
I HighwaylRenfro Road to East Hills Mall)
Short Term Fundable With Crosstown
Today Projects Roadways Freeway
Minutes of Time 30 45 34 24
I The Proposed SR-178 Crosstown Freeway would remove traffic from several busy downtown
streets. In the base year (1994), 23rd/24th Streets, Truxtun Avenue, and California Avenue
I are busy crosstown arterial routes carrying a combined total of 103,672 daily vehicle trips in
year 2015. Based on new year 2015 travel forecasts, the traffic on these roadways will reach
a projected 172,405 daily vehicle trips by year 2015 if only short term projects are built. As
I shown below, the SR 178 Crosstown Freeway project (southern alignment) would remove
33,673 daily vehicle trips from these roadways by the year 2015, by diverting trips from local
streets to the new parallel freeway.
I Total Daily Traffic Volumes on Major East/West Roadways in the Downtown
I Today E+P Fundable With
Crosstown
· 23/24th Streets,
I Truxtun Ave, and
California Ave. Combined 103,672 172,405 171,022 138,732
· Other East/West
Roadways 93,072 171,083 177,668 127,200
I · SR-178 Crosstown
Freeway -- -- -- 88,639
I 2. Other Roadway Widenings and Extensions. Longer-term, additional roadway widenings and
extensions will be required within the Bakersfield Metropolitan area to increase capacity to
keep pace with traffic growth. Recently the City of Bakersfield identified the extension of
I Hageman Road between Mohawk and SR-204 as an essential project for the future.
,I
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 11
I
i Tt~AI~SFOt?TA TIOI~ STt?A TEGY£Ot? I~ETt?OFOLITAI~ BAKEt~S£1ELL~ 19972§!§
i 3. Additional River Crossings. Beyond those included in the funded roadway program, other river
crossings have been identified as having merit by the City and County. These include:
I · Manor Drive (widen)
· Chester Avenue (widen)
· Renfro Road
I · Others are on City/County Circulation Element
4. New Grade Separations Over/Under Railroads. Beyond the new grade separations included in
I the funded roadway program, several others have been identified as having merit by the City
and County. These include:
· Calloway Road
I · Seventh Standard
· Olive Drive
· Airport Drive (expand existing overpass)
I Weedpatch/Morning (SR-184)
Drive
· Mohawk Street (Extension To North)
· Q Street at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
I · East Truxtun Avenue at the Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad
· Q Street at Union Pacific (Southern Pacific) Railroad
I §. South and West Beltways around the City.
I This LPA element includes a 20-mile west beltway connecting I-5 on the south with 7th
Standard Road and possibly SR-99 on the north. In addition, the element contains a South
Beltway of approximately 25-miles in length connecting the West Beltway (and I-5) on the
west, SR-99 and SR-58 on the east. The City and County are proposing beltways for the
purpose of the drawing traffic away from the heavily congested central metropolitan area in
the future. Except for some right-of-way funds, these projects are currently unfunded and
I not-yet beyond conceptual status. These include beltway alignments (freeways/expressways)
around the southern and western developed portions of the Metropolitan Area. The RTP and
the City's Year 2010 General Plan identify west and south beltway alignments. (See attached
I map.) The concept ofbeltways has been used extensively in metropolitan areas throughout
the country with a mixture of benefits and drawbacks. Traffic benefits may be outweighed
by adverse impacts on land use growth. Beltways often encourage new development on the
I of metropolitan at the of the central
periphery
areas
expense
area.
Based on current conceptual plans for the beltways, the projects would have a combined cost
of $334 million for right-of-way and construction. Only $4.7 million is earmarked for right-
of-way purchases for beltways and SR-178 in the Rio Bravo Area from the new developer
i fee program. It is estimated that the $4.7 Million for Right-of-Way for the South and West
Beltways is approximately 21 percent of the total ROW costs required.
I
I
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 12
!
uo!uF1
PlO
TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY FOR METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD ! 997-20! 5
C. Maintenance of Existing Roadways
The community endorsed transportation strategy integrates projects with the current infrastructure
addressing the area's growing mobility issues. Therefore, it is imperative to encompass all
while
costs associated with the transportation infrastructure when selecting a preferred strategy.
Specifically, operations and maintenance (O&M) costs represent one area worthy of recognition at
a time when transportation funding is scarce and the viability of the current, infrastructure continues
to erode. More emphasis must be placed on the roadway maintenance element, by local and state
agencies as roadway programs are established in the future.
Both County and City maintenance costs have dropped annually in general due to shrinking street
and road budgets although yearly needs have remained steady. The Kern County maintained road
system is second largest in the state (over 3,000 miles) but ranks 37th in the amount spent'per mile
on maintenance. The County reports that roads require $10 million annually for routine preventive
maintenance. In addition, $13.5 million is needed for rehabilitative maintenance to upkeep the
serviceability of the existing system. County rehabilitative efforts (overlays and reconstruction
projects) have decreased well below the $13.5 million threshold to just over $8 million for FY 1993,
a serious indication of inadequate road funding. Likewise, city street maintenance effort have
experienced average annual declines from FYs 1991-1995 resulting in deferment of maintenance
which accumulates with each passing year.
Although the maintained street and road systems have either increased or remained fairly constant
in size, both budgets and the shares for maintenance have been decreasing during the past fiscal
years. During 1991-1995, County's road budget has been reduced by about 3% annually
FY
Kern
on average and the City of Bakersfield's street budget has declined by roughly 5% annually on
average. Similarly the percentage of street budget allocated to maintenance has decreased annually,
resulting in an average annual decrease of over 24% in maintenance costs. Consequently, the
historical data point toward a trend of increased deferment of necessary maintenance and constant
or smaller annual roadway budgets. With deferred maintenance comes increased costs as a result
of greater rates of deterioration to where only rehabilitation can revive the area's streets and roads.
The current roadway rehabilitation for State facilities is not as bleak as the City and County
programs. While the State Operating and Maintenance budget declined by 12 percent per year
between FY 1993 and FY 1995, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) recently
augmented the Caltrans State Highway Operations Protection Programs (SHOPP) by $600 million
statewide for the FY '95 through FY '98. This will allow Caltrans to catch up with much of the
deferred state highway rehabilitation.
I
!
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 14
I
TRAI~$POR TA TIO~I $ TRA TEG Y FOR I~ETROPOL ITA~I BAKERSFIELD ! 997.2015
D. FundableTransit Component
Our strategy is one of balanced transportation and includes a strategic expansion of the Golden
Empire Transit (GET) District service area and an expansion of GET fixed route bus service into
some new neighborhoods. Gains in transit ridership will help air quality by removing a number of
automobile trips. New GET bus service concepts sUch as high-speed-limited stop-cross-town routes
and neighborhood circulator routes will be added. New transit centers will need to be developed as
the service area grows. It is projected that the GET fleet size in operation during peak periods by
year 2015 will be approximately 114 buses in operation on 21 routes throughout the Bakersfield
Metropolitan Area.
Given its limited resources, the Golden Empire Transit District (GET) must carefully choose its
opportunities to serve Metropolitan Bakersfield residents. GET now carries between 18,000 and
19,000 passengers per day on its routes--and measured by transit industry norms--is quite
productive with an average between 27 and 30 passengers boarding for every hour a bus is in service.
By 2015 with a great deal of low-density growth predicted, Bakersfield will be a challenging place
for transit to keep pace with development and remain productive. The GET system redesign plan
tested as part of the Major Transportation Investment Strategy (MTIS) greatly expanded bus service
into new areas. As shown below, while ridership for the redesigned system is projected to double
by year 2015, productivity is projected to drop to lower, but still acceptable, levels.
Comparison of Total Daily Bus Transit Ridership and System Productivity
for the MTIS Alternatives
~ 1994 Fundable Transit (Year 2015)
18,000-19,000 35,000
In-Service Fleet Size in Peak Period 55 114
Boar(ling per Vehicle Hour 27-30 20
Note:Transit IndustrY Standards for Productivity on Fixed-Route Transit Service in Medium-Sized
Metropolitan Areas range between 15 to 20 boardings per vehicle service hour.
A major challenge to GET in the future will be to provide more bus service in the fast growing
portions of the Metropolitan Area. As shown on the following map,
southwestern
and
northwestem
GET currently serves only a small portion of the total year 2010 Metropolitan Area and operates
most of its service east of SR-99. With lower residential and commercial densities, the areas of the
southwest and northwest will be difficult to service with conventional fixed routes. Therefore, the
recommended bus system contains four new community circulator routes. In addition, many of these
"walled communities" are difficult to access with standard large buses.
Therefore, in order to provide more transit service to these low density areas and still maintain good
system productivity, GET will need to test new service concepts such as demand-response shuttles,
point or route deviation or other non-traditional types of transit service. These "community
circulator" services would utilize smaller transit vehicles that are more suitable for operating in
neighborhoods. The community circulator services will have timed transfers, with existing GET
fixed routes at designated transfer centers.
Bart0n-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 15
TRANSPORTATION STRA TEGY FOR METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD !99720!5
In addition to the existing downtown and Valley Plaza Transit Centers, GET will need to develop
new hubs and transfer centers in other portions of the greater Bakersfield Metropolitan Area as its
service area expands in the coming years. As new bus transit services are developed and existing
routes are expanded in a new area, GET will need to evaluate.various candidate sites for suitability
as transfer centers. Over the long range, possible transfer centers could be located at:
1. Adult school - Mt. Vernon South of SR-58-Southeast Transfer Hub
2. Callaway/Rosedale Shopping Center to serve the northwest;
3. CSU-Bakersfield to serve the southwest;
4. HomeBase site at Panama Lane and SR-99 to serve the south Metropolitan Area;
5. East Hills Mall to serve the eastern Metropolitan Area;
6. Bakersfield Airport Multimodal Terminal to serve the north;
7. High Speed Rail/Amtrak Multimodal Terminal in downtown Bakersfield additional
as
an
central
transfer site; and
8. Chester/Columbus Routes 1 and 2.
As bus transit service is expanded, a primary goal should be to better serve as many activity centers
as possible and new employment sites. For example, GET is determining if it has resources to
provide better service to schools in the Metropolitan Area such as CSU-Bakersfield, Centennial High
School, and Ridgeview High School. GET is also evaluating new connector services to Mercy
Southwest Hospital and other newly developing trip generators.
Many new choice riders could be attracted to high-speed cross-town bus routes instead of driving
their cars. The routes are being designed to be as direct as possible and have only limited stops to
keep operating speeds close to that of the automobile traffic traveling along the same arterials. Four
of these limited stop routes are included in the recommended Strategy's future bus system
connecting key transit hubs and activity centers throughout the Metropolitan Area. Thus transit
would be able to remove some auto trips from congested streets and have a positive air quality
benefit.
E. Unfunded Transit Component
Although the Golden Empire Transit District projects that it will have sufficient funds in the coming
years to purchase the recommended bus fleet, it will not have sufficient funds to operate all future
services. GET projects that over the 18 year period (1997 to 2015), it may have a shortfall in transit
operating funds of between $46 and $78 million. The specific operating deficit would be dependent
on service phasing, and projected operating costs and fare revenues.
!
!
!
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 16
I
I
i GET Service Area
!
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. ' TASK311
TRAI~SPORTATIO~I STRATEGY£OR ~IIETROPOLITAI~ BAKERSFIELD/997.20/5
F. Connections Between Transportation Modes
The variety and geographic extent of possible multimodal transportation connections will continue
i to with the development of doWntown AMTRAK station
grow
a
new
(eventually
expanded
to
serve
as a possible High Speed Rail (HSR) terminal). The central intercity transit terminal would
eventually be served by a variety of bus transit and shuttle services. It would also be able to
i accommodate park and ride trips. With the development of new transit centers in other quadrants
of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area, more opportunities will exist for transfers between modes and
Iservices.
G. RidesharinglNon-Motorized Modes
I Both the City of Bakersfield and Kern County have established plans for pedestrian and bicycle
facilities as part of their current General Plan Circulation Elements. The current system of pedestrian
I and bicycle facilities and lanes and will continue to be built the
(signing
striping)
throughout
Bakersfield Metropolitan Area. In the future as additional funds become available, new segments
of the Bicycle Facilities Master Plan can be developed throughout the expanded Metropolitan Area~
I
H. Land Use Element
I In 1997, the Land Use Element of the new updated Bakersfield General Plan will contain a program
that encourages "In-Fill" development and the designation of transportation corridors with more land
I intensification that is with transit and the eventual of Rail Transit
use
compatible
development
Light
(LRT). A livable community's component will identify specific incentives for encouraging in-fill
idevelopment and a better mix of land uses that reduce the overall number of vehicle trips and the
length of trips. The component will also demarcate the geographic limits (service area boundaries)
that GET transit will serve in the Metropolitan Area.
I Sprawling low-density development, with widely separated land uses, creates extra vehicular
" tripmaking and longer trip lengths for all trips. For the most part, residents in these low-density
Iareas are unable to walk to shopping, recreation or entertainment and must use their automobiles for
all trips. This places extra burdens .on the transportation system because vehicle-miles of travel will
grow out of proportion to growth in general. More in-fill development patterns in the future will
-i lessen this burden and will promote more efficient transportation in Bakersfield's future. Several
·
principles should be considered in future development to create a more balanced community and
maintain Bakers field's livability:
I 1. Create a pedestrian-friendly environment and include an ample supply of open spaces whose
placement encourages frequent use;
I 2. Make pedestrian facilities a priority;
3. Design building sites to serve many users;
4. Encourage a mixture of land uses to encourage more walking and less driving;.
I 5. Provide appropriate densities in key transportation corridors and in-fill projects;
encourage
I
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 19
!
