The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 08161994 - 2.4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: August 16, 1994 SUBJECT: Diamond Boulevard Extension Project - Project No. : 0662-6x4075 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) &BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. Recommended Action: REAFFIRM the prior authorization given by the Board of Supervisors on April 27, 1993 to submit the Diamond Boulevard Extension project for Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) funding; and APPROVE the attached Resolution providing matching funds for the Diamond Boulevard Extension project programmed in the 1995 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. I1. Financial Impact: If the ISTEA application is withdrawn, Contra Costa County will lose the opportunity to receive $4.1 million in federal funds. County must provide the local match to receive ISTEA funding. . Developer fees will be the source of the local match. There will be no impact to the General Fund. III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: On April 17, 1990 Supervisor Sunne McPeak recommended to the Board of Supervisors that the Diamond Boulevard Extension not be built using Measure C funds. However, on November 6, 1990 the Board of Supervisors affirmed that it was appropriate to apply for State-Local Partnership funds for the Diamond Boulevard Extension project. On April 27, 1993 the Board of Supervisors authorized the Public Works Department to apply for EA funds. Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON August 16, 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X See Addendum to 2.4 attached for action taken on this item. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS K UNANIMOUS (ABSENT �r AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 1 hereby certify thetfll�batnreand correct copy an action tnkcn and entered on the minutes of the SK:eh Board of Supervi rs on th dateshown. c:1301 6.t8 ATTESTED: et-9 PHIL BATCHEi R,Clerk of the Board Orig. Div: Public Works (Transportation Eng.) of Supervisors cw nounty Adndnistrator Contact: Heather Ballenger, Tel. 313-2258 cc: V. Alexeeff, GMEDA Director Bl► �,Deputy S. Goetz, Community Development R. Gilchrist, Accounting CCTA (via Public Works) MTC (via Public Works) Continuen Page 2... County Counsel Diamond Boulevard Extension Project August 16, 1994 Page 2 The Diamond Boulevard Extension project was submitted to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) for ISTEA funds in April 1993. The project was submitted for the benefits it will provide to the 1/680 corridor and the Concord Avenue area. The project will extend Diamond Boulevard north of Concord Avenue continuing the frontage road to the east of 1/680. It will also improve the operation of the freeway, both the on and off ramps at Concord Avenue and 1/680 itself. There has been community concern that the project should not have been submitted for ISTEA funds due to the fact that it would benefit the vacant parcel at Buchanan Airport known as Parcel "B" and due to the prior commitment made by Supervisor McPeak. However, ISTEA considers the benefits the project will provide to the system regardless of the positive impact the project would have for future development. Public Works submitted 14 projects for ISTEA funds. The Diamond Boulevard Extension and the Southern Pacific Extension were the only two that scored high enough to possibly receive competitive ISTEA funds. The Southern Pacific Extension was withdrawn due to its state of readiness and the fear that we would not be able to meet the obligation deadline of September 1997. If the Diamond Boulevard Extension application is also withdrawn the $4.1 million requested will be reprogrammed to projects with lower scores in other counties in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) region. The funds will not remain in Contra Costa County. There are policies in the general plan that refer to the development of Parcel B, Section 3-108 and 5-48. Section 5-48 states that the development of Parcel "B" should provide for the Diamond Boulevard Extension Project. However, Section 3-108 allows for the Board of Supervisors to determine the extent of improvements required. The current general plan allows for 180,000 sq.ft. of retail commercial development on Parcel "B", which is a reduction from the 682,000 sq.ft. of office in the prior general plan. The