Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/1997 BAKERSFIELD Kevin McDermott, Chair Randy Rowles Patricia M. Smith Staff: Dolores Teubner ** AMENDED AGENDA** URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, September 17, 1997 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 13, 1997 MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. UTILITY STREI~T CUT PERMIT - Rojas B. PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES - Roja$ 6. NEW BUSINESS A. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT STRATEGY - PRESENTATION OF FINAL RECOMMENDATION - Rojas B. 24TM AND BEECH STREETS TRAFFIC SIGNAL - Rojas DST:ip7' ADJOURNMENT ~'~~~- September 15, 1997 _ ~ o anager ' DRAFT BAKERSFIELD Alan Tandy, City M~nager Randy Rowles Staff: Dolores B. Teubner Patricia M. Smith AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, August 13, 1997 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 12:25 p.m. Present: Counciimembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; Randy Rowles and Patricia Smith 2. APPROVAL OF JULY 9, 1997 MINUTES Approved as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. NOR PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES Staff distributed an ordinance which provides for the collection of park fees in the City area served by NOR Park District. NOR has agreed to let the City collect the fees and hold them in trust until park projects in the NOR area of the City are ready. Both NOR and the City must agree on the subject project before funds will be allocated. NOR DRAFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, August 13, 1997 Page -2- has agreed that the fees will be used only on new facilities serving City areas. They have further agreed to indemnify and defend the City against challenges to the ordinance. The Committee asked about the status of the County's proposed park fee. NOR representatives indicated that the County would likely adopt a park fee in the near future. The ordinance was unanimously recommended to Council for approval. B. PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES Staff provided the Committee with alternatives for establishing standard park sizes and amenities. The current standard is a 6 acre park with restrooms and parking in addition to the standard amenities. The Committee was concerned that 6 acres was too small for these amenities and that either the standard size needed to be increased to 10 acres or the amenities needed to be reduced for the 6 acre size. Staff stated that by going with the 10 acre park with full amenities, we could still build smaller parks if warranted, but we would have the funds to build the larger parks. This provides flexibility to match the park size and amenities to the needs of various areas. The Committee unanimously agreed to the 10 acre standard. The second issue was whether or not to continue to charge fees based on different categories of housing or use another alternative. Staff provided three alternatives including the current method, a weighted average method based on the existing fees and a weighted average based on the persons per dwelling unit. Both of the new alternatives result in a decrease of the single-family rate and an increase of the multi- family and mobile home rates. Of the two new options, staff preferred option #2 (see attached). The Committee wanted to get feedback from developers on the potential impact of the proposed alternative method. The Committee directed staff to proceed with advertising the public hearing for the proposed fees (using Option #2) and scheduling the issue for Council consideration. However, the item will come back at the next Committee meeting to give time to the development community to review the proposal and provide input on the impact. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. APARTMENT COMPLEX SAFETY Counciimember Smith gave an overview of her concerns on the issue of safety and upkeep of apartment complexes. In response, the Police Department discussed a program called Crime Free Multi-Family Housing Initiative, which is currently being developed. The program provides for training of apartment managers in running a clean and crime-free complex, site visits by City staff to suggest safety and maintenance improvements, tenant meetings and signage of the complex as crime- DRAFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, August 13, 1997 Page -3- free multi-family housing. This program has been very successful in other cities including Riverside and Los Angeles. The City Attorney is also working on development of two programs including an expedited eviction procedure and a private property trespassing ordinance. The expedited eviction procedure would require buy-in and participation by the Bakersfield Municipal Court. As requested by the Committee, the City Attorney will review the possible liability to the City of these programs and whether or not other cities implementing these measures have had legal challenges. Staff was directed to prepare a resolution for Council consideration which would implement the Crime Free Multi-Family Housing Initiative. Direction was also given to the City Attorney to continue working on the two programs presented. 7. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 1:48 p.m. DBT:jp METROPOLIT&N' Bz-kK.~RSFIELD 5£-kJOR TRz~NSPORTATION I~-v'ESTM~ENT STI~-DY (MTIS) Endorsement of the MTIS Process, Draft Transportation StrategT Elements and Action Plan - .MTIS Policy Advisory, Committee We the MTIS Policy Advisory, Committee hereby endorse the MTIS process, draft Transportation Strategy Elements and Action Plan as pertains to the following: · Since our endorsement is contingent on corresponding endorsements by our respective governing bodies. we hereby direct the MTIS Interagency Management Committee (IN[C) to inform and seek comments from our respective governing bodies in order that the draft Transportation Strate~ Elements and Action Plan can be finalized. The IMC will then seek endorsement by the governing bodies of the participating agencies in the coming months. · The MTIS process has been a cooperative partnership bet~veen agencies and has given the public continuous opportunities to be involved as a consensus strategy was developed. The MTIS is a federal process to facilitate federal agency approval of transportation projects in Metropolitan Bakersfield. · Because of the extensive input that has been received from a broad spectrum of the public over the last two years, we feel that the MTIS Strategy Elements are reflective of the community's transportation interests and that all segments of the public were given the opportunity to comment on the MTIS elements. · We concur with the concept that the recommended draft Transportation Strategy Elements and the priorities established in the Action Plan are dynamic and will need to be modified on an annual basis to reflect changing transportation needs in the future. Therefore, we advise the IMC to establish an Interagency Partnership Consensus A~eement to coordinate on MT[S strategT updates on an annual basis to better integrate with the plans and progams of the participating agencies. ,~_arbara Patrick - Member of . l~obert P,~e County of Kern, Board of Supervtsors Mayor, City of>akersfie~:l_% Mci McLaughlin - M~ber of k--------~~-oward Silver - Member of Kern Council of Governments, Board of Directors Golden Empire Transit District, Board of Directors Robert Ortiz - Membef_oq BrYanBafey Planning Commission, City of Bakersfield At-Large Citizen Member BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: /~/1 ~/~rban Development Committee FROM://~//Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director DATE: t/ September 11, 1997 SUBJECT: Street Permits/Utility Cuts My staff has been working with the utility franchise holders on the new ordinance covering permits for construction in City streets. This ordinance will require the payment of a fee. for any pavement cut or damages as a result of the utilities work. You may recall that this was a result of a bad experience that the City had with a fiber optic communications company several months ago and the work that they did on Truxtun Avenue. After several months of meetings, staff has completed a draft ordinance, with input from the utility franchise holders. This ordinance differs little from the one you saw a few months ago other than some changes to define the permit procedure and to rename the "Pavement Degradation. Fee" to the "Workmanship and Performance Warranty Fee". This revised ordinance is attached for your review.. Also attached is a draft form of the Agreement that we propose to use for those franchise holders whose franchises do not include an "explicit obligation to repair". If these items meet with your approval, staff proposes to place this ordinance on the Council Agenda for the October 8, 1997 meeting with a second reading on October 22, 1997. The effective date of the ordinance would be November 21, 1997. C:\Working\ude_euta .wpd RMR:mps . xe: Reading File Projcct File Jacqucs R. La Roeh¢ilc Marian P. Shaw ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12.16 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING CONSTRUCTION WORK IN STREETS. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield that Chapter 12.16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 1. 12.16.010 Excavation in the Public Right-of-Way. This Chapter 12.16 shall govern excavation in streets, alleys, and other public places in the City of Bakersfield under the jurisdiction and control of the Department of Public Works. The Director of Public Works shall be responsible for managing the public right-of-way. 12.16.020 Definitions. A. "Applicant" shall mean any owner or duly authorized agent of such owner, who has submitted an application for a Permit to Excavate. B. "Chapter" shall mean this Chapter 12.16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. C. "City" shall mean the City of Bakersfield. D. "Department" shall mean the Department of Public Works. E. "Deposit" shall mean any bond, cash deposit, or other security provided by the applicant. F. "Director" shall mean the Director of the Department of Public Works or his/her designee, and shall include the term Superintendent of Streets. G. "Excavation" shall mean any opening in the surface or subsurface of the public right-of-way. H. "Facility" or "Facilities" shall mean any and all cables, cabinets, ducts, conduits, converters, equipment, drains, handholds, manholes, pipes, pipelines, splice boxes, surface location markers, tunnels, utilities, vaults, and other appurtenances or tangible things owned, leased, operated, or licensed by an owner or person, that are located or are proposed to be located in the public right-of-way. I. "Owner" shall mean any person, including any agency, department, or subdivision of the City, who owns any facility or facilities that are or are proposed to be installed or maintained in the public right-of-way. J. "Permit" or "permit to excavate" shall mean a permit to perform an excavation as it has been approved or may be amended or renewed by the Department. K. "Permittee" shall mean the applicant to whom a permit to excavate has been granted by the Department in accordance with this chapter. L. "Person" shall mean any natural person, corporation, partnership, or any governmental agency, including any agency, department, or subdivision of the City, the State of California, or United States of America. M. "Public Right-of-Way" shall mean the area across, along, beneath, in, on, over, under, upon, and within the dedicated public alleys, boulevards, courts, lanes, places, roads, sidewalks, streets, and ways within the City, as they now exist or hereafter will exist and which are or will be under the permitting jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works. N. "Utility Excavator" shall mean any franchise owner whose facility or facilities in the public right-of-way are used to provide gas, electricity, steam, water, sewer service, telecommunications, video, or other services to customers regardless of whether such owner is deemed a public utility by the California Public Utilities Commission. O. "Public Utility Franchise" granted by the City of Bakersfield or the State of California is a contract granting special privileges to use the public right-of-way. It is not intended that this chapter of the Municipal Code impose additional rules or regulations which are inconsistent with the rights or obligations under the franchise or confer authority to the City that conflicts with the State's Public Utilities Code or the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. 