TRANSFORTA TION STRATEGY FOR METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD !997.2015
7. Narrow the neighborhood street to encourage community cohesiveness, but maximize capacity
on major streets to promote better vehicle flow;
8. Create a "Central Place" within Metropolitan Bakersfield with several uses tied together and
served by transit; A "central place" should have a cross section of uses including commercial,
civic, cultural and recreational uses;
9. Integrate transit into the community's fabric; and
10. Consider transit linkage in advance as development is planned.
Along these lines, the City and County have included waivers and reductions in the new 1997 fee
program for development that minimizes or avoids new traffic impacts. These incentives will
hopefully lead to more balanced development that places less burden on the future transportation
system.
Bart0n-Aschman/~ss0ciates, Inc. Pa§e 211
TRA~ISPORTA TIOI~ STRA TEGYFOR I~ETROPOLITAI~ BAKERSFIELD
COSTS FOR THE STRATEGY(TO YEAR 201
5)
PROJECTED METRO ROADWAY CAPITAL COSTS
(In Millions of Dollars)
iiii i.:iF~ii:,!i;:,,: F~'~ie~'llli
Program::~. ;:!. :state
Major Roadway Projects
Crosstown Freeway (Right-of-Way - 10.0 10.0
Only)
Kern River Freeway 24.6 384.8 409.4
(SR-99 - Stockdale Highway)
SR-178 - Oswell to Morning - 14.0 14.0
Kern Canyon Expressway - 25.0 25.0
(Alfred Harrell - Morning Drive)
SR-58 Renfro to SR-99 (Rosedale 17.6 17.0 13.1 47.7
Hwy.)
SR-58 Freeway (99 to Cottonwood) 9.0 9.1 18.1
SR-184 (Panama to SR-58) 4.4 40.0 44.4
Beltways (Right-of-way only) 4.7 17.3 22.0
SR-119 - Buena Vista to SR-99 5.7 5.7
Subtotal Major Roadway Projects 57.0 499.8 39.5 596.3
Collectors & Arterials
Roadwork 107.5 107.5
Traffic Signals 21.5 21.5
Traffic Control / Safety Projects 5.6 5.6
Bridges 17.0 17.0
Culverts 6.3 6.3
Railroad Overpasses / Underpasses 17.2 12.0 36.3 65.5
Railroad Crossing Improvements 1.9 1.9
Subtotal Local Metro Projects' 171.4 17.6 36.3 225.3
OVERALL ROADWAY TOTAL 228.4 517.4 75.8 821.6
,!
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 21
I
Tt~AI~$FOt~ TA TIOI~ $ TSA TEG Y £0t~ METt~OFOLITAN BAKERSFIELD ! ££720 ! 5
PROJECTED TRANSIT CAPITAL COSTS
A. GET FLEET REQUIREMENTS (114 Bus Fleet in Service)
Small Bus Large Bus Totals
$2,200,000 $45,500,000 $47,700,000
TRANSIT CENTER COSTS $2,042,000
B.
GET
C. DOWNTOWN INTERClTY RAIL TERMINAL (AMTRAK) $20,200,000
OF CURRENT GET FACILITY $300,000
D.
EXPANSION
TRANSIT TOTAL $70,242,000
1996 -2015)
(In Millions)
FUNDED UNFUNDED TOTAL
LOCAL STREETS $204.9 $35.1 $240.0
COUNTY ROADS IN 108.6 74.4 183.0
BAKERSFIELD
STATE ROUTES IN 58.3 6.0 64.3
BAKERSFIELD
TOTAL $371.8 $115.5 $487.3
METRO AREA ROADWAY MAINTENANCE COSTS {SUBTOTAL}
{FY 1996-2015}
{In Millions)
FUNDED UNFUNDED TOTAL
LOCAL STREETS $118.2 $12.2 $130.4
COUNTY ROADS IN BAKERSFIELD 61.7 16.0
77.7
STATE ROUTES IN BAKERSFIELD 31.0 2.0 33.0
TOTAL $210.9 $30.2 $241.1
GET TRANSIT OPERATING COSTS (TO YEAR 2015)
(In Millions)
FUNDED UNFUNDED TOTAL
GOLDEN EMPIRE $346 - 371 $46 - 78 $392 - 449
TRANSIT BUS
ROUTES
!
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. L:lproj1654456.bl~rlrep~consertst~lconsens2.rpt Page 22
I
APPENDIX: FUNDABLE ROADWAY PROJECTS
Phase II Transportation Impact Fees
(Showing Changes from 3/4/96 list)
LIMITS : . . . : . !:*...' '' :::: IMPROVEMEN'I NUMBER NUMBER:: LANES :: :::' .*,: : ::.:* ================================================== .::':.::.: ::%: ::::: ::. ' TOTAL .
of LANES i
NAME FROM :'i:i::.: ..'::.::.:::::: TO MILES: !::!i:::::! STRIPED.:: PROPOSE;:: bY~:EE:::~ ei4OTES: ,...:.i,:! :: ::;; !i,!'!:','!i.i. ;,4':i,::' ?:: .: :-... :'
Airpod Dr. Norris S.R. 204 1.10 4 6 2 $473,000
Airport Dr. SP RR Widen RR Bridge $320,000
!Airport Dr. Spur Line Grade Seperat on ~ Spur L ne $1,500,000
Allen Rd. Kratzmeyer I Install Signal $120,000
Allen Rd. Reina Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Allen Rd. Nodega Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Allen Rd. Meachem Install Signal $120,000
Allen Rd. S.R. 58 Brimhall 1.00 2 6 2 $1,078,739
Allen Rd. Palm Ave. Install Signal $120,000
Allen Rd. Bdmhall Stockdale 1.00 2 6 2 $1,054,970
Allen Rd. G L Slough Widen Culvert @ Sra. 236+60 (Goose Lake) $100,000
Allen Rd. Panama Ln Ming Ave. 3.00 0 2 2 $2,090,000
Allen Rd. SP RR Improve grade crossing at Sta. 52+80 $100,000
Allen Rd. ' Kern River Canal Construct canal bridge at Sta. 150+00 (River Canal) $500,000
Allen Rd. Ming Ave. Stockdale Hwy 1.00 0 2 2 $696,667
Allen Rd. Kern River Construct Bridge (Kern River) $4,000,000
Allen Rd. C Valle~/Canal Construct Canal Brid~e {Cross Valley Canal/ $500,000
Ashe Rd. McKee Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Ashe Rd. Hosking Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Ashe Rd. Berkshire Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Ashe Rd. Panama Ln. Harris Rd. 0.50 0 2 2 $348,333
Ashe Rd. A-E Canal Canal bridge at Sra. 28+50 (Arvin-Edison) (50% Distdct Funded?) Completed
Ashe Rd. District Blvd Install Signal Completed
Ashe Rd. Hards SJ RR 0.50 1 $107,500
Berkshire Rd. 1320' W/0 Wible 660' W/o Wible O. 13 0 4 2 $55,900
Breckenridge Rd. Morning Vineland 1.00 2 4i 2 $727,527
Breckenddge Rd. ¥ineland Edison Rd. 1.00 2 4 2 $677,152
Brimhall Rd. Renfro Allen 1.00 2 4; 2 $505,316
~rimhall Rd. Jenkins Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Brimhall Rd. Allen Install Signal $120,000
Brimhall Rd. Allen Old Farm 0.50 2 4 1 $240,833
Brimhall Rd. Old Farm Install Signal $120,000
Brimhall Rd. Old Farm Jewetta 0.50 2 4 2 $348,333
Brimhall Rd. Jewetta Install Signal $120,000
Brimhall Rd. Jewetta Verdugo 0.50 2 41 2 $245,303
Brimhall Rd. Verdugo Install Signal $120,000
Brimhall Rd, Verdugo Calloway 0.50 2 4 2 $245,303
~rimhall Rd. Calloway Install Signal Completed
Brimhall Rd. Calloway Coffee 1.00 2 4 1 $348,098
Brimhall Rd, Harvest Creek Rd. Install Signal Completed
Buena Vista Rd. Panama Ln. Pacheco Rd, 1.00 2 4 2 $625,999
Buena Vista Rd. Harris Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Buena Vista Rd. Pacheco Rd. White Lane 1.00 2 4 2! $430,000
FACLIST2.XLS Page 1 4/1/97
APPENDIX: FUNDABLE ROADWAY PROJECTS
Phase II Transportation Impact Fees
(Showing Changes from 3~4~96 list)
........................ '" . UMTS * .:. . : ' ' .,: :::,'..:.:!ii:::': IMPROVEMENT NUMBER' NUMBER LANES:. : :.i: i: ~: !!:. ": ': :::":'..!..':i?::i:!i::i:!::iii:!i:::i:!:i:!i::::!! ..: i:*.:: :'::: -.:
T ,,, ".: "i "':":~ ': :' :: L~NG'~H:::: ":: ofEANE~: ~fLANES : FUNDE~: ::'""::':'::: ::::::i:i:'i i:::.:: ===?=?========?============ ============ ================ ==== = i:" ~:'i:" ::::?:::::::::??:::::::::::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ':::i
STREE .. · : ' ' .' , ':: : ,: · · ,: '... : . · '. ','.', ,,'." .' '" ...... : ..... , '". .' ". .... ~ ::'':.. ...:
NAME ' ' IFROM ' TO i.i ::i ::":':ull~:g::': .i'::: STRPED PROPOSE.:byFEE:::NOTES.':.:i.. :::::::::::::::::::::: :: :::: ::::::::::::::::: :?:::'.'.:::':: ::; ': .' ;i.
Dev. Agrmnt covers const, of 3 SB and 1 NB lanes Stockdale to White Lane
Buena Vista Rd. White Lane Stockdale 1.30 2 4 1 (includes 1 SB local) $279,500
Buena Vista Rd. SJ RR Improve grade crossing at Sta. 52+80 $100,000
Buena Vista Rd. Campus Park Dr. Install Signal $120,000
Buena Vista Rd. Kern River Canal Widen canal box culvert at Sta. 175+60 (River CanalI $40,000
California Oak A St. 0.50 Wideninc~l $430,000
galloway Dr. 7th Standard Hageman 3.00 2 4 2 $1,734,131
galloway Dr. Noriega Rd. Install Signal (50% Funded) $60,000
galloway Dr. Friant Kern Canal Widen canal bridge $500,000
galloway Dr. Hageman Meacham 0.50 2 6 4 Completed
galloway Dr. Meacham S.R. 58 0.50 4 6 2 $540,079
Calloway Dr. S.R. 56 Bdmhall 1.00 2: 6 4 $2,110,000
galloway Dr. AT&SF RR Grade Sep. @ AT&SF $1,500,000
galloway Dr. Brimhall C Valley Canal 0.60 4 6 8 $934,000
galloway Dr. C Valley Canal Kern River Bridges on CVC & Kern River $3,500,000
galloway/Dr. C Valle~/Canal Stockdale 0.50 4 6 6 $77~,333
Casa Loma Dr. Union Ave. Cottonwood R 1.00 2 4 2 Improve grade crossing at Sra. 1+42 $718,561
Casa Loma Dr. Union Ave Signal Modification $120,000
Casa Loma Dr. Cottonwood Rd Install Signal $120,000
Casa Loma Dr. .25 mi e/o Madison Widen canal culvert at Sra. 38+50 $40,000
Casa Loma Dr. !Cottonwood Rd. Mt. Vernon Rd 0.80 0 2 2 Completed
China Grade Loop Manor Round Mounta 2.40 2 4 2 $923,287
Coffee Rd. 7th Standard Norris 1.50 2 6 2 $967,845
Coffee Rd. Downing Rd. ~ Install Signal (50% Funded) $60,000
Coffee Rd. S.R. 58 Truxtun 1.50 2 6 3 $967,500
Coffee Rd. .5 mi s/o SR 58 Grade Sep. ~ AT&SF $1,500,000
Edison Rd. Alfred Harrell Hwy. Install Signal $120,000
Edison Rd. S.R. 178 Breckenridge 2.25 0 4 2 $1,953,540
Edison Rd. Breckenrid~le Edison Hwy. 1.25 0 4 2 $1,463,500
Fairfax Rd. Redbank Rd. SR 58 0.75 2 4 2 $507,108
Fairfax Rd. Rc, dh~nk Rd. Install Signal . $120,000
Faiffax Rd. SR 58 Widen S.H. 58 bridge at Sra. 45+75 $1,000,000
Fair[ax Rd. SR 58 Off Ramps Install Signals $240,000
Fair[ax Rd. AIf. Harrel Widen Int. @ AIf. Harrel $1,700,000
Fair[ax Rd. Alf. Harrel Paladino 1.00 2 6 2 $716,072
Fain'ax Rd. Panorama Niles 0.50 4 6 1 $107,500
Fairfax Rd. SR 178 Const. Int. @ 178 $1,700,000
Fairfax Rd. Highland Knolls Dr. Install Signal $120,000
Fairfax Rd. College Ave. Install Signal $120,000
Fairview Rd. Monitor St. Union Ave. 0.50 2 4 2 $194,586
Fruitvale Ave. S.R.99 Snow 0.50 0 6 2 Travel Link Deficiency Completed
Fruitvale Ave. Snow Norris 0.50 2 4 2 $464,515
Fruitvale Ave. 600' s/o Snow Widen Culvert @ Beardsley Canal $100,000
Fruitvale Ave. Hageman S.R. 58 1.25 2 6 2 $1,362,500
FACLIST2.XLS Page 2 4/1/97
APPENDIX: FUNDABLE ROADWAY PROJECTS
Phase II Transportation Impact Fees
(Showing Changes from 3/4/96 list)
LIMITS
ST.EET .... i '"i '?i::'':~'M""°vEME"~ NVMBE.': NU.B~.::~ ~.ES, .... .:~ ~. ~
' LENGTH' :; of LANES; of LANES:': FUNDED;.I : '. ;';: 'i:.:.;;. :::: 'i: :::;:i::: *; :'* ;::! ::::'::i'!!::::i::::: ;i:.:::::.' ¥:: ;;:: :;;;:. :;!:'. ::::: :: : i:::.:.:: i : i ;; ;;:i ;.::;; ;:;:;.;:; ?:'::~;i':i;: i~i::;. ': :i ; ..'" * .'
