HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11052013 - C.81RECOMMENDATION(S):
AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director to transmit comments to the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority on the Draft TriLink Feasibility Study.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None to the General Fund.
BACKGROUND:
At the October 1, 2013 County Board of Supervisors meeting, Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) staff
delivered a presentation on the recent activities under the State Route 239 (SR-239 or "TriLink") project. TriLink is a
legislatively-designated but unconstructed multi-modal route from SR-4 near Brentwood to I-205 west of Tracy. In
2005, Contra Costa County was awarded a $14 million Federal earmark under the "Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: Legacy for Users" (SAFETEA-LU) program to study this route. In 2012, CCTA
took over administration of the Federal earmark and initiated the study.
The October 1, 2013 presentation provided background on the project, results of stakeholder engagement efforts,
analysis methods, proposed route options
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 11/05/2013 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: John Cunningham,
925-674-7833
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: November 5, 2013
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
C. 81
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director
Date:November 5, 2013
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Comments on the Draft TriLink Feasibility Study
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
and preliminary cost estimates. The presentation also introduced the Draft TriLink Feasibility Study Report
(Exhibit A). County Public Works and Conservation and Development staff have reviewed the Draft Feasibility
Study and developed comments (Exhibit B) per the Board's direction following the October 1, 2013 presentation.
After adopting and finalizing the Feasibility Study, CCTA will be advancing project development by beginning
the Project Initiation Document process through Caltrans. CCTA will also be working to identify funding options
and refining a project phasing and implementation plan. In addition to the comments found in Exhibit B, staff will
transmit a digital copy of the Draft TriLink Feasibility Study Report (Exhibit A) that addresses more detailed,
technical, format-related or grammatical issues.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
The County will forego the opportunity to influence the TriLink Feasibility Study.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A - Draft TriLink Feasibility Study
Exhibit B: Comments to CCTA
Prepared by:
TriLink (Sr 239)
Feasibility study draFt report
SEPTEMBER 12, 2013
Prepared for:
Contra Costa transportation authority
2999 Oak ROad, Suite 100
Walnut CReek, Ca 94597
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report ES-1
September 12, 2013
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Background
In 2005, Contra Costa County
received two federal appropriations
totaling $14 million. The federal
appropriations were to be used to
evaluate a new multimodal
transportation alignment that
could link State Route (SR) 4 near
Brentwood to Interstate 205 (I-205) or Interstate 580 (I-580) west of Tracy in San Joaquin
County (see Figure ES-1). SR 239 is a legislatively designated facility intended for this alignment.
In 2012, a multijurisdictional partnership was established, and Contra Costa Transportation
Authority (CCTA) initiated the TriLink (SR 239) study. This facility could potentially improve
access for those who live and work in the region, and could support inter-regional goods
movement operations that would create jobs locally. This planning study has been conducted
by CCTA and a technical consulting team, led by Parsons (collectively, the Study Team).
Figure ES-1 TriLink Corridor Elements
Executive Summary
ES-2 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Visioning and Outreach
Two visioning sessions were held with agency stakeholders for the TriLink (SR 239) study. The
TriLink study focused on five key areas that were identified by agency stakeholders during the
visioning process:
Regional Connectivity
Planned Development and Job Realization
Roadway Safety
Emergency Response
Goods Movement
The Study Team, in partnership with the stakeholders and constituents along the corridor,
worked to address these five key areas by developing a range of multimodal alignments with
the ultimate objective of establishing consensus on the proposed corridor alignments. This was
accomplished through a robust public outreach process including a Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC), a Non-Governmental Organizations Committee (NGO), a Policy Advisory
Committee (PAC), an Executive Steering Committee (ESC), a virtual workshop, general public
open houses, and council presentations.
Seven meeting series were completed over a 14-month period with these stakeholder groups.
The first meeting series served to introduce the study, while the subsequent meeting series
were grouped into two separate decision-making cycles. The first decision-making cycle
consisted of four meeting series, which resulted in the selection of alignment options, access
points, and facility types. The second decision-making cycle consisted of three meeting series,
which led to approval of the feasibility study.
Corridor Considerations
All of the TriLink study alignments were developed to address five key areas (regional
connectivity; planned development and job realization; roadway safety; emergency response;
and goods movement) identified during the stakeholder outreach process. Alignments that did
not address these key areas were dropped from further consideration. A qualitative comparison
was then conducted on the alignment options. This comparison examined biological resources,
water resources, cultural resources, existing infrastructure, planned infrastructure, construction
cost, and right-of-way (ROW) impacts. Alignments were developed to minimize impacts to
corridor considerations whenever possible. Figure ES-2 shows the corridor considerations.
Figure ES-2: Corridor Considerations
Executive Summary
ES-4 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Executive Summary
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report ES-5
September 12, 2013
Facility Alignments
Five corridor elements in the TriLink program of improvements were studied as potential
connections between Brentwood and Tracy. These five corridor elements include the North
Link, Airport Connector, South Link, I-580 Link, and a Transit Link (refer to Figure ES-1). The
Airport Connector and South Link would provide improvements to existing infrastructure and
support local connectivity and mobility. The North Link and I-580 Link together would comprise
a freeway connection between SR 4 and the I-580/I-205 interchange west of Tracy. These
elements would facilitate goods movement into, out of, and within the study area, relieve
congestion, and provide better access to existing and planned development.
North Link
The proposed North Link is a freeway facility connecting to the planned SR 4 improvements at
the Vasco Road and Walnut Boulevard intersection and then connecting to the Airport
Connecter. The following cross section shows the proposed dimensions for the North Link.
Airport Connector
The proposed Airport Connector is a four-lane major arterial facility that is 2.7 miles long,
following the existing alignment of Armstrong Road and extending it westward to connect with
Vasco Road. The following cross section shows the proposed dimensions. The Airport
Connector would improve the connection between Vasco Road and Byron Highway, as well as
improve access to Byron Airport.
Executive Summary
ES-6 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
South Link
The proposed South Link is a four-lane major arterial facility that is 7.9 miles long, providing a
connection between the Airport Connector, the Mountain House development, and Tracy. The
following cross section shows the proposed dimensions. The South Link would run along Byron
Highway from the existing at-grade crossing with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Mococo rail
line to the planned I-205/Lammers Road/Eleventh Street interchange in Tracy.
I-580 Link
The proposed I-580 Link is a freeway facility connecting the Airport Connecter to the existing
I-580/I-205 interchange in eastern Alameda County. The I-580 Link is a continuation of the
North Link, continuing the progression of improvements from SR 4 to the North Link and
completing the freeway connection through eastern Contra Costa County and eastern Alameda
County. The I-580 Link, in conjunction with the North Link, would provide a direct freeway
connection from SR 4 and the eastern Contra Costa County communities of Brentwood,
Pittsburg, and Antioch to the I-580/I-205 interchange, Tracy, and points to the south and east in
the San Joaquin Valley. The following cross section shows the proposed dimensions of the I-580
Link.
Executive Summary
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report ES-7
September 12, 2013
Transit Link
The Transit Link is anticipated to follow the TriLink alignments, either in provided median space
or adjacent to the roadway of the North Link, Airport Connector, and South Link to connect the
residential and job hubs of Brentwood, Mountain House, and Tracy. The Transit Link could be
provided in one of many forms, including express bus service, bus rapid transit (BRT), East
Contra Costa County Bay Area Rapid Transit (eBART), Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), or an ACE
(Altamont Commuter Express) rail line.
Funding and Delivery Strategy
Funding the program of projects identified by the TriLink study will be challenging. With an
estimated capital cost of more than $750 million for the TriLink corridor improvements,
available County, State, and federal funding amounts represent only a tiny fraction of the total
necessary to deliver the program. Furthermore, in the context of the downward trending
transportation funding environment, CCTA must weigh the opportunities that current State
laws may provide. These opportunities may occur in the form of accelerated project delivery
methods and/or innovative financing methods. Such methods may be appropriate candidates
for tolling or other private financing mechanisms under public-private partnerships (P3s). The
ability to design, build, operate, and maintain the TriLink projects may take several decades of
innovative thinking to achieve the program goals and realize the regional benefits.
Summary of Findings and Next Steps
Four corridor elements and their optional corridor alignments in the TriLink program of
improvements were evaluated to determine potential impacts. These corridor elements and
optional alignments include the Airport Connector, South Link, North Link (Options 1 and 2), I-
580 Link (Options 1, 2a, and 2b), and a Transit Link (Options 1, 2, and 3).
The comparison results indicate that the two North Link options have similar impacts, with
some differences in impacts to special-status wildlife species and ROW. The I-580 Link Option 1
shows more impacts to corridor considerations than the I-580 Link Options 2a and 2b. Corridor
elements were not evaluated against each other, but alignment options were. This is because
the corridor elements are not alternatives to each other but are a part of the program of
improvements. The potential impacts identified will be evaluated in further detail with the next
stage of the study before a preferred alignment option is selected.
The feasibility study demonstrates that TriLink would do the following:
Executive Summary
ES-8 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Relieve congestion on I-580, Vasco Road, and Byron Highway by diverting traffic from these
existing roadways
Support local job growth in manufacturing, wholesale, transportation and related sectors
which depend on quality roadways and connections
Reduce vehicle-miles travelled (VMT), greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and air pollution in
support of state-wide targets
Provide an effective alternative truck route for trips to eastern Contra Costa County and the
northeast portion of the Bay Area, reducing truck volumes on local roads
Serve as an evacuation route, facilitating access to and from regional centers of
urbanization
Improve roadway safety by separating high-speed through traffic from local vehicles.
Defining a precise alignment would include the following next steps:
Prepare a Project Study Report (Project Development Support) [PSR (PDS)] to allow the
option to use State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding for any or all of the
phases (i.e., planning, design and engineering, ROW purchase, and/or construction) needed
to implement TriLink.
Recommend a program of improvements in the PSR (PDS) for the Route Adoption Study.
Prepare a Route Adoption Report, which requires preparing an environmental document.
Obtain the California Transportation Commission Route Adoption Approval.
By taking these next steps, progress can be made toward implementation of the TriLink
improvements.
It will be important for CCTA to continue advancing project development activities. Project
sponsors who are able to deliver a “shovel-ready” project when new State or federal
government funding sources become available are often successful in qualifying for and
receiving additional funding. In addition, CCTA can look to secure additional local funding
commitments or participate in State and regional discussions relative to new funding initiatives
that may emerge. Looking forward, it would be beneficial for CCTA to seek advantageous
legislative positioning in ballot-box efforts to increase State funding for local entities or find
innovative finance methods that can influence early capital outlay of the TriLink program of
projects.