12.16.030 Written Permits Required to Excavate. It is unlawful for any person to make or to cause or permit to be made any excavation in any public right-of-way or make any improvements on, under, over or across any street, alley or public place within the City of Bakersfield under the jurisdiction and control of the Department of Public Works, without first obtaining from the Department a permit authorizing such excavation. No permit to excavate shall be issued if the applicant does not have legal authority to occupy and use the public right-of-way for the purposes identified in the application. Budgeted capital projects of the City are exempt from the requirements of this chapter. -- Page 2 of 13 Pages -- 12.16.040 Orders, Regulations, and Rules of City Departments. In addition to the requirements set forth in this chapter, the Department may adopt such orders, regulations, or rules as it deems necessary in order to preserve and maintain the public health, safety, welfare, and convenience. All work in the public right-of-way pursuant to this chapter shall be performed in accordance with the standard plans and specifications of the Department, the design manual, and any Department orders, regulations, or rules, except where the Director grants prior written approval to deviate from such standard plans and specifications, the design manual, orders, regulations, or rules. 12.16.050 Applications for Permits to Perform an Excavation. Applications shall be submitted in format and manner specified by the Director and shall contain: A. The name, address, telephone, and facsimile number of the applicant. Where an applicant is not the owner of the facility to be installed or maintained in the public right-of-way, the application also shall include the name, address, telephone, and facsimile number of the owner. B. A description of the location, purpose, method of construction, and surface and subsurface area of the proposed excavation. C. A plat showing the proposed location and dimensions of the excavation and the facilities to be installed, maintained, or repaired in connection with the excavation, and such other details as the Department may require. D. A copy or other documentation of the franchise, easement, encroachment permit, license, or other legal instrument that authorizes the applicant or owner to use or occupy the public right-of-way for the purpose described in the application. Where the applicant is not the owner of the facility or facilities to be installed or maintained, the applicant must demonstrate in a form and manner specified by the Department that the applicant is authorized to act on behalf of the owner. E. The proposed start date of excavation. F. The proposed duration of the excavation, which shall include the duration of the restoration of the public right-of-way physically disturbed by the excavation. G. Written certification that all material to be used in the excavation, installation, maintenance, or repair of facilities, and restoration of the public right-of-way will be on hand and ready for use before any portion of the excavation is begun. -- Page 3 of 13 Pages -- H. Written certification that the applicant and owner are in compliance with all terms and conditions of this chapter, the standard plans and specifications, the design manual, orders, regulations, and rules of the Department, and that the applicant and owner are not subject to any outstanding assessments, fees, penalties, or other permit requirements. I. A current Business Tax Certificate issued by the City of Bakersfield. J. Evidence of a deposit as required by this Chapter 12.16. K. Evidence of insurance for the applicant and owner as specified by the Department. L. Any other information that may reasonably be required by the Department. 12.16.060 Action on Applications for Permits to Excavate. A. After receipt of an application for a permit to excavate, the Department shall determine whether an application is complete. If the application is deemed to be incomplete, the Department shall advise the applicant in writing of the reasons for rejecting the application as incomplete. B. If the application is deemed to be complete, the Department, in its discretion, may deny, approve, or conditionally approve the application. In order to preserve and maintain the public health, safety, welfare, and convenience, the Department may condition a permit with specified requirements including, but not limited to, those that limit or modify the facilities to be installed or maintained, the location of the facilities to be installed or maintained, and the time, place, and manner of excavation. C. If the application is denied, the Department shall advise the applicant in writing of the basis for denial. D. If the application is approved or conditionally approved, the Department shall issue a permit to the applicant. 12.16.070 Terms and Limitations. The permit shall specify the location and extent of the excavation, the start date and duration of the excavation, the permittee to whom the permit is issued, and any conditions placed on the permit. -- Page 4 of 13 Pages -- 12.16.080 Duration and Validity. Permits shall be void if construction has not begun within thirty (30) days of the start date specified in the permit or if excavation, including restoration, has not been completed within the specified duration; provided, however, that the Director, in his or her discretion, may issue one 30-day extension to the start date and one 30-day extension to the duration of excavation upon written request from the permittee. 12.16.090 Non-Transferability of Permits. Permits are not transferable. 12.16.100 Emergency Excavation. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to prevent any person from taking any action necessary for the preservation of life or property when such necessity arises during days or times when the Department is closed. In the event that any person takes any action to excavate or cause to be excavated the public right-of-way pursuant to this chapter, such person shall apply for an emergency permit within four (4) hours after the Department's offices are first opened. The applicant for an emergency permit shall submit a written statement of the basis of the emergency action and describe the work performed. 12.16.110 Moratorium Areas - No Permit Shall Be Issued. Permission to excavate in newly renovated streets will not be granted for three (3) years after completion of street renovation as shown by the filing of a Notice of Completion. Utilities shall determine alternate methods of making necessary repairs to avoid excavating in newly renovated streets. Exceptions to the above are as follows: A. Emergency which endangers life or property. B. Interruption of essential utility service. C. Work that is mandated by City, State or Federal legislation. D. Service for buildings where no other reasonable means of providing service exists. E. Other situations deemed by the City Council to be in the best interest of the general public. All permits which are issued under A through E above shall be in accordance with the standards, details and specifications established by and on file in the office of the Director. -- Page 5 of 13 Pages -- 12.16.120 Liability and Indemnification. A. Liability upon Permittee. Each owner and permittee is wholly responsible for the quality of the work performed in the public right-of-way and both the owner and permittee are jointly and severally liable for all consequences of any condition of such work and any facilities installed in the public right-of-way. Neither the issuance of any permit, inspection, repair, or suggestion, approval, or acquiescence of any person affiliated with the Department shall excuse any owner and/or permittee from such responsibility or liability. B. Indemnification, defense, and hold harmless Each owner and permittee shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Bakersfield and its officers, agents, and employees, as well as their associated and affiliated companies and their respective officers, agents, and employees from any and all suits, actions, losses, claims, and liabilities of every kind, nature, and description, including, but not limited to, attorney's fees and any injury or death to any person(s) or damage to any property(les) arising out of or in connection with the work performed by it or on its behalf under a permit to excavate. Upon the request of the City, the owner and/or the permittee, at no cost or expense to the City, shall defend any suit, action, or legal proceeding asserting a claim for losses or liabilities, to the extent that any such suit, action, or legal proceeding claims a loss covered by the terms of this indemnification agreement. 12.16.130 Deposit Required. Before issuing such permit, the Public Works Director shall require the person, firm, company or corporation applying therefor to deposit in the office of the Public Works Director or his designee a sum sufficient to cover all fees of the Public Works Director and of the City incurred or which may be incurred in connection therewith. Upon the completion of the proposed work, if any portion of the deposit so made remains in excess of the fees provided in this chapter, such excess shall, upon the completion of the proposed work, be refunded to the person depositing the same. Such portion of said deposit as is required to cover the fees provided in this chapter shall, upon the completion of said work, be paid by the Public Works Director into the treasury of the City. (Prior code § 12.16.040.) 12.16.140 Security Required. For all work requiring a permit by the terms of this chapter, with the exception of sewer laterals and utility excavations, the person making application for permit shall provide, prior to the issuance of said permit, security as required by the Director which shall include, at a minimum, a performance bond, a labor and materials bond, and a warranty bond. The warranty shall run twelve (12) years from the recording of a Notice of Completion by the Director. The release of said security shall be governed by the California Civil Code. Utility excavators shall post the security required by the Director or in conformance with a franchise agreement between the City and the utility excavator. -- Page 6 of 13 Pages -- 12.16.150 Workmanship and Performance Warranty Fee. A. All permits issued under the requirements of this chapter will include the payment of a non-refundable Workmanship and Performance Warranty Fee to City. This Workmanship and Performance Warranty Fee shall be imposed as follows: 1. Where the workmanship and performance of the permittee is limited to the statutory one (1) year period; cuts are allowed with payment of a Workmanship and Performance Warranty Fee as established by Resolution. 2. Where the permittee commits to a twelve (12) year workmanship and performance warranty agreement with the City, cuts are allowed with payment of a limited Workmanship and Performance Warranty Fee as established by Resolution. 3. Utilities operating under a franchise granted by the City that clearly includes an explicit obligation to repair (warranty) any restoration quality defects are exempt from payment of the Workmanship and Performance Warranty Fee. Utilities operating under a franchise that does not have explicit obligation to warranty and repair may enter into an agreement with City that provides a warranty and security satisfactory to City and thereby, during the term of the agreement, be exempt from payment of the warranty fee. The agreement must comply with the warranty and security requirements of this chapter. 4. Where permission to excavate in newly renovated streets has been granted pursuant to Section 12.16.110, payment of the Workmanship and Performance Warranty Fee will be required under 1 through 2 above. B. In all cases where cuts are allowed, the permittee is required to patch their cuts to City standards. All warranties shall include adequate security for the warranty period. All pavement warranty fees received under the requirements of this section shall be expended solely for the purpose of maintaining the workmanship and performance of City streets. 12.16.160 Additional Fees for Excavation. In instances where administration of this chapter or inspection of an excavation is or will be unusually costly to the Department, the Director may require an applicant to pay an additional sum in excess of any amount charged elsewhere in this chapter. The additional sum shall be sufficient to recover actual costs incurred by the Department and shall be charged on a time and materials basis. Whenever additional fees are charged, the Director shall provide the applicant with an estimate of the additional fees. -- Page 7 of 13 Pages -- 12.16.170 Underground Service Alert. Any person excavating in the public right-of-way shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Service Alert regarding notification of excavation and marking of subsurface facilities. 