NAME FROM ;:. ~r0' : : ' :':.. i:': MILES i.:.'::;:.::, sTR PEo:;; P~(~P0$~ bY F~.: :.:: NOTES'.: '::!::i:
Fruitvale Ave. Meany Ave. Install Signal $120,000
Fruitvale Ave. Downin~l Ave. Install Signal $120,000
Gosford Rd. McKee Rd. Install Signal . $120,000
Gosford Rd. McCutcheon Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Gosford Rd. Berkshire Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Gosford Rd. Harris Rd. ,. Install Si~Inal $120,000
Hageman Rd. Renfro Santa Fe Way 1.00 2 6 4 $985,758
Hageman Rd. Renfro Install Signal $120,000
Hageman Rd. Jenkins Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Hageman Rd. Santa Fe Way Install Signal $120,000
Hageman Rd. AT&SF RR Improve Grade Crossing @ RR $100,000
Hageman Rd. Santa Fe Way Old Farm 0.50 2 6 4 $490,606
Hageman Rd. Allen Install Signal $120,000
Hageman Rd. Old Farm Install Signal $120,000
Hageman Rd. Old Farm Jewetta 0.50 2 6 4 Completed
Hageman Rd. Jewetta Install Signal $120,000
Hageman Rd. Jewetta Verdugo 0.50 2 6 4 $482,104
Hageman Rd. Verdugo Install Signal $120,000
Hageman Rd. Verdugo Calloway 0.50 2 6 4 $482,104
Hageman Rd. Calloway 1300' E 0.25 2 6 1 $53,750
Hageman Rd. Calloway Install Signal Completed
Hageman Rd. Coffee Install Signal Completed
Hageman Rd. Patton Way Install Signal $120,000
Hageman Rd. Fruitvale Install Signal $120,000
Hageman Rd. FruiWale Mohawk 0.13 2 6 4 $316,529
Hageman Rd. Mohawk ;Install Signal $120,000
Harris Rd. Buena Vista Rd. Gosford Rd. 2.00 0 4 2 $580,000
Hosking Rd. Stine Rd. Akers Rd. 0.50 01 4 2 ' $145,000
Hosking Rd. Fenton St. Install Si~lnal $120,000
Hughes Ln. Ming Ave. Terrace Wy. 0.75 0 2 2 $507,305
Jenkins Rd. Hageman 3rimhall Rd. 2.00 2 4 2 $1,024,873
Jenkins Rd. Brimhall Rd. 1500' N/o Stoc 0.72 0 4 2 $208,800
Jenkins Rd. Meacham Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Jewetta Ave. Snow Meachem Rd. 2.50 2 4 2 $1,365,824
Jewetta Ave. Kratzmeyer Install Signal $120,000
Jewetta Ave. Snow Install Signal $120,000
Jewetta Ave. Reina Install Signal $120,000
Jewetta Ave. I Noriega Install Signal $120,000
Jewetta Ave. Meachem Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Kern Canyon Road Morning S.R. 178 2.50 2 6 2 $1,868,724
Kern Canyon Road Vineland Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Kern Canyon Road Mesa Marin Dr. Install Signal $120,000
Kern Can)/on Road Edison Rd Install Si~Inal $120,000
Kern River Expressw Renfro Coffee Rd. 4.00 0 6 0 Future Expressway R/W $5,000,000
FACLIST2.XLS Page 3 411/97
mm m m m m m m m mm m m m m m m m m m m
APPEND)X: FUNDABLE ROADWAY PROJECTS
Phase )~ Transportation )nlpact Fees
(Showing Changes from 3/4/90 fist)
..... ' ii:ii~:i, i~' IMPROVEMENT NUMBER' NUMBER~. LANES :' :: ..... TOTAL
STREET
NAME FROM TO . MILES,:::i.::: STRIPED PROi~0SE:: byl~EE.I NOTES.
Kern River Freeway WMB Renfro 5.50 0 4 0 Future Freeway Construction, No Fee Funding Completed
Kern River Freeway Renfro S.R. 99 7.00 0 6 6 Cons. Cost from Cit~//Coun~(10% fundedl-$45 Mil. in STIP for RNV $19,600,000
Main Plaza Drive Bdmhall Rd. Rosedale Hwy. 1.00 0 4 2 $290,000
Main Plaza Drive AT&SF RR Improve grade crossing $100,000
McCutcheon Rd. Progress Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Ming Ave. Renfro Rd Buena Vista R 2.00 0 4 2 $1,102,424
Ming Ave. Allen Install Signal $120,000
Ming Ave. Buena Vista Install Signal $120,000
Mincj Ave. Kern River Canal Construct canal culvert at Sra. 45+18 (River Canal) $150,000
Mohawk Ave. Olive Hageman 0.75 0 6 4 $960,570
Mohawk Ave. Hageman S.R. 58 1.25 0 6 4 $2,890,000
Mohawk Ave. Calloway Canal Construct Calloway Canal Bddge $500,000
Mohawk Ave. S.R. 58 .5 s/o SR58 0.50 2 6 2 $1,585,500
Mohawk Ave. .5 s/o SR58 Truxtun 0.75 0 6 4 $2,015,500
Mohawk Ave. Kern River Construct Kern River Bridge; Cross Valley Bddge $3,000,000
Mohawk Ave. AT&SF RR Grade Seperation@ AT&SF RR $1,500,000
Mohawk Ave. Truxtun California 0.50 4 6 0 Construct median Completed
Monitor St. Astor Ave. Panama Lane 1.25 0 4 2 $362,500
Monitor St. A-E Canal Construct canal bddge at sra. 93+32 (A and E Canal) $500,000
Morning Dr. Ail. Harrel Paladino 1.80 0 6 2 $1,254,000
Morning Dr. Ail. Harrel Paladino Construct 3 Culverts/Bridges $540,000
Morning Dr. Paladino Panorama 0.70 0 6 2 Completed
Morning Dr. Panorama S.R. 178 0.60 2 6 2 $1,086,080
Morning Dr. S.R. 178 Const. Int. @178 $1,700,000
Morning Dr. S.R. 178 College 0.90 0 6 2 $387,000
Morning Dr. Auburn i lnstall Signal $120,000
Morning Dr. College Install Signal $120,000
Morning Dr. College Niles 0.25 2 6 2 $107,500
Mt. Vernon Ave. Casa Loma Dr. Belle Terrace 0.50 0 2 2 $753,125
Mt. Vernon Ave. SR 58 Signalize Ramps $240,000
Mt. Vernon Ave. SR 178 EB Ramp Off/Signalized $250,000
Mt. Vista Drive Pacheco Rd. 600' N/o Pach O. 13 0 4 2 $36,250
Mt. Vista Drive SJ RR Improve grade crossing at Sta. 52+80 $100,000
Nords Rd. Calloway Install Signal $120,000
Norris Rd. Riverlakes Install Signal (50% Funded) $60,000
Norris Rd. Coffee Install Signal $120,000
Norris Rd. Patton Way Install Signal $120,000
Norris Rd. S.R. 99 Airport 1.50 2 4i 2 $710,822
Norris Rd. Airport Chester 1.00 4 4 0 Widen for Two Way Left Turn Lane Completed
Norris Rd. Chester Manor 0.50 2 4 2! $204,505
Nords Rd. Manor Up~rade Signal $120,000
Old Farm Rd. - Reina Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Old Farm Rd. Noriega Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Old River Rd. SR 119 Panama Ln. 2.00 2 4 2 $1,134,354
FACLIST2.XLS Page 4 4/1/97
APPENDIX: FUNDABLE ROADWAY PROJECTS
Phase II Transportation Impact Fees
(Showing Changes from 3/4/96 list)
LIMITS ':':.':.'....:. ::' ':..: ::'::!::. ::::' .: IMPROVEMEN'I' NUMBER:~: NUMBER' LANES: ':':: :..:i::::: :i' :::'i:::.:~il...i::::ii:i:!i!:i!':{:i:i:i::::!:::~i::..::. :.¥.i::i:.: : TOTAL i,::": ..:i:i: ::..
· : ': ...... '"" ':. :':'. :...: ~::" ':':" .':'.!'!i':?' LENGTH ':i?,:: :: ~ LAN~$:i: Of LANES :: FUNDED,:: ..:':' 'i::!:!"!i:, ;:: :i::ii :::: :::: :::?:: ?:: :: :??:??:?:?:? :?::::::?:::?::::: !:.;:: !! !!!i ::::::: ::i !!i :' :: ':: :i: :.i::· : ··: :i ::;:i:·': :!
STREET
NAME . FROM ":'" :. : : :! TO ::: '"'i !:: MILES:i::::: i: :i!:! sTRiPEb::" PRoPoSE? bY ~;EE:i:: NoTES ;.!!:.ii:: .: :i: ::: :: ::::::::::::::: ::: ::!ii.:::ii! ii!!i:::!i:i:i:!:i::!::!:i::!::ii:!iii.:i::i!i::::!:!ii:::i::ili'i:i:ililiiii:i:i:! !. ,:i ::.:i:.i. :.::.:,' ,,:,i :': ii::;:' ···
Old River Rd. McKee Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Old River Rd. McCutcheon Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Old River Rd. Berkshire Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Old River Rd. Panama Ln. Pacheco Rd. 1.00 2 4 2 $583,075
Old River Rd. Harris Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Old River Rd. Pacheco Rd. Campus Park 0.50 2 4 2 $480,633
Old River Rd. SP RR Improve grade crossing at Sra. 52+80 $100,000
Old River Rd. Campus Park Dr. Install Signal $120,000
Old River Rd. N/o SP RR Relocate Tower $80,000
Old Stine Rd. Ming Ave. Belle Terrace 0.50 2 4 2 $475,000
Old Stine Rd. Stine Canal Widen canal culvert (Stine) $80,000
Old Stine Rd. Belle Terrace Stockdale Hw~ 0.50 2 4 2 $235,659
Olive Dr. Jewetta Calloway 1.20 0 2 2 $777,818
Olive Dr. Jewetta Install Signal $120,000
Olive Dr. Calloway Install Signal $120,000
Olive Dr. Calloway Canal F-K Canal Bridges @ Calloway & Fr. Kern $1,000,000
Olive Dr. Calloway Riverlakes 0.50 0 6 4 $430,000
Olive Dr. Riverlakes Coffee 0.25 4 6 1 $53,750
Olive Dr. Coffee Install Signal $120,000
Olive Dr. Riverlakes Install Signal $120,000
Olive Dr. Coffee Airport 3.00 4 6 2 $1,209,873
Olive Dr. Patton Way Install Signal $120,000
Olive Dr. SR 99 Beardsley Canal Widen 99 Interchange; Widen Beardsley Canal Culvert $470,000
Olive Dr SP RR Grade Seperation $1,500,000
Osweti St. S.R. 178 Brundage 2.00 4 6 2 Median Reconstruction $430,000
Oswell St. Virginia Ave Install Signal $120,000
Oswell St. Brundage Lane Install Signal Completed
Oswell St. S.R. 58 Ramps Install Signals $240,000
Oswell St. Sunset RR Const. Grade Sep. ~ AT&SF $100,000
Pacheco Rd. Renfro Rd. Buena Vista R 2.00 0 4 2 $1,596,364
Pacheco Rd. Allen Rd Install Signal $120,000
Pacheco Rd. Buena Vista Rd. Gosford 2.00 2 4 2 $580,000
Pacheco Rd. B V Canal Widen Canal Culvert (Buena Vista) $80,000
Pacheco Rd. Buena Vista Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Pacheco Rd. Old River Install Signal $120,000
Pacheco Rd. Gosford Install Signal $120,000
Pacheco Rd. AT&SF RR Improve grade crossing at Sra. 191+82 (RxR 1/2 Funded?) $100,000
Pacheco Rd. Mountain Vista Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Paladino Dr. Fairfax Morning 1.30 0 4 2 $1,059,143
Paladino Dr. Fairfax Install Signal $120,000
Paladino Dr. Morning .3 mi w/o Mast 1.70 0 4 2 $1,184,333
Paladino Dr. Morning .3 mi w/o Masterson Construct 5 Culverts $102,000
Paladino Dr. Morning I Install Signal $120,000
Paladino Dr. Masterson Rd.I Install Signal $120,000
FACLIST2.XLS Page 5 4/1/97
APPENDIX: FUNDABLE ROADWAY PROJECTS
Phase II Transportation Impact Fees
(Showing Changes from 3/4/96 list)
· IMPROVEMEN1NUMBER: NUMBER'.. LANES .. ' :.:..'::::. :!:: '.:'.:; :::'.: : : .!' :::' :.'*:: :::;:.:: :.':' TOTAL :'., :
LIMITS :,;'iii:" :,,,, , ' ::: ' .... ': ::':::::: ~:: ....... :":: "' '' '" '
STREET . : .: LEN'Gi;N'...:.' ~fLANES ~fLANES i FUNDED: ::
NAME ' FROM TO :. MLES::::: :' STRPED- PROPOSE b~;FEE; NOTES; ::i:i.:.::: ::.