Table of Contents
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report TC-1
September 12, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................. 1
List of Acronyms .................................................................................. 1
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Local Priorities and Regional Goals ............................................................................ 1-4
1.2 Defining the Issues ..................................................................................................... 1-4
1.2.1 Regional Connectivity .................................................................................... 1-4
1.2.2 Planned Development and Job Realization ................................................... 1-8
1.2.3 Roadway Safety ............................................................................................ 1-11
1.2.4 Emergency Response and Recovery ............................................................ 1-11
1.2.5 Goods Movement ........................................................................................ 1-12
1.3 Report Organization ................................................................................................. 1-12
Chapter 2 Outreach and Feedback ................................................ 2-1
2.1 Stakeholder Outreach ................................................................................................ 2-4
2.1.1 Web and Media .............................................................................................. 2-7
2.1.2 Public Open House Meetings ......................................................................... 2-8
2.1.3 Virtual Workshop ........................................................................................... 2-8
2.2 Direct Outreach to Local Agencies ........................................................................... 2-10
2.3 Public Comments Received ...................................................................................... 2-11
Chapter 3 Land Use and Traffic Analysis ...................................... 3-1
3.1 Forecasting Future Growth in the Study Area ........................................................... 3-1
3.2 Traffic Demand Growth Estimates ........................................................................... 3-10
3.3 Travel Patterns ......................................................................................................... 3-11
3.4 Goods Movement .................................................................................................... 3-16
3.4.1 Congestion in the Study Area ...................................................................... 3-16
3.4.2 Regional Generators and Goods Movement Patterns ................................ 3-23
3.4.3 Study Area Freight Generators .................................................................... 3-23
3.4.4 Route Selection Factors ............................................................................... 3-25
3.5 Truck Traffic Forecast Results .................................................................................. 3-25
3.5.1 Time and Distance Savings ........................................................................... 3-25
3.5.2 Truck Volumes Forecast ............................................................................... 3-28
Chapter 4 Sustainability and Resources Stewardship ................ 4-1
4.1 Green Design Principles Approach............................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Envision™ Rating System ........................................................................................... 4-3
Table of Contents
TC-2 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
4.3 Potential Green Uses of the Corridor ........................................................................ 4-5
4.4 Habitat Conservation Strategies ................................................................................ 4-6
4.4.1 East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural
Community Conservation Plan ...................................................................... 4-6
4.4.2 East Alameda County Conservation Strategy ................................................ 4-7
4.4.3 San Joaquin Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan ....... 4-7
4.5 SB 375 and Greenhouse Gas ...................................................................................... 4-8
Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations and the Built
Environment .................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Biological Resources and Planning Policy .................................................................. 5-1
5.1.1 Species Occurrence and Sensitive Habitats ................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 Waters, Wetlands, and Riparian Habitat ....................................................... 5-5
5.1.3 Existing Mitigation/Conservation Areas ........................................................ 5-6
5.1.4 Potential Future Protected Areas .................................................................. 5-6
5.1.5 Expected Future Impact Assessments and Determinations .......................... 5-7
5.1.6 Habitat Conservation Plans and Conservation Strategies ............................. 5-7
5.2 Water Resources ...................................................................................................... 5-15
5.2.1 Watersheds .................................................................................................. 5-15
5.2.2 Drainage ....................................................................................................... 5-16
5.3 Floodplains ............................................................................................................... 5-16
5.4 Water Quality ........................................................................................................... 5-17
5.5 Geology .................................................................................................................... 5-17
5.5.1 Soils .............................................................................................................. 5-18
5.5.2 Groundwater ................................................................................................ 5-18
5.5.3 Landslides ..................................................................................................... 5-18
5.5.4 Seismicity and Faulting ................................................................................ 5-18
5.6 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 5-19
5.7 Existing Infrastructure .............................................................................................. 5-20
5.8 Planned Infrastructure ............................................................................................. 5-23
Chapter 6 Corridor Elements ......................................................... 6-1
6.1 Design Criteria and Planning Considerations ............................................................. 6-3
6.1.1 Facility Descriptions ....................................................................................... 6-5
6.1.2 Planning Considerations ................................................................................ 6-5
6.1.3 Airport Connector .......................................................................................... 6-5
6.1.4 South Link ....................................................................................................... 6-8
6.1.5 North Link ....................................................................................................... 6-9
Table of Contents
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report TC-3
September 12, 2013
6.1.6 I-580 Link ...................................................................................................... 6-12
6.1.7 North Link and I-580 Link Potential Alignment Packages ............................ 6-14
6.2 Access and Circulation ............................................................................................. 6-16
6.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation ........................................................................... 6-19
6.4 Safety Improvements ............................................................................................... 6-20
6.5 Corridor Elements Cost Estimates ........................................................................... 6-21
Chapter 7 Evaluation of Corridor Elements ................................... 7-1
7.1 Study Considerations/Criteria .................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Evaluation Results ...................................................................................................... 7-2
7.2.1 Biological Resources ...................................................................................... 7-2
7.2.2 Waters, Wetlands, and Riparian Habitat ....................................................... 7-5
7.2.3 Water Resources ............................................................................................ 7-6
7.2.4 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 7-6
7.2.5 Existing Infrastructure .................................................................................... 7-7
7.2.6 Planned Infrastructure ................................................................................... 7-8
7.2.7 Construction Cost ........................................................................................... 7-8
7.2.8 Right-of-Way Impacts .................................................................................... 7-9
7.2.9 Engineering .................................................................................................. 7-10
7.3 Summary of Results ................................................................................................. 7-10
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios ........................... 8-1
8.1 Organizational Structure ............................................................................................ 8-1
8.1.1 Joint Exercise of Powers................................................................................. 8-1
8.1.2 Memorandum of Understanding ................................................................... 8-5
8.1.3 Participants and Leadership Sponsor ............................................................ 8-6
8.2 Project Delivery Methods .......................................................................................... 8-7
8.2.1 Public Capital Delivery (Traditional Outlay) ................................................... 8-7
8.2.2 Public-Private Capital Delivery ..................................................................... 8-11
8.2.3 Comparison of Project Delivery Methods .................................................... 8-20
8.3 Route Adoption ........................................................................................................ 8-22
8.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 8-23
Chapter 9 Conclusions ................................................................... 9-1
9.1 Funding and Delivery Strategy ................................................................................... 9-1
9.2 Findings and Next Steps ............................................................................................. 9-1
Table of Contents
TC-4 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
APPENDIX
Appendix A References
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES-1 TriLink Corridor Elements ...................................................................................... 1
Figure ES-2 Corridor Considerations ......................................................................................... 3
Figure 1.0-1 Study Area .......................................................................................................... 1-2
Figure 1.0-2 Study Area Growth Potential ............................................................................. 1-3
Figure 1.2-1 Existing Regional Connections ........................................................................... 1-6
Figure 1.2-2 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities ............................................................ 1-7
Figure 1.2-3 Planning Considerations .................................................................................... 1-9
Figure 2.1-1 TriLink Study Web Site ....................................................................................... 2-7
Figure 2.1-2 Virtual Workshop on TriLink Web Site .............................................................. 2-9
Figure 3.0-1 CCTA Ten-County Model.................................................................................... 3-2
Figure 3.1-1 Study Area Household Projections .................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3.1-2 Study Area Job Projections ................................................................................ 3-5
Figure 3.1-3 Roadway Network Plan ..................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3.1-4 Transit Network Plan ......................................................................................... 3-7
Figure 3.1-5 Byron Airport Influence Areas ........................................................................... 3-8
Figure 3.1-6 Byron Airport Recommended Development Plan ............................................. 3-9
Figure 3.2-1 Traffic Demand Growth Estimates for Byron Highway ................................... 3-10
Figure 3.3-1 2010 Traffic Volumes Existing .......................................................................... 3-12
Figure 3.3-2 2040 Traffic Volumes – No Build ..................................................................... 3-13
Figure 3.3-3 2040 Traffic Volumes – with TriLink ................................................................ 3-14
Figure 3.3-4 2010 Traffic Volumes – with TriLink ................................................................ 3-15
Figure 3.4-1 Corridors with Increased Congestion .............................................................. 3-18
Figure 3.4-2 Off-Peak Average Truck Speeds ....................................................................... 3-19
Figure 3.4-3 AM Average Truck Speeds as Percent of Off-Peak Average ............................ 3-20
Figure 3.4-4 Midday Average Truck Speeds as Percent of Off-Peak Average ..................... 3-21
Figure 3.4-5 PM Average Truck Speeds as Percent of Off-Peak Average ............................ 3-22
Figure 4.1-1 The Triple Bottom Line: Economy, Environment, and Equity ........................... 4-2
Figure 5.1-1 Biological Resources .......................................................................................... 5-9
Figure 5.1-2 TriLink CNDDB Plant Occurrences in a 5-Mile Radius of the Study Area ........ 5-11
Figure 5.1-3 TriLink CNDDB Animal Occurrences in a 5-Mile Radius of the Study Area ..... 5-13
Figure 6.0-1 Corridor Elements and All Alignments Considered ........................................... 6-2
Table of Contents
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report TC-5
September 12, 2013
Figure 6.0-2 Transit Link Alignment Options ......................................................................... 6-4
Figure 6.1-1 Airport Connector Cross Section (looking west) ............................................... 6-7
Figure 6.1-2 South Link Cross Section (looking north) ........................................................... 6-9
Figure 6.1-3 North Link Cross Section (looking north) ......................................................... 6-11
Figure 6.1-4 I-580 Link Cross Section (looking north) .......................................................... 6-13
Figure 6.1-5 North Link and I-580 Option 1 ......................................................................... 6-14
Figure 6.1-6 North Link Option 2 and I-580 Option 2a ........................................................ 6-15
Figure 6.1-7 North Link Option 2 and I-580 Option 2b ........................................................ 6-15
Figure 6.2-1 Potential Interchange and Grade Separation Locations ................................. 6-17
Figure 7.1-1 Corridor Considerations..................................................................................... 7-3
Figure 8.2-1 California’s Transportation Funding Needs for Three Key Assets ..................... 8-8
Figure 8.4-1 SR 239 Route Adoption Environmental Process .............................................. 8-24
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.0-1 Project Briefing Participants ............................................................................... 2-2
Table 2.0-2 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) ................................................................. 2-3
Table 2.0-3 Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) ......................................................... 2-4
Table 2.1-1 Meeting Series Summary .................................................................................... 2-5
Table 2.2-1 Agency Feedback .............................................................................................. 2-10
Table 3.4-1 Existing Truck Traffic Volumes in the Study Area ............................................. 3-16
Table 3.4-2 Freight Flows from San Joaquin County to Bay Area Counties ........................ 3-23
Table 3.5-1 Congested Minutes Traveled – Peak Period Based on 65 mph Average
Speed ........................................................................................................... 3-26
Table 3.5-2 Distance Traveled – Miles ................................................................................. 3-27
Table 3.5-3 Distance and Time Traveled – Tracy to Pacheco .............................................. 3-27
Table 3.5-4 Estimated Average Daily Truck Volumes .......................................................... 3-29
Table 4.5-1 Daily VMT within Regional Influence Area ......................................................... 4-8
Table 4.5-2 Regional GHG Assessment Results ..................................................................... 4-9
Table 5.1-1 Identified Wildlife and Plant Species in the Study Area ..................................... 5-2
Table 6.2-1 Potential Interchange and Grade Separation Locations ................................... 6-19
Table 6.4-1 TriLink Preliminary Cost Estimates (2013 dollars) ............................................ 6-22
Table 7.2-1 Potential Creek Crossings in the Study Area ....................................................... 7-6
Table 7.3-1 Alignment Evaluation Results ........................................................................... 7-11
Table 8.2-1 Assessment of Current California Innovative Finance Laws and Innovative
Project Delivery Methods ............................................................................ 8-13
Table 8.2-2 Project Delivery Method Comparison .............................................................. 8-21
TC-6 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
List of Acronyms
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report A-1
September 12, 2013
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACE Altamont Commuter Express
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
ATRI American Transportation Research Institute
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe
BRT bus rapid transit
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCIC Central California Information Center
CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CIP Corridor Improvement Program
CM/GC Construction Manager/Generator Contractor
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO2 carbon dioxide
County Contra Costa County
CRHR California Register of Historic Resources
CSD Community Services District
CTC County Transportation Commission
CTFA California Transportation Financing Authority
CTP Comprehensive Transportation Plan
CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
CZ Conservation Zone
DWR Department of Water Resources
EACCS East Alameda County Conservation Strategy
eBART East Contra Costa County Bay Area Rapid Transit
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
ECCC East Contra Costa County
List of Acronyms
A-2 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
EPS Economic & Planning Systems
ESC Executive Steering Committee
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FIS Flood Insurance Study
FY fiscal year
GHG greenhouse gas
GIS Geographic Information System
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HDM Highway Design Manual
HEC-22 Hydraulic Engineering Circular, Number 22
HOT high-occupancy toll
I-5 Interstate 5
I-205 Interstate 205
I-405 Interstate 405
I-580 Interstate 580
i-GATE Innovation for Green Advanced Transportation Excellence
IRRS Interregional Road System
ITIP Interregional Transportation Improvement Program
JEPA Joint Exercise of Powers Authority
JPA Joint Powers Agreement
LED light-emitting diode
LOS Level of Service
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
MOU memorandum of understanding
mph miles per hour
MSCP Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NGO Non-Governmental Organizations Committee
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
OA obligation authority
List of Acronyms
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report A-3
September 12, 2013
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
P3 public-private partnership
PAC Policy Advisory Committee
PA/ED Project Approval/Environmental Document
PFA public financing authority
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PSR (PDS) Project Study Report (Project Development Support)
RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission
ROW right-of-way
RPZ Runway Protection Zone
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SAFETEA-LU Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users
SB Senate Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategies
SJCOG San Joaquin Council of Governments
SJJPA San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority
SJMSCP San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space
Plan
SR State Route
STAA Surface Transportation Assistance Act
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TAZ traffic analysis zones
TEP Transportation Expenditure Plan
TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery
TVTC Tri Valley Transportation Commission
ULL urban limit line
UPRR Union Pacific Railroad
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS United State Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
VHD vehicle hours of delay
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WSJC Western San Joaquin County
A-4 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 1-1
September 12, 2013
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
In 2005, Contra Costa County
(County) received two federal
appropriations totaling $14 million.