12.16.180 Limits Upon Excavation in the Public Right-of-Way. A. Scope. It is unlawful for any permittee to make, to cause, or permit to be made, any excavation in the public right-of-way outside the boundaries, times, and description set forth in the permit. B. Rock Wheel. Use of a rock wheel to excavate in the public right-of-way is unlawful without prior written approval of the Director. C. Trenchless Technology. Use of trenchless technology in the public right-of- way is unlawful without the prior written approval of the Director. D. Lane Closures in Excess of Twelve Hundred Feet Prohibited. No lane closures in excess of twelve hundred (1200) feet will be allowed, except in cases of emergency or by consent of the Director. 12.16.190 Stop Work Order, Permit Modification, and Permit Revocation. When the Director has determined a person has violated this chapter, any condition of the permit, that an excavation poses a hazardous situation or constitutes a public nuisance, public emergency, or other threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, or when the Director determines there is a paramount public purpose, the Director is authorized to issue a stop work order, to impose new conditions upon a permit, or to suspend or revoke a permit by notifying the permittee of such action in writing. 12.16.200 Restoration of the Public Right-of-Way. A. Like New Restoration. In any case in which the street, sidewalk, or other public right-of-way is or is caused to be excavated, the owner and permittee shall restore or cause to be restored such excavation to like new condition in the manner prescribed by the standard plans and specifications, the design manual, orders, regulations, and rules of the Department. As a minimum, trench restoration shall include resurfacing to a constant width equal to the widest part of the trench excavation. B. Modification to Requirements. Upon written request from the permittee, the Director, in his or her discretion, may approve in writing modifications to the requirements of this chapter. -- Page 8 of 13 Pages -- C. Incomplete Work and Completion by the Department. In any case where an excavation is not completed or restored in the time and manner specified in the permit, this chapter, the standard plans and specifications, the design manual, or the orders, regulations, and rules of the Department, the Director shall order the owner or permittee to complete the work as directed within twenty-four (24) hours. If the owner or permittee should fail, neglect, or refuse to comply with the order, the Director may complete or cause to be completed such work in such manner as the Director deems expedient and appropriate. The owner or permittee shall compensate the Department for any costs associated with the administration, construction, consultants, equipment, inspection, notifications, remediation, repair, restoration, or any other actual costs incurred by the Department or other departments or agencies of the City made necessary by said work. 12.16.210 Repair by the Department. A. In the event any person(s) fails, neglects, or refuses to repair or restore any condition pursuant to the Director's notice as set forth in this chapter, the Director may repair or restore, or cause to be repaired or restored, such condition in such manner as the Director deems expedient and appropriate. The person(s) identified by the Director as the responsible party shall compensate the Department for any costs associated with the administration, construction, consultants, equipment, inspection, notification, remediation, repair, restoration, or any other actual costs incurred by the Department or other departments or agencies of the City made necessary by reason of the repair or restoration undertaken by the Department. B. Repair or restoration by the Department in accordance with this chapter shall not relieve the person(s) from any and all liability at the site of the repair or restoration, including, but not limited to, future failures. 12.16.220 Emergency Remediation by the Department. A. If, in the judgment of the Director, the site of an excavation is considered hazardous, constitutes a public nuisance, public emergency, or other imminent threat to the public health, safety, or welfare that requires immediate action, the Director may order the condition remedied by written, oral, telephonic or facsimile communication to the owner, applicant, or any agent thereof and shall designate the owner or applicant as the responsible party. B. If the responsible party is inaccessible or fails, neglects, or refuses to take immediate action to remedy the condition as specified in said communication, the Director may remedy the condition or cause the condition to be remedied in such manner as the Director deems expedient and appropriate. The person(s) identified by the Director as the responsible party shall compensate the Department for any reasonable costs associated with the administration, construction, consultants, equipment, inspection, notification, remediation, repair, restoration, or any other actual costs incurred by the Department or other departments or agencies of the City made necessary by reason of the emergency remediation undertaken by the Department. -- Page 9 of 13 Pages -- 12.16.230 Violation of Chapter. The Director shall have authority to enforce this chapter. Upon a determination by the Director that a person has violated any provision of this chapter, the standard plans and specifications, the design manual, notices, orders, regulations, or rules of the Department, any term, condition, or limitation of any permit or is subject to any outstanding fees, deposits, or other charges, the Director shall serve notice on said person to abate the violation. Any person whom the Director determines to be responsible for violating this chapter may be subject to any or all of the penalties specified in this chapter. 12.16.240 Administrative Penalties. A. The Director shall notify the person responsible for a continuing violation that they have seventy-two (72) hours to correct or otherwise remedy the violation or be subject to the imposition of administrative penalties. For violations subject to the incomplete work provisions of this chapter, the person responsible shall be notified they have twenty-four (24) hours to remedy the violation or be subject to the imposition of administrative penalties. For those violations that create an immediate danger to health or safety or are otherwise subject to emergency remediation, the person responsible shall be notified they must immediately remedy the violation or be subject to the imposition of administrative penalties. B. Administrative penalties may be assessed pursuant to subsection "A" up to Five Hundred Dollars ($500) per day, per violation. C. In addition to the administrative penalty assessed pursuant to subsection "A," the Director may assess fees to cover the reasonable costs incurred in enforcing the administrative penalty, including, but not limited to, inspection costs and administrative overhead. D. Penalties and fees assessed under Section 12.16.240 shall continue to accrue against the person responsible for the violation until the violation is corrected or otherwise remedied in the judgment of the Director. E. The Director, or his or her designated representative, is responsible for charging and collecting any penalty or fee assessed pursuant to this section. The Director shall notify in writing the person responsible for the violation of the cost of the penalty and fee and declare that such costs are due and payable to the City. If the penalty and fee are not paid within thirty (30) days of this notice, the Director shall pursue collection of the penalty and fee. F. Any person who has been assessed administrative penalties or fees may seek administrative review of such penalties and fees by filing an appeal with Director that specifies in detail the basis for appeal. Within twenty (20) days of the receipt of the appeal, unless extended by mutual agreement of the affected parties, the Director shall -- Page 10 of 13 Pages -- cause a hearing to be held before the City Council. The decision of the City Council shall be final. 12.16.250 Civil Penalties and Fees. A. The Director may call upon the City Attorney to maintain an action for injunction, summary abatement, or abatement of any violation of this chapter, and for assessment and recovery of a civil penalty and attorneys fees for such violation. B. Any person who violates this chapter may be liable for a civil penalty, not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500) for each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue. Such penalty shall be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought by the City Attorney in any court of competent jurisdiction. In assessing the amount of the civil penalty, the court may consider any one or more of the relevant circumstances presented by any of the parties to the case, including, but not limited to, the following: the nature and seriousness of the misconduct, the number of violations, the persistence of the misconduct, the length of time over which the misconduct occurred, the willfulness of the defendant's misconduct, and the defendant's assets, liabilities, and net worth. The City Attorney may also seek recovery of the attorneys fees and costs incurred in bringing a civil action pursuant to this section. C. In undertaking enforcement of this chapter, the City is assuming an undertaking only to promote the general welfare. It is not assuming, nor is it imposing on its officers and employees, any obligation for which the City is liable in money damages to any person who claims that any breach of duty related to or arising from this chapter proximately caused their injury. 12.16.260 Criminal Penalties and Fees. A. The City may institute criminal proceedings in the enforcement of this chapter as set forth in the Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 1.40. 12.16.270 Suspension of Applications and Permits. No person subject to any outstanding violation of this chapter shall apply for nor be issued any permit to excavate in the public right-of-way. 12.16.280 Abandonment of Underground Facilities, Reports, and Maps. A. Whenever any facility(ies) is abandoned in the public right-of-way, the person owning, using, controlling or having an interest therein, shall, within thirty (30) days after such abandonment, file in the office of the Director a statement in writing, giving in detail the location of the facility(ies) so abandoned. Each map, set of maps, or plans filed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, shall show in detail the location of all such facility(ies) abandoned. -- Page 11 of 13 Pages -- B. It shall be unlawful for any person to fail, refuse, or neglect to file any map or set of maps as required by this section. 12.16.290 Identification of Visible Facilities. All facilities installed pursuant to a permit to excavate that are visible from the surface of the public right-of-way shall be clearly identified with the name of the current owner of the facilities. Within three (3) months of change in ownership of a facility(ies), the identification required by this section shall indicate the new owner. 12.16.300 Depth of Gas or Water Pipe. No pipes carrying water or gas shall be laid less than thirty (30) inches below the official grade of any street, except by permit approved by the City Council. (Prior code § 12.16.220.) 12.16.310 Removal of Manhole Covers Permit. No person shall remove the cover from or enter any manhole within the City, without first having obtained a permit to do so from the Director, except in case of accident or emergency, in which case written notice shall be given within four (4) hours after the Department first opens. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. .............. O00 .............. -- Page 12 of 13 Pages -- I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on by the following vote: " AYES: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, DEMOND, SMITH, MCDERMOTT, ROWLES, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED: BOB PRICE, MAYOR CITY OF BAKERSFIELD APPROVED AS TO FORM: JUDY K. SKOUSEN CITY ATTORNEY By: JUDY K. SKOUSEN City Attorney City of Bakersfield ADD:dlr S:~COUNCIL\ORD~STREET.ORD-Auoust 8, 1997 -- Page 13 of 13 Pages -- AGREEMENT NO. STREET UTILITY CUT GUARANTEE THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on ., by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a Charter city and municipal corporation, ("CITY" herein) and , a public utility under the laws of the State of California ("UTILITY" herein). RECITALS WHEREAS, UTILITY will, from time-to-time, be making utility cuts in CITY streets for laying utility lines for various purposes; and WHEREAS, UTILITY is willing to guarantee the quality of its work in repairing and replacing the street after said street cut; and WHEREAS, CITY is willing to accept such guarantee from a California public utility. NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and UTILITY mutually agree as follows: 1. GUARANTEE. UTILITY hereby guarantees to repair, replace and restore any street cut made by the UTILITY, or its agents, for the life of the street. Should UTILITY fail to repair, replace or restore the street cut at any time during the useful life of the street, after notice and demand by CITY, CITY may cause the repair to be made and charge the amount of the repair to the UTILITY. 2. ACCEPTANCE OF WORK OR SERVICE~. The acceptance of work or services, or payment for work or services, by CITY shall not constitute a waiver of any provisions of this Agreement. 3. ASSIGNMENT. This Agreement shall not be assigned by any party, or any party substituted, without prior written consent of all the parties. 4. EXECUTION. This Agreement is effective upon execution. It is the product of negotiation and all parties are equally responsible for authorship of this Agreement. Section 1654 of the California Civil Code shall not apply to the interpretation of this Agreement. -- Page 1 of 3 Pages -- 5. FORUM. Any lawsuit pertaining to any matter arising under, or growing out of, this Agreement shall be instituted in Kern County, California. 6. MERGER AND MODIFICATION. This Agreement sets forth the entire Agreement between the parties and supersedes all other oral or written representations. This Agreement may be modified only in a writing approved by the CITY Council and signed by all the parties. 7. NEGATION OF PARTNERSHIP. CITY shall not become or be deemed a partner or joint venturer with UTILITY or associate in any such relationship with UTILITY by reason of the provisions of this Agreement. UTILITY shall not for any purpose be considered an agent, officer or employee of CITY. 8. NON-INTEREST. No officer or employee of the CITY shall hold any interest in this Agreement (California Government Code section 1090). 9. WAIVER OF DEFAULT. The failure of any party to enforce against another a provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that party's right to enforce such a provision at a later time, and shall not serve to vary the terms of this Agreement. 10. TERMINATION. This Agreement may be terminated by any party upon ten (10) days written notice, served by mail or personal service, to all other parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed, the day and year first-above written. "CITY" "UTILITY" CITY OF BAKERSFIELD By: By: BOB PRICE, Mayor Title: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT By: RAUL ROJAS Public Works Director MORE SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE StreetUtilityCutGua ranteeAgreement S:~UBWORKS~GRS~STR~CUT.AGR --,September10. 1997 -- Page 2 of 3 Pages -- APPROVED AS TO FORM: JUDY K. SKOUSEN City Attorney By: JUDY K. SKOUSEN City Attorney COUNTERSIGNED: By: GREGORY J. KLIMKO Finance Director ADD:dlr Attachments (If any) StreetUtilityCutGuaranteeAgreement S:~PUBWORKS~AGRS~STR~CUT.AGR --September10, 1997 -- -v'age 3 of 3 i-'ages -- MO¥ NG FORWARD METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD ]:997 -- zoo-5 BY: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD COUNTY OF KERN KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS GOLDEI~ EMPIRE TRANSIT DISTRICT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT , While the population of Metropolitan Bakersfield has nearly dou- bled during the past quarter century, the area's transportation system is essentially the same as it was in 1970. Up to now we've been able to absorb increased traffic, and have met the community's trans- portation needs by adding some local roads and a few more buses. But we can no longer do so because of the continuing growth of the Metropolitan Area. It is estimated that by the year 2015 the population will increase by more than 60 per- cent. Congestion on arterial ll r°adways and city streets 1 will become intolerable unless we provide signifi- cant new transportation facilities and services. _Bniiding _a Strategy To determine the future transportation needs of Metropolitan Bakersfield, six local, regional, and. state agencies jointly conducted an extensive analysis of travel in the area. The analysis included an exami- nation of traffic patterns, an evaluation of alternative transportation systems, and identification of existing and potential sources of rev- enue. With the ongoing participation of community · ILLUSTRATION 1 i groups and the public at .large, the agencies then devel- Traffic to and through central Bakersfield is increasing, and I oped a strategy for implementing those projects that the congestion could become intolerable if improvements are would be the most effective in eliminating congestion not made in the Metropolitan area's transportation system, and would benefit the Metropolitan Area as a whole. The proposed strategy has four main objectives, each of which is directed toward enabling residents of the area to get around easily and quickly. The objectives are to: · Provide the most appropriate transportation response to the area's anticipated growth patterns. · Ensure the mobility of transportation to and through central Bakersfield, which is expected to become increasingly congested as growth occurs. · Offer residents more transportation choices and connections to major travel destinations. · Reduce, or at least not increase, transportation-related emissions affecting air quality. The big question is, where is the money to come from for the trans- portation projects envisioned by the strategy? Cost estimates range from $900 million to $1.5 billion, or even more. Current expectations are that $750 million will. be available from anticipated funding sources. But with curtailment of 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 elimi- nate traffic congestion in Metropolitan Bakersfield. In developing the strat- egy, the principal challenge was to make sure that the expenditures produce the best possible transportation system for the area. The strategy proposed by the agencies has seven basic components: r-~ ~ Year 2010 Bakersfield Metropolitan Area boundary 1. FUNDABLE ROADWAY PROJECTS. High- priority projects for which funding will prob- ably be available. 2. UNFUNDED HIGH-BENEFIT ROADWAY PROJECTS. Important projects for which funding should be sought. 3. MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING ROAD- WAYS. Intensification of preventive and rehabilitative maintenance programs to pre- serve existing roads and streets. 4. EXPANSION OF GOLDEN EMPIRE TRANSIT (GET) SERVICE. Addition of bus routes and vehicles to meet the needs of the growing Metropolitan Bakersfield population. 5. CONNECTIONS BETWEEN TRANS- PORTATION MODES. Creation of more transit hubs for convenient transferring from one bus route to another and between buses, ....... shuttles, AMTRAK, and a possible future ILLUSTRATION2 high-speed rail line. By the year 2015, the population of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Area is expected to grow from 382,000 (1995) to 6. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES. 612,000. Much of the growth will occur on the outskirts of Development of more pedestrian and bicycle Bakersfield, greatly expanding the city's boundaries. lanes and other facilities. 7. LAND-USE PLANNING. Encouragement of mixed-use, in-fill, and other balanced land development to minimize the increase of vehicular traffic. . Assuming that $750 million will be available from local, state, and federal sources, the strategy identifies the following high-priority projects: Kern River Freeway. Construction of the western segment of State Route 58 (SR 58) -- the Kern River Freeway -- from State Route 99 (SR 99) to Renfro Road and ultimately Interstate 5 will yield several important benefits. The freeway will remove trucks and other traffic from busy streets, increase the capacity for crosstown traffic, and improve crosstown travel times for emergency and other vehicles. Improvement of Roadways. Traffic flow will be improved by widening, extending~ or realigning more than 60 segments of existing roadways. Traffic Operations. Control of the flow of traffic will be enhanced by installation of over 200 new traffic signals and a computerized "Smart Street" program for adjusting signals in response to traffic incidents and surges. ~.%(~ u River, Canal, and Railroad Crossings. Two · ~ new bridges will be built over the Kern River, :..: ...........~ ~ and others over canals at many locations. % ~~.~ Construction of underpasses or overpasses at the Oswell Street and Coffee Road railway crossings ·will eliminate traffic backups when %~i ~~ trains are on the track. ' ' · -- -O i U- d----High'Benefit Roadway The funded roadway projects will take us less ' than halfway toward preventing intolerable traf- ' ' fic congestion due to .the growth in population ~, ~(~ ,/ during the next two decades. If more local .... ~:~Kor.,~.rF~..~ ~Vi financing can be found, additional important roadway construction, river crossings, and .................... i .................. goUnderpasSeSmuch further°r overpasseStoward achievementat railway tracksof a con-Will gestion-free transportation system. ILLUSTRATION3 Crosstown Freeway (Southern Alignment). The strategy includes construction of the Kern River Freeway from Renfro Road to State Route (SR) 99, and a connecting Construction of a six-lane freeway as part of Crosstown Freeway from SR 99 to east of Union Avenue, in the Centennial Transportation Corridor, the Centennial Transportation Corridor. from east of Union Avenue to SR 99, will add considerably to the capacity for east-west traffic. Connecting with the proposed Kern River Freeway, the new freeway will make it possible to drive across town in about 24 minutes, about half the time the trip will take in 2015 if the two roads are not built. Moreover, the Crosstown Freeway will remove more than 50,000 daily vehicle trips from busy downtown streets. River Crossings. Present bridges over the I~ Kern River on Manor Drive and Chester Avenue will be widened, and one will be built on Renfro Road. Railroad Crossings. Either underpasses or overpasses will be built at nine or more rail- road-track crossings. Beltways. Rights-of-way will be bought for the eventual construction of south and east beltways around Bakersfield, in addition to those already earmarked for purchase. ILLUSTRATION 4 0.f EXiSting Roadways Traffic will no longer be blocked by trains at railway crossings In addition to new projects, the proposed after the construction of overpasses and underpasses, strategy takes into account the urgent need for , preventive and rehabilitative maintenance of existing roads and city streets. Metropolitan 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 mainte- nance due to funding shortfalls. About $487 r--~ L..~ Year 2010 Bakersfield Metropolitan Area boundary million will be needed between 1997 and the year BI Area within 1/4 mile oftheb ..... te 2015 just to maintain and rehabilitate the road- ways. But funding remains critically inadequate, despite aggressive efforts to obtain more money. A shortfall of more than~ $115 million is expected. :Expansion Transit (GET) Services Another major consideration in the strategy is expansion of GET bus services, especially in I --~ Metropolitanthe southwestern Area. and Recommendations northwestern parts include of the the establishment of neighborhood circulation routes, fast-service limited-stop crosstown routes, and new transfer centers. Innovative concepts, such as shuttles that stop on demand anywhere along the route or nearby, will be tested. A pri- mary goal is to improve service to schools, employment sites, and other key activity centers. GET plans to increase the number of buses in ser- ILLUSTRATION 5 vice during peak periods from the current 55 to To provide transit service ~-or the expected growth areas, GET must create new bus routes and add buses to its fleet. 