Friday, July 20, 2001

By Lisa Vorderbrueggen
Times Staff Writer

A fourth bore in the Caldecott Tunnel is closer than ever to getting the $185 million needed for its construction.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is expected to put the project in the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan, a document due out next month.

The move is significant because, under federal law, only projects with an identified source of funding can be listed in the plan.

The bulk of the cash -- as much as $129 million -- is proposed to come from a pot of money controlled by the California Transportation Commission, a statewide board with two powerful East Bay members who live in Contra Costa County.

Commissioners James Kellogg of Concord and Jeremiah Hallisey of Alamo have relentlessly pursued cash for the tunnel.

It was largely through their influence that Gov. Gray Davis gave the project $20 million for environmental work as part of his statewide congestion relief plan last year.

The men persuaded their colleagues recently to earmark an additional $16 million for tunnel design work out of the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program, a fund under the California Transportation Commission's sole control.

"There is keen interest in the Caldecott Tunnel on the part of several commissioners as well as Contra Costa County," said Doug Kimsey, a senior planner with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. "It has good standing. It's already gotten money from the governor and the (California Transportation Commission.)"

A fourth bore would eliminate the need to switch the travel direction in the center bore to accommodate heavy commute traffic, which often creates long delays in the one-bore direction.

It would also end grueling Friday night backups at the tunnel when tourists and residents are headed to San Francisco or Oakland to shop, eat or attend a performance, event or ballgame.

Contra Costa transportation officials, meanwhile, voted Wednesday night to increase the county's share of the cost from $11 million to $20 million.

But members of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority warned that the number is a cap, and they will not be liable for overruns.

"It's a good deal for Contra Costa County, particularly since the voters in 1988 said they wanted the tunnel," said Irma Anderson, Richmond councilwoman and the chairwoman of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. "But we are concerned about the final costs."

Voters in 1988 passed a transportation sales tax measure, but it only listed the tunnel as a desirable project. It provided no money for its construction.

Despite its high-powered friends, however, the fourth bore remains a contentious project in the East Bay.

Critics say it will benefit a handful of reverse commuters headed from Oakland to central Contra Costa jobs and spoiled suburbanites who don't want to get out of their cars and do nothing to ease gridlock for most motorists.

The Berkeley City Council opposes it. Environmentalists say the money would be better spent improving public transit. Orinda residents worry they'll get more noise and traffic through their communities.

And Alameda County officials say they won't oppose a fourth bore, but they won't help pay for it, either. The county has more serious transportation problems to solve first, they say.

"It will only encourage more people to drive, the exact opposite of what we need to be doing as a region," said Rebecca Kaplan with the Transportation Choices Forum.

These criticisms, and others, are almost certain to be aired again this fall when the Metropolitan Transportation Commission adopts the spending plan.

But even if the fourth bore survives the debate and successfully collects state money, construction is still years away.

Caltrans is currently doing design and environmental work, a process expected to last three to five years.

"Putting the fourth bore in the Regional Transportation Plan is just the start of a journey," said Robert McCleary, director of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.

"For example, we don't know what kinds of mitigation will be required both upstream and downstream. We don't know if there will be litigation. All of these factors could drive up the costs and change the picture."

Lisa Vorderbrueggen covers transportation and land-use issues. Reach her at 925-045-4773