The federal appropriations were
used to establish a multi-
jurisdictional partnership that
oversaw the process for evaluating
multimodal transportation
alignments for the TriLink (State
Route [SR] 239) corridor. In 2011, the County retained a consultant team, led by Parsons
(collectively, the Study Team), to evaluate multimodal transportation alignments in the SR 239
corridor linking SR 4 near Brentwood to Interstate 205 (I-205) or Interstate 580 (I-580) west of Tracy
in San Joaquin County, see Figure 1.0-1. In 2012, the County and the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority (CCTA) entered into an agreement transferring study responsibility to CCTA.
SR 239 is a legislatively recognized but unconstructed route in the California state highway
system. First identified in 1959, the legislative language describes SR 239 as a potential roadway
linking SR 4 near Brentwood to I-205 or I-580 west of Tracy in San Joaquin County. The route was
never approved; however, a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Route Concept
Report completed in 1985 recommended a two-lane conventional highway with adequate right-
of-way (ROW) to handle up to a four-lane facility to serve the high-growth areas (Caltrans, 1985).
The high-growth areas considered in this study include two currently separate subregions: East
Contra Costa County, which consists of Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley; and
Western San Joaquin County, which consists of Tracy and Mountain House. These two
subregions have capacity for more than 500,000 people and nearly 400,000 jobs, according to
designations in the communities’ planning documents. Sixty-three percent of the General Plan
population capacity in these subregions was built-out by the 2010 Census, and all but Mountain
House has already achieved more than half of its planned population growth. Only 16 percent
of the General Plan job capacity was realized at the time of the 2010 Census, indicating that
there is ample room for jobs, see Figure 1.0-2. These data clearly demonstrate that these
communities have planned for significant employment, as well as residential development, but
they have experienced more residential than job growth.
Figure 1.0-1: Study Area
Chapter 1 Introduction
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 1-3
September 12, 2013
Figure 1.0-2 Study Area Growth Potential
This study evaluated the feasibility of multimodal alignments developed based on the corridor
elements identified during the study’s visioning sessions. These multimodal alignments would
provide a connection between these two subregions. The feasibility of these alignments was
assessed with regards to transportation, economic, environmental, social, and financial
performance considerations. This was done by evaluating a range of potential alignment
options and design options using technical analysis methods and an extensive public outreach
process. Finally, the study considered institutional and regulatory matters that would need to
be addressed and potential implementation scenarios.
This introductory chapter reviews the local priorities, regional goals, and context for the study,
including a review of existing conditions and analysis of a new multimodal connection. The
chapter concludes with a discussion of the growth challenges of the two subregions and a brief
description of the organization of the report’s chapters.
Chapter 1 Introduction
1-4 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
1.1 Local Priorities and Regional Goals
The TriLink study focused on five key areas that were identified during the stakeholder
outreach process:
Regional Connectivity
Planned Development and Job Realization
Roadway Safety
Emergency Response
Goods Movement
The Study Team, in partnership with the stakeholders and constituents along the corridor,
worked to address the issues and needs associated with each of these areas by developing a
range of multimodal alignments with the ultimate objective of establishing consensus on the
proposed corridor alignments. This was accomplished through a robust stakeholder outreach
process, including a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), a Non-Governmental Organizations
Committee (NGO), a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), an Executive Steering Committee (ESC),
general public workshops, and council presentations.
1.2 Defining the Issues
1.2.1 Regional Connectivity
East Contra Costa County has inadequate roadway connections to the east of Antioch, north,
and south. Better connections exist to the west of Antioch due to SR 4 improvements and the
planning for the East Contra Costa County Bay Area Rapid Transit (eBART). West San Joaquin
County also has better access to roadway connection with Interstate 5 (I-5) to the north, I-205
to the east, and I-580 to the south and west, see Figure 1.2-1.
The few available roadway connections between western San Joaquin County and eastern
Contra Costa County lack capacity, multimodal options, and a direct connection. SR 4 (former
SR 4 Bypass) north of Marsh Creek Road is planned to be widened to four lanes; however, SR 4
along Marsh Creek Road is not being improved and does not provide sufficient service to the
east beyond Brentwood. While Vasco Road has had recent safety improvements, these have
not expanded its overall capacity due to the Gateway policy in place1. Congestion is also an
issue along Vasco Road. Average daily traffic has increased by more than 40 percent between
1996 and 2006, and it is expected to continue to increase (Metropolitan Transportation
1 Vasco Road is constrained by the 1995 Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, which restricts widening.
Chapter 1 Introduction
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 1-5
September 12, 2013
Commission, 2008). Additionally, Byron Highway carries approximately 9,000 vehicles per day,
with 23 percent truck traffic.
The lack of transportation capacity in eastern Contra Costa County was noted in a 1997 Caltrans
study of SR 4, which stated:
Route 4 is intended to connect the Bay Area with Stockton and the Sierra. Due to
geometric constraints in the San Joaquin Delta, however, it cannot adequately
serve this function. Route 4, therefore, serves as a “cul-de-sac” linking Eastern
Contra Costa to the Bay Area but not providing for appreciable interregional
movement. Analysis needs to be taken which identifies the facility needs in the
239/Byron Highway Corridor. (Caltrans, 1997)
Transit, pedestrian, and bicycle connections are also limited in this corridor. The proposed eBART
connection stops in Brentwood, but there is no proposed commuter rail connection to western
San Joaquin County. Sidewalk and pedestrian paths are missing on some segments, and bicycle
lanes also do not extend outside of Brentwood or north of Tracy, as shown in Figure 1.2-2.
The TriLink study presented an opportunity to address access issues for the East County
communities of Brentwood, Oakley, Antioch, Byron, and Discovery Bay, long considered a cul-de-
sac in terms of highway access because further connections to the east and south are constrained
or altogether lacking. TriLink proposed public transit and bicycle connections in the area, and by
providing an alternate route for traffic moving from the Tracy area and points farther east and
south, TriLink could relieve congestion on I-580. The TriLink study analyzed ways to improve the
movement of people and goods within East County and to and from the Tri-County region.
Figure 1.2-1: Existing Regional Connections
Figure 1.2-2: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
CONTRA CO
S
T
A
C
O
U
N
T
Y
ALAMEDA C
O
U
N
T
Y
BY
R
O
N
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
BRENTWOOD BLVD
MARSH CREEK RD
GRIMES RD
KELSO RD
BETHANY RD
GRANT LINE RD
MOUNTAIN HOUSE PKWYARMSTRONG RD
HOLEY RDBYRON HOT SPRINGS RDWALNUT BLVDSAN JOAQUIN COUNTYALAMEDA COUNTYCLIFTON
COURT
FOREBAY
LAS VAQUE
ROS
RESERVOIR
4
V
A
S
C
O
R
OADC
A
MINO D IA B L O RD
205
580
580
ALTAM ONT PASS RD
TRACY
BRENTWOOD
BYRON
AIRPORT
Bicycle Pathway
Bicycle Lanes
Bicycle Routes
Bicycle Lanes
Bicycle Routes
Bicycle Pathway
Existing
Proposed
TriLink Improvements
Chapter 1 Introduction
1-8 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
1.2.2 Planned Development and Job Realization
Development in the study area is constrained by growth policies, such as the urban limit line
(ULL)2 in the three counties, Measure D in Alameda County3, Gateway Policy in the Tri-Valley4,
environmental, and physical planning considerations, as shown in Figure 1.2-3. The TriLink
study explored opportunities for access improvements for pedestrians, bicycles, auto, truck,
and transit that are supportive of and facilitate planned growth in the study area.
Brentwood, Oakley, Antioch, and the unincorporated area around the Byron airport, all of
which are located in eastern Contra Costa County, have undeveloped, non-agricultural lands
that are within the voter-approved ULL. These undeveloped lands are designated for
commercial, industrial, or business park development. In addition, the Innovation for Green
Advanced Transportation Excellence (i-GATE) initiative, centered at the Lawrence Livermore
and Sandia labs, aims to create 5,000 new jobs in the Tri-Valley region over the next 5 years.
Cordes Ranch, in Tracy, aims to create 23,000 jobs at build-out, while Mountain House in San
Joaquin County aims to create 19,843 jobs at build-out.