Paladino Dr, .3 mi w/o Edison 1 mi elo A H H 1.30 0 4 2 $1,116,024
Panama Ln, Renfro Rd. Gosford Rd. 4.00 2 4 2 $3,128,794
Panama Ln. Renfro 1.4 mi East Relocate canal parallel w/so. r/w Sta. 0+00 - 74+84 $569,000
Panama Ln. B V Canal Widen canal culvert at Sta. 74+84 (Buena Vista) $40,000
Panama Ln. Allen Install Signal $120,000
Panama Ln. Buena Vista Install Signal $120,000
Panama Ln. Old River Install Signal $120,000
Panama Ln. Sunset RR Improve grade crossing at Sta. 186+70 (Sunset) $100,000
Panama Ln. Gosford Rd Install Signal $120,000
Panama Ln. Gosford Rd. Ashe 1.00 3 6 1 Development agreement for 1/2 width W/B and 1 E/B lane $292,459
Panama Ln. Reliance Dr. Install Signal $120,000
Panama Ln. Ashe Rd i lnstall Signal $120,000
:Panama Ln, Fenton St. l lnstall Signal $120,000
Panama Ln. A-E Canal Widen canal bridge at Sta. 312+80 (A. and E Canal) Completed
Panama Ln. Farmers Canal Widen canal culvert at Sta. 309+12 (Farmer's Canal) Completed
Panama Ln. Farmers Canal Relocate canal parallel w/so r/w Sta 309+12 - 312+30 (Farmer's) Completed
Panama Ln. Ashe Stine Rd. 1.00 2 6 3 Completed
Panama Ln. Ashe Stine Rd. Canal Culvert @ mid-section @ A-E Canal $200,000
Panama Ln. Stine Rd. Modify Signal $60,000
Panama Ln. Stine Rd. Wible Rd. 1.00 2 6 2 Widening deficient sections only $236,599
Panama Ln. Akers Rd. Install Signal Completed
Panama Ln. Wible Rd. So. H St. 1.00 2 6 4 Completed
Panama Ln. SR 99 Install Signals @ Ramps Completed
Panama Ln. SR 99 Widen bridge at S.H. 99 $3,000,000
Panama Ln. So. H St. Signal Modification Completed
Panama Ln. So. H St. Union Ave. 1.00 2 4 1 Widen deficient section only $361,703
Panama Ln. Union Ave. Signal Modification $80,000
Panama Ln. Union Ave. Fairfax Rd. 4.00 2 4 2 $1,720,000
Panama Ln. Cottonwood Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Panama Ln. Oswell Install Signal $120,000
Panama Ln. Fairfax Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Panama Ln. Fairfax Rd. i SR 184 1.00 2 4 2 $430,000
Panama Ln. SR 184 Install Signal $120,000
Panama Rd. Union Ave. S.P.R x R 4.50 2 4 2! $2,543,553
Panama Rd. Union Ave. Signal Modification $120,000
Panama Rd. 0.4 mi e/o Union 0.9 mi e/o Union Relocate Parallel Canal, So./side rdwy. @ Sra. 21+40 - 48+50 $203,250
Panama Rd. .95 mi e/o Union Widen canal culvert at Sta. 50+30, Imp Gr Xing @ RR $140,000
Panama Rd. Oswell Install Signal $120,000
Panama Rd. Fairfax Install Signal $120,000
Panama Rd. 2.0 mi e/o Union 0.3 mi w/o 184 Relocate parallel canal from Sta. 106+66 - 247+10 $1,053,300
Panama Rd. SPR x R 0.2 mi w/o 184 0.30 2 4 2 $182,398
Panama Rd. 0.2 mi w/o 184 SR 184 0.20 2 4 2 $521,600
Panama Rd. SR 184 Signal Modification $120,000
Panorama Dr. River Install Signal $120,000
FACLIST2.XLS Page 6 4/1/97
APPENDIX: FUNDABLE ROADWAY PROJECTS
Phase II Transportation Impact Fees
(Showing Changes from 3/4/96 list)
Panorama Dr. Mt. Vernon Install Signal $120,000
Panorama Dr. Columbus Install Signal $120,000
Panorama Dr. Mornin~l Dr. Install Signal $120,000
Patton Way Meany Ave. Downing Ave. 0.25 0 4 2 $72,500
Patton Way Meany Ave. ilnstall Signal $120,000
Patton Way Downing Ave. Install Signal $120,000
Pioneer Dr. Momin~l Vineland 1.00 2 4 2 $408,065
Renfro Rd. Santa Fe Way Johnson 3.50 2 4 2 $2,357,303
Renfro Rd. Meachem Install Signal $120,000
Renfro Rd. Johnson Stockdale 0.50 2 4 2 $401,545
Renfro Rd. Stockdale Kern River 0.50 2 4 2 Completed
Renfro Rd. Ming Pacheco 2.00 01 4 2 $1,606,182
Renfro Rd. Kern River Canal Construct canal culvert at Sra. 45+18 IRiver Canal/ $150,000
Santa Fe Way Reina Rd. nsta S gna $120,000
Seventh Standard R Allen S.R. 99 3.50 2i 4 2 $1,505,000
Seventh Standard R Calloway Install Signal $120,000
Seventh Standard R Coffee Install Signal $120,000
Seventh Standard R S.R. 99 Widen 99 Int.; Grade Sep. @ SP $4,500,000
Seventh Standard R N/B S.R. 99 Ramp llnstall Signal $120,000
Seventh Standard R SR. 99 S.R. 65 0.50 2 4 2 $215,000
Seventh Standard R Airport Dr. Chester Ave. 1.00 2 4 2 $430,000
Seventh Standard R Airport Dr. i lnstall Signal $120,000
Seventh Standard R Chester Ave Si~lnal Modification $120,000
Shannon Dr. Stable Ave. Taft Hwy. 0.19 0 4 2 $55,100
Snow Rd. Jewetta Verdugo 0.50 2 4 2 $275,606 I
Snow Rd. Calloway Canal Friant-Kern Canal Reconstruct Calloway and Friant-Kern bridges $1,000,000
Snow Rd. Verdugo Install Signal $120,000
Snow Rd. Verdugo Calloway 0.50 2! 4 2 $275,606
Snow Rd. Calloway Install Signal $120,000
Snow Rd. Calloway Fruitvale 2.00 21 4 2 $1,223,166
Snow Rd. Riverlakes Dr. Install Signal $120,000
Snow Rd. Coffee i lnstall Signal $120,000
Snow Rd. Patton Way ,Install Signal $120,000
;Snow Rd. Fruitvale Install Signal $120,000
Snow Rd. Golden State Install Si~lnal $120,000
South "H" St. Taft Hwy. Hosking Rd. 1.00 2 4 2 $601,253
South "H" St. Hosking Rd. A-E Canal 0.75 2 4 2 $630,668
Soulh "H" St. A-E Canal Widen canal bridge at Sra. 93+32 (A and E Canal) Completed
South Union Ave. Hosking Rd. :Install Signal $120,000
SR 119 Buena Vista Rd. SR 99 5.90 2 4 2 R/VV & Constr. Cost Based on Program Unit Costs $5,652,200
SR 119 Buena Vista Rd. i lnstall Signal $120,000
SR 119 Old River Install Signal $120,000
SR 119 Gosford Install Signal $120,000
SR 119 Ashe Install Signal $120,000
FACLIST2.XLS Page 7 4/1/97
APPENDIX: FUNDABLE ROADWAY PROJECTS
Phase ii Transportation Impact Fees
(Showing Changes from 3/4/96 list)
.. . . LIMITS .. · · ' ': .: ...?.:.i.: MPROVEMEN1 NUMBER..: NUMBER LANES.' .: ...:: i::.: :::. !':.:: ::: ::::::: ~ :ii::: ::::::::::::?:::::::?:::::::::::: :~'.i: TOTAl. · *..:.:
STREET '".": ..... . '' ?. ':' ::i 'i': ii'i:i ~:: LENGT~ '' ::: o~LANE~':::i 0fLANES:: FUNDED: : :?:::i:::::il ::.?.i!'ilIII ::: .;::i::?i'::: :::::: ::il :::::: ::::::::::::::?::::::::?:?:::::?::::::::::::::::::::::::: iiii::::i*i::::::::i:ii'!i:i:;:";:: i' :: :': ::~ ~ '
iNAME FROM 1'O1 "::::i::.: MILES :i STRIPED' PROPOSE' by FEE:. NOTES :' '::' ::!:i:::?: i':: :: ii.:::.'"'i: ii:':: '::': ::::::::::::::: ::::::?:: :.::'i ::i:i ::i:": :::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: :,::::: ,
SR 119 Fenton St. Install Signal $120,000
SR 119 Stine Install Signal $120,000
SR 119 VVible Install Signal ' $120,000
SR 119 SIB Ramps SR 99 4 Install Signal $120,000
SR 184 Panama Rd. SR 58 5.80 2 2 $3,456,565
SR 184 .Mt. View Install Signal $120,000
SR 184 Panama Lane Install Signal $120,000
SR 184 .25 mi n/o Hermosa .35 mi n/o Hermosa Relocate canal parallel to east r/w Sta. 171+11-176+88 (Eastside) $50,000
SR 184 .54 mi n/o Hermosa Widen canal box culvert at Sta. 187+00 $110,000
SR 184 Muller Rd Install Signal $120,000
SR 184 Edison Hwy. Signal Modification $120,000
SR 184 Edison Hwy. Niles 1.25 2 4 2 $958,098
SR 184 SP RR Construct grade separation at Sta. 335+40 $500,000
SR 184 Breckenridge Rd. Install Signal $120,000
SR 184 Eucalyptus Dr. Install Si~lnal $120,000
SR 581Rosedale Enos Lane .5 mi w/o Renf 4.50 2 4 2 R/W & Constr. Cost Based on Program Unit Costs $4,905~000
SR 581Rosedale Enos Lane Install Signal $120,000
SR 58/Rosedale Nord Install Signal $120,000
SR 58/Rosedale Heath Install Signal $120,000
SR 58/Rosedale .5 mi w/o Renfro Allen Rd 1.50 2 6 4 R/VV & Constr. Cost Based on Program Unit Costs $4,747,872
SR 58/Rosedale Renfro Install Signal $120,000
SR 58/Rosedale Jenkins Rd. Install Signal $120,000
SR 58/Rosedale Allen Rd Signal Modification $40,000
SR 58/Rosedale Allen Rd Gibson 5.25 4 6 2 R/W & Constr. Cost Based on Program Unit Costs $7,928,220
SR 58/Rosedale Old Farm Rd. ' Install Signal $120,000
iSR 58/Rosedale Jewetta Worms $120,000
i SR 581Rosedale AT&SF RR Widen RR Grade Sep. (Jewetta) $480,000
ESR 58/Rosedale Coffee Fruitvale Widen Friant Kern Canal Bridge $396,000
;SR 58/Rosedale Coffee Fruitvale Widen 2 Canal Bridges $600,000
SR 58/Rosedale Verdugo Signal Modification Completed
SR 58/Rosedale Calloway Signal Modification $120,000
SR 58/Rosedale Coffee Signal Modification Completed
SR 58/Rosedale Main Plaza Dr. Install Signal (50% Funded) $60,000
SR 58/Rosedale Patton Way Install Signal $120,000
SR 58/Rosedale Fruitvale Signal Modification $120,000
SR 58/Rosedale Mohawk Install Signal $120,000
SR 58/Rosedale Landco Signal Modification $120,000
SR 58/Rosedale Gibson Signal Modification $120,000
SR 58/Rosedale AT&SF RR Improve RRX (~ AT&SF 0/V/o Landco/ $100,000
Stine Rd./New Stine Taft HWY. Panama Ln. 2.00 2 4 2 $1,165,024
Stine Rd./New Stine McKee Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Stine Rd./New Stine Hosking Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Stine Rd./New Stine Berkshire Rd. ,Install Signal $120,000
Stine Rd./New Stine A-E Canal Widen Canal Culvert at Sta. 92+95 (A-E Canal) Completed
FACLIST2.XLS Page 8 4/1/97
APPENDIX: FUNDABLE ROADWAY PROJECTS
Phase II Transportation Impact Fees
(Showing Changes from 3/4/96 list)
::.:: IMPROVEMEN'I NUMBER NUMBER' ,CANES' .': ====:%========:==:==== · ::::::::::::::::::::::::::?:?::::::::::::::::: =======:===========?==================== TOTAL :'::.
'-,'",TS, !i: ' o, .ES :': ..::: . .: : : : : ::: ::: :::::::::::::::::::: : ::: :" : : : : .:' :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
STREET . · ......
NAME FROM. : TO :: .' MILES' : :?' SYRiPED':i' pRoi~OSE by:FEE:: NoTEs ::i:::"iiii,!'.:':'i '::iiI .... : i.i!!:i:"?: ::::::::::::::::::::::::?::?::::::::?:::::: .:: :":.::.i '.'