local community has raised additional concerns such as air quality, noise and vibration. If we receive the ISTEA funds, an environmental document will be required that will address these issues. If there were to be significant environmental impacts that could not be mitigated, the project could be terminated at that time. IV. Consequences of Negative Action: Failure to adopt the Resolution providing the local match for the project, for approval by MTC will preclude the project from receiving ISTEA funds. cc: Pacheco Municipal Advisory Committee Pacheco Town Council D. Mount A. Wise H. Yeager ADDENDUM TO 2.4 FROM AUGUST 16, 1994 AGENDA Supervisor Jeff Smith chaired this portion of the meeting in the absence of Chair Powers and Vice Chair Gayle Bishop. Mike Walford, Public Works Director, reviewed the Diamond Boulevard Extension Project and the recommendations before the Board. The following persons appeared and commented: Donna J. Davison, 1000 Temple Drive, Pacheco Wally Wiggs, 187 Freda Drive, Pacheco for the Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council (PMAC) submitted petitions against the project. Barbara Allenza, 261 Magda Way, Pacheco, PMAC Joe Minick, 311 Flores Court, Pacheco, PMAC, requested that if project is inevitable, he wants 4 lanes to go all the way, not stop at Aria Drive. Joyce Jones, 45 Rutherford Lane, Pacheco Town Council, advised that the community does not want a new terminal on the west side of the airport and fears this extension would facilitate that. Hal Yeager, 89 Baylor Lane, Pleasant Hill, referred to letters he said he submitted to Public Works relating to the EIR and environmental concern, and suggested that the true purpose of the extension of Diamond Boulevard is to enable development of Parcel B on Buchanan Field. Andrea Wise, 64 Baylor Lane, Pleasant Hill Dorothy Sakazaki, 737 Central Avenue, Martinez, expressed concern about impacts of the proposed Solano Way closure, extension of Waterbird Way, and how it all affects the Vine Hill residents and Blum Road residents . Acting Chair Jeff Smith suggested that inasmuch as there are only three Supervisors present, the matter be put over to the Determination Agenda on September 13, 1994 . Board members discussed with staff the timing requirements for the funding application to reach MTC. Supervisor DeSaulnier thanked the community for taking the time and effort to get the petitions together, and thereupon acknowledged receipt of the petitions . Supervisor DeSaulnier advised the Board that 90 to 95 percent of the community did not want this project to go forward. He commented that while the project was submitted as benefitting the I-680 Corridor and Concord Avenue, he was of the opinion that it is not going to help Concord Avenue, and that going forward with it would risk ruining a neighborhood, and suggested that there are other places in Central County that need traffic mitigation. He inquired if the return to the County from developing the West side of the Airport would balance what it would do to the neighborhood. He suggested that it would not and urged that the Board continue the matter. Supervisor Torlakson suggested that some of the questions that should be looked at over the next few weeks include: What is the investment return, what are we going to get back for the investment in dollars in traffic change? What will be needed for the neighborhood in terms of mitigation for air pollution, noise, shaking, and what will the costs of those be, and who pays for all the over-runs to the budget estimate, and if it is the County, how do we pay for it. If it is development money, how do we project what kind of projections, how clear are they about what Parcel B would generate and if it is not just Parcel B, what other funds are contemplated by Public Works to leverage in. Supervisor Torlakson advised that he wished the CEQA issues, environmental issues and all legal issues raised today be reviewed by staff before the matter comes back to the Board, and in addition, he desired to know the source of the funds that would be needed for legal costs, if incurred in this project. Supervisor Torlakson noted that according to the survey, some residents do not want the project at all and some residents do not want the project the way it is, and inquired if there is any other way to do the project, such as taking the four lanes all the way, and if that is possible, what is the cost of that incremental jump and where