114 by the year 2015. Funding will probably be available for the purchase of more buses, but , , , there will be a shortfall of $46-to-78 million in the amount needed to operate them between now and 2015. Connections Between Transportation Modes Wherever feasible, buses will be routed to a number of new transit hubs, including the new AMTRAK station. The station might also even- tually serve as the transfer center for a high-speed rail line -- the practicality of building one in the future is being studied. - Td 5irTi 31na__ i aCili ti es The program for establishing pedestrian and bicycle lanes and other facilities will continue. If funds become available, it will be expanded. Land Use The Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan ILLUSTRATION 6 encourages more intensive use of land in devel- New transit hubs will make it more convenient to transfer oped sections of the Metropolitan Area, rather between buses and from one transportation mode to another. than in the sparsely built-up outskirts. Particular attention will be paid to development within cor- ' ridors where service is provided by higher-capacity roads, GET buses, and -- perhaps in the distant future -- the contemplated light-rail transit system. The program also emphasizes mixed residential and commercial growth to minimize travel for shopping and entertainment. Developers who comply with the program might qualify for reductions in the higher transportation- impact fees that became effective in February 1997. consensUs The agencies that developed the proposed strategy are now submitting it to the community for your comments and suggestions, including how to finance capital and maintenance projects for which funding is 'not yet available. We are seeking a community consensus on how to provide the transportation facilities and services we must have to · .~- help maintain the Metropolitan Bakersfield Area as one of the state's most enjoyable places to live. For details of the strategy or other information, call, fax, or write Kern Council of Governments . 1401 19th Street, Suite 300 Bakersfield, California 93301 (805) 861-2191 fax (805) 324-8215 or Golden Empire Transit District 1830 Golden State Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 (805) 324-9874 fax (805) 324-7849 ILLUSTRATION 7 The creation of bicycle and pedestrian lanes are an integral part of the strategy. METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY COSTS PROJECTED ROADWAY CAPITAL COSTS ($ millions) Fee Federal Funding Total Program & State Source Costs Funding Funding Unknown Major Projects Crosstown Freeway (right-of-way only) -- 10.0 -- 10.0 Kern River Freeway, Route 99 to Stockdale Hwy 24.6 384.8 -- 409.4 Route 178, Oswell St to Morning Dr -- 14.0 -- 14.0 Kern Canyon Expressway, Alfred Harrell Hwy to Morning Dr -- 25.0 -- 25.0 Route 58 (Rosedale Hwy), Renfro Rd to Route 99 17.6 17.0 13.1 47.7 Route 58 Freeway, Route 99 to Cottonwood Rd -- 9.0 9.1 18.1 Route 184, Panama St to Route 58 4.4 40.0 -- 44.4 Beltways (right-of-way only) 4.7 -- 17.3 22.0 Route 119, Buena Vista Blvd to Route 99 5.7 -- -- 5.7 Total Major Projects 57.0 499.8 39.5 596.3 Streets Roadwork 107.5 -- -- 107.5 Traffic signals 21.5 -- -- 21.5 Traffic control & safety -- 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 crossings 1.9 -- -- 1.9 Total Street Projects 171.4 17.6 36.3 225.3 .TOTAL ROADWAY PROJECTS 228.4 517.4 75.8 821.6 PROJECTED TRANSIT CAPITAL COSTS ($ millions) GET Fleet (114 buses) Small buses 2.2 Large buses 45.0 Buses Total 47.7 GET Transit Centers 2.0 Downtown Intercity Rail Terminal (AMTRAK) 20.2 Expansion of current GET facility .3 TOTAL PROJECTED TRANSIT CAPITAL COSTS 70.2 TOTAL STRATEGY CAPITAL PROJECTS COSTS ($ millions) 891.8 GET TRANSIT OPERATING COSTS ($ millions) Funded Not Funded Total Golden Empire Transit bus routes 346.0-371.0 46.0-78.0 392.0-449.0 METROPOLITAN AREA ROADWAY MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION COSTS (FY 1996-2015, $ millions) Funded Not Funded Total Rehabilitation Projects Local streets 86.7 22.9 109.6 County roads in Bakersfield 46.9 58.4 105.3 State routes in Bakersfield 27.3 4.0 31.3 Total Rehabilitation Projects 160.9 85.3 246.2 Ongoing Maintenance 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 Ongoing Maintenance 210.9 30.2 241.1 TOTAL REHABILITATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 371.8 115.5 487.3 TRA IVSPOR TA TIOIV S TRA 7'EG Y FOR ME 7'R 0 P 0/. / TA IV BA i(ER S F/E/ D 1~97- 2815 Consensus On Major Transportation Investments City of Bakersfield County of Kern - Kern.Council of.Governments Golden Empire Transit District California Department of Transportation San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Revision Date: August 22, 1997, No. 9 OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND 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 ~ve have 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 bet~veen now and year 2015. While the congeition 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 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. 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 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 fi.om the process as the most beneficial package of projects that have the broadest possible benefit to the community and support throughout the greater Bakersfield Metropolitan Area. A. Purpose and Need for the Strategy 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 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 others, 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. 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 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 SR-58 "Kern River Freeway" west of State Route 99, further grade separations of roadways over or under railroads, and various traffic signalization projects. 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 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 1 TRAI~SPORTA TIOI~ STRATEGY FOR METROPOLITAI~ BAKERSFIELD ~ 997.20 ~ 5 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 transpgrtation that we have today; six local, regional and state agencies have teamed together to develop the Transportation Strategy for Metropolitan 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 alternative 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 optimistic scenario) to totally eliminate all 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 investment choices for our community. Along these lines, the recommended transportation strategy should be considered as an important "stepping stone" 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 the 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. An Action Plan has been developed to guide the implementation of the LPA and accommodate needed annual updates for the phased implementation of the LPA elements. The Action Plan has linkages to the adopted plans and programs of the participating agencies. 8arton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Pa§e 2 TRANSPDRTA TION STRA TEGY FOR METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 1£~7-20 T 5 B. Purpose and Objectives The Bakersfield Metropolitan Area will be faced w/th many transportation challenges in the coming years. Some of the most crucial challenges are: 1. P0pulatien 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,t By then, Kern County's population will number over 1,000,000 people. 2. Metre Growth and Traffic Burden. Much of the projected growth in the Metropolitan Area is 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 Bakersfield's utilities and infrastructure (sewer, water, gas, roads, etc.) will be needed. New transportation facilities, services and maintenance will be needed to handle all of the traffic generated by these dispersed land uses. 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 high as 100,000 vehicles per day. Trucks account for as much as 37 percent of the average daily traffic.2 On State Route 58, trucks presently account for 33 percent of all traffic through Bakersfield. 3. Funding Shortfalls. Realistically, there may never be enough transportation money available 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 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), would be required to totally address future congestion by year 2015 if dispersed growth patterns continue. Funding is also at risk for transit. Between FY 1986-87 and FY 1996-97, Golden Empire Transit's annual ridership increased by 91 percent, or from 2.5 million passenge/'s to nearly 4.7 million passengers? This positive trend is now in jeopardy, as the availability of local, state and t'ederal money 'for'GETs operations is at risk. Estimates developed based on information provided by Kern COG. 1996Regional Trana£ortation Plan, Kern COG. Golden Empire Transit District Ridership Reports. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 3 / TRAIVSPORTA T/OIV STRA TEGY FOR METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 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. The estimated cost 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 Quality. 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. 6. Maintain Livability of Community. One indicator of livability is the assurance of continued mobility throughout the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area. As growth occurs and no investments in new transportation infi'astructure 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. Issue 1: Growth of the Metropolitan Area and the continued sprawl of development and activity centers. Issue 2: Growth in Internal and £'cternal Travel Markets, primarily journey to work, but also school/university, shopping, trips as well as truck traffic. Issue 3: Orientation of Travel. The fastest growing travel markets will be on the ~vest side of town, and east-west cross-town travel, for all trip purposes, will 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 lines, and rail yards also funnel travel into concentrated corridors. 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 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 4 grow and air quality, may worsen. Issue 6: Financial Resources. Limited funds require funding the optimal solutions to emerging transportation problems (capital, operating and maintenance). Issue 7: Balanced Transportation and Good Mzdtimodal Connections. The variety and extent of possible multimodal connections ~vill ~ow 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. The MTIS Action Plan and its process for annual updates will ensure that the highest priority projects receive the greatest consideration for implementation. In addition to new roadway and transit projects, the proposed strategy takes into account the urgent need for preventive and rehabilitative maintenance of existing roads and city streets. Metropolitan 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. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 5 J ,-'- METROPOLITAN RAKERSFIELD MAJOR· ·" ...... ~,-,:-:-~= .,.~'~-~ ~ TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT STRATEGY,..'.'~ .~ ' ~.'~ .~ : .,i','! i .' ,. , ! i',i,i,:!~'",,'~,.'.l'!f'~;:~,~i.,!,:L:1'' ".,' '~: ' , , :' ' ,' Assessmenl of Community's Continuous Public Information'.,. .,,. :, Community Leaders/ Transportation Priorities And Participation i :ii:i:.:,i;: :'i~i' · ". Decisionmakers · Neighborhood FocUs · Workshops · Newsletters :: ~ :e.'., One-on-Onelnlerviews Groups · Media Oulreach ·' Editorial B°ard'~ · Presentations To City · Transil Rider Survey "~' ' ~ ~"" CounciI And Governing · Telephone Survey of ,....:" Boards.. · Households ; ,~ ~,:High-[evel Policy Group · Slrategy Issues/Objectives,..'. · MTIS Scoping ':' ', - · ,:.' · ! Speaker,s Bureau Public Agency Coordination · Identificalion ol conCePlual ·., Presentations~To: : Alternatives . '.'.~ ".' ~." 'i'e ' BusinesS/Professional · Detailed Definition of., ~":~ :';. ~,,. ::;': organiZations · Local/County Alternatives ;:~' :..Service Clubs · State/Federal · Evaluation of AIlernalives'i":'~:: "':'" : · i:Cbmmunily Boards And · Roads/Transit · Selection ol Locally Preferred. Alternative (ProDram of: ::?.:....::.:.,: 'Committees · ':,':.;' ·.'~KeylntereslGroups Projects) !.:.~":: ' SEVEN TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES FOR MTIS - A COORDINATED RESPONSE TO MEET BAKERSFIELD'S FUTURE THESE CHALLENGES POPULATION AND' TRAFFIC GROWTH Central Themes Long Range/Short Range METRO AREA EXPANSION AND TRAFFIC BURDEN '~ COMPREHENSIVE Transportation Improvemenls Highway and Transll Melropolitan Areawide FUNDING SHORTFALLS AND RECAPTURE OF "~ COOPERATIVE GET, Kern COG, County of Kern, City of Bakersfield, CALTRANS, San .Ioaquln LOCALLY GENERATED FEDERAL MONIES Valley Unified APCD, Federal Agencies DEFERRED ROADWAY MAINTENANCE AND ?