Stine Rd/New Stine Panama Ln. Harris Rd. 0.25 3 4 1 $199,617
Stine Rd./New Stine Harris Rd. Install Signal Completed
Stine RdJNew Stine Farmers canal Widen Canal Culvert (Farmer's Canal) Completed
Stine Rd./New Stine Harris Rd. S.PR x R 0.50 4 6 2 Completed
Stockdale Hwy. VVMB !Heath Road 4.50 2 4 2 $2,480,455
Stockdale Hwy. SP RR Improve RRX @ Buttonwillow $100,000
Stockdale Hwy. Nord Install Signal $120,000
Stockdale HWY. Heath Install Signal $120,000
Stockdale HWY. Heath Road Renfro 1.00 2 6! 2 $677,152
i
Stockdale HWY. Renfro Oak St. 7.00 4 6! 2 Median reconstruction $3,010,000
Stockdale Hwy. Renfro Install Signal $120,000
Stockdale Hwy. Buena Vista Install Signal Completed
SR 58 Real Road S.R. 99 0.25 4 8 4 RNV& Constr. Cost from CaITrans Completed
SR 58 S.R. 99 Cottonwood 3.00 4 6 2 RNV & Constr. Cost from CalTrans Completed
SR 65 James 7th Standard 2.25 2 4 2 Completed
Taft HWY. S R 99 South "H" St. 0.10 2 6 4 $86,000
Taft HWY. South "H" St. Install Signal $120,000
Taft Hwy. South "H" St. .25 mi e/o "H" 0.25 2 6 4 $456,415
Taft Hwy. .25 mi e/o "H" .55 mi e/o "H" 0.30 2 6 4 $294,364
Taft Hwy. .55 mi e/o "H" .75 mi e/o "H" 0.20 2 6 4 $184,121
Taft Hwy. .75 mi e/o "H" Union Ave. 0.25 2 6 4 $107,500
Truxtun Ave. Oak Widen intersection $104,000
Union Ave. White Ln. SR 58 2.50 4 6 2 $1,075,000
Union Ave. SJ RR Improve grade crossing at Sta. 265+16 (SJ RR) $100,000
Union Ave. KI Canal-East Widen canal box culvert at Sta. 295+81/K.I. - East branchI $40,000
Verdugo Rd. Reina Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Verdugo Rd. Noriega Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Verdugo Rd. Meacham Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Verdu~o Rd. Palm Ave. Brimhall rd. 0.50 0 4 2 $145,000
Vineland Rd. SR 58 Edison Hwy. 0.20 2 4 21 $100,078
Vineland Rd. Edison Hwy. Eucalyptus Dr. 0.75 2 4 2i $443,077
Vineland Rd. SP RR Improve railroad crossing (SPRR) $100,000
Vineland Rd. Eucal~/ptus Dr. Pioneer Dr. 0.25 2 4 2i , $115,076
White Ln. Renfro Install Signal $120,000
White Ln. 'Allen Install Signal $120,000
White Ln. Buena Vista Install Signal $120,000
White Ln. Mountain Vista Dr. Install Signal $120,000
White Ln. Mountain Vista Dr. Old River 0.25 1 $53,750
White Ln. KI Canal Widen culved at KI Canal $100,000
White Ln. SR 99 Widen interchange $1,000,000
White Ln./MullerAve. Union Ave. Cottonwood R 1.00 2 4 2 $915,151
White Ln./Muller Ave. Cottonwood Rd. Fair[ax Rd. 3.20 0 2 2 $2,338,351
White Ln./Muller Ave. Cottonwood Rd. Install Signal $120,000
I/Vhite Ln./Muller Ave. Oswell Install Signal $120,000
FACLIST2.XLS Page 9 4/1/97
APPENDIX: FUNDABLE ROADWAY PROJECTS
Phase II Transportation Impact Fees
(Showing Changes from 3/4/96 list)
' ',i:.' LIMITS .:':". :.*. ' ' IMPROVEMENT NUMBER NUMBER'. LANES ' .::.' :::i:::' ii..i':'?:..:.. :"i::: .::;-i:::'i=i:..i::::i.:: :::::::: :::.'. =========================== ,¥: ::, TOTAL. : '
STREET ''. ': :::' · ': i": i.'i.i':ii:i:'.~i:i:i- LENGTH':: '!:.i:!' ~I':ANEs ofi~Nl~.::! FUNDED i :.i.: "i.:.:- i": :::: =========?=====? ::::?:::::::::::::: :' .' ':: ':.
NAME : . ... FROM :::.. :' i::::.::". 'r0':::: :::::'i: ::'.: MILEs!::.;!:.:::!:!: STRIPED PRopOSE' bYFEE i:: NOTES'.::: !::!::i:;'i !.;i !'::.:i:::: i: !'i::: :ii: i:::::: ' i
White Ln./Muller Ave. Arvin RR Line Improve grade crossing at Sta. 734+14 (Arvin) $100,000
White Ln. IMuller Ave. Eastside canal Widen canal culvert at Sta. 745+19 (Eastside) $40,000
White Ln./Muller Ave. Fairfax Install Signal $120,000
White Ln./Muller Ave. Fairfax Rd. SR 184 1.00 2 4 2 $533,030
Wible Rd. SR 119 Panama Ln. 2.00 2 4 2 $1,217,684
Wible Rd. McKee Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Wible Rd. Hosking Rd. Install Signal $120,000
Wible Rd. A-E Canal Widen canal bridge (Arvin-Edison) Completed
VVible Rd. KI Canal-West 1.00 4 4 0 Relocate parallel canal @ K.I.-West Branch $188,000
Wible Rd. KI Canal-West Widen canal culvert @ K.I.-West Branch $20,000
Wible Rd. I Min~l Ave. Brunda~e Ln. 0.25 3 4 1 $619,017
Transit Costs $7,688,000
Freeways 50% of Beltway RNV and SR 178 $4,659,036
Administration Computer Tracking System (City & County) $100,000
TOTALS .'. : 125.02 :..: :: ' ~' : ~:'.. : .' '~.: :i ..: =:":;i::i;:: :.. ::;:..$227~495 210
FACLIST2.XLS Page 10 4/1/97
Metrop o/itan Ea~ers f ie/~/ Major
]'ran$#ortation i# vestment Strategy
ACTiOm PLAN
DRAFT
Prepared for
Golden Empire Transit District
City of Bakersfield
Kern County
Kern Council of Governments,
California Department of Transportation
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
· Prepared By
Arthur Bauer & Associates, Inc
in association with
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Revision: August 20, 1997, No. 7
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD
MAJOR TRANSPORTATION
INVESTMENT STRATEGY
ACTION PLAN
DRAFT
Prepared for:
Golden Empire Transit District
City of Bakersfield
County of Kern
Kern Council of Governments
California Department of Transportation
San loaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
Prepared By:
Arthur Bauer & Associates, Inc.
in association with
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Revision Date: August 20, 1997, No. 7
.~£etropolitan Bakersfield.[ITIS Action Plan. DP,.-IFT
EXECUTIVE SI.J'bI~IARY
The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) selected through the Metropolitan Bakersfield Major
Transportation Investment Strategy (MTIS) process is a broad based program with eight distinct
yet interrelated elements. They include a mix of roadway, transit and non-motorized
transportation projects and cover an 18 year horizon period from 1997 to year 2015. The
elements include:
Fundable Roadway Projects. High priority roadway projects for which funding will
probably be available by year 2015 if present trends continue and the newly adopted
Transportation Impact Fee Program's revenue targets are achieved.
Unfunded High-Benefit Roadway Projects. Important roadway projects within the
metropolitan area for which funding should be sought.
· Maintenance of Existing Roadways. Intensification of preventive and rehabilitative
maintenance programs to preserve existing roads and streets.
· Fundable Transit Component - Expansion of Golden Empire Transit (GET)
Service. Addition of bus routes, transportation centers and vehicles to meet the needs of
the growing Metropolitan Bakersfield population.
· Unfunded Transit Component. Additional funds will be needed for operating an
expanded GET bus system in the future.
· Connections Between Transportation Modes. Creation of more transit hubs for
convenient transferring from one bus route to another and between buses, Amtrak and a
possible future high-speed rail line.
· Ridesharing/Non-motori~_ed Modes and Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities.
Development of more pedestrian and bicycle lanes and other facilities.
· Land-Use Element. Encouragement of mixed-use, infill and other balanced land
development to minimize the increase of vehicular traffic.
Local agencies (City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, Caltrans District 6, and Golden Empire
Transit District) will be responsible for implementing these projects in 'collaboration with one
another. Since the time frame of the LPA is through the year 2015, an implementation (action)
plan is necessary to coordinate the efforts of scheduling and funding the transportation network in
the Bakersfield metropolitan area. This document serves to establish a general timeline for
delivery of projects under financial constraints.
I Arthur Bauer and~Issociate$, Inc.
~[£etropolitan 13akersfield~lTfSAction Plan - D2~P-T
The Action Plan contains three primary sections. The first section establishes an overall set of
guiding principles that provide direction and the foundation for the steps to be taken in carryin.' g
out the LPA. These eight guiding principles promote a balanced transportation system and the
building of momentum for the delivery of projects.
This section also describes a consensus agreement entered into by the Interagency Management
Committee (I/viC) for this MTIS Action Plan. The agreement fosters ongoing interagency
cooperation and coordination toward the implementation and periodic updating of the LPA. The
I/VIC will review the status implementation of the LPA and produce an Annual Report and an
Annual Action Plan. The Annual Report will serve two primary purposes: to document the status
of implementation of the LPA for each of the partner agencies; and to inform and receive
endorsements from elected officials, local organizations and the public of the progress toward
implementation of the LPA.
The second primary section contains the strategy timeline inthe form of a project implementation
phasing plan. The phasing plan mirrors a schedule of actMties that will direct the various timely
efforts that will be undertaken by the participating local agencies. The plan is composed of three
separate sets of spreadsheet tables. The first set identifies the roadway projects and non-
motorized projects that are designated for delivery between 1997 and 2015. The second set of
tables contains roadway projects that do not have funding but have been identified as having high
benefit to the community in the future. The third set of tables identifies the transit activities that
are planned through 2015.
The final primary section of this Action Plan describes the financial strategy which links project
priorities, project development, and project delivery with anticipated future resources. As it is
recognized that not enough resources are available to implement all the projects in the LPA, the
financial strategy defines a work plan to further the objective of obtaining additional funds. Tables
and graphs conclude this section with cash fiow projections and the distribution of available
revenues.
Finally, it should be mentioned that the project timeline and lead agency identified for each
specific project match the plans and programs in place in 1997. However, this MTI$ Action Plan
is dynamic because of future uncertainties stemming from budgetary, political and economic
stimulants on local, state and federal levels. Therefore, the MTIS will be modified and updated by
the participating agencies and jurisdictions on an annual basis to accommodate needed changes.
The governing boards of each participating agency in the MTIS will endorse the updated Action
Plan and project priofitization.
II Arthur Bauer and Associates, Inc.
An Action Plan implements the transportation strategy.
The Action Plan addresses the folloWing:
Phasing Defining usable project segments.'
Timing Managing available resources
to maximize project Implementation.
Priorities Demonslraling local commitment
throuflh early actions,
Community Support Promoting public awareness of
the implemenlation strategy.
Consensus Linking these investments to
the Regional Transportation Plan
and City and County Programs.
Operations Addressing maintenance and operations
costs as well as capital costs.
Shortfalls Determining what additional funds
are needed for unfunded projects
with high-benefits.
~retropolitan Bakersfield MTIS Action Plan - DRAFT
Communit-v Support
Promote public awareness of MTIS progress and strategy.
The current MTIS process being conducted is the first step towards improving present and future
mobility problems in the Metropolitan Bakersfield region. Therefore, the public should be made
aware of the progress of the MTIS and its contents. Presentations by IMC members to
community groups and public workshops are prime examples of promoting this project as well as
receiving feedback. Enlisting the support of local transportation groups such as the Kern
Transportation Foundation, and business and professional organizations such as the Building
Industry Association will strengthen the position of the MTIS and the strategies that are
developed from this process.
Consensus Planning
Link the Locally Preferred Alternative to the Regional Transportation Plan.
The overall planning document for the metropolitan area is the Regional Transportation Plan
(P,.TP) developed by the Kern COG. The RTP is updated every two years and contains the major
transportation projects that are planned for a twenty year horizon. The capital projects and
strategies developed from the MTIS should be included in the RTP and in the biennial updates so
that interagency commitments are achieved and maintained and that MTIS projects can be
recognized as having both local and regional significance.
O&M Requirements
Factor in operations and maintenance components as part of the transportation responsibility.
In some cases, operations and maintenance for both roadways and transit have been de-
emphasized in favor of construction of new facilities. However, O&M has been recognized as a
major component in the feasibility of the MTIS and deserves significant attention because the
replacement value of the existing transportation investment exceeds the cost of the new facilities.
The present transportation system in the Bakersfield area is beginning to weaken and crumble,
leaving users of the system to voice demand for repairs and maintenance. For transit, the ability
to expand services will be curtailed by inadequacies in funds to operate a larger fleet. We believe
· '-that O&M is.a real and serious factor.that must be-integrated in-the action-plan.so that the. existing
system is not lef~ behind new projects.
3 Arthur Bauer andAssociates, Inc.
Metropolitan Bakersfield 3,1TI$.4ction Plan - DR.4FT
II. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PHASING PLAN
This section presents the action plan strategy's timeline for phasing in several of the MTIS
projects through the year 2015. The action plan mirrors a schedule of activities that will direct the
various timely efforts that will be undertaken by the participating local agencies.
Six core categories are identified under which each MTIS project is applicable to one. The
categories are: roadway projects; roadway operations and maintenance; transit projects; transit
operations and maintenance; connections between transportation modes; and non-motorized
- modes.
The plan is composed of three separate sets of spreadsheet tables. The first set identifies the
roadway projects and non-motorized projects that are designated for implementation between
1997 and 2015. The timeline for the delivery of these projects is divided into three phases; the
first phase is from years 1997 through 2002, the second is from 2003 through 2006, and the third
is from 2007 through 2015. Roadway operations and maintenance programs are also shown.
The lead implementation agency (City of Bakersfield, County of Kern or Caltrans) responsible for
the project is identified on one axis while the various roadway activities such as engineering and
construction are listed on the other axis. Kern COG is also listed with the timely planning
activities that it will undertake through 2015. The specific roadway projects that are planned for
delivery in each of the increments are contained in the appropriate cell. Planning and engineering
studies, and right-of-way preservation are included in the tables, as these initiatives are important
in the phasing in of actual construction.