does the money come from to pay for that? Supervisor Torlakson advised that he wished the above issues addressed for the Board's information prior to the next meeting, and moved that the matter be listed as a determination item on September 13, 1994, and that the above issues, including those raised by Mr. Yeager in his letters to Public Works, be REFERRED to the Public Works Director and to County Counsel for review and report to the Board on September 13, 1994 . August 16, 1994 Mr. M. Walford Director, Public Works of Contra Costa County 251 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA Re: Diamond Blvd. Extension in Concord/Pacheco in Contra Costa. County. Dear Mr. Walford: The purpose of this letter is to inform you of several important matters regarding the Diamond Blvd. Extension. In order to comply with state law and satisfy your fiduciary duties to this county, you and your department must address each of the following matters in good faith. 1. Your CEOA and EIR documents for the project are now invalid. The decision by County Public Works to significantly change the traffic analysis methodology for the intersection of Concord Avenue and Contra Costa Blvd. represents substantial and significant new information which requires redoing and recirculating the EIR which you are relying upon for the project. See Pub Res Code 21000-21177. This change in analysis methodology degrades the level of service result at that intersection by 1.y? to 2 grades. This significant new information concerning the level of service at the intersection, based on the altered methodology, was submitted to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in order to seek funding for this project. That submission to the MTC is a public record. It must be determined whether this change is valid, and, if valid, how the additional traffic generated by development of Parcel B will affect the intersection. In addition, your statements in a public meeting in April of 1993 further . necessitate the need for recirculating a revised EIR. You specifically stated that you weren't �fooling anyoneA into believing that local traffic of this intersection would not increase once you built the Diamond Blvd. Extension. This information is also substantial and significant. I have relayed these facts to three separate environmental lawyers, who all concur that a revised EIR must be recirculated. 2. Your own admissions as detailed above, indicate that you have failed to comply with the requirements of CEQA. Your admissions indicate that your traffic analysis Mr. Walford Page -2- Director, Public Works of Contra Costa County August 16, 1994 in the EIR is flawed. There is also a very real possibility that the traffic analysis at other intersections considered by the original EIR was done incorrectly. 3. You are now on notice that I want to be notified in writing of all pertinent dates re2ardin2 the recirculation of the revised EIR. I have alternatives to the Diamond Blvd. Extension which are more cost effective and substantially less damaging to the environment in view of your new methodology. I would like these alternatives considered by the revised EIR as project alternatives for the Diamond Blvd. Extension. In addition, you are on notice that I am formally submitting and hereby submit a Public Records Act request to inspect all county files containing or related to the present CEQA and EIR documents regarding this project. 4. This is to formally notify you that the Diamond Blvd. Extension Project will necessitate the destruction of two to three acres of wetlands. This destruction will require proper permitting from the Army Corps of Engineers (EIA or EIS), and will likely require constructing four to six acres of replacement wetlands adjacent to the project. I have significant information to submit to that permitting process and I want to be informed of all pertinent dates, in writing, regarding the permitting process and that I be allowed to submit the following significant information: 1. ) hours of video tape showing high wildlife utilization of the adjacent wetlands; 2. Still photographs of a snowy egret and a green-backed heron feeding in the wetlands in front of parcel B, and numerous photographs of fish in the wetlands; 3. The Declaration of Cheryl A. Moreiss listing the twelve species of birds identified near parcel B, attesting to the observation of a black- crowned night heron, two green-backed herons, a snowy egret, a great blue heron, and at least three loggerhead shrikes, each of which was either feeding in the wetlands or observed within 500 feet of the wetlands. 