HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09211993 - TC.3 f A l: C ,
Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS '" Costa
FROM: Transportation Committee County
DATE: September 13, 1993
SUBJECT: Report on Alternatives for the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action
Plan
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Accept report and authorize transmittal of any comments to the Tri
Valley Council and Tri Valley Transportation Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Tri Valley Transportation Council has prepared a matrix of
potential alternatives to consider for the Tri Valiey
Transportation Plan (see Exhibit A) . . The matrix will be used to
solicit feedback from the participating jurisdictions regarding the
strategies they want pursued by the TVTC, or dropped from further
consideration.
All alternatives would be financially constrained to existing
revenue mechanisms or revenues from the proposed regional
transportation impact fee (developer fee) . Each alternative is
described according to how it would vary from the "Expected"
scenario, which is a reflection of the existing plans and policies
of the participating jurisdictions. The following is an
elaboration of the description of each alternative, with references
to relevant County plans and policies.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE E
1
,r
SIGNATURE (S) : m Powe Gayle Bishop �f tA-_
ACTION OF BOARD ON SEP 2 11993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _OTHER _
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
—ZIUNANIMOUS (ABSENT �� TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED SEP 2 11993
Contact Person, Steven Goetz, 6-2134
cc: Tri Valley Council PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Tri Valley Transportation Council THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY DMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
Alternatives for the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan
September 13, 1993
Page Two
Emphasize Road Improvements: Major road improvements appear to be among the
most effective strategies to achieve Level of Service (LOS) standards. However,
additional freeway lanes are viewed by the Air District as inconsistent with
. efforts to improve air quality. This alternative reflects a continuation of the
development pattern that has occurred in the San Ramon Valley since the 19601s.
The Route 84/Vasco Road expressway assumes some financial participation from
jurisdictions in eastern Contra Costa County. Vasco Road expansion is
consistent with our General Plan which includes the East County Transportation
Corridor. Without this improvement, the bottleneck on Vasco Road will
significantly worsen by 2010.
Emphasize Transit Improvements: Major transit improvements can help achieve
Transportation Demand Management goals (increased average vehicle ridership) ,
but at the price of increased congestion (reduced LOS) . Future development will
be steered away from some areas poorly served by transit and concentrated at
other locations well served by transit. Densities will need to be at least
three times higher than the average density of five units/acre planned for the
Dougherty Valley Specific Plan area. Financial constraints will prevent
extension of BART beyond the Eastern Dublin station currently under
construction, or the extension of a fixed-guideway transit facility through the
Dougherty Valley. Most transit improvements will consist of high frequency
trunk-line bus service.
Emphasize Policy Options: Local land use policies would be emphasized at the
expense of LOS standards under this alternative. Aside from some enhancements
to roads and transit service, traffic growth would be addressed through vigorous
implementation of TDM strategies by all employers to significantly increase
average vehicle ridership. Measure C-1988 allows for such flexibility in LOS
standards through the Regional Route category, where policies other than LOS
standards can be used to manage traffic in major arterials and freeways.
Emphasize Growth Management: Local land use plans would be constrained
significantly below the development levels "expected" by Year 2010 in order to
achieve LOS standards. Some of the permitted development would be intensified
adjacent to major transit stations. The technique used in our General Plan's
Growth Management Element to ensure compliance with LOS standards is to permit
development only in those areas where adequate infrastructure can be
demonstrated. The definition of "adequate infrastructure" on Regional Routes,
however, has been deferred in the Growth Management Element until the completion
of the Measure C-1988 Action Plan.
The matrix will be discussed at the September 30 meeting of the Tri Valley
Council in Dublin. To generate interest in that meeting, the TVTC encouraged
each jurisdiction to distribute the matrix to their councils and boards prior
to the September 30 meeting. The TVTC suggested each jurisdiction may wish to
define a fifth alternative, or "Blend" alternative, that would consist of a
combination of individual strategies from the four alternatives which that
jurisdiction favors.
Transportation Committee Comments: The Transportation Committee reviewed these
alternatives and supported the idea of a blend alternative that included
strategies from Alternative 2 (Transit) and Alternative 4 (Growth Management) .
The Committee did not support Alternative 1 (Roads) as described, but is
interested in receiving more information on all alternatives.
SEP 15 193 15:59 ES2 466 P02
Iy^ 4
Is
on N
:�:�.4 •r:e:��; v;Vis:
W
r�
a
E
C
U
r7
j �''•
a
O
r •�1
C
''M1M1 rb V L
..;:•i:''i :::�' '�:•i::::e tip''
S.t•
O:!
:u;S:•2
+S•
>T
Q .i^�•�
.ter �y•yy
'^ •S:•FS•
VJ
rr�' .t.f: •
jjy�yS
J
O
Z:
lz
•r
N 72
N
�y+a
;:�':eje:•.<'.i iii
x ;
.X X.
Q1
W
y� i::as
:•:Yi '�
�y �rI •:'�::a::::�::;::.
t:.Rr r�r
:::3;i , /►�
t:�i;r:
M LE
•?�5
}:f
�1
r
•f�i
N
i:�•�:' %::5,.Asa x..c:
a yy
V
E
C
0 r�
N
C �
�;:ii •" ia:��i�
r.
i'
d
W
�:::::::
0
0
V
r�
z
To
z
a
•r
Cq
./rr5y
hvn•
f..;y,::.;•'�:Vit:;:
•e.i.0
D7
f i
T)YS;i.T
N p�
�. ].5 ..
+� ;.f::
b°<:
z
_ z a v� c�
m ul
Yrs::: iy
1
X.
;.: :•);F.is�:
N
i
Q1
4)
a
C
C
0
� :�is
z
m
a
z
.5.
:,•M;<_
C
:::iQ►:;:Pr
G
Q
i i
�wv
Rfi
r.:.:..:...
a
0 W
V
1`. -y ca
R
Nb 3 y 4►fA
}�
a�?
tiY O Z
r•�h C � o,y }:F :
S rr
CL
E
m
a� rwa
wE
i'f; E
;�W
ID
\Y %Y
A`
r N
O
k
rr�
�1 T
o `o �o
F-
a
a
a
a
I