The projects to be delivered between 1997 and 2002 are based on the respective agencies' Capital
Improvement Programs. The target dates for the longer range projects have been endorsed based
on the revised transportation impact fee program and the expected levels of revenues from the
program.
The second set of tables contains roadway projects that do not have funding but have been
identified as having high benefit to the community in the future. Funding should be sought for
these projects. The third set of tables identifies the transit actMties that are planned through 2015.
Capital as well as operations items for GET are contained.
The timeframe and lead agency identified for each specific project are accurate at the time the plan
was developed.' However, this action plan isdynamicbecause of-future uncertainties stemming
from budgetary, political and economic stimulants on local, state and federal levels and is subject
to be modified by the annual update.
5 Arthur Bauer andAxxociates, Inc.
Action Plon Draft
1997-2002
City County Stele Kern COG
ROADWAY ;
Ping. & Prelim· MTIS completion & LPA endorsement MTIS completion & LPA endorsement MTIS completion & LPA endorsement RTP Updut~
Studies General Plan Circulation Element Update General Plan Circulation Element Update as needed S'I'IP Update RTIP Ulzdat,
Capital Improvement Program Update Capital Improvement Program Update as needed SR 178 Route Adoption (Crosstown) FTIP Update
Route Adoption: SR 178 to SR 58 Connection, MTIS Update
(Various alternatives)
Eng. & Environ. SR 59 Stockdale to Truxtun
& Designs
Right-of-Way SR 178 ROW Preservation SR 178 ROW Preservation
SR 58 ROW Preservation SR 58 ROW Preservation
Beltways ROW preservation Beltways ROW preservation
Construction 96 Minor street widenings Minor road widenings and Improvements (1) Widen bridges/interchanges on White Lane at SR 99
5 Street Construction Projects New and modified traffic signals, and
58 New traffic signals Signal Coordination
9 Signal Modifications Safety projects
Safety projects Grade Separation at Oswell Street
2 Off-Street Pavement or Landscaping Projects Grade Separation et Calioway Road
2 Street Reconstructio~ ProJecta
9 Bridge Improvement/Construction Projects
Canal crossings
Other street Improvement. (culvert., etc.)
Grade Separation et Coffee Road
Widen bridges/interchg, on Panama Lane at SR 99
River Crossing at Moh;~wk
Q Street Grade Separation at Burlington SF RR
ROAD MAINT. 73 Street Resurfaclng Projects Overlay, at rate of t2.6 million per year Preventative Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Chip sealing projects Reconstruction, at rate of 11 million per year
Hazard elimination {3)
Safety Improvement. (3)
Grade crossing Improvements (3)
Routine Maintenance
PEDIBIKE itywide Bike lanes Road widening for Ciasa 2 bikeway projects
Road wldenln~ for Ciasa 2 bikeway projects
Notes: (1) Spending st rate of $400,000 per year under BIF funding.
(2) Spending et rate of $500,000 per year under CMAQ funding.
(3) Spending at rate of ~ 100,000 per year combined.
7 Arthur Bauer and Associarus, hlc.
Action Plan Draft
2003-2006
City County State Kern COG
ROADWAY
Ping. & Prelim. STIP Update RTP Update
Studies RTIP Update
FTIP Update
MTIS Update
Eng. & Environ. SR 178 Engineering Studies and
& Designs Environmental Studies (Crosstown)
SR 58 from SR 178 Connection
Right-of-Way SR 178 ROW Preservation SR 178 ROW Preservation
SR 58 ROW Preservation SR 56 ROW Preservation
Beltways ROW preservation Beltways ROW preservation
Construction Major Widening project to Rosadale Highway Minor road widenings and improvements (1) SR 58 from Stockdale to Truxtun
Minor street widenings New and modified traffic signals, and Widen SR 178 from Oswell to Morning Dr.,
Other street improvementl Signal Coordination (2) Including Interchange at Falrfax
45 new traffic signals Safety projects
Smart Streets
Canal crossings
Safety projects
River Crossing et Allen Road
ROAD MAINT. Develop Maintenance ~an Overlay, at rate of $2.5 million per year Preventative Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Reconstruction, at rate of ~ 1 million per year
Hazard elimination (3)
Safety Improvements (3)
Grade crossing Improvements (3)
Routine Maintenance
PED~IKE Various Class 2 and Class 3 bikeway projects Road widening for Class 2 bikeway projects
(prlmarlly pavlng~ road striping, and slgnage)
Notes: (1} Spending et rate of ~400,000 per year under BIF funding.
{2! Spending at rate of $500,000 per year under CMAQ funding.
(3) Spending at rate of $100,000 per year combined.
8
,4rrhur Bauer end Associates, Ir~c.
Action Plan Draft
2007-2015
City County State Kern COG
ROADWAY
Ping. & I~elim. General Plan Circulation1 Element Update General Plan Circulation Ptan Update as needed STIP Update RTP Update
Studies West/South Beltway Engineering RTIP Update
West/South Beltway Environmental Review FTIP Update
MTIS Updal~
Eng. & Environ.
& Designs
Right-of-Way SR 178 ROW Preservation SR 178 ROW Preservation
SR 58 ROW Preservation Sfl 58 flOW Preservation
Bel[ways ROW preservation Beltwaye ROW preservation
Construction Minor street widenings Minor road wldenlnge and Improvements (1) Widen SR 68 from SR 99 to Cottonwood
Other =treat improvements New and modified traffic signals, and SR 178 from Morning Dr. to Alfred Harrell
90 new traffic signals Signal Coordination (2) Highway
Smart Streets Safety projects SR 119 from Buena Vista to SR 99
Canal crossings Grade Separation at Mohawk (3} SR 184 from Panama to SR 58
Safety projects Widen brldge/interchg at Olive D~ive at SR 99 Major widening projects to SR 119 and SR 184
Widen brldge/Interchg at Falrfax Rd. and Alfred SR 58 from SR 178 Connection
Harrell Highway
Major Widening projects to nosed=la Highway
Build interchange on SR 68 at Falrfax Road
ROAD MAINT. Develop Maintenance Ptan Overlay, at rate of 12.6 million per year Preventative Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Reconstruction, at rate of $ I million per year
Hazard elimination
Safety Improvements
Grade crossing Improvements (4)
Routine Maintenance
PED/BIKE Various Class 2 and Ciasa 3 bikeway project= Road widening for Ciasa 2 bikeway projects
(primarily paving, road striping, and algnage)
Notes: (1) Spending at rate of t400,O00 per year under BIF funding.
(2) Spending at rate of 1500,000 per year under CMAQ funding.
131 May be required as part of the Kern River Freeway.
(4) Spending at rate of t 100,O00 per year combined.
9
.Arthur Bauer end .Associates, #~c.
Unfunded High Benefit Projects
Unfunded High Benefit Projects
City/County Cost (mil.) State Cost (mil.)
Planning PSR, SR 58 Connection Treatments,
(SR 99 to existing SR 58 east)
Eng, & Design SR 58 Connection Treatments,
~{SR 99 to existing SR 58 east)
Construction 'E. Truxtun grade separation at Burlington SF RR $14.0 SR 178 Cross Town Freeway $261.0
Q street grade separation at SP RR $7.0 East Beltway ° $40.0
Grade Separation at 7th Standard $8.0 SR 58, Interchange at SR 99 $75.0
Grade Separation at Olive Drive $7.0 SR 58 from I-5 to Stockdale Highway $125.0
Airport Drive {expand existing overpass) $1.5
Ext. of H~geman Rd bet. Mohawk and SR 204 $15.0
Grade SeP. at Weedpatch/Morning Dr. {SR 184) $1.5
River CroSsing at Chester Ave {widenl $2.0
River Crossing at Manor Drive (widen) $2.0
River CroSsing at Renfro Road $3.5
West Beltway $127.0 ° Cost for assumed 7 mile length at $5.6 mil/mile
South Beltway $156.0 based on W. Beltway estimated unit cost. I
Total $344.5I $ 501.0
10 Arthur Bauer and Assoc/ates, h~c.
Action Plan Draft
Golden Empire Transit 1997-2002 2003-2006 2007-2015
Transit Projects
# New Buses Purchased : 18 26 16
to Add to Fleet
(shown 2 yrs before service intro,)
# New Buses Purchased to 32 16 48
Replace Fleet
# New Minibuses 4 3 3
# Demand Response Van~ 4 1
GET Facility Expansion Expand
(adjacent land)
Transit Center Constructi~)n (1) East Hills (2! Home Base (5) Calloway
{Location) (3) Cai State (6} Intermodal
(4) Adult School (7) Airport
(8) Columbus/Chester
CNG Fueling Station Construction
Transit O&M Costs" $66.5 million $86.0 million $280.9 million
Multimodal Station Studies Construction Operational
{Modes Connection) ROW acquisition
Initial Construction
· There will be a need to raise additional revenues to fund transit O&M costs between years 2003 and 2015.
11
SERVICE PLAN- # OF BUSES IN SERVICE
MTIS FUNDABLE TRANSIT COMPONENT
120
100
8O
LU
~ 60
4O
2O
0
YEAR
/'ONG RANGE SERVICE PLAN FOR THE MTIS FUNDABLE TRANSIT COMPONENT
# TOTAL # BUSES TOTAL
SMALL # IN SYSTEM
BUSES BUSES SERVICE BUSES
FY RT SERVICE CHANGE ADDED ADDED ON ROUTE IN SERVICE
97198 CT3 INITIATE SWEST/DNTN/E HLS FLYER 3 3
1 IMPROVE HEADWAYS TO 30 MIN. 1 2
4 IMPROVE HEADWAYS TO 20 MIN. 1 3
7 IMPROVE HEADWAYS TO 15 MIN. EAST END 3 8
8 IMPROVE HEADWAYS TO 15 MIN. EAST END 0 10
00/01 1 EXTEND ROUTE IN NORTHWEST 1 3
5 IMPROVE HEADWAYS TO 15 MIN. 3 11
CONSTRUCT EAST HILLS TRANSIT CENTER 66
I 01/02 2 SHORTEN & ADD 15 MIN. HDWAY ALL DAY -1 8
4 IMPROVE HEADWAYS TO 15 MIN. I 4
13 IMPROVE HDWY TO 15 MIN. & COMBINE WITH RT 15 3 4
I 15 ELIMINATE & COMBINE WITH RT 13 -1 0
CC3 INITIATE GREENFIELD/SOUTH CIRCULATOR 2 2 2
CC4 INITIATE RIDGEVIEW/SOUTH CIRCULATOR 2 2 2
CONSTRUCT HOME BASE TRANSIT CENTER
72
02/03 11 IMPROVE HEADWAYS TO 15 MIN. 5 10
CT1 INITIATE WESTERN FLYER 5 5
CT3 IMPROVE HEADWAYS TO 15 MIN. 3 6
CONSTRUCT CAL STATE TRANSIT CENTER
85
03/04 7 IMPROVE HEADWAYS TO 15 MIN. 2 10
87
04/05 14 IMPROVE HEADWAYS TO 30 MIN. 2 4
05/08 6 ELIMINATE & COMBINE WITH CT4 -3 0
CT4 INITIATE S.WEST/N.EAST FLYER 9 9
CC1 INITIATE E HILLS CIRCULATOR 3 3 3
CONSTRUCT ADULT SCHOOL TRANSIT CENTER
98
0(~/07 10 IMPROVE HEADWAYS TO 15 MIN. 3 4 101
07/08 CT2 INITIATE ROSEDALE/E HILLS FLYER 7 7
CONSTRUCT CALLOWAY TRANSIT CENTER
108
08/09 CONSTRUCT INTERMODAL TRANSIT CENTER
108
LONG RANGE SERVICE PLAN FOR THE MTIS FUNDABLE TRANSIT COMPONENT
# TOTAL # BUSES TOTAL
SMALL # IN SYSTEM
BUSES BUSES SERVICE BUSES
FY RT SERVICE CHANGE ADDED ADDED ON ROUTE IN SERVICE
09/10 9 IMPROVE HEADWAYS TO 15 MIN. 2 10
110
10/11 CC2 INITIATE OILDALE/AIRPORT/PEGASUS CIRCULATOR 3 3 3
CONSTRUCT AIRPORT TRANSIT CENTER
113
11/12
113
12/13 CONSTRUCT COLUMBUS/CHESTER TRANSIT CENTER
113
13/14
113
14/15 3 IMPROVE HEADWAYS TO 30 MIN. 1 2
114
~,retropolitan Bakersfietd MTISAction Plan - DR.4P-T
Ill. FINANCIAL STRATEGY
A financial strategy is necessary to link project priorities, project development, and project
delivery with needed resources. The strategy must be recognized by the community as the
outgrowth of a process that defines community transportation investment requirements and it
must be inclusive as to participation. This has been developed with the assumption that expected
revenues for each element of the strategy will be utilized in the most efficient manner possible and
opportunities to generate new funds will be aggressively pursued by the agencies involved in the
strategy. To help further this objective the following conditions should be met:
Recognition of need-The MTIS is a definition of need and possible solutions. This requires that
the entire MTIS be adopted by the participating agencies. This action acknowledges the
importance of the total transportation program for metropolitan Bakersfield with all eight
elements addressed.
Program legitimacy-The MTIS must be incorporated in the Regional Transportation Plan, the'
Circulation Element for the City and County, and GET's Short Range Transit Plan and Long
Range Strategic Plan. The appropriate elements must be incorporated into all appropriate agency
planning and capital improvement programs.
Agency performance-The responsible agencies must identify usable segments or components of
MTIS projects that can be implemented using existing revenues. These projects must be delivered
on time and within budget. This will undoubtedly require some adept programming on the part of
Kern COG.