5. I want to be notified in writing, of the start of the NEPA documentation process and of all pertinent dates thereof. The above information regarding the wetlands must be submitted in this process. Additionally, as your project has no mitigation measures for local residents in the adjacent mobile home communities, you are obligated to inform these residents, the Pacheco Municipal Advisory Committee, and the Pacheco Town Counsel of these dates as well. Since mobile homes can no longer effectively be relocated in California, itis essential that the NEPA process consider and reflect the adverse effects that this project will have on the mobile home communities. J . Mr. Walford Page -3- Director, Public Works of Contra Costa County August 16, 1994 1 look forward to you cooperation on these matters and the discharging of your duties in good faith. Hal R. Yeager 89 Baylor Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 510-798-9784 (H) 415-391-6665 (W) cc: County Board of Supervisors Army Corps of Engineers Mr. David Murray, MTC (2 copies, one for transmittal to the funding agency) Mr. Craig Goldblatt, MTC (2 copies, one for transmittal to the agency responsible for NEPA and CEQA compliance) Mr. Al McNabney, Audubon Society Sierra Club August 15, 1994 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA Re: Diamond Blvd. Extension in Concord/Pacheco in Contra Costa County. Members of the Board: The purpose of this letter is to inform you of several important matters regarding the Diamond Blvd. Extension so that you may make an informed decision before committing to the local match and all cost overruns on the Diamond Blvd. Extension Project. County Public Works is seeking ISTEA funding for the project. These funds are meant to"[f]und the most cost effective projects that will relieve congestion, maintain and enhance the transportation system, and clean the air in the MTC region.," The .true purpose of the Diamond Blvd. Extension is to enable development of Parcel B on Buchanan Field,which is operated by County Public Works.' The project has been dressed up to look like a congestion management project to relieve congestion at the intersection of Contra Costa Blvd. and Concord Ave., which is outside of the County's transportation jurisdiction. False information was submitted to the MTC to support the project. The MTC is currently holding the funds in,abeyance pending its re-grading of the project. If the MTC uses the data from CCTA's 1994 Congestion Management Program Report, the project will likely fail to qualify for funding.' If the project is truly for congestion relief then why: 1. does the project include improvements around the un-developed Parcel B when these improvements are over a half-mile away from the intersection of Contra Costa Blvd. and Concord Ave.? 2. Why is the County spending so much money to relieve congestion in the cities of Pleasant Hill and Concord? 3. Why haven't the cities of Pleasant Hill and Concord come ' See the Airport Master Plan, Volume I, page I-39 et. seq., and the County General Plan, Transportation and Circulation Element, page 5-37, paragraph 5-48, and Land Use Element, page 3-62, paragraph 3-62. 'Level of Service Compliance Monitoring Report, Draft for Adoption, page 1.4.6-9 gives a LOS D grade for the I-680 freeway segment in 1994, and page 1.4.6-13 gives LOS grades of D and B for the intersection of Contra Costa Blvd. and Concord Ave. in 1993 and 1994, respectively. Board of Supervisors Page -2- Contra Costa County August 16, 1994 forward to support the project and contribute money for it? 4. Why did this Board of Supervisors previously withdraw the Diamond Blvd. Extension Project from Measure C funding, which has similar funding criterion? So far, the best reason for the project is to prevent another county from getting the $4.1 million of ISTEA funding. But it will cost this county at least $1 million in local matching funds and environmental certification costs to secure the $4.1 million. Can you justify spending that $1 million for the benefit of Pleasant Hill and Concord, outside your jurisdiction? Additionally, the project will also have adverse effects on the adjacent Mobile Home residents, degrading their quality of life and contributing to the possible constructive evictions from their homes. For