Improved linkages to the east and south would allow the study area communities to realize
current general and specific plans and support new plans to improve the jobs/housing balance,
which is currently approximately 0.5 jobs per household.5 In particular, industrial development,
which is likely to include warehouse development, would be better supported by improved
through-put of goods movement in and out of the area, in addition to providing access for
employees. These areas are planned for job-generating uses, such as industrial, office, retail
space, and business parks, which would provide opportunities for much-needed employment
growth in an area that currently has far more employed residents and jobseekers than jobs.
2 A ULL, urban growth boundary, or other equivalent physical boundary identifies the physical limits of future
urban development within a local jurisdiction’s planning area.
3 Measure D, adopted in 2000 and incorporated into the Alameda County General Plan and the East County Area
Plan, is primarily a growth control ordinance that focuses growth within the County’s Urban Growth Boundary
by restricting development potential outside the boundary.
4 The Gateway Policy states that these roadways in the Tri-Valley subarea should not be widened: I-680 north
and south, I-580 east and west, Crow Canyon Road to Castro Valley, and Vasco Road.
5 A jobs/housing balance of less than approximately 1.5 indicates a net out-commute, so the local ratio of
0.5 jobs per household suggests that many area residents commute to jobs outside their communities.
Figure 1.2-3: Planning Considerations
Chapter 1 Introduction
1-10 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 1 Introduction
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 1-11
September 12, 2013
In addition to the planned commercial, industrial, and business park development, Tracy,
Brentwood, Oakley, and Antioch all have significant areas planned for residential development
that have not yet been developed. Improved linkages to the east and south would allow the
study area communities to realize general and specific plan potential and to support
improvement of the jobs/housing balance. The study explored the impacts of an improved
jobs/housing balance on average commute distances, reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
relative to the traditional growth patterns, and furthering the aims of regional planning
initiatives such as Senate Bill (SB) 375.6
1.2.3 Roadway Safety
A study commissioned by Contra Costa County in 2004 reported 254 collisions, including 7 fatal
collisions, on Vasco Road between 1996 and 2003. Recent safety improvements on Vasco Road
were aimed at addressing this situation, but they did not increase capacity. Sharp curves,
narrow lanes, steep grades, lack of passing options, and high traffic volumes mean safety is still
an ongoing concern for Vasco Road and other local rural roadways. Between 2008 and 2010,
there were 59 collisions on Vasco Road, including 3 fatal collisions. The lack of pedestrian and
bicycle facilities along the corridor also poses a safety concern. The same combination of design
features that do not meet current standards on Vasco Road also creates safety concerns on
Byron Highway. Between 2008 and 2010, there were 22 collisions on Byron Highway (SWITRS,
2010).
The TriLink study examined opportunities for eliminating deficiencies by implementing current
design standards, which demonstrate safety benefits, and for rerouting potential future truck
traffic to roadways built to a more appropriate design speed to address safety concerns in the
study area.
1.2.4 Emergency Response and Recovery
Flooding due to heavy rain events and/or levee failure poses a significant threat to public
safety. As discussed in the Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (Contra Costa
County, 2011), such an event would result in the need to evacuate large numbers of people
who live in the low-lying areas in and around the Delta. Additionally, increased storm
frequency, intensity, and duration could represent a barrier to emergency response and
recovery in the short- and long-term time frames. Particularly flood-prone areas within the
6 SB 375 was signed into law by former Governor Schwarzenegger on September 30, 2008. The bill changes the
regional transportation planning process “to achieve, if there is a feasible way to do so,” greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The intent of the bill is to help forestall
climate change through the comprehensive integration of land use and transportation planning.
Chapter 1 Introduction
1-12 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
immediate vicinity of the proposed SR 239 corridor include Mountain House, Knightsen,
Discovery Bay, Oakley, and Antioch. Flooding in any of these areas would result in an immediate
need to evacuate to the south and would likely preclude evacuation to the east.
The TriLink facility could serve as an evacuation route, facilitating access to and from regional
centers of urbanization.
1.2.5 Goods Movement
In the future, manufacturing, wholesale, and transportation are expected to be among the
fastest growing industries in the east Contra Costa and west San Joaquin region. Today, the
Tracy area and nearby Lathrop are key regional trucking distribution centers for the Bay Area,
and trucks from these centers bound for east Contra Costa County use Byron Highway because
it is the shortest route. In addition, there are significant agricultural resources around the south
and southeast of Byron that use Byron Highway for distribution access.
The lack of an effective connection between west San Joaquin County and east Contra Costa
County will affect the efficient movement of freight as freight volumes and traffic congestion
increase. Vasco Road is currently at or near its capacity, while Byron Highway and SR 4 are at
approximately 70 percent of their capacity. Preliminary traffic growth demand estimates show
that, by 2040, current capacity within the corridor will be exceeded by 150 percent or more.
A key focus of the TriLink study involved an analysis of goods movement in the region, now and
in the future. The analysis indicated that efficient trucking routes will likely be critical for the
economic development of the region, because rail freight movement is only cost effective for
longer distances (i.e., 300 to 500 miles). The TriLink study also examined potential synergies
with the M-580 Marine Highway Corridor project planned to provide freight service via barge
between the Port of Oakland and inland ports in Stockton and Sacramento.
1.3 Report Organization
This report summarizes technical analyses and public outreach activities, and it identifies
potential implementation scenarios for advancing the TriLink corridor elements. The remainin g
chapters are organized as follows:
Chapter 2 (Outreach and Feedback) documents the outreach strategy with the various
stakeholder groups and the input received.
Chapter 3 (Land Use and Traffic Analysis) provides an overview of the modeling approach,
network and land use assumptions, and traffic forecasts.
Chapter 1 Introduction
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 1-13
September 12, 2013
Chapter 4 (Sustainability and Resources Stewardship) discusses the green design principles
approach, describes the Envision Rating System, and potential green uses of the corridor.
Chapter 5 (Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment) documents the
environmental resources considered, potential impacts, and mitigation measures.
Chapter 6 (Corridor Elements) documents the corridor elements evaluated, design
standards, planning constraints, and the financial performance of the corridor elements.
Chapter 7 (Comparison of Corridor Elements) documents the options compared and
presents the results.
Chapter 8 (Proposed Implementation Scenarios) provides guidance for successful
implementation of the corridor elements by highlighting major milestones required for
route adoption, funding, and delivery methods.
Chapter 9 (Conclusions) summarizes the findings and recommendations developed during
the study process.
1-14 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 2-1
September 12, 2013
Chapter 2
OUTREACH AND
FEEDBACK
Two visioning sessions were held
for the TriLink (SR 239) study.
During the visioning sessions, the
following items were discussed
and/or defined:
Problem Definition
Key Objectives
Stakeholder Outreach Plan
Potential Corridors
Facility Type
Potential Fatal Flaws
The Study Team worked to incorporate these items into a draft Study Impetus, which was
updated throughout the process leading up to project initiation.
Two preliminary briefings were held with key public officials and NGOs in September 2011 to
receive initial feedback from stakeholders regarding issues and opportunities to consider as
part of the TriLink Study. Approximately 15 key elected officials and staff representatives and
5 representatives from NGOs attended, as shown in Table 2.0-1. Participants heard a
presentation providing a project overview and summarizing key project tasks, including a
financial screening study, vision statement, project web site, and key stakeholder group
briefings. Participants then made comments and asked questions during a question and answer
period.
Chapter 2 Outreach and Feedback
2-2 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Table 2.0-1 Project Briefing Participants
Government Agency Representatives
September 7, 2011
Brian Hooker, Senior Field Representative for John Garamendi, U.S. Representatives, California District 10
Gary Prost, Caseworker for Jerry McNerney, U.S. Representative, California District 11
Kul Sharma, City Engineer, City of Tracy
Kenneth Kao, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Programming and Allocations
Nader Shareghi, Public Works Director, Mountain House Community Services District
Linnea Juarez, Chair, Byron Municipal Advisory Committee
Beth Lee, Assistant Director of Airports, Contra Costa County
Bailey Grewal, City Engineer from Mayor’s office, City of Brentwood
Mike Selling, Deputy Director, Engineering, San Joaquin Public Works Department, on behalf of San
Joaquin County, Board of Supervisors, District 5
Mike Swearingen, Senior Regional Planner, San Joaquin Council of Governments
Dawn Argula, Chief of Staff for Scott Haggerty, Alameda County, Board of Supervisors, District 1
Mark Green, Chair, Alameda County Transportation Commission
Iris Obregon, Senior Field Representative for Joan Buchanan, California State Assembly, District 15
Representative
Mark Herbert, District Director for Susan Bonilla, California State Assembly, District 11 Representative
Lisa Chow, Executive Assistant for Mark DeSaulnier, California State Senate, 7th District
Non-Governmental Organization Representatives
September 8, 2011
Matt Williams, Sierra Club
Ron Brown, Save Mount Diablo
Linda Best, Contra Costa Council
John Kopchik, ECCC Habitat Conservancy
Laura Baker, California Native Plant Society
The Study Team developed an outreach strategy that consisted of eight meeting series with the
following stakeholder groups that would be directly involved in the study:
PAC – Composed of elected officials from the communities and jurisdictions along the
potential alignments.
ESC – Composed of a chief of staff and/or senior manager from each of the jurisdictions on
the PAC and CCTA.
Chapter 2 Outreach and Feedback
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 2-3
September 12, 2013
TAC – Composed of key technical staff from the three counties, CCTA, transit agencies, local
legislators’ offices, and the cities and Community Services Districts (CSDs) represented on
the PAC. See Table 2.0-2 for a list of the TAC representatives.
NGO Stakeholder Committee – Composed of leaders from key non-governmental
stakeholder organizations whose input will be important to move the project forward. See
Table 2.0-3 for the list of organizations.
City Councils and Public Agencies – At the suggestion of PAC members, presentations were
made to the following city councils and public agencies to brief decision makers and allow
comments and questions from the general public:
Council presentations in Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley, Brentwood, Tracy, and Livermore
Board presentations to CCTA, Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC),
TRANSPLAN7 Committee, and San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG)
General Public – At each juncture, participation occurred through three conventional public
open house meetings and a “virtual workshop” consisting of PowerPoint presentations and
surveys available online.
Table 2.0-2 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Counties
Contra Costa County
San Joaquin County
Alameda County
Cities and Communities
City of Brentwood
City of Oakley
City of Antioch
City of Pittsburg
City of Tracy
City of Livermore
Mountain House CSD
Discovery Bay CSD
Public Agencies
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)
Caltrans
TRANSPLAN
Tri Valley Transportation Commission (TVTC)
San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG)
Altamont Commuter Express (ACE)
Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC)
Delta Protection Commission
TRACER
Tri Delta Transit
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
7 The TRANSPLAN Committee coordinates the regional transportation interests of the communities in eastern Contra
Costa County.
Chapter 2 Outreach and Feedback
2-4 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Table 2.0-3 Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust East Bay Bicycle Coalition
Brentwood Chamber of Commerce East Bay Economic Development Alliance
Building Industry Association Friends of Livermore
California Alliance for Jobs Greenbelt Alliance
California Native Plant Society Oakley Chamber of Commerce
California Trucking Association Save Mount Diablo
East Bay Leadership Council Sierra Club
Contra Costa Farm Bureau Transform
2.1 Stakeholder Outreach
The first meeting series served to introduce the study and initiate the stakeholder involvement
process. The subsequent meeting series were grouped into two separate decision-making
cycles: one, consisting of four meeting series, to identify study alignments and possible facility
types; and another, consisting of three meeting series and leading to a final feasibility study
vetted by stakeholders.
