Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 07261994 - TC.1
T.e. ;TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Costa DATE: JULY 18, 1994 County SUBJECT: REPORT ON EVALUATION OF THE TRI VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ACTION PLAN SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Accept the report on the evaluation of the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (Action Plan) and approve a resolution describing the Board's recommended changes to the Action Plan FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On June 22 , 1994, the Board of Supervisors received a report on the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (Action Plan) and requested the transportation Committee to evaluate the Action Plan and provide the Board with any recommended changes to the Action Plan so that the Board can consider the matter and provide the Board's representative to the Tri Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) what the Board is prepared to consent to have included in the Action Plan. This report responds to the Board's request by evaluating the 2nd Draft of the Action Plan prepared in June 1994. The executive summary of this draft is attached as Exhibit A. Measure C-1988 Action Plan Requirements Measure C-1988 required the cities and County to comply with specific level of service standards for all signalized intersec- tions within their jurisdictions in order to receive their share of Measure C-1988 return-to-source revenues. These level of service standards are set aside for Regional Routes that are designated by each Regional Transportation Planning Committee. Each Committee CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURE _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : Gayle Bishop Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON 1911APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER The Board discussed the report and resolution listed above. Steve Goetz of the Community Development Transportation Division reviewed the background and the provisions of the Resolution. Mark Armstrong, Attorney for TVPOA, Chis Kinzel, Transporation Consultant with" TJKM, and Dave Gates of the TVPOA appeared and discussed the matter. The Board thereupon ADOPTED the recommendation listed above and Resolution No. 94/387. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES:_0 moi-,. -y: a_& s NOES: 1Zf_ ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTEDa 4 , / 9 y e Contact Person: Steven Goetz, 646-2134 PHIL BATCHEL , C ERR OF cc: TVTC (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Public Works CCTA (via CDD) BY , DEPUTY Report on Evaluation of the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan July 18, 1994 Page Two BACKGROUND/REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) must then prepare Action Plans for these Regional Routes to manage the traffic congestions from future growth. Compliance with the adopted Action Plan for Regional Routes is a condition for receiving Measure C-1988 revenues. There is considerable flexibility in the content of the Action Plans, since they can consist of whatever the affected jurisdictions agree to as permitted by law. At a minimum, however, the Contra- Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) has specified that the Action Plans must include. Traffic Service Objectives (TSO Is) , projects and programs to meet these TSO's, and a review process to ensure that the Action Plan requirements are met as growth occurs in the planning area. The following sections of this report evaluate the Action Plan policies proposed for Regional Routes in the Tri Valley area. This evaluation compares the Action Plan policies with the preferred alternative for the Action Plan which the Board adopted on October 26, 1993 and with relevant General Plan policies. Traffic Service Objectives The Action Plan proposes to adopt Traffic Service Objectives (TSO's) for intersections along Regional Routes. These TSO's were approved by the TVTC in March 1993 for the purpose preparing and evaluating plans and programs in the draft Action Plan. The most significant TSO's are described as a maximum percentage of traffic volume to intersection capacity (a.k.a. "v/c ratio") for the following Regional Routes: Regional Route Vf C Ratio - Danville Boulevard .90 - Sycamore Valley Road .90 - Camino Tassajara .90 - Crow Canyon Road .90 - Bollinger Canyon Road .90 - Vasco Road None - I-680 north of Livorna None - I-680 south of Livorna .99 The General Plan's maximum V/C ratio for intersections is .74, . 84, or .89 for rural, suburban, and urban areas of the San Ramon Valley, respectively. The Board's preferred alternative put a medium priority on relaxing level of service standards. The proposed TSO's relax the standards adopted by Danville for Basic Routes in their jurisdiction (V/C' ratio of .87) . The Action Plan provides a "gateway constraint" methodology that demonstrates compliance with the TSO's on I-680 (north of Livorna Road) and Danville Boulevard. The Action Plan "estimates compliance with all freeway TSO's and 134 of 135 intersections, but does not substantiate these estimates. This is a critical issue since Measure C-1988 procedures require jurisdictions to comply with the TSO's on Regional Routes. Before the Board of Supervisors adopts any Action Plan, that Plan must include projects and programs that can be used to assure compliance with the TSO's. At this time, the TVTC has been unable to identify the projects and programs that will assure compliance with the TSO's. To meet the requirements of Measure C-1988, the Board should consider the following options for the Action Plan: - the Action Plan must relax the TSO's until compliance is demonstrated for the growth assumed in 2010; or - once a TSO is violated, any jurisdiction reviewing future development that would degrade the LOS further should be required, before development approval could be granted, to identify a project or program to correct the violation and assure its funding. Traffic Improvements The Action Plan proposes to adopt Traffic Improvements to help meet the TSO's and respect certain right-of-way and community character concerns of the affected jurisdictions. The most significant Traffic Service Improvements are as follows: Sycamore Valley Road and Camino Tassajara: Minor intersection capacity increases within the existing curb-to-curb widths in Danville. Widening to four through lanes from Danville to the Alameda county line. Report on Evaluation of the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan July 18, 1994 Page Three BACKGROUND/REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) - Crow Canyon Road: Widening to eight through lanes from I-680 to Alcosta Boulevard, to six through lanes from Alcosta Boulevard to Camino Tassajara, plus widening of intersections in San Ramon. West of Bollinger Canyon Road, safety improvements only. - Bollinger Canyon Road: Widening to eight through lanes from I-680 to Alcosta Boulevard, to six through lanes from Alcosta Boulevard to and through the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan area, plus intersection improvements along its length. - Dougherty Road: Widening to six through lanes plus intersection improvements along its length. - Vasco Road: Safety improvements only. The Board's preferred alternative put a medium priority on evaluating Traffic Improvements beyond those planned for 2010. Widening of Bollinger Canyon Road east of Alcosta Boulevard is beyond that proposed by San Ramon in 2010, but this widening is consistent with their General Plan. Prior to the tentative judgement on the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan lawsuits which set aside the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment, the above improvements were consistent with the General Plan, except for the Vasco Road corridor. The County General Plan identifies development of the East County Corridor, east of the Vasco Road corridor. The Action Plan makes no provision for the East County Corridor. The East County Corridor is not recognized in the Alameda County General Plan. These traffic improvements could pose an obstacle to 2010 expected growth for the Tri Valley area if the Action Plan includes the recommendation of the Town of Danville staff that precludes any changes to these improvements. Should the Board prefer the flexibility of revising or supplementing these road improvements without amending the Action Plan, the following policy should be included in the Action Plan: - Any jurisdiction has the flexibility to identify other transportation improvements that can satisfy the TSO's as long as the funding of such improvements is assured. Growth Limits At the request of the Town of Danville, the Action Plan includes recommended actions to limit growth to ensure future traffic volumes do not exceed the TSO's or require Traffic Improvements beyond those currently recommended by the TVTC consultant. The recommended growth limits apply only to unincorporated Contra Costa. The Board's preferred alternative put a high priority on evaluating growth limits below the growth planned for 2010, but only if all Tri Valley jurisdictions participate. The growth limits proposed in the Action Plan are inconsistent with the Board's preferred alternative since they only apply to the County. The TVTC has not be able to reach a consensus on including growth limits in the Action Plan. The growth limits, as recommended in the Plan, would constrain the Board's ability to approve development consistent with the General Plan, or to consider approving development as part of a General Plan Amendment (e.g. any new Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment or the Tassajara Valley Property Owners' Association General Plan Amendment request) . With the lack of consensus among the TVTC on growth limits, the Board needs to decide if growth limits should be pursued further, and if so how should they address the following issues: - should growth limits be established based on the current TSO's or on existing General Plans; and - should growth limits be established region-wide, for each jurisdiction, or for certain parcels of land Report on Evaluation of the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan July 18, 1994 Page Four BACKGROUNDJREASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) Measure C-1988 "Bottoms-Up" Process for Action Plan Development Adoption of a Board position on these policy issues is necessary before a consensus can be reached on the content of the Action Plan for the Tri Valley area. If the affected jurisdictions cannot reach a consensus on whether to adopt, modify, or delete the proposed Action Plan policies, these jurisdictions must participate in a conflict resolution process sponsored by the Authority. In no case will the conflict resolution process preempt local land use decisions, require a local jurisdiction to accept unwanted transportation projects, or require acceptance an Action Plan that creates a fundamental conflict with the community's socioeconomic or environmental character. evaluate.t7 Exhibit A TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ ACTION PLAN FOR ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE I (2ND DRAFT) Prepared for Tri-Valley Transportation ortation Council 1 Prepared by Tri-Valley Technical Advisory Committee 4 In conjunction with Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. June 1994 Executive Summary The purpose of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is to address transportation problems within the Tri-Valley area including Danville, San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and unincorporated areas of Contra Costa and Alameda County. The study area and the primary roads are shown in Figure E-1. In addition to serving as a guide for transportation planning through 2010, this document represents j the Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance for Contra Costa County jurisdictions, as mandated by Measure C. This document also provides information 1 that can be incorporated into the Congestion Management Programs for Contra Costa 1 and Alameda Counties. The Tri.-Valley Transportation Plan is the final product of a three-year work effort to identify existing and future transportation deficiencies and identify a financially feasible transportation plan that addresses the deficiencies. The Tri-Valley work was sponsored by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC), an advisory board of representatives from each of the seven Tri-Valley jurisdictions. The consulting firm of Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., through a series of meetings with the TVTC, prepared the study. Existing Transportation Problems The study was initiated in 1991 with an assessment of study issues and existing conditions. Discussions with representatives from each community culminated with the following findings. 1. Tri-Valley is relatively free of congestion. 2. Transit use is relatively low--four percent of total trips. 3. Existing average vehicle occupancy is about 1.1 for commute trips. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. iii Q u.► Ul cc AGO\G W i v ,v T' a Q a a�,-a I , L 4 I v � U ml 2 � l y I I N� /• RO 1 ` 3�N3a M'n GNE�St 11' � �O o p , W�co.r 00 r V 1,10001,000, ID z � "� • '�. � �� .�+ ' pati L W J MW L ` ■ — . — . — . — . — . — . LZ O\-01 V I ON 3771,N33a0 ! � t O 5 os O W ao /A �G !� ON OJSYn �N65 V/ t a ,•,d ;dO#Y83N7 N ° 1 � o - 5 J$ S3rv7pN �. .5 vl3iaanw i o \ 08 NOA vo AY 13SYSi ` a3MO,) \ a l8 m 6 AdMa1Y �. o Wj Z , \ �\ a g � Z O N > 2 O Y U _< ' ORD u E� RD F-1 rx \ ON N077Y4 o (� \ W ^, \1 O �✓ z wo rs � ON d2Nl0'SSYL TA 1`ri \ RjIA RD>a )8 7pNnS > C \ 2 W d0 31JY \ OM 0 YAdOH 5r DODO RD v+ � cc •� �` bi� �t��RD 0 / 0�0 Q SPN RP rl a� / C � E CO) rDO cc co Executive Summary 4. There are 14,000 more employed residents than jobs, so there is net out- commuting. 5. I-680 and I-580 are major regional highways. Each has 15 to 20 percent through traffic. 2010 Traffic Conditions Once the study issues and existing transportation system characteristics were identified, staff used the Tri-Valley Transportation Model to evaluate land use forecasts and alternative transportation systems. The land use forecasts were first developed in accordance with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections '90. When the plan was started, these were the most recent forecasts avaiiable. Once developed, the TVTC determined that the forecasts did not reflect current land use or network planning. The TVTC refined the land use forecasts and transportation networks to reflect current general plans. The "expected" land use forecasts were evaluated along with an "expected" transportation system. The results of this evaluation were as follows: • Highway gateways to the area (I-680 north of Alamo and south of Route 84, I-580 over Altamont Pass, and Vasco Road) will be overloaded given the demand. This would occur even without growth in the Tri-Valley due to regional traffic demands. • With some locally funded modifications, the arterial system within the Tri-Valley will operate at LOS D or better. C,.-. ,��t,+ q C-C' ? -9y • I-680 and I-580 within the Tri-Valley will operate at LOS E or better, provided Q ramp metering is installed. kv 4,6' mow, • Jobs and housing growth for year 2010 is projected to be 99 percent and 84 ~ sem? percent, respectively. Jobs and housing would be in balance, that is, one job would exist for every employed resident. This minimizes but does not eliminate in- commuting and out-commuting. • The transit mode share will increase slightly from existing conditions. • Average vehicle occupancy will not change appreciably from existing conditions. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. vi Executive Summary The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan The model results of the "expected" land use and "expected" transportation system were the basis for the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. The Plan is not projected to relieve all traffic congestion in Tri-Valley. Levels of service on freeway segments at the gateways will remain below E. Based on the results of the alternatives testing, the TAC and the TVTC decided to focus the ultimate improvement plan on the arterial corridors within Tri-Valley rather than the Tri-Valley gateways. The plan must address the primary question: What can we do to achieve the best level of service within the Tri-Valley? Three contributing factors influence the ability to respond to this question. • Financial constraints. 0 Physical limitations within corridors. • Development pattern. Financial resources for all projects are limited. The Measure C and Measure B sales tax programs provide substantial funding for specific projects in Tri-Valley. Other projects must compete for the relatively small pot of public funds. Developer fees, which have an upper limit, could help supplement public funds. Future sales tax or gasoline tax initiatives may or may not be successful. Expansion of major corridors within Tri-Valley is limited due to existing development and terrain. These limitations hinder the development of transportation corridors other than the existing I-680 and I-580 corridors. Development patterns within Tri-Valley have been geared toward relatively low housing and commercial densities. These patterns are expected to continue in the future. This development pattern is impossible to serve thoroughly with transit, given realistic funding expectations. The plan proposes no increases in gateway capacity for single-occupant vehicles. "Gateways" are the regional roads that connect the Tri-Valley to adjoining areas. This will help to meter traffic in and out of the area. The plan balances the internal transportation network with planned growth through the provision of several roadway and transit improvements. Figure E-2 shows the transportation plan network. A key element of the plan is the list of Transportation Service Objectives. These are goals that the Tri-Valley cities and counties should use as a guide to making transportation and land use decisions. In Contra Costa County under Measure C, the jurisdictions are required to comply with the transportation service objectives on routes of regional significance. The transportation service objectives adopted by the TVTC are as follows: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. vii N iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillilllllllllllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillillillillilillillililllllllllllllIIIIIIIIIIIII i W - o T 1" Ul CC Q d r v N � c N O C \ i 1 1 z n oa ii ll _ 3aN3a MVI • n co = \ O Y 3 G x V �a ria A-A ebb G� e b .,i�.■ Meq a •r" � �Sd�. o d pox m - a rco Z co1AN331" o V I 3� � o 0 \0 o J p cc aG� �" 0 \ X oco5 W o l� O 1S S3kyloH N a 3aon83Ni z 2l T t r Z coo v v u°voi o 4 m �yy Sly z z O O 1 + c tL5 ` z iU o loam o z 0 `\ W z z y \ v _ N N - YI.dON co N O fA LD N �C" a •et \ a o o \ ; u •� a ° kk oW co LO Q x e4.+ i Executive Summary * Maintain Level of Service D (V/C < 0.90)on arterials, and measured at intersections. * Maintain level of Service E (VIC < 0.99) on freeways. * Increase average vehicle occupancy for commute trips by 10 percent. * Increase the transit mode share. The TVTP is not intended to be a land use control document. While the plan is based on a set of growth assumptions, the plan should not be interpreted as limiting growth to the assumed levels. Nevertheless, the plan does establish Transportation Service Objectives, which may indirectly influence growth rates. Growth beyond what is assumed herein may occur provided the TSOs are met. Conversely, if the TSOs are X violated early, growth should not occur up to the assumed levels. Financing the Tri-Valley Transportation Pian The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan was designed to be a feasible, realistic, financially constrained plan. Still, the plan will require additional funding beyond that provided by existing sources. Federal and state funds are limited. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is used as the source for estimating future public transportation revenues. Additional funding will be required through the adoption of a subregional traffic impact fee on new development. The Pian identifies 10 regional transportation improvements that should be funded through the impact fee (see Table E-1). The fee calculates to $2,243 per dwelling unit and $4.01 per square foot for commercial/office/industrial space. Plan Implementation In order for the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan to be implemented, it must be adopted by each TVTC member jurisdiction into their respective general plans. The following elements should be adopted: • 2010 Planned Transportation Network • Transportation Service Objectives * Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance (see Chapter 9) * Financing Plan Subregional Transportation Impact Fee Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. ix l N C .Q .c E M to C 79 Cli -v C v L c d E o m un CV) mad oV- Ln o +`, c� COrn (D C cc Cii ETT im au a to N I ad C U L Id •8 m In U Cc V U Co T m o is tp cru '� ME U. n i O F- N `r i c a 1•- c o ,g m �— et L7 E et Ln M M Qj mCE 0! o tic�+� �1 Ci •- o CIJ N � n- Q� W U d�9 tf? 6A1 O t ff3 Z.- EA EA a c $ � aQ c c~+o o � 0 �+' � m C r o -- E t m •=,� cm E H 2 m > Q, cis of M mo mai Cro o Nm c c mca 'm LW m —(D %- to m 'v m m " is R w XQ Tc ca p p g g W N m -m Q 0 W o .2 = m = t'3 =g U � to N � � F' _ ca •Z a QL2 �' $ va m d R OD � ea 2 v, � oo -� � ca � � E � c� a CL cc CO U2 X Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SUBJECT: In the Matter of the Evaluation ) of the Tri Valley Transportation ) Plan/Action Plan, 2nd Draft ) RESOLUTION NO. 94/387 The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT: WHEREAS, the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program (Measure C-1988) compliance requirements for Regional Routes requires each jurisdiction to implement specified local actions designed to attain Traffic Service Objectives (TSO's) in a timely manner, consistent with adopted Action Plans; WHEREAS, the Draft Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, 2nd Draft (Draft Action Plan), proposes local actions that include growth controls and prohibits certain transportation improvements that, coupled with the Level of Service TSO's, would preempt local land use decisions on proposals that are currently under review by the Board of Supervisors; WHEREAS Measure C-1988 compliance requirements cannot preempt local land use decisions or require local jurisdictions to accept unwanted construction projects; WHEREAS the Draft Action Plan includes a TSO for Bollinger Canyon Road that is not consistent with the minimum Level of Service standard required for development in the Dougherty Valley; WHEREAS the Draft Action Plan includes statements interpreting the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement that are inconsistent with the interpretation of the Board of Supervisors; WHEREAS the Draft Action Plan does not substantiate at this time that the actions it recommends or potential actions, will reasonably ensure compliance with the TSO's in 2010; WHEREAS the Draft Action Plan does not provide an adequate nexus between the recommended regional fees to be paid by new development in Contra Costa with the benefit these fees provide such development; WHEREAS various other actions in the Draft Action Plan do not reflect the Board's concerns in managing regional traffic impacts from future growth in the Tri Valley area; WHEREAS all affected jurisdictions must agree to the actions before the Action Plans are finalized and adopted; and WHEREAS this resolution does not conflict with the condition included in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's July 20, 1994 approval on the County's Measure C-1988 Annual Compliance Checklist regarding the application of certain traffic level of service standards for intersection in Danville and San Ramon. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County to support the following modifications to the Draft Action Plan: Recommended actions for growth limits outside the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan area shall be deleted from the Action Plan; Recommended prohibitions to road improvements in Danville shall be deleted from the Action Plan and replaced with a process for meeting TSO's that will not impose an unwanted construction project in Danville or preempt local land use decisions on proposals that are currently under review by the Board of Supervisors. This process for meeting TSO's should be defined as follows: In order to meet the TSO requirements, the level of development that may be approved by a local jurisdiction shall be consistent with the identified transportation improvements and programs for which funding is reasonably assured. Other jurisdictions may elect not to implement such improvements and programs within their jurisdiction, and the minimum Level of Service may then be exceeded without violating the TSO. RESOLUTION NO. 94/387 Evaluation of the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, 2nd Draft Continued - Page Two The TSO for Bollinger Canyon Road shall be consistent with the minimum Level of Service required for the Board of Supervisors for future development in the Dougherty Valley. Statements in the Action Plan that interpret consistency of potential actions with the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement shall be deleted. The Action Plan shall specify that the recommended projects and programs in the Action Plan are not exclusive actions intended to limit the scope or nature of other projects or programs that do not conflict with the Action Plan. The Action Plan shall specify where appropriate that the ability of potential actions described for Regional Routes to reasonably meet the TSO's has not been specifically substantiated through the Tri Valley Transportation Model. The Action Plan shall provide an adequate nexus between any regional or sub-regional transportation impact fee paid by new development in Contra Costa and the benefits these fees provide to such development. The Action Plan shall revise the recommended action No. 2 for Vasco Road as shown in the following italicized text: Oppose increases to mixed-flow capacity on Vasco Road in Alameda County. The Action Plan shall specify that the actions to be;used for compliance with Measure C-1988 shall be only those actions implemented in Contra Costa jurisdictions for the purpose to satisfying Traffic Service Objectives for Regional Routes in Contra Costa jurisdictions. The Action Plan shall extend the Routes of Regional Significance designation to include Bollinger Canyon Road east of Alcosta Boulevard and its future extension east of its present terminus. The Action Plan shall extend the Routes of Regional Significance designation to include the entire segment of Dougherty Road north of the Alameda County line. The Action Plan shall address potential conflicts where an action to satisfy a Traffic Service Objective cause violations in other Traffic Service Objectives. PASSED by the following vote of the Board of Supervisors on the 26th day of July, 1994: AYES: Supervisors Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Powers NOES: Supervisor Bishop ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Contact: Steven L. Goetz (510/646-2134) cc: Community Development Department (CDD) Witness my hand and the Seal of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (via CDD) Board of Supervisors affixed on this 26th day of July. , 1994. Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: — Deputy CI tp t:%ResolveA7 RESOLUTION NO. 94/387 TG. 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: July 21, 1994 TO: Members, Board of Supervisors FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Recommendation on the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, 2nd Draft On July 19, 1994, the Board of Supervisors continued the Transportation Committee report on the evaluation of the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, 2nd Draft (Draft Action Plan) , to the July 26 Board meeting. The Board also requested Community Development Department staff to provide recommendations on the Draft Action Plan and to provide the Board members with a copy of this Plan, and invited comments on the Plan from the representative of the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association. A staff recommendation is included in the attached resolution for the Board's consideration (Attachment A) . A copy of staff comments on the Draft Action Plan and a copy of the Plan is also attached (Attachments B and C, respectively) . Comments from Mr. Mark Armstrong, representative of the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association, were received by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and will be included in the July 26 agenda packet for the Board' s consideration. County staff has reviewed Mr. Armstrong's comments and incorporated some of the concepts from his letter into the draft resolution as deemed appropriate the County staff. As an overall comment, the Board should be aware that the Draft Action Plan significantly reduces the Board's discretion in managing the impacts of future growth on Regional Routes. The resolution provided by the Department is intended to offer an alternative approach that gives more flexibility to the Board of Supervisors in evaluating future facts and circumstances as the impacts from future growth are addressed during the next 16 years. These two approaches outline the scope of discretion available to the Board in commenting on the Draft Action Plan. Any action on this staff recommendation should be incorporated into the Board's action on the July 18 Transportation Committee report to the Board. Attachment A: Resolution in the Matter of the Evaluation of the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, 2nd Draft Attachment B: July 11, 1994 Letter from Steven Goetz to Gary Black providing County staff comments on the Draft Action Plan. Attachment C: Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, 2nd Draft. J IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SUBJECT: In the Matter of the Evaluation ) of the Tri Valley Transportation ) Plan/Action Plan, 2nd Draft ) RESOLUTION NO. 94/_ The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT: WHEREAS, the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program (Measure C-1988) compliance requirements for Regional Routes requires each jurisdiction to implement specified local actions designed to attain Traffic Service Objectives (TSO's) in a timely manner, consistent with adopted Action Plans; WHEREAS, the Draft Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, 2nd Draft (Draft Action Plan), proposes local actions that include growth controls and prohibits certain transportation improvements that, coupled with the Level of Service TSO's, would preempt local land use decisions on proposals that are currently under review by the Board of Supervisors; WHEREAS Measure C-1988 compliance requirements cannot preempt local land use decisions or require local jurisdictions to accept unwanted construction projects; WHEREAS the Draft Action Plan includes a TSO for Bollinger Canyon Road that is not consistent with the minimum Level of Service standard required for development in the Dougherty Valley; WHEREAS the Draft Action Plan includes statements interpreting the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement that are inconsistent with the interpretation of the Board of Supervisors; WHEREAS the Draft Action Plan does not substantiate at this time that the actions it recommends or potential actions, will reasonably ensure compliance with the TSO's in 2010; WHEREAS the Draft Action Plan does not provide an adequate nexus between the recommended regional fees to be paid by new development in Contra Costa with the benefit these fees provide such development; and WHEREAS all affected jurisdictions must agree to the actions before the Action Plans are finalized and adopted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County to support the following modifications to the Draft Action Plan: Recommended actions for growth limits outside the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan area shall be deleted from the Action Plan; Recommended prohibitions to road improvements in Danville shall be deleted from the Action Plan and replaced with a process for meeting TSO's that will not impose an unwanted construction project in Danville or preempt local land use decisions on proposals that are currently under review by the Board of Supervisors. This process for meeting TSO's should be defined as follows: In order to meet the TSO requirements, the level of development that may be approved by a local jurisdiction shall be consistent with the identified transportation improvements and programs for which funding is reasonably assured. Other jurisdictions may elect not to implement such improvements and programs within their jurisdiction, and the minimum Level of Service may then be exceeded without violating the TSO. RESOLUTION NO. 94/ Evaluation of the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, 2nd Draft Continued - Page Two The TSO for Bollinger Canyon Road shall be consistent with the minimum Level of Service required for the Board of Supervisors for future development in the Dougherty Valley. Statements in the Action Plan that interpret consistency of potential actions with the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement shall be deleted. The Action Plan shall specify that the recommended projects and programs in the Action Plan are not exclusive actions intended to limit the scope or nature of other projects or programs that do not conflict with the Action Plan. The Action Plan shall specify where appropriate that the ability of potential actions described for Regional Routes to reasonably meet the TSO's has not been specifically substantiated through the Tri Valley Transportation Model. The Action Plan shall provide an adequate nexus between any regional or sub-regional transportation impact fee paid by new development in Contra Costa and the benefits these fees provide to such development. PASSED by the following vote of the Board of Supervisors on the 26th day of July, 1994: AYES: Supervisors NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors-on the date aforesaid. Contact: Steven L. Goetz (510/646-2134) cc: Community Development Department (CDD) Witness my hand and the Seal of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (via CDD) Board of Supervisors affixed on this day of 1994. Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: Deputy Clerk tp1 AResolve.t7 RESOLUTION NO. 94/ Harvey oE.f &apdon Community Contra Development �',(')�.} Director of Community Development Costa Attachment B Department —"J` County Administration Building County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 945530095 Phone: (510) 646-2134July 11, 1994 Mr. Gary Black Barton Aschman Associates 622 Bancroft Way Berkeley, CA 94710 Dear Mr. Black: .iThe following are comments on the June 1994 draft of the TO Valley Transportation Plan. Tables 5-2 and 7-1: The Windemere Parkway facility should be included in these tables. Paae 18: The section entitled " Intersection Levels of Service " discussed the intersection vehicle saturation flow rate used to determine intersection Levels of Service (LOS). The section should also add that the change in vehicle saturation flow rate, from the commonly used rate of 1500 to 1800 vehicles, is predicated on intersection vehicle saturation flow studies that the CCTA conducted in Contra Costa County. Paae 46: The section entitled " Land Use Forecasts " should include the discussion that the land use figures represent each jurisdiction's absorption rates for new homes and that those figures were adjusted to account for vacancy rates as well. Paae 54: The section entitled " Gateway Constraints " discussed that the constraint trips will be removed from the system back to their points of origins and will not be replaced. This is a major assumption. " Since this capacity constraint methodology hinges on extracting trips from over capacity RORS gateways, this section should also discuss how will this methodology impact and account for the Tri-Valley O/D trip table in terms of: • Central Valley through trips, • Contra Costa and Alameda County trips, and • Bay Area trips? Has the CCTA officially endorsed this procedure, since this methodology is not described in the Technical Procedures? This section was reticent about future arrangements with jurisdictions outside the TVTC boundaries to alleviate congestion on those " gateway " facilities common to Central and East Contra Costa County sub-areas. This section should include such language. Mr. Gary Black July 11, 1994 Page Two Paoe 1111 The section entitled "impact of the Plan" is premature given the footnote at the bottom of Table 7-3 which states "estimated performance, final plan traffic model run has not been completed." The specificity of the information in Table 7-3 suggests that there is a plan today that can demonstrate absolute compliance with TSO's on 134 of 135 intersections sixteen years from now. This introduces an unrealistic expectation of the capability of the Action Plan. All travel forecasting information County staff has seen jndicates that future Tri Valley growth would need to be reduced to Year 2000 levels, or arterial expansion beyond that planned for 2010 would need to occur to meet the ISO's for arterial intersections. That is the information this Plan must provide before suggesting the Plan as proposed will meet these TSO's to the degree described in Table 7-3. I understand the difficulty of prepar;ng an Action Plan when the i VTC has not reached a consensus on the projects and programs necessary to ensure absolute compliance with the TSO's given the growth expected to occur by 2010. However, its important that this draft either provide them with possible projects and programs that will result in compliance, or indicate that compliance can not be demonstrated at this time. This draft does not provide sufficient data to "estimate" compliance for 134 of 135 intersections. Even the May draft that included land use reductions in unincorporated Contra Costa did not substantiate compliance with the TSO's. Hopefully, the difficulty in achieving intersection TSO's with 2010 growth levels will be addressed at the July meeting of the TVTC. If a consensus cannot be reached on growth limits to satisfy the TSO's, then there are two options: - the Plan must relax the TSO's until compliance is demonstrated, or - once an intersection TSO is violated, any jurisdiction reviewing future development that would degrade the LOS further should be required, before development approval could be granted, to identify a project or program to correct the violation and assure its funding. Either option would appear to satisfy Contra Costa's Measure C-1988 requirements. paae 124: The information presented on the distribution of regional fees and benefits is adequate for discussion purposes but not for implementation. The traffic pattern information in Table 8.-5 may need to be re-examined on the basis of vehicle- or person- miles-traveled to differentiate between projects improving a single location (e.g. I- 680/Alcosta) versus an entire corridor (e.g. Route 84). The high portion of through traffic for some projects may need some additional consideration in the fee program. The cost estimates for projects should also be refined by their sponsoring agency. These are issues that require further discussion at the TAC and policy level. Page 134-189: The Action Plans for the identified facilities should have an accompanying text, before the matrices,that generally discusses the various facility existing and future conditions, with the consideration of the following comments: i Mr. Gary Black July 11, 1994 Page Three 1. Facility: A. The draft should have an accompanying map that enumerates each facility in the Action Plan, so that the reader could see the Action Plan facility limits; and B. The type of facility should be indicated (i.e. freeway, expressway, urban/rural arterial, CMP Route, Route of Regional Significance, or Basic Route) along with its lane capacity. 2. Existina Conditions: A. Under this heading there should be the inclusion of am/pm and ADT volumes, so that the reader can compare the peak periods of the facility; B. Vehicle occupancy should be included for facility comparison with 2010 conditions. 3. 2010 Configuration: A. Unconstrained and constrained AM/PM and ADT volumes should be included to indicate the degree of the constraint for both peak periods and the affect on the ADT volume. B. The V/C link ratio is appropriate for freeways, but questionable for urban arterial roads with signalized intersections.There should be some discussion as the use of V/C link ratio calculations for freeways with mixed flow and HOV lanes, as well as justification for facilities with intersections. According to previous discussions regarding the capacity constraint methodological approach, it was only applicable for the gateways. What is the justification and method for using it on arterial roads? C. Vehicle occupancy should be included for facility comparison with existing and future conditions. 