these reasons, the Board should withdraw support for the project, and should not submit this sponsoring resolution to commit local matching funds. More importantly, the sponsoring resolution commits this county to pay for all costs overruns. I have identified four areas where significant cost overruns can occur: 1. The Diamond Blvd. Extension Project will necessitate the destruction of two to three acres of wetlands in the drainage channel along Marsh Drive and through the Golf course. This destruction will require a more expensive permit from the Army Corps of Engineers than originally projected, and will likely require constructing four to six acres of replacement wetlands adjacent to the project. I have documented the high wildlife utilization of the wetlands, which, includes the observation of a black-crowned night heron, two green-backed herons, a snowy egret, a great blue heron, and three loggerhead shrikes, each of which was either feeding in the wetlands in front of Parcel B or observed within 500 feet of the wetlands. 2. The CEQA documentation, which was previously believed by Public Works to be complete and valid, is now invalid. The EIR for the project will have to be redone. In order to improve its chances of receiving ISTEA funds for the project, County Public Works decided to significantly change the traffic analysis methodology for the intersection of Concord Avenue and Contra Costa Blvd. This decision represents substantial and significant new information which requires redoing the EIR which Public Works is relying upon for the project. The new methodology degrades the"level of service)'at that intersection by 1 t/2 to 2 grades, from LOS C to LOS E/F. 3. Much of the project will be on landfill, which will require a more expensive construction approach than estimated. Unless properly constructed to address vibrations and sinkage caused by the landfill, the road will have high maintenance costs. 4. Vibration and sound mitigation measures for the adjacent Mobile Home a ' Board of Supervisors Page -3- Contra Costa County August 16, 1994 Parks have not been planned nor budgeted. The landfill acts as a (sound board", transmitting the road vibrations generated by heavy trucks over a wide area around the road. Vibration mitigation is expensive. The construction work currently being done by Central Sanitation along Marsh Drive has significantly affected the foundations of the mobile homes. Central Sanitation faces potential litigation for the damage it has allegedly caused. I recommend that the Board ask Public Works for a cost estimate for each of the above areas, and for a realistic projection of the cost overruns. In order for the Board to obtain an honest estimate, I recommend that the Board require that all cost overruns which Public Works does not project be paid out of Public Work's operating budget. Respectfully submitted, t /HaYager 89 Baylor Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523. 510-798-9784 (H) 415-391-6665 (W). cc: Mr. David Murray, MTC (2 copies, one for transmittal to the funding agency) Mr. Craig Goldblatt, MTC (2 copies, one for transmittal to the agency responsible for NEPA and CEQA compliance) Contra Costa Transporralion Authority Draft for Adoption 1994 CONGESTION AMNAdEMENT PROGRAM LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPLIANCE MONITORING REPORT 'The preparation of this report hos been fmaneed duvugh a grant from the U.S. Deparftnent of Transportation and the Federal Highway Admvris&adon under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Effzd tcy Act of 1991. Contents of this Report do not necessarily reflect the official views or polity of the US Deparrrnent of Transportation' Prepared by. b Patterson Associates Proposal For Adoption on hly 20, 1994 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. FREEWAY MONITORING RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. INTERSECTION MONITORING RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 List of Tables Table 1 Relationship Between Level of Service and Freeway Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table 2 Freeway Level of Ser%ice Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Table 3 Intersection Level of Service Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 List of Figures Figure 1 West County Results Figure 2 Central County Resuhs Figure 3 East County Results �, � - y 1. SUMMARY State law requires that