Each meeting series involved individual meetings with the stakeholder groups needed at that
particular point in the process. Not all stakeholder groups met in each meeting series. For
example, the TAC and the NGO Stakeholder committees – the working-level stakeholder
groups – generally met in each meeting series; however, meetings with the PAC and ESC were
only held at the outset of the process and at the culmination of each decisi on-making cycle to
review and approve decisions reached at the working group level. The general public was
involved later on in each of the decision-making cycles, after the initial work was done by the
working-level stakeholder groups and the consultant team.
The stakeholder involvement process will be completed over a period of approximately
18 months and is anticipated to produce a publicly vetted Final Feasibility Study. Each meeting
series is described in Table 2.1-1. The individual meetings within each series are listed in the
order in which they occurred.
Chapter 2 Outreach and Feedback
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 2-5
September 12, 2013
Table 2.1-1 Meeting Series Summary
Meeting Series One: Project Kickoff
Time Frame May 2012
Stakeholders
Involved
TAC
NGO Stakeholder Committee
ESC
PAC
Purpose Kickoff the stakeholder involvement process with an introduction to the study and an
introduction to the study impacts and context.
Decision-Making Cycle One: Facility Type and Alignment Options
Meeting Series Two: Study Impetus Statement and Preliminary Corridors
Time Frame July 2012
Stakeholders
Involved
NGO Stakeholder Committee
TAC
Purpose Review the study impetus statement and examine issues around potential alignments
in greater detail.
Meeting Series Three: Planning Context
Time Frame September 2012
Stakeholders
Involved
NGO Stakeholder Committee
TAC
Purpose Present job and housing predictions and preliminary traffic growth forecasts developed
for the study, and receive stakeholder feedback.
Meeting Series Four: Develop Corridor Elements
Time Frame December 2012
Stakeholders
Involved
NGO Stakeholder Committee
TAC
Purpose Present preliminary study alignment and cost estimates, and receive comments from
stakeholders.
Chapter 2 Outreach and Feedback
2-6 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Table 2.1-1 Meeting Series Summary
Meeting Series Five: Review Corridor Elements
Time Frame March 2013
Stakeholders
Involved
ESC
NGO Stakeholder Committee
PAC
Purpose
Review materials developed in consultation with TAC and NGO stakeholder committees
in 2012. Present revised study alignments updated based on stakeholder feedback
received on December 11, 2012. Request that the Policy Advisory Committee approve:
Posting the TriLink study information on the TriLink Web site;
Developing a more detailed feasibility study of the corridor elements; and
Initiating a series of public meetings.
Decision-Making Cycle Two: Feasibility Study
Meeting Series Six: Administrative Draft Feasibility Study
Time Frame July 2013
Stakeholders
Involved
TAC
NGO Stakeholder Committee
Purpose
Review Administrative Draft Feasibility Study, implementation options, and
environmental impacts and mitigations ahead of presentations to local communities in
the study area.
Meeting Series Seven: Draft Feasibility Study Approval
Time Frame October 2013
Stakeholders
Involved
TAC
NGO Stakeholder Committee
Purpose Review Draft Feasibility Study and receive input on preferred implementation option.
Meeting Series Eight: Draft Feasibility Study
Time Frame November 2013
Stakeholders
Involved
ESC
PAC
Purpose Review Final Feasibility Study and preferred implementation option.
Chapter 2 Outreach and Feedback
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 2-7
September 12, 2013
2.1.1 Web and Media
To reach out to all segments of the population, web and social media tools were used to
publicize the TriLink study. The study web site, (www.trilink239.org) was launched in May 2012
and has been updated regularly as new information has become available. The study web site
provides an opportunity for individuals to learn about the study and get involved (see
Figure 2.1-1).
Figure 2.1-1 TriLink Study Web Site
Source: http://trilink239.org/
Chapter 2 Outreach and Feedback
2-8 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Social media outreach was also conducted via the City of Tracy Facebook page, Mountain House
community Facebook page, and MHvillages online community forum. In addition, e-mails were
sent to a list developed of study area communities and people who registered via the web site
to let them know about the study and the public open house meetings. Articles were also
published in the Contra Costa Times, Brentwood Press, and Antioch Herald. Contra Costa
television broadcasted the Brentwood public meeting on May 14 at 7:00 p.m. and May 15 at
10:00 a.m.
2.1.2 Public Open House Meetings
Three public workshops were held, one in each of the following communities: Brentwood,
Tracy, and Mountain House. The meetings were conducted in an open house format, where
work on the TriLink study to date was recapped, including study impetus, traffic demand
modeling results, environmental and policy constraints, and potential alignments, and
members of the public were invited to visit stations, ask questions, and comment. Meeting
materials included a PowerPoint presentation, maps, and boards. Solicitation techniques
included a full-group question and answer session.
2.1.3 Virtual Workshop
In parallel to the public open house meetings held in three physical locations, a virtual
workshop using the Open Town Hall software platform was conducted. This innovative tool is
specifically designed to engage people who may not otherwise be able to attend a public ope n
house meeting in person. This interactive forum was embedded in the TriLink web site and
allowed interested members of the general public to view maps, presentation materials, and
video clips and to provide feedback on their own time (see Figure 2.1-2). Users were required
to register before leaving comments, so it was possible to sort and view input by geographic
location.
Chapter 2 Outreach and Feedback
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 2-9
September 12, 2013
Figure 2.1-2 Virtual Workshop on TriLink Web Site
Source: http://trilink239.org/opentownhall/
Chapter 2 Outreach and Feedback
2-10 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
2.2 Direct Outreach to Local Agencies
The Study Team engaged the following local agencies within the study area to obtain feedback
on the proposed alignments:
Alameda County Community Development Agency
City of Tracy Development and Engineering Services
Contra Costa County Airport Division Offices
East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy
Mountain House Community Services District
These agencies provided feedback on a variety of issues. Table 2.2-1 summarizes this feedback
and indicates where discussion of these issues can be found in this report.
Table 2.2-1 Agency Feedback
Agency Feedback Relevant Study Component(s)
The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/
Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) anticipates that the
SR 239 project would consist of the expansion of Byron Highway to a
multi-lane freeway somewhere within the 1,500-foot-wide corridor
around the existing highway. The HCP/NCCP describes that a new
alignment could be constructed between Byron Highway west to the
existing railroad tracks, which are approximately 80 feet from the
center of the highway, or farther east near the community of
Discovery Bay. The HCP/NCCP also includes high-priority
conservation areas to the west and south of Byron Airport.
Environmental Considerations
and the Built Environment
Comparison of Corridor Elements
The I-580 Link Option 2b goes through prime agricultural land and
through an area where a proposed solar farm may be located.
Comparison of Corridor Elements
The I-580 Link Option 2b may be growth inducing because it would
provide access to areas that would otherwise not be accessible.
Land Use and Traffic Analysis
The I-580 Link Option 2b may drive birds towards the Altamont Pass
Wind Resource Area, which may result in higher avian fatality.
Environmental Considerations
and the Built Environment
The I-580 Link Option 2b crosses flight paths for birds, and there may
be conflicts with vehicles.
Environmental Considerations
and the Built Environment
Determine the potential impact of a new roadway on the Gateway policy. Land Use and Traffic Analysis
Determine the consistency of the study with Measure D. Comparison of Corridor Elements
Determine vehicle impacts that may result from the alignments. Land Use and Traffic Analysis
Chapter 2 Outreach and Feedback
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 2-11
September 12, 2013
Table 2.2-1 Agency Feedback
Agency Feedback Relevant Study Component(s)
Determine air quality impacts that may result from the alignments. Land Use and Traffic Analysis
Determine the potential impacts of increased truck traffic that may
result from the I-580 Link.
Land Use and Traffic Analysis
Determine potential impacts of the alignments on wildlife corridors. Environmental Considerations
and the Built Environment
The Byron Highway improvements should tie into the I-205/Lammers
Road/Eleventh Street project and Eleventh Street in Tracy.
Corridor Elements
A roadway connection to Vasco Road is a priority for Byron Airport. Corridor Elements
The Airport Division views Byron Airport as a feeder for planned
development and creating a larger job base in the area.
Land Use and Traffic Analysis
2.3 Public Comments Received
A series of three public open house meetings were held in May 2013. TriLink experts were
available to answer questions and share information on the following topics: jobs and housing
projections; traffic forecasts; environmental and planning considerations; potential roadway
links; and transit and bicycle links. Below is a summary of the public workshops that were held:
1. Brentwood Community Center – Thursday, May 2, 2013
The first public open house meeting, held on Thursday, May 2, 2013, at the Brentwood
Community Center, was attended by approximately 17 people representing residents,
community organizations, and elected officials.
2. Tracy Transit Center (Room 103/104) – Wednesday, May 8, 2013
The second public open house meeting, held on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, at the Tracy
Transit Center, was attended by approximately eight people representing residents, community
organizations, and elected officials.
3. Mountain House CSD Board Room – Thursday, May 16, 2013
The third public open house meeting, held on Thursd ay, May 16, 2013, at the Mountain
House CSD Board Room, was attended by approximately 13 people representing residents,
community organizations, and elected officials.
2-12 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 3-1
September 12, 2013
Chapter 3
LAND USE AND
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
To evaluate the expected usage of
the new facilities, it is important
to understand the existing
demographic and employment
patterns, as well as to forecast
future conditions. To accomplish
this, the Study Team developed
socioeconomic datasets for a “Ten-County Model,” incorporating the nine Bay Area Counties
(Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and
Sonoma), as well as San Joaquin County. To enhance the precision of the traffic modeling, these
socioeconomic data were provided at a subjurisdictional level called “traffic analysis zones”
(TAZs), as shown in Figure 3.0-1. This framework allowed the traffic modeling to account for
more specific origins, destinations, and purpose of trips.
This section summarizes the forecasted growth in the study area, the potential traffic impacts,
and the benefits of the TriLink improvements.
3.1 Forecasting Future Growth in the Study Area
While the modeling was conducted on a ten-county basis, the socioeconomic trends, plans, and
growth capacity described in this report focus on the communities that would be most directly
affected by the TriLink improvements. These communities are described below:
East Contra Costa County (ECCC) – Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley. Statistical
analysis was conducted for Discovery Bay, Bay Point, and the Byron Airport areas, if
statistically significant.
Western San Joaquin County (WSJC) – Tracy and Mountain House
Figure 3.0-1: CCTA Ten County Model
Chapter 3 Land Use and Traffic Analysis
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 3-3
September 12, 2013
The most recently adopted regional forecasts were provided in 2009 by the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) and the SJCOG. While both organizations are in the process of
updating their growth forecasts to respond to changes in market conditions and legal
requirements (i.e., the Sustainable Communities Strategies [SCS]8 required under SB 375 and
the San Joaquin General Plan Update), the 2009 figures are the current “forecasts of record”
and represent the base data source for the rates and geographic allocation of new household
and job growth in the ten-county region. As such, the TriLink socioeconomic forecasting begins
with these 2009 forecasts and makes adjustments to 2010 conditions.