~' CONFORMANCE Slreamllne Planning Process for New UNDERFUNDING OF TRANSIT SERVICE Projects AIR QUALITY : ',~' COMMUNITY Proactlve/Inflovallve Public Outreach INVOLVEMENT MAINTAIN LIVABILITY OF COMMUNITY BY ",~ CONSENSUS Develop a Preferred Package of Projects Supported by the Communily ENSURING FUTURE MOBILITY BUILDING AGREEMENT ON TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES '~' CONTINUING Developa Mullla§ency Action Planfor Implemenlallon and Updale Annually TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY FOR METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 1997.20 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. State, regional and local roadway extensions and widenings are included. UNFUNDED HIGH-BENEFIT ROADWAY PROJECTS. Important Metro Area Roadway projects for which funding should be sought including the SR178 CrossTown Freeway. + 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 improved frequency of service, bus routes, transportation centers and new vehicles to meet the needs of the growing Metropolitan Bakersfield population. UNFUNDED TRANSIT COMPONENT. Based on current funding projections, 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-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 recommended long range transportation strategy incorporates a new transportation fee program approved in February 1997 by the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern. 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. A. Fundable Roadway Components Based on current funding expectations, nearly $746 million will be available from local, state, and Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 9 T£ANSPORTA TION S T£A TEGY FOR METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 1£$72015 _ 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 f6r 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 Kem River alignment (6 lanes from SR-99 to Allen Road and as 4 lanes from Allen Road to I-5). The Kern River alignment would be connected with the existing east leg of SR-58 by means of the SR 178 CrossTown Freeway and a connecting facility on the eastside of Bakersfield. The benefits of constructing SR-58 are several fold. They include: · Safety and Traffic Flow Benefits on Arterials such as Rosedale Highway, Truxtun Avenue and Stockdale Highway. 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 Fairfax 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 of SR-58 from SR-99 to Cottonwood Road from 4 to 6 lanes; · 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. 3. Traffic Operations/Safety Projects · 213 new traffic signals throughout the Metropolitan Area (this includes the 62 signals in the Existing Plus Programmed category); and Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 10 TRANSPORTATION STRA TEGY FOR METRO?OLITAN BAKERSFIELD · A full Metropolitan-Area-wide computerized traffic control and monitoring signal program (SMART STREETS), which allows for "real time" adjustments to the signal system in response to incidents or traffic surges. 4. Grade Separations and River Crossings · Two Grade Separations at railroad tracks at Oswell Street & Coffee Road; · Construct River Crossings at Mohawk and Allen Road; and · Numerous Canal crossings and safety projects. 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 most severe congestion. Even with this substantial investment, these projects will only get us a little over half way 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 projects 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. Given the assumption that present land 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. 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. 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) Existing Plus Short Term Year 2015 Fundable Today Proi ects Roadways With Moderate Slowing or Worse AM Peak Period 14 164 100 ; PM Peak Period 40 367 267 With Severe Congestion AM Peak Period 2 56 25 PM Peak Period 3 150 64 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 11 ,- iii ......... Bank j.~,.,..t...,..~ ..... ....... t.[!.... .... Muller LPA Fundod Roadways 2 Lane Addition ........... 4 Lane Addition - I'~?~ Panm 6 Lane Addition w ~ ~ Construct Median , ..... Miles  ~elocaie ~anal I I I ' Relocate Ditch 0 .s 1 Railroad Grade Soparation Improvo Railroad Grado Cro~in~ Highway Brid~o/Intorchan~o > Draina~o Culw~, Brid~o, ~itch ~..-.::~.. Rivor Cro~in~ ~ow/Modifiod Signal ...... TRAIVS?ORTA TIOI¢ STRA TEGY FOR METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 1997.2015 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 6-1ane cross-to~vn 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 east-west traffic and would replace a possible 24th Street Super Arterial as the primary central Bakersfield roadway project. This alignment runs from east of Union to SR-99 along the Burlington Northern 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 Transportation Corridor will close the "gaps" for both SR-58 and SR-178. SR-58 .... is the 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. An important measure of future system performance and reliability is mobility (travel time) Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 13 TRAI~S?ORTA TIOI~ $ TRA TEGY FOR t~1ETRO?OLITAN BAIqEt~SFIELD ~ 997.20 ~ 5 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 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 mobili .ty as shown below. With only short term improvements, the above mentioned trip is projected 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 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 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 HighwaylRenfro Road to East Hills Mall) Short Term Fundable With Crosstown Today Projects Roadways Freeway Minutes of Time 30 45 34 24 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 are busy crosstown arterial mutes 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 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. Total Daily Traffic Volumes on Major East/West Roadways in the Downtown Today E+P Fundable With Crosstown · 23/24th Streets, Truxtun Ave, and California Ave. Combined 103,672 172,405 171,022 138,732 · Other EastJVVest Roadways 93,072 171,083 177,668 127,200 · SR-178 Crosstown Freeway -- -- _ 88,639 2. Other Roadway Widenings, Connections and Extensions. Longer-term, additional roadway ./sk widenings)connections and extensions will be required within the Bakersfield Metropolitan area to increase capacity to keep pace with traffic growth. A key connection for the future is the SR-178 Crosstown Freeway with the SR-58 east of SR-99. A number of alternatives for this connection have been identified and will be studied by local agencies. Recently the Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 14 '-- TRAAISPORTA TID~II STRA TEGY FOR METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 1997.2015 City of Bakersfield identified the extension of Hageman Road between bloha~vk and SR-204 as an essential project for the future. 3. Additional [liver Crossin§s. Beyond those included in the funded roadway pro,am, other river crossings have been identified as having merit by the City and County. These include: · Manor Drive (widen) · Chester Avenue (widen) · Renfro- Road · Others are on City/County Circulation Element 4. New Grade Separations Over/Under [lailr0ads. Beyond the new grade separations included in the funded roadway program, several others have been identified as having merit by the City and County. These include: · Calloway Road · Seventh Standard · Olive Drive · Airport Drive (expand existing overpass) · Weedpatch/Morning Drive (SR-184) · Mohawk Street (Extension To North) · Q Street at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad · East Truxtun Avenue at the Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad · Q Street at Union Pacific (Southern Pacific) Railroad 5. South and West Beltways around the City. This LPA element includes a 20-mile west belt~vay connecting 1-5 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 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 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 developmeht on the periphery of metropolitan areas at the expense of the central area. Based on current conceptual plans for the beltways, the projects would have a combined cost of approximately $330 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 transportation fee program adopted in February 1997. 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. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 15 ' ' :~ · ' : : = , : -~ '~ '-., ', ' * , ~f ~ --* ,' ~ ~ ,'., / '. ~ ~ ~ .V ~,',~' t .... ~-.~ MI ~S '. : · -~ ~ = ",: · ~t .... ~ ~ ' ,{ ,-. ~ ,.~ ~'.,~r~-~: ~ '-, '~ · , ' ~ ? / ,~':~ '~ ~ , ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' " '~ - ~ ~ ' ~ ]. ~ L,: ; "; ~/~ ~ · -~ ' ~ ~' " " - ~ ~/ ' -~ _:-: ...... -- . ........ : , : . 99 , ., , - , - .... · ..... , ~,, .... · .,, ~ , · . ~, ~ ~ . ~ ~?, ~"~ ~ ~i ',;~D;~/':'?,~o~}~/k, ~ ','-:~.-:L ~' / ' ~ ~ ~ '-' : ~ ' ~ ~ 'V ' ~ '" ~ ~ '- '" ~ ~ ?",~ "-" -"- - ~ : ~-~- ~:~., ~ .~ ~ .~ ~-,. ~ ~ ,-~ .... ~--~_. . ~ ,.., _ ~ ~ ~,~ .~ ~ .... ~ -.,. ~.. ~.. ....,: _~ ',.. ....... 55 ..... . . = ,. ~ . , . : .... ~ ..... ,~ ........ ~ ~, - .~ ~- ........,.:._ ?. : ._. , : , , : ..... .~ ,, : : ..... . .... ~: r .... . - ~ ~ i ~ ............... ~~.F~. .~.~W~ ~:' vi' ' k'/;; ;; ...... ' ,~ ~ ' Bnmh~,~ ~ ~ ~ '~i__, ~ ~': ~; ~ ' I ' ' ~'~, / ...... ~ ~ ~' '-~ '::l~ ~ ' i~ ~ - ~" ~ ~"x''~ '~:~ .... .. '~-: .,; - '~-- - ~ : 'L'.'i. ~ ,.. ~' ( : ~ , ~:~ ;'~T)~, , ~¢ ': '", ....... : -. . ' . .. / k;. -~.. .,~,', ~ L ~ ,~ :., : ...... : ........ Breokengld e .... .,. -~ ,. . Stockdae .~ ~ ,~./ ...... ~~' ?,'~,i"~" ~.~ ~* . '¥' ~. ', ' ; "~ '. . ~ ~ . , . - ~.. , ,/ , ~ . ' ~ , r ,,: ~ ~ r.,,. , ,~,d:q~:~ . ~~n~ :~ g:. ..... t...~ ..... ' '~ 7~ . ~'~i}: ..... ~ ~:- ~e, Loma ....... Rec Bank . . ~ ..... ".. M n / ~- -.: ~ ~ , ~ ..,' ~ : ~' ~ , .... : ~ ~ : ~' ~ ~, , ~-~ ~._,: /~x - , , ,..- . ~, ~.~ ~ i , ~T , , , ~ : ~ -~.- : : : ,, : "~ ~; ~ ~ , ~ ,. ~ t~ ................. --. PI nz , · - ~ . e -., Mu er , . --- T '~ -,~: ~;~'',~ ~ u:' ~ ....... . , ~ ~ j j ,: t : ~ ' ' ' ' ' , , -' ~ ~ ; ~,'l':~ · - - ~ ' ' / ', ~ '~ ...... . .... ~ ~ ~ ./ ....... z..~ ......... ,.'. :,:.:~ ,,~-, . ~h~ · ~ , ~ ~, ..... ~ .... /3~'.t~-~e ~' ' ~ :: -.~.:;:: ."': ,!:" ~ '~,,.~.'~-m ' :' :~ ' ' t' ~ ' : .............~- '~': , ~ '~ ..... ' .... , "":x ~ . ~'-~' -~ ' ' ~: ~h ~ '~ '- ,~ '.~.'~:~ '~:~ i ~ ; .... . ~ :"-~- '~.': -' ' '. .: -L. ~ ~ ~ ~ , , , · ,' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ,-- -~ ~:~'A~ ~ - -- ~ I ~ i ~ ~~~~~~ '~" ~-" .... .,, .......... , ....... . , ,, 1 , ........ ",-'%'" 'x * i McCt ch ~ '~ : - ~ i i :' '; .~ ' ! : ...... : ~ >~ ~ ~ · [~ '.,"..;.,/ N ~ ~ , ..... i -* ~ I ' '"1 k~ ...... ' ~' . ~ ' ~ ~ ~ =ei~ay ~rojec~ . ~,~, C nstruct New River grossing . ...... -- ._ TRA~I$?ORTA TION STRA TEGY FOR METRO?OLITAN BAKERSFIELD C. Maintenance of Existing Roadways The community endorsed transportation strategy integrates prqjects with the current infrastructure while addressing the area's growing mobility issues. Therefore, it is imperative to encompass all 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 FY 1991-1995, Kern County's road budget has been reduced by about 3% annually 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 ~eater 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. 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 8arton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 17 TRANS?DR TA TIOI~ $ TRA TEG Y FOR METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 1997-2015 and nei~hborhood 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 routestand measured by transit industry normstis 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) Total Daily GET Bus Boardings 18,000-19,000 35,000 In-Service Fleet Size in Peak Period 55 114 Boarding 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 to20 boardings per vehicle service hour. A major challenge to GET in the future will be to provide more bus service in the fast growing southwestern and northwestern portions of the Metropolitan Area. As shown on the following map, 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. 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: Barton. Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 18 TRA~ISPORTA TION STRATEGY FOR METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD !997.2015 1. Adult school - Nit. 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 as an additional central transfer site; hnd 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. I:. 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. F. Connections Between Transportation Modes The variety and geographic extent of possible multimodal transportation connections will:continue to grow with the development of a new downtown AMTRAK station (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 accommodate park and ride trips. With the development of new transit centers in other quadrants of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area, more oppommities will exist for transfers between modes and services. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 19 ~ Year 2010 Bakersfield Metro Boundary Area Within .25 Mile of GET Bus Route F' / I ':::!::::[i:[ iii ['ii.i[ii::;[[['!ili:i::[:[::i:::F::::i : :. ::: :. ~ ~>, [}}~;~ ~}:~(;~:~:~:: ':' :Be:ar' MOuntain ' Miles ~ ~ ~ fixistinfl lransit Seruice 0 ~ 2 Exhibit 2-2 GET Route Strucru~:e I !11:;I service Area TRANS?ORTA TION STRATEGY FOR METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD G. RidesharinglNon. Motorized Modes 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 and bicycle facilities and lanes (signing and striping) will continue to be built throughout the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area. In the future as additional funds become available, new segments of the Bicycle Faeilities Master Plan can be developed throughout the expanded Metropolitan Area. H. Land Use Element 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 use intensification that is compatible with transit and the eventual development of Light Rail Transit (LRT). A livable community's component will identify specific incentives for encouraging in-fill development 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. 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 areas 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 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 Bakersfield's livability: 1. Create a pedestrian-friendly environment and include an ample supply of open spaces whose placement encourages frequent use; 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; 5. Provide appropriate densities in key transportation corridors and encourage in-fill'projects; 6. Interconnect the street and roadway system north-south and crosstown; 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 servedrby 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. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 22 TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY FOR METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD l BB7 20 T 5 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. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 23 Anticipated Roadway Capital Revenues, Anticipated Transit Capital Revenues, 1997-2015 1997-2015 Total Revenues $621 million Total Revenues $102 million ' State Transit Local Imj]act Fee, 35% GET Reserve 3% Capital Improvement, 22% Federal CMAQ, 31% Demo Funds, 1%** Local RSTP, 5%** '"'"~,~oact Fee, TDA, 1% State Gas Tax, 5% CMAQ, 2%** FCR/NHS/STP, 51% ** Federal Section 9, 36% ** = Federal Funds TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY FOR METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD COSTS FOR THE STRATEGY(TO YEAR 2015) PROJECTED METRO ROADWAY CAPITAL COSTS (In Millions of Dollars) 'Fee..: ~' 'Federal/. 'Funding Not Total Program.:' !':..State: ': Identified:... 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 25 TRANSPORTA T/O/II STRA TEG Y ?OR METROPOLITAN 8AKERS?IEL£ 1997 2015 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 B. GET TRANSIT CENTER COSTS $2,042,000 C. DOWNTOWN INTERCITY RAIL TERMINAL (AMTRAK) $20,200,000 D. EXPANSION OF CURRENT GET FACILITY $300,000 TRANSIT TOTAL $70,242,000 GRAND TOTAL FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS $891,842,000 METRO AREA TOTAL ROADWAY REHABILITATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS (FY 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:torol~654458.blu~q~L, ofl.~.flaJ~:oa~.n~2.rpt Page 26 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:.':i,:.'. TOTAL ': '/: .:' NAME · FROM ".:i TO '. :. ': .:. ': :" :" MILES :::' STRIPED PROPOSE by FEE NOTES ' : i :?:! ." ::; iii Airport Dr. Norris S.R. 204 1.10 4 6 2 $473,000 Airport Dr. 'SP RR ~/Viden RR Bridge $320,000 Alrpod Dr. .Spur Line Grade Seperation (~ Spur Line $1,500,000 Allen Rd. Kratzmeyer Install Signal $120,000 Allen Rd. Reina Rd. Install Signal , $120,000 Allen Rd. Noriega 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 Al en Rd. Palm Ave. Install Signal $120,000 Allen Rd. 'Brimhall 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 Sra. 52+80 $100,000 Allen Rd. Kern River Canal Construct canal bridge at Sra. 150*00 (River Canal) $500,000 Allen Rd. Ming Ave. SIockdale 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 Bridge !Cross Valle)/Canai} $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 (An/in-Edison) (50% District Funded?) Completed Ashe Rd. District Blvd Install Signal Completed Ashe Rd. Harris SJ RR 0.50 1 $107,500 Berkshire Rd. 1320' WI0 Wible 660' Wlo Wible 0.13 0 4 2 $55, g00 Breckenridge Rd. Morning Vineland 1.00 2 4 2 $727,527 Breckenridge Rd. Vineland Edison Rd. 1.00 2 4 2 $677,152 Brimhalt Rd. Renfro Allen 1.00 2 4 2 $505,316 Brimhall Rd. Jenkins Rd. Inslall Signal $120,000 Brimhall Rd. Allen Install Signal $120,000 Brimhall Rd. Allen Old Farm 0.50 2 4 I $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 4 2 $245,303 Brimhall Rd. Verdugo Install Signal $120,00-~- Brimhall Rd. Verdugo ICalloway 0.50 2 4 2 $245,303 Brimhall Rd. Calloway I Install Signal Complete-~ Brimhall Rd. Calloway Coffee 1.00 2 4 1 $348,098 Brimhall Rd. Harvest Creek Rd. .. Install Sit, hal 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 I 4111~J? APPENdiX: FUNDABLE ROADWAY PROJECTS Phase II Transportation Impact Fees (Showing Changes from 3/4/96 list) '. · :: ".: LIMITS ' · · ' IMPROVEMEN~ NUMBER NUMBER LANES ' ' * ........................................ STREET -' LENGTH o!LANES of LANES FUNDED i* :' : ' : : · ' ' ' : NAME FROM TO MILES ITRIPED PROPOSE by FEE NOTES i '.' · . .i .:: i.. ';:: .. . Dev. Agrmnl covers const, of 3 SB and 1 NB lanes Stockdale to White Lane Buena Vista Rd. White Lane Stockdale 1.30 2 4 I (includes 1 SB local) $27g,500 Buena Vista Rd, SJ RR Improve grade crossing at Sra. 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 Sra. 175+60 (River CanalI $40,000 California Oak A St. 0.50 Widenin~l $430,000 Calloway Dr. 7th Standard Hageman 3.00 2 4 2 $1,734,131 Calloway Dr. Noriega Rd. Install Signal (50% Funded) $60,000 Calloway Dr. Friant Kern Canal Widen canal bridge $500,000 ,Calloway Dr. Hageman Meacham 0.50 2 61 4 Completed Calloway Dr. Meacham S.R. 58 0.50 4 6 2 $540,079 Calloway Dr. S.R, 58 Brimhall 1.00 2 6 4 $2,110,000 Calloway Dr. AT&SF RR Grade Sep. @ AT&SF $1,500,000 Calloway Dr. Brimhall C Valley Canal 0.60 4 6 6 $934,000 Calloway Dr. C Valley Canal Kern River Bridges on CrC & Kern River $3,500,000 Callowa)/Dr. C Valle)/Canal Stockdale 0.50 4! 6 6 $778,333 Casa Loma Dr. Union Ave. Cottonwood R 1.00 21 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 31 $967,500 Coffee Rd. .5 mi slo SR 58 Grade Sep. ~ AT&SF $1,500,000 Edison Rd. Alfred Harrell Hwy. Install Signal $120,000 Edison Rd. S.R. 178 Breckenddge 2.25 0 4 2 $1,953,540 Edison Rd. Breckenrid~e Edison Hw)/. 1.25 0 42 $1,463,500 Fairfax Rd. Redbank Rd. SR 58 0.75 2 4 2 $507,108 Fairfax Rd. Redbank Rd. Install Signal $120,000 Fairfax Rd. SR 58 Widen S.H. 58 bridge at Sra. 45+75 $1,000,000 =ai~fax Rd. SR 58 Off Ramps Install Signals $240,000 Fairfax Rd. All. Harrel Widen Int. (~ Ail. Harrel $1,700,000 Fairfax Rd. All. Harrel Paladino 1.00 2 6 2 $716,072 Fairfax 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. ;Inslall Signal $120,000 Fair'fax Rd. College Ave. Install Si~lnal $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' slo 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/'J7 APPENDIX: FUNDABLE ROADWAY PROJECTS Phase II Transportation Impact Fees (Showing Changes from 314196 list) UMITS . IMPROVEMENT NUMBER NUMBER LANES ..::i . .i.. ii i. ::iiiii:i ':.i. '~'.:~ TOTAL ii · STREET' ! · i.. LENGTH of LANES of LANES FUNDED · · ifil.ii.:'. ::':.: !:?:iii. i':::iii::ii.~:::'.:'I ::::' :". ':i':- , NAME FROM ' TO : MILES:. ' STRIPED PROPOSE byFEE NOTES ' · ::":~:::i: :~?'"i:::i:."i:::'* !?:" . i'~' ':' ::"*::,:i Fruitvale Ave. Meany Ave. !Install Signal $120,000 Fruitvale Ave, Downin~l Ave. !install Si~lnal $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~lnal ,$120,000 :Hageman Rd. Renfro Santa Fe Way 1,00 2 6 4 $985,758 Hageman Rd. Renfro i lnstall Signal $120,000 Hageman Rd. Jenkins Rd. i lnstall 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, ~OId 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 I $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. Fruitvate Mohawk 0,13 21 6 4 $316, 529 i Hageman Rd. Mohawk Install Signal $120,000 Harris Rd. Buena Vista Rd. Gosford Rd. 2.00 01 4 2 $580,000 Hosking Rd. Stine Rd. Akers Rd. 0.50 O 4 2 $145,000 Hoskin~l Rd. Fenton St. Install Signal $120,000 Hughes Ln. Ming Ave. Terrace Wy. 0.75 0 2i 2 $507,305 Jenkins Rd. Hageman Brimhall Rd. 2.00 2 4 2 $1,024,873 Jenkins Rd. Brimhall Rd. 1500' NIo Stoc 0.72 0 4 2 $208,800 Jenkins Rd. Meacham Rd. Install Si~lnal $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. Noriega Install Signal $120,000 Jewetta Ave. Meachem Rd. Install Si~lnal $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 Matin Dr. Install Signal $120,000 Kern Can~/on Road Edison Rd Inslall Signal $120,000 Kern River Expressw Renfro Coffee Rd. . 4.00 0 6 0 Future Expressway R/W $5,000,000 FACLIST2.XLS Page 3 4/1197 APPENDIX: FUNDABLE ROADWAY PROJECTS Phase II Transportation Impact Fees (Showing Changes from 3/4/96 list) · ." . ::: :i:" .i:' .i:i ::~:':::::i:!: ~:i::!~:!!!i:;!:i...:;i:i.?: StREEi~::~ ' ::~ :~:' · :"::':~: ::'::~ ': :.:~::'~i:::::.: ';N°T"i:'..: ;" ,;f~',=s 0fLA.ESFUNOEO : i' : : : NAME '~'" ' · ;FROM .'...:'::: TO ::::. :.!'.. ::: :i" Uii.i:S.:: .: ....'. sTRiPED PROPOSE by FEE NOTES : Kern River Freeway iWMB 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. Cosl from Cit¥1Count~/{10% fundedl-$45 Mil. in STIP for R/W $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 Min~l Ave. Kern River Canal Construct canal culvert at Sra. 45+ 18 (River Canalt $150,000 Mohawk Ave. Olive Hageman 0.75 0 6 4 $960,570 Mohawk Ave. iHageman S.R. 58 1.25 0 6 4 $2,890,000 Mohawk Ave. ICalloway Canal Construct Calloway Canal Bridge $500,000 Mohawk Ave. S.R. 58 .5 s/o SR58 0.5(3 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 Bridge . $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 Compleled Monitor St. Astor Ave. Panama Lane 1.25 0 4 2 $362,500 Monitor St. A-E Canal Construct canal bridge al Sta. 93+32 (A and E Canal) $500,000 Morning Dr. AIf. Harrel Paladino 1.80 0 6 2 $1,254,000 Morning Dr. All. Harrel Paladino Construct 3 Culverts/Bridges $540,000 Morning Dr. Paladino Panorama 0.70 0 6 2 Compleled 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 Install Signal $120,000 Morning Dr. College Install Signal $120,000 Morninc~l Dr. Collec)e 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 Ddve Pacheco Rd. 600' NIo Pach O. 13 0 4 2 $36,250 Mt. vista Drive SJ RR Improve grade crossing at Sra. 52+80 $ I00,000 Norris 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 4 21 $710,822 Norris Rd. Airport Chester 1.00 4 4 (3 Widen for Two Way Left Turn Lane Completed Norris Rd. Chester Manor 0.50 2 4 2 $204,505 Norris Rd. Manor Up~rade Si[lnal $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) · ' :' TOTAL'"':. UMITS IMPROVEMENT NUMBER NUMBER LANES : . STREET LENGTH Of LANES Of LANES FUNI~EO ' .' :::'! :ii!'. ?. :::..:: : NAME FROM TO : MILES STRIPED PROPOSE byFEE NOTE9 : '":'.:" :':' :". ': :' . : 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 0.513 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. NIo 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 Rivedakes 0.50 0 6 4 $430,000 Olive Dr. Rivedakes 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 Oswe[t St. S.R. 178 Brundage 2.00 4 6 2 Median Reconstruclion $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 SI. Sunset RR Consl. 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 Inslall 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 Visla 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 Sic~nal $120,000 Paladino Dr. Faidax ' Morning 1.30 0 4 2 $1,059,143 Paladino Dr. Fairfax -. Install Signal $120,000 Paladino Dr. Morning .3 mi wig Mas1 1.70 0 4 2 $1,184,333 Paladino Dr. Morning .3 mi wig Masterson Construct 5 Culverts $102,000 Paladino Dr. Morning Install Signal $120,000 Paladino Dr. Masterson Rd. Install Signal $120,000 FACLIST2.XLS Page 5 4/i/(j7 APPENDIX: FUNDABLE ROADWAY PROJECTS Phase II Transportation Impact Fees (Showing Changes from 3~4~96 list) LiMiTS ' iMPROVEMEN1 NUMBER NUMBER LANES ': :.i 'OTAb. STREET . I i'.ii: ~ ,LENGTH of LANES Df LANES FUNDED NAME FROM~TO :' 'MILES :STRIPED PROPOSE b, yFEE NOTES ,: i.,:: . ,'i .? 'i ',' i ~' . :. .. Paladino Dr. .3 mi wlo Edison 1 mi e/o 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 Easl Relocate canal parallel w/so, r/w Sra. 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 Sra. 