the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) annually monitor level of service (LOS) on the designated Congestion Management Program (CMP) road network- This etworkThis report summarizes the results of the 1994 level of service compliance monitoring for- both freeway segments and monitoring int--rsections. FREEWAY SEGMENTS All freeway segments with level of service standard of LOS F were exempt from monitoring. All other segments have established standards of LOS E Available Caltrans travel speed data were used to monitor existing levels of service on those segments with LOS E standards. However, speed data were only collected in the peak direction. The non-peak-direction was assumed to. be free flow according to Caltrans. All segments with LOS E standards were found to operate at level of service E or better. Most segments operate at LOS C or better. MONMRING 1NTERSEC nONS All monitoring intersections with standards of LOS E were monitored in the 1994 report. Revisions to the level of the service methodology.subsequent to the adoption of the 1991 Contra Costa CMP, potentially affected six intersections v6ith established standards of LOS F These six intersections are included in the 1994 monitoring report The revisions could potentially affect the established standards at these locations so they mere included within the 1994 monitoring program. Manual turning movement counts were eollxted at all CMP monitoring intersections. All monitoring intersections with LOS E standards pore found to operate at LOS E or better as part of the 1994 Congestion Management Program level of service monitoring. .Four of the six LOS F standard intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during both peak periods. One intersection operates at LOS E and the other intersection operates at LOS F during both peak periods. The standards presented in the 1991 and subsequent 1993 CMT.also reflect observed queuing at the intersections._ Queuing was also considered in the re.-evaluation of the standards dt the six intersections with existing LOS F standards. DEFICIENCY PLAN REQUMOAEMM Deficiency Plans must be prepared for all freeway segmentsand intersections where level of service standards are violated. No deficiency plans are required in_Contra Costa County since no violations of the standards have been identified in the 1994 level of service monitoring program. 2. METHODOLOGY The level of service standards were established in the 1991 Congestion Management Program. Data collection requirements and level of service calculation methodology were also established. This section of the report summarizes the standards and methodology. - LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Level of service standards were established in the 1991 Contra Costa County CMP for all freeway segments using travel speed as the indicator of level of service. Sixty-two intersections were selected along CMP arterials to monitor Im-eb of service on arterial streets. Level of Service "F" (LOS F) is the standard for all freeway segments and monitoring intersections operating at LOS F in 1991. The standard for all other freeway se_ements and intersections is LOS E. Subsequent to the adoption of the 1991 CMP, the methodology used to evaluate intersection level of service was revised. The previous methodology.resulted in levels of service that were worse than might be observed in the field at intersections where lane geometria allow lanes to operate as a "free" right turn lane. The earlier method also didn't account for those intersections with capacity limiting geometries such as lane widths and curb radii. It was determined that six of the intersections with LOS F standards were affected by changes in the methodolo_w and should be included in the 1994 monitoring report and their level of service standards should be reexamined. DATA COLLECTION Travel time and speed runs were conducted -by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)on most freeway segments in Contra Costa County. Runs made by Caltrans in 1993 were used for 1994 compliance monitoring Additional travel time and speed runs were conducted by Patterson Associates in May and June 1994 on 1-680, State Route 24 and State Route 4. Runs by Caltrans were made in the peak direction for both AM and PM peak periods. Travel time and speed runs were made in both directions in rases where the peak direction was not apparent. Two-hour peak period turning movement counts were collected by