Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09201994 - TC.1 ' TC. 2 ,! Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE County DATE: September 12, 1994 SUBJECT: Report on the Actions Plans for Routes of Regional Significance and the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Accept report. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Transportation Committee provides this report to inform the Board of Supervisors of the status of the County's review of the "Circulation Draft" Action Plans prepared by the various Regional Transportation Planning Committees. Also included is a summary of the County comments concerning the "Preliminary Draft" of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan prepared by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) . East County Action Plan (TRANSPLAN Committee) Comments on the East County Action Plan were due August 24, 1994. A copy of the County's comments are attached as Exhibit A. Responsibilities of the County and Cities: Compliance with Measure C-1988 is determined based on each jurisdiction's good-faith effort to implement those actions committed to in the Action Plan. As such, it is important to be able to clearly understand what the County is obligated to do in the East County Action Plan. Actions include implementation of regional transportation projects that 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 tit F APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED 5— OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT Z TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: S.Goetz, CDD, 646-2134 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED SPP 2 01994 cc: GMEDA PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works Department THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY AfD.MINISTRATOR BY 61",, DEPUTY Report on the Actions Plans and the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan September 12, 1994 Page Two BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION (continued) involve some projects located in the unincorporated area. Clarification is needed of the County's responsibilities for how and when to implement these projects, and what financial participation can be expected from East County cities to help fund them. Armstrong Road: The TRANSPLAN Committee was requested to add the extension and upgrading of Armstrong Road, between Byron Highway and the relocated Vasco Road, to the list of regional projects, and to consider designating this road as a Regional Route. This project would provide a new connection between two heavily traveled Regional Routes in the vicinity of the County' s proposed airport. Development Review Procedure: Since the East County Action Plan can not demonstrate compliance with its TSO's given the growth assumed for the Year 2010, a development review procedure is proposed for all major developments not yet approved. Any jurisdiction approving a project generating 100 or more peak hour trips, must be reviewed by the TRANSPLAN Committee to determine if the project has adequately demonstrated compliance with the adopted TSO's or has committed to sufficient mitigations "in-lieu" of compliance with TSO's. The County requested clarification of the criteria ''to be used to determine the adequacy of mitigations in-lieu of compliance with TSO's, since failure to comply could put a jurisdiction out of compliance with Measure C-1988 . Reviewing General Plan Amendments: The East County Action Plan requires all local jurisdictions approving a general plan amendment to either demonstrate compliance with the TSO's and Action Plan policies, or to obtain a modification to the Action Plan that will eliminate any adverse impacts to the regional transportation system. Since the East County Action Plan can not demonstrate compliance with its TSO's given the growth allowed by current general plans, any general plan amendment allowing additional growth would require modification to the Action Plan. County staff would prefer that the Action Plan anticipate general plan amendments currently under consideration by local jurisdictions in East County and include a process similar to the proposed development review process that would allow such projects to be considered without requiring modification to the Action Plan. Central County Action Plan (TRANSPAC Committee) Comments on the Central County Action Plan were due September 12 , 1994. A copy of those comments are included as Exhibit B. Traffic Service Objectives: The Action Plan needs to clarify how the TSO' s will be measured (e.g. by corridor or segment within each corridor) so that the TSO's can be applied in a consistent manner. Furthermore, there is no data in the Central County Action Plan verifying that the TSO's can be met with the growth assumed to occur by 2010. Signal Metering and Synchronization: The Central County Action Plan proposes to establish a traffic management and signal synchronization plan within Central County to manage traffic flow and to ensure that jurisdictions which approve development also provide the storage capacity (reservoir) for that traffic. A related action includes implementing signal metering and synchronization to discourage use of arterial routes as bypass routes for freeways. The County is concerned that this as-yet undefined traffic management and signal metering/synchronization plan may have some unanticipated adverse impacts. The County requests that implementation of any project consistent with this strategy be contingent on a comprehensive study evaluating the impacts of project-specific proposals, and require the unanimous agreement of all TRANSPAC jurisdictions. Transit Availability: Actions are included to promote the expansion of an effective transit network in Contra Costa and to encourage the provision of effective feeder bus service. The County requests that TRANSPAC consider adopting the findings of the CCTA Bus Transit Study and determine if that study's recommendations can be included in the Action Plan. The study recommends implementation of timed-transfer centers, better bus frequencies, additional express and limited-stop routes, and new routes. Endorsement of the study's recommendations would avoid duplicating a recently-completed planning process and advance the implementation of its recommendations. Report on the Actions Plans and the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan September 12, 1994 Page Three BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION (continued) Local Actions to Promote the Use of Transit, Bikes, and Walking: The Action Plans includes actions to encourage local jurisdictions to promote alternative forms of transportation. It also describes an extensive list of bikeways and trails proposed by local jurisdictions. The County requests TRANSPAC to evaluate these projects as well as the land use policies of the cities and County to determine if local jurisdictions can take more specific actions to encourage the use of alternative forms of transportation. Development Review Procedure: The Central County Action Plan proposes a program for evaluating new development proposals which requires any project generating 100 or more peak hour trips to demonstrate compliance with the Action Plan policies or TSO' s and report on attempts at mediation. The County requests that TRANSPAC determine if the development assumed in the Action Plan is consistent with the Plan's policies and TSO' s to see if the TSO's can reasonably be met. The County further requests clarification of what constitutes "attempts at mediation" . Additional information if needed on the development review procedure if it will be used as a basis for Measure C-1988 compliance. Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan - Preliminary Draft Comments on the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan - Preliminary Draft (CCTP) were due September 9, 1994. A copy of the County's comments is included as Exhibit C. Relationship to the Regional Transportation Plan: The County requested the Authority to highlight the CCTP's relationship to the Regional Transportation Plan prepared by MTC. If the CCTP were submitted to MTC as a County Transportation Plan prepared pursuant to state law, MTC will be obligated to incorporate the CCTP into the Regional Transportation Plan. MTC can only change those portions of a County Transportation Plan that conflict with an adjacent county's, or MTC can add projects and policy of regional significance. At this point, the Authority has not decided if the CCTP will be submitted to MTC as a County Transportation Plan for incorporation into the Regional Transportation Plan. Countywide Objectives: The CCTP proposed to establish countywide objectives that address congestion levels and transit use. The County suggested adding objectives for highway safety, truck traffic, and minimum bus service levels. The County suggested using these objectives to prioritize transportation projects that are submitted to other agencies for regional state and federal funding. The County also suggested that the countywide objectives be used in-lieu of Traffic Service Objectives for freeways since the TSO's established by some Regional Transportation Planning Committee's for the same freeway conflict. Countywide Actions: The CCTP proposed to develop countywide actions to coordinate and support the Action Plans. The County proposed that the Authority consider the following for countywide actions: - Countywide strategy for freeway ramp metering, signal synchronization and other traffic management technologies; - Countywide strategy for Transportation Demand Management; - Countywide strategy for integrated bus service; - Countywide truck route system; - Countywide bikeway system; and - Countywide priorities for transportation projects. Summary of Action Plans: The County requested clarification of Authority policy where Action Plan of adjacent regions conflict (e.g. are development projects outside an RTPC are subject to that RTPC's Action Plan?) . The County requested that the Plan address that fact that no Action Plan has demonstrated compliance with its TSO's given the growth assumed by the Year 2010.