Each of the above actions provides an opportunity to draw attention to the agreed upon
transportation needs of Bakersfield and the agreed upon program of projects necessary to address
those needs.
Assignment of leadership responsibility-It is also necessary to assign leadership responsibility to
a project participant for managing the ongoing communication requirements that are necessary to
build public support for the projects. In addition to reacting to the opportunities as they emerge,
proactive actions such as periodic reports on the state of transportation in the metropolitan
region, at the beginning of the vacation season or the beginning of winter might be an effective
way of drawing attention to the transportation needs of the region. It is also necessary to conduct
annual polls on the public perception of transportation requirements and the alternatives available
· to fund them. ..
1 $ Arthur Bauer andA=ociatex, Inc.
Metropolitan Bakersfield MTIS A ction Plan -
Build the base ofsu££ort--Begindmg with the natural allies, initiate activities (e.g. presentations,
etc.) on the transportation requirements and what is being done with the limited existing
resources. After securing the base, the next group of potential supporters must be addressed. For
example, a critical group to have on board is the senior community. Therefore, projects and
programs that appeal to seniors should be highlighted.
.Fortnaffon ora transportation coalition--It is necessary to create a broad base coalition for the
MTIS program. There may be an existing organization that could be used for this purpose, e.g.,
the Kern Transportation Foundation. However, other players may need to be brought into the
KTF where appropriate.
Craft strategies to increase revenues--A variety of approaches should be explored for increasing
transportation revenues for Bakersfield. These range from reallocation of more revenues to
transportation (e.g. monies raised from transportation services that now go elsewhere) to
establishing new local sources of revenues.
If a new source of local revenues is to be pursued, three basic conditions exist that must be
followed for success: sound investment program; development of a broad inclusive base of
community support; and informed political decisions through market research.
Potential New Revenue Sources
At the time of writing this plan, several potential new revenue sources were discussed as having
some possible future application in metropolitan Bakersfield. However, given the size of the
anticipated funding gap between currently available revenues and project costs, only a substantial
new dedicated source of revenue could generate sufficient additional funds. A new countywide or
metropolitan revenue source, and potential federal demonstration funds could raise enough
monies to implement most or all of the unfunded projects in the strategy.
For example, revenues from a possible sales tax could be used for any transportation purpose,
including construction and maintenance programs for both roadways and transit, provided the
uses are identified at the time of the vote. Certainly for other counties, sales tax revenues have
proved to be a valuable commodity to add to the funding stream.
The Project Implementation Phasing Plan is reliant on a new local revenue source to fund many
projects. As for timing of the need for the new local revenue, large unfunded infrastructure
projects such as the SR 178 Cross Town Freeway are slated for construction sometime after the
'year 2006:-Therefore,-it wouldbe prudent to have the new-local-source.inplace by then.. As
such, the actions described above must be taken to increase the support for whatever course of
action is selected at the end for the MTIS.
16 Arthur Bauer and Associates, Inc.
Metropolitan t~akersfield MT.~S Action Plan - DR.-IFT
As for Federal demonstration funds, participating agencies submitted an application in February
1997 to the United States Congress requesting approximately $55 million to build the SK 178
Cross Town Freeway. However, there is no guarantee to the receipt of these funds as ISTEA
reauthorization proceedings continue. These demonstration funds and their timely receipt would
greatly improve the future delivery status of the cross town freeway.
Fundable Program
Although a funding deficit exists to deliver all transportation projects, there are available
transportation revenues to fund various projects listed in the phasing plan. Transportation
revenues from governmental sources typically can be used for certain uses, whether they be for
road projects, maintenance, or transit projects. The following tables and graphs show the
revenues and.costs for the proposed MI'IS projects. Table A summarizes the revenues and costs
for roadway and transit capital projects in the same time increments as the action plan schedule in
Section II. The amounts of the transportation impact fees in the early years are based on the
current rates of collection, with an accelerated collection schedule in the outer years.
Table B shows the operations and maintenance revenues and costs for both roadways and transit.
The first graph (pie charts) depicts the various funding sources for capital roadway and transit
projects during the MTIS period (1997-2015). The second graph (bar graph) presents the funded
amounts for roadway and transit in the respective time increments. Ifa new local revenue source
(such as a sales tax) becomes available, the revenues generated from the new source would
increase funding for additional projects.
17 Arthur Bauer and Associates, Inc.
Table A
Capital Revenues 'and Expenses ($O00's in Year of Expenditure)
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD MIS I I I 6126197
LPA - Roadway and Transit Capital Pro~acts
IN THOUSANDS OF INFLA TED DOLLARS I TOTAL
1997-2002 1 2003-2006 2007-2015 '97 -15
r
REVENUES
Local
Gas Tax Subventions 10,379.0 6,224.91 15,242.6 31,846.5
;TDA, Streets and Roads 2,156.0 800.0 1 ,BO0.O 4,758.0
!Transportation Impact Fees - Roadway 17f500.0 40,042.0 162,264.9 i 219,806.8
, State
FCR/NHS/STP 60,480.7 159,450.5 95,018.91 314,948.1
Federal
Regional STP 9r917.4 6~210.0 13,972.5 30,099.9
~CMAQ. Roadway 4r814.2 1 ~752.4 4~946.9 11 ~513.5
Transportation Enhancement (TEA) 991.7 621.0 I f397.3 3,010.0
Demonstration Funds 41700.9 0.0 0.0 4f700.91
Sub-Total 110,940.0 215r100.8 294r641.0 620r681.8
EXPENSES
SR 58 (Stockdale to Truxtun) 44,000.0 184,000.0 0.0 208,000.0
Other Highway/Expressway 3,000.0 3,000.0 149,306.3 155,308.3
Street and Road Improvements 30,033.1 20,543.4 56,940.9 107,517.3
Right-of-Way (SR 178 & Beltways) 1,000.0 5,000.0 26,000.0 32,000.0
Signals/Signalization/Safety 7,576.0 5,182.2 14,363.7 27,122.0
Bridges 4,748.6 3,248.2 9,003.0 16,999.8
Grade Separations 18,297.2 12,515.7 34,690.3 85,503.2
Miscellaneous Roadway' 2,285.2 1,563.1 4,332.8 8,181.0
Sub-Total 110,940.1 215,052.6 294,837.0 620,629.8
5 Year Cash Row (Rev. Exp/ 0.0 48.2 4.O 52.2
Cumulative Cash Flow 0.0 48.2 52.2
GOLDEN EMPIRE TRANSIT
iREVENUES
, Local 0.0
Transportation Iml~act Fees - Transit 2,010.9 5,878.6 7,687.5
I State
Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) 19,844.9 2,318.1 0.0 22,162.9
Federal
CMAQ - Transit 10~228.3 6~359.8 141940.5 31 ~528.8
Section 5307 - Capital 15 f897.3 8f325.1 12 ~851.8 37~074.2
Tranefers from G~.T Operatione 3,300.0 0.0 0.0 3,300.0
Sub-Total 49~270.4 19r013.9 33f468.9 101 r753.2
EXPENSES
Bus Additions 13,207.O 8,600.0 7,282.0 29,089.0
Bue Replacemente 12,544.4 7,004.0 23,462.0 43,010.4
Bus-Related Improvemente 3,170.5 810.3 2,249.6 8,230.3
Bus Facility Expansion 300.0 0.0 0.0 300.0
Transit Centers 1,310.0 ' '275.0 1,100.0 2,685.0
Multimodal Transit Station 18,200.0 2,000.0 0.0 20,200.0
SubTotal 48,731.9 18,689.3 34,093.6 101,514.71
5 Year Cash Row (Rev. Exp) 538.51 324.6 -624.8 238.51
Cumu/et/ve Cash Flow 538.5 863.2 238.5
GRAND TOTALS
Revenues, FY 1997 - FY 2015 722,435.1
Expenses, FY 1997 - FY 2015 722,144.4
Net Cash Flow 290,7
1 8 Arthur Bauer and Associate$,/nc.
Table B
Operating Revenues and Expenses
($000's in Year of Expenditure)
METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD MIS I 8/20197
LPA - Operab'on$ and Ma/ntenance t
FY 1997. FY 2015 I
IN THOUSANDS OF INFLA TED DOLLARS TOTAL
1997-2002 2003-2006 2007-2015 '97 -15
ROADWAY
REVENUES
Local
Gas Tax Subventions. City 57,115.8 39,857.4 97,562.3 194,535.4
Gas Tax Subventions, County 28,740.6 20,870.9 54,534.1 104,145.5
State
Gas Tax Subventions, State 6,662.5 5,145.31 14,062.6 25,870.4
SHOPP 23,376.3 13,448.4 36,757.6 73,582.3
Sub-Total 115,895.1 79,322.0 202,916.5 398,133.6
EXPENSES
Street Rehabilitation 26,985.9 i 21,195.1 58,747.4 106,928.4
Road Rehabilitation 25,636~61 20,135.4 55,810.0 101,582.0
Highway Rehabilitation 21,726.2 15,388.3 36,862.3 73,976.7
Street Preventative Maintenance 31.506.0 24,745.3 68,587.6 124,838.9
Road Preventative Maintenance 18,890.1 14,836.6 41,123.2 74,849.9
,Hicjhwev Preventative Maintenance 7,457.3 5,898.8 16,6S1.5 30,007.6
Sub-Total 132,202.1 102,199.6 277,781.9 512,183.5
Cash Flow (Rev-Exp) -16.306.9 -22,877.6 -74,865.3 -114,049.9i
Cumulative Cash Flow -16.306.9 -39,184.5 -114,049.9
GOLDEN EMPIRE TRANSIT
REVENUES
Local
GET Passenger Fares 18,528.9 26,462.1 122.370.1 169,307.3
Local Transportation Fund 44, 381.5 34,605.9 95,811.4 181,198.8
Miscellaneous 506.9 1,570.1 7,753.1 9,860.1
State
State Transit Assistance 1,472.5 1,001.2 2,826.2 5,808,9
Federal
Section 5303 450.0; 300.0 675.0 1,500.0
Section 5307 - Operations 1 r190.01 400.0 900.0 3r445.0
Sub-Total 66,529.81 64,339.4 230,335.8 371,120.1
EXPENSES
Bus O&M 66,529.8 85.989.6 280,863.9 443,076.3
Sub-Total 66.529.8 85,989.6 280,863.9 443.076.3
;Cash F/ow fRev-Exp) 0.0 -21.650.2 -50.528.1 -71.956.2
Cumulative Cash Flow 0.0 -21,650.3 -72,178.4
GRAND TOTALS
Revenues, FY 1997 - FY 2015 769.253.7
Expenses, FY 1997 - FY 2015 955,259.8
Net Cash Flow -186,OO6.O
1 9 Arthur Bauer and Associates, /nc.
POCITAN BAKERSFIELD MAJOR :..'~ ?~:':'""~'.:,!.' ?i~..,~'' '..:? '. · I
. ~ ~0RTATI0N. INVESTMENT STRATEGY ~: l,~,~i~:~.~iiiiii~.~ ~.,,/~.,~i!:~ii~. ~,~,,- ~,~.~?::~.~i~.:~
Anlicipated Roadway Capilal Revenues, Anlicipated Transit Capital Revenues,
1~97-2015 1997-2015
Total Revehues $621 millionTotal Revenues $102 million
~ Slate Transit
Local Impact Fee, 35% GET Reserve 3% Capital Improvement,
22%
Federal CMA(I, 31%
Demo Funds, 1%** Local
RSTP, 5%** '--~act
Fee,
TDA, 1%
State Gas Tax, 5%
CMAQ, 2%**
FCR/NHS/STP, 51~'o ** Federal Section 9, :16%
** ~- Federal Funds
MTIS Roadway and Transit
Capital Expenditures
Millions
600- l~ Roadway
· Transit
500
400
3OO
200
100
1997-2002 2003-2006 2007-2015 Total
Year
Arthur Bauer and Associates, Inc.
SEVEN TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES FOR MTIS - A COORDINATED RESPONSE TO MEET
BAKERSI:IELD'S FUTURE THESE CHALLENGES
POPULATION AND' TRAFFIC GROWTH Cenlral Themes
~ Long Range/Shorl Range
METRO AREA EXPANSION AND TRAFFIC BURDEN '~' COMPREHENSIVE Transportation Improvemenls
~ Highway and Transil
Melropolitan Areawlde
FUNDING SHORTFALLS AND RECAPTURE OF ~' COOPERATIVE GET, Kern COG, Courtly Al Kern, Cily o!
LOCALLY GENERATED FEDERAL MONIES Bakersfield, CALTRANS, San Joaquln
Valley Unified APCD, Federal Agencies
DEFERRED ROADWAY MAINTENANCE AND '?~' CONFORMANCE Streamline Planning Process for New
UNDERFUNDING OF TRANSIT SERVICE Prolecls
AIR QUALITY ",L" COMMUNITY Proacllve/Innovalive Public Oulreach
i
INVOLVEMENT
MAINTAIN LIVABILITY OF COMMUNITY BY ~ CONSENSUS Develop a Prelerred Package of
ENSURING FUTURE MOBILITY BUILDING Projects Supporled by the Communily
AGREEMENT ON TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES ~ CONTINUING Develop a Mulllagency Acllon Plan for
Implemenlallon and Updale Annually
I
Assessment of Commu..n. dy's :: Continuous Public Information :,:: commUnitY Leaders/
,!:,":Trans~'ortation P~riOrd~ i!