Marks Traffic Data Service and Mori Consultants for all monitoring intersections. Turning movement counts for the 1994 compliance monitoring were collected at each CafP monitoring intersection for the same peak period used in the 1993 compliance monitoring, Both peak periods were counted for those intersections with 1991 or 1993 peak hour levels of service of LOS E or worse_ In addition, the six intersections mentioned above with LOS F standards were also counted during boih peak periods in 1994. The CMP legislation permits the exclusion of traffic due to construction and maintenance activities when monitoring levels of service. Traffic patterns and operation have been temporarily altered at intersections affected by the I-680/SR 24 interchange construction. Therefore, level of service was not monitored at these intersections_ The following four CMP monitoring intersections are unsignalized. NB I-680 of[ Ygnacio Vallev Road (excluded from 1994 monitoring) SB 1-680 on/Ygnacio Rosd (excluded from 1994 monitoring) SR-4Balfour Road SR-4113yron Highway Each of these intersections have an LOS E standard. They were included as CMP monitoring intersections because they are representative of overall traffic conditions and could potentially become congested in the future- The I-680 ramp intersections will be reviewed following completion of the I-680/SR 24 interchange construction. They were excluded from the 1994 compliance monitoring due to the atypical impacts of construction on traffic operations- LEVEL peratiotuLEVEL OF SERVICE ME'MODOLOGY Freeway segment levels of service were developed based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. The relationship between level of service and freeway speeds is summarized in Table 1. TABLE 1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEVEL OF SERVICE AND FREEWAY SPS LOS Average Speed A > 60 MPH B > 57 MPH C > 54 MPH D > 46 MPH E > 30 MPH F. < 30 MPH Intersection level of service was estrblished using the methodology described in the Technical Procedures. The method was adopted for use in the Contra Costa CMP and is a modification of that described in TRB Circular 212, Inrerirn Materials on Kghway Capacity. The VCCC software developed for the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is consistent with the adopted methodology and was used to calculate levels of service for this report. ,�. 3 3. FREEWAY MONITORING RESULTS Level of service standards were maintained on all CMP freeway segments. Most of the freeway segments with LOS E standards are operating at LOS C or. better. The following segments are operating at LOS D: ► the northbound segment of I-680 between State Route 4 and State Route 242 (PM Peak), ► the eastbound segment on State Route 24 between Caldecott Tunnel and Camino Pablo (PM Peak) The northbound segment of 1-680 berween EI Cerro Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road is operating at LOS F It should be noted that the Caltrans data collection procedures did limit speeds of the data collection vehicles to the posted limit(55 mph). Therefore,it is not possible to define freeway segments where levels of service A and B are suggested by speeds greater than 55 mph. As a result, segments in Table 2 with indicated LOS C imply 2ctual levels of service of LOS C or better. ,,. 4 < i U U U U s: U U U Ca U J v a U U U U U A Q3U U U W O aw U in U U U J ........ ... . .... ... ..........- M � sn U U U . z ...... w w W w W a, a 3 ..... ;............;... ......... ........................................:....... .............................................. .....................................I......... ............................................... ............................................... 00 w W W W LL. W .v a W c W W v. W p. Z w w W w W M 0 c c c a g c 9 Go c H S o m a tou U U S u cc 3 a E vii 00 U o u e o OC �o U y U o ° 1° v e y o C C gn o c > Y c c co c u >. N W) U 7 y �o F.. O %D V . W S Cp U O C O C 2 O U v) E u to oG E x y h Gz. F E U =- ° c E op O Cd U U Li] Oq cn U U = U O u o aCl 00 Go 0 cc '40 on H E $ u c W3 eV Q � ar a d c 0 o u � 3� W, C W a`'+ v d " d d L II FL6 to t to C1 u p II o 4. INTERSECTION MONITORING RESULTS All monitoring intersections are operating within established standards. Two monitoring intersections, previously operating at LOS E, were found to operate at LOS D or better. • San Pablo Avenue/San Pablo Dam Road (v/c = 0.63, PM Peak) ► Treat Boulevard/Clavion Road (v/c = 0.90, PM