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 112 width W/B and I E/B lane $292,459 Panama Ln. Reliance Dr. Install Signal $120,000 Panama Ln. Ashe Rd Install Signal $120,000 Panama Ln. Fenton St. Install Signal $120,000 Panama Ln. A-E Canal Widen canal bridge at Sra. 312+80 (A. and E. Canal) Completed Panama Ln. Farmers Canal Widen canal culvert at Sra. 309+12 (Farmer's Canal) Completed ~anama 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 Compleled Panama Ln. Ashe Stine Rd. Canal Culvert @ mid-section (~ A-E Canal $200,000 Panama Ln. Stine Rd. Modify Signal $60,000 ~anama 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 Compleled Panama Ln. SR 99 Install Signals (~ Ramps Completed Panama Ln. SR 99 Widen bridge at S.H. 99 $3,000,000 Panama L~. So. H St. Signal Modification Complete~ 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. Fair/ax Rd. 4.00 2 4 2 $1,720,000 Panama Ln. Cotlonwood Rd. Install Signal $120,000 Panama Ln. Oswell Install Signal $120,000 Panama Ln. Fair'fax Rd. Install Signal $120,000 Panama Ln. Fairfax Rd. 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 elo Union Widen canal culvert at Sra. 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 elo Union 0.3 mi wlo 184 Relocate parallel canal from Sra. 106+66 - 247+10 $1,053,300 Panama Rd. SPR x R 0.2 mi wlo 184 0.30 2 4 2 $182,398 Panama Rd. 0.2 mi wlo 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 411191 APPENDIX: FUNDABLE ROADWAY PROJECTS Phase II Transportation Impact Fees (Showing Changes from 3~4~96 list) tAME FROM 1'O MILES STRIPED PROPOSE by FEE NOTES · '" Panorama Dr, Mt. Vernon Install Signal $120,000 Panorama Dr. Columbus install Signal $120,000 Panorama Dr. Morning] Dr. Install Signal $120,000 Patton Way Meany Ave. Downing Ave. 0.25 0 4 2i $72,500 Patton Way Meany Ave. install Signal $120,000 Patton Way Downing Ave. Install Signal $120,000 Pioneer Dr. Mornin[I 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 0 4 2 $1,606,182 Renfro Rd. Kern River Canal Construct canal culvert at Sra. 45+18 (River Canal1 $150,000 Santa Fe Way Reina Rd. Install Signal $120,000 Seventh Standard R Allen S.R. 99 3.50 2 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 Iht.; Grade Sep. (~ SP $4,500,000 Seventh Standard R NIB S.R, 99 Ramp Install Signal $120,000 Seventh Standard R S.R. 99 S,R, 65 0.50 2 4 2 $215,000 Seventh Slandard R Airport Dr. Chester Ave, 1.00 2 4 2 $430,000 Seventh Standard R Airport Dr. Install Signal $120,000 Seventh Standard R Chester Ave Signal 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 Snow Rd. Cailoway Canal Friant-Kern Canal Reconstruct Calloway and Friant-Kern bridges 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 2 4 2 $1,223,166 Snow Rd. Riverlakes Dr. Install Signal $120,000 Snow Rd. Coffee Install Signal $120,000 Snow Rd. Patton Way Install Signal $120,000 Snow Rd. Fruitvale Install Signal $120,000 Snow Rd. Golden State Inslall 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 South "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 FUW &Constr. Cost Based on Program Unit Costs $5,652,200 SR 119 Buena Vista Rd. Install Signal $120,000 SR 119 Old River Install Signal $120,000 SR 119 Gosford lnslall Signal $120,000 SR 119 Ashe Install Signal $120,000 FACLIST2.XLS Page 7 4/11'J7 APPENDIX: FUNDABLE ROADWAY PROJECTS Phase II Transportation Impact Fees (Showing Changes from 3~4~96 list) · ." i.. ' :' · ' LIMITS . . · .. ::ii IMPROVEMEN1 NUMBER NUMBER LANES : i' , · STREET' , ''' . .i ... '.". : '. LENGTH of LANES of LANES FUNDED · i i i i:* ':*.::i i :: NAME FROM :' * 1'O' ii. MILES' STRIPED PROPOSE byFEE NOTES · .... i':':ii~' '~:.'. :' ; ..*'.!:: :~'.'.i': :* SR 119 Fenton St, Install Signal $120,000 SR 119 Stine Install Signal $120,000 SR 119 Wible install Signal $120,000 SR 119 SIB Ramps SR 99 Install Signal $120,000 SR 184 Panama Rd. SR 58 5.80 2 4 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 easl r/w Sra. 171+11-176+88 (Eastside) $50,000 SR 184 ,54 mi nlo Hermosa Widen canal box culvert at Sra. 187*00 $110,000 SR 184 Muller Rd Install Signal $ i 20,000 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 Eucal~/ptus Dr. Install Si~lnal $120,000 SR 58/Rosedale Enos Lane .5 mi wlo Renf 4.50 2 4 2 R/W & Constr. Cost Based on Program Unit Costs $4,905,000 SR 58/Rosedale Enos Lane Inslall Signal $120,000 SR 58/Rosedale ~lord Inslall Signal $120,000 SR 58/Rosedale Heath Install Signal $120,000 SR 581Rosedale .5 mi w/o Renfro Allen Rd 1.50 2 6 4i RAN & Constr. Cost Based on Program Unit Costs $4,747,872 SR 581Rosedale Renfro Install Signal $120,000 SR 581Rosedale 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 581Rosedale Old Farm Rd. Install Signal $120,000 SR 58/Rosedale Jewetta Worms $120,000 SR 581Rosedale AT&SF RR Widen RR Grade Sap. (Jewetta) $480,000 SR 581Rosedale Coffee Fruitvale Widen Friant Kern Canal Bridge $396,000 SR 581Rosedale Coffee Fruitvale Widen 2 Canal Bridges $600,000 SR 58/Rosedale Verdugo Signal Modification Complelod SR 58/Rosedale Calloway Signal Modification $120,000 SR 581Rosedale Coffee Signal Modification Compleled SR 58/Rosedale Main Plaza Dr. Install Signal (50% Funded) $60,000 SR 581Rosedale Patton Way Install Signal $120,000 SR 581Rosedale Fruitvale Signal Modification $120,000 SR 581Rosedale Mohawk Install Signal $120,000 SR 581Rosedale Landco Signal Modification $120,000 SR 581Rosedale Gibson Signal Modification $120,000 SR 581Rosedale AT&SF RR Improve RRX 1~ AT&SF (WIo Landco) $100,000 Stine Rd.INew Stine Taft Hwy. Panama Ln. 2.00 2 4 2 $1,165,024 Sline Rd,INew Stine McKee Rd. Install Signal $120,000 Stine Rd./New Stine Hosking Rd. Install Signal $120,000 Stine Rd,INew Stine Berkshire Rd. Inslall Signal $120,000 Stine Rd/New Stine A-E Canal Widen Canal Culvert at Sra. 92+95 (A-E Canal) Completed, FACLIST2.XLS Page 8 4/1/(J7 APPENDIX: FUNDABLE ROADWAY PROJECTS Phase II Transportalion Impact Fees (Showing Changes from 3/4/96 list) LIMITS . IMPROVEMEN1 NUMBER NUMBER LANES .; ; :'::': '-:.;i.;:;i :::.:;: TOTAl':'''; "' STREET LENGTH o!LANES olLANES FUNDED · . .:.'. · ':. : .. : . NAME FROM TO" · .*. 13 MILES .' STRIPED PROPOSE by FEE NOTES ':.'i. :", '~.. 'i. 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 Rd/New Stine Farmers canal Widen Canal Culvert (Farmer's Canal) Completed Stine Rd/New Stine Harris Rd. S.P.R 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 Renl'ro 1.00 2 6 2 $677,152 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 R/VV & Constr. Cost from CalTrans Completed SR 58 S.R. 99 Cottonwood 3.00 4 6 2 PJVV & Constr. Cost from CalTrans Completed SR 65 James 7th Standard 2.25 2 4 2 Completed Taft Hwy. SR 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 elo "H" 0.25 2 6 4 $456,415 Taft Hwy. .25 mi elo "H" .55 mi elo "H" 0.30 2 6 4 $294,364 Taft Hwy. .55 mi e/o "H" .75 mi elo "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 Sra. 265+ 16 (SJ RR) $100,000 Union Ave. KI Canal-East Widen canal box culvert at Sta. 295+81 (K.I. - East branch! $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 Verduc~o Rd. Palm Ave. Brimhall rd. 0.50 0 4 2 $145,000 Vineland Rd. SR 58 Edison Hwy. 0.20 2 4 2 $100,078 Vineland Rd. Edison Hwy. Eucalyptus Dr. 0.75 2 4 2 $443,077 Vineland Rd. SP RR Improve railroad crossing (SPRR) $100,000 Vineland Rd. Eucalyptus Dr. Pioneer Dr. 025 2 4 2 $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 i White Ln. KI Canal Widen culvert at KI Canal $100,000 White Ln. SR 99 .. Widen interchange $1,000,000 White Ln./Muller Ave. Union Ave. Cottonwood R 1.00 2 4! 2 $915,151 White Ln. IMuller Ave. Cottonwood Rd. Fairfax Rd. 3.20 0, 2 2 $2,338,351 White Ln. IMuller Ave. Cottonwood Rd. Install Signal $120,000 VVhite Ln./Muller Ave. Oswell Install Signal $120,000 FACLIST2.XLS Page 9 4/1/~J7 APPENDIX: FUNDABLE ROADWAY PROJECTS Phase II Transportation Impact Fees (Showing Changes from 3/4/96 list) · ;.ii. i i LIMITS * ' :': . :: IMPROVEMENT NUMBER HUMBER ;LANES : .: ; . ' '? :TOTAL '?.:'::'i .... ~IAME: : " FROM ::' TO ::?:?::::::::::::: MILEs'.i'*'.*'"STRIPED* PROPOSE byFEE NOTES i ' ! ;:ii :i*i:i: :iiii White Ln. IMuller Ave. Arvin RR Line Improve grade crossing at Sta. 734+14 (Arvin) $100,000 White Ln. IMuller Ave. Eastside canal Widen canal culvert at Sra. 745+ 19 (Eastside) $40,000 White Ln./Muller Ave. Fairfax Install Signal $120,000 White Ln. IMuller Ave. Fairfax Rd. SR 184 1.00 2 4 2 $533,030 Wible Rd. SR 119 Panama Ln. 2.00 2 4 2 ~ $1,2t7,684 VVible 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 Wible Rd. KI Canal-West 1.00 4 4 0 Relocate parallel canal (~ K.l.-West Branch $188,000 Wible Rd. KI Canal-West Widen canal culvert (~ K.I.-West Branch $20,000 Wible Rd. Min[I Ave. Brunda~e Ln. 0.25 3 4 1 $619,0 i 7 Transit Costs $7,688,000 Freeways 50% of Beltway PJVV and SR 178 $4,659,036 Administration Computer Tracking System (City & Courtly) $100,000 TOTALS :: : i :::i .":' .":':! . 125.02 .... : ........ ; ' ' '" : :: i"'i:'"':':i:i:i:'"i $227,495,2i0 FACLIST2.XLS Page 10 4/I/97 BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Traffic Engineering Memorandum DATE: September 17, 1997 TO: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: STEPHEN L. WALKER, PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC ENGINEER.fi~~ / · SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE POSSIBLE EFFECT OF STREET CLOSURES ALONG 24TM STREET BETWEEN OAK AND F STREETS. As directed, I have prepared an analysis of a concept to barricade streets south of 243 Street (Hwy 178) for your use at the Urban Development Committee meeting on September 17, 1997. The intersections are generally located between F Street and Oak Street. Streets involved: Elm Street, Beech Street, Myrtle Street, Spruce Street, Pine Street, Cedar Street, B Street and A Street. To assess the impact of closure of the streets and eliminating access to 24~ Street, volume counts were taken for the streets named above. Elm Street 329 Beech Street 540 Myrtle Street 503 Spruce Street 439 Pine Street 544 Cedar Street 545 A Street 795 B Street 338 2P' Street 4775 I predict that approximately one-half of the traffic volumes on the north-south streets would divert to the 21st Street corridor if the north-south streets are closed at their intersection with 243 Street. This would be about 2000 cars on a typical day added to the 21~ Street traffic volume. The traffic volume on 21s' Street would be expected to increase from just under 5000 cars per day to almost 7000 cars per day on a typical day. While the capacity of 21st Street is about 12,000 cars per day as a two lane collector function street, and the Level of Service would be better than "C", the increase in traffic volume would be substantial. Residents, with houses fronting on 21st Street, have complained about the volume of traffic and speed of traffic on 21st Street in the past. I would expect complaints to increase as traffic volumes increase on 21s' Street. While certainly within capacity limits, the residents may find the increase intolerable. Also of concern are the intersections of 21s~ at Oak and 21st at F Streets. Additional traffic diverted to 21st Street will compound the traffic problems at the intersections with both Oak and with F Street. Currently, 21~ and Oak experience traffic backup and congestion problems during the peak hours of the day. This affects the traffic on Oak Street severely when there is heavy volume on 21st Street. At F Street, the problems are less than at Oak, but still affecting the capacity of traffic flow on F Street. F Street is a major corridor for commute traffic in the morning and evening and also has considerable traffic during the noon hour as business-people run errands and go to lunch. Additional traffic on 21st will be detrimental to the traffic flow through the intersection and, thus, affect the coordination and traffic flow on the entire F Street corridor. RECOMMENDATION: Although a single closure or two of streets intersecting 24~ Street (Hwy 178) would not greatly affect circulation in the area, closure of all the streets intersecting 24~ Street would be detrimental to the overall circulation, in my opinion. Since closing one street will, undoubtably, have a "domino" effect on all the other streets as traffic moves to those streets due to a closure, the residents will want the next street closed. I see the result being requests for all to be closed. Since, in my opinion, closure will be detrimental to the traffic flow on 21s~ Street and the operation of the traffic at the intersections with Oak and with F Streets, I do not recommend barricading of the streets. cc: Jacques LaRochelle, Engineering Services Manager Bruce Deeter, CE III, Traffic Engineering Operations Engineer, CE III, Traffic Engineering '. PW Memo Files Traffic Engineering File - ELM-24TH CLOSURE.URBDEVCOM.wpd