.i'??.-. i:~.i-~,,::.,:. ~:.i.~,~'?,.~ .: i.?'i' ~,?.,;~.:,.!.:~..~?.,e~si2:~i:i:: ~ ~'?',..,.And,...,,,~:.,:~..,.. Participation.:....... . :.. .: ~'~ .,., Decisionmakers
· '~:,~ ........ ' ..... .' .c ' ,',,,'. ,~ *;'-.: :~, ~. ~ ~':i:': '~,~ '. ~.' . ". ;? "i ' . ,: .',,:. '
* ~;: Neighborhood Focus':~.~??~:~,~:~,¢:,' r~OP'S,~:.,,;, '::,,~,:. ~, .: N'~'Wsl~'ilers ::~'~::::~ * One-on-One Interviews
:; ?:~:uroups:,~::?~.~;:?'..,~ M~dia OUireach/'i "Edilorial Board ~ · Presenlalions To City
'i:.:::: Ti'~'nsjl~fii~i: Sbt ~': ;i:.'. ?,~ '.':' :". ' :?-~ .?.." .': .... ; Council And Governing
· ~: Househ°ldS;:~.-"?, :. }: · High-Level Policy Group
:' ~".':' SI~;~IeDy IsSues/Objectives
-~ ;;,:f,i!
.: ~.:~:. MTIS Scoping" '"'
'~.',:';" ,'.,, Speaker's Bureau
Public Aiienc'y C[~ordimiti~i'i~ i~':.'ldenlilicalion of C°[~ePlL]al
· · , ........ ,.. Presenlalions To:
. , :~ .:..,,~ .,'~.., . ., :'i~ ,, :~:~L".~ ..., :. ,.J~':'~:,,, :. ::i~i.~ Allernatives ,, .:..:.::.,,: .
'~.., ..':'~ ~,. ,'. ~ '::',~.?,:",..,.,.,,...., ,:.1' ,~,i:I' ?.'~'i!'!;l:,.,,. :.?-, ,.~ ,, :i;~!i; Delai'led Deflnilion ~)'f .': .:... · Business/Proless[onal
.... ~,~ ' ~"~ '~",~ :-~ .",':LI L · .~i,.', ~ ~'~-~"i'~i
Organizalions
' : ' ' .... ,~'- 4 .t,'J~.~'
. ."..,.®.~Local/County.:l~;~,.~iD~,~" Ti. ..... .' ' :i' ~., ','.:::', i'~
],,~iAIlernalives ..,. ;....,,, ,~. , ,;,..~
, .~-'~ - .-,,.-,,,--,,-,,,-, ,,.:~.i,?~:~:~:,,?.~_ '}',.®.~.? Evaluallon', of Allernallves .... · Service Clubs
.. - ' '., .... ".' ...-i' · ',~.'.; ~.t,...
.,:. ;. , , · .,...:., ~ .~.'4,~..'I,,C, . .. , . . . .
:.-. · :,Roads/Transd.~l~
I:i?:!? Allernal~ve (Program of'..
' i" . ' t.','"~:'?::' :' 't":,' ~',j'~," '~.,...,~ , , , .., · ,
!:?:':Projects), . '.. :t~. '. : ' · KeylnlereslGroups
'.~'?:~.. ! '. ~'. . .. ,.
December 4, 1997
TO: Members of the Urban Development Committee
FROM: ~ D~ores Teubner, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Facilities Plan for Parks Within North Bakersfield Recreation and Park
District
For your information, I am sending you a copy of correspondence sent by Colon Bywater, of the
North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District (NOR). This letter was prepared to provide you
with information for discussion at the December 10, 1997 Urban Development Committee
meeting.
Staff has requested a representative from NOR be in attendance at the committee meeting.
je
P:\MUDC.NOR
North Bakersfield Recreation & Park District
405 Galaxy Avenue, BaI~ers~Id,, California 93308 (805) 392-2000
November 25, 1997
Ms. Jennie Eng
City of Bakersfield Planning Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
SUBJECT: Capital Improvement Plan
Dear Jennie:
In response to issues raised, ! attempt to briefly respond to each item. Also, enclosed is
a copy of the District CIP in a format similar to that used by the city. Please note that
the FY 97-98 CIP was approved by our Directors July 3, 1997.
1. Comparison of the length of ownership of parks prior to construction for the most
recent 15 years.
CITY
SIZE PURCHASE CONSTRUCTION
PARK ACRES DATE STARTED
Almondale 12.1 1993
Emerald Cove 12.4 1991 1993
Mondavi 9.2 phases 1990-95 ___
Polo Community 40 1990 ...
Liberty 21.3 Lease Pending 1997-98
COUNTY
SIZE PURCHASE CONSTRUCTION
PARK ACRES DATE STARTED
Fruit-vale Norris Expansion 7.2 1986 1994
North Highland 10.5 1972 1983
North Meadows 8.8 1988
North Rosedale 14.4 1975 1990
Olive Park East 2.5 1988 1989
Olive Park West 2.5 1988 1989
County continued SIZE PURCHASE CONSTRUCTION
PARK ACRES DATE STARTED
Riverview Expansion 3.7 Phases 1988-90
Westdale 9.3 1985 1991
Jenkins & Hageman 1st Phase 4.8 1993 ....
Rosedale 16 1987 Traded w/Rosedale Sch
Rosedale New Site 19.6 1995
2. North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District builds a system of parks consisting of
neighborhood parks that are approximately 10 acres in size and community parks that
are recommended to be at least 20 acres in size.
There are five (5) communities that compose the total District area. They are Oildale,
Riverlakes, Polo Grounds, Rosedale and Western Rosedale. All parks within a
community are required to meet the 2.5 acre standard. Neighborhood parks generally
provide 1.5 acres per 1000 toward the park acreage standard. Community parks
provide the remaining one acre per 1000.
3. North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District has agreed to provide an annual
proposed capital budget to be considered by the city. It will designate where available
funds are proposed to be used. Based on recent average lot development within the
city portion of North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District, it is anticipated that
about $215,000 in park development fees will be available on an annual basis to
construct improvements within the city areas of the District.
4. The Negative Declaration adopted for the related ordinance amendment should be
sufficient for adoption of this CIP.
5. We request that the City Council consider rescheduling a hearing for this matter as
soon as possible.
Should you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I will gladly clear '~
up questions regarding any items prior to the December l0th, Urban Development
Committee meeting.
Sincerely,
Colon G. Bywater
Planning and Construction Director
CGB:bc
Enclosure
PROPOSED NORTH BAKERSFIELD RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
CITY FACLITES PLAN
COMPLETED FY FY FY FY FY
PARK LIMrPS NOTES PROJECTS 97-98 98-99 99-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 TOTAL
Almondale Acquisition 12.1 acre acquisition in December 1993 $279,196 $O
Ain~ondale City assessments prior to FY 97-98 $23,171 $0
Almondale City assessmenL~ $7,550 $7,550 $7,550 $7,550 $7,550 $37,750
Almondale Street Improvemenl~ % street on Verdugo Lane fronlage $:26,669 $0
Almondale Planning For future construction phases $10,000 $10,0OO
Almondale Phase ! Construction: grading, irrigation, landscaping $305,000 $305,000
Emerald Cove Acquisition 12.4 acre acquisition in November 1991 $378,492 ' $0
Emerald Cove Phase I Construction: [~rading, irrigation, landscaping $186,226 $0
Emerald Cove Phase 11 Play area development portion $31,873 $31,873
Emerald Cove Phase Iii Finish play area, begin picnic $45,000 $45,000
Mondavi Phase I Acquisition of 2.2 acres in October 1990 $52,800 $0
Mondavi Phase II Acquisition o! 2.4 acres in December 1991 $6'1,000 $0
Mondavi Phase Ill Acquisition o14.6 acres in May 1995 $143,300 $0
Mondavi Planning For future construction phases $21,340 . $21,340
Mondavi Phase I Construction: grading, irrigation, landscaping $230,000 $230,000
Polo Community Acquisition Acquisition of 41! acres in July 1990 $731,924 $0
Polo Community Planning For future construction phases $15,(X}O $15,0OO
Riverlakes Community Acquisition Acquisition of 28 acres $554,337 $554,337
RiverlakesCommunity Planning For future construction $15,000 $15,000
Polo-Snow Road Sile Acquisition Acquisition of 12 acres $420,000 $420,0(}0
Liberty Park Lease 21.3 acres from County 1997 or 1998 $0
Liberty Park Phase 1 Sta~ of CA Site ash remediation $585,000 $O
Liberty Park Phase I-Kern Countlt Grading, irrigation main, parking, lighting provisions $466,286 $0
Liberty Park Phase I1 Irrigation cnmpletion, landscaping $515,252 $515,252
MEMORANDUM
December 4, 1997
TO: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE--
FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIREC
SUBJECT: SHIPPING CONTAINERS FOR STORAGE
I have met with Mr. Lee Jamieson whose many business ventures include supplying shipping
containers for temporary storage. He made some very positive proposals for our consideration.
My response to him is attached for discussion at the meeting next week.
Steve Nichols, attorney for Wal-Mart will be meeting with me on Tuesday, December 9, 1997, to
discuss the issue of Wal-Mart's illegal use of shipping containers for storage. This should give
us even more for Wednesday's meeting.
JH:pjt
m\mudcl 2-4
BAKERSFIELD
Development Services Department
Jack Hardisty, Director
Dennis C. Fidler Stanley C. Grady
Building Director Planning Director
(805) 326-3720 Fax (805) 325-0266 December 4, 1997 (805) 326-3733 Fax (805) 327-0646
Lee Jamieson, Vice President
Jaco Oil Company
PO Box 1807 (93303-1807)
3101 State Road
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Dear Lee:
Thank you for the advice on ways to improve our ordinance about the use of
shipping containers as temporary storage. I will be sharing these with the Urban Development
Committee on Wednesday, December 10, 1997. The meeting is public and you are welcome to
attend and make a direct presentation to the committee.
Your major points, as I understood them, were that our ordinance should be
amended to accommodate the seasonal use of the shipping containers for temporary storage,
that they be allowed at ratio of one unit per 20,000 sq.ft, of building area with a maximum of six
units, that this be a once per year event for no more than 90 days and they be setup behind
buildings or otherwise screened. Except for the 90 days (I would recommend 60 days), I
support your proposed change to the ordinanCe.
In addition, I will propose a few changes for the committee's consideration:
1) We should clarify or re-emphasize that the shipping containers approved for this
temporary storage are those designed to I.S.O. Standard 668-1979(E) or equivalent or
"roll-off" storage bins with fixed covers and this specifically does not include semi-truck
trailers.
2) That they will be placed and used so as not to be in violation of any codes (eg. Fire
Code, Building Code).
3) They should be exempt from site plan review as they are minor and temporary uses.
4) They should be permitted in the M-3 (Heavy Industrial) zone which was adopted by the
City after the Metal Storage Container Ordinance was adopted in 1986.
5) Foundations need not be provided for temporary use.
City of Bakersfield · 1 715 Chester Avenue · Bakersfield, California · 93301
Lee Jamieson
December 4, 1997
Page 2
6) That the limits do not apply to the location used to store, lease or sell shipping
containers in the industrial zone where that business is permitted.
These ideas are usually fleshed out as they progress through City Council and
Planning Commission review so I look forward to your continued involvement. Thank you for
your interest.
J Development Services Director
JH:pjt
I\lljl 2-4
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 1998 PROPOSED MEETING SCHEDULE
WEDNESDAYS @ 12:15 PM
COMMITTEE MEETING COUNCIL MEETIN~
January 7 January 14
None January 28
February 4 February 11
None February 25
March 4 March 11
None March 25
None April 8
April 15 April 22
None May 6
May 13 May 20
None June 10
June 17 June 24
None July 15
July 22 None
None August 12
August 19 August 26
None September 9
September 16 September 23
None October 7
October 14 October 21
None* November 4
None* November 18
None December 2
December 9 December 16
*No meeting scheduled because of holidays.
BAKERSFIELD
er Randy Rowles
ubner Patricia M. Smith
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Wednesday, October 15, 1997
12:15 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
1. ROLL CALL
Call to Order at 12:29 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; Randy Rowles and
Patricia M. Smith
2. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1997 MINUTES
Approved as submitted.
3. PRESENTATIONS
None
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
5., DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION AND APARTMENT PROJECTS
The Planning Director gave a brief summary of the Planning Commission's
recommendations on how to encourage developers of small lot, multi-unit projects to
improve the aesthetics and outdoor amenities of the project. The BIA expressed
concerns that the Planning Commission's proposal amounted to nothing more than
design guidelines rather than providing incentives for developers to improve onsite
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Wednesday, OCTOBER 15, 1997
Page -2-
recreational/open space while still providing affordable housing. The Committee was
concerned that the proposal did not focus on providing incentive to developers to build
attractive, quality multi-family housing with appropriate amenities. Staff was directed
to prepare a response back to the Planning Commission, conveying the Committee's
concerns. This item will come back to Urban Development at a future meeting for
additional review and discussion.
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. TREE CITY USA DESIGNATION
The City is working on developing the necessary application elements to meet the
criteria of the Tree City USA Designation. Currently the Parks Division is working on
putting together a tree inventory. Harry Starkey from the Tree Foundation requested
that an Advisory Committee be established to assist the City with applying for the
designation. The Committee indicated that perhaps the Tree Foundation could serve
that purpose. Staff was directed to work with the Tree Foundation on pursuing the
designation.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 1:20 p.m.
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
DBT:jp
Premeeting NOR Park Development Fees
Monday, August 11, 1997
2:30 p.m.
City Manager's conference room
A~endees:
John Stinson
Dolores Teubner
Jack Hardisty
Laura Marino
Raul Rojas
Darnell Haynes
Stan Ford
Henry Agonia from NOR phone 392-2000 (Secretary - Brenda)