Peak) The intersection of Ygnacio Valley Road at Ayers Road continues to operate at LOS E (v/c ratio of 0.99). Four of the six intersections with LOS F standards that were analyzed as part of this 1994 CMP monitoring effort are operating at LOS D or better during both peak periods. These are: ► San Pablo Avenue at Road 20 ► San Pablo Dam Road at I-80 ramps ► Taylor Boulevard at Alhambra/Pleasant Hill Road ► Oak Grove Road at Treat Boulevard The LOS F standard at these intersections were established based on calculated levels of service and observed intersection queuing. In 1994. neither calculated levels of service or observed intersection queuing support LOS F standards at the San Pablo Avenue intersection with Road 20 or the intersection of Taylor Boulevard with Alhambra/Pleasant Hill Road. ' The intersection of San Pablo Dam Road at Bear Creek Road operates at LOS E during both peak periods (v/c = 0.94,AM peak;v/c = 091, PM peak). This is consistent with previous analysis of the intersection. However, observations of queuing at the intersection suggest that the calculations understate the level of congestion. The intersection of Contra Costa Boulevard at Monument Boulevard was found to operate at LOS F during both peak periods(v/c = 1.14.AM peak;v/c = 1.20,PM peak)..This confirms the previous LOS F estimates. It is recommended that the existing standards be retained at all six intersections with established LOS F standards. The intersections of San Pablo Avenue.with Road 20 and Taylor Boulevard with Alhambra/Pleasant Hill Road should be re-evaluated as pact of the 1995 CMP update. If the levels of service and observed queuing remain consistently better than LOS E, consideration should be given to lowering the standard to LOS E at this intersection. A complete summary of the intersection level of service results are provided in Table 3 and Figures 1, 2 and 3_ A /,,a -/D r- < C- < C. C- C- cc U u u < m < < 0 E r4 00 C4 1-1) %D 00 o C) 0 C> CD C:) C) .2:1 :2 2 2 0 z- a. CL. U C- cli < < < IN u co t- sz: Vi It .0 > O CD 0 O O 00 0 0 O In Ef I C C6 E 00 eo to CC go 0 E 0 0 E 0 w cc E in V- CL. c 0As c c c 0* An cn cc V E c c 45 :2 V a a eo tz: 00 cw E0 cl; .2 - 0 C) =c c go, ca 0 40 ri E d o o � = 0 0 0 C: cc cc C- C IL) > > > > > W < < < < < < c c • Cc M 0 0 0 0 OZ 0 :E - :6 Z Z :6 :6 Z — -0 cu co •co B C13 E cc ci c c c c c CV) C/3 cz co M r- 0 0 V, En V) (4 in V) V) Ln V) Ln _ cr O C J O O V h cp O Ij G �- ez c 5 N C, Z` c� cc U r v %0 o v _ e ` oo t� V� 0 0 0 o c u ts. v d n 0 v N R' tn � C L r- E J � o c d cc � O 0o cc m c co cc 2 u u O O _O -0 3 ` v �O •U O •1i L. Ci C a E ct u E E eo � u U U u u v > > Q cc R E5 Fu 2 R = 3 U O � U go cj L m � W E Z Q C• cc — = G .".. cc o < o co c O L 0 co L ` 00 c d a _ O U n Q O c Z U U U Z v �_ O 7 E u d u eo {% M - LO co c (7, G" (� u O V C v 7 Q ° L v E 7 L L O L 7 o .o -D c c O C ca y v V C)qu �• O Q L C c p > i > w v •� a E O x u c u c v V < < < o o T _ c c cc c cc Z c 0 o c — _ — ° o oN � o � O oczL c = c = fl cv, v ` J to MILI V) If i a c C— c,. v V U V 00 d C' C > o a o _ o ci o d o ci �. N o U r co r: > a s a o as a a a " Y o a i VA 0 cc ca c ca U :C L c C 9 11 j c� c� 3 ! c. a» a. L„ n i H 10 a0 �~ 0 4 A f► T o71iic �t _ C N caco ' '+ a E cl c c - u N H = ¢ 3 _ V f O U N es r. a Q �i cr�i �i ams c_}i C] im c= `c p d m to 7E E cs co atz ass as E4 0 U U U M { �. V U ( m p >. >, aaOi a�0i 2 M (�� v U U U U !- U UE- n_l C ('✓ r-5 z—' f' �•. L!) U cV N N N i OC S t` t` G, P O c C O O O O O V d H d G T c0 O u C L L L sU = -o y 0 O ^ U U E13 LY] 0 m cn c to t': v t•: -- .O Q o c o 0 0 0 0 LL v - u o. 0 ccv w LU EU cc cc 0 O u E O u eq R c � C C u 0 u 0 o V u u u p1!qu p U U u U u .a > > s 3 c O O O C4 0 •a. W co C 4 c c c c, c y m 3 3 3 3 c5 u u d to CL u to 4u s lu oN t u c 0 O O C Oc " _ u c c O c O 00 ca v cc G c c to Z �- u` � o0 rraa,, 7 g CEJ CEJ (' CJ CJ � @l G cn u o c c a c =1 o16 E d a o n oo � cc "011 cz ccw W u O u _ o C v C Cc c a u uc " cc C O L7 00 u u is W v p u v Q u v u N c to h ti c~co c u crci C r- qjv ooN toN 2 0 c 00 N CA 1 � O � o 0 V Cl h - u C •� ri c a d u � O O O O G O C O = CL u E n. W o v v c y W W ao y 00 C u Q c 0 cccc ca w O cicc 0 � a a o L H Cc m m cc V O :9 c c c c p cc 40 � a z � C) CcS L� :� •c� U U � cc16. v g 8 " .�c �. ba a E � 3 s .9 _c e c o� O ca E Si a m " (o C C < ~ W ` O = .29� c O W. {. t a z c v o m �_ o o w� W C C 0 C p O t C � 0 .0 u 7 u -0 CCU V V U c C v CO . Z C 0 040 u Z _ — r - t s L' L4 eoN o C O v c