As a consequence of the “Great Recession,” ABAG’s 2009 forecast never fully materialized for
2010 households and jobs in the ECCC communities, and SJCOG’s population and household
forecasts for 2010 were also significantly higher than the actual data available through the 2010
decennial census and other available data. 9 Consequently, all of the base year data were reset,
and the growth increments from the forecasts of record were applied through 2040 to the
adjusted 2010 base. The result was lower absolute job and household figures than was
forecasted by the 2009 projections for the end of the planning horizon, but the same total
increment of growth.
As shown in Figure 3.1-1, the 2009 projections from ABAG and SJCOG indicate that all of the
communities are likely to realize significant housing growth, similar to the expected growth
based on the “Actual/Trendline” data and approaching full residential buildout by 2040. In fact,
the 2009 projections suggest that all but 9 percent of the total capacity for housing will be built
by 2040.
8 The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and ABAG developed an SCS as part of the 2013 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). The SCS, together with transportation investments included in the RTP, is intended
to achieve the GHG reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for 2020 and 2040.
Sustainability is linked to three goals: economy, environment, and equity, to build a stronger economy, protect
the natural environment, and equitably enhance opportunities for all Bay Area residents.
9 The 2009 projections from SJCOG were used for jobs in WSJC, with the exception of Mountain House, which
was adjusted to 2010 conditions. The 2009 SJCOG job projections are within the expected margins of difference
from the most recent California Employment Development Department and U.S. Census Bureau figures for that
year.
Chapter 3 Land Use and Traffic Analysis
3-4 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Figure 3.1-1 Study Area Household Projections
Sources: ABAG Projections 2009; SJCOG 2009 Projections; Sword Company; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Historically, job growth in east Contra Costa and western San Joaquin counties has not kept
pace with housing. The forecast for jobs varies greatly, as the 2009 projections represent
67 percent more jobs than the “Actual/Trendline” data would suggest; however, total jobs
through 2040 are still expected to fall short of the area’s total planned capacity for jobs, as
shown in Figure 3.1-2. Local communities have planned for job growth, expecting
manufacturing, wholesale, and transportation to be among the fastest growing industries in the
region. These industries rely heavily on transportation infrastructure and quality connections
that are lacking in the study area. Without "game-changing" improvements to the
transportation infrastructure, job growth is likely to occur at a moderate rate, primarily in the
service sector, and correlate to increased population, as shown by the Actual/Trendline in
Figure 3.1-2. The aggressive employment forecast represented by the 2009 projections is a
reasonable expectation for the study area with the TriLink improvements.
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Households Year
2009 Projections
Actual/Trendline
GP Capacity
Chapter 3 Land Use and Traffic Analysis
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 3-5
September 12, 2013
Figure 3.1-2 Study Area Job Projections
Sources: ABAG Projections 2009; SJCOG 2009 Projections; Sword Company; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
All of the general plans of San Joaquin County and the west San Joaquin County communities of
Tracy and Mountain House; and the east Contra Costa County communities of Pittsburg,
Antioch, Oakley, and Brentwood in the study area were examined for references to SR 239 or
similar improvement. In addition, the master plans for Discovery Bay and the Byron Airport
were examined. Local general plans for the counties and cities within or adjacent to the study
area do not explicitly describe TriLink improvements as necessary to obtain the plans’ projected
residential or employment growth; however, the commitment to cooperating/collaborating
with regional transportation planning included in those plans does, in fact, directly tie them to
an expressway route between Brentwood and Tracy. References to SR 239 or similar
improvements in the Contra Costa County General Plan are listed below:
Roadway Network Plan (Figure 3.1-3), shows a Proposed Expressway connecting
Vasco Road to a route running parallel to Byron Highway to the county line just north of
Tracy. This is the SR 239 route.
Transit Network Plan (Figure 3.1-4), shows a Transit Corridor linking east
Contra Costa County to west San Joaquin County.
Byron Airport Influence Areas (Figure 3.1-5), shows a roadway link between Vasco Road and
Byron Highway.
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Jobs Year
2009 Projections
Actual/Trendline
GP Capacity
Figure 3.1-3: Roadway Network Plan
Figure 3.1-4: Transit Network Plan
Figure 3.1-5: Byron Airport Influence Area
Figure 3.1-6: Byron Airport Recommended Development Plan
Chapter 3 Land Use and Traffic Analysis
3-10 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
A Recommended Development Plan (Figure 3.1-6), in the separately published 2005 Byron Field
Airport Master Plan, also shows a link between Vasco Road and Byron Highway.
All three of these components – the expressway route parallel to Byron Highway, the transit
route connecting east Contra Costa and west San Joaquin counties, and the Airport link
connecting Vasco Road to Byron Highway – are incorporated in the TriLink (SR 239) Study.
3.2 Traffic Demand Growth Estimates
As shown in Figure 3.2-1, socioeconomic projections for the study area indicate that Byron
Highway will exceed its capacity by 150 to 200 percent by 2040 with the currently planned
improvements. This indicates that additional improvements are required in the study area to
relieve future congestion.
Figure 3.2-1 Traffic Demand Growth Estimates for Byron Highway
Source: CDM Smith.
Traffic Demand Growth Estimates
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
Existing -Year
2012
SCS ABAG 2009 Actual/
Trendline
Year 2040 with Currently Planned
Improvements Percent of Capacity
Chapter 3 Land Use and Traffic Analysis
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 3-11
September 12, 2013
The Ten-County travel demand model predicts the region’s travel conditions by simulating
travel behavior. The land use projections in the Ten-County Model reflect Projections-2009,
with 2000-2040 incremental growth forecasts based on ABAG and SJCOG, adjusted to reflect
actual 2010 conditions. The network assumptions are based on the most recently adopted
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (Transportation 2035).
The outputs of the model include information about the network conditions for vehicles and
transit, as well as the travel patterns. The traffic evaluation was completed for the existing base
year (2010) and future build (2040) conditions. This allowed the study team to examine existing
and future conditions measures.
3.3 Travel Patterns
Many area residents commute to jobs outside their communities, as reflected by the current
jobs/housing balance, which is approximately 0.5 jobs per household.10 Assuming 1.2 workers
per household, this translates into 0.7 workers per household who must commute outside of
the study area to find employment. This commute pattern contributes to the congestion
observed on area roadways, such as Vasco Road, which is currently at or near its capacity.
Figure 3.3-1 shows the existing daily traffic volumes on roadway links within the study area. The
daily volume on Byron Highway within the study area is expected to double by 2040 without
the TriLink improvements, as shown in Figure 3.3-2.
With the TriLink improvements in place in 2040, traffic would be diverted off Byron Highway
and Vasco Road, returning Byron Highway to a daily volume of 8,000, which is just below its
2010 daily volume of 9,000, and Vasco Road to a daily volume of 17,000, which is below its
2010 daily volume of 21,000, as shown in Figure 3.3-3. There would also be some congestion
relief on I-580 west of the I-580/I-205 interchange.
A base year (2010) scenario was used to reflect a hypothetical situation if the TriLink project
were implemented immediately and it indicates what the effect of the TriLink project would be
on the traffic flow and patterns that can be observed today. As shown in Figure 3.3-4, the traffic
diversion pattern in the 2010 hypothetical scenario is similar to the diversion pattern in 2040
with TriLink.
10 A jobs/housing balance of less than approximately 1.5 indicates a net out-commute; therefore, the local ratio
of 0.5 jobs per household suggests that many area residents commute to jobs outside their communities.
Figure 3.3-1: 2010 Traffic Volumes – Existing
Figure 3.3-2: 2040 Traffic Volumes – No Build
Figure 3.3-3: 2040 Traffic Volumes - with TriLink
Figure 3.3-4: 2010 Traffic Volumes - with TriLink
Chapter 3 Land Use and Traffic Analysis
3-16 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
3.4 Goods Movement
To determine the potential benefit of the TriLink corridor elements to commercial vehicle
traffic, the Study Team conducted a goods movement analysis for the study area. The analysis
examined existing and future conditions.
Heavy and medium truck traffic on Byron Highway accounts for approximately 23 percent of
the traffic. Typically 5 to 8 percent of the traffic on most highways is truck traffic, so the truck
traffic on Byron Highway is very high. Other roadways in the study area, such as I-580, also
carry an above average number of trucks, as shown in Table 3.4-1. This is because I-580 is a
major gateway to the Bay Area from the Central Valley due to constraints on other roadways.
The Altamont Pass is a natural bottleneck with steep grades, and heavy-duty trucks are not
allowed on SR 4 between Stockton and Discovery Bay due to tight curves at several of the
bridge approaches on the route. These trucks must divert south to I-205 or north to SR 12. The
proposed I-580 Link could serve as an alternative for trucks on Byron Highway, thereby
reducing the number of trucks on the highway.
Table 3.4-1 Existing Truck Traffic Volumes in the Study Area
Location
Average Daily
Traffic (2011)
Heavy and
Medium Trucks Percent Trucks
Byron Highway (at San Joaquin County line) 11,500 2,650 23
Vasco Road (at Alameda County line) 20,900 1,460 7
SR 4 (east of Discovery Bay) 8,700 1,220 14
SR 12 (at San Joaquin County line) 15,200 1,820 12
I-580 (at Alameda/San Joaquin County line) 151,000 15,700 10.4
Source: CDM Smith, 2013.
3.4.1 Congestion in the Study Area
In addition to the I-580 Link serving as an alternative for trucks on the Byron Highway, the
TriLink improvements could reduce congestion on existing facilities and reduce travel time for
trucks. This section summarizes the existing speeds on facilities within or adjacent to the study
area. The American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) performed a review of sample
truck speeds on the following:
Chapter 3 Land Use and Traffic Analysis
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 3-17
September 12, 2013
I-5 near Tracy
I-580 from the intersection with I-205 to I-5
I-205 between Tracy and I-580
Byron Highway/SR 4 from I-205 to SR 160
Vasco Road/SR 4 from I-580 to SR 160
SR 12 from I-5 to SR 160
SR 4 from I-5 to SR 4
Based on the research findings, the local roadway network only has a small amount of
congestion. The following two corridors exhibited more severe declines in speeds during peak
hours:
Byron Highway/SR 4 between I-205 and SR 160
Vasco Road/SR 4 and between I-205 and SR 160
Figure 3.4-1 shows the recorded travel times for each time period versus a 55 mile per hour
(mph) average speed for Byron Highway and Vasco Road. Both corridors experienced the
greatest effects of congestion during the PM peak period, with several segments indicating
speeds less than 75 percent of off-peak values. The average travel time analysis indicates that if
speeds were 55 mph throughout, a truck could traverse either corridor in approximately 28
minutes; however, neither corridor reaches this ideal performance during any time of the day.
The greatest variation from optimal performance is observed during the PM peak on the Byron
Highway/SR 4 route, where travel would take approximately 10 additional minutes. With
speeds previously below 40 mph on several of these segments, this may be an indication of a
serious impediment. It should be noted, however, that the effects of congestion are
disproportionate on the regional network and appear to be constrained to specific segments
and locations.
Chapter 3 Land Use and Traffic Analysis
3-18 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Figure 3.4-1 Corridors with Increased Congestion
Source: CDM Smith; ATRI.
3.4.1.1 Time Period Analysis
Four periods of time, within a given 24-hour period, provide typical evaluation standards for the
review of commercial vehicle flow (e.g., off-peak, AM peak, midday, and PM peak). Each
represents a set of conditions where traffic characteristics can be expected to exhibit unique
conditions. The associated time frames are as follows:
Off-peak: 7:00 PM – 5:59 AM
AM Peak: 6:00 AM – 9:59 AM
Midday: 10:00 AM – 2:59 PM
PM Peak: 3:00 PM – 6:59 PM
Average of all hours: 12:00 AM – 11:59 PM
Off-Peak
Figure 3.4-2 illustrates the average off-peak speed for each 1-mile segment of the studied
roadways. These average speeds were compiled using data obtained between May and June
Chapter 3 Land Use and Traffic Analysis
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 3-19
September 12, 2013
2012 from individual trucks operating in the study area and reporting a verified dataset to ATRI .
Segments with the lowest average speeds are shown in red, and those with the highest average
speeds are shown in green.
Figure 3.4-2 Off-Peak Average Truck Speeds
Source: CDM Smith; ATRI.
AM Peak
Figure 3.4-3 illustrates a comparison of AM average speeds to off-peak or baseline speeds by
displaying AM average speeds as a percent of the off-peak values. Yellow segments have minor
congestion, orange segments have moderate congestion, and red segments have significant
congestion compared to off-peak values. The most congested segments during the AM period
are Balfour Road between SR 4 and Brentwood Boulevard. Speeds on these segments attain
85 percent of the 40 mph off-peak values.
Chapter 3 Land Use and Traffic Analysis
3-20 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Figure 3.4-3 AM Average Truck Speeds as Percent of Off-Peak Average
Source: CDM Smith; ATRI.
SR 4 between Maybeck Road and Wilhoit Road, near Stockton, performed poorly during the
AM peak period. Other segments on SR 4 experienced AM peak speeds between 75 and
85 percent of the off-peak average speed. Specific segments included those near the
Old River Bridge and the Middle River Bridge.
All other segments in the network operate at speeds that are at least 85 percent of the off-peak
baseline. A few segments exceed the off-peak speeds.
Chapter 3 Land Use and Traffic Analysis
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 3-21
September 12, 2013
Midday Peak
Figure 3.4-4 illustrates the existence of increasing congestion during the midday hours. This
occurs predominantly on the segments near the intersections of Balfour Road and SR 4 and
Balfour Road and Brentwood Boulevard. Between the hours of 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM, all of
Balfour Road experiences average truck speeds that are consistently 75 percent or less of the
off-peak hours. Brentwood Boulevard, where speeds were 85 to 95 percent of off-peak
averages in the AM period, has a 10 percent decrease in average speeds on those segments
closest to Balfour Road. SR 4 near Balfour Road notes a reduction in speeds, with congestion
occurring several miles north to Lone Tree Way. Conditions deteriorate on SR 4 in the midday
hours, particularly near Tracy Boulevard, which exhibits speeds below 75 percent of off-peak
values. Speeds increase on I-205 between I-580 and Exit 6 (Grant Line Road) compared to AM
speeds, and they surpass off-peak values on several segments.
Figure 3.4-4 Midday Average Truck Speeds as Percent of Off-Peak Average
Source: CDM Smith; ATRI.
Chapter 3 Land Use and Traffic Analysis
3-22 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
PM Peak
The trend observed at midday continues into the PM peak hours, as shown in Figure 3.4-5.
PM average speeds exhibit the worst conditions compared to the off-peak average. Segments
closest to Balfour Road continue to experience decreases in average speed. Speeds on I-205
between I-580 and Byron Highway continue to increase. Conversely, speeds appear to improve
along SR 4 during the PM peak, with no segments exhibiting average speeds below 75 percent
of the off-peak average. One segment of Balfour Road exhibits a large increase in average
speeds from the AM and midday averages. The segment intersecting with SR 4 operates at
speeds that are 95 to 100 percent of the off-peak average. This is most likely due to regional
commuting patterns, which contribute to truck congestion. The network, however, is not
analyzed by direction of travel; therefore, it is possible that travel in one direction is less
significant during these hours, resulting in an increase in travel speeds for this segment.
Figure 3.4-5 PM Average Truck Speeds as Percent of Off-Peak Average
Source: CDM Smith; ATRI.
Chapter 3 Land Use and Traffic Analysis
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 3-23
September 12, 2013
3.4.2 Regional Generators and Goods Movement Patterns
A study conducted by SJCOG showed that 13 percent of the commercial vehicle traffic on I-580
was related to the Port of Oakland, indicating that most of the truck traffic on I-580 is not port
related (2011) (SJCOG, 2011). The freight flows from San Joaquin County to the nine Bay Area
counties show that flows to Alameda County where the port is located are the largest,
comprising 21 percent of the total; however, the overall distribution is dispersed across the
counties, as shown in Table 3.4-2. The volume of freight seems to be strongly related to the size
of each of the counties in terms of population and employment and not just to the port
location. This suggests that population and employment forecasts may be a viable indicator o f
the growth of goods movement on a regional basis.
Table 3.4-2 Freight Flows from San Joaquin County to Bay Area Counties
County Truck Tons Percent Population* Percent Employment* Percent
Alameda 1,456,745 21 1,510,271 21 716,257 21
Contra Costa 1,219,707 17 1,049,025 15 482,898 14
Marin 93,422 1 252,409 4 125,177 4
Napa 208,294 3 136,484 2 63,873 2
San Francisco 1,051,889 15 805,235 11 444,628 13
San Mateo 701,355 10 718,451 10 360,951 10
Santa Clara 1,355,308 19 1,781,642 25 843,854 24
Solano 497,340 7 413,344 6 185,585 5
Sonoma 460,237 7 483,878 7 233,182 7
Total 7,044,297 100 7,150,739 100 3,456,405 100
Source: CDM Smith.
3.4.3 Study Area Freight Generators
There are many existing and potential future freight generators in the study area. These include
many regional distribution warehouses in Tracy, the largest of which is the Safeway Stores
center. In addition, Amazon.com recently announced plans to build a large distribution center
in the city. Other existing generators include the major Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)
intermodal rail-to-truck transfer facility in Lathrop and numerous facilities in Stockton:
agricultural distribution centers, such as the O-G Packing & Cold Storage Company site, which
employs more than 1,000 workers; the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad
Chapter 3 Land Use and Traffic Analysis
3-24 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
intermodal yard facility; and a port with access to the Sacramento River and the Bay Area via
the Stockton Deepwater Channel. The Port of Stockton has 7.7 million square of warehouses
that are either operated by the Port or leased to tenants who provide their own labor. The Port
has access to I-5, and its facilities are served by two transcontinental railroads.
There are many potential future projects and activities of note that could influence goods
movement:
Byron Airport – The Byron Airport was originally built to serve as a reliever airport to
Buchanan Field in Concord. Land on the airport site and to the northeast is zoned for
airport-related development. There is potential in the longer term for the airport to develop
as a commercial center attracting tenants that would require access to the airport to
support their business activities. This would likely result in increased truck travel to and
from the airport.
I-580 Truck Climbing Lanes – There are two projects under development to provide
increased truck capacity on I-580 on the eastern and western uphill approaches to the
Altamont Pass:
I-580 Eastbound Truck Climbing Lane, which is included in the 2035 MTC Plan for
Alameda County I-580; and
Westbound Truck Climbing Lane on I-205/I-580 from Mountain House Parkway to the
Alameda County line.
Neither of these two truck climbing lane projects is fully funded at this time. The SJCOG
I-580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study concluded that “A truck climbing lane is
expected to significantly improve LOS [Level of Service] of Segment A in both directions for
the 2020 analysis year. By 2035, the operational benefits of removing truck traffic from the
mixed-flow lanes are not sufficient to achieve acceptable levels of service in the mixed-flow
lanes.”
California’s Green Trade Corridor Marine Highway – The California Green Trade Corridor/
Marine Highway Project is a collaborative effort of the Port of Oakland, along with the
inland ports of Stockton and West Sacramento, to develop and use a marine highway
system as an alternative to existing truck and rail infrastructure. A Transportation
Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant is to be used to provide freight
service via barge, primarily for consumer goods moving by ocean vessel and agricultural
products grown in central California. The present plan calls for 250 containers to be
transported in each direction once per week. This could result in transferring 250 truck trips
in each direction off of I-580 each week. These truck trips would have been destined to the
Chapter 3 Land Use and Traffic Analysis
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 3-25
September 12, 2013
Port of Oakland. As such, they are not candidates to use the TriLink improvements because
the SR 239 corridor would not provide any improvement in travel time or distance for trips
to the Port of Oakland.
SR 4 – The SJCOG I-580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study concluded “that SR 4 would
be an attractive alternative route for some of the truck traffic now using I-580 between the
northern Bay Area and Central Valley points north and south of Stockton (and Tracy), but it
is not now usable for regular heavy-duty truck trips, as detailed under Existing Conditions.
The section of SR 4 between Antioch and Discovery Bay is now being converted to a new
bypass rather than continue as the main thoroughfare of Oakley and Brentwood. Between
Discovery Bay and Stockton, SR 4 is a light-duty rural road with two bottlenecks at bridges.
In both cases, the approaches to the bridges are on restrictive curves, and the bridges
themselves are too narrow for heavy-duty trucks to pass each other when on the bridge
deck. Additionally, SR 4 is not eligible to become a STAA [Surface Transportation Assistance
Act]-approved route at the points where these bridges are located. Accordingly, truck traffic
on the portions of SR 4 east and west of these bridges is largely confined to local trips with
single-unit vehicles that are smaller than heavy duty.” There are no projects in the planning
or development stages to correct these deficiencies on SR 4. Heavy-duty truck trips will
likely continue to divert to I-205 and would be candidates to use the TriLink corridor.
3.4.4 Route Selection Factors
The mileage of a truck plays a significant role in route selection decisions. Time savings is
important, but it must be weighed against the cost of any added travel distance. Interview
results with carriers (managers) and operators indicate that TriLink would be considered a
viable alternative if congestion relief and time savings were realized. The operator’s positive
responses were influenced by the experience of traveling within the congested corridor along
I-580. The results showed 41 percent would use the TriLink corridor, 47 percent would
“possibly” use, and 12 percent would not use or could not answer.
3.5 Truck Traffic Forecast Results
The truck forecasts are based on information gathered on existing speed, freight generating
facilities, and interviews, as well as the travel time and distance savings forecast by the Ten-
County travel demand model that was developed as part of this study.
3.5.1 Time and Distance Savings
Table 3.5-1 shows the travel time information from the Ten-County Model for three
comparative routes and two scenarios in the study area. Scenario 1 assumes a starting point in
Chapter 3 Land Use and Traffic Analysis
3-26 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Tracy (I-580 at Patterson Pass Road) and an end point in Brentwood (SR 4 at Marsh Creek Road)
during the commute peak period. Scenario 2 assumes a starting point in Tracy (1-205 at Grant
Line Road) and an end point in Brentwood (SR-4 at Marsh Creek Road).
As Table 3.5-1 shows, the travel times for trucks that choose to use the Byron Highway routes
would be very similar in all scenario options, and there would be a slight increase in travel times
with the construction of TriLink. In the no-build scenario, the shortest route for the trucks
using Byron Highway is from north to south – Byron Highway to Camino Diablo, Camino Diablo
to Vasco Road, and Vasco Road to Marsh Creek Road. In the scenario options with the I-580
Link, the route changes slightly – the trucks would use Byron Highway to the Airport Connector,
Airport Connector to the North Link, and North Link to Marsh Creek Road. Travel times on
these two Byron Highway routes are very similar, as the numbers show in Table 3.5-1. In both
cases, the trucks avoid the northern section of the Byron Highway from Camino Diablo to
Marsh Creek Road, which is where most of the delay on the Byron Highway occurs.
Table 3.5-1 Congested Minutes Traveled – Peak Period
Based on 65 mph Average Speed
Route Vasco Road Byron Highway I-580 Link
Scenario 1 – I-580
Existing 2010 46.2 26.2 NA
No Build 2040 53.3 26.1 NA
2010 with TriLink 37.0 27.3 15.8
2040 with TriLink 34.4 27.0 15.8
Scenario 2 – I-205
Existing 2010 49.3 25.3 NA
No Build 2040 56.5 25.3 NA
2010 with TriLink 39.4 26.4 18.1
2040 with TriLink 36.8 26.1 18.2
Source: CDM Smith.
The results in Table 3.5-1 indicate the following:
The proposed I-580 Link is the quickest. Even in 2010, it is 1.5 times faster than the Byron
Highway route and 2 times faster than the Vasco Road route.
Chapter 3 Land Use and Traffic Analysis
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 3-27
September 12, 2013
The travel time differences increase in the year 2040 as traffic volumes and delays increase.
The greatest benefit will be to trucks heading to the north via I-580 (Scenario 1), but the
time savings via I-205 (Scenario 2) are close.
Table 3.5-2 shows the comparative distances for the two routes. The proposed I-580 Link
provides a shorter route for trips in the I-580 corridor and a slightly longer route than Byron
Highway for trips coming from I-205. The Vasco Road route is much longer and, for that reason,
it is highly unlikely that trucks would use this route, given the cost sensitivity to mileage.
Table 3.5-2 Distance Traveled – Miles
Scenario
Route
Vasco Road Byron Highway I-580 Link
Scenario 1 – I-580 29.7 17.8 14.6
Scenario 2 – I-205 31.4 17.5 18.9
Source: CDM Smith.
Table 3.5-3 provides a comparison of distances and year 2010 travel times for a third scenario.
This scenario represents trips from a starting point in Tracy (I-580 at Patterson Pass Road) and
an end point at the junction of I-680 and SR 4 in Pacheco. This is an important trip because it
highlights the greatest potential distance and time savings for longer distance truck trips
traveling from the Central Valley to points northeast of Tracy. It should be noted that the two
existing routes are almost identical in distance to the proposed I-580 Link. The proposed I-580
Link would save approximately 3 miles, but overall distance is not a major factor in comparing
the routes. There would, however, be a travel time advantage today if the I-580 Link were in
place.
Table 3.5-3 Distance and Time Traveled – Tracy to Pacheco
Route
I-580/I-680 Byron Highway/SR-4 I-580 Link/SR-4
Miles 45.9 45.7 42.5
Minutes (AM Peak 2010) 82.6 77.7 66.2
Source: CDM Smith.
Chapter 3 Land Use and Traffic Analysis
3-28 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
As shown in Table 3.5-3, for many destinations to the northeast, including eastern Contra Costa
County, northwestern Contra Costa County, and portions of Solano County, Napa County, and
Sonoma County, the I-580 Link would provide a distinct travel time savings in the range of
approximately 10 or 16 minutes depending on the origin route (Byron Highway or I-580/I-680)
chosen.
3.5.2 Truck Volumes Forecast
The consideration of time and distance was used to develop estimates of the future truck
volumes that could be expected with the growth of the ten-county region. The SJCOG I-580
Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study prepared in 2011 estimated that truck volume growth
will outpace growth of population and employment in San Joaquin County. This study identified
a year 2035 increase of 60 percent in the number of trucks using I-580 at the Alameda county
line. This suggests that the volume of trucks will increase from 15,700 in 2010 to 25,100 in
2040. With the increased congestion over Altamont Pass, there will be an increased incentive
for trucks with destinations to the northeast to divert to the TriLink corridor.
Today, Byron Highway appears to attract approximately 27 percent of the truck traffic entering
the Bay Area from San Joaquin County. Examining the inter-county freight flow data shown in
Table 3.4-2 suggests that as much as 34 percent of the truck traffic from San Joaquin County
would use an improved connection via TriLink to access eastern Contra Costa County,
northwestern Contra Costa County, west Solano County, and all of Napa and Sonoma counties.
This would suggest a potential increase of up to 273 percent of the current truck volume on
Byron Highway; however, a shift of this nature would be dependent on major mileage and
travel time savings for trucks that would use the TriLink corridor. Realistically the mileage
incentive is low, but there is a potential travel time savings such that, given nearly equal
distances, many truck operators and truck drivers would elect to use the new route. The
average time savings for trips from a starting point in Tracy (I-580 at Patterson Pass Road) and
an end point at the junction of I-680 and SR 4 in Pacheco would be approximately 20 percent of
the total travel time for the longer trip using I-580/I-680.
The estimated travel time savings for both trips within the study area and the longer-distance
trips were used to develop the estimated average daily truck volumes in Table 3.5-4. The
estimates are provided for the no-build and build scenarios with TriLink for the years 2010 and
2040. The number of trucks using Byron Highway today (2,650) would decline to 1,630 with the
TriLink improvements because some of these trucks would use the I-580 Link and additional
trucks would be diverted from I-580 and Vasco Road, resulting in 3,270 daily truck trips on the I-
580 Link. The total trucks using Byron Highway and the I-580 Link would be 4,900 daily trips, or
Chapter 3 Land Use and Traffic Analysis
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 3-29
September 12, 2013
an 85 percent increase over the volume of truck currently on Byron Highway. A similar pattern
would occur under year 2040 conditions, and the total number of trucks in the corridor would
increase to 7,840, or almost three times the current volume on Byron Highway.
Table 3.5-4 Estimated Average Daily Truck Volumes
Location
2010
No Build
2010
With TriLink
2040
No Build
2040
With TriLink
I-580 at Alameda County Line 15,700 14,250 25,100 22,800
Byron Highway at San Joaquin County Line 2,650 1,630 4,240 2,610
Vasco Road at Alameda County Line 1,460 1,110 2,340 1,880
I-580 Link at Alameda County Line NA 3,270 NA 5,230
Source: CDM Smith.
3-30 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 4-1
September 12, 2013
Chapter 4
SUSTAINABILITY
AND RESOURCES
STEWARDSHIP
4.1 Green Design
Principles Approach
Sustainability provides a more
systematic approach to planning
than just addressing current and
future needs. It is a way to address concerns about economic vitality, environmental health,
and quality of life, looking at both short- and long-term consequences, costs, benefits, and
tradeoffs.
A sustainable approach to transportation design involves creating balanced choices among
environmental, economic, and social values that will benefit current and future users. A
sustainable approach looks at access (not only mobility), movement of people and goods (not
only vehicles), and provision of transportation choices, such as safe and comfortable routes for
walking, bicycling, and transit. Sustainability encapsulates a diversity of concepts as well,
including the best use of limited funding, incentives for construction quality, regional air quality,
climate change considerations, livability, and environmental management systems.
In the Bay Area, the MTC’s current RTP, T-2035, and its proposed successor, Plan Bay Area, are
guided by the following goals: build a stronger economy, protect the natural environment, and
equitably enhance opportunities for Bay Area residents from all walks of life. Figure 4.1-1
illustrates the benefits of their interactions.
In addition, CCTA has prepared a discussion paper, “Incorporating Sustainability into the 2014
Countywide Transportation Plan” (January 16, 2013), which is being reviewed by its regional
transportation planning committees in parallel with the initiation of the Action Plan Updates
and the launching of the 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan.
Chapter 4 Sustainability and Resources Stewardship
4-2 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Figure 4.1-1 The Triple Bottom Line: Economy, Environment, and Equity
Source: CCTA, December 2012.
In seeking sustainability, the TriLink study incorporates the following approaches:
1. Coordinate preliminary design and environmental review process as a collaborative,
transparent approach, with all agencies participating as equal partners invested in the
outcome of the process.
2. Seek public involvement throughout the entire process.
3. Go beyond minimum standards set forth by environmental laws and regulations.
4. Incorporate innovative uses for the corridor (e.g., charging stations, solar, carbon
sequestration, ROW use for solar energy development).
5. Use innovative methods to reduce imperviousness and cleanse surface runoff throughout
the corridor.
6. Maximize use of existing transportation infrastructure, provide multimodal transportation
opportunities, and promote ride-sharing/public transportation.
7. Incorporate recycled materials to eliminate or reduce waste and reduce the amount o f
energy required to build the facility.
8. Achieve highest feasible sustainability rating under the Envision™ rating system.
Chapter 4 Sustainability and Resources Stewardship
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 4-3
September 12, 2013
Items 1 and 2 have been accomplished through TriLink’s public participation program, which is
described in more detail in Chapter 2. Item 3 will be actively pursued as part of the process for
environmental clearance and mitigation identification. The concepts of items 4 through 7 will
be developed during the preliminary engineering phase of the project. Item 8 is essentially the
measurement of the TriLink sustainability efforts.
4.2 Envision™ Rating System
Envision™ is the result of a joint collaboration between the Zofnass Program for Sustainable
Infrastructure at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design and the Institute for
Sustainable Infrastructure. It is a holistic framework for evaluating and rating the community,
environmental, and economic benefits of infrastructure projects, not simply in individual
improvements, but in terms of their overall contribution to the communities they serve.
A highway system can be designed to preserve wildlife corridors, treat and infiltrate
stormwater runoff, and be constructed using recycled materials, but unless it is planned,
designed, and constructed in a way that integrates it with and strengthens the infrastructure
systems within a community, its overall contribution to community sustainability is diminished
and may even be negative. Thus, regardless of the quantity of recycled materials used or the
extent of the wildlife corridors preserved, a highway system that creates opportunities for
uncontrolled urban expansion would not be considered sustainable design.
Envision™ evaluates, grades, and gives recognition to infrastructure projects that use
transformational, collaborative approaches to assess sustainability indicators over the project's
life cycle. There are four stages of assessment tools:
Stage 1 – Self-assessment checklist is a yes/no sustainability checklist that would be used
during TriLink’s preliminary design stage to help users become familiar with the sustainability