4. Traffic Patterns: A. The traffic patterns represent only the a.m. peak period; the draft should include am/pm and ADT jurisdictional congestion contribution on the facility, since: • a.m. jurisdictional congestion contribution has residential trip origins with employment trip destinations, Mr. Black July 11, 1994 Page Four 0 p.m. jurisdictional congestion contribution has employment trip origins with trip residential destinations, and • ADT jurisdictional congestion contribution encompass all origins/destinations for all trip purposes. B. To indicate only one peak period to illustrate traffic patterns of jurisdictional congestion contribution would bias actions only for that period at the expense of discounting any feasible actions for the other peak period. There should be a concerted effort to examine both peak periods while considering growth management actions for residential or employment developments in the Tri-Valley area in remedying traffic congestion for a given facility. Paag 193: The Plan Implementation section needs to describe the methodology for studies that will be required by development applications to demonstrate compliance wit: the hours-of-congestion, link level-of-service, average vehicle ridership, and mode split TSO's. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Technical Procedures manual described methodologies for freeway and intersection level of service, but not for the other TSO's. Such procedures are needed if development applications are to demonstrate compliance with these TSO's. As the custodian of the Tri Valley Model, I would like your firm's opinion on the value and validity of using the model to predict these TSO's and provide the basis for a finding of compliance for a development application. If we are reaching beyond the practical limits of the TO Valley Model, the TSO's might be revised to be applied in a more general or area-wide fashion to respect the model's limitations. Overall, your firm deserves to be complemented on this draft Action Plan. It responds to many of the comments made on the previous draft, and appears to be carefully crafted to accurately reflect the level of consensus that has been reached by the TVTC on regional transportation issues. Please call me if you have any questions on this material. Sincerely COO Steven L. Goetz Principal Planner Transportation Planning Division black.t7 cc: TVTC TAC TOWN OF DANVILLEE ID :5108380360 JUL 25 '94 16 :03 No .013 P .02 July 25, 1994 RECEIVED JLL 2 61994 Chair Tom Powers Contra Costa Board of Supervisors CLERKBOARDOF SUPERVISORS 651 Pine Street, Room 106 CONTRA COSTA CO. Martinez, CA 94553 RE: County Staff's Recommendation on the Second Draft Report of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan Dear Chair Powers: At approximately 1:00 p.m. today, the Town received via facsimile the above-referenced materials. We understand that the Board will consider these materials during a Board meeting tomorrow. Although we arc unable to attend tomorrow's meeting, we want to take this opportunity to inform the Board of Danville's position on the content of these,materials. In a letter dated June 24, 1994 the Town informed the Board that a Board of Superv"Isor's June 21, 1994 order concerning the applicability of the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement constituted an anticipatory breach of the Settlement Agreement. The Town's letter to, the Board dated June 20, 1994 outliticd why we objected to the June 21 action and we will not restate those reasons here. At this time, the Town wishes to go on record Indicating that the proposed June 26, 1994 Resolution contains language that directly contradicts language in the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement, and therefore constitutes another anticipatory breach of the Settlement Agreement. The proposed Resolution includes the following: "Recommended prohibitions to road improvements in Danville shall be deleted from the Action Plan ... " Please compare this proposed language with the Settlement Agreement: 047. Sycamore Valley Road and Camino Tassaiara within the Danville Town limits have an ultimate capacity consisting of the following: four through lanes, acceleration/deceleration lanes at all intersections, left turn pockets at all intersections, and Caltrans standard Class 11 bicycle lanes. Nothing shall be done to eliminate such acceleration/deceleration lanes or Class 11 bicycle lanes. The Parties shall support the inclusion of this policy as an action in the Action Plan for Camino Tassajara, Sycamore Valley Road, and Crow Canyon Road." (Exhibit D) TOWN OF DANVILLE ID :5108380360 JUL 25 ' 94 16 :03 No .013 P .03 The language proposed for Board adoption also describes a process that would allow one jurisdiction to "identify" a transportation improvement in another jurisdiction, claim that its funding is "reasonably assured," and consider a violated TSO "not violated" should the jurisdiction oppose the project. Such a process is illogical, contrary to well established principles of traffic planning and renders entire bodies of law - such as CFQA and Measure C - meaningless. Thank you for considering our input on this matter. Very truly.y-qurs; -- oseph A. Calabrigo Town Manager JAC:sg CC; Supervisor Jeff Smith Supervisor Gayle Bishop Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor 'i'om Torlakson Contra Costa County Clerk of the Board Danville Mayor and Town Council Mark Doane, City Attorney Brian Welch, Development Services Director Kevin Gailey, Chief of Planning LTRNPWV.BW T.c . LAW OFFICES OF GAGEN, MCCOY, MCMAHON & ARMSTRONG WILLIAM E. GAGEN, JR. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DANVILLE OFFICE GREGORY L. MCCOY 279 FRONT STREET PATRICK J. MCMAHON P. O. BOX 218 MARK L. ARMSTRONG DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526-0218 LINN K_ COOMBS TELEPHONE: (510) 837-0585 STEPHEN W. THOMAS - FAX: (510) 838-5985 CHARLES A. KOSS MICHAEL J. MARKOWITZ NAPA OFFICE MICHAEL W. CARTER RICHARD C. RAIN ES 1001 SECOND STREET, SUITE 315 NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94559-3017 VICTOR J. CONTI TELEPHONE: (707) 224-8396 BARBARA DUVAL JEWELL ROBERT M. FANUCCI July 21, 1994 FAX: (707) 224-5817 ALLAN C. MOORE PLEASE REPLY TO: PATRICIA E. CURTIN CAROLE A. LAW ALEXANDER L. SCHMID MICHAEL P. CANDELA CHARLES A. KLINGE I®�Ei�EIVD D-v k Chair Tom Powers JUL 2 1 1994 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street, Room 106 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Martinez, CA 94553 CONTRA COSTA CO. Re: Transportation Committee Report on Draft Policies for the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance Dear Chair Powers: Item TC.2 , Report on the Evaluation of the Tri-Valley_ Transportation Committee Plan/Action Plan (2nd Draft) , was briefly considered by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on July 19, 1994. The matter was continued to the Board meeting on July 26, 1994 for further discussion and additional input from the Community Development Department. Following my brief testimony on the matter on behalf of the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association, you suggested that I provide to the Board in writing any suggestions by TVPOA to the Board on changes to the 2nd Draft Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (2nd Draft) . The Board will transmit by resolution or order those policy and provision modifications to the 2nd Draft that the County would like to- see included in the final consensus Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. The attachment to this letter includes those changes TVPOA believes the Board should ask to be made to the 2nd Draft. I will be happy to go over the changes with the Board at the July 26, 1994 meeting. The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan is critically significant for Contra Costa County and the future of the Tassajara Valley. As Steve Goetz has stated in his report to the Transportation Committee, an action plan under Measure C can restrict the land use authority of a jurisdiction only if that jurisdiction directly or indirectly voluntarily consents to such a restriction through the action plan process established by Measure C and OCTA. An action plan can compel the construction of road improvements within the jurisdiction only if that jurisdiction Supervisor Tom Powers July 21, 1994 Page 2 directly or indirectly voluntarily consents to such construction. Good faith participation in the consensus building process is required. The 2nd Draft Transportation Plan/Action Plan presently includes policies that directly and indirectly result in severe constraints on land.use development opportunities in the County's jurisdiction. In fact, as Supervisor Bishop has pointed out, Contra Costa County is the only jurisdiction in TVTC to which such a growth restriction has been directly applied in the 2nd Draft (8, 500 units in the Dougherty Valley and 119 unit in the Tassajara Valley through the year 2010) . The Board of Supervisors is on record as supporting a reduction in residential density as an adopted land use solution in the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan only if such reductions are uniformly applied to all TVTC jurisdictions. No other subarea in the Tri-Valley (see Figure 1-1 on pages 3-9 of the 2nd Draft) is subject to a land use restriction like that for Contra Costa County. Even if the direct limitation on Tassajara Valley development was not included in the adopted Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, other policies and provisions in the 2nd Draft indirectly and dramatically limit development in the Tassajara Valley. The 2nd Draft establishes as a Traffic Service Objective (TSO) for the Tri-Valley that freeways operate at a minimum Level Of Service E (0.99) over a maximum number of congested hours. The TSO on arterials and intersections on routes of regional significance is that they operate at a minimum Level Of Service D (0.90) . The 2nd Draft contemplates that such standards are to be applied through the year 2010. The 2nd Draft identifies and provides for the land use forecasts of each jurisdiction and sets forth road improvements that will accommodate anticipated development through the year 2010 so that these minimum level of service standards can be achieved if the land use forecasts turn out to be accurate. The specific limits imposed on roadway improvements in Danville are the exception to that rule. If improvement limitations to routes of regional significance in Danville, including the. intersection at Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk Road/Crow Canyon Road, are adopted by consensus as mandated policies in the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, coupled with a minimum Level of Service D for such routes, then any development in the Tassajara Valley will be severely constrained, if not entirely precluded. Danville cannot be forced to make improvements on intersections and roadways within its jurisdiction, when required to mitigate traffic from outside Danville, even where funding is assured. The Board of Supervisors must decide whether it wants .to consent to a Tri- Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan that severely restricts Supervisor Tom Powers July 21, 1994 Page 3 development in the Tassajara Valley through at least the year 2010, simply because Danville officials now state they do not want to make the necessary road improvements to achieve LOS D at intersections on routes of regional significance in Danville. If the 2nd Draft policies promoted by Danville are ultimately adopted, then Danville indirectly controls the County's land use decisions in the Tassajara Valley, in a manner not required by Measure C or the General Plan. Once the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan is adopted by consensus, it must be incorporated in the County's General Plan and compliance with it will be evaluated by the Transportation Authority to allocate return to source funds from the Measure C sales tax to the County. A strict LOS standard in a Traffic Service Objective, coupled with explicit limitations on road improvements in Danville, voluntarily accepted by the County, would result in an effective transfer of land use control over the Tassajara Valley from the County to Danville. At its meeting on July 20, 1994 , three members of the Transportation Authority, led by Millie Greenberg from Danville, would not agree to release return to source funds to the County because they contended the Board's unanimous order on June 27, 1994, confirming that the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement did not apply to the Tassajara Valley, either directly through the TVPOA planning process or indirectly, such as through the TVTC process, was an action inconsistent with the Measure C. Ultimately, the Authority conditionally approved the County's 1993- 94 Measure C Compliance Checklist provided the Board adopted a resolution as follows: "The County affirms its commitment to the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement as it relates to traffic level of service standards for intersection(s) defined therein, and those standards will apply to other developments in the area which potentially impact those same intersection(s) . " I question whether CCTA has the legal authority to impose such a condition or to refuse to release return to source funds to the County based on the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement. Such a policy must be adopted through the action plan process on a route of regional significance. Notwithstanding, TVPOA has no objection to such a resolution being adopted by the Board. TVPOA does not object to an LOS D standard for the routes of regional significance through Danville and San Ramon. It does not object to applying that standard to development in the Tassajara Valley. If the County identifies improvements to meet the LOS standard at Danville intersections to mitigate development in the Tassajara Valley, and reasonably assures funding, but Danville officials elect not to put Supervisor Tom Powers July 21, 1994 Page 4 in those improvements, the County has applied the traffic level of service standard to the Tassajara Valley. Approval of Tassajara Valley development by the County under such circumstances, following good faith discussions and negotiations with Danville officials, is not inconsistent with that resolution. The County cannot force Danville officials to make improvements in Danville. Ultimately, whether the level of improvements required at a particular intersection necessary to mitigate a particular level of development are appropriate and reasonable under all the circumstances, will be determined through the Tassajara Valley planning process, after input and good faith discussion with Danville officials and after all the facts are in. It is premature to make that determination now. Such premature determination is not required by such a resolution. It is not required by the action plan process. As Steve Goetz points out in his report to the Transportation Committee and his letter to Gary Black, the TVTC traffic consultant, the traffic model and projections undertaken as part of the TVTC process are broadly based. They do not allow for a meaningful determination well in advance that each and every one of the 135 intersections evaluated and all of the freeway segments and interchanges will meet the traffic service objectives of LOS D and LOS E, respectively. On a local level, that problem is compounded by the Action Plan policies that have been insisted on by Danville to specifically limit intersection and road improvements on routes of regional significance through Danville. For example, on page 141 of the 2nd Draft, the following Action Plan policy requested by Danville officials has been included: The northbound approach at Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk Road/Crow Canyon Road intersection may be reconfigured to consist of a 4-foot median island, two 12-foot left turn lanes, one 12-foot through lane, one 12-foot through plus right-turn lane, and one 12-foot right-turn lane. This requires reducing the existing median island from 12-feet to 4-feet, and reducing the existing 16-foot right-turn lane to a 12-foot right-turn lane. This can be accomplished within existing curb-to-curb width. Any expansion or modification at this intersection shall be subject to the approval of the Town of Danville. The Town of Danville has sole discretion to determine whether any widening of this intersection may occur to a configuration with outside curb-to-curb widths that are greater than currently exists. Supervisor Tom Powers July 21, 1994 Page 5 These limited improvements are intended to accommodate development in the Dougherty Valley and Danville, but not development in Tassajara Valley. This kind of strict limitation on intersection improvements, coupled with the LOS D traffic standard in the traffic service objective, leaves only severe land use control as an action plan solution. Assuming 8,500 units or 11, 000 units in the Dougherty Valley, that leaves no development in the Tassajara Valley if the foregoing and similar Action Plan policies promoted by Danville are adopted. The policy decision presently before the Board of Supervisors is whether or not the Board wants to consent, in advance of the Tassajara Valley planning process being completed, to severe land use control in the Tassajara Valley as part of an adopted Tri- Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan in order to achieve a Level of Service D on each and every road segment and intersection in Danville, because Danville officials presently say they do not want to make further road improvements, the scope of which have yet to be clearly defined, that will accommodate traffic from the Tassajara Valley, even if the funding is provided for those improvements by that development. In our view, that decision should be made by the Board of Supervisors when it has all the facts before it and is evaluating the Tassajara Valley General Plan Amendment and Planned Unit Development project. During that planning process, after consultation and negotiation in good faith with Danville officials, and the Board's consideration of public testimony and the information and analysis in the Tassajara Valley environmental review and planning process, the Board has to determine whether Danville is reasonable, for example, in insisting that the scope of improvements required to mitigate traffic impacts at the Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk Road/Crow Canyon Road intersection change the "semi-rural character" of that intersection. Note that the intersection is one-half in the County too. If Danville refuses to make the necessary improvements, the Board must decide whether or not the potential benefits of growth in the Tassajara Valley outweigh its traffic impacts. As Steve Goetz points out, the 2nd Draft policies and provisions, as promoted by Danville officials, which include significant restraints on roadway intersection improvements on Camino Tassajara, Sycamore Valley Road and Crow Canyon Road, coupled with a mandatory LOS standard as part of the Traffic Service Objective, eliminate future, balanced decision-making by the County in considering development inside the Urban Limit Line in the Tassajara Valley. The Board of Supervisors should only consent to adoption of a Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan that provides reasonable flexibility, the opportunity to balance Supervisor Tom Powers July 21, 1994 Page 6 competing interests, and to respond to changes in circumstances. The policies promoted by Danville officials in the 2nd Draft are carefully crafted to eliminate those future opportunities for the Board. The 2nd Draft does not provide for an adequate solution to the problem when arterial improvements are necessary to accommodate increased traffic and the controlling jurisdiction will not make those improvements even with funding available. It is difficult to project specific improvements that will be necessary on each and every arterial segment and intersection. Suggested additions to the Goals and Transportation Service Objectives Section of the 2nd Draft are included in the attachment to address this problem. TVPOA proposes that if after good faith negotiation, the controlling jurisdiction declines to make improvements to mitigate development from outside its jurisdiction, the development may be approved and the LOS standard exceeded without violating the Traffic Service Objective. Also the Board may want to consider providing some flexibility in the TSO for freeways in recognition of the fact that freeways are used extensively by vehicles from outside jurisdictions. In summary, the County should not consent to the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan unless: 1) the specific restrictions on Danville road and intersection improvements are removed; 2) it is clarified that planned roadway improvements in Table 7-1 are not the exclusive improvements allowed by the Plan; and 3) the TSO is not violated by development approval, if following good faith negotiation and discussion, the jurisdiction controlling a roadway will not construct improvements on a particular road segment or intersection, funding for which is reasonably assured, that are necessary to mitigate development from other jurisdictions, and approval of that development results in an exceedance of the LOS standard at that location. Without these changes, County consent to the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan will tie the hands of the Board on future planning decisions in a manner not required by Measure C and not in the best interests of the County. With the foregoing in mind, TVPOA would ask that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution or order indicating that the Board Supervisor Tom Powers July 21, 1994 Page 7 wants removed from the circulated draft of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, the 2nd Draft policies and provisions deleted or crossed out on the pages of the 2nd Draft in the attachment to this letter. TVPOA also requests that the replacement policies and provisions identified in the attachment be included in the circulated draft. TVPOA supports the other technical changes to the 2nd Draft referenced by Steve Goetz in his report to the Transportation Committee and his letter to Gary Black. I do not have his latest report to the Board and will provide additional comments on that report as appropriate before or at the Board hearing. Also please request the County representative at TVTC to present the Board of Supervisors' position as to modifications to the 2nd Draft Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan that will be required prior to the County's consent being given to the adoption of the Plan by TVTC, and, if appropriate in the view of Supervisor Bishop, appoint an alternate Supervisor to TVTC. Very truly yours, Mark L. Armstrong MLA:kh Attachment cc w/attach. : Supervisor Gayle Bishop Supervisor Tom Torlakson Supervisor Jeff Smith Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Vic Westman Val Alexeeff Steve Goetz Dennis Barry Dan Hancock Allan Chapman Town of Danville Attn: Mayor Don Ritchey Brian Welch City of San Ramon Attn: Mayor Hermann Welm City of Dublin Attn: Mayor Pete W. Snyder TVTC Technical Advisory Committee Attn: Gary Black Tassajara Valley Citizens Committee Attn: Bob Drake TVPOA, Inc. Attn: Jeff Leon Chris Kinzel Plan Implementation Development Applications Adoption of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan will bring additions to the analysis required of new development. This will affect both environmental impact reports and general plan amendments. Environmental Impact Reports. These should be circulated to all jurisdictions that make up the TVTC, since most projects large enough to require an EIR will impact more than one jurisdiction. The cumulative analysis section of each EIR should incorporate the expected land use and transportation scenario on which the TVTP is based. Transportation impacts should be stated in terms of whether or not the project would lead to a violation of Transportation Service Objectives. Transportation mitigation measures should be consistent with the TVTP network. General Plan Amendments. The 2010 expected land use and transportation network, which are incorporated into the TVTP, are based on the general plans of the TVTC member jurisdictions as of June 1994. Any subsequent general plan amendments may affect either the adequacy of the planned network or the financing plan. Any jurisdiction considering a general plan amendment should evaluate its impact on the L TVTP and demonstrate that the Transportation Service Objectives could still be met. If further transportation improvements are necessary beyond what are in the TVTP, the jurisdiction should specify how they will be funded. Growth Controls. The TVTP is not intended to be a land use control document. While the plan is based on a set of growth assumptions, the plan should not be interpreted as limiting growth to the assumed levels. Nevertheless, the plan does establish Transportation Service Objectives, which may indirectly influence growth rates. Growth beyond what is assumed herein may occur provided the TSOs are met. Conversely, if the TSOs are violated early, growth should not occur up to the assumed levels, 0,6.-F * Q10)f>Y7DVeYYP-Y1t6 by- t pro'qa,Yns ay-r--> ldey)-hhe-4 ay)4 -R)ot)wG re"-c)0n0,101Y 06,SUPJE�D, IFI Q� JVP,16D1CT10N CbV1+'rC>t11nj C(_ '3e9h,)e41J Ov- M+ty'se-cf/ov) 4ec+s no - ` Y I Y"nF YD V ern e4q C4 7' V +ke- ynsdlc`ic>n -e-w-n +i1oulk 'n T5c) rymX �-bs M101o,Urm or noad 50-, Y-nen-�w &I- +�af- 4N)Vf viola-f-Ito'J +V)e- T'5 0 . Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 193 f Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:Tasaajars Road North of 1-580 North of Dublin North of Fallon Highway Solution Grade separation at Grade separation at Tassajara/Dublin inter- Tassajara/Dublin section,or extension intersection,or ex- of Hacienda Drive to tension of Hacienda Windemere Parkway Drive to wndernere Parkway Transit Solution Increased ridership to Increased ridership TVPOA. to TVPOA. TDM Solution Restrict TVPOA to Restrict TVPOA to 85%of its normal trip 85%of its normal generation,or-achieve trip generation,or 15%increase in over- achieve 15% all AVR. increase in overall AVR. Land Use Solution Reduce development Reduce develop- in op op- in corridor by 900 ment in corridor by ur>its. 900 units. Policy Solution Accept LOS F at Accept LOS F at Tassajara and Dublin Tassalara and Dub- intersection (requires lin intersection (re- deficiency plan). quires deficiency plan). TSO met. �d P,�c�ruKtEN�ED C-C-T110N — GAN F R-T Ty Flo f21 P REPvc.TIaJ) 15 A'�nT q RI�uIR"--o AcrlDILA- " S MzE" A)bT IEC)u 1 R sl A L-M DNS , Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 156 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations East of Dougherty(San South of Camino Facility:Crow Canyon Road at County Line East of 1-680 Ramon) Tassajara(Danville) Potential Actions Highway Solution 8 lanes on Crow 6 lanes on Camino Canyon. Tassajara.' Transit Solution Add 40 buses per hour Add 40 buses per hour service to DV and service to DV and TVPOA; buses must be TVPOA; buses must be full. full. TDM Solution Restrict DV to 77%of Restrict DV to 771%of normal trip-making, normal trip-making, TVPOA to 8%of normal TVPOA to 8%of normal trip-making. trip-making. Land Use Solution Restrict DV 2010 to Restrict DV 2010 to 8,500 units,TVPOA to 8,500 units,TVPOA to 119 units in 2010. 119 units in 2010. Policy Solution Accept LOS E at Crow 'Accept LOS F at Crow Canyon/Dougherty. Canyon/Camino Tassajara(requires deficiency plan). TSO met. TSO met. Thesetential actions violate the Town of Danville General Plan and the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement between po 9 9 Contra Costa County, Danville,and San Ramon, dated May 11, 1994. /-add. po I cA es -fir ,Dogs9 � �v)w V0,1 to QM Taste U I� si►�-,i I ar J3-ra-- � Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 146 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Pian Highways (Continued) Key Locations East of Dougherty (San South of Camino Facility:Crow Canyon Road at County Line East of 1-680 Ramon) Tassajara(Danville) Recommended Actions 1.Secure funding for None. 1.Secure funding for 1.An initial level of operational widening to 6 lanes. development of 8,500 improvements. units may be constructed in the Dougherty Valley 2.An initial level of [ 4- development of 8,500 •,4gfeefnetat�up to 11,000 units may be constructed units may be considered in the Dougherty Valley pending the completion of additional traffic AWeea+enclUp to 11,000 studies. This action was units may be considered developed by the Town pending the completion of Danville. Contra Costa of additional traffic County may support studies.This action was different actions. developed by the Town of Danville. Contra Costa 2,The plan should be County may support based on land use different actions. assumptions for TVPOA that would not result in a violation of transportation service objectives.This action was developed by the Town of Danville. j2"P.t;to ce W I Contra Costa County may support different px ".ee+ Q- -TSO .)EL-eTE actions. Vewp-i C 3. Improve Camino �n '.`QUA�J�t� Tassajara intersection U bpm �n�i� I�1 (see Camino Tassajara) a d n1rivf l le sl,)avid t4 1 W I-(-k i�(py� �l��Q�j +ra Mf')r�Yd'0" 4..Oppose additional (mprovem�fS ar,d pro9t2ivn5 �O' r wdening of Crow wp,,'k -R)ndln9 (s 1t. oa i4k/ gSSurleAl Canyon Road within DkLnul lie �Jec f not -� A-o ke 4-11C Irnpr6-ve,Yr19)10,rd 4+0-- YYllnln-)U"tZS rr," -1 f)tn be_ -excetded vI vl c�-1-)n� f-�► -TS o . Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 144 J Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations East of Sycamore East of Facility:Camino Tassajara Valley Road Crow Canyon 1 Potential Actions ZpAA S� -� aAd inip_r -I I, CY) I m�rvuE►��v,}� -�'b Cern i n p Highway Solution •W C " o Tassa to 6 Transit Solution Add 40 buses per hour service to Dougherty Valley and Tassajara Valley;must be full to achieve TSO. TDM Solution Restrict DV and TVPOA peak-hour and peak-period trip generation to DV-770/6 of normal, and TVPOA-8%of normal. Land Use Solution Restrict DV to 8,500 units by 2010,HPOA to 119 units. Policy Solution 'Accept LOS F at Camino Tassajara/ Blackhawk intersection (deficiency plan > required)TSO Met j-LEgE •These potential actions violate the Town of Danville General Plan and the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement between Contra Costa County, Danville,and San Ramon,dated May 11, 1994. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 142 r Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations East of Sycamore East of Facility:Camino Tassalars Valley Road Crow Canyon 3.Oppose any consideration of additional vehicular capacity on Camino Tassajara. Camino Tassajara within the Town of Danville has a 2010 capacity consisting of four through -� lanes,acceieration/deceleration tares at all intersections, left-tum pockets at all intersections,and Caltrans standard Class II bicycle lanes. No action shall be considered that would eliminate such aooeleratioNdeceleration lanes or bicycle lanes.This action�was developed by the Town of W t , Danville. Contra Costa County may support different actions. 1i1 ffhr -fD MeP-+ tk- Tic) The northbound approach at the Camino re%vjr�ea'1'1Q,i-i'- � �j �l Tassatara/Blackhawk Road/Crow Canyon Road intersection l) J tt neue-m may be reconfigured to consist of a 4-foot median island, C(6Ve..1DPYY)An1 in TI-,p�a.-& t! two 12-foot left-tum lanes,one 12-toot through lane,one f� 12-toot through plus right-tum lane,and one 12-€oot.right- a�+ &r)cj DOL"1 11e skl)uld, turn lane. This requires reducing the existing median island be Cak)s 15+�n.L wf L} ids from 12 feet to 4 feet,and reducing the existing 16-foot 1 T Y1 { jped right-tum Lane to a 12-foot right-turn lane.This can be ton accomplished within existing curb-to-curb width.Any �js nth (1 expansion or modifications at this intersection shall be subject to the approval of the Town of Danville.The Town of Danville has sole discretion to determine whether any n r" �1Q ��� � �Q� �� widening of this intersection may occur to a confiuration � "` 1 l �" with outside curb-to�curb widths that are greater than I rbp MY enis "d T1e- Y",ni mVM currently exist. W bQ .0 XP.aP dhCzvf nub vfu n�tn� TGO, PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation With Mitigation V/C LOS V/C LOS Camino Tassajara and Blackhawk/Crow Canyon 1.15 F 0.90 D Camino Tassajara and Sycamore Valley Road 0.37 A Camino Tassajara and Diablo 0.39 A 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 141 I Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations East of Sycamore East of Facility:Camino Tassajars Valley Road Crow Canyon Existing Configuration 4 lanes 4 lanes Existing Volume' 1,300 760 Existing V/C 0.36 0.21 2010 Expected Network NDYi .tvYlClf f Planned changes:Widening to four lanes from Danville Town Limits to Contra Costa County Line.:.IS x'1+1 CI F�'���frYt 2010 Configuration 4 lanes 4 lanes Volume 1,840 2,320 Transit Service(buses/hour) 10 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 128 V/C(unconstrained) 0.51 0.64 Traffic Pattern Danville 420/6 CCC 53% CCC 49% San Ramon 20% San Ramon 2% Danville 180/0 Pleasanton 6% Pleasanton 1% Dublin 0% Dublin 2% Livermore 20/6 Livermore 6% TSO V/C<0.90 at V/C<0.90 at intersections intersections Recommended Actions None Required. 1.An initial level of development of 8,500 units may be constructed in the Dougherty Valley&sed-OR$he Q� --p. ft2Up to 11,000 units may be considered pending the completion of additional traffic studies.This action was developed by the Town of Danville. Contra Costa County may support different actions. ;y,+ 2.The plan should be based on land use assumptions for vlE TVPOA that would not result in a violation of transportation service objectives.This action was developed by the Town of Danville. Contra Costa County may support different actions. Barton-Aschman Associates,.Inc. 140 In order" -Io n-►e��" th�`fsc�$,vlre,";P.;�y leve l cry d� opmertl to TassoJo UQIIe Mnd L -Y1U)l1e shlw(d be, cov,sts�a-1- WI NA041�Ied ->�-w�s�brfrflnv, sr- prov�'Lnfs &M rror-m5 -fir t pct) -Pr,dI q fS rC -4W12aXAcKion Plan 065vrC4, Da-hVllie roo,. �ecf nt+ -b.rnake �+h2Jfm rov2rrl�h 0.n d ` e- "I r 1 M UM !✓65 Mall -I�,2t� fie, e �] P S 1 �@'-�-+eu'�,+J�'�1bV'� Y l l7�Gt,T t►'ll i-k2 TSO, Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:Sycamore Valley Road East of 180 Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' 1,800 Existing V/C 0.50 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:None 2010 Configuration 4 lanes Volume 2,360 Transit Service(buses/hour) 8 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 58 V/C(unconstrained) 0.65 i� Traffic Pattern Danville 44% San Ramon 2% CCC 48% Livermore 6% Pleasanton 0% Dublin 0% TSO V/C <0.90 at intersection. Recommended Actions 1.Oppose any consideration of additional vehicular capacity on Sycamore Valley Road.Sycamore Valley Road has a 2010 capacity consisting of four through lanes, De>_eTE acceleration/deceleration lanes at all intersections, left-tum pockets at all RKEPL cz W i T-H intersections,and Caltrans standard Class II bicycle lanes. No action shall be considered that would eliminate such acceleratioNdeoeleration lanes or bicycle lanes. PM Peek-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation V/C LOS Sycamore Valley Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard 0.81 D Sycamore Valley Road and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.63 B Sycamore Valley Road and 1-580 NB Ramps 0.79 C Sycamore Valley Road and Camino Tassajara 0.37 A Sycamore Valley Road and Brookside Drive 0.47 A ' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 138 ii Goals and Transportation Service Objectives ( :13 I� is Hours of Congestion. LOS E conditions on I-580 for no more than two hours in the Ij morning and two hours in the afternoon. LOS E on I-680 for no more than four hours in the morning and four hours in the evening. Given the gateway constraints dis- cussed in Chapter 5, this is the best the plan can achieve. Intersection Levels of Service. LOS no worse than D (V/C = 0.90) for signalized intersections during peak hours. The methodology is the VCCC program, which is based on critical movement analysis, with adjustments to raw model output turning movements. This is the standard to which all Tri-Valley jurisdictions presently adhere. .j .I Tri-Valley Gateways. I-580 Over Altamont Pass and I-680. No increase in capacity for single-occupant passenger vehicles. Widening of gateways would cause the Tri-Valley area to be negatively affected by interregional traffic. (See Chapter 7 for a complete discussion of this issue.) y Crow Canyon Road (Castro Valley to San Ramon) and Vasco Road (north of Livermore), provide the best travel time possible within the constraint of a two-lane cross-section. For environmental and policy reasons, these roads should not be widened through 2010, but improvements are needed. 1 Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR). On average, reduce the number of vehicles used for commute trips. This has air quality as well as traffic benefits. The Average Vehicle ( Ridership is a measure recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management { District. Their recommended goal is AVR = 1.35 for the Tri-Valley by 1999. The current AVR is about 1.15. 1' Transit Travel Times. Transit travel times must be competitive with auto travel times in order to attract riders. Transit travel time should be reduced through the provision of more frequent service, more express service versus local service, with high-occupan- cy vehicle lanes, and with ramp metering and HOV bypass lanes. . -rV,e. T5os pra t,&-_ %,t 4,p- P)S n, on, on an Indruldon-1 O'rkri a- or +n&r5ec_+1on rna y Ise_ e_Xcee�, 1$ fhc covrfrOlinj ,jvrisdtcfht,n . '`✓ not,+,> c-D►'S+-vcfirr,�,yov2M¢ri�, nP_c�s� t( to n,ofIrAe- tarn a *iS1e _J0t_fSic._f r'v1S Uer' `}{'+003h unr�inc� iS Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc, 30 Recommended Improvement Plan Plan Overview The TVTAC used the policy direction to create a set of actions comprising an integrat. ed plan. The transportation plan comprises increased service (roads and transit), control of demand (growth management and TDM), and acceptance of congestion in locations where it cannot be avoided. The plan is financially constrained in that it includes only elements that are already funded, likely to be funded given extension of federal and state programs, or fundable by new development at an affordable level. Chapter 8 describes the financing plan. The following sections provide an overview of the plan.-O'e-McoY'ArnendeA I m provb-nt^t pj&n, i-, not iY)+tnde8 4-o I iYv,%J- n afvy-e_ Road Improvements The plan includes many improvement projects for freeways, interchanges, arterials,de-sc.,r('6ts and intersections. These are all based on the reality of gateway constraints. P1&-V*)nCd Mad� m proutrnept � I0 n1ep-t Gateway Constraints. Analysis of alternatives through the planning process pla-V-)i hon showed that the TVTC's best interests would not be served by widening any of the I rltmffit gateways for single-occupant vehicles leading into the area. The gateways include 1-680 north and south, 1-580 east and west, and Vasco Road. Widening of these gateways would still leave the freeways congested, would lead to more through traffic, and would increase traffic volumes on other Tri-Valley roads. This is true because of the Tri-Valley's strategic location between San Joaquin County and the Bay Area and also between Central and Eastern Contra Costa County and Santa Clara County. The implication of gateway constraints for roadway planning is that the interior freeways and arterials should be sized to handle only what traffic can get through the gateways. Thus, the plan recognizes that congestion will occur at the gate- ways, but this will have the positive effect of limiting single-occupant vehicle travel to and from the area. Within the Tri-Valley area, the road system is designed to minimize congestion. While not ideal (the ideal would be to have no congestion anywhere), the roadway plan when combined with a balance between jobs and housing, produces the best conditions to be reasonably expected. The reasons behind the gateway constraint concept are different for different gate- ways, as discussed below: 1-680 North. The section north of Diablo Road cannot practically be widened beyond the HOV lanes under construction. The gateway constraint assumption recognizes this reality. 1-680 South. The section south of Route 84 has room to be widened, and limited widening would support the investment in Route 84 capacity. Accordingly, the plan recommends the addition of HOV lanes (see Chapter 7). Some gateway constraint would still occur. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 93 %kAJd; -Tke. 75DG Pmui4e.+� Minjrnum on W Ihd1V1dV0-1 '- v+e-no-1 orh+tr�o�-hm rnA-4 be.. Pace A&4 +F. 4L soh}vo(I n Jur,sdI ct'on ele.r—+s no-f- -h) 0-o -nstrve- jrnpr�vty ►iwjS hece O,r �•� -YD ft b 9 ai?—, �m o ofst c1 e-j a r(5 d)(JI bnS Executive Summary eve►-, +�,ougG, -F��d�n9 is t�casonably as�vr�. • Maintain Level of Service D (V/C < 0.90) on arterials, and measured at intersections. • Maintain level of Service E (V/C < 0.99) on freeways. • Increase average vehicle occupancy for commute trips by 10 percent. • Increase the transit mode share. The TVTP is not intended to be a land use control document. While the plan is based on a set of growth assumptions, the plan should not be interpreted as limiting growth to the assumed levels. Nevertheless, the plan does establish Transportation Service Objectives, which may indirectly influence growth rates. Growth beyond what is assumed herein may occur provided the TSOs are met. Conversely, if the TSOs are violated early, growth should not occur up t9 the umed levels unk1 e5 rro&d 1 Mpy-pLI°rner s or ' rem -� r, rows ore. 1dPk iLd 0-nM,�ldn� re460na9) GsSvr fhe ,►vrisd�t✓�io� czr►troIhM5 a read 59-olen�!- or fnI� eed. ►f . ke� i,� � n +5 vfo Financing the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan ,fm Phi frnr•-� ov+sc�2-}-h2,.1 ter IC �G The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan was designed to be a feasible, realistic, financia�IS V1 constrained plan. Still, the plan will require additional funding beyond that provid,�d �n 41V4. by existing sources. Federal and state funds are limited. The Metropolitan ttvnding iwe, Transportation Commission's (MTC) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is used as been 66ftt y the source for estimating future public transportation revenues. Additional funding 0(55ur8df }{,� will be required through the adoption of a subregional traffic impact fee on new +he-l-� development. The Plan identifies 10 regional transportation improvements that should YnlnlvhVm be funded through the impact fee (see Table E-1). The fee calculates to $2,243 per 50-+ For++ \ in dwelling unit and $4.01 per square foot for commercial/office/industrial space. e I-Sb M be_ �xceesled ►�+ersec}�on c)r rp,J Plan Implementation s9r►-tn+ w,4kf V(oIa+1 ng +b,e_ T5D, In order for the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan to be implemented, it must be adopted by each TVTC member jurisdiction into their respective general plans. The following elements should be adopted: • 2010 Planned Transportation Network • Transportation Service Objectives • Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance (see Chapter 9) • Financing Plan • Subregional Transportation Impact Fee Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. ix DATE: L� �O REgln&ST TO. SPEAK F®Rm (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT , Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAME: \r'` PHONE: 9:3'� ADDRESS: I am speaking formyself OR organization: NAME.OF ORGAN[7a1'lO!N) Check one: L/ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. DATE: y REgmsT Ta- ` PEAK FoRm (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. / NAME: ( k(6 PHONE: ADDRESS: TjYw 46V U raft' Qr. 5wr.0 Crzv: I am speaking formyse OR organization: (NAME OF OEtC:AN17-a1'tQ'ti) . . Check one: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Tc + My comments will be: general ✓ for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. DATE: REQUEST TO SPEAKFORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT , Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'. rostrum before addressing the Board. NAME: U1e. . � /. n D / PHONE: ADDRESS: 24� ,� p AVIS pi . CITY: C� I am speaking formyself OR organization: �� NAME OF ORGANI7ATION) _ Check one: I wish to speak on Agenda Item My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. Attachment C TRI -VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ ACTION PLAN FOR ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE (2ND ®RAFT) Prepared for Tri-Valley Transportation Council Prepared by Tri-Valley Technical Advisory Committee In conjunction with Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. June 1994 .i Contents Chapters Page Executive Summary iii 1 Introduction 1 2 Existing Transportation Conditions 7 3 Goals/Objectives/TSOs 29 4 Baseline Forecasts 31 5 Expected Forecasts 45 6 Plan Alternatives 77 7 Recommended Improvement Plan 92 8 Financial Plan 115 9 Action Plan 132 10 Plan Implementation 189 Appendix 394-17P/651193.90100 Executive Summary r Executive Summary The purpose of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is to address transportation problems within the Tri-Valley area including Danville, San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and unincorporated areas of Contra Costa and Alameda County. The study area and the primary roads are shown in Figure E-1. In addition to serving as a guide for transportation planning through 2010, this document represents the Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance for Contra Costa County jurisdictions, as mandated by Measure C. This document also provides information that can be incorporated into the Congestion Management Programs for Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is the final product of a three-year work effort to identify existing and future transportation deficiencies and identify a financially feasible transportation plan that addresses the deficiencies. The Tri-Valley work was sponsored by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC), an advisory board of representatives from each of the seven Tri-Valley jurisdictions. The consulting firm of Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., through a series of meetings with the TVTC, prepared the study. Existing Transportation Problems The study was initiated in 1991 with an assessment of study issues and existing conditions. Discussions with representatives from each community culminated with the following findings: 1. Tri-Valley is relatively free of congestion. 2. Transit use is relatively low—four percent of total trips. 3. Existing average vehicle occupancy is about 1.1 for commute trips. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. iii • d T� W f � f o 1 \ ' a Q � 2 00 G m, d ' 10 Oxrne� �08 ,at 1 Qe S 4! 3 \ v � e,ao co urR ry � ..+ CO to OOPOP 000 ca 4 .040 001, NJ 13 N s4 RD .0NDS ` ONnS SVI 3114 to abtwo a � Executive Summary 4. There are 14,000 more employed residents than jobs, so there is net out- commuting. 5. I-680 and I-580 are major regional highways. Each has 15 to 20 percent through traffic. 2010 Traffic Conditions Once the study issues and existing transportation system characteristics were identified, staff used the Tri-Valley Transportation Model to evaluate land use forecasts and alternative transportation systems. The land use forecasts were first developed in accordance with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections '90. When the plan was started, these were the most recent forecasts available. Once developed, the TVTC determined that the forecasts did not reflect current land use or network planning. The TVTC refined the land use forecasts and transportation networks to reflect current general plans. The "expected" land use forecasts were evaluated along with an "expected" transportation system. The results of this evaluation were as follows: • Highway gateways to the area (I-680 north of Alamo and south of Route 84, I-580 over Altamont Pass, and Vasco Road) will be overloaded given the demand. This would occur even without growth in the Tri-Valley due to regional traffic demands. • With some locally funded modifications, the arterial system within the Tri-Valley will operate at LOS D or better. �C-C ? • I-680 and I-580 within the Tri-Valley will operate at LOS E or better, provided .6- ramp metering is installed. �-w • Jobs and housing growth for year 2010 is projected to be 99 percent and 84 percent, respectively. Jobs and housing would be in balance, that is, one job would exist for every employed resident. This minimizes but does not eliminate in- commuting and out-commuting. • The transit mode share will increase slightly from existing conditions. • Average vehicle occupancy will not change appreciably from existing conditions. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. vi Executive Summary The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan The model results of the "expected" land use and "expected" transportation system were the basis for the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. The Plan is not projected to relieve all traffic congestion in Tri-Valley. Levels of service on freeway segments at the gateways will remain below E. Based on the results of the alternatives testing, the TAC and the TVTC decided to focus the ultimate improvement plan on the arterial corridors within Tri-Valley rather than the Tri-Valley gateways. The plan must address the primary question: What can we do to achieve the best level of service within the Tri-Valley? Three contributing factors influence the ability to respond to this question. • Financial constraints. • Physical limitations within corridors. • Development pattern. Financial resources for all projects are limited. The Measure C and Measure B sales tax programs provide substantial funding for specific projects in Tri-Valley. Other projects must compete for the relatively small pot of public funds. Developer fees, which have an upper limit, could help supplement public funds. Future sales tax or gasoline tax initiatives may or may not be successful. Expansion of major corridors within Tri-Valley is limited due to existing development and terrain. These limitations hinder the development of transportation corridors other than the existing I-680 and I-580 corridors. Development patterns within Tri-Valley have been geared toward relatively low housing and commercial densities. These patterns are expected to continue in the future. This development pattern is impossible to serve thoroughly with transit, given realistic funding expectations. The plan proposes no increases in gateway capacity for single-occupant vehicles. "Gateways" are the regional roads that connect the Tri-Valley to adjoining areas. This will help to meter traffic in and out of the area. The plan balances the internal transportation network with planned growth through the provision of several roadway and transit improvements. Figure E-2 shows the transportation plan network. A key element of the plan is the list of Transportation Service Objectives. These are goals that the Tri-Valley cities and counties should use as a guide to making transportation and land use decisions. In Contra Costa County under Measure C, the jurisdictions are required to comply with the transportation service objectives on routes of regional significance. The transportation service objectives adopted by the TVTC are as follows: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. vii r Z \ W r z J S ar N N r N � tt • / t © I (\/) .r to i Ids � J O G Y � / 2 h! 4i U � � r V v / 6 `! o N Z Ct O 0 W co 1po m -- ' d ti pZ • T '� (A 2 \. x Iz W i g' � CL r.r 3a0na3Ni " O ? G \ Otl NO""N�/J m . evxan i cp0 �tl NOTn`j } S t \ �x W LO � z z i a r�OH t0 a a 00 C w s o � 0 d) .4 a 5 E it �� • d (� cc Go LO a as tD Executive Summary • Maintain Level of Service D (V/C,< 0.90) on arterials, and measured at intersections. • Maintain level of Service E (V/C < 0.99) on freeways. • Increase average vehicle occupancy for commute trips by 10 percent. • Increase the transit mode share. The TVTP is not intended to be a land use control document. While the plan is based on a set of growth assumptions, the plan should not be interpreted as limiting growth to the assumed levels. Nevertheless, the plan does establish Transportation Service Objectives, which may indirectly influence growth rates. Growth beyond what is assumed herein may occur provided the TSOs are met. Conversely, if the TSOs are x violated early, growth should not occur up to the assumed levels. Financing the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan was designed to be a feasible, realistic, financially constrained plan. Still, the plan will require additional funding beyond that provided by existing sources. Federal and state funds are limited. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is used as the source for estimating future public transportation revenues. Additional funding will be required through the adoption of a subregional traffic impact fee on new development. The Plan identifies 10 regional transportation improvements that should be funded through the impact fee (see Table E-1). The fee calculates to $2,243 per dwelling unit and $4.01 per square foot for commercial/office/industrial space. Plan Implementation In order for the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan to be implemented, it must be adopted by each TVTC member jurisdiction into their respective general plans. The following elements should be adopted: • 2010 Planned Transportation Network • Transportation Service Objectives • Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance (see Chapter 9) • Financing Plan • Subregional Transportation Impact Fee Batton-Aschman Associates, Inc. ix '� 1 I I II I I i H C c) r` w , co ' a I A cm NEA S 6s, Nfi? E9 ffi N69 6S C L1 Q d E i 0 M c c� `—° `7) o c LP ^ I w t0 c eo os c� o *- 1 a) > > CO 1n Q a U- a 1 b9 EA fA 69 O O E9 609 t9 a V H rr ` m aos U m � U CL m a? � m m0H v, m o J (CO e0 7 0 is M Cc O m Cc cc m m > m m« eo ep m � LLco o CL N t- C w m Q Q � E � �v E N o r- v U� c? Ci C� VS o W U NN v- N NW.- N 0 a fA fA to fA IA fA fA CC 3 LO o " O U «. edco m mcc cc m C 3s 0 Z m JS Q to C _ C F t ¢ L w w 'O cc E5, LOm CWeyv -JL -gym L D of - N � E 'xQ Tic cm > 0 m g E a c o m W O a� m ego R o w Qa 2 m = _0 1 8 eo U .Q Q o E • d m o f � N o y —a�- o J o c o �' 3 L 8 ~ � O Q UN '0212 °8 '- a = so ccUR � a Hd a Co Batton-Aschman Associates, Inc. x �, �odu���or �r� t :� i r s t I 1 . Introduction The purpose of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is to assess transportation needs within the Tri-Valley area through the year 2010. The study area includes Danville, San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and unincorporated portions of Contra Costa County and Alameda County. In addition to serving as a guide for transportation planning through 2010, this document represents the Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance for Contra Costa County jurisdictions, as mandated by Measure C. This document also provides information that can be incorporated into the Congestion Management Programs for Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. The plan was commissioned by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC), which includes political representatives of each of the seven member jurisdictions, under a joint powers agreement. The TVTC was assisted by the Tri-Valley Technical Advisory Committee (TVTAC), which includes staff transportation planners and engineers from each agency. These groups met monthly throughout the plan process, which began in November 1991. Funding for the Plan came from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the three Alameda Tri-Valley cities. The plan was prepared using the Tri-Valley Transportation Model (TVTM), which was developed by Barton-Aschman and TJKM and approved by the TVTC for transporta- tion planning. The zone structure for the Tri-Valley Transportation Model is compatible with the Alameda County, Contra Costa County, and MTC transportation models. The model has been certified by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. This transportation plan is intended to fulfill the requirement for preparation of Action Plans under Measure C in Contra Costa County. Alameda County does not have a similar Action Plan requirement. Nevertheless, the same plan format is followed for the Alameda County portion of Tri-Valley. The TVTC joint powers Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Introduction agreement states that member jurisdictions are to consider the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan when adopting or amending the circulation elements of general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, or capital improvement programs. The consultant team began meeting with Tri Valley representatives in November, 1991. Meetings were held once each month with the Tri-Valley Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). This committee provided guidance to the consultant and reviewed all work products prior to their submittal to the Tri Valley Technical Council (TVTC). The TVTC acted as the final approval body for all work completed by the consultant. Meetings between the TVTC, TVTAC, and the consultant also occurred on a monthly basis. Figure 1-1 shows the boundaries of planning areas used to summarize data in this report. These boundaries have no planning status except within this report, although attempts have been made to conform to city and sphere of influence boundaries. Routes of Regional Significance have been adopted by each city in Contra Costa County, as well as the County, as part of the Measure C Growth Management Program. Routes of Regional Significance are those roads that serve regional mobility, or act as reliever routes for the regional system, and serve more than one jurisdiction. The designated routes are exempt from the Measure C basic route level of service standards. Other measures, Traffic Service Objectives are to be adopted for these mutes. The plan also includes Routes of Regional Significance for Alameda County, although these are not mandated by county policy (see Figure 1-2). Two other regional systems have been designated in the Tri-Valley. These are described briefly below. Congestion Management Program (CMP) Routes These have been designated by Contra Costa County and Alameda County as part of the state-mandated CMP. In the Tri-Valley, they include only I-680, I-580, and Route 84. The respective county CMP's are shorter-range planning documents than the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan. Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) and National Highway System OYHS) Routes The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) defined a system, called the Metropolitan Transportation System, in the 1991 Regional Transportation Plan, and the system has been updated for the 1994 RTP. The purpose of the MTS is to define those facilities and services that are crucial to freight and passenger mobility in the Bay Area. The MTS includes streets and highways, transit systems, seaports, airports, truck terminals, rail yards, and transfer points. In addition to streets and highways, the MTS in the Tri-Valley includes transit corridors along I-680, I-580, and Route 84; the Altamont Pass railroad tracks, which continue to Fremont; and the Livermore airport. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 2 ta to dJ 0 P IL) r" Y /Ul N O J � � co U T o'V Goo O o � 0 0 0 �Go v � o d O p a a w 0 as QA aD .Ec cs � EIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillillill'IlljllllllllIlI .aG 000000 c 0 m ° z h d lu Ul u �G,•sf. Q C3 o Z Y rY p \\ n UN!lfp� - �a ti3TNr oyyfvS5r1 1 1\ 3 4r' Oa RSt 3�136 00 Y r m ° i - •� c Si Cd, F•" I ++ 6Z +oo im CD CN LL W cri 00 z C0d W V `0 r v M U. N , Jd 37,inN?3t' O z 0 10 y `O ^.d oasr� �' 1 � ¢�O l (� +p5GO RO o • r -S W cc • ,� ,tet,,,_;,,, r, -- 1 1$ O ', a(31bdnn z r x 0 t, na dr5f a 3d r70xNY7 i6 m q rr AVMdfb � � a z' R 00 2 E4 R4 \ Ott a07h+e r �o adr1M rt i Mnc • q } Q � z 3 x u o '\ a rAdDHY,i O H 71 te N M z W 1� `Rp 00 O � E cri In C + r+ E s c c z00 0 cis to Introductfon The criteria for defining streets and highways in the MTS are as follows: • Serves a major Bay Area activity center • Provides important intercounty and/or interregional connections • Serves as a reliever for a freeway • Provides important connections in the MTS system • Serves as a major cross-town arterial for relieving congestion • Provides access to regional passenger and freight transfer facilities. Significance of MTS Designation. Roads that are part of the MTS may benefit from funding available to regional facilities. Any road not in the MTS is considered as serving primarily local travel. The National Highway System (NHS). The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) calls for the U.S. Congress to designate a National Highway System by December 1995. For the Bay Area, MTC has developed a recommended NHS, which is a subset of the MTS. The purpose of the NHS is to"provide an interconnected system of principal arterial routes which will serve major population centers, international border crossings, ports, airports, public transportation facilities, and other intermodal transportation facilities and other major travel destinations, meet national defense requirements, and serve interstate and interregional travel." The NHS was proposed to focus federal funds to improve a limited number of high priority routes. Figure 1-3 shows the MTS and NHS routes in the Tri-Valley area. Relationship to County Plans The Tri-Valley Action Plan will be combined with action plans from the other four subareas in Contra Costa County to create the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. In Alameda County, a countywide transportation plan was recently completed. The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is compatible with the Alameda County Transportation Plan, although it is more detailed and focused in the Tri-Valley Area. Barton-Aschman Assoclates, Inc. 5 Z O d U GO tilt W JL 0 � • A CC o CC d .- J ; 0 Z CL Lia "" CC Q 4 7.Q W 0 J po x i Y O l ,., Da � gYl �•,.np lu Y R O \ 3 \ r d .. 3or43tl h Ept< Z r USM � r W r N Ko gv QS�i O y 3 �J C a a� r �P a�ay� A d Z, 0 m Z o V-- u WO rlo y.. a ;wo, z �- ppsrn camo o °� ,p v- 0 z 4- W a Q a Is a 4 � �y 3ap„a3^j1 N z -3 yyg�aa�w c V' NV 13�' fl Ndxt+v� 18 W It W Oa NO tM! r W l Nn 1 0 � 4 o re t } J ,\ fG 31Y d� d ' N t:D y r Rp 3 • � a m X 0 lea ki Q � uwo f Q Jr. �o 2 • j m i; r r t r r Existing Transportation Conditions r 2. Existing Transportation Conditions Chapter Summary • Tri-Valley is relatively free of congestion. Some occasional congestion occurs on the freeways, especially near the I-580/1-680 interchange. • Transit usage is relatively low—four percent of total trips. • Existing average vehicle ridership is about 1.1 for commute trips. • There are 14,000 more employed residents than jobs, so there is net out-commuting. • I-680 and I-580 are major regional highways serving substantial regional demand. Each has 15 to 20 percent through traffic. This chapter describes the existing transportation systems within the Tri-Valley area, including the routes of regional significance, the intersection levels of service at major intersection locations, traffic volumes, transit systems, and bicycle routes serving the area. Figure 2-1 shows the number of lanes on the Routes of Regional Significance. Each is described below. Stone Highways Interstate 580 (1-580) is an eight-lane east/west freeway designated as a route of regional significance through the Tri-Valley area. Auxiliarylanes exist between Foothill Road and Santa Rita Road. I-580 is a critical freight route as designated by the Alameda County CMA. A truck-climbing lane exists in the westbound direction from Foothill Road to the top of the Dublin grade. Figure 2-1 shows interchange locations. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 7 0 G7 G 00 CA C-k LO .4 to .4 Q to C.A CA to JA 0 d) ic i `" Z U- � o � 5 Q V O ,C. •b 317vv+33a7 D Na Q3 '• s .� L Z 01, ^s� J (ice _vl3+ba�'�rr Z i Y � 0 1 nv 138rs, x �1 Ca NO�r�vO � z /\ > 7e a � ur s 2 �p p0 0 Q 4� BL a0 r wt Js No--7yj W ~4 N � N \iC1 z Js F,JA ' > 78 70n'i,,s N K 0` m ~ C o r0 30r V pauc PO as o rwa+g N c y s 00 z 00 c CA •.� 6 /Q 1��� i11 Q t O O Vt C N cr o cis A z � V II � � a z � � J f+ c 1 Existing Transportation Conditions I-680 is a six-lane north/south freeway through the Tri-Valley area. Figure 2-1 shows interchange locations. High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are under construction between SR 24 in Walnut Creek and the county line at Alcosta Boulevard. I-680 from I-580 to Santa Clara County was widened a few years ago and includes sufficient right-of-way for additional lanes. I-680 is a designated major freight route by the Alameda County CMA, and there are truck climbing lanes over the Sunol grade. State Route 84 (SR 84) is an arterial street including First Street and Holmes Street through Livermore and Vallecitos Road south of Pleasanton. SR 84 diagonally connects I-680 to I-580. First Street has a varied lane configuration and varied land uses along the length of its corridor. From I-580 to Portola Avenue, First Street is a six-lane road. From Portola Avenue to Holmes Street, First Street is a four-lane road with sidewalks, bike lanes, and a raised median. (In some locations the median becomes a two-way, left-turn lane or disappears entirely.) Parking is permitted along some sections of First Street. Holmes Street also has a varied lane configuration that changes from four lanes with sidewalks and median, to two lanes with a wide painted median and sidewalk, to two lanes with no median. The land use varies from light commercial to residential to rural. Bike lanes are present where the street narrows to two lanes. Vallecitos Road is a two-lane winding, rural road that passes through mostly undeveloped farm land and hills. Routes of Regional Significance in Livermore Vasco Road is a north/south arterial that is defined as a route of regional significance through Contra Costa County and Alameda County to its termination at Tesla Road in the City of Livermore. Vasco Road is a two-lane road along most of its length, except in developed areas near Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories where it widens to four lanes with concrete curbs, bike lanes, and a raised landscaped median. Stanley Boulevard is an east/west route that is defined as a route of regional signifi- cance from its intersection with First Street and Holmes Street in Livermore to its intersection with First Street in Pleasanton. Stanley Boulevard is four lanes along its entire length. Bike lanes are continuous along Stanley Boulevard except in the region near Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area where the bike lanes convert into a two- way bike path on the south side of the road. First Street and Holmes Street are part of Route 84 (see above). Routes of Regional Significance In Pleasanton First Street is a two-lane, north/south route defined as a mute of regional significance from Stanley Boulevard in the north, to Bernal Avenue in the south. North of down- town, First Street has bike lanes on both sides. Through downtown Pleasanton, First Street has a center turn lane, one lane each way, parking on both sides, and sidewalks. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 9 f f " Existing Transportation Conditions Sunol Boulevard is a north/south route defined as a route of regional significance from Bernal Avenue to its interchange with I-680. South of Bernal Avenue, Sunol Boulevard is four lanes with raised median, sidewalk, and bike lanes, with adjacent commercial and residential land uses. South of Junipero Street, Sunol Boulevard narrows to two lanes with no median. Santa Rita Road is a north/south route that is defined as a route of regional signifi- cance from its intersection with I-580 in the north, to its intersection with Stanley Boulevard and Main Street near downtown Pleasanton. Santa Rita Road is a six-lane road with sidewalks and raised medians south of I-580. At Valley Avenue, Santa Rita Road narrows to four lanes. A residential frontage road on the east side of Santa Rita Road exists in the segment between Valley Avenue and Stanley Boulevard. Main Street is the continuation of Santa Rita Road and is defined as a route of regional significance to Bernal Avenue. Main Street is a two-lane road with left-turn lanes at Ray Street/St. John Street, St. Mary, and Ray Street/Neal Street. Main Street has sidewalks and parking along both sides in the downtown area. Hopyard Road is a north/south route that is defined as a route of regional significance from its intersection with I-580 to its intersection with Del Valle Parkway and Division Street. South of I-580 to Valley Avenue, Hopyard Road is a six-lane road with wide lanes, sidewalks, bike lanes, and a raised median. A right-turn lane exists between intersections at Owens Drive and Las Positas Boulevard on the east side (northbound direction) of the road. Between Valley Avenue and Division Street, Hopyard Road transitions from six lanes with median sidewalks and bike lanes, to a three-lane and then a two-lane road with an asphalt concrete path on the west side. Division Street is a continuation of Hopyard Road and is defined as a route of regional significance to its intersection with St. Mary Street. Division Street is a two-lane road with a sidewalk on the west side only. St. Mary Street is a continuation of Division Street and is defined as a route of regional significance to its intersection with Main Street in downtown Pleasanton. St. Mary Street is a two-lane road with sidewalks and parking on both sides. St. Mary Street has a center turn lane between Peters Avenue and Main Street. Stoneridge Drive is an east/west route designated as a route of regional significance from Foothill Road to east of Santa Rita Road. Stoneridge Drive is planned to connect to Jack London Boulevard at El Charro Road. Stoneridge Drive varies between four and six lanes with raised median, sidewalks, and bike lanes from Foothill Road to Santa Rita Road. East of Santa Rita Road, Stoneridge Drive narrows to a two-lane road with sidewalks and bike lanes on the south side of the street. Stoneridge Drive is planned for six lanes for its entire length. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 10 Existing Transportation Conditions Routes of Regional SignifIcance in Dublin San Ramon Road is the continuation of San Ramon Valley Boulevard into the City of Dublin. San Ramon Road is designated as a route of regional significance from the northern city limit to the southern city limit. From Alcosta Boulevard to Amador Valley Boulevard, San Ramon Road has four lanes with a raised median, bike lanes and sidewalks. South of Amador Valley Boulevard, San Ramon Road widens to six lanes. Tassajara Road is a north/south route that is defined as a route of regional signifi- cance from Camino Tassajara to I-580. Tassajara Road is a two-lane road from Camino Tassajara to the I-580 on- and off-ramps where it becomes four lanes. Land use along Tassajara Road is mainly rural. Dougherty Road is a north/south route that is defined as a route of regional signifi- cance from the Dublin City Limit to I-580. From the city limit, Dougherty Road has four travel lanes. Some sidewalks exist adjacent to completed housing developments. A bike path (two-way bike lanes) exists on the east side of the street. South of Sierra Lane, Dougherty Road becomes a five-lane road with the addition of a center left-turn lane. The center left turn-lane is replaced by a northbound lane just north of I-580 (three northbound lanes, two southbound lanes). Dublin Boulevard is an east/west route that is defined as a route of regional signifi- cance from San Ramon Road to Tassajara, Road. Dublin Boulevard is a four-lane road with sidewalks on both sides and a raised median from San Ramon Road to Dougherty Road and a two-lane road from Dougherty Road to Tassajara Road. West of I-680, parking is permitted along both sides of the road. Land use along Dublin Boulevard is mostly commercial/retail. Routes of Regional Signfcance in San Ramon San Ramon Valley Boulevard is a north/south route that is designated as a route of regional significance from Danville to the Dublin City Limit. San Ramon Valley Boulevard is a two-lane road at the Danville Town Limits, and widens to a four-lane road with raised median, bike lanes, and sidewalks. Where land use is more rural, between Montevideo and Alcosta Boulevard, San Ramon Valley Boulevard is a two- lane road with bike lanes on both sides. Between Crow Canyon and Norris Canyon, San Ramon Valley Boulevard is a six-lane road with heavy commercial use. The remaining segments of San Ramon Valley Boulevard consist of four lanes. Akosta Boulevard is a four-lane, east/west route with a raised median and sidewalks, defined as a route of regional significance for only a short segment from I-680 to Village Parkway. Alcosta Boulevard extends from San Ramon Valley.Boulevard to Crow Canyon Road, and includes a full interchange with I-680. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 11 Existing Transportation Conditions Bollinger Canyon Road is an east/west route defined as a route of regional significance from San Ramon Valley Boulevard to Alcosta Boulevard. Bollinger Canyon is a four- lane road with a raised median and sidewalks from Crow Canyon Road to I-680 and widens to six lanes from I-680 to Alcosta Boulevard. Crow Canyon Road is an east/west route defined as a route of regional significance from the Alameda County/Contra Costa County border to Camino Tassajara. At the county line, Crow Canyon is a rural two-lane road which widens to four-lanes and then six-lanes with a raised median and sidewalks where land use is more commercial. Crow Canyon Road remains six lanes until Alcosta Boulevard, where it narrows again to four lanes. A variety of medians and roadside development exists depending on locations of existing land development. At Indian Rice Road, Crow Canyon widens to six lanes and remains six lanes to Camino Tassajara. Routes of Regional Significance In Danville Camino Tassajara is an east/west route of regional significance from Sycamore Valley Road to Crow Canyon Road. Camino Tassajara is a four-lane road with a raised median, curbs, sidewalks, and bike lanes as it leaves the community of Blackhawk and narrows to a two lane rural roadway south of Lawrence Road. Land uses in the vicinity of Blackhawk are commercial and residential. Land uses for the southern portions of Camino Tassajara are residential and rural. Sycamore Valley Road is an east/west four-lane route of regional significance with a raised median and sidewalks from I-680 to Camino Tassajara. Hartz Avenue is a two-lane route of regional significance from Danville Boulevard (it is a continuation of Danville Boulevard) to San Ramon Valley Boulevard. Hartz Avenue is a main street in downtown Danville with sidewalks and parking on both sides. Danville Boulevard is a north/south route of regional significance from the northern boundary of the Tri-Valley area to Hartz Avenue. Danville Boulevard is two lanes north of Las Trampas Road, with a center turn lane and narrows to two lanes south of Las Trampas Road. At El Cerro, Danville Boulevard widens to four lanes with parking on both sides and bike lanes. San Ramon Valley Boulevard is also a route of regional significance in Danville. It is the continuation of Hartz Avenue south of Railroad Avenue. San Ramon Valley Boulevard has two lanes to the Danville town limit. Crow Canyon Road has a short segment that is within the Town of Danville. This segment is between Tassajara Ranch Drive and Camino Tassajara and is six lanes wide. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 12 Existing Transportation Conditions Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes for the routes of regional significance were compiled from individual jurisdictions. These volumes are shown on Figure 2-2. Volumes on the routes of regional significance are shown as average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. These roadway volumes are largest near major development6ob centers and smallest on the fringes of the Tri-Valley area. Volumes are also high at certain major freeway interchanges such as I-680/Crow Canyon Road and I-580/ Dougherty Road/Hopyard Drive. Table 2-1 compares the volumes to typical capacity ranges. The roads that are nearing capacity based on ADT are Vasco Road, Vallecitos Road (Highway 84), First Street in Pleasanton, the two-lane section of San Ramon Valley Boulevard in San Ramon, Crow Canyon Road near I-680, Hopyard Road north of Owens, San Ramon Road near I-580, Dougherty Road near I-580, and Dublin Boulevard west of I-680. First Street in Pleasanton, however, is a downtown street, and congestion in this location is expected due to the dense development. Freeway Levels of Service Level of service descriptions for both I-580 and I-680 were obtained from the 1-680 Corridor Study Existing Conditions report prepared by TJKM for the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and from freeway travel times studies prepared by Abrams Associates for the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. These values are shown on Figure 2-3. I-580 operates at LOS C or better in both directions throughout the Tri-Valley area during peak hours with the exception of a short segment between the I-580/1-680 interchange and the Santa Rita Road/Tasss41ara Road interchange in Pleasanton. This section occasionally becomes congested during peak hours. I-680 operates at LOS C or better in both directions throughout most of the Tri-Valley area. However, a section of northbound I-680 between Stoneridge and the I-68011-580 interchange occasionally becomes congested during peak hours as does the southbound segment between Alcosta and the I-680/1-580 interchange. All these problems on I-580 and I-680 near the I-680/1-580 interchange are caused by the interchange design with loop ramps and weaving sections. The other segments of I-680 that occasionally become congested are from Danville north to the I-680/24 interchange. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 13 ■ri���� N 1 W N fl d W 0 7► ° ,aC r Z t � r ^� Cl) c � Cc ' SVl ONrMr^ W!1 ti3>�,+1 daaf"h as .. 3gN3a'"Y� �UgNERr . 00-r Q QOQQ c oW to O r r • �b>> QQQ p�8Yl0 } �q� G p 4 lav �N d O N woo 0� t O C14 Vl C14 w 4) D 0 aL LL cc O\.0 w 3H0M&3VI N 00(), vn J8 e31lIr go 00 .61 90 vii p°f as N07TVJ cAtAlA Or "Yryssy.L A PkIl. FO Op, 01 78 FF oa > 00 Z Oj 30 C6 0) D UGRHE TY Ov L z 96.0 C13 fn CA C cis ts CO C13 Existing Transportation Conditions Table 2-1 Traffic Volumes and Capacity for Routes of Regional Significance Existing Typical Capacity Range' Jurisdiction/Route Lanes ADT (in thousands) Livermore Vasco Road 2 13,500 12-17 Stanley Boulevard 4 24,300 27-36 Pleasanton First Street (north of Neal) 2 18,500 15-20 Sunol Boulevard (south of Bernal) 4 17,700 27-36 Santa Rita Road (north of Las 6 27,900 40-56 Positas) Main Street (north of Rose) 2 9,800 12-17 Hopyard Road (north of Owens) 6 43,000 40-56 Division Street 2 6,900 12-17 Stoneridge Drive west of 1-680 6 29,000 40-56 east of Santa Rita Road 4 17,000 27-36 Dublin San Ramon Road north of Amador Valley 4 23,600 27-36 south of Dublin Boulevard 6 48,600 40-56 Dougherty Road north of Dublin Boulevard 4 21,400 27-36 south of Dublin Boulevard 6 44,200 40-56 Dublin Boulevard east of 1-680 4 24,000 27-36 west of 1-680 4 32,100 27-36 San Ramon San Ramon Valley Boulevard north of Alcosta Boulevard 2 12,100 12-17 north of Crow Canyon Road 4 21,300 27-36 Alcosta Boulevard 4 24,600 27-36 Bollinger Canyon Road 6 36,400 40-56 Crow Canyon Road west of 1-680 6 44,300 40-56 east of 1-680 6 48,200 40-56 west of Dougherty Road 4 13,000 27-36 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 15 Existing Transportation Conditions Table 2-1 (Continued) Traffic Volumes and Capacity for Routes of Regional Significance Existing Typical Capacity Range' Jurisdiction/Route Lanes ADT (in thousands) Danville Camino Tassajara 4 18,000 27-36 Sycamore Valley Road 4 18,900 27-36 Hartz Avenue 2 10,400 12-17 Danville Boulevard 4 18,700 27-36 San Ramon Valley Boulevard 2 12-17 Crow Canyon Road 6 18,000 40-56 State Route 84 First Street north of Portola Avenue 6 27,200 40-56 north of Holmes Street 4 12,700 27-36 Holmes Street 4 23,000 27-36 - Vallecitos Road 2 11,000 12-17 ' Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 16 ds _Mal O Ul ul 0 On IQ) O tn 0 o • Oa via 9L vo-o it CO co OD t� N z J �� Q Ja 3tt1nrJ33a0 J � O W 90 �- a� P W os Oa .1r iaONa3/Ul �: � '3 v�3+aeTn Z va N. - _ov51 Cl) f. X ArMar W d _ N j O 2 O \ V EL CRO 00 a i p0 FI s n oa NO77yj 'a (A ft G Y^/ Q, <S• a 1 ' .a rMrrvssrl AN .� p,Tp pp' ' m � 4 R V Ln i z W Z II � \ Oa O rAdOH S AFRTY f Z DO RD N O W of'@ W lq z J 00 co 4�1 YI N ft R a � � E A V y � o 0 CC) cc /I Existing Transportation Conditions Intersection levels of Service The operating conditions at intersections of routes of regional significance and at certain freeway off-/on-ramps were evaluated with level of service calculations. Level of Service is a qualitative description of an intersection's operation, ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay time at the intersection, to LOS F, or highly congested conditions with long delays at the intersection (see Table 2-2). Table 2-2 Level of Service Definitions Level of Service Interpretation V/C Ratio A Uncongested operations; all queues clear in a single Less Than 0.60 signal cycle. B Very light congestion; an occasional approach phase is 0.60-0.70 fully utilized. C Light congestion; occasional backups on critical 0.70-0.80 approaches. D Significant congestion on critical approaches, but 0.80-0.90 intersection functional. Cars required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. No longstanding queues formed. E Severe congestion with some long-standing queues on 0.90-0.99 critical approaches. Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements. Traffic queue may block nearby intersections(s) upstream of critical approach(es). F Total breakdown, stop-and-go operation. 1.00 and Greater A signalized intersection's level of service can be calculated with a number of methods. For this study, a method based on critical movement analysis, called the VCCC method was used. VCCC stands for Volume-to-Capacity Contra Costa County. See the Appendix for a full description of the VCCC program. This method is identical to the Circular 212 method except that the saturation flow is increased from 1,500 to 1,800 vehicles per hour. The method is well suited to conditions in the Tri-Valley area. The volumes of cars on a critical movement are summed and divided by the capacity of the movement. This V/C ratio of each critical movement at an intersection is used to produce an overall intersection V/C ratio also taking into account signal phasing. The overall V/C ratio is then correlated to a level of service (see Table 2-2). AM peak-hour and PM peak-hour levels of service are shown by city in Table 2-3. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 18 Existing Transportation Conditions Table 2-3 Existing (1990) Intersection Level of Service Analysis AM Peak PM Peak City NIS Street E/W Street V/C LOS V/C LOS Dublin Foothill Road 1-580 WB Off 0.27 A 0.50 A San Ramon Road Dublin Boulevard 0.49 A 0.87 D San Ramon Valley Amador Valley 0.38 A 0.58 A Village Parkway Amador Valley 0.51 A 0.71 C Dougherty Road 1-580 WB Off 0.56 A 0.68 B Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard 0.58 A 0.84 D Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard 0.24 A 0.72 C Dougherty Road Amador Valley 0.46 A 0.39 A Amador Plaza Dublin Boulevard 0.22 A 0.50 A Regional Street Dublin Boulevard 0.26 A 0.58 A Village Parkway Brighton Drive 0.25 A 0.36 A Livermore Murrietta Blvd Portola Avenue 0.53 A 0.15 B North Livermore Portola Avenue 0.35 A 0.50 A North Livermore 1-580 EB Off 0.44 A 0.21 A Murrietta Blvd Stanley Boulevard 0.80 C 0.78 C Holmes Street Murrietta/4th 0.89 D 0.87 D Murrietta Blvd Jack London 0.37 A 0.39 A First Street 1-580 EB Off 0.74 C 0.81 D East Vallecitos East Vineyard Avenue 0.75 C 0.86 D Vasco Road 1-580 WB Off 0.42 A 0.97 E North Livermore 1-580 WB Off 0.39 A 0.86 D Vasco Road 1-580 EB Off 1.09 F 0.93 E Owens Drive West Las Positas 0.23 A 0.25 A Vasco Road East Avenue 0.81 D 0.53 A Holmes Street Concannon Boulevard 0.54 A 0.50 A North Mines East Street 0.47 A 0.58 A First Street 1-580 WB Off 0.77 C 0.64 B Airway Boulevard 1-580 EB Off 0.56 A 0.56 A Airway Boulevard 1-580 WB Off 0.53 A 0.27 A Pleasanton Hopyard Road Owens Drive 0.56 A 0.69 B Santa Rita Road West Las Positas 0.36 A 0.45 A Tassajara Road 1-580 WB Off 0.75 C 0.56 A Hopyard Road Stoneridge Drive 0.43 A 0.53 A Hopyard Road 1-580 EB Otf 0.67 B 0.66 B Hopyard Road West Las Positas 0.43 A 0.51 A Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 19 Existing Transportation Conditions Table 2-3 Existing (1990) Intersection Level of Service Analysis (Continued) AM Peak PM Peak City WS Street E/W Street V/C LOS V/C LOS Hopyard Road Valley Avenue 0.41 A 0.49 A Santa Rita Road Valley Avenue 0.55 A 0.65 B Foothill Road 1-580 EB Off 0.24 A 0.40 A FirsVSunol Bernal Avenue 0.51 A 0.50 A 1-680 SB Off Bernal Avenue 0.36 A 0.40 A 1-680 NB Off Bernal Avenue 0.35 A 0.49 A 1-680 SB Off Sunol Boulevard 0.53 A 0.28 A 1-680 NB Off Sunol Boulevard 0.44 A 0.48 A Santa Rita Road 1-580 EB Off 0.60 A 0.70 B First Street Ray/Vineyard 0.65 B 0.70 B Main Street Stanley Boulevard 0.23 A 0.34 A Santa Rita Road Stoneridge Drive 0.43 A 0.57 A 1-680 SB Off Stoneridge Drive 0.34 A 0.36 A 1-680 NB Off Stoneridge Drive 0.33 A 0.31 A Foothill Road Dublin Canyon 0.31 A 0.70 B Valley Avenue Stanley Boulevard 0.56 A 0.58 A Stoneridge Drive West Las Positas 0.26 A 0.31 A San Ramon San Ramon Valley Bollinger Canyon 0.46 A 0.50 A Village Parkway Aloosta Boulevard 0.18 A 0.31 A 1-680 NB Off Crow Canyon Road 0.52 A 0.40 A San Ramon Valley Norris Canyon 0.51 A 0.87 D Alcosta Boulevard Crow Canyon Road 0.46 A 0.61 B Alcosta Boulevard Bollinger Canyon 0.53 A 0.55 A Bollinger Canyon Crow Canyon Road 0.64 B 0.71 C San Ramon Valley Alcosta Boulevard 0.49 A 0.49 A 1-680 SB Off Alcosta Boulevard 0.72 C 0.65 B 1-680 SB Off Crow Canyon Road 0.65 B 0.57 A 1-680 SB Off Bollinger Canyon 0.42 A 0.76 C 1-680 NB Off Bollinger Canyon 0.77 C 0.56 A Dougherty Road Crow Canyon 0.20 A 0.24 A 1-680 NB Off Aloosta Boulevard 0.67 B 0.87 D Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 20 1 f . Existing Transportation Conditions Table 2-3 Existing (1990) Intersection Level of Service Analysis (Continued) AM Peak PM Peak City N/S Street E/W Street V/C LOS V/C LOS Danville San Ramon Valley Sycamore Valley 0.37 A 0.77 C 1-680 SB Off Sycamore Valley 0.41 A 0.66 B Camino Tassajara Sycamore Valley 0.41 A 0.35 A Hartz Avenue Diablo Road 0.36 A 0.45 A 1-680 NB On Sycamore Valley 0.53 A 0.45 A Camino Tassajara Diablo Road 0.64 B 0.83 D Diablo Road EI Cerro Road 0.46 A 0.44 A 1-680 SB Off Diablo Road 0.53 A 0.47 A 1-680 NB Off Diablo Road 0.54 A 0.59 A 1-680 SB Off EI Cerro Boulevard 0.47 A 0.55 A 1-680 NB Off EI Cerro Boulevard 0.73 C 0.50 A San Ramon Railroad Avenue 0.38 A 0.46 A Unincorporated Danville Boulevard Stone Valley 0.77 C 1.08 F CCC 1-680 SB Off Stone Valley 0.49 A 0.59 A 1-680 NB Off Stone Valley 0.53 A 0.46 A Blackhawk Road Camino Tassajara 0.36 A 0.37 A 1-680 NB Off Uvoma Road 0.41 A 0.31 A 1-680 SB Off Livonia Road 0.34 A 0.34 A Most intersections of routes of regional significance in the Tri-Valley area operate at LOS D or better. LOS D is generally considered to be an acceptable operating condi- tion for major intersections. All but one intersection meet this criteria in the AM peak hour. The exception is Vasco/I-580 EB Off-Ramp (LOS F). During the PM peak hour three intersections operate at Level of Service E or F: Vasco/I-580 WB Off, Vasco/I-580 EB Off, and Danville/Stone Valley. Tri-Valley Bicycle Network The bicycle network in Tri-Valley consists of three different types of bicycle facilities: bicycle paths (Class I), bicycle lanes (Class II), and bicycle routes (Class III). A bicycle path is an off-street bicycle facility for the exclusive use of bicycles. These facilities are physically separate from streets or sidewalks. A bicycle lane is a one-way path on the side of a roadway that is specifically signed and striped for bicycle travel. A bicycle route is a shared, either with pedestrians on the sidewalk or with vehicles on the street, bicycle facility on the roadway with no striped designation for bicycle travel. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 21 Existing Transportation Conditions The majority of bicycle facilities in the Tri-Valley area are Class II and Class III bikeways. A few Class I bicycle facilities are available, including the Iron Horse Trail. The Iron Horse Trail is a mixed-use path for pedestrians, bicycles and horses. This trail runs along the Southern Pacific right-of-way between Walnut Creek and Dublin. Figure 2-4 shows the existing bicycle network for the Tri-Valley Area and Figure 2-5 shows the future bicycle network. These networks were defined on the Tri-Valley Bike Plan approved by the TVTC in February 1992. Transit There are several transit options available in the Tri-Valley area. Areawide bus service is provided by local carriers. Dial-a-ride service is also provided for those transit patrons that are unable to utilize regular bus service. Transit services provided by larger Tri-Valley employers augment areawide bus service by either providing special shuttles, as in the case of Bishop Ranch, or by distributing free transit passes as in the case of Hacienda Business Park. Connections to other locations in the Bay Area outside of Tri-Valley are available through the BART Express bus service, which carries patrons to BART stations in Hayward and Walnut Creek. Connections from Stockton to the Tri-Valley area are also available through a subscription bus service. Areawide Bus Service ,. Bus service in the Tri-Valley area is provided by Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCTA), which operates County Connection; Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), which operates WHEELS; and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), which operates the BART Express Buses. County Connection operates scheduled, fixed-route, and dial-a-ride bus service in the suburban portions of Contra Costa County. Three routes serve the Tri-Valley cities of Danville and San Ramon. BART express buses are operated by BART and provide feeder service between park-n- ride lots, business parks, and BART stations. BART operates six routes in the Tri- Valley, serving the Bayfair and Walnut Creek BART stations. WHEELS bus routes, operated by the Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority, provide scheduled, fixed- route, and dial-a-ride bus services to the Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore. Table 2-4 briefly describes the bus routes serving the Tri-Valley, while a more detailed description of existing transit service is included in the Appendix. Trip Reduction Programs The Tri-Valley area includes two major business parks: Bishop Ranch in San Ramon and Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton. Both of these parks have trip reduction programs. The City of San Ramon oversees the program in Bishop Ranch. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 22 �s W N o> d, G1 v\.�O -o WOO .n * ' 4 2 T -�nernr� SYl \e y 3�N3tl,r. Ga N sIn N O Ic O j u 11 :J • r\ Vp dby �( Y o�{{ i �711i 4tlQ �3 �V 6y G 400 %00- to co v r � �C t cc u 3 W CD O ` ah5� I / I P tU O 1 z � _ w} QO z to gP is rr`, Nyf N \ _3QV V N ✓ C 0 11 vAdOM p RD as �.� 00 MEjri li II ii DOLCi 1 lD 1 1 1 r . , LAJ V u d a tC0 � A 4 � I 4cCIO Rt OD too oa In 10 0 -0 ul Cl) 0 Q. 0 cro qlm� -77- 4j� r-4 0100 000�\ A eq C6 4) Jl col i • CID (P u"1 � ' rn soma Q � Lr! :d 3ivnr�33r O = ✓)` Q NE as OJStra ,r" W 01 WWIA CC CL tf�•" i z j 111 i 1I ` .,,.. w = l Ar T?�yryl Y Oa NO NT-D 00 - itl r 1 K d Z w w > Et c C+ 304 0 3 _ a p z o` VAdOk \� I)OUGHER RD 1� Go \\II L 101 A� I! It it +i �0� , �\\I07 ,cc � _E 4Qo ca C13 A 1 c 00 cis d o c to m I c c � c E E CD (j I coo coo � cv i N m � I 01 O G1 m m m m m C C E E E E E E E E co 0 E con o M Ln 'x 0 a c o a og' m a to 'gy m cYv y r_ z &= > m N N N a 0 O O N O O N N N N N N N a 0 LL an d m Ow O m m m m m m m m N O m O O O O d C C G C C C C C C C G C C C G G C G G G G G c EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE C 00 00000000 000000 0000 00 CV) m toCnwmwCV) ODm NMtoC' mCD mCV) C') N Cl) CD d C •� O 0 c = _ iA N O •` Q 2 m s a aQ CCB Y c �� Q ¢ 2 ¢ 4) 4) � ' G ev Q) m m 2 0 d d CD $' $' •$' $' mm mmmmUU c a c G O c c c >. cc O = > > mcg e° �0 �0e° cc c � c � civ c c c o t�'S.�- - w cc cc J J d id iv Q O O 1 e—v i d Z mm Z ev m — ~ N C H m m :2 -0 m M CL N N Q N N rr Q N N mCr rn H c p c Q c c t c c c mm m e = c m -r eNv m aaJm CO M O m O ev m r m ev m m ev m m OU m E N E c' >. H y _ m 'am Smm Dmd C — � � � ; •cNm vv c� G 'c� O C F R+ ev a cv C cv evp ea $ ev U- � 3J sa > a s J M CL 06s2J2cn2 (� 31+ W E m C140 *k CS; QI N 0 4C' I Y °' V � N oZ � a xJa x J cc VQ V � � Z JAN c7 1[' W � � r � m » » OC Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 25 Existing Transportation Conditions Bishop Ranch The Bishop Ranch Business Park operates a shuttle that provides two types of service—a commuter service and a convenience/shopping service. The commuter service runs from the Walnut Creek BART Station to Bishop Ranch. This service is provided exclusively for employees of tenants of Sunset Development Corporation. (This service is not available to Chevron, Pacific Bell, or AT&T employees.) This service operates with 20-minute headways from 5:30 AM to 9:30 AM and from 3:30 PM to 6:10 PM. Average weekday ridership is 250 patrons per day. The convenience/shopping service runs from Bishop Ranch to Crow Canyon Commons, Diablo Plaza, and Marketplace Plaza (commercial/retail centers in the area). This service is provided for employees of tenants of Sunset Development Corporation and employees of Pacific Bell. This service operates with 10-minute headways from 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM. Average weekday ridership is 40 patrons per day. Both shuttle services are provided free of charge. In addition to the shuttle service, Bishop Ranch provides other transportation services. The transportation center is linked with the RIDES Bay Area ridesharing commuter network and two full-time employees are available to assist potential carpool/vanpool riders get matched. Other services provided by Bishop Ranch include the sale of local transit tickets, promotional events, a preferential parking program, and bicycle facilities. Bishop Ranch has been offering transportation services for over eight years. The Bishop Ranch shuttle has operated near or at capacity since it began. Other types of commute modes are monitored by Bishop Ranch, and percentages of drive-alone trips have decreased in the past year, while percentages of carpool, vanpool, and other non-single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips have increased. Hacienda Business Park Hacienda Business Park maintains two transit contracts--one with BART and one with WHEELS—that allow employees of Hacienda Business Park to ride free. Participation in the BART program generates approximately 150 patrons per day. Participation in the WHEELS program runs approximately 160 patrons per day and has increased by more than 100 percent since 1990, according to John Deaver at the Hacienda Business Park Owners'Association. Hacienda Business Park also provides to its employees preferential parking for carpools and vanpools and connections on-site, through FAX and phone, to the RIDES Bay Area ridesharing commuter network. Trip Reduction/Travel Demand Management.Ordinances All Tri-Valley cities and counties have trip reduction ordinances in compliance with CMP requirements and Regulation 13 of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. These are targeted at major employers with the intention of reducing peak- hour trip-making. Many employers have employee commute coordinators, who monitor Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 26 Existing Transportation Conditions trip-making and encourage alternatives to driving alone during peak hours. Typical incentives include ridesharing-matching services, preferential parking for carpools, and flexible or staggered work hours. Existing Mode Split The mode split for commute trips in the Tri-Valley area in 1990 was estimated using the Tri-Valley Transportation Model. The existing estimated mode split is 79 percent drive-alone trips, 4 percent transit trips, and 17 percent carpools. This calculates to an average vehicle ridership of 1.15 persons per car for peak-hour commute trips. Driveway counts done by the City of Pleasanton in the Hacienda Business Park indicate an average vehicle occupancy of 1.12, which supports the calculations of the model. Existing Travel Patterns The Tri-Valley presently has about 11,000 more employed residents than local jobs (see Table 2-5). Hence, it is an area of net out-commuting. However, even areas with a perfect job-housing balance experience out-commuting by some residents and in- commuting by others. Figure 2-6 shows that 58 percent of total PM peak-hour trips in Tri-Valley involve internal trips, 20 percent are external to internal (out-commuters returning home), 20 percent are internal to external (in-commuters leaving their jobs), and 2 percent are through trips. "Internal" trips are defined as those with both trip ends in the Tri- Valley. For persons working in Tri-Valley but living elsewhere the major residence locations are other Contra Costa County cities and other Alameda County cities. Also, 17 percent live in the Central Valley. For Tri-Valley residents that work elsewhere, the major destinations are again other Alameda County cities and other Contra Costa County cities. Table 2-5 Jobs-Housing Balance Employed Residents 122,882 Jobs 111,651 Source: ABAG Projections 90. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 27 v' Y Figure 2-6 1990 TOTAL TRIPS BY TYPE PM PEAK HOUR EXTERNAL l0 EXTERNAL EXTERNAL TO INTERNAL (2,21) (19.91) INTERNAL TO EXTERNAL (20.21) .. ... INTERNAL TRIPS (57.81) TRIPS FROM TRI-VALLEY TO- OTHER BAY AREA CENTRAL VALLEY (4.61) (17.21) OTHER CONTRA COSTA CO. (36.71) SANTA CLARA CO. (3.51) (38.01) OTHER ALAMEDA CO V C v. m TRIPS TO TRI-VALLEY FROM cc OTHER BAY AREA �C.) (8.81) CENTRAL VALLEY OTHER CONTRA COSTA CO. N (9.71) (27.51) SANTA CLARA CO. C (11.11) !c _ '...... V Q .:: 7 .............. : .. " C OTHER ALAMEDA CO. C (42.81) 400 L_ Source: Tri—Valley Transportation Model m f.� f �t t i 1 i �SpS ��yes1 ppa ,s z a i- l l �k l r 3. Goals and Transportation Service Objectives In accordance with Action Plan guidelines and in accordance with the policies of the Alameda County Transportation Plan, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council should adopt the following goals for routes of regional significance in the Tri-Valley. a • Improve safety • Manage congestion • Enhance mobility -o Provide and encourage the use of alternatives to single-occupant auto use �p • Coordinate local land use planning and regional transportation planning ' 4• Integrate transportation planning with concerns relating to air quality, community character and other environmental factors According to Action Plan guidelines, these goals are to be achieved through the specification and monitoring of Transportation Service Objectives (TSOs). TSOs are quantifiable measures of effectiveness that establish a standard for evaluating transportation system effectiveness. Preliminary TSOs were presented to the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) in February 1993. After discussion and subsequent modification, the TSOs were approved by the TVTC in March 1993. The following list presents the approved ISOs. One or more will be applied to each regional route, different routes may have different TSOs. Link Levels of Service (LOS). LOS no worse than E (V/C = 0.99) on freeways and ramps during the peak hours based on traffic counts. This represents a very busy condition, but speeds would still be near the limit. For freeways, this corresponds to the existing CMP standards. For arterials, the LOS standard is D on a link basis. These are also subject to an intersection LOS standard. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 29 t.. Goals and Transportation Service Objectives Hours of Congestion. LOS E conditions on I-580 for no more than two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. LOS E on I-680 for no more than four hours in the morning and four hours in the evening. Given the gateway constraints dis- cussed in Chapter 5, this is the best the plan can achieve. Intersection Levels of Service. LOS no worse than D (V/C = 0.90) for signalized intersections during peak hours. The methodology is the VCCC program, which is based on critical movement analysis, with adjustments to raw model output turning movements. This is the standard to which all Tri-Valley jurisdictions presently adhere. Tri-Valley Gateways. I-580 Over Altamont Pass and I-680. No increase in capacity for single-occupant passenger vehicles. Widening of gateways would cause the Tri-Valley area to be negatively affected by interregional traffic. (See Chapter 7 for a complete discussion of this issue.) Crow Canyon Road (Castro Valley to San Ramon) and Vasco Road (north of Livermore). Provide the best travel time possible within the constraint of a two-lane cross-section. For environmental and policy reasons, these roads should not be widened through 2010, but improvements are needed. Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR). On average, reduce the number of vehicles used for commute trips. This has air quality as well as traffic benefits. The Average Vehicle Ridership is a measure recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Their recommended goal is AVR = 1.35 for the Tri-Valley by 1999. The current AVR is about 1.15. Transit Travel Times. Transit travel times must be competitive with auto travel times in order to attract riders. Transit travel time should be reduced through the provision of more frequent service, more express service versus local service, with high-occupan- cy vehicle lanes, and with ramp metering and HOV bypass lanes. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 30 Baseline Forecasts c : t i . t a. Baseline Forecasts Chapter Summary • Baseline forecasts representing ABAG Projections '90 land use data are required for Action Plans. • The baseline forecasts do not reflect current land use or network planning by the TVTC. • The planned, baseline transportation system would be inadequate to support the 2010 baseline growth levels. The baseline traffic forecasts are for the years 2000 and 2010. They are based on land use projections from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)Projections '90. Land use adjustments between individual zones were made to reflect discussions with local staff. The overall total dwelling units and jobs projections for the Tri-Valley were not altered. The assumed road network was based on input from the member jurisdic- tions of the TVTC as of 1992. This chapter describes the model inputs and the-traffic forecasts and their impact on the road system. Baseline forecasts presented in this chapter are mandated by CCTA as part of the action planning process to insure consistency with ABAG projections throughout the County. However, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) no longer supports the projections presented in this chapter. The TVTC defined their expectations for land use and network projections, which are presented in Chapter 5. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 31 Baseline Forecasts Land Use Forecasts The land use forecasts used in the baseline traffic estimates are based on ABAG Projections '90 (see Table 4-1). Minor modifications were made to the ABAG data to shift some future houses and jobs between jurisdictions, but the Tri-Valley land use totals are within one percent of the ABAG forecasts. Note that ABAG forecasts are not constrained by infrastructure availability or political viability. The 2010 land use forecasts do not represent buildout of the Tri-Valley area, as specified by each jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, the forecasts represent likely absorption rates for new houses and businesses between now and 2010. Network AssurnWhons Staff from the Tri-Valley jurisdictions outlined the future road network assumptions as of 1992 (see Figure 4-1). The major criterion that was considered when including a particular improvement in the future road network was whether that improvement was likely to be constructed by 2000 or 2010. Not all of the future road network is currently funded. This is discussed further in Chapter 7. - The improvements to state highways included in the future road networks were shown in the MTC 1991 Regional Transportation Plan and are either fully or partially funded. These include high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on I-680, auxiliary lanes on I-680, a southbound-to-eastbound flyover ramp at the I-58011-680 interchange, and widening of Route 84. Also in the category of regional improvements, the 2010 network included the extension of BART service to East Dublin/Pleasanton. The local road widenings and extensions included in the future networks are all included in local general plans and are all funded or expected to be funded by 2010. Many are anticipated to be funded with impact fees on new development or will be built by developers to serve their development projects. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 32 CO O O N P, to N a Mm cm w p OI t0 o ? c ? N �- O O M O� O tOCfO{ N �I cm cm CD O !? Iq N Co �I O r CO Ln r N O O r lw r- r N M N O� O H O 01 to to O O O O O O C C f0 O c f� Q O (? t0 �� CO a N r- CO N V— N M O E N W O M N V O O O N W 30 N h O V— e- r M O Ln N 11Y CD tl� O CD O M PI N N N V- CO CO N w 1- C7 O M V- t0 r O r O O M OOf V- W T- O O O COO O O cq O �O N C7 O �O r r CO 1- N Co O N r r N V- N M r i O v V- w N O v w M Ln N f*� 1A f-- O Co C N co N V Ci W m Q ^ N 0 O OM m T- VW. - CD — 8V O N N. v O to O Co c P 0 CO V c M � � r � CO COI sn m n � V- O to O a! N N N N N � to IVO w CD O f O N M a0l O p� O CR Co O N L aD Q N M WN 2 N LA C O tC f� CO O V M r- CO 1A r- O CO CO a N ^ V- A co N CD O N N N N V m 3 V- Q Q m CO Co ppm v- Ln a pp P- M N W PP O W Q N ^ V- V- CO M N N r O la r ca Q1 O N 10A N r N V INAI to lop! �? .- r r V r f- 1A C� �O r !A O co CO df N U. C C !O t � a cc :1.' m a8 E m '. I.. Cc C7cc > > � c c c � � g C 9 'tm O -0 O O J m m 0 W E E Z -j o CDQ t e0 �_ Ail N � J t %- > QQ~f 0 Co C N L E N dD cc cc m m E Z t .�. O1 Z � m < acc1°n � � Sc� w3aac� zcRS � - � Batton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 33 Uk' Ul d Z-1 O t� (00 ,, �.., T ✓ d O iia u T • G N tot '* N d 1 O 1 d � d \ cD d d � N b � ✓ O � � N t a 0 p O N O O • 'p 'Q N ` a o, c c r � � d � 0 0 0 �" d er :% d 3 •0 0 • cc OD low t d r io co Baseline Forecasts Traffic Forecasts The 2010 baseline forecasts show substantial growth in traffic volumes on Tri-Valley roads. Figure 4-2 shows traffic forecasts for several critical roadways. Plots showing traffic forecasts for all Tri-Valley roads are included in the Technical Appendix of the Tri-Valley Transportation Model report(Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., July 1993). If these traffic increases occur as predicted, without road widenings and additions beyond the baseline network, severe congestion will result(see Figure 4-3). Congested locations are defined as freeways with a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of more than 1.0 (volume exceeds capacity) and arterial streets with V/C greater than 0.90 (volume equals 90 percent of capacity or more). Figure 4-3 shows that by 2010 almost all regional routes would be congested. In many cases the predicted V/C ratio is greater than 1.0. In reality, the volume can never exceed capacity. However, the traffic model reports demand volume (how many vehicles would like to use the road in the peak). When V/C ratios greater than 1.0 are shown, this means that "peak spreading" would occur. "Peak spreading" means that congested conditions would last longer than an hour. The effects of peak spreading are addressed more rigorously in the expected forecasts (Chapter 5). Intersection Levels of Service Intersection levels of service (LOS) were calculated using traffic model-generated turning movements and the VCCC program (see Table 4-2). Future year lane configurations were based on input from individual jurisdictions. The intersection analysis included 85 locations. Only two or three intersections are congested under existing conditions. Congestion is defined as LOS E or F. During the PM peak hour, the number of congested intersections would rise to 14 by the year 2000 and 36 by the year 2010, according to the baseline forecasts. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 35 N Cl) L'- Ul J . o 1 „ p'\J o 0 ,:% .? V. Ul 0 SNOW U.2 C N CD ga \ J Y i � Q \ Q os Z �r� t £ \ 41 `� oa C VN3tl my i M d � o00 QO`� �Q pp o �kw i O t Ctld o �, s Cpr`tib 0 i� co N ;^ N V� ou- ad000 p° 1U U 2 ppp, ea ern U- ♦! op8"lv ) c u G 4 .91, CG d t CD Q y & D► ✓�'�� � � g 15 53WlOr+ 0 009 Z2 t4o is 03 0 Ali ro Qj '7 u ac t�\�d -.a vt3,aanry z 44 Ro \ ` ca Z c ;64 00 O W O oa „orne p rx rsfs O 1 N oo £ � i OS 9£ a 0 d)- a � � + QN fc `� .•cry V d G r+ to to +0 CD Q �, 7 ►' v010 � � >' 110\ % Cdr_ ol U.13,1 W N � c� t"a d O Ul ,J \ � � ?e�5Y1 ONpYbJ T p R _ p G 193 vol uJ v Y � d n 3oN3aMri ��GM£Pt+ ,� O 4 � fbV woo C c ` / a Vol 0 ,,i�.a MSR► .a 1'� d`�y E., O 4 0 c c' o Z. u. \ U.u V r',a Q �C.�\'G as 311M30D Z. © 4 O r,,SVA O O „ter cr 0� os Ul // p co0ao W a 2 N � 4 i l5 i.f,vlQH „ypwa3N1 " •r ? i -; vt3inann v hb 13� oa rw""v� co a� 1e ANMap� L c�`t� Cid � Z W / W a on "oTroj o IX o 1 c \ at, ratirYSSri 1r a o � V ) > N 7. G J Va 304 as a c o C W u , 6 � (30 4.0 600 •� � a ter d > A D 1 O C j Cl) w m w a LL LL w w ¢ a Q m LL w LL Q m LL LL LL c a o a CL J O O N U > CD 0 in � m w W r- W CO r- Ln Ln P CA in 1 CA CV) N Ln CD v CD r� 0) CD 0) Ln W Na) a) Ln L") v w C? 0) O W �D N v) V) m Ln CO Q O O CD O C *- C C O O 0 0 0 0 O N 0 0 0 0 LL m U U W W Q U W Q U m U U LL Q a LL U LL U m m Q W J O N CO O O v M O N r- M NV M O O V Ln W W W M M O CO i� M 0) CO f- CD C? 1� CQ r- r� O LA Ln C? P% N r, CO CO Ln Cn �- C O O C 0 0 0 0 0 C O C:j O 6 0 W 0 V- 0 0 0 0 0 b. O 0 a U m 0 U a a Q ¢ m a Q U G Q G W Q W Q Q Q ¢ m J O S X Y w V O Q N CA O CD CO Lf f O CO CA r r. m M Ln CO O w v > CD LA r LO CC! r-� C? Ln Ln C? CO Ln N f-� GD C? CD C1 q C7> N LA LA LAI CD 4) C C O O O O O A 0 0 C) O O O O O C C O CD O O O O 0 i 12 N m N d m c « o Con S , , m g mm Q m m � � m � a`� � C� m e a ¢ m m eo m e d t c 0 0 3 c c o c c 0 eo w m m o w 3 w J > 0 m 3 V O E a o 0 0 o y < o > > > > > c o o °LA H ao °LA c� 0 °Lc� °' o L9 Ln caQcoaccm aa _ cn � J _ _ _ _ 3uwUws O m _ d ¢ > `° o c m c 0 L° m r m LO J c cc I cc cc I cc e� y �c m � m coo m L� CO E E a a � a d ee Z Lv to m cc cc 0 D 2 c m CO cc m R 0 c 0 � J J � H � � J w to 2 .. N ¢ ¢ o� a s .4 0� m t r m m m = c m L m N c c L=° ea F co E r r •E r7S 0 m # tS E 3 0 0 0 > > � e� o ea O to 0 0 > 8acc >' � Zz � i � � > z > > = zii c cy c m m v o Z Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 38 r ; f' O O U W W W m a LL U W Q LL Q U a LL LL O Q LL Q Q W LL LL LL r N i U i IV qe W t- 0 r- r- O O — W M v v of r M Ln M V M N W N to LD LD r' O Of O fD m Orl.: O et O M S It I7 O q 'T O UA Ln q — O O O O O O O O O V- O O o V- 0 0 0 V- V- o o r- 0 M o Q O O O O D U U U m O Q m a m Q m O U Q O Q a O LL O Q i O N � U N w 0 M V Ln r' M N O O W M m O W M V- Q 0 r- O Cl C! q q f` P-t tt r-t Cr C1 w c0 M r- v cc co co cr) CO Ln LA 0) O m w 3 O C O O O O O O C o O O o O O o o O C O O C O O O c y.+ O V I 2 N .X Y W U cc co r` vs Ln co M co rn LA o 0 o rn W M 0 0 V r W O 0 O •- d Ln N c0 v, Ln Ln t0 Ln q c0 q Ln q v, N It r' r' q LA M q r*.� q Ln q !Q. O O C O O O C C O C O O O o o O O O C O O O O C C O i r � m � C to sn '2 T ' N C Ln o O o > > 2 2 > > > m O O O � s05 o Q m C ul m O U) > > > > > > > CL >. Q G� QL m M m Q] N m m O � � m L� aQmaaa $ $ m � 9 -90 5 W H J 'C W J W _p _p W > 'C 'C 'C C J ' U CI co to 0 C O N Cf G E C C O C C C C y C N L Lc� Ln � 3 ` v� "� 3 > > L" mmmc'nv'� '_�'' CCcocococo 05 t� O > P v Lp LO Lv J m o ¢ 0 0 0 0 0 LALs Q .. Q CC t O C °° -2 La 'LEPL ¢ = � Commmo = ¢co z Cl) z09Z °C � a> cn env L>a ed ea H >`°. >. >, >. 0 0 0 o e° N N Lv r C o o .. m asn � z � i � N808W > n L w c CMC � C � m � � Hm U a �- 0 ¢ Q LL a LL U Q m a U W w m a U LL LL Q w CD N W f` N V- O 1` 00 COpp N M O Ln Ln 00 v w LO Ln N Q7 to 00 Ln Ln Ln DD v t` co Ln c°S Ln P O O co N P. N O Ln f\ f*- Ln Ln O C o C O 0 0 o O "- 0 0 0 C O o O C C r O Q Q LL U c Q Q o m Q to o CO Q w LL Q Q LL Q m Q LL p J O N � U cr) OD 0 m r- c0 o in Ln Qf 2Ln � o ch Ln Of Ln V et 0 o co IV IW f` 00 Ln CO w OD M f0 OD LO Lh C1 V- LA Ln O Ln Co Ln o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o - C o o C O V ft.wii Cl) a Q o m Q U Q m a U Q a a a o LL a ¢ U m a ¢ ¢ o of �' J x ..be w U c Co O f` v- Ln r O Ln f` t0 LO 1` V Cl f� co (7) 0 f\ 0 an Ln Ln m w Q w w w f` Q 0 w r, 0 m N O OD O Ln of P LO L•7 lll� 't 00 a O C C C O O C O C O C O O C C C O C C O O C c O O C O 'R ' O C Ccc O cc Q O O cr e0 Q O O e0 m m N m m C C 0 C C C m m C C C H C m 01 e0 cc e0 m C O 0 Q Oi U >, M ? M O 0 m >Q >Q >$ > Qm O mQ O m Cs U N cr o U U ma :C U OD �, g U N O O > > > C C c O C O V c 3 3 c 3 rn 3 c c ; O N �' c c c ev ets eo ea cBUZUmU $ $ UO0Da� UU `S $ $ inco000co0cno O ego M c �, � ego .OJ > > m m C > c o > 1° .9? > O m m m m m m a m m m m m > m in mz ¢ M N � ¢ cncncoz r ¢ mz — cnzQcn gaz g v Lm8 CM22 x °0 °8 8 °f8 � � � La eo °LSc°S Loig Lts LviB m CO — CO Q Q rn _ s _ s m > _ C _ C d cQ N Cccl E � N c N m U C O i 0 m m U u. m Q 0 ti J O O N U cc ca ca V: q 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m U U U Q Q C J O O N dowk U c0 c0 f� GD to to q C C O C O G O O c C O U 0 a Q a a Q a a a 0 x Y w CO > � q � LQ uoi rV v d0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r df N P v �• > > m m m C e° > > m Q m ¢ o o m a8 o o < cc 0 2 CC '— U o o 2 otU U coea J Ja W 5 m W W Q cw O d d m m m m wzcozz (1) 65 aoo 0 Co 0 0 0 d c i C NccC H x != m U Baseline Forecasts Travel Pattern The results of the traffic model show that the Tri-Valley will continue to experience out-commuting and in-commuting. Overall, the baseline forecasts show 18,000 more employed residents than jobs, which would reinforce the Tri-Valley's existing pattern of net out-commuting. Table 4-3 Jobs Versus Workers (Baseline Growth Forecasts) Year Jobs Workers 1990 111,651 122,882 2000 160,420 167,826 2010 202,887 221,431 Figure 4-4 shows that the traffic model predicts 63 percent of the trips will be internal in 2010, compared to 50 percent today. The other 37 percent of trips will be primarily in-commuting (16 percent) and out-commuting(18 percent). Only four percent of trips during commute hours will be through trips (traffic from other areas passing through the Tri-Valley). However, this four percent looms large on some parts of the freeway system. Using the Tri-Valley Transportation Model, 2010 peak-hour through trips were estimated to range from 15 percent on I-680, to 20 percent on I-580 through Tri- Valley, to 40 percent over the Altamont Pass. For persons working in the Tri-Valley but living elsewhere, the major residence locations will be other Contra Costa County cities, other Alameda County cities, and the Central Valley. For persons living in the Tri-Valley but working elsewhere, the major job locations will be in other Alameda County cities. To a lesser extent, some will work in other Contra Costa County cities or in Santa Clara County. Mode Split The existing mode split in Tri-Valley involves 4 percent transit use for peak-hour commute trips, and that is not expected to change in the baseline 2010 forecasts. Table 4-4 shows the mode split estimated by the traffic model. The model predicts the drive-alone percentage to increase slightly. This conclusion is based on MTC-derived assumptions about the costs of driving, which are assumed to keep pace with inflation. Transit and carpool usage are highly dependent on driving costs and travel times. Relative travel costs and time between drive-alone and other modes are not expected Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 42 Figure 4-4 2010 TOTAL TRIPS BY TYPE PM PEAK HOUR EXTID"M TO EXTERML 7 E7TTEI7NAL ro W/ERNAL (4.2X) (17.8X) Alub f. 7o EVERW (15.5X) .•.•. . •�•�•i•�•�•i•�•�•i WmgW 7RfPS �•.•.•.•.•.•.•.• (62.8X) • TRIPS FROM TRI-VALLEY TOI 07WR CONTRA COSTA CO. CENTRAL VAUEY (35.3X (20.0X) 07NER BAY AREA (3.8X) ...... .......... SAMA CIARA CO. (4.5X) 071CR AL40EDA CO. (38.4X) CV C CD TRIPS TO TRI-VALLEY FROM 0" cc CENTRAL VALLEY •0 OTHER CONTRA COSTA CO (8.4X) OTHER BAY AREA O (24.7X) (7.9X) ca ... CID ....... .... •••• SANTA CLARA CO. C :' (12.4%) E r U wi 11 11 1 11 c 111 � OTHER ALAWMA CO. Source: Tri—Valley Transportation Model Baseline Forecasts to change through 2010. BART will attract substantial ridership but will not cause a significant mode shift. Table 4-4 Mode Split for PM Peak Hour, Home-Based Work Trips (Baseline Forecasts) Percent Usage Mode 1990 2000 2010 Drive-Alone 76% 80% 80% 2-Person Carpool 15% 12% 12% 3+ Person Carpool 5% 4% 4% Transit 4% 4% 4% 100% 100% 100% Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 43 t- r i Y t r i 4 , Expected Forecasts i Y t t � r r s t f i t F t i t t i r 1' 5. Expected Forecasts Chapter Summary • Job and housing growth is projected to be 99 percent and 84 percent, respectively. Jobs and housing would be in balance within the Tri-Valley. This would minimize, but not eliminate, in-commuting and out-commuting. • Highway gateways to the area (I-680 north and south, I-580 over Altamont Pass, and Vasco Road) would be overloaded given the demand. • Unacceptable levels of service would also occur on I-580 between Tassajara Road and North Livermore Avenue and at 13 signalized intersections. • Transit mode share would not change appreciably from existing conditions, despite the BART extension. • Average vehicle ridership would not change appreciably from existing conditions. • Through traffic on the freeways would remain at 15 to 20 percent. The baseline forecasts were prepared to satisfy CCTA guidelines, and they are compatible with ABAG Projections '90. However, there were several jurisdictions dissatisfied with the land use forecasts, which did not reflect general plan amend- ments approved after 1992. Also, the 2010 transportation network assumed in the baseline forecasts did not reflect current planning. This led to the development of the "expected"scenario, which reflects each jurisdiction's most accurate prediction of 2010 land use totals and network expectations. This chapter describes the results of expected traffic forecasts using the Tri-Valley Traffic Model. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 45 r- i Expected Forecasts Land Use Forecasts The land use forecasts used in the expected traffic projections are based on informa- tion provided by the member jurisdictions of the TVTC (see Table 5-1). The 2010 land use forecasts do not represent buildout of the Tri-Valley area, as specified by the jurisdiction's general plan, nor do they represent ABAG projections. Rather, the forecasts represent each jurisdiction's estimate of absorption rates for new houses and businesses through 2010. The "expected" forecasts show an increase in both housing and employment from that assumed under"baseline" forecasts discussed in the previous chapter. The "baseline" forecasts assume a 78 percent and 82 percent increase in housing and employment, respectively, between 1990 and 2010. Under the "expected" forecast, the increase would be 84 and 99 percent, respectively. The reason for the increase is that Contra Costa County, Alameda County, Dublin, and Livermore had passed general plan amendments that were not reflected in the baseline forecasts. Overall, "expected" forecasts balance employed residents to employment. 1990 land use data shows a slight imbalance with 122,882 employed residents and 111,656 jobs. The "expected" forecasts increase employment at a greater rate than housing resulting in 224,733 employed residents and 222,024 jobs. Network Assumptions Staff from the Tri-Valley jurisdictions outlined the future road network assumptions. These network assumptions are shown in Table 5-2 and Figure 5-1. The major criterion that was considered when including a particular improvement in the future road network was whether that improvement was likely to be constructed by 2010. Not all of the future road network is currently funded. See Chapter 7 for a further discussion of the unfunded portions. The local mad widening and extension projects included in the future network are all included in local general plans and are all funded or expected to be funded by 2010. Many are expected to be funded with impact fees on new development or will be built by developers to serve their projects. The key transit improvement in the Tri-Valley is the extension of BART to Dub- lin/Pleasanton with two local stations. Local WHEELS mutes will be rerouted to serve the BART stations and create transit centers with timed transfers between modes. WHEELS and County Connection mutes are also rerouted and augmented to serve new development areas in the expected network: North Livermore, East Dublin, and Tassajara Valley. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 46 i fl co i m i r 0 �t r •�- N n p c r 0~9 r N r O tD O try N r' 4 In O sc � � V � V) 0 act 'c! r 1 N r to r --f ti cc tri In r r N to In r r E W N N O ow W O r rIn o a, O 2 ;; I r O . tt) p r O N N N � r Lfl cqr O r O N t�j t8 In M t_Q 01 W C tc0 03 tiQ In r r N f 17 N r r r r �rry i7f Of 0) N 1n N Fl 1n �O} Cal y� 1 W O r) Off- In � c N to- to, ONp O N N r N V Q r O � N V N { m Of Of Of N to N to ie O Ct to � O of I � tp tp C7 h O O N h� 47 N a: r tD O c tl Of i>D t!7 tC ttf tV a! N O NN 4 h+ r tt W � r r r N E 4 1n IM r N CO Of N �- Mn �kyp W 00 i! tOD- O N - I- t(0 001 eco r I r IS N In m tV r N 'wn tin N 1n h d ti in +^ O C0�9 r O to t!3 N CO In en N O O Co Q f� t0 -T O co f` *f` M N N !On r r !Q tgo ccccWCYtof- r t0 OD m N til O N cpm N N QD .pp O 4 0 r O 40 1%: N! `4 1 O r x C W 0 to Cm W1 IV a Ln 00) @ r- O ~W ~ 1W 0 YO? 0 t00 Go O to v N r � O IT CD t0 C &a tD tV Of G7 M N .N- N 0 r Lfl tD Of to r O 'roc 04 N In tD Chi Cif r r V m ham+ co t0 to ttS � � n r r r U. q _ 10 L � lt) Q! F • � { 'C V- d C } } r C C CC ECL C F� C D C J O cc CID Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 47 x `+ a a a a a a a a m a a a a a a a a a a R p a w o a Ov to to N 40 v e, V w 0 w v N O m > > $ � o N a o a Qa R � 4Q to v N v N v v N v to 4O N N N N Q Q 7 ` N $to 0 U cc m ' m c 8 c ; to o, to A c = > �o e`o m ¢ 9 1 > m CL s U m ¢ I �18 IL w r x B 5 p to > O 5 5 W 10 a ac cl is x to m �, s to �' W �� _� 18 35Uv 3 3 m H 0 U. d E 2 uj O � O E & 0 � =CC r CC o we .2 COE > a cc Li Q O Z W _ _ 2 H ti > G O O is Z O N .0 m CMo � W o S CM W O O O to to t` O 5 5 E a $ $ Q T T _ m Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 48 0 o o 0 0 SIR g g m w < w s � g Rj N l m t�0 � U N N N v .4 U N N Cciv vvcvv N o � a V v E m d m CC d c 0 a CL < cc C S 0 W o m -0 m 1101 d E m CL o � � � � 3 � c Z o m g o � N � m V m g' c • ggg � m C; ' N o W LuLULJ S • w p 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 c �R 40 w co lw w .q E TL `o `m o a s a a a a a a a a a < < a < < a a o m R o cm o o v o c c CM c It c c< E C • � � � N � � � t0 t0 a Cl)!9 V N t0 V t0 a 8 U N 4C o � a G• � � N a N N N N N N N M N O N N N a $ o :+ a� a In 0 m E 0 m z V I �+ ° q o o > m > m C I a m € € b e a 1 O > m CL U m w aoo $ o °W £ 9U E 0 m ' ` 0 0�a c es a La > r d . E co am > E jos moo ° � i ` m m g g a� 1 S m $' Eo E o IL CYAn g 'gY � > 27n cnou� 'R > d Z C N L 0 m N mm C? C;w < W a {L a ca `d X Q Q p to = E I E @E@ V V Zf a o oo 0 m D m WI Q Ifmf t� r 1 O m O OO D D O � 'a . . . p p M c Ri �o co co v v roE E co 0 E J c4 CD 8 S 0 m Z a a aa a s a a a a s a a o O O O O H O • . o g 0 O O o R to to a It v to v It v a v a: V? � � O C r < p N R V N V N N ' U O / V %ft/ a N m � � m p � V cc co `° m m ego Q i`o z � ¢ Oo Q cc m jr QCL cc fff QQ c2 x Q c ¢ 9 ; m ¢ $' cl E 1 ¢ W � � � t m m U U .oQ � Q� c v c U m c `o o c m o m 8 ` 8 8co � nSinw `O � � a � c� � Ivo a na d o � o a m E mCL C2 � o o m i 2 = 3 > 2 m � 3 ¢ a co cd 0 0 co cc E - �a ` E m ms g a e, U 4 r _ m LL � Z m � o � w CD o N b. 2 N 01 O < O • m c a a C Q� c v m L J J �L U i `N 2 V) e0 1C C C C C a W a! ; O ¢ ; O O ¢ ¢ O H >- clm mm > 33 om 3 mLL 0 0 m d y o C , N A 0 v d C 10d Q � o � � mmm CL m � a x m m m E W fm M, PIE $ d � � m O � Z w Q� Cc c V m LL �l83Soc� Z 0 T O ' N C a C N e cc W W c cc 709 NOS mHm C c U m O Cp fWSit 1W ('S w to) aCC o J° \� CC Z a Sv , d A c flG,d Cl) O 2 \ a ulo Ul \ CL \ W i N S 0 � a o p � Oa ,t37n„� n,55rt c \ _ u � 33N3tl MY1 ONER� 11 It \ © _ 0 • J �O 0 C J y Q ' 0 6 a r ti O1 CP �:,, 0 OD \t a ua T � pZ as 3nytt33aa a. tr N Q V \ 9 e4 p J 4 ult K W co � SMI Ys 4 Y Y Z S Ul tt � 3if�a3Nt 'N is s3rrtox t�,�,� m o l z s �O U Z t O u tt O \ Qa NpANv'l K N /t Do 4j C W ,.., „a Nome � s a tt S� 7 NR CO Zin 3 z • tt Y/.dOM� 00 ..y..d 1p C v a u t♦7 J C � y� U- to tU C Mt � ..3 O O ''L •O co .. co J .. Ci. No cc tu r. Expected Forecasts The expected network also includes nine new express bus routes to connect the Tri- Valley with portions of Contra Costa County, Alameda County, and Santa Clara County that are not served by BART. More details regarding the expected transit network are included in the Appendix. Traffic forecasts The 2010 expected forecasts show substantial growth in traffic demand on Tri-Valley roads. If these traffic increases were to occur, severe congestion would result almost everywhere on the freeway system. Congested locations are defined as freeways with a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of more than 1.0 (volume exceeds capacity) and arterial streets with V/C greater than 0.90 (volume equals 90 percent of capacity or more). Figure 5-2 identifies the 2010 link demand on the regional routes. In many cases the demand-based V/C ratio would be greater than 1.0. This is particu- larly true at the gateways to the area, including I-680 north of Alamo, I-680 through Sunol, the Altamont Pass, and Vasco Road. In reality, the volume,can never exceed capacity. However, the traffic model reports demand volume (how many vehicles would like to use the road in the peak). When V/C ratios greater than 1.0 are shown, this means that "peak spreading" would occur. "Peak spreading" means that congested conditions would last longer than an hour. Based on model projections, many roads in Tri-Valley would be congested for over three hours during the peak period(See Table 5-3). Peak-spreading diagrams are included in the Appendix. Figure 5-3 shows an example. Table 5-3 Year 2010 PM Peak-Hour Expected Forecasts Peak Spreading Gateway Hours of Congestion 1-660 north of Alamo 7 1-680 south.of Route 84 7 1-580 west of Dublin 1 1-580 Altamont Pass 4 Vasco Road north of Uvoma 2 Berton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 54 N Y ) 000 vl- cc r• 4- 0 OS U N Ul O c a. ul 42 Z� r Z �\ 0001Z Oa ryss,1 0 G� R O <j ppb W W' r `Rn 08 $ �ERtt l 30�a Mvi of O 5 300 JG \ 3 N gp0 0 M1 h 0 0 000-P. 2p 05.E � C to j! Ova v � r 'Vvv ` o f- 0 '''' � C h •`~ 7 i ! �`�7y r v 0 as . N " � us CO) Z Z rh o o, H 0 000'1 QQt 021 3111nN33b0 O tr Q Z O O � ~ QOl'Z 021 OJLL srn © V 008'l QOz'1 J'a? �5 0 001 008 o LL LL W < E— LU ✓, xx uiQ. L) Y Q g as OI .� M, r moo' -°o 000'z L)� nr 321023 N Will R LU Z p , 00£'l is s3xr0 V ✓G\ 00 t't O, o /�� �& Y13tbMRp k7 = ♦� ppb 00£'£ ' N ui CC 08 NOON-) p OOS'£ AY 13MI Dot Na LL! 19 a u � Arnwn CL >- Z 1.200 RD 900 w p 0� N017Ye cd o w cd oon C, ^ a c 10 X00 r o v: OOQ'£ — s Gn i,g0 pQt or mrrYssrL �0y,t,�� 006 m d aiT�a� 001% 107 8 Opp.. s 008 K O co '` cis RD 00t � z � RD .. Sri �Qfl cc C o, o m im N � � \ N t� Ul o- \ \ s � a d a p Q o CD baa G � � o O d pO,J 2 d p oo a4 0 po ow pu�w d a' G w f� Expected Forecasts Gateway Constraints The TVTC recognizes that the gateways act as constraint points regulating flow into and out of the area. Thus, the demand volumes will never actually be reached. Based on their inability to get through the gateways, motorists will adjust their schedules to travel outside the peak hour or to carpool or use transit. This adjustment in travel schedules, which could be reinforced with ramp metering, will be most obvious on the fieeways and at interchanges. At intersections farther from the freeway, we can be less certain about adjustments to travel behavior. Motorists may adjust their sched- ules, or they may continue to travel during the peak hour but to a different destina- tion, or other peak-hour trips may occur to replace the trips displaced by freeway congestion. Nevertheless, the plan assumes that gateway-constrained trips will be removed from the system back to their points of origin and will not be replaced. This is a major assumption. Adjusted Forecasts To plan for the true expected traffic flow, excess gateway trips, beyond design capaci- ties, were removed from the system (see Figure 5-4). Residual congestion would still occur in some locations, as listed below (see Figure 5-5): I-680 north of Danville (gateway) I-680 south of Pleasanton (gateway) I-580 over Altamont Pass (gateway) I-580 between Tassajara Road and North Livermore Avenue. Danville Boulevard (gateway) Vasco Road north of Livermore (gateway) Camino Tassajara east of Crow Canyon Road Crow Canyon Road between Castro Valley and San Ramon (gateway) Crow Canyon Road east of Dougherty Bollinger Canyon Road east of Alcosta Tassajara Road near I-580 Fallon Road near I-580 Dublin Boulevard extension between Tassajara and Fallon Route 84 between I-580 and Jack London Travel Patterns With the expected forecasts, TriValley would continue to experience in-commuting and out-commuting. This would occur even with a jobs/housing balance: 224,733 employed residents and 222,024 jobs. Trips within Tri-Valley would make up 63 percent of the total trips, compared to 50 percent under existing conditions. Out- commuting and in-commuting would make up 18 percent and 16 percent of the total trips, respectively. The remaining 4 percent of the trips would be through trips, traffic passing through Tri-Valley. This percentage is low overall but would be significant on the freeway system. I-680 would comprise 15 percent through traffic, and through Batton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 58 m r Q 0 OHO\4 r � d a\ O V" ' d xoz w \ s " 1 ON t $ g N ` +n �p 00o'r .� dd o \ °goo VjAry d ' G dd d 00 ' oal Ir ► o U, W m 30 cr. p Olt d o t,� U. �► H po1•Z oa am" ooeUl Q . ooz•► � W oo* °°s ° VCC �.- . Ul ~ o ul 0� y ii+ o to �/ oho t`t pOfc' s3rt0� 7"' i AV 3a0Ma N oo t l O N � ✓G\ 18 AM Q• .$ � N v r QOg� Will �� o0L � oa l a3rno� •r► � �e� ,� ` AVMaN Zy c co ooff 006 ab 009 c3 �' � z co , a ooL O dw ago ' Y C i cc T\ Q1 �i► w�G�p 3r► �d 1�J\ oO '� u ..�r � NCC Ul �a a d W Se9nSSvi i 4 '\ i v u o / Z � j d �4 Y v ^r h / V v ` 0 I a via It r i pd V �y Y s o' d 0 to 311""330+ 1 & �o � fi• / g �7 © Q At N zop �'0 0 0 Q. Ul v GO eo ? > or �' W IS Is m O • � 7 � Z v 360083"1 N v � 'e 168n0 r nd 13e`F' o J >3 Q6\ � �o 8 3 ,dnaroZ 0 co g 0 12 a5 z a a0 fsl .36 N0 18 10Nn5 Vol ' o -,NS► O • oa rates . u U V' V o a • �,� Do 8D • UIto R 8� Q A d io LO0 d G / •v+ r Expected Forecasts traffic on I-580 would vary from 16 percent at Foothill Road to 40 percent over Altamont Pass. Intersection Levels of Service One hundred and thirty-five intersections were evaluated for the PM peak hour (see Table 5-4). Lane configurations were based on the 2010 expected network and are shown in the Technical Appendix. Figure 5-5 summarizes the intersections shown to operate at LOS E or F in 2010. They are: Blackhawk/Crow Canyon and Camino Tas*ara Crow Canyon and Dougherty Dougherty and Alcosta Dougherty and Bollinger Canyon Dougherty and Dublin Tassajara and Dublin Fallon and Dublin Hopyard and West Las Positas Santa Rita and I-580 EB Off-Ramp Valley and Stanley Isabel and North Canyons Parkway Isabel and Airway Isabel and Jack London The Action Plan includes measures to ensure that most of these locations do not degrade below LOS D. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 61 F Expected Forecasts Table 5-4 Expected Intersection Level of Service Analysis-PM Peak Hour Existing 2010 City WS Street E/W Street V/C LOS V/C LOS Dublin Foothill Road 1-580 WB Off 0.50 A 0.47 A San Ramon Road Dublin Boulevard 0.87 D 0.90 D San Ramon Valley Amador Valley 0.58 A 0.45 A Village Parkway Amador Valley 0.71 C 0.71 C Dougherty Road 1-580 WB Off 0.68 B 0.77 C Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard 0.84 D 0.93 E Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard 0.72 C 0.82 D Dougherty Road Amador Valley 0.39 A 0.78 C Amador Plaza Dublin Boulevard 0.50 A - 0.85 D Regional Street Dublin Boulevard 0.58 A. 0.56 A Village Parkway Brighton Drive 0.36 A 0.33 A Tassajara Road Dublin Boulevard -- -- 1.05 F Fallon Road Dublin Boulevard -- -- 1.12 F Livermore Murrietta Blvd Portola Avenue 0.65 B 0.59 A North Livermore Portola Avenue 0.50 A 0.66 B North Livermore 1-580 EB Off 0.21 A 0.74 C Murrietta Blvd Stanley Boulevard 0.78 C 0.74 C Holmes Street Murrietta/4th 0.87 D 0.87 D Murrietta Blvd Las Positas 0.39 A 0.45 A First Street 1-580 EB Off 0.81 D 0.59 A Vasco Road 1-580 WB Off 0.97 E 0.69 B North Livermore 1-580 WB Off 0.39 A 0.58 A Vasco Road 1-580 EB Off 0.93 E 0.70 B Vasco Road Est Avenue 0.53 A 0.55 A Holmes Street Concannon Boulevard 0.50 A 0.71 C North Mines East Street 0.58 A 0.41 A First Street 1-580 WB Off 0.64 B 0.61 B Airway Boulevard 1-580 EB Off 0.56 A 0.66 B Airway Boulevard 1-580 WB Off 0.27 A 0.73 C Isabel (Route 84) Jack London - -- 0.95 E Isabel North Canyons Pkwy - - 0.92 E Pleasanton Hopyard Road Owens Drive 0.69 B 0.85 D Owens Drive West Las Positas 0.25 A 0.87 D Santa Rita Road West Las Positas 0.45 A 0.75 C Tassajara Road 1-580 WB Off 0.56 A 0.84 D Hopyard Road Stoneridge Drive 0.53 A 0.58 A Hopyard Road 1-580 EB Off 0.66 B 0.79 C Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 62 1' • Expected Forecasts Table 5-4 Expected Intersection Level of Service Analysis - PM Peak Hour (Continued) Existing 2010 City WS Street EJW Street V/C LOS V/C LOS Hopyard Road West Las Positas 0.51 A 0.91 E Hopyard Road Valley Avenue 0.49 A 0.66 B Santa Rita Road Valley Avenue 0.65 B 0.75 C Foothill Road 1-580 EB Off 0.40 A 0.58 A First/Sunol Bernal Avenue 0.50 A 0.80 C 1-680 SB Off Bernal Avenue 0.40 A 0.83 D 1-680 NB Off Bernal Avenue 0.49 A 0.56 A 1-680 SB Off SlAnol Boulevard 0.28 A 0.58 A 1-680 NB ON Sunol Boulevard 0.48 A 0.54 A Santa Rita Road 1-580 EB Off 0.70 B 0.94 E First Street Ray/Vineyard 0.70 B 0.71 C Main Street Stanley Boulevard 0.34 A 0.37 A Santa Rita Road Stoneridge Drive 0.57 A 0.85 D 1-680 SB Off Stoneridge Drive 0.36 A 0.49 A 1-660 NB Off Stoneridge Drive 0.31 A 0.52 A Foothill Road Dubin Canyon 0.70 B 0.75 C East Vallecitos East Vineyard Avenue 0.86 D 0.87 D Valley Avenue Stanley Boulevard 0.58 A 0.93 E Stoneridge Drive West Las Positas 0.31 A 0.81 D San Ramon San Ramon Valley Bollinger Canyon 0.50 A 0.46 A 1-680 NB Off Crow Canyon Road 0.40 A 0.68 B San Ramon Valley Norris Canyon 0.87 D 0.76 C Aloosta Boulevard Crow Canyon Road 0.61 B 0.82 D Aloosta Boulevard Bollinger Canyon 0.55 A 1.06 F Bollinger Canyon Crow Canyon Road 0.71 C 0.63 B San Ramon Valley Aloosta Boulevard 0.49 A 0.60 A 1-680 SB Off Aloosta Boulevard 0.65 B 1-680 SB Off Crow Canyon Road 0.57 A 0.48 A 1-680 SB Off Bollinger Canyon 0.76 C 0.34 A 1-680 NB Off B~Canyon 0.56 A 0.71 C Dougherty Road Crow Canyon 0.24 A 0.98 E San Ramon Valley 1-680 SB Otf - 0.41 A Village Parkway Aloosta Boulevard 0.31 A 0.34 A 1-680 NB Off Alcosta Boulevard 0.87 D 0.84 D Dougherty Road Bollinger Cnyn Rd -- -- 1.11 F Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 63 ii Expected Forecasts Table r4 Expected Intersection Level of Service Analysis - PM Peak Hour (Continued) Existing 2010 City N/S Street E/W Street V/C LOS V/C LOS Danville Danville Boulevard Stone Valley 1.08 F 1.08 F 1-680 SB Off Stone Valley 0.59 A 0.56 A 1-680 NB Off Stone Valley 0.46 A 0.40 A San Ramon Valley Sycamore Valley 0.77 C 0.81 D 1-680 SB Otf Sycamore Valley 0.66 B 0.63 B Camino Tassajara Sycamore Valley 0.35 A 0.37 A Hartz Avenue Diablo Road 0.45 A 0.38 A Blackhawk Road Camino Tassajara 0.37 A 1.15 F 1-680 NB On Sycamore Valley 0.45 A 0.79 C Camino Tassajara Diablo Road 0.83 D 0.39 A Diablo Road EI Cerro Road 0.44 A 0.32 A 1-680 SB Off Diablo Road 0.47 A 0.42 A 1-680 NB Off Diablo Road 0.59 A 0.55 A 1-680 SB Off EI Cerro Boulevard 0.55 A 0.62 B 1-680 NB Off EI Cerro Boulevard 0.50 A 0.60 A 1-680 NB Off Livoma Road 0.31 A 0.31 A 1-680 SB Off Livoma Road 0.34 A 0.28 A San Ramon Railroad Avenue 0.46 A 0.63 B Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 64 1 Expected Forecasts Interchange Analysis The 2010 expected network includes changes to several freeway interchanges. Fig- ure 5-6 shows the interchange configurations for existing and 2010 conditions. The following three new interchanges will be added to the network: • I-580/Shaeffer Ranch Road • I-580/Isabel (Route 84) • I-680/West Las Positas The following 10 interchanges will be reconfigured or expanded: • I-580/Foothill. Conversion from full cloverleaf to partial cloverleaf design. • I-580/1-680. Addition of a southbound-to-eastbound flyover ramp, addition of hook ramps to Dublin. • I-580/Fallon. Widening of overpass to six lanes. • I-580/Portola. Removal of the ramps, will become just an overcrossing. • I-580/North Livermore. Conversion from diamond to partial cloverleaf design, widening of overcrossing. • I-580/First Street. Widening of overcrossing. • I-580Nasco. Widening of overcrossing. • I-580/Greenville. Conversion from hook ramps to partial cloverleaf design. • I-680/Sycamore Valley. Addition of an eastbound-to-northbound loop on-ramp. • I-680/Alcosta. Addition of hook ramps to San Ramon Valley Boulevard, removal of southbound off-ramp. Tables 5-5 through 5-8 show the 2010 expected volume on the over-crossing and ramps at each interchange for the PM peak hour. The tables also show the number of lanes required to accommodate the expected volume. In all cases, the existing or planned interchange configuration will be adequate. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 65 INTERCHANGE EXISTING 2010 LOCATION Palomares Road ® 1-580 SAME all ag Schafer Ranch Road stwfcR RI+'CN RDll tt ® 1-580 Foothill Road !� 1� ' ® 1-580 ,, ,` �-� _p6D 111 ttt 111 ttt KOTNiIL RO T.�DTNiIt PC I 1-680 ® 1-580 NO 11 1-6No 1_660 GUNRTT RD Dougherty Road/ Hopyard Road 111 ® 1-580 SAME ~� 1111tt �Po C Tassajara Road/ l Santa Rita Road -YD CD ® 1-580 SAME cc 111 tti sna.RITC RD OrAuam RD 1WON RD cc N Fallon Road/EI Charro ! 111 tit a ® 1-580 cc _ !t Ill tit v H Figure 5-6 o EXPECTED NETWORK- INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS cc m 1 .. INTERCHANGE EXISTING 2010 LOCATION Airway Blvd 1111 1-580 SAME 11 nMAr BLM Isabel Pkwy 111 tit ® 1-580 111 tit ,SASM.— ,NGW°NC AK WF.CWC -E N. Livermore Ave l i 111 iii ® 1-580 ti 1111 1111 it ti First Street fr® 1-580 1tr111 rftl ST CIoST ST Vasco Road It 111St V ® 1-580 ` -5b > > m !l tt� 111 ttt cc .� Greenville Road 1111 co ® 1-580 C ~ f 11 \ r cc 111 iti ECK ,LE PD 4° s v en Figure 5-6 a c EXPECTED NETWORK- INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS �o m r INTERCHANGE EXISTING 2010 LOCATION -Wo „ SR 84 f 1-680 101/0 SII SAME ,11 .�r i� Sunol Blvd 1-680 •- fr/1, rrfi�r f �•c' /0 1 Bernal Ave X- S ® 1-680 - W. Las Positas Blvd ® 1-680 . LAS SMAS e�w V C CID Stoneridge Dr cc •p ® 1-680 f- r N = SAME on C !c E t V N Figure 5-6 a o EXPECTED NETWORK- INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS cc m r. INTERCHANGE EXISTING 2010 LOCATION Alcosto Blvd ® 1-680 *41COSUIOLVID KCOS,.ILw ff go s-ft".0. � Bollinger Canyon Road 8aAp=f1 cat" 0 1-680 �r�r�lif l SAME -aeo Crow Canyon Road CRM CA.M- ® 1-680 �r j SAME V C Sycamore Valley Road CD 41.0 0 1-680 cc \ `� cc N C tv E t V a Figure 5-6 c EXPECTED NETWORK- INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS . cc m r INTERCHANGE EXISTING 2010 LOCATION Diablo Road ® 1-680 j *Do SAME ti EI Cerro Blvd u aeeo nw ® 1-680 SAME EI Pintodo Rd EL MUM ® 1-680 rf S SAME Stone Valley Rd ® 1-680 ~ r T SAME ti tV m Livorno Road •p ® I-680 r N SAME a ,,f C cc Z V N Figure 5-6 Q i o EXPECTED NETWORK- INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS cc co r Expected Forecasts Table 5-5 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchange Overpasses-1-580 (PM Peak Hour) SB NB Required Required Location Volume Lanes Volume Lanes Shaeffer Ranch 401 1 194 1 Palomares 92 1 63 1 San Ramon/Foothill 367 1 570 1 1-680/1-580 2,457 2 4,210 12 Dougherty/Hopyard 2,572 3 3,541 ry 3 Hacienda 2,751 3 3,390 3 Tassajara/Santa Rita 2,504 3 3,033 3 Fallon/EI Cerro 1,258 2 1,483 2 Airway 593 1 451 1 Isabel (Route 84) 2,264 2 3,302 3 North Livermore 1,044 1 3,301 3 First Street 587 1 1,386 2 Vasco 401 1 2,955 3 Greenville 416 1 707 1 Note: Assumes capacity of 1,200 per lane, except freeways 2,200 per lane. None predicted to be overcapacity. Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 72 • Expected Forecasts Table 6_6 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchange Overpasses- 1-680 (PM Peak Hour) Westbound Eastbound Required Required Location Volume Lanes Volume Lanes Uvoma 46 1 534 1 Stone Valley 962 1 1,26 1 EI Pintado 26 1 376 1 EI Cerro 138 1 625 1 Diablo 582 1 837 1 Sycamore Valley 757 1 1,588 2 Crow Canyon 1,219 1 2,141 2 Bollinger Canyon 2,307 2 1,617 2 Alcosta 740 1 531 1 1-680/1-580 5,407 3 8,067 4 Stoneridge 1,593 2 1,318 1 Las Positas 7,775 1 426 1 Bernal 480 1 1,593 2 Sunol 852 1 285 1 Route 84 1,537 2 490 1 Note: Assumes capacity of 1,200 per lane, except freeways 2,200 per lane. None predicted to be overcapacity. Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 73 Expected Forecasts Table 5-7 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchanges—I-580 (PM Peak Hour) WB WB WB WB N N N N Location Off Diag Off Loop On Diag On Loop Off Diag Off Loop On Diag On Loop Shaeffer Ranch 387 - 534 - 533 - 270 - Paiomares 92 - 130 - 1296 - 468 - San Ramon/Foothill 388 627 875 769 340 875 1,441 336 Dougherty/Hopyard 1,601 - 727 1,243 1574 - 775 1,156 Hacienda 1,451 - 841 1,093 1768 - 1,287 671 TassajaralSanta Rita 1,583 - 1,472 533 1231 - 1,439 515 Fallon/EI Cerro 1,558 - 1,507 - 1231 - 969 - Airway - 475 371 - 742 - - 529 Isabel (Route 84) 1,244 - 924 1,353 2438 ' - 2,000 ' 578 North Livermore 793 - 805 1,186 2580 ' - 150 192 First Street 667 - 167 610 1258 - 958 37 Vasco 40 93 1,295 1,622' 1046 1549 518 - Greenville 576 - 27 514 93 - 663 59 ' Requires two-lane ramp. Note: Assumes capacity of 1,800 vph for diagonal ramp; 1,600 vph for loop ramp. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 74 r, Expected Forecasts Table 5-8 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchanges-1-680 (PM Peak Hour) SB SB SB SB NB NS NB NB Location Off Diag Off Loop On Diag On Loop Off Diag Off Loop On Diag On Loop Livoma 625 - 14 - 46 - 386 - Stone Valley 239 431 629 - 417 685 691 - EI Pintado 66 - - - - - 324 EI Cerro 578 72 - 303 - 477 - Diablo 458 - 652 - 737 - 303 - Sycamore Valley 458 1,357 729 - 494 489 917 - Crow Canyon 2,196 , - 521 316 1,345 1,591 1,256 Bollinger Canyon 1,396 - 309 1,212 1,270 - 1,749 248 Alcosta 432 - 146 233 1,761 - 377 - Dublin Hook 359 - 613 - 138 - 733 - I-WOA-580 266 2,624 Y 1,184 1,114 461 1,244 2,179 ' 919 Stoneridge 585 - 650 557 625 - 791 . 271 Las Positas - 476 644 - - 706 617 - Bernal 1,763 - 225 - 292 - 1,315 - Sunol 510 - 703 - 994 - 185 . Route 84 14 429 246 1,201 2,956 ' 0 21 0 ' Requires two-lane ramp. =Two-lane flyover. Note:Assumes capacity of 1,800 vph for diagonal ramp, 1,600 vph for loop ramp. Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994. 9arton4schman Associates, Inc. 75 Expected Forecasts Transit Ridership The existing mode split in Tri-Valley involves 4 percent transit use for peak-hour commute trips, and this is expected to increase to 5 percent for the expected 2010 forecasts. Nevertheless, the drive-alone percentage is predicted to increase slightly from 76 percent to 80 percent. The traffic model estimates transit and carpool usage by taking into account travel time, travel cost, and transit availability. The model does not include policy direction that might lead to more carpooling or transit ridership—for example, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District goals to increase average vehicle ridership. Table 5-9 summarizes the transit ridership forecast for the expected transit network. Transit ridership is predicted by the Tri-Valley Transportation Model to almost triple by 2010, compared to a doubhng of population and employment. The drive-alone percentage is expected to remain high, however. This is a function of time and cost factors, which will continue to favor driving alone. A complete breakdown of transit information for the "expected" 2010 forecast is included in the Appendix. Table 5-9 2010 Expected Transit Ridership 1990 2010 Carrier Daily Ridership' Daily Ridership2 County Connection 3,097 13,404 WHEELS 16,698 41,433 BART 19,482 52,0583 Express Buses — 6,041 Total 39,277 112,935 ' For routes that serve the Tri-Valley, based on Tri-Valley Transportation Model validation run. 2 For routes that serve the Tri-Valley, based on Tri-Valley Transportation Model expected run. ! Daily boardings of 44,000 on the BART line, the remainder on BART buses. Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994. Barion-Aschman Associates, Inc. 76 f i 1 f Plan Alternatives { 6. Plan Alternatives Chapter Summary • The Transportation Service Objective of Level of Service E for the freeways cannot be met based on demand, regardless of transportation network or land use assumptions. • If the Tri-Valley does not grow, the freeway system increasingly would be congest- ed by long-distance commuters, i.e., through trips. • The plan should restrict increases in gateway capacity for single-occupant vehicles, insure that the internal transportation system operates at acceptable levels of service through selective network improvements and freeway ramp metering, and achieve a jobs-housing balance. Ridesharing and transit usage should be particu- larly emphasized at the gateways. This chapter describes the alternatives tested to develop the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. Potential actions and strategies to address the projected transportation deficien- cies were developed by the consultant, the TAC and the TVTC. These actions and strategies can generally be divided into three groups: highway, transit and land use. Note that the evaluation of transportation alternatives was conducted with the baseline forecasts and did not include the gateway constraint concept. Maximum Highway Investment The assumed maximum highway network changes are shown on Figure 6-1. Expendi- tures for these improvements are summarized, by improvement, in Table 6-1. Funding levels for the maximum highway investment would require an additional $598 million beyond that required for the assumed baseline improvements. Approximately $547 million of this amount would be unfunded. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 77 r i � � cc 7` °\s o (-) , 0 �+ 0�1 ° w I--� w Z Z Z \ Q W 't Cl) Q) m \ -r o \ s 20 U. c \ 0 a \ mom ° X E Qw`v \' mo xray(y5SW �Ntypa < 3 ° • _ X39 � � ssssiitsi /ti 0 - \Z • �. Oa ` La 4p 00 cH , 00 T� It c cs ` ow �i `o cc \T �, cc O O;�, LL- O 0'1\� Ob 3T7vW33d9 W L) & W Z O O \O NZ W 0 Oa oOsrn O �� _ 0 RD \ � W \ • N M • � s • g 20 M nr 3bORdW N n D iii Vo is S3ON 02 LL 76 r131&anw — 00 X Cl) \ nr 73ml W Ob NOANVJ ,. J tf !!31 700 (AYM33849 2 7B Y Z Y .� C.) � U Ro p d`YJ \ N077V 4 � a � Ob YNq�SSYl in A '�S� O� TA RO \ 7g 7 COX ffi V — 31Or 1 y \ ly RD c S` p 00 J y ca J V y F z ca a E c � o z R! E ° � � o t s A 3 � C.) o �!1 � z $ II II LOcoo 00 W Jcc � ca Plan Alternatives Table 6-1 Cost Estimate for Maximum Highway Network Cost Potential Element (in millions) Funded Source Funds Source Unfunded HOV lanes on 1-680 to Santa $80 $80 Clara County HOV lanes on 1-580 Foothill to $112 $112 Greenville Route 84, upgrade to six-lane $50 $50 freeway 1-680 to 1-580 1-580/1-680 Interchange $120 $120 NB to WB ramp 1-680/Bemal interchange im- $15 $15 provement Bollinger Canyon Rd. widened $8 $8 Developer to six lanes Dougherty Rd. widened to six $15 $15 Developer lanes Hacienda Dr. extended $12 $12 Developer New road: East Branch to High- $6 $6 Developer land Tassajara Rd. widened to 6 $10 $10 Developer Two new overpasses in Dublin $10 $10 N. Livermore/Highland Drive $40 $40 widened to four lanes Vasco widened to six-lane ex- $120 $120 pressway, 1-580 to Delta Ex- pressway Total $598 $51 $547 Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 79 f Plan Alternatives These changes included substantial capital expenditures on new roads and road widening projects throughout the Tri Valley area. The additional road capacity would alleviate, to some degree, congestion on arterial corridors in Tri Valley. The gateways to Tri Valley (I-680, Altamont Pass and Vasco Road) would continue to be congested during peak conditions. Figure 6-2 shows the congested routes with the maximum highway alternative. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 80 N rr � d `ov\ 04 tn v �S \ d �r ONg1Y7 Oa d31Ni� vl \ TO R O O a w \ o a In oa wE \ do Apt u W ` O o o 0 w � MtR r, A i od' G �b t� Cd =. W d C) d co Z va 0`� oa�y,N33a9 0 \0 0 10 ,9C a� d os ul ull.S h 8 i N } \ 1s saw vM \ nb ,3apWa3,v� NSNOW \ l8 Y131aanW dr r �o i i8 Ay�n \ N O � Ao V1 \ 2 o \ as Nome r R Rp 19 loknS a v oa ywryssyl K 0 , Z V �2 • c 00Go c \ , a .v u Q ` C 'IC > A o �r• Z LO d it O rr+ 0 co Plan Alternatives Maximum Transit Investment Potential transit improvements are shown on Figures 6-3 and 6-4. Cost estimates for the maximum transit investment is summarized in Table 6-2. The maximum transit investment would require an additional $1.136 billion in capital and operating costs through 2010 beyond the baseline improvements. None of this amount is funded. Table 6-2 Cost Estimate for Maximum Transit Network cost Potential Element (in millions) Funded Source Funds Source Unfunded Priority transit lines' in 1-680 $56 $56 and 1-580 corridors BART extension to $900 $900 Uvermore Altamont Pass Rail $136 $136 Express Bus Service $26 $26 11 Ines Enhanced local bus service 18 Li8 Subtotal $1,136 $1,136 Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. ' These are super express bus lines that have signal-preemption capability. Potential projects include BART service extended to Eastern Livermore, Altamont Pass Rail service from Stockton to San Jose, and north/south corridor priority express bus transit. Extensive bus service feeding the proposed rail stations was also assumed. The additional system capacity would not alleviate congestion on either arterial corridors or the gateways to Tri-Valley (I-680, Altamont Pass and Vasco Road). Figure 6-5 shows the congested routes with the maximum transit alternative. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 81 cc 1mom Z > Od � � ,� .... Z LA- cc Z W Z W Z D 1.,.. CO ON �` ° ,a Q co o ° 111 m a v, 15 X t 53ftlo" /.� � W Y ffi f0 C16 a §AAtYA ,STA !fiY�' a s C s go � g �cc V ~ i C '9ic cc C O 0 0 3 0, O o ° O 'o O a sn in cr at « �� not m 0 m max too-, . fid CL d J N o ° >c v � Y cc '0 '0 is �+' S3 ' O O y rL a,e ins N \ V^ Vol" } i a ` O r � N v O 96 ` Od N '00 0 c V c E 'v T d c400- CD G •L 11 N 1 2 ♦r M vv d m 1 r i G (07. cc 01-0 UJ z G' ti CCCl) Q 0 H tr (D D T U )< 3 c C tY t3)N<r yyy/rSSYI QMMYj L' a� iU tT U 4t 2 J A �O r Go C3 ~� \ c u T � O C13 C? /' o E ` VO CVry & ♦y ti CA ' 2 ° �y Z O960 w CLI m .T ul r7 `a a as t co >. cr. 7l G as Tpyo133a� d Sn�SyA O M. cc c• OsUlcc pd V \ 5 a \ W a4 to W ` u 1 m 3 Z 3n 5loop \ m t5 5 �r\ 4 N AT 40Ona3N� z \ z4 0 d 1g vt3laanW i 0 13Bd51 i as NO)LN'✓n m tl 111W 1a ` „2 O Ro \ i o � `\ aN NO'I'h'� sls` N S� 18 1oNR5 R o ` a21 Y' "ISSYl � N dV \ O • o `` tl �ScN co C ep c� eo 0 u � u '\ w Q C , ^ o CD vs N $ co d 1 tir r rFF 1� Plan Altemadves Land Use Opportunities Given the high cost, limited availability of funds, and lack of overall system improve- ment for either a maximum highway or maximum transit network, the consultant was instructed by the TVTC to test modifications to proposed land uses. A real estate economics firm, Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), was contracted to prepare a study of how a reduced land use plan might be structured. Their complete land use study is included in the Appendix. They prepared the following list of criteria for structuring the reduced growth plan. Criteria for Developing Managed Growth Land Use Scenario 1. Determine Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) that are the significant contributions to traffic congestion (producing trips in excess of network link capacity). 2. Identify TAZs where residential and employment density could be increased where access to transit is high (transit-oriented development). 3. Identify TAZs where infrastructure capacity (e.g., arterial roadways) exists that can support higher density residential and employment mixed-use development. 4. Reduce proposed residential capacity in TAZs with limited or nonexistent network and poor transit service potential. 5. Reduce employment land use designations and/or proposed capacity in areas with limited mad network and transit access, undeveloped or underdeveloped backbone infrastructure, or weak market demand. 6. Construct a "Managed Growth Scenario" by redistributing and reducing 2010 Expected Growth to achieve a level of service policy on Baseline Network. EPS used these criteria to develop specific reduced-growth recommendations (see Table 6-3). These recommendations were considered but not adopted by the TVTC. Several land use reduction treatments were tested with the traffic model. None produced satisfactory results with respect to eliminating overcapacity demand on the freeway system. As a worst-case test, the consultant tested an alternative with zero growth through 2010 in the Tri-Valley while allowing growth to occur as predicted in neighboring communities. Through this evaluation, it was determined that congestion at the gateways (I-680,Altamont Pass, and Vasco Road) would not be influenced by Tri Valley growth but rather growth in neighboring communities. In other words, there is no way to control the freeway system demand by only adjusting growth within Tri Valley. Figure 6-6 shows the congested links with the zero growth alternative. The lack of local control over freeway volumes at the gateways, as evidenced by the zero growth alternatives, lead to the policy of gateway constraints. This is discussed further in Chapter 7. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 86 i 1 � 71 � � 88 IM CL cm cm.103 .2 8 � 8' o c 8' m CL � ' t m $ m E m a32 32 8 m 8 40 8 8 so: o 25 IN .0r 2 a 10 0 -4 3 2 m 0 Z c » m m E C oID re zi cm g' 8o S °i8o mo � mm ohm a � � r r S : :; 53 ° '� ° B � � : g 9� as Ws 5 to W :3 W m 7 3 :3 x � O m ° r $,3 -8 W m O m m N Q e o CEO . 3R ON 18 18 LIEU s 3 o a Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 87 r � = W co z o � d w oc � CO W J z QU d z a � \ y �?`�`'a yaslY$5ro1 ONiM� W d a c `\ Lai Oa � 30N3a Mn co , .- 4� ` �rF/1 atr Qt �Ty .cc% � J It Y' iY N y C13 .� z" y cis co cC I _ > r c i �. t d CD . G�✓ d Ul C� p as VW430o J 7 as OosvA W 00 �a CC Gp', os z .. FO W W_ ` 4 co "p h YsI tu Av 36 15 Son H L+U' 00 l8 Y13laanW uZ � v AY Lu oa Nok Cc �r,MaMZ G .p Ffl Qsi \ 2 '\ as NoTlr.1 7& 7ONns A as vavrvssvi o a \ m g v � d \ �13v v O ERV RD " cD co �y u .6 .J R C ` c A N 0 � A V� 0 00 C w W CO r i'. Plan Altemadves , The reduced growth scenario was shown, however, to have a profound effect on traffic levels on the arterial system. The TAC concluded that congestion on the arterial system could be controlled through growth management, even though congestion on the freeway system could not. Plan Evolution The TVTAC outlined four alternatives for consideration by the TVTC (see Table 64). These were combinations of various elements discussed and tested throughout the plan evolution. These four alternatives were presented to the individual councils of each city and the boards of the two counties. These elected representatives provided input as to which plan elements should be pursued further. Table 6-5 shows the composite of positions taken by each body. The TVTAC interpretation of the policy direction was as follows: 1. Road Improvements. Pursue the ma3dmum amount of improvement within the limits of physical feasibility, but keep the regional impact fee within the $1,000- $2,000 per dwelling unit range. This was thought to be the highest politically feasible subregional traffic impact fee. 2. Transit Improvements. Provide transit options in the well-travelled corridors, but recognize that transit cannot carry a significant mode share given the suburban land use pattern of the area. 3. Higher Densities. The benefit of higher densities from a transportation perspective is that transit can be a more effective alternative to driving. There was some interest in changing development patterns to increase overall densities, especially in transit corridors. Recently approved specific plans for East Dublin and North Livermore create some higher-density areas. Densities necessary to support significant transit usage need to be at least 15 dwelling units per acre. 4. Growth Management. Reductions in growth rates through 2010 were considered to be a last resort for achieving ISOs in specific locations where no other option was available. 5. Reduced LOS Standards. These were considered only for the freeway system in locations where through traffic made achievement of TSOs impossible for the TVTC to achieve. While demand volumes could not be accommodated, ramp metering would allow achievement of CMP-mandated levels of service on the freeways. 6. TDM Measures. The need for realistically achievable ridesharing goals was recognized. However, the TVTC is not in favor of simply assuming away problems. They also are not in favor of aggressive programs such as paid parking. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 89 9L CO- 4L jp to 1L 07" CO- lO 0 N 7 0 t4 0, t4, tp to ro —0 —0 �Z O 0 'A Oft 7,; Or Co- OA '00 -0 10: io 4p Is -04P 0 r s 1 0 Iio NO I s ac,-s- 601-0 Sol 1 4 Pit, io 0 'P 1-3Ir - S go Z4 dorrAf r o a Ln 93 m CiCccc s a zz m (0 Q cc C C C cc 05 c$ o CS X — z cR z z z . m � m cc � m J Q C p G� E oF s 0 s s c acct z — CrQ� a a chi cn a s N W N a r 0 SP m s s o a J3 i c9 8 j3 c9 CO cc0 CL as R N C s m o $ > d m m • c N � C 1� V 1 Ballon-Aschman associates, Inc. 91 Recommended Improvement Plan f t s c (f F 7• Recommended Improvement Plan Based on the results of the alternatives testing, the TAC and the TVTC decided to focus the ultimate improvement plan on the arterial corridors within Tri-Valley rather than the Tri-Valley gateways. The plan must address the primary question: What can we do to achieve the best level of service within the Tri-Valley? Three contributing factors influence the ability to respond to this question. • Financial constraints. • Physical limitations within corridors. • Development pattern. Financial resources for all projects are limited. The Measure C and Measure B sales tax programs provide substantial funding for specific projects in Tri-Valley. Other projects must compete for the relatively small pot of public funds. Developer fees, which have an upper limit, could help supplement public funds. Future sales tax or gasoline tax initiatives may or may not be successful. Expansion of major corridors within Tri-Valley is limited due to existing development and terrain. These limitations hinder the development of transportation corridors other than the existing I-680 and I-580 corridors. Development patterns within Tri-Valley have been geared toward relatively low housing and commercial densities. These patterns are expected to continue in the future. This development pattern is impossible to serve thoroughly with transit, given realistic funding expectations. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 92 r Recommended Improvement Plan Plan Overview The TVTAC used the policy direction to create a set of actions comprising an integrat- ed plan. The transportation plan comprises increased service (roads and transit), control of demand (growth management and TDM), and acceptance of congestion in locations where it cannot be avoided. The plan is financially constrained in that it includes only elements that are already funded, likely to be funded given extension of federal and state programs, or fundable by new development at an affordable level. Chapter 8 describes the financing plan. The following sections provide an overview of the plan. Road Improvements The plan includes many improvement projects for freeways, interchanges, arterials, and intersections. These are all based on the reality of gateway constraints. Gateway Constraints. Analysis of alternatives through the planning process showed that the TVTC's best interests would not be served by widening any of the gateways for single-occupant vehicles leading into the area. The gateways include I-680 north and south, I-580 east and west,and Vasco Road. Widening of these gateways would still leave the freeways congested, would lead to more through traffic, and would increase traffic volumes on other Tri-Valley roads. This is true because of the Tri-Valley's strategic location between San Joaquin County and the Bay Area and also between Central and Eastern Contra Costa County and Santa Clara County. The implication of gateway constraints for roadway planning is that the interior freeways and arterials should be sized to handle.only what traffic can get through the gateways. Thus, the plan recognizes that congestion will occur at the gate- ways, but this will have the positive effect of limiting single-occupant vehicle travel to and from the area. Within the Tri-Valley area, the road system is designed to minimize congestion. While not ideal(the ideal would be to have no congestion anywhere), the roadway plan when combined with a balance between jobs and housing, produces the best conditions to be reasonably expected. The reasons behind the gateway constraint concept are different for different gate- ways, as discussed below: 1-680 North. The section north of Diablo Road cannot practically be widened beyond the HOV lanes under construction. The gateway constraint assumption recognizes this reality. 1-680 South. The section south of Route 84 has room to be widened, and limited widening would support the investment in Route 84 capacity. Accordingly, the plan recommends the addition of HOV lanes (see Chapter 7). Some gateway constraint would still occur. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 93 Recommended Improvement Plan 1-580 West. This section between Tri-Valley and Castro Valley is not expected to be over capacity, so gateway constraint is not an issue.- 1-580 East (Altamont Pass):Alameda County policy, in recognition of the need to encourage shorter commuter and not overload Tri-Valley roads with regional traffic, opposes increases to capacity for single-occupant vehicles. Therefore, some gateway constraint is warranted. The plan includes HOV lanes, as a second priority project, in recognition of the importance of I-580 as a regional facility (see Chapter 7). Vasco Road. The plan recognizes that Vasco Road is expected to remain two lanes through 2010, which implies a gateway constraint. The plan does not specifically oppose future widening, however, in deference to Contra Costa County policy. Freeway Ramp Metering. Ramp metering is a way of controlling the volume of traffic entering a freeway so the system is as efficient as possible. A survey made for the Federal Highway Administration of seven ramp metering systems in the United States and Canada revealed that average highway speeds increased by 29 percent after installing ramp metering and travel times decreased 16.5 percent. At the same time reductions of freeway congestion averaged approximately 60 percent. An analysis of the FLOW system in Seattle (ramp metering and HOV lanes) revealed that in addition to similar improvements in speed and travel time, highway throughput increased from 12 to 40 percent as a result of ramp metering. An additional benefit from ramp metering is a decrease in the accident rate. Reductions from 20 to 58 percent have been achieved through improved merging operations. Without ramp metering, bottlenecks will develop on the freeway that decrease throughput and lead to longer delays than motorists face at the meters themselves. Ramp meters also encourage the peak spreading that needs to occur to keep the gateways flowing. This happens because motorists are willing to accept only up to about a 10-minute wait at the meters. Beyond that, they will adjust their trip-making (i.e., choose to travel at a different time or choose a different mode). This peak spreading helps to get the most out of the system when gateway constraints are a reality. Without ramp metering it is projected that the freeway flow will break down and be congested for long periods of time with the on-ramps not being able to flow at their designed flow rates. The on-ramps will be metered by freeway congestion rather than planned rates. Staff believes a metered system will move more people more effectively and equitably than an unmanaged system. The unmetered system is also more prone to be blocked by congestion-induced accidents than a metered system. An additional major benefit of ramp metering is that it can be combined with HOV bypass to provide an additional powerful incentive for carpooling and can help buses increase average speeds. When combined with HOV lanes on the freeways, the ramp metering-with-bypass system allows carpools and buses to travel unimpeded through- out the system. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 94 r Recommended Improvement Plan Ramp metering has two potential drawbacks: backups on the local street system, and rewarding long-distance commuters. The potential for backups on local streets can be minimized through ramp widening and strategic placement of the meters. The risk of rewarding long-distance commutes can be minimized by instituting a system of ramp metering for the entire length of a freeway, rather than in isolated locations. The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan includes ramp metering with HOV bypass with the proviso that this not seriously impact local streets and that local implementation be tied with implementation along all of I-680 and I-580 in neighboring communities. Freeway HOV Lanes. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes are under construction along I-680 between SR 24 and the county line at Alcosta Boulevard. HOV lanes provide the advantage of reducing travel times for ridesharers and transit patrons. They also enhance mobility during off-peak hours by being available for all vehicles. This is especially important when considering truck traffic, which increasingly relies on off-peak hzurs to reach destinations without undue delays. The TVTC recognizes the benefits of HOV lanes, but realizes that take-a-lane pro- grams do not work. Such an ill-fated attempt at providing HOV lanes on I-580 resulted in federal legislation prohibiting their use on that freeway in unincorporated areas. Thus, HOV lanes must be added to the freeways. HOV lanes on both I-680 and I-580 are included in the plan. Due to the expense of the projects, however, some segments are included as lower priority projects. I-680 south of I-580 has been designed to accommodate the addition of HOV lanes, but pavement widening would be required. Top funding priority should be given to the section south of Route 84 to the top of the Sunol Grade, which is the border of Area 4 in the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan. This section will experience significant traffic increases due to the planned capacity increases to Route 84. The section of I-680 between Alcosta Boulevard and Route 84 should also be planned to include HOV lanes but with a lower funding priority. On I-580, HOV lanes would be more difficult and costly to build because the inter- changes have not been built to accommodate them. However, the Caltrans Route Concept calls for 10 lanes plus BART in the median for I-580. The most important segment for funding priority on I-580 is the segment between Tassqjara Road and North Livermore Avenue. This segment is predicted to experience the highest traffic demand along I-580 in the Tri-Valley. To accommodate the extra freeway width, the interchanges at El Charro/Fallon and Airway would need to be rebuilt. The El Charro✓ Fallon interchange is planned to be rebuilt anyway. In addition, the planned new interchange at Isabel Avenue (Route 84) would need to be built to accommodate the width. As a lower funding priority, the plan also includes extending the I-580 HOV lanes east to the Alameda County border. This would require widening four interchanges in Livermore (N. Livermore, First, Vasco, and Greenville), which are planned to be rebuilt anyway, and three interchanges/crossings east of Livermore. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 95 �., Recommended Improvement Plan Extending HOV lanes on 1-580 west of Santa Rita Road is more problematic. With the BART extension and the 1-580/1-680 interchange project, this section will be built out to its full Route Concept width of 10 lanes plus BART. The section will have four through lanes, as it does today, plus auxiliary lanes between interchanges. Thus, HOV lanes on 1-580 West of Santa Rita are not included in the plan. Arterial Issues: The planned arterial system has been designed to provide smooth circulation in and between the Tri-Valley cities and to provide access to the freeway system. Intersections and freeway interchanges are the focal points of the arterial system. All of the widenings and extensions are necessary to serve new development, so the plan calls for direct developer construction or at least funding. The primary issue is how to share costs between jurisdictions having joint respon- sibility for a particular road. This is discussed further in the Financing Plan chapter. There are two major arterials in the Tri-Valley that do not provide direct access to planned development but rather serve interregional traffic between Alameda County and Contra Costa County. These two arterials are Crow Canyon Road and Vasco Road. Crow Canyon Road. The portion of Crow Canyon Road west of Bollinger Canyon Road is a two-lane rural road that lies within the jurisdiction of Alameda County and Contra Costa County. While once used by its adjacent residents to bring goods to the market, today, Crow Canyon Road is being used by commuters as an alternate route to the I-580/1-680 freeways. Development in the vicinity of Crow Canyon Road, especially in the fast-growing San Ramon Valley area, has generat- ed a significant increase in traffic on this roadway. The expected forecast for this roadway is LOS F. The roadway, which is a narrow and winding road, was not designed to handle commuter traffic and does not have adequate width and alignment. The Alameda County, in collaboration with Contra Costa County and the City of San Ramon prepared and developed a project study report, pursuant to California Senate Bill 1149. The report recommended the construction of eight-foot shoulders, climbing lanes and road realignment eliminating short-rade` curves. Contra Costa County has in its Measure C program the improvement of Crow Canyon Road within Contra Costa County. Alameda County, however, is seeking for funds to improve the two-lane section of the roadway. Unfortunately, improve- ment of this portion of Crow Canyon Road cannot be directed to a particular developer construction. But since the traffic forecast clearly indicates that traffic increase on this roadway is development related, it is recommended that subregional transportation impact fees be used to improve the section of Crow Canyon Road within the Tri-Valley area. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 96 Recommended Improvement Plan Vasco Road. Vasco Road is a narrow and winding rural road that is a major commuter and truck route linking the Tri-Valley with eastern Contra Costa County. Approximately 17 miles.of Vasco Road, starting at a point on Vasco Road approximately one-half mile south of the County Line to the intersection of Camino Diablo in Contra Costa County, will be relocated as a result of the construction of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. This portion of Vasco Road is designed as a two-lane highway based on state and county standards for new roads with comfortable speeds of up to 65 mph. Meanwhile, the remaining section of the roadway in Alameda County(approximately three miles in length) has tight curves and narrow shoulders with advisory speeds along curves of less than 35 mph. Vasco Road is expected to have a Level of Service F in the year 2010. As much as the Plan calls for a policy limiting the capacity of Vasco Road to•two lanes, it is necessary that this roadway be realigned to improve traffic flow and safety. Alameda County is currently seeking funds to improve the section of the roadway from he new Vasco Road to the Livermore City Limit. This proposed improvement includes realignment of the roadway, widening of shoulders,a nd installing passing lanes without increasing its capacity, consistent with the standards being used in the Los Vaqueros-Vasco Road project. Projected congestion on this roadway cannot be directed to a particular develop- went but its future congestion is truly the result of developments in the region. It is also recommended that subregional traffic mitigation fees be used to improve this facility. Transit Improvements The key transit improvement in the Tri-Valley is the extension of BART to Dub- lin/Pleasanton with two local stations. Local WHEELS routes will be rerouted to serve the BART stations and create transit centers with timed transfers between modes. WHEELS and County Connection routes will also need to be rerouted and augmented to serve new development areas: North Livermore, East Dublin, and Dougherty Valley. In addition, nine new express bus routes are included in the plan to serve the'follow- ing corridors not served by BART: I-680 north to Walnut Creek, Vasco Road to East County, and I-680 south to Fremont. The Tri-Valley Transit Plan has been developed to correspond to expected funding levels. Since the area is expected to almost double in population, the assumption is that transit funding will also double. This will allow the provision for significant new services because existing routes have available capacity. Additional riders can be served without additional investment. Note, however, that the development pattern in the Tri-Valley is one of overall low density, and the new areas proposed for development will generally reinforce the low- density pattern. The low-density pattern does not support the extensive use of transit or cost-effective transit operations. If transit is to serve a much greater role than it does today, development densities will need to increase. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 97 Recommended Improvement Plan Growth Management The TVTC recognizes that its mission is not to plan land use. Land use inputs to the plan came from the planning department of each member jurisdiction. Projections are also available from ABAG, and the "expected"land use on which the plan is based is 11,000 dwelling units higher than Pt jections '92 for the Tri-Valley as a whole. Tri- Valley staff expects future ABAG projections to very closely match Tri-Valley expected land use figures. Nevertheless, Action Plans are mandated to address growth manage- ment issues when TSOs cannot otherwise be met. CCTA guidelines for Action Plans state that they may include policies to prohibit urban expansion in specified geograph- ic areas and to change the distribution of planned land uses to reduce impacts on regional routes. It should be noted that the TVTP is a 2010 plan and land use recommendations apply to 2010 and not buildout. "Further Discussion Pending" Jobs-Housing Balance Another aspect of land use growth relevant to transportation planning is jobs-housing balance. The Tri-Valley now has more housing than jobs. The 2010 expected land use scenario includes more job growth than housing growth, which will establish a balance. Because of the dynamics of the Bay Area, in-commuting and out-commuting will still occur, but at least they are reduced with a jobs-housing balance in the Tri- Valley. Baron-Aschman Associates, Inc. 98 r Recommended Improvement Plan The importance of a jobs-housing balance is further reinforced by the gateway constraints that will exist in the Tri-Valley area. Trip-malting into and out of the area will become increasingly difficult in the future. The provision of a job for every employed resident and vice versa will minimize the need for residents to leave the area for work. This will minimize the traffic pressure at the gateways. An important issue to remember with regard to jobs-housing balance is that the numerical count alone is insufficient to achieve the desired result of minimizing travel. The housing must be of a variety to be affordable to each income level. Reduced Level of Service Standards The TVTC has seen that the originally intended transportation service objective of LOS E on the freeways based on demand cannot be met in many locations regardless of land use assumptions. This is true because growth in San Joaquin County, Santa Clara County, and Central and East Contra Costa County will fill up the Tri-Valley freeways even if Tri-Valley jurisdictions do not grow. Therefore, the TVTC will accept congestion at the gateways recognizing that while it is not ideal, at least it will minimize through traffic. The focus then shifts to maintaining adequate levels of service, and providing transit options, for trips within the Tri-Valley. The transportation plan succeeds in avoiding congestion on the arterial system. Also, I-680 between Alamo and Route 84 is expected to flow smoothly. Level of Service F conditions, however, are expected on I-580 westbound in the morning and eastbound in the evening between Tassajara Road and North Livermore Avenue. This would be partially alleviated with high occupancy vehicle lanes and ramp metering. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) The TVTC supports TDM measures; however, they do not want to base the Transpor- tation Plan on unrealistic TDM goals without supporting programs. Through the plan process, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD)-mandated average vehicle ridership (AVR) of 1.35 was tested. This applies to employers with 100 or more employees. The TVTC estimated that such large employers make up only about 10 percent of all employment. This, coupled with the fact that commute trips make up about 35 percent to 40 percent of the PM peak-hour traffic stream, means that the BAAQMD mandate will have negligible impact on traffic levels. The TVTC also investigated the impact of achieving an AVR of 1.35 for all employers, throughout the Bay Area, large and small. Compared to the"ambient" AVR of 1.10- 1.15, this would be a 20 percent improvement. Given the commute trip proportion of total PM peak-hour traffic, a 20 percent increase in AVR would translate into 7 percent to 8 percent less traffic on the roads. While this would create a significant improvement in operations, it would not significantly reduce the need for road building. It might mean that some intersections would not need as many turn lanes. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 99 Recommended Improvement Plan The achievement of a 20 percent increase in AVR would not be easy. The TVTC believes that this would require a significant increase in the cost of solo commuting. However, the TVTC is not in favor of parking charges. Gasoline tax increases would be more acceptable, provided they were levied regionwide (including San Joaquin County). Gas tax increases would encourage commute alternatives and would provide more money for transportation investments. The plan is based on a more-achievable goal of an average 10 percent increase in AVR for all employers. This increase would be realized through the adoption and enforce- ment of local trip reduction ordinances. The 10 percent increase in AVR will bring some of the intersections otherwise projected to be borderline unacceptable back into compliance with the TSOs. Road Improvement Plan The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan includes many road improvement projects. These projects were developed by the member jurisdictions of the TVTC. Projects range from intersection modifications to freeway improvements and new roads. The resulting system would provide good circulation within the Tri-Valley area. Figure 7-1 shows the planned roadway system. Figure 5-2 in Chapter 5 shows the planned changes to freeway interchanges. Details on planned intersection lane configurations are included in the Technical Appendix. A detailed listing of the planned roadway improvements is shown in Table 7-1. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 100 z ac o T � o'v cc LU � O 2 V / CD oby .✓ `l'fii.. �� EC \ CL r Z 4 �. tL N N a � O Z r J N f 43)�,�� Ydo'�YS�j r 3 0 o a b v o ON J 3 �i ,� c 3�N3tl MW GM£RSY u ii to J r � 00 t O W d \ r c / C13 •� jyLJ V A I z Q Lri ,- o a - o d � co r d \T Ar in 0>i 3TiNN33b0 V J 00 0 s° oz Y+ W \ .s by d \ g � rs g Is S311noH \ AV 3aoto nb U NoANY:I VJ l00 1@ Ay�n c O + \ + c as to 10N1t o Vd 2 \ rox \ ' c � 1 14 d c m 1r Q i Zj to Ap c � J • s � v / 0 c`o co �. x `+> < < a < a a < < m < < < a < < • c 0 C C O O 0O 0 0 0 0 0 R s s 40 OD < 0 0 5 t0 t0 �v V 0 V V V v « N O m > > $ R � I I I I I N g o � g g o c o tD N V N V b g m 0I a I I I I NV I N $ U cc T 0 Co V c m e c ¢ m C tJ m r Q C>D35 z O 8 W W 23 8 Li C3 05 C � O a 0 CC o cc CL Cmc LL o _ $ a z i80 Sw 12 U, c>a o oc ca c o . lz cc r � o � � � � � � � ¢ ¢ • • � � � � � � Q O ae ace D O O C p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 3 ► 3 3 3 S a HG � � � � � � � _ � � � d88 � � 8co88 � � ii � 0 �, Batton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 102 ' to to 0 • • • • • • Qa Qa Qp Qa • to • • • • to U U U U m O m < < < < < < < < JO < < .< < < < JO < a 4c 4c 10 cc cc C44 to ? O c m ¢ C V m O as m co co 0 cc CL �a 13 � g - m � m c � m uwj W 3 3 J v V W W < c CL % • °� < '� r So s So 1 a Se < < < a m g V U ji a Q a a Q a s < Q a Q Q a 9 0 0 o gle (0 co 0 g < o Q < a < < < a a s < < < a < a a Q a R, 14 N le (O0 w V V N 40 a b W NN ' o ; m r m m z m o o m > c m > > � h, h, CUD, C O U- LL O d O W N 119 Y IL 8 bi F- 0 V ca C m a. Q > > Q m 'a °s O O O CL E N o o� c o c o U m o c o c ' o o > > m in € c - ed a 0 0 0 U. a d C co a 0 € 1=0 =03 0 � .$ w <' < r pC ; Z • g g g g 11 R g c E E s c4 3 c 3 o o a < a a a a a a p a g tcg g 3w to o - o tao a V a U U ' N , N N U , Q N r m m � > s V o to > tr f5 rg E � E a o ; r o G >Wcc cco ,, m m en cc t o U U Q c UeQ o, o 3 o m 8 c 8 W c a v`� a cQc U c d Q 71 cl go cc g > � > � C 2c 2! c c � m 3 g cm5 m = m g � c cco m m O a O m ?. m a m r r a s g c aU. c - ;5 t 4 Q dt C4 C4 tv Ru ti V d dc q CC rp G m O «C r 0 ✓ ? :r S t- C6 40 Q � Ell W r G W -6. ft,a $ m � Joe O' i Recommended Improvement Plan Critical Regional Projects Since most arterial improvements and extensions are local-serving and will be paid for by new development, the financial plan needs to focus on the funding of the larger projects with regional significance. The TVTC developed the following list of criteria to define a regional project: 1. The project must involve a route of regional significance as defined by the TVTC for the transportation plan (see Figure 1-1). 2. Transit projects can be included. 3. The project must be identified in an adopted plan. 4. The project would not be built as a direct developer improvement. While not a part of the originally adopted list, a fifth criterion discussed by the TVTC is that the project should serve more than one jurisdiction. By these criteria, the following planned projects would qualify as being regionally significant. These have been determined to be of highest priority for funding due to their demonstrated need in meeting the TSOs through 2010. 1. I-580/1-680 Interchange. Southbound-to-eastbound flyover. 2. Route 84. Four lanes on Vallecitos Road, six lanes on Isabel Avenue, including interchange improvement at I-580/Vallecitos and a new interchange at I-580/Isabel. 3. 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes. From Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Road. 4. BART Extension. From Castro Valley to East Dublin, including two stations in the Tri-Valley. 5. 1-580 HOV Lanes. From Tassajara Road to North Livermore Avenue. 6. I-680 HOV Lanes. From Route 84 to top of Sunol Grade. 7. Ramp Metering. Add ramp metering with HOV bypass to all freeway interchanges in the Tri-Valley. 8. I-680/Alkosta Interchange. Capacity improvements including replacement of southbound off-ramp with hook ramp. 9. I-580/Foothill Interchange. Conversion to partial cloverleaf design. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 107 1 Recommended Improvement Plan 10. Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements. This project consists of realigning the roadway, construction of shoulders and improving sight distance, all aimed at improving traffic flow and safety on Crow Canyon Road between Bollinger Canyon Road and MM 4.45 (located one mile north of Norris Canyon Road). 11. Vasco Road Safety Improvements. This project consists of the realignment of Vasco Road from the new Vasco Road to the Livermore City limit, without increasing the capacity of the gateway. This is consistent with the standards used in the Vasco Road relocation project by the Contra Costa Water District in conjunction with the Los Vaqueros reservoir project. The following three projects are also included in the transportation plan but are considered by the TVTC to be of lower priority for the 2010 planning horizon. These projects are considered important to the future of transportation in the Tri-Valley but are not needed to meet the Transportation Service Objectives through 2010. 1. 1-580 HOV Lanes. Completion of the HOV project on I-580 from Santa Rita Road to the Alameda County border. 2. 1-680 HOV Lanes. Completion of the I-680 HOV Lane project from Alcosta Boulevard to Route 84. This would create a system of continuous HOV lanes on I-680 through the Tri-Valley. 3. 1-58011-680 Interchange. Construction of the northbound to westbound flyover ramp. This improvement has been identified by Caltrans as the nest step in improving the I-5804-680 interchange. This second flyover ramp would eliminate all existing weaving sections. The Transit Plan The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan includes several transit improvements. These were developed by a transit subcommittee of the TVTAC. The subcommittee included representatives from BART, CCCTA(County Connection), LAVTA (WHEELS), and Contra Costa County. The plan includes the following major components: BART extension to east Dublin (two stations), park-n-ride lots, express bus service in heavily traveled corridors, local bus service to new development areas, reoriented local bus service to serve BART and park-and-ride lots, and decreased headways on existing routes. For modeling purposes, specific bus routes were developed and tested. Howev- er, the TVTP is not intended to be a detailed long-range plan for transit provision. Therefore, the specific routes, which are described in the Appendix, should not be interpreted literally, but as representative of the type of service (headways and corridors served) that should be provided. Barton-Aschman Assodates, Inc. 108 jr i. Recommended Improvement Plan The following are descriptions of the planned transit service. BART Extension: The plan includes the BART extension to East Dublin with two stations in the Tri-Valley. The extension is currently under construction and is projected to open in 1996. The planned BART headways are nine minutes. Both stations are assumed to have park-n-ride lots. The patronage forecasts from the traffic model indicate demand for at least 6,000 parking spaces combined for the two stations. Two BART feeder bus lines would be operated: one to Bishop Ranch and Danville, and one to Livermore. Both would have 30-minute headways. Park-n Ride Lots: The plan includes 11 new park-n-ride lots (See Figure 7-2). These would be served by various bus lines and could also serve as staging locations for carpools. County Connection: The plan calls for the expansion of service from the current three lines serving Tri-Valley (30-minute headways) Lo eight lines. Three lines would have 30-minute headways and five lines would have 20-minute headways. The lines would serve Danville, San Ramon, Bishop Ranch, Dougherty Valley, and some would extend down to the East Dublin BART station. WHEELS: Under the plan, WHEELS service would expand from the current 11 lines with 30-60 minute headways to 21 lines, all with.30-minute headways. The route system would be extensively revised to serve the two BART stations, park-n-ride lots, and the newly developed areas of East Dublin and North Livermore. Some routes would also extend into San Ramon and Danville. Express Bus Service: The plan calls for the provision of nine new express bus routes operating in the I-680, I-580, and Vasco Road corridors. The following areas are served: 1. Santa Clara County to Pleasanton 2. Hayward to San Ramon 3. Santa Clara County to San Ramon 4. Fremont to San Ramon 5. Brentwood to Pleasanton 6. Brentwood to Livermore 7. Fremont to Livermore 8. Hayward to Pleasanton 9. Hayward to Livermore These routes each have 20-minute headways. The plan does not specify what agency would operate the express routes. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 109 N 1 N OL ul �°\ °o cc Q 4 \\ a U \ \ a pa j ONtgp� ��Nrf y}/VPYSS� \ Ma 3�Naa Mvz ovG„£at+ G co O o C3_ i C6 era w �ti cis 4rq a •� ( �J E .� od d3 ti t? by� p r.+ c`0 m cv Cl) r d r DO J T\ � T cc v'`7O pa 37tWN33M0 O`J 40 0\ oa oOsvn > wioff Q {' ,►�° 41 yin. W .>1 �4 q Yf u � i nY 3apWa3N7 .N m 1S 53W�Or zgg \ 76 Y13IaanW U O v "a AY � � S 0 \ °a HpAN � '3 S 00 is 0 00 \ 2 o � \ 03' H077r! a ` N A pa rarry$SY! A RD 76 70Nn5 RD R� n .0 y 00 y CD gloloomillillilillillillillillillillillilliillillillllllllllllllllillillillillilllllllllllllllllllllillillililllllllllllll1111111111111111111100oo� J Recommended Improvement Plan Impact of the Plan Implementation of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan will result in LOS D or better operation on almost all arterials and at all but one of the 135 study intersections (see Table 7-3). The exceptions are Vasco Road north of Livermore (the two-lane section) and the two-lane section of Crow Canyon Road between San Ramon and Castro Valley. These will operate at capacity with V/C = 1.0. The plan includes improvements to maximize throughput but leaves them at two lanes to avoid out-of-area traffic clogging other Tri-Valley roads. The one intersection exception is Isabel Avenue at Jack London Boulevard, which is projected to operate at Level of Service E. Table 7-3 Impact of the Plan Facility TSO Performance' Freeways LOS E Can be met with ramp meter- V/C < 0.99 ing. 2 hours or less of congestion Met on 1-580 with HOV lanes, AM and PM not met on 1-680 north of Alamo or south of Route 84 (four hours of congestion). Arterials Crow Canyon Road (be- tween San Ramon and Castro Valley) Maximum flow rate within 2- TSO met with road improve- lane cross-section. merits Vasco Road (north of Livermore) Others LOS D Intersection Met at all but one intersection V/C < 0.90 (Isabel and Jack London) Interchanges LOS E TSO met. VIC < 0.99 for ramps LOS D TSO met. VIC < 0.90 for ramp intersections ' Estimated performance, final plan traffic model run has not been completed. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 112 r- Recommended Improvement Plan Regarding the freeway system, both I-680 and I-580 will experience some congestion at certain locations in the peak direction. Off-peak direction travel will increase substan- tially due to the land use changes and balance between jobs and housing. Neverthe- less, off-peak direction traffic will continue to flow smoothly. The peak direction will continue to be away from the Tri-Valley area in the morning and toward the Tri- Valley in the evening, except for I-580 over Altamont pass. There, the peak direction is inbound in the morning and outbound in the evening. I-680 will operate at LOS E or better between Diablo Road in Danville and Route 84 south of Pleasanton. North of Danville and south of Pleasanton, bottlenecks will occur and LOS F conditions will prevail in the peak direction. The duration of congestion will be from 6:00 AM to 10:00 and 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM daily. Ramp metering will be necessary to keep the freeway flowing. In the off-peak direction, the LOS on I-680 will be E or better. On I-580, LOS F will occur in the peak direction east of Livermore and over Altamont Pass. Based on existing traffic flow profiles, the congestion over Altamont Pass is expected to last from 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM daily. Ramp metering will be required to maintain freeway flow conditions. At all times of the day, I-580 will operate at LOS E or better in the off-peak direction. Transit Service. The plan has a substantial impact on transit service provisions. BART will be extended to the Tri-Valley in the I-580 corridor. The corridor is now served only by BART express buses with 20- to 30-minute headways with numerous stops. The BART rail line will have 9-minute headways. County Connection routes will increase from two to 8 and headways will decrease from 30 to 20 minutes. WHEELS will add 10 routes, each with 30-minute headways. Two existing WHEELS routes will have headways decrease from 60 minutes to 30 minutes. Nine express bus routes will be added to corridors that today have no transit service; these include routes on Vasco Road to East County and on I-680 to Santa Clara County. The express buses will be on 20-minute headways. Regarding transit travel times, express buses are assumed to achieve comparable travel times as cars, not counting access time. Express buses in the I-680 corridor will actually travel slightly faster than cars. The buses will be able to use the HOV lane through what will become a very congested sections of I-680 north of Alamo and south of Route 84. Local bus routes are assumed to be about 15 percent slower than compa- rable trips by car, again not counting access time. BART will be at least as fast as cars and could be slightly faster depending on the destination. Transit Ridership/Mode Split. With the plan, total transit ridership in the Tri-Valley will jump from 39,000 to 113,000 daily boardings (see Table 74). This increase is more than proportional to the population increase. The largest portion of transit trips will be made on BART. The model predicts substantial ridership on BART-44,000 daily boardings. Thus, BART will account for 39 percent of total transit boardings in the Tri-Valley area. The transit mode share is expected to increase from the existing four percent for work trips to five percent. Even such a small shift in mode share is a Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 113 Recommended Improvement Plan significant achievement for an area like the Tri-Valley with a low average population and employment density. Table 7-4 2010 Expected Transit Ridership 1990 2010 Carrier Daily Ridership' Daily Ridership2 County Connection 3,097 13,404 WHEELS 16,698 41,433 BART 19,482 52,0583 Express Buses — 6,041 Total 39,277 112,935 ' For routes that serve the Tri-Valley, based on Tri-Valley Transportation Model validation run. 2 For routes that serve the Tri-Valley, based on Tri-Valley Transportation Model expected run. 2 Daily boardings of 44,000 on the BART line, the remainder on BART buses. Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994. Ballon-Aschman Associates, Inc. 114 .`t rc1a, pear Fxr° �y . 8. Financial Plan The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan will be financed through a combination of public and private sources. The primary existing funding sources include the Measure C program in Contra Costa County and the Alameda County Measure B program. Funds are also available through various federal, state and local programs. These are administered through MTC via the Regional Transportation Plan. All assumptions for state and federal funding are taken from MTC/RTP estimates. Alameda County Measure 8 Alameda County voters approved Measure B, a 15-year one-half percent sales tax, in November, 1986. Measure B was based on the August, 1986 Alameda County Trans- portation Expenditure Plan. Approximately two-thirds of the total Measure B revenue is to be spent on 10 capital improvement projects. Three of the 10 projects are located in the Tri-Valley area. The total Measure B funding programmed to Tri-Valley is $293.6 million. • Interstate 580/680 Interchange. $89.3 million to provide a southbound-to- eastbound direct connector. a Route 84. $19.9 million to construct a two-lane road on the Isabel Avenue align- ment between Jack London and Concannon. Other sources (MTC, Livermore impact fees, Ruby Hills development) will contribute $43.0 million to overall Route 84 improvements. i • BART Extension. $170 million to extend BART from San Leandro to j Pleasanton/Dublin. Other sources will contribute $367 million to this project. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 115 Financial Plan Refer to the Alameda County Transportation Authority's Strategic Plan, Fiscal year 1993/94, for project and funding specifics. The remaining money is being distributed directly to local entities for current transportation needs. Alameda County Plan The Alameda County Long-Range Transportation Plan identifies a two-phased, Tier 1 and Tier 2, investment program to maintain and enhance the county transportation network. The Tier 1 program is based on reasonable expectations of available revenue sources over the next 20 years to 2014. The County is expecting to receive a total of$1.15 billion during this period. These sources are in addition to the Measure B funds. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission has gone through a similar process for the whole Bay Area and identified what they call "Track 1" projects. These are projects that would be funded by the assumed continuation of existing state and federal funding programs. Table 8-1 shows the Tier 1 projects in the Tri-Valley and compares the Alameda County list to MTC's Track I. Table&1 Alameda County Tier 1 Projects in Tri-Valley MTC Track I AC Tier 1 Comments/ Description (mil esc.$) (mil esc. $) Clarifications Altamont Rail Service— See Com- 3.2 Funding for initial stage planned by Demonstration Project ments San Joaquin County. MTC staff stated they will include a footnote in the RTP stating support, if San Joaquin County allocates funds to the project. Enhanced Bus Service 0 $5.0 To serve Planning Area 4. 1-580/1-680 SB to EB flyover, hook 16.0 17.0 Pending review of 1-580/1-680 inter- ramps, and complete ramp braid to change funding program. Construction retain Hopyard Road access. scheduled to begin '97. West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station 0 27.5 BART extension to be completed by '95,will build shell for West Dublin station. Proposed for Track II by MTC staff. If deferred by MTC Board to Track 11, reallocate $27.5 million to the Route 84/1-580 interchange and ap- proaches. New Route 84/1-580 20.0 20.0 Project Study Report being interchange developed. 1-580 truck/auto separation on WB 7.0 0 Safety-operational improvements to 1-205 at 1-580. interchange. Dependent on San Joaq- uin County provision of$5 million. Total $43.0 $72.7 i ( Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 116 Financial Plan The Alameda County Tier 2 program is essentially unfunded, being based on assump- tions about new revenue sources, such as the continuation of Measure B and a regional gas tax. Table 8-2 shows the Tier 2 project list for Tri-Valley. Table 8-2 Alameda County Tier 2 Projects in Tri-Valley AC Tier 2 Comments/ Description (mil esc $) Clarifications Local Transit Operations— 4.7 CMA allocation is for ADA shortfall. LAVTA Aftamont Pass Rail Service— 0.0 Pending corridor study results. CMA recom- Demonstration Project mends funding Alameda County share of demo service in Tier 1. 1-580/1-680 flyover, complete 6.0 To be determined pending review of 1-580/1- hook ramps to Dublin, and 680 interchange funding program. complete ramp braid to retain Hopyard Road access 1-580 HOV lane 0.0 To be determined pending outcome of corri- dor study. West Dublin BART Station 0.0 CMA recommends project for Tier 1 and Track I. Route 84 Freeway/Expressway 180.0 Reallocate $27.5 million of the $180 million to and complete Route 84/1-580 West Dublin BART station if MTC adopts RTP Interchange with BART station in Track 11. Enhanced Bus Service 23.0 To serve Planning Area 4. Vasco Road Operational 16.0 Improvements Total $229.7 I i I Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 117 Financial Plan Contra Costa County On November 8, 1988, the voters of Contra Costa County approved Measure C, which became effective in April 1989. The Measure C "Expenditure Plan" directs funds generated through Measure C to a wide variety of planning, operational and capital improvements, collectively designed to improve transportation service in Contra Costa County. The "Expenditure Plan" includes Capital Improvement projects that fall into three categories; (1) Highways and Arterials, (2) Transit, and (3) Trails. In addition there are five programs included within Measure C: (1) Elderly and Handicapped Transit Service, (2) Local Street Maintenance and Improvements, (3) Carpools, Vanpools and Park and Ride Lots, (4) Bus Transit Improvements and Coordination, and(5) Regional Transportation Planning and Growth Management. Approximately 70 percent of the revenues are allocated to capital improvement projects and 30 percent to programs. The seven-year "Strategic Plan" provides detailed specific commitments for specific projects. The balance of the program is represented as lump sum amounts shown by year. The current "Strategic Plan" is detailed through fiscal year 1997. It is updated every two years and is currently undergoing its first update. Tri-Valley projects identified by CCTA for Measure C funding to date include the following. The total Measure C funding in Tri-Valley is $27.4 million. • I-680 Auxiliary Lanes: $10 million to construct auxiliary lanes between Diablo Road and Bollinger Canyon Road interchanges. Other sources must contribute $27 million. (Source: Regional Transportation Plan, MTC.) • Construct Fostoria Parkway Overcrossing: $11.5 million to construct the I-680 overcrossing. Other funding sources amount to $1.8 million. (Source: CCTA, 1993 Congestion Management Program, Appendix E.) • Arterial Street Improvements: $5.9 million to modify/improve the arterial road network in Tri-Valley. (Source: CCTA, 1993 Congestion Management Program, Appendix E.) Private Funding The majority of the arterial system and interchange improvements in the Tri-Valley will be built or funded by new development. This is reflective of the fact that the arterial extensions and widenings are to build additional capacity to serve new development. The new roads and widenings will either be built directly by the developers or will be paid for through local traffic impact fees. Livermore, Pleasanton, i Danville, and San Ramon all have development fees. These fees will in a large measure fund the needed arterial infrastructure for the expected year 2010 transporta- tion system. However, there are 11 critical regional projects that either lack funding entirely or are not completely funded. The need for these projects cannot be tied to any single development or even any single city. These are described below. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 118 Financial Plan Critical Regional Projects Since most arterial improvements and extensions are local-serving and will be paid for by new development, the financial plan needs to focus on the funding of the larger projects with regional significance. The TVTC developed the following list of criteria to define a regional project: 1. The project must involve a route of regional significance as defined by the TVTC for the transportation plan (see Figure 1-1). 2. Transit projects can be included. 3. The project must be identified in an adopted plan. 4. The project would not be built as a direct developer improvement. While not a part of the originally adopted list, a fifth criterion discussed by the TVTC is that the project should serve more than one jurisdiction. By these criteria, the following planned projects would qualify as being regionally significant. These have been determined to be of highest priority for funding due to their demonstrated need in meeting the transportation service objectives through 2010. 1. I-580/1-680 Interchange. Southbound-to-eastbound flyover. 2. Route 84. Four lanes on Vallecitos Road, six lanes on Isabel Avenue, including a new interchange at I-580/Isabel. 3. 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes. From Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Road. 4. BART Extension. From Castro Valley to East Dublin, including two stations in the Tri-Valley. 5. I-580 HOV Lanes. From Tassajara Road to North Livermore Avenue. 6. I-680 HOV Lanes. From Route 84 to top of Sunol Grade. 7. Ramp Metering. Add ramp metering with HOV bypass to all freeway interchanges in the Tri-Valley. 8. I-680/Alcosta Interchange. Capacity improvements including replacement of southbound off-ramp with hook ramp. 9. 1-580IYoothill Interchange. Conversion to partial cloverleaf design. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 119 I Financial Plan 10. Crow Canyon Road Operational Improvements. Realigning the roadway, construc- tion of shoulders and improving sight distance, all aimed at improving traffic flow and safety on Crow Canyon Road between Bollinger Canyon Road and one mile north of Norris Canyon Road. 11. Vasco Road Operational Improvements. Realignment and upgrading of Vasco Road from the Alameda County line to the Livermore City limit, while retaining the two-lane cross-section. The following three projects are also included in the transportation plan but are considered by the TVTC to be of lower priority for the 2010 planning horizon. These projects are considered important to the future of transportation in the Tri-Valley but are not needed to meet the Transportation Service Objectives through 2010. 1. I-580 HOV Lanes. Completion of the HOV project on I-580 from Santa Rita Road to the San Joaquin County border. 2. I-680 HOV Lanes. Completion of the I-680 HOV Lane project from Alcosta Boulevard to Route 84. This would create a system of continuous HOV lanes on I-680 through the Tri-Valley. 3. I-580/1-680 Interchange. Construction of the northbound to westbound flyover ramp. This improvement has been identified by Caltrans as the next step in improving the I-580/1-680 interchange. This second flyover ramp would eliminate all existing weaving sections. Funding for Regional Projects Most of the regional projects have some funding already committed (see Table 8-3). Additional funds are needed to make up the shortfall. This plan does not rely on Alameda County Tier 2 funding becoming available. The total shortfall is $294.9 million. The regional improvements are all necessary to serve new development. Because Tier 2 funding is uncertain and because the regional projects are vital to safe and efficient transportation in the Tri-Valley, a subregional impact fee should be adopted to cover the shortfall. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 120 c 0 aE CD .. crn C) r� v � Q Lo � � � � 69 696 e C_ .0 � c LL o d E A O O �l M \ •Y C C C-i QLL Q 69 6 69 0 C) 643, 64), 69 v' 6 Q C O cis U ca m }I N r cc V � � m m m U m 0 U c aL co� � m mr r 0Cc cc cca Mo m occ CL ;. U) �- c� as m H o ¢` E C E N rn o ^ v Ln of Ci ovi cc N O v o r- ch v o r o LO oo a LU 60) 01 -9 69, 69 � (1) cr. 3 d TO N O O C �Q pp •i OD L U U _ _ cc 00 co O U) CD m O C ca 1 mN C O to E E L ! Z cc C C O coCF� U m a m T� V c0 c0 CO t0 C N � � � cc Q C Z (N U J O ca C C C m C r m O O >, is Cc C W w co m J 0) L = `2 O _ a L M C o 'X O m N cc > QQ > '�- r m 5. cc cc N y v to c ¢ c a p E p m oo c o 0 ca m O CC E Co 0) o Z = > = p n � caUio Om ago 5 0 a cgo OC n ago -� c E c m $ N E LO o c c c°� '- Q o � c°� o caCo L- Lna ea Q Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 121 i Financial Plan Subregional Impact Fees The impact fees should be calculated to make up the funding shortfall for the regional projects. Thus, the subregional transportation impact fee will need to generate $294.9 • million. The need for new transportation facilities is generated equally by residential and commercial growth, so the funding responsibility should also be equally divided (see Table 8-4). The resulting fees are $2,243 per dwelling unit and $4.01 per square foot for office, commercial,or industrial use. These fees are illustrative of the level of impact fees required but are not meant to be final calculations. The TVTC must go beyond this plan to develop an impact fee program. At a minimum, the program needs to consider the following issues: • Land Use Categories. Will there be one fee for all residential development or will it vary with density? Similarly, how many commercial categories will be used? Jurisdictions typically use three categories: retail, industrial, and office. Would even more categories be useful? • Credits. Should certain projects that have already contributed regional improve- ments, such as Hacienda Business Park, be entitled to a fee credit? • Exemptions. Should certain project with significant social value such as low- income housing, hospitals, and churches, be exempt from fees? What about projects that significantly enhance the area's economic development? • Fee Collection. How and by whom should the fees be collected? Who will bank the funds and contract for transportation projects? i i Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 122 04 Ili 16 CD tb 0- 40 0 C: -.6 s-t 0 - G lzr 00- CD 00 Or o u). .0 0 ,— cu-, 0 T-. 0 O (b cP .00. J,; 0 0 0 0 0- too 00-* 0 rG N N .0 123 mto co AIR co BartonS9 Inc. �,Ssoci -ASChrnan Financial Plan Spatial Distribution of Fees and Benefits Elected officials are concerned about where impact fees are collected and where they are spent. Table 8-5 shows the 2010 estimated peak-hour usage pattern for each of the high-priority projects. Each jurisdiction would benefit from two or more of the regional projects. Table 8-5 Traffic Pattern on High-Priority Regional Projects 2010 Traffic Origin San Uninc. Project Danville Ramon CCC Dublin Pleasan- Liverm- Through ton ore 1-580/1-680 Interchange 6% 6% 6% 20% 34% 14% 14% Route 84 1% 1% 2% 9% 10% 49% 28% 1-580 Auxiliary Lanes 23% 22% 16% 10% 100/0 4% 151% BART Extension 2% 5% 6% 14% 16% 22% 34% 1-580 HOV Lanes 00/0 6% 3% 15% 15% 39% 28% 1-680 HOV Lanes 3% 4% 5% 13% 30% 27% 19% 1-580/Alcosta 0% 38% 280/6 280/6 20/6 00/0 0% 1-580/Foothill 2% 6% 120/6 43% 31% 6% 0% Crow Canyon Safety 36% 31% 90/0 3% 20/6 00/0 19% Vasco Safety 1% 1% 100/0 90/0 12% 44% 23% I f i t Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 124 Financial Plan Table 8-6 compares payment to expenditures by jurisdiction. Expenditures are summa- rized based on the physical location of improvements and based on the amount of new development trips using the new facilities. Based on usage, Livermore is the primary beneficiary of impact fees because of two factors: (1) Livermore has more planned growth than any other jurisdiction; and (2) Livermore will be the primary user of Route 84, which is the largest unfunded component of the plan. Whether considering benefit by facility location or by usage pattern, the impact fees would result in a transfer of at least $45 million from Contra Costa County jurisdictions to Alameda County jurisdictions. Table S-6 Equity Analysis of Regional Impact Fee Fees Spent ($ millions) Fees Generated Based on Based on Jurisdiction ($ millions) Geography Usage Danville 11 16 5 San Ramon 27 16 15 Contra Costa County 42 0 14 Contra Costa County Subtotal 80 32 34 Dublin 62 23 45 Pleasanton 63 90 46 Livermore 88 90 170 Alameda County 2 60 0 Alameda Subtotal 215 263 261 Total 295 295 295 Potential Future Funding Sources Other future funding sources have been discussed for the Tri-Valley. Alameda County # has discussed a Tier 2 funding program, which includes a 10-cent regional gas tax and a continuation of Measure B. The Mid-State Toll Road has also been proposed to provide transportation capacity in the Route 84 corridor without public investment. E Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 125 Financial Plan These sources are discussed briefly below, although because of their uncertainty, the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan does not rely on their provision. County Sales Tax Measures The county sales tax measures, currently funding several transportation improve- ments, have a limited life span. Measure B in Alameda County will expire in 2002. Measure C in Contra Costa County will expire in 2008. There is a chance that these sales tax programs, through a successful election, could be extended. They were originally passed with a simple majority vote. Recent court decisions in other counties, however, have shown that a two-thirds vote may be required to enact future tax initiatives. County Gas Tax A county tax may be imposed on motor vehicle fuels for the purposes of transportation investment according to enabling state legislation which was adopted in 1981. The tax would be imposed in increments of one cent per gallon per year with no state-imposed lifetime limit. Prior to imposition and collection of a tax, a proposition granting authority to the county to impose the tax must be submitted and approved by the voters at an election. A proposition may be submitted to the voters only if a written agreement is made with respect to allocation of the revenues between the county and the cities. Additional gas taxes would provide several benefits. Drivers will look for alternatives to the private automobile as driving costs (e.g., increased fuel prices)increase, reducing systemwide demands. Demand may be reduced by telecommuting, ride- sharing, transit, or linking trip purposes. The additional revenue obtained as a result of the higher tax would create a larger "pot of money" for transportation related projects. Toll Financing A toll road, the Mid-State Toll Road, has been proposed for the Route 84 corridor, connecting between I-680 in Sunol and the Antioch area. The toll road is now in the planning stages, with an environmental impact report(EIR) under development. At the request of MTC and Tri-Valley agencies, the EIR will study several options in the corridor, including transit. The City of Livermore and the Alameda County CMA have adopted resolutions opposing a private toll road in the Route 84 corridor. A public toll road has also been discussed, although no official positions have been taken. Because of the uncertain nature of the Mid-State Toll Road, either public or private, it is not included as a funding source for the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that $137 million of the unfunded portion of the plan is attribut- able to Route 84. If the decision were made to adopt and build a toll road within the 2010 horizon of this plan, the proposed regional impact fee could be reduced, or the $137 million could be applied to one of the second priority regional projects discussed in the next section. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 126 Financial Plan Potential Future Transportation Projects The plan identifies three regional transportation projects that would be desirable for the area but are not required to meet transportation service objectives: high-occupancy vehicle lanes on I-680 between Alcosta and Route 84, high-occupancy vehicle lanes on I-580 between North Livermore Avenue and the San Joaquin County line, and the addition of a northbound to westbound flyover ramp at the I-580/1-680 interchange. If more transportation funds become available than were assumed in this plan, the TVTC would like them to be allocated to these projects. Table 8-7 provides preliminary cost estimates for these projects. In current dollars the total cost would be $245 million. Table 8-7 Cost Estimates for Second Priority Regional Projects Project Cost (millions of cur- rent dollars) 1-580 HOV Lanes $85 (N. Livermore Avenue to San Joaquin County Line) 1-680 HOV Lanes 40 (Alcosta to Route 84) 1-580/1-680 Interchange— 120 NB to WB Flyover Ramp Total $245 Detailed Finance Plan Table 8-8 provides the detailed financing plan for the 2010 planned network. The overall program cost is projected to be $1,482,310,000. Approximately 47 percent of the projected cost ($695,690,000) is publicly funded, primarily through Measure B and Measure C programs. Thirty-three percent ($491,720,000) of the projected cost would be funded by direct developer exactions from localities. These would be either local impact fees or required project mitigation improvements. The remaining 20 percent ($294,900,000) of the program cost would be funded by the subregional transportation impact fee. Besides the subregional impact fee, the other aspect of the finance plan that needs to be finalized is the cost sharing arrangement between jurisdictions that have responsi- bility for a particular route of regional significance. One option is to adopt a policy that Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 127 Financial Plan each jurisdiction is responsible for the routes within its boundaries. Another option is to determine where traffic goes from each jurisdiction and assess funding responsibili- ty based on proportional traffic shares. In any event, the cost sharing formulae need to be developed through negotiation between affected jurisdictions. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 128 15 m • C m L Cm t5 CD 0 0 D o v O CaCl) N N CO rl C r N 7 ts C O� N m m m m m m m m m LL 0 6 5 15 TJ t5O O O O O m U U UCD m m U U U U U CL O O O O O O O O O O O O N M m m m m mm m CD m m m m m m m m CD o o_ $ o_ o- 0- a a o. o. o_ a o_ U O O O O O O O O O O O m7 m m m m m m m m m m m m> > > > > > > > > > > > > O m m m m m m m m m m m m m CIO O O O O O O O O O O O O O >.-0 m m CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O > O V Cn CO In tO r N N T a LL r Cl) rn C l` cc ro c0 oU J U (D U) CO CO U CO m m m m y 49 m 7 7 7 C L 2 N N N N m m m m 2-10 W U m Cr) 0 0 0 wl CO Z Of M O O O N LL Lf) C N CD C yO O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O OI O A O O O O O CD'Ct O O O O O O O O O O O O O y O O ti O n O tC N Cf1 r CV (V 1-- N 'V w N CL .E N C7 N M N�- N O r r r r r r r r Cl o - T N � CL m ro M CC c G X CO m U > m m O m g c o ° o t c o 0 m o c v L c I CO ro ro0 0 O C O 4) tm m CD io pcc Cm .` m rom t 2 c p` m e a [/� •O O) O U ` m C to ca r a V ro c O M O M 3 m m ro m m 0 3 m y ii m m C O Q C C O � .v_ x Q t m m m e0 Z' CO ro ro c o m m U .> 3 CO C Cc c c -� -� m ro Cr v v m CO D U 2 > -0 o ro d c tv C m Q m 0 2 2 CO C D m m U) c c C ro m m F- o. -- H ._ ._ m c C E = G OD �+ m E a : C _0 .0 � 3 '6 3 of 0 ° OD F� LL w 0 m Q m � ro o o TO > > c`� - cc - m3 _ _ Q aaF- OA - ziz � CO �L Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 129 m m i o LL cm T m -0 0- E E cn — rn C•i co c m N o CDL y m _ N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m J J J J J J J J J J J J J a- O. d 4. W a m N Cl. m o LL m a ma ma CX Cl.. a ooo- (D O O O O O O OU m m N m m m m N m m N N > > m m m m m m > m m m > m > > > > m > > m m O m m m m m m m m m m mm m m m m m fn 0 LL LL. LL. LL LL LL LL. LL. LL 0 LL 0 0 0 0 LL 0 0 LL LL_ a m (DO O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N CA O O O 'O O In Ln O O O In O O O O M In In 0 0 In O C.) O 1n C") O LL > o LO M N 00 00 co CO N Ch 00 N O ui r` N O O `7 CO O cn I d T r r� C C C 0 C CD f0 U N a L U O O 7 >. inA- Q- Q-LL N W O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OI O O O N Of O O O C O LA LQ O O O LA O O O O to Cn to O O to O C7 O Lq C7 CO N O Cn Cr) N CO SOD w w N M w N O c0 r` Clq O � C'7 O CD st N EL- � E T o =- T O C N O i � m O ` 0O > La = C L ca C m C> �i.. >. O O L7) C crn c O � Z C O O C C N C O C C C C *Ul m C p) C m C •� p1 N O m N CD C •D C O O C O) C x m m m LL 3 m 33, m c c > c .N m ° OD F= 'c O m x 3 2 $ � Y M 3 X m Q c o 3 m v a c > CD m N O. w � CO O CL O m m .0 m C m X CD Cr_ 3 3 E o m m a > ea c > > 3 o m 5 4 m O o -D m to 0 cc CD VC m o — N co > aC > oTCC a •C LO cr V Qca _m �V L _ to mCCUJL O m dLO 0. LjE CD m LUp OJZ Z 0 > Z LLW D � L0 k C13 2 f i i • c m m •I co O O M Ci CO O) CO N N N � a um E cn — N C m .0,:b C4 t O LL L G V v ; V C.7 V V t5 CD CD m m m m m m m CD m m m m a a rL a a o. a a cn cn cn a U U N m �CD m m m m m m m ma m m CD O O O O O O O p p 7 m > >m m> m > N> > m m m m CO LL 13 0 LL LL 0 LL 0 LL 0 _T m m O CO o — Cn O QI N 12 nOA Ln O h O O Cl ()D O N Of O IO CA CO O C7IC\i c; 06I CC\lir cO0 h4LL O N .- /1 C_ f+ O O c N V m U U U m m m i o y N m ?y U) U C- �+ T D CD O C3 0 CD o o I o CiCi 7 c O co N a0 r r r p a LL C H 0 CD 0 0 Co 0 M .- O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0010 0 0 C C 0 N O mO O O m �I h O OI O O N C'7 O OI Ln C7 O Ocl O O cc •Q 01 .- .•- .- N CD N 6 M ^ CO N O O C CV CD 0 fV LA h tD 1l CO r r N Ir N o - 0 N m c �..- E ca m L > f ` O ym Q/ C C m c c E o ,i vmrn cf m iy c 0 CL C C C N O 'C C Q C x C N Q C L m a m O m 3 O (. I O •y O U C m 01 C m J c m N m 3 e° E m 3 m Co m m E � C c E.a ?� c X °c, .(D > m > m to x v m o o X c c o v c m .c x CO o m > o m m m � O m Q> o> 3 IL mv3 > � mcc � yE m`o Cr CD c > m c � m � U � cDo ' co d m 3 > 3 c L n o c p c E o c o a N c Lu m c o (� m y m O m 0 o Co o Oc O >o. v ( o o°o� cc cc C c L cp m Q LL g y �- • E ?. Z E o $ E v Z m C0 U m R= m ° 0 m m T � to m y � � � � � � U Q cc (n m U c � to i Os L { � C m m cco o . is °r°° J "-' aco cco cODn W m c 00 ca m cVi Ea o ca ) m LL w = co in uD cn > _ 3 � 5 c U) - m U o _ U) 3 a U o > I = i N m OLL 0 m to -0 a = E � U) — c CD c m 0- o v r n m m m E a CD eeeCD mm m - v mmm of 0 ( o m > > > ts U) O O O O N T� •- N m m O O O O N "0 = O O O O CO to to to C •+ a LL O m 8ED ' � r / L 0 g m O_ V N m Y O -0 m i a 0 tx° 3 U) m N m m CL Q� U m t0 0 Z � C ui mm 7 7 (3) m 'Q O_LL t0 .O 0 O !� N O O OI O C7 = r C = N 0 tD co 'Q C m � - O .a C c i» E 0 'to C O 0, E c EEo Np N U 'c m m m m 3 mC13 3 i > tti o 2 i o0C N ov 3 m E c co o N Q. c0 d N Q L tti m ►- m C V cc CC E .0 m QQ7 ctl N -0 U O C7 = O a m -i c / o io co c� s E m 9 c to E c um) r E c •— m m ca � m m d0 0 0 o c Q ° acn0 .>_ O cc m c U) F- c0 N / / J / .0C E 3 E 3 :3 .9--C N / / CCI m m W m LL Q U U J fr : F- LL LU Z 0 z _ aUCL0an0 �: `t pear ; . P t 1• 4 L • �" L , �' ` `. 9. Action Plan The Action Plan lists each route of regional significance along with the 2010 planned improvements and resulting traffic volume and levels of service. The Transportation Plan recommendations are distilled into distinct action statements for each route of regional significance. Potential actions are also listed. These were considered by the TVTC and serve as background to the recommended actions. The Action Plan also includes a list of responsible agencies to implement the actions for each route of regional significance. Overall Actions 1. Implement a subregional traffic impact fee to pay for planned, but unfunded, trans- portation improvements. 2. Increase AVR for work (commute) trips from 1.15 to 1.25. Achieve this increase by requiring and enforcing employer-based TDM programs. 3. Install ramp metering at all freeway on-ramps, provided sufficient stacking space is available. Provide HOV bypass lanes wherever space permits. 4. Achieve an overall jobs-housing balance within the Tri-Valley and provide housing types that are affordable to all income levels. 5. Support regional gasoline taxes, continuation of Measure C and Measure B one-half percent sales taxes, or other increased transportation funding to provide funds for needed transportation projects. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 132 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Responsibility for Implementation Facility Responsible Agency 1-680 All 1-580 All Sycamore Valley Road Danville Danville Boulevard Danville, CCC Camino Tassajara Danville, CCC Crow Canyon Road San Ramon, AC, CCC, Danville San Ramon Valley Boulevard Danville, San Ramon Bollinger Canyon Road San Ramon, CCC Alcosta Boulevard San Ramon Dougherty Boulevard CCC, Dublin Tassajara Road CCC, Dublin, AC Dublin Boulevard Dublin, AC San Ramon Road Dublin Hopyard Road Pleasanton Santa Rita Road Pleasanton Stanley Boulevard Pleasanton, Livermore Stoneridge Drive Pleasanton Sunol Boulevard Pleasanton Route 84 All First Street (Livermore) Livermore Vasco Road Livermore, AC The following are not routes of regional significance Stone Valley Road CCC Fallon Road Dublin, AC North Canyons Parkway Livermore, AC Isabel Extension (North of 1-580) Livermore, AC North Livermore Avenue Livermore, AC Las Positas (Pleasanton) Pleasanton Bernal Avenue Pleasanton Jack London Livermore Hacienda Drive Pleasanton, Dublin Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 133 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:1.680 North of Livonia at Bollinger South of 1-580 South of Route 84 Existing Configuration 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes Existing Volume' 7,100 5,000 4,800 6,000 . Existing V/C 1.08 0.76 0.73 0.91 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:HOV lanes,SR 24 to Dublin—under construction;auxiliary lanes, Diablo to Bollinger;SB to EB flyover and Dublin hook ramps at 1-68011-580 interchange;improve interchange at Alcosta;add interchange at West Las Positas 2010 Configuration 6+HOV 6+HOV+Aux. 6 6 Volume 7,800(constrained) 6,300 5,800 6,600(constrained) Transit Service(buses/hour) 10 36 24 30 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 365 203 13 0 WC(unconstrained) 1.00(l.39) 0.70 0.87 1.00(l.47) 8 hours of congestion 7 hours of conges- tion Traffic Pattern Danville 31% Dublin 12% Pleasanton 28% Pleasanton 30% San Ramon 20% Pleasanton 18% Dublin 20% Livermore 27% CCC 18% Livermore 11% Livermore 5% Dublin 13% Dublin 7% Danville 6% CCC 9% CCC 5% Pleasanton 6% San Ramon 38% Danville 8% Through 19% Livermore 4% CCC 0% San Ramon 14% Danville 3% Through 15% Through 15% Through 15% San Ramon 4% TSO None—Not within V/C-0.99 V/C-0.99 No more than five TVTC control hours of congestion Recommended Actions 1.Support major 1.Secure funding for 1.Secure funding 1.Add HOV lanes, transit investment auxiliary lanes. for I-680JI-580 Route 84 to Sunol (w/Central County). interchange. Grade. 2.Support commute 2.Secure funding for 2.Seek funding 2.Add express bus alternatives Alcosta interchange for HOV lanes service. (Bay Areawide). improvements. Aloosta b Route 84. 3.Oppose increases 3.Support commute to mixed-flow aftematives. capacity. 4.Oppose increases to mixed- flow capacity. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 134 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan * Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facllf y:I-ff80 North of Livoma at Bollinger South of 1-580 South of Route 84 Potential Actions Highway Solution Widen to 10 lanes+ Widen to 10 lanes. HOV Transit Solution Would require an Would require 80 additw.sl 50 buses buses per hour or per hour(peak LRT with 5-minute direction)or LRT with headways or BART 5-minute headways-.r or Altamont Pass BART. Rail with 15-minute headways. TDM Solution Would require 20% Would require 60% increase in AVR for all increase in AVR for trip types,or spread all trips,or spread commute over 16 commute over 16 hours per day. hours per day. Land Use Solution Reduce growth in Reduce growth by CCC portion of Tri- 63,000 units,similar Valley by 33,850 decrease in jobs, units,similar decrease similar decrease in in jobs,similar Santa Clara County. decrease in Central CCC and Oakland. Policy Solution Tolerate congestion. Tolerate congestion, wig act as a valve to wig reduce trip promote shorter lengths. commutes. TSO met TSO met 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-erection of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 135 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:1.560 West of Foothill at Tassajara at Altamont Existing Configuration 8 lanes 8 lanes 8 lanes Existing Volume' 7,000 8,000 5,100 Existing V/C 0.80 0.91 0.58 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:SB to EB flyover at 1-680/1-580 interchange,improve interchanges to parcio design at Foothill/San Ramon, Fallon/EI Charro, Vasco Road,Greenville Road, North Livermore Avenue,and First Street,remove interchange at Portola;addition of new interchange at Isabel extension(part of the Route 84 project). 2010 Configuration 8 lanes 8 lanes 8 lanes Volume 8,800(constrained) 8,800(constrained) 8,800(constrained) Transit Service(buses/hour) 18+BART 20 None Transit Ridership(peak hour) 3,914 168 0 WC(unconstrained) 1.00(l.07) 1.00(l.23) 1.00(1.40) (1-1/2 hours of (4 hours of (5 hours of congestion) congestion) congestion) Traffic Pattern Dublin 23% Danville 0% Livermore 25% Pleasanton 24% San Ramon 6% Pleasanton 14% Livermore 24% Livermore 39% Danville 1% CCC 75% Dublin 15% San Ramon 8% Danville 1% Pleasanton 15% CCC 3% San Ramon 5% CCC 3% Dublin 9% Through 16% Through 28% Through 40% TSO Los F no more than 2 LOS F no more None-not within MC hours than 2 hours control Recommended Actions None. 1.Add HOV lanes 1.Support major transit Tassajara to N. investment in corridor. Livermore. 2.Oppose increases in mixed-flow capacity. 3.Seek funding for HOV lanes,N. Livermore to county line. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 136 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:{.580 West of Foothill at Tassajara at Altamont Potential Actions Highway Solution Widen to 10 lanes or Widen to 10 lanes Widen to 12 lanes 8+HOV (would cause major problems downstream) Transit Solution Increase BART Add 40 buses per Add bus service(70 ridership by 600 in hour or LRT with buses per hour)or rail peak hour 10-minute (10-minute headways headways or would be rsquired). extend BART. TDM Solution Increase AVR by 7% Increase AVR by Increase AVR by 40% for all trip types,or 40%for all trip for all trip types,or spread commute to 3 types,or spread spread commute to 10 hours per day. commute to 8 hours per day. hours per day. Land Use Solution Reduce development Reduce Reduce TV jobs by in AC portion of TV by development as about 35,000,must be 9,500 units. follows: accompanied by similar decreases in TV Livermore: 11,000 households,San units Joaquin households, and Bay Area jobs. Dublin:7,700 units Pleasanton:5,300 units Similar reductions in employment. Policy Solution Tolerate moderate Tolerate Tolerate congestion, congestion,revise congestion,revise wig encourage job TSO to LOS F no TSO to LOS F for development in San more than two hours. no more than 4 Joaquin. hours. 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-drection of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 137 Aeon Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:Sycamore Valley Road East of 1-680 Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' 1,800 Existing V/C 0.50 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:None 2010 Configuration 4 lanes Volume 2,360 Transit Service(buses/hour) 8 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 58 V/C(unconstrained) 0.65 Traffic Pattern Danville 44% San Ramon 2% CCC 48% Livermore 6% Pleasanton 0% Dublin 0% TSO WC<0.90 at intersection. Recommended Actions 1.Oppose any consideration of additional vehicular capacity on Sycamore Valley Road.Sycamore Valley Road has a 2010 capacity consisting of four through lanes, acceleration/deceleration lanes at all intersections,left-turn pockets at all intersections,and Caltrans stat dw Class 11 bicycle lanes. No action shall be considered that would eliminate such acceleration/deceleration lanes or bicycle lanes. PM Peak-How 2010 Expected Intersection LOS t Alhout Mitigation V/C LOS Sycamore Valley Road and San Ramon Val"Boulevard 0.61 D Sycamore Valley Road and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.63 B Sycamore Valley Road and 1-580 NB Ramps 0.79 C Sycamore Valley Road and Camino Tassajara 0.37 A Sycamore Valley Road and Brookside Drive 0.47 A 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 138 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key locations Facility:Danville Boulevard At Stone Valley Existing Configuration 2 lanes Existing Volume' 1,100 Existing V/C 0.61 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:None 2010 Configuration 2 lanes Volume 1,100(constrained) Transit Service(buses/hour) 20 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 157 V/C(unconstrained) 0.61 (1.10) Traffic Pattern Danville 44% San Ramon 17% CCC 16% Pleasanton 4% Dublin 5% Livermore 4% Through 10% TSO V/C<0.90 at intersections Recommended Actions None.This route is direly affected by the bottleneck on 1-680.Any capacity increases would lead to cut-through traffic. PM Pesk-Hour 2010 Expected intersection LOS Without Mitigation WC LOS Danville Boulevard and Stone Valley 0.82 D Hartz Avenue and Diablo Road 0.38 A Danville Boulevard and Livonia Road 0.76 C 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 139 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key locations East of Sycamore East of Facility:Camino Taasajare Valley Road Crow Canyon Existing Configuration 4 lanes 4 lanes Existing Volume' 1,300 760 Existing V/C 0.36 0.21 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to four lanes from Danville Town Limits to Contra Costa County Line. 2010 Configuration 4 lanes 4 lanes Volume 1,840 2,320 Transit Service(buses/hour) 10 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 128 WC(unconstrained) 0.51 0.64 Traffic Pattern Danville 42% CCC 53% CCC 49% San Ramon 20% San Ramon 2% Danville 18% Pleasanton 6% Pleasanton 1% Dublin 0% Dublin 2% Livermore 2% Livermore 6% TSO V/C<0.90 at V/C<0.90 at intersections intersections Recommended Actions None Required. 1.An initial level of development of 8,500 units may be constructed in the Dougherty Valley based on the Settlement Agreement.Up to 11,000 units may be considered pending the completion of additional traffic studies.This action was developed by the Town of Danville. Contra Costa County may support different actions. 2.The plan should be based on land use assumptions for TVPOA that would not result in a violation of transportation service objectives.This action was developed by the Town of Danville.Contra Costa County may support different actions. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 140 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations East of Sycamore Fast of Facility:Camino Tasaajars Valley Road Crow Canyon 3.Oppose any consideration of additional vehicular capacity on Camino Tassajara Camino Tassajara within the Town of Danville has a 2010 capacity consisting of four through lanes,acceleration/deceleration lanes at all intersections, left-tum pockets at all intersections,and Caltrans standard Class II bicycle lanes. No action shall be considered that would eliminate such aoceleration/deceleration lanes or bicycle lanes.This action was developed by the Town of Danville. Contra Costa County may support different actions. The northbound approach at the Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk Road/Crow Canyon Road intersection may be reconfigured to consist of a 4-foot median island, two 12-foot left-tum lanes,one 12-foot through lane,one 12-foot through plus right-tum lane,and one 12-foot right- tum lane.This requires reducing the existing medan island from 12 feet to 4 feet,and reducing the existing 16-foot right-tum lane to a 12-foot right-tum lane.This can be accomplished within existing curb-to-curb width.Any expansion or modifications at this intersection shall be subject to the approval of the Town of Danville.The Town of Danville has sole discretion to determine whether any widening of this intersection may occur to a configuration with outside curb-to-curb widths that are greater than currently exist. PM Peak-Ebur 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation With Mitigation WC LOS WC LOS Camino Tassajara and Blackhawk/Crow Canyon 1.15 F 0.90 D Camino Tassajara and Sycamore Valley Road 0.37 A Camino Tassajara and Diablo 0.39 A 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour.peak-direction of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 141 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations East of Sycamore East of Facility:Camino Tasaaiara Valley Road Crow Canyon Potential Actions Highway Solution 'Vlfiden Camino Tassajara tD 6 lanes Transit Solution Add 40 buses per hour service to Dougherty Valley and Tassajara Valley;must be full to achieve TSO. TDM Solution Restrict DV and TVPOA peak-hour and peak-period trip generation to DV-77%of normal,and TVPOA-8%of normal. Land Use Solution Restrict DV to 8,500 units by 2010,TVPOA 10 119 units. policy Solution 'Accept LOS F at Camino Tassajarai Blackhawk intersection (defidency plan r'eWired) TSO Met These potential actions violate the Town of Danville General Plan and the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement between Contra Costa County, Danville,and San Ramon, dated May 11, 1994. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 142 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations East of Dougherty(San South of Camino Facility:Crow Canyon Road at County Line East of 1-680 Ramon) Tassajara(Danville) Existing Configuration 2 lanes 8 lanes 4 lanes 6 lanes Existing Volume' 1,200 1,900 1,800 1,800 Existing V/C 0.80 0.26 0.50 0.33 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Operational improvements on two-lane section;widening to 6 lanes-Alcosta to Tassajara Ranch Road. 2010 Configuration 2 lanes Blanes 6 lanes Blanes Volume 1,400 .2,560 3,690 3,810 Transit Service(buses/hour) 4 56 12 12 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 5 204 170 170 WC(unconstrained) 0.93 0.36 0.68 0.71 Traffic Pattern Danville 36% San Ramon 59% San Ramon 27% San Ramon 27% San Ramon 31% Danville 21% Danville 25% Danville 25% CCC 9% CCC 18% CCC 35% CCC 35% Dublin 3% Dublin 1% Dublin 5% Dublin 5% Pleasanton 1% Pleasanton 0% Pleasanton 5% Pleasanton 5% Livermore 1% Livermore 1% Livermore 3% Livermore 3% Through 19% Through 09'6 Through 0% Through 0% TSO Maximum operating WC=<0.90 at WC=<0.90 at V/C=<0.90 at speeds within 2-lane intersections. intersections. intersections. cross-section. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 143 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations East of Dougherty(San South of Camino Facility:Crow Canyon Rood at County Line East of I-M Ramon) Tassajara(Danville) Recommended Actions 1.Secure funding for None. 1.Secure funding for 1.An initial level of operational widening to 6 lanes. development of 8,500 improvements. units may be constructed in the Dougherty Valley 2.An initial level of based on the Settlement development of 8,500 Agreement Up to 11,000 units may be constructed units may be considered in the Dougherty Valley pending the completion based on the Settlement of additional traffic Agreement Up to 11,000 studies.This action was units may be considered developed by the Town pending the completion of Danville.Contra Costa of additional traffic County may support studies.This action was different actions. developed by the Town of Danville.Contra Costa 2.The plan should be County may support based on land use different actions. assumptions for TVPOA that would not result in a violation of transportation service objectives.This action was developed by the Town of Danville. Contra Costa County may support different actions. 3. Improve Camino Tassajara intersection (see Camino Tassajara) 4.Oppose additional widening of Crow Canyon Road within Danville. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 144 Acton Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM P"k-Wour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation With Mitigation V/C LOS WC LOS Crow Canyon Road and Crow Canyon PI. 0.68 B 0.90 D Crow Canyon Road and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.48 A 0.85 D Crow Canyon Road and Camino Tassalara 1.15 F Crow Canyon Road and Dougherty 0.98 E Crow Canyon Road and 1-680 NB Ramps 0.68 B Crow Canyon Road and Camino Ramon 0.89 D Crow Canyon Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard 0.79 C Crow.Canyon Road and Alcosta 0.82 D Crow Canyon Road and Bollinger Canyon 0.63 B 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 145 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations East of Dougherty(San South of Camino Facility:Crow Canyon Rad at County Line East of I-M Ramon) Tassejara(Danville) Potential Actions Highway Solution 8 lanes on Crow 6 lanes on Camino Canyon. Tassajara.• Transit Solution Add 40 buses per hour Add 40 buses per hour service to DV and service to DV and TVPOA; buses must be TVPOA;buses must be full. full. TDM Solution Restrict DV to 77%of Restrict DV to 77%of normal trip-making, normal trip-making, TVPOA to 8%of normal TVPOA to 8%of normal trip-making. trip-making. Land Use Solution Restrict DV 2010 to Restrict DV 2010 to 8,500 units,TVPOA to 8,500 units,TVPOA to 119 units in 2010. 119 units in 2010. Policy Solution Accept LOS E at Crow *Accept LOS F at Crow Canyon/Dougherty. Canyon/Camino Tassajara(requires deficiency plan). TSO met - TSO met •These potential actions violate the Town of Danville General Plan and the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement between Contra Costa County, Danville,and San Ramon.dated May 11. 1994. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 146 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:San Ramon Valley North of Sycamore Boulevard At Bollinger Valley Road Existing Configuration 2 lanes 2 lanes Existing Volume' 900 1,025 Exisbng'V/C 0.50 0.57 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to 4 lanes thn;ugh Danville:Widening to 4 lanes through San Ramon. I 2010 Configuration 4 lanes 4 lanes Volume 1,000 1,540 Transit Service(buses(hour) 10 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 64 437 WC(unconstrained) 0.26 0.43 Traffic Pattern Danville 11% Danville 55% San Ramon 69% San Ramon 43% CCC 3% CCC 1% Dublin 11% Dublin 0% Pleasanton 1% Pleasanton 0% Livermore 1% Livermore 0% Through 0% Through 0% TSO V/C<0.90 at V/C<0.90 at intersections. intersections. Recommended Actions None. None. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 147 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Interaecdon LOS Without Mitigation V/C LOS San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Railroad Avenue 0.63 B San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Sycamore Valley Boulevard 0.81 D San Ramon Valley Boulevard and 1-680 SB Ramps(Alcosta) 0.41 A San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road 0.46 A San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Norris Canyon Road 0.76 C San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Crow Canyon Road 0.79 C San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Akosta Boulevard 0.60 A San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Amador Valley Road 0.45 A ' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-irection of flow. t. . Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 148 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key locations Facility;Bollinger Canyon Road East of I-6W East of Akasta' Existing Configuration 8 lanes 4 Innes Existing Volume' 2,700 400 Existing V/C 0.38 0.11 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:None on the section that is a route of regional significance. Extension east to Dougherty Road(4 lanes- 6 lanes),not a route of regional significance. 2010 Configuration 8 lanes 4 lanes Volume 3,200 2,820 Transit Service(buses/hour) 54 24 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 539 550 V/C(unconstrained) 0.44 0.78 Traffic Pattern Danville 6% Danville 4% San Ramon 44% CCC 49% CCC 42% San Ramon 42% Dublin 6% Dublin 4% Pleasanton 2% Pleasanton 1% Livermore 1% Livermore 0% Through 0% Through 0% TSO V/C<0.90 at V/C<0.90 at intersections. intersections. Recommended Actions 1.Improve 1.Control growth intersection of to meet BoUkWr and Sweet. intersection level of service standards. 2.Improve Bollinger Canyon Road/Alcosta Boulevard Intersection. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 149 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Pesk-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation With Mhilgatbn V/C LOS V/C 109— Bollinger Canyon Road and Sunset Boulevard 1.14 F 0.62 B Bollinger Canyon Road and Dougherty Road(North) 1.11 F 0.90 D Bollinger Canyon Road and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.34 A Bolinger Canyon Road and 1-6W NB Ramps 0.71 C Bollinger Canyon Road and Dougherty Road(South) 0.47 A Bollinger Canyon Road and wndemere Parkway 0.70 B Bollinger Canyon Road and Camino Ramon 0.88 D Bollinger Canyon Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard 0.46 A Bollinger Canyon Road and Crow Canyon 0.63 B Bollinger Canyon Road and Alcosta 1.06 F 0.85 D 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-drection of flow. •This segment is not a route of regional significance. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 150 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:Bollinger Canyon Road East of 1 80 East of Akoosta' Potential Actions Highway Solution Add free right-tum Widen intersection lane SB on Sunset. at Alcosta to 6 lanes on Bollinger. Transit Solution 16 additional peak- 16 additional peak- hour buses;must be hour buses;must full. be full. TDM Solution Restrict DV peak-hour Restrict DV peak- trip generation to 77% hour trip generation of normal. to 77%of normal. Land Use Solution Reduce DV 2010 Reduce DV 2010 development by 3,600 development by units. 3,600 units. Policy Solution Accept LOS F at Accept LOS F at Bollinger/Sunset. Bollinger Canyon/Alcosta intersection (requires deficiency fes)• Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 151 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:Alcosta Boulevard East of 1-680 Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' 600 Existing V/C 0.17 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Reconfiguration of Alcosta/1-680 interchange to improve intersection operation. 2010 Configuration 4 lanes Volume 1,600 Transit Service(buses/hour) 10 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 65 WC(unconstrained) 0.44 Traffic Pattern Danville 3% San Ramon 38% Dublin 28% CCC 28% Pleasanton 2% Livermore 0% TSO WC<0.90 at intersections. Recommended Actions 1.Secure funding for interchange improvements. 2.Improvements at Bolinger Canyon/Alcosta. PM Peak-Ebur 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation With Mitigation WC LOS Alcosta Boulevard and I-680 NB Ramps 0.84 D Alcosta Boulevard and Montevideo Road 0.34 A Alcosta Boulevard and Village Parkway 0.34 A Aloosta Boulevard and Crow Canyon 0.82 D Alcosta Boulevard and Norris Canyon 0.63 B Alcosta Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road 1.06 F 0.85 D Alcosta Boulevard and San Ramon Boulevard 0.60 A Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-drection of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 152 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations North of North of Facility:Dougherty Road North of 1-580 Dublin Boulevard Old Ranch Road North of Bollinger Existing Configuration 6 lanes 4 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes Existing Volume' 2,700 1,300 300 300 Existing V/C 0.50 0.36 0.17 0.17 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to 8 lanes from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard and 6 lanes north of Dublin Boulevard. 2010 Configuration 8 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes Volume 4,200 2,300 3,310 2,990 Transit Service(busesthour) 28 28 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 677 423 679 258 WC(unconstrained) 0.58 0.43 0.61 0.55 Traffic Patten Danville 11% Danville11% Danville 8% Danville 22% Pleasanton 27% Pleasanton27% San Ramon 6% San Ramon 18% CCC 27% CCC27% Other CCC 46% CCC 39% Dublin 20% Dublin20% Dublin 15% Dublin 8% Livermore 6% Livennore6% Pleasanton 16% Pleasanton 9% Through 0% Through0% Livermore 3% Livermore 3% San Ramon 9% San Ramon996 TSO WC<0.90 at inter- V/C<0.90 at inter- V/C<0.90 at inter- V/C<0.90 at inter- sections. sections. sections. sections. Recommended Actions 1.Secure developer 1.Secure developer 1.Secure developer 1.Secure developer funding for planned hxndng for planned funding for planned funding for planned widening. widening. widening. widening. 2.Increase areawide 2.Put in place 2.Put in place growth AVR by 10%. growth controls to controls to insure insure achievement achievement of f of TSOs. TSOs. t. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 153 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation With Mitigation V/C LOS V/C 109— Dougherty Road and Bollinger Canyon Road(North) F 0.90 D Dougherty Road and Crow Canyon Road E 0.85 D Dougherty Road and Old Ranch Road A Dougherty Road and Bollinger Canyon Road(South) A Dougherty Road and 1-580 WB Ramps C Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard E 0.89 D Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Road C ' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Key Locations North of North of Old Ranch Facility:Dougherty Road North of 1-580 Dublin Boulevard Road North of Bollinger Potential Actions Highway Solution Grade separation at Grade separation at Grade separation at Grade separation at Dougherty/Dublin Dougherty/Bollinger Dougherty/Bollinger Dougherty/Bollinger Boulevard intersec- Canyon Road(N) Canyon Road(N) Canyon Road(N) tion,extension of intersection,extension intersection,exten- intersection,exten- Hacienda Drive to of Hacienda Drive to sion of Hacienda sion of Hacienda Windemere Parkway. Windemere Parkway. Drive to Windemere Drive to Windemere Parkway. Parkway. Transit Solution Increase ridership on 16 additional peak- 16 additional peak- 16 additional peak- local route. hour buses on Bol- hour buses on Boi- hour fuses on Bol- linger Canyon Road. linger Canyon linger Canyon Road. Road. TDM Solution Increase overall AVR Restrict DV to 77%of Restrict DV to 77% Restrict DV to 77%of by 5%. normal peak-hour trip of normal peak-hour normal peak-how trip rate. trip rate. rate. Land Use Solution Restrict DV develop- Restrict DV develop- Restrict DV devei- Restrict DV develop- ment to 8,500 units in ment to 8,500 units in op-rent to 8,500 ment to 8,500 units in 2010. 2010. units in 2010. 2010. Policy Solution Accept LOS E at Accept LOS E at Accept LOS F at Accept LOS F at Dougherty/Dublin Dougherty/Dublin Dougherty/Bollinger Dougherty/Bollinger intersection. intersection. Canyon(requires Canyon(requires deficiency plan). deficiency plan). Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 154 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:Tasmisrs Road North of 1580 Noah of Dublin North of Fallon Existing Configuration 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes Existing Volume' 200 200 200 Existing VIC 0.11 0.11 0.11 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to 8 lanes from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard,6 lanes north of Dublin Boulevard to County Line,4 lanes north of County Line. 2010 Configuration 8 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes Volume 3,700 3,750 2,600 Transit Service(buses/hour) 18 . 20 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 1,066 84 120 VIC(unconstrained) 0.51 0.69 0.48 Traffic Pattern Danville 0% Danville 0% Danville 1% San Ramon 0% San Ramon 0% San Ramon 6% Dublin 35% Dublin 35% Dublin 17% CCC 36% CCC 36% Pleasanton 14% Pleasanton 18% Pleasanton 18% CCC 58% Livermore 10% Livermore 10% Livermore 4% Through 0% Through 0% TSO VIC<0.90 at inter- VIC<0.90 at inter- VIC<0.90 at sections. sections. intersections. Recommended Actions 1.Secure developer 1.Secure developer None. fundng for widening. funding for widening. 2.Put in place growth controls to insure achievement of TSOs. PM Pesk-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation With Mitigation WC LOS VIC tos--- Tassajara Road and Fallon Road 0.76 C Tassajara Road and Highland Road 0.65 B Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard 1.05 F 0.90 D Tassajara Road and Gleason Avenue 0.70 B Tassajara Road and 1-580 WB Ramps 0.84 D 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-drection of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 155 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:Tassajam Road North of 1-580 North of Dublin North of Fallon Highway Solution Grade separation at Grade separation at Tassajara/DubGn inter- Tassajara/Dublin section,or extension intersection,or ex- of Hacienda Drive to tension of Hacienda Wiindemere Parkway Drive to Wiindernere Parkway Transit Solution Increased ridership to Increased ridership TVPOA. to TVPOA. TDM Solution Restrict TVPOA to Restrict TVPOA to 85%of its normal trip 85%of its normal generation,or achieve trip generation,or 15%increase in over- achieve 15% all AVR. increase in overall AVR. Land Use Solution Reduce development Reduce develop- in corridor by 900 ment in corridor by units. 900 units. Policy Solution Accept LOS F at Accept LOS F at Tassajara and Dublin Tassajara and Dub- intersection(requires lin intersection(re- deficiency plan). quires deficiency plan). TSO met Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 156 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:Dublin Boulevard West of I-M East of 1-680 East of Dougherty East of Tassajara Existing Configuration 4 lanes 4 lanes WA WA Existing Volume' 1100 1,030 N/A N/A Existing V/C 0.31 0.29 N/A WA 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to 6 lanes from Donlon to Tassajara;extension as 6 lanes to N. Canyon Parkway. 2010 Conifgurption 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes Volume 2,000 2,035 2,765 2,520 Transit Service(buses/hour) 14 16 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 75 152 38 1,042 WC(unconstrained) 0.37 0.38 0.51 0.47 Traffic Pattern Danville 2% Danville 2% Danville 1% Danville 1% San Ramon 2% San Ramon 10% San Ramon 9% San Ramon 5% Dublin 58% CCC 2% CCC 5% Livermore 36% CCC 14% Dublin 57% Dublin 57% Dublin 24% Pleasanton 13% Pleasanton 9% Pleasanton 4% Pleasanton 13% Livermore 11% Livermore 21% Livermore 25% CCC 5% Through 0% Through 6% TSO WC<0.90 at inter- V/C<0.90 at inter- V/C<0.90 at WC<0.90 at inter- sections. sections. intersections. sectrons. Recommended Actions 1.Secure developer 1.Secure funding 1.Secure funding 1.Secure funding funding for widening. for widening/ for widening/ for widening/ extension. extension. extension. 2.Increase 2.Put in place areawide AVR by growth controls to 10%. insure achievement of TSOs. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 157 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak lour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation With Mitigation V/C LOS Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza 0.85 D Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street 0.56 A Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive 0.73 C Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road 1.12 F 0.90 D Dublin Boulevard and Tassalara Road 1.05 F 0.90 D Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road 0.90 D Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road 0.93 E 0.89 D Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway 0.82 D ' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-drection of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 158 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key locations Facility:Dublin Boulevard West of 1-680 East of 1-680 East of Dougherty East of Tassajara Potential Actions Highway Solution Widen Dublin Bou- Widen Dublin Bou- levard to 8 lanes levard to 8 lanes or or provide grade provide grade sepa- sepanations at rations at Dougherty, Dougherty, Tassajara,and Tassajara,and Fallon. Fallon. Transit Solution Increase local bus Increase local bus service,decrease service,decrease headways to 5 headways to 5 min- minutes. utes. TDM Solution Achieve AVR in- Achieve AVR in- crease of about crease of about 15%,or restrict E. 15%,or restrict E. Dublin trip genera- Dublin trip genera- tion to 85%of nor- tion to 85%of nor- mal. mal. t Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 159 Acfion Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:Dublin Boulevard West of 1 80 East of I-M East of Dougherty East of Tassajara Land Use Solution Reduce E. Dublin Reduce E. Dublin land use by about land use by about 20%overall,or 20%overall,or combine with re- combine with re- ductions in DV and ductions in DV and TVPOA. TVPOA. Policy Solution Accept LOS F at Accept LOS F at Tassajara and at Tassajara and at Fallon(requires Fallon(requires deficiency plan) deficiency plan)and and LOS E at LOS E at Dougherty. Dougherty. TSO met TSO met. 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-drection of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 160 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:San Ramon Road North of Dublin Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' 1,200 Existing V/C 0.33 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:None. 2010 Configuration 4 lanes Volume 1,000 Transit Service(buses/hour) 4 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 7 VIC(unconstrained) 0.28 Traffic Pattern Danville 5% Dublin 55% San Ramon 23% Pleasanton 2% Livermore 10% CCC 5% Through 0% TSO WC<0.90 at intersections Recommended Actions None. PMI Pesk-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS VAthout Mitigation V/C LOS San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard 0.90 D C San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Road 0.45 A C 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peakdirection of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 161 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:Hopyard Road at Stoneridge - Existing Configuration 6 lanes Existing Volume' 2,400 Existing WC 0.44 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to 4 lanes between Valley and Division. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes Volume 2,400 Transit Service(busesthour) 20 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 78 WC(unconstrained) 0.44 Traffic Pattern Pleasanton 64% Dublin 23% Danville 1% San Ramon 2% CCC 6% Livermore 4% Through 0% TSO WC<0.90 at intersections Recommended Actions 1.Enforce existing growth controls to insure achievement of TSOs. 2.Budd adequate Route 84 to reduce cut-through traffic from West Las Positas Boulevard. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 162 Accton Plan Tri-!/alley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peek-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation With Mitigation V/C LOS V/C LOS Hopyard Road and Owens Drive 0.85 D Hopyard Road and Stoneridge Drive 0.58 A Hopyard Road and 1-580 EB Ramps 0.79 C Hopyard Road and West Las Positas 0.91 E 0.89 D Hopyard Road and Valley Avenue 0.66 B i 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Key Locations Facility:Hopyard Road at Stoneridge Potential Actions Highway Solution Widen Hopyard Road to 8 lanes. Build adequate Route 84 to reduce cut-through traffic from West Las Positas Boulevard. Transit Solution Increase local bus ridership. TDM Solution Increase overall AVR by about 2%. Land Use Solution Reduce development in Pleasanton by about 2%,focused on vicinity of Hopyard Road. Policy Solution Accept LOS E(0.91) at inumsection of i Hopyard'Las Positas. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 163 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:Santa Rita Road at Stoneridge 1-580 EB Off-Ramp Existing Configuration 6 lanes 3 lanes Existing Volume' 1,300 Existing V/C 0.24 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to 6 lanes from 1-580 to Old Santa Rita Road($1.6 million),developer funding. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes 3 lanes Volume 2,700 1,231 Transit Service(buses/hour) 6 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 63 100 V/C(unconstrained) 0.50 0.38 Traffic Pattern Pleasanton 59% Dublin 25% Livermore 10% Danville 0% San Ramon 2% CCC 4% Through 0% TSO WC<0.90 at V/C<0.90 at intersection. intersection. Recommended Actions None. 1.Agreement by Dublin/Contra Costa County to widen EB off-ramp. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 164 I Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peek-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation With Mitigation V/C LOS WC LLAS Santa Rita Road and West Las Positas 0.75 C Santa Rita Road and Valley Avenue 0.75 C Santa Rita Road and 1-580 EB Ramps 0.94 E 0.88 D Santa Rita Road and Stoneridge 0.85 D ' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Key Locations Facility:Santa Rita Road at Stoneridge 1-580 EB Off-Ramp Potential Actions Highway Solution Widen EB off-ramp from 1-580 to Santa Rita Road. Transit Solution Increase local bus ridership(how?). TDM Solution Increase overall AVR by 4%. Land Use Solution Reduce development in Pleasanton, Dublin, or TVPOA by 4,600 units. Poky Solution Accept LOS E (V/C=0.94)at Santa Rita/1-580 EB ramps intersection. TSO met Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 165 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:Stanley Boulevard at Valley Avenue Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' 600 Existing V/C 0.22 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Grade separation at intersection with Isabel (part of Route 84 project). 2010 Configuration 4 lanes Volume 1,200 Transit Service(buses/hour) 4 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 41 V/C(unconstrained) 0.33 Traffic Pattern Livermore 50% Pleasanton 25% Through 25% Danville 0% San Ramon 0% CCC 0% Dublin 0% TSO V/C<0.90 at intersections Recommended Actions 1.Accept LOS E at the intersection of Stanley and Valley. 2.Reduce cut-through traffic with adequate Highway 84. 3.Increase areawide AVR by 10%. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 166 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peek44our 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation With Mitigation V/C LOS Stanley Boulevard and Valley Avenue 0.93 E 0.89 D Stanley Boulevard and Main Street 0.37 A Stanley Boulevard and Isabel Extension Grade Separation Stanley Boulevard and Murrieta Boulevard 0.74 C 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peakdirection of flow. Key Locations Facility:Stanley Boulevard at Valley Avenue Potential Actions Highway Solution at Valley/Stanley widen eastbound from double left-tum lanes. Transit Solution Increase local transit ridership. TDM Solution Increase overall AVR by 30%for all trip purposes. Land Use Solution Reduce Livermore and Pleasanton development by about 13,400 units,similar to reduction in jobs. Policy Solution Accept LOS E(V/C 0.93)at Stanley and Valley. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 167 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Pian Highways Key Locations Facility:Stoneridge Drive at Hopyard at EI Charro Existing Configuration 6 lanes WA Existing Volume' 1,200 WA Existing V/C 0.22 WA 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Extension as 6 lanes to El Charro m link with Jack London. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes 6 lanes Volume 1,200 700 Transit Service(buses/hour) 26 None Transit Ridership(peak hour) 99 0 V/C(unconstrained) 0.22 0.13 Traffic Pattern Danville 1% Danville 0% San Ramon 9% San Ramon 2% Pleasanbn 53% Livermore 51% Livermore 19% Pleasanton 44% Dublin 15% CCC 0% CCC 1% Dublin 1% Through 2% Through 2% TSO V/C<0.90 at V/C<0.90 at intersections. intersections. Recommended Actions None. None. PY Peak-Ebur 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation V/C LOS Stoneridge Drive and W. Las Positas 0.81 D Stoneridge Drive and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.49 A Stoneridge Drive and 1-680 NB Ramps 0.52 A i Stoneridge Drive and Hopyard Road 0.58 A Stoneridge Drive and Santa Rita Road 0.85 D 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-how,peak-drection of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 168 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:Sural Boulevard East of 1-680 Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' 800 Existing V/C 0.22 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to 6 lanes 1-680 to First Street 2010 Configuration 6 lanes Volume 1,320 Transit Service(buses/hour) 4 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 23 V/C(unconstrained) 0.24 Traffic Patter Danville 0% San Ramon 1% Pleasanton 46% Livermore 33% Dublin 1% CCC 0% Through 14% TSO WC<0.90 at intersections. Recommended Actions None. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation V/C LOS Sunol Boulevard and Bernal Avenue 0.80 C Sunol Boulevard and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.58 A Sunol Boulevard and 1-680 NB Ramps 0.54 A 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peakdirection of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 169 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Isabel at Facility:Routs 84 on Vallecitos Jack London Existing Configuration 2 lanes N/A Existing Volume' 900 N/A Existing V/C 0.50 N/A 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening and upgrading Vallecitos Road to 44ane expressway, connecting and widening Isabel to 64ane arterial, new interchange at IsabeV1-580,grade separation at Isabel/Stanley. 2010 Configuration 4 Ianes 6 lanes Volume 3,400 3,900 Transit Service(buses/hour) 12 16 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 0 18 V/C(unconstrained) 0.94 0.72 Traffic Pattern CCC 0% Danville 0% Livermore 80% San Ramon 2% Pleasanton 3% Livermore 49% Dublin 0% Pleasanton 10% Through 17% Dublin 9% Danville 0% CCC 20/6 San Ramon 0% Through 28% TSO Link V/C<0.99(no Intersection intersections) WC<0.90 Recommended Actions 1.Secure funding for 1.Secure funding widening project for widening project 2.Adopt 2.Accept LOS E at recommendations of Jack London. Tri-Valley Subcommittee on Route 84. 3.Adopt recommendations of Tri-Valley Subcommittee on Route 84. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. . 170 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Midgatlon V/C LOS Isabel(Route 84)and Airway Boulevard D Isabel(Route 84)and Jack London 0.95 E Isabel(Route 84)and Vallecitos Road 0.76 C Isabel(Route 84)and Stanley Boulevard Grade separation VaNecitos Road and Vineyard 0.87 D 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-drection of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 171 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Isabel at Facility:Route 84 on Vallecitos Jack London Potential Actions Highway Solution Upgrade to expressway,grade separation at Jack London Transit Solution Substantially increased transit service--17 buses per hour,must be full. TDM Solution Increase overall AVR by 30%for all trip types. Land Use Solution Reduce development in Pleasanton and Livermore by about 13,400 units. Policy Solution Accept LOS E at Jack London. TSO met Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc 172 • - r Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations East of Facility:First Street(Uvermors) South Livermore Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' 1,100 Existing V/C 0.31 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Reconfiguration of 1-580/First Street interchange tD Pardo design. 2010 Configuration 4 lanes Volume 1,200 Transit Service(btrAWhour) 4 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 53 WC(unconstrained) 0.33 Traffic Patten CCC 0% Danville 0% San Ramon 0% Livermore 88% Pleasanton 7% Dublin 0% Through 5% TSO V/C<0.90 at intersections Reoommer-rim Actions 1.Secure funding for interchange improvements. PM Peek-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation V/C LOS First Street and 1-580 WB Ramps 0.61 B First Street and 1-580 EB Ramps 0.59 A 'Volumes and rapacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 173 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:Vasco Road N.of Isabel Extension N. of 1-580 S.of 1-580 Existing Configuration 2 lanes 2 lanes 4 lanes Existing Vokrme' 1,100 1,800 1,100 Existing V/C 0.61 1.00 0.31 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to four lanes from Isabel Extension to Scenic,widening to 6 lanes from Scenic to Patterson Pass;realignment and upgrade in Contra Costa County due to reservoir, reconstruction of I-580/Vasco interchange. 2010 Configuration 2 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes Volume 1,500(constrained) 2,580 3,150 Transit Service(buses/hour) 18 40 28 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 105 158 236 V/C(unconstrained) 1.00(1.23) 0.48 0.58 Traffic Patter Danville 2% Pleasanton 9% Pleasanton 8% San Ramon 6% Livermore 73% Livermore 78% Livermore 44% Dublin 5% Dublin 7% Pleasanton 12% CCC 4% CCC 5% CCC 4% San Ramon 3% San Ramon 1% Dublin 9% Danville 0% Danville 1% Through 23% Through 6% TSO None--not within V/C<0.90 at V/C<0.90 at TVTC control. intersections. intersections. Recommended Actions 1.Secure funding for operational improvements on two- lane segment in Alameda County. 2.Oppose increases to mixed-flow capacity. 3.Support transit service in corridor. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 174 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Houf 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Whhout Mitigation V/C LOS Vasco Road and East Avenue 0.55 A Vasco Road and Isabel Extension 0.60 A Vasco Road and 1-580 WB Ramps 0.69 B Vasco Road and 1-580 EB Ramps 070 B 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 175 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:Stone Valley Road= East of t-M Existing Configuration 2 lanes Existing Volume' 940 Existing V/C 0.52 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:None. 2010 Configuration 2 lanes Volume 1,400 Transit Service(buses/hour) 8 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 5 WC(unconstrained) 0.78 Traffic Pattern Danville 44% San Ramon 19% CCC 24% Dublin 4% Pleasanton 5% Livermore 4% Alameda Co. TSO V/C<0.90 at intersections Recommended Actions None. i PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation V/C LOS Stone Valley Road and Danville Boulevard 0.82 D Stone Valley Road and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.58 A Stone Valley Road and 1-680 NB Ramps 0.40 A 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-inaction of flow. =Not a route of regional significance. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 176 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:Fallon Road' N.of 1-580 N.of Dublin Existing Configuration 2 lanes 2 lanes Existing Volume' 10 10 Existing V/C 0.01 0.01 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening and extension at 6 lanes from 1-580 to Tassalara Road;reconstruction of the Fallon/EI Charro and 1-580 interchange. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes 6 lanes Volume 2,900 2,450 Transit Service(buses/hour) 4 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 0.54 0 WC(unconstrained) 0.45 Traffic Pattern Danville 10% Danville 11% San Ramon 5% San Ramon 9% CCC 0% CCC 1% Dublin 63% Dublin 55% Pleasanton 15% Pleasanton 12% Livermore 7% Livermore 13% Through 0% TSO V/C<0.90 at V/C<0.90 at intersections. intersections. Recommended Actions 1.Secure funding for 1.Secure hording wiciering/extension. for widening/ extension. 2.Put in place growth 2.Put in place controls to insure growth controls tD achievement of TSOs. insure achievement of TSOs. 3.Secure funding for 1-580/Fallon interchange improvements. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 177 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Pesk-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation With Mitigation WC LOS WC Fallon Road and Gleason Road 0.62 B Fallon Road and 1-580 WB Ramps 0.72 C EI Charro Road and 1-580 EB Ramps 0.63 B Fallon Road and Tassajara Road 0.76 C Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard 1.12 F 0.90 D 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. t Not a route of regional significance. Key Locations Facility:Fallon Road N.of 1-580 N.of Dublin Potential Actions Highway Solution Grade separation at Grade separation at Fallon Drive/Dublin Fallon Drive/Dublin Boulevard Boulevard intersection. intersection. Transit Solution Add 20 buses per Add 20 buses per hour to Fallon Road; hour to Fallon Road; local service to East local service to East Dublin. Dublin. TDM Solution Increase overall AVR Increase overall by about 25%for all AVR by about 25% trip types. for all trip types. Land Use Solution Reduce East Dublin Reduce East Dublin development or shift development or shift growth away from growth away from Fallon/Dublin Fallon/Dublin intersection. intersection. Policy Solution Accept LOS F at Accept LOS F at Dublin/Fahon Dublh*don intersection(requires intersection deficiency pian). (requires deficiency plan). Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 178 AccUon Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:North Canyons Parkway' W.of Isabel Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' ? Existing V/C ? 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening and extension as 6 lanes from Dolan to Isabel Extension. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes Volume 3,090 Transit Service(busesftur) 20 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 229 V/C(unconstrained) 0.57 Traffx:Pattern Livermore 58% Dublin 21% Pleasanton 10% CCC 3% Danville 0% San Ramon 3% Through 5% TSO WC c 0.90 at intersections. Recommended Actions 1. Increase areawide AVR by 10%. 2.Improve the intersection of N. Canyons Parkway and Collier Canyon. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation With Mitigation V/C LOS VIC Log— North Canyons Parkway and Collier Canyon 1.02 F 0.89 D North Canyons Parkway and Isabel Extension 0.92 E 0.90 D 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peakdirection of flow. =Not a route of regional significance Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 179 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Foci ty:North Canyon*Parkway W.of Isabel Potential Actions Highway Solution Add 2nd LT lane NB on Collier Canyon at N. Canyons Parkway, grade separation at Isabel Extension. Transit Solution Increase in transit ridership in N. Livermore. TDM Solution Increase overall AVR by 10%for all trip types. Land Use Solution Decrease development levels in N. Livermore by 2oo units. Policy Solution Accept poor intersection levels of service. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 180 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations N.of North Facility:Isabel Extenalone Canyons Parkway Existing Configuration N/A Existing Volume' N/A Existing V/C N/A 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Extension from 1-580 as a 64ane/44ane arterial to Vasco Road. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes Volume 3,330 Transit Service(buses/hour) 12 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 98 V/C(unconstrained) 0.62 Traffic Pattern Livermore 61% Dublin 14% Pleasanton 13% CCC 3% Danville 0% San Ramon 3% Through 7% TSO V/C<0.90 at intersections. Recommended Actions 1.Secure funding for extension. 2.Increase areawide AVR by 10%. PM Peak-Ebur 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation With Mitigation V/C LOS Isabel Extension and Vasco Road 0.60 A Isabel Extension and North Livermore Avenue 0.68 B Isabel Extension and North Canyon Parkway 0.92 E 0.90 D 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak drection of flow. 'Not a route of regional significance Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 181 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations N.of North Facility:Isabel Extension Canyons Parkway Potential Actions Highway Solution Grade separation at N. Canyons Parkway. Transit Solution Increase transit ridership in N. Livermore. TDM Solution Increase overall AVR by 2%for all trip types. Land Use Solution Decrease development in N. Livermore by 200 units. Policy Solution Accept LOS E at N. Canyons Parkway intersection. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 182 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:North Livermore' N.of 1-580 Existing Configuration 2 lanes Existing Volume' 100 Existing V/C 0.06 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to 6 lanes from 1-580 to 1-1/2 miles north,4 lanes to Isabel Extension;modify and widen I-SION. Livermore interchange. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes Volume 2,610 Transit Service(buses/hour) 4 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 69 VIC(unconstrained) 0.48 Traffic Pattern Livermore 82% Dublin 8% Pleasanton 7% CCC 2% Danville 0% San Ramon 1% TSO V/C<0.90 at intersections. Recommended Actions 1.Secure funding for I-580/N.Livermore interchange improvements. PM Peak-Four 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation V/C LOS North Livermore Avenue and Isabel Extension 0.68 B North Livermore Avenue and Portoia Avenue 0.66 B North Livermore Avenue and I-M EB Ramps 0.74 C North Livermore Avenue and t-580 WB Ramps 0.58 A 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-drection of flow. =Not a route of regional significance. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 183 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:W.Las Posits (Plesssnton) E.of 1-680 Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' 480 Existing V/C 0.13 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Addition of interchange at I-M/W. Las Positas;widening to 4 lanes Foothill to Payne,widening to 6 lanes Hopyard to Stoneridge. 2010 Configuration 4 lanes Volume 1,350 Transit Service(buses/hour) 4 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 67 V/C(unconstrained) 0.38 Traffic Pattern Danville 0% San Ramon 0% Pleasanton 61% Dublin 15% Livermore 10% CCC 3% Through 10% TSO WC<0.90 at intersections Recommended Actions 1.Enforce existing growth controls to ensure achievement of TSOs. 2.Reduce through traffic by constructing an adequate Route 84. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 184 i Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peam4our 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without MWpatbn V/C LOS W.Las Positas and Stoneridge Drive 0.81 D W.Las Posites and Hacienda Drive 0.42 A W.Las Positas and Santa Rita Road 0.75 C W.Las Posites and Hopyard Road 0.91 E W.Las Posites and Owens Drive 0.87 D 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Not a route of regional significance. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 185 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facfiity:Bernal Avenue' E. of 1.680 Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' 1,300 Existing V/C 0.36 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to 6 lanes 1-680 to Valley,widening to 4 lanes Foothill to 1-680,widening to 4 lanes First Street to Stanley. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes Volume 1,700 Transit Service(buses/hour) 10 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 15 WC(unconstrained) 0.31 Traffic Pattern Pleasanton 82% Dublin 1% Livermore 9% CCC 6% Danville 1% San Ramon 1% TSO WC<0.90 at intersections. Recommended Action None. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation we LOS Bemal Avenue and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.83 D Bernal Avenue and 1-680 NB Ramps 0.56 A Bernal Avenue and First 0.60 C 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour.peak-drection of flow. 'Not a route of regional significance. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 186 4 • A Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facift:Jack London= at Isabel Existing Configuration WA Existing Volume' WA Existing V/C NIA 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Extension as 4 lanes to EI Charro linking with Stoneridge. 2010 Configuration 4 lanes Volume 1,860 Transit Service(busesMour) None Transit Ridership(peak hour) WA V/C(unconstrained) 0.52 Traffic Pattern Livermore 54% Pleasanton 40% Dublin 3% CCC 0% San Ramon 3% Danville 0% TSO V/C<0.90 at intersections Recommended Actions 1.Increase areawide AVR by 10%. 2.Accept LOS E at Jack London/Isabel intersection. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation V/C LOS Jack London and Isabel 0.95 E 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. 'Not a route of regional significance. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 187 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Pian Highways Key locations Facility:Hacienda Drive' N.of 1-560 Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' ? Existing V/C ? 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Extension to Gleason Drive as 4 lanes,widening to 6 lanes 1-560 to Dublin Boulevard. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes Volume 3,600 Transit Service(buses hour) Transit Ridership(peak hour) WC(unconstrained) 0.67 Traffic Pattem Dublin 75% Pleasanton 25% Livermore 0% CCC 0% Danville 0% San Ramon 0% TSO WC<0.90 at intersections Recommended Actions 1.Secure funding for widening and extension in Dublin. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 188 Action Plan Tri- /alley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-How 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation WC LOS Hacienda Drive and 1-580 EB Ramps 0.79 C Hacienda Drive and 1-580 WB Ramps 0.79 C Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard 0.73 C Hacienda Drive and Owens Drive 0.81 D Hacienda Drive and West Las Positas 0.42 A ' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. =Not a route of regional significance. i I . i r 1 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 189 Plan implementation r i 10. Plan Implementation This chapter describes how the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan will be implemented. Specific topics include plan adoption by member jurisdictions, collection of the subregional traffic impact fee, procedure for monitoring transportation service objectives, and procedures for handling development applications. Plan Adoption Since the Tri-Valley Transportation Council does not have any formal authority to make land use decisions or transportation investments, implementation of the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan will rest with the constituent jurisdictions through their individual general plans. Thus, the first step will be adoption by member jurisdictions and incorporation into their general plans the following elements from the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan: • 2010 Planned Transportation Network • Transportation Service Objectives • Individual Actions by Route • Financing Plan • Subregional Transportation Impact Fee While compliance with the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan (TVTP) is essentially volun- tary among the Alameda County jurisdictions, at least until aspects of the TVTP become part of the Alameda County Congestion Management Program, the Contra Costa County jurisdictions have a mandate for compliance. The TVTP constitutes the - Action Plan for the Tri-Valley jurisdictions, as required by Measure C. Thus, to maintain compliance with Measure C, the Contra Costa County Tri-Valley jurisdictions must adhere to the TVTP. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 190 Plan Implementation Plan Financing Two elements of the financing plan for the TVTP require further study and action by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council and its member jurisdictions: the subregional transportation impact fee, and the cost-sharing formulae for road improvements that benefit multiple jurisdictions. Subregional Transportation Impact Fee. The TVTP lists the full range of projects that could be included in an impact fee program. First, the list needs to be finalized and adopted. Next, the details of the impact fee program need to be worked out. The following issues should be considered. 1. How many development categories and what fee for each? 2. Are there any exempted areas or land use types? 3. When will the fees be collected? 4. When will they be spent? 5. Who will act as banker? 6. What is the priority for constructing impact fee projects? After these issues have been resolved and the program specified, each jurisdiction needs to adopt the program. Shared Facilities. Implementation of much of the planned arterial system will be the direct responsibility of new development. Many of the arterials, however, are.shared among jurisdictions. Table 8-8 shows the jurisdictions sharing responsibility for each of the planned improvements that will be paid for directly by developers. For each of these improvements, a negotiated agreement needs to be reached about cost sharing between jurisdictions. The cost-sharing approach could be based on which jurisdiction's traffic is expected to use the facility, or it could be based simply on the boundaries within which the facility lies, or a combination. These agreements should be negotiated in advance so that when development takes place, the responsibility for road improvements is clear. Monitoring Transportation Service Objectives The Transportation Service Objectives (TSOs) are the heart of the TVTP. While certain growth assumptions are a part of the plan, they serve merely to guide the specification of a planned transportation system and financing program. The TVTP does not control growth directly but indirectly through the TSOs. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 191 Plan Implementation Under existing conditions, the TSOs relating to freeway and intersection levels of service are being met. Future growth should be matched with road improvements so that the TSOs continue to be met. If the TSOs are violated or projected to be violated, growth should stop or more extensive improvements should be planned. The TSOs related to mode split and-average vehicle ridership are goals for achievement by 2010. They need to be monitored and adjustments to the plan made if progress is not being made. Progress should be defined as increasing transit ridership and increasing average vehicle ridership. The TSOs should be monitored annually. The following describes how each should be measured. Freeway Levels of Service. The TSOs are expressed both in terms of volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) and hours of congestion. Volume-to-capacity ratio can be measured with traffic counts and should apply to mixed-flow lanes only. The plan uses a capacity of 2,200 vehicles per lane per hour (1,100 vehicles capacity for auxiliary lanes). Traffic counts can also be used to show duration of congestion. Freeway monitoring should be done by Caltrans. Intersection Levels of Service. Intersection levels of service should be calculated using the VCCC program for AM and PM peak hours based on turning-movement counts. Intersection monitoring should be conducted by the jurisdiction in which the intersection lies. The intent of the TVTP is to maintain the intersection TSO at all signalized intersections. However, to avoid extensive data collection, each jurisdiction should establish a list of critical intersections for annual monitoring. Mode Split. Mode split is virtually impossible to measure in the field, except through extensive home interview and work place surveys. These data are available every decade from the U.S. Census and periodically from MTC. In between times, transit ridership should be monitored as a surrogate for mode split. The mode split goal of the TVTP can only be met if transit ridership increases annually. The transit operators routinely collect and report annual ridership. Average Vehicle Ridership. This TSO relates directly to commute trips. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has defined average vehicle ridership (AVR) and how it can be calculated. To calculate AVR, annual employee surveys, conducted by employers, will be necessary. In many places these are already being done, and due to air quality regulations, AVR will soon be annually reported by all employers. All Tri- Valley jurisdictions have trip reduction ordinances, so AVR should be increasing in the future. Employers can take credit for shifting trips out of the peak hour, shorter work weeks, and telecommuting in addition to promoting ridesharing and transit usage. AVR should be monitored by each jurisdiction through its trip reduction ordinance. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 192 Plan Implementation Development Applications Adoption of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan will bring additions to the analysis required of new development. This will affect both environmental impact reports and general plan amendments. Environmental Impact Reports. These should be circulated to all jurisdictions that make up the TVTC, since most projects large enough to require an EIR will impact more than one jurisdiction. The cumulative analysis section of each EIR should incorporate the expected land use and transportation scenario on which the TVTP is based. Transportation impacts should be stated in terms of whether or not the project would lead to a violation of Transportation Service Objectives. Transportation mitigation measures should be consistent with the TVTP network. General Plan Amendments. The 2010 expected land use and transportation network, which are incorporated into the TVTP, are based on the general plans of the TVTC member jurisdictions as of June 1994. Any subsequent general plan amendments may affect either the adequacy of the planned network or the financing plan. Any jurisdiction considering a general plan amendment should evaluate its impact on the TVTP and demonstrate that the Transportation Service Objectives could still be met. If further transportation improvements are necessary beyond what are in the TVTP, the jurisdiction should specify how they will be funded. Growth Controls. The TVTP is not intended to be a land use control document. While the plan is based on a set of growth assumptions, the plan should not be interpreted as limiting growth to the assumed levels. Nevertheless, the plan does establish Transportation Service Objectives, which may indirectly influence growth rates. Growth beyond what is assumed herein may occur provided the TSOs are met. Conversely, if the TSOs are violated early, growth should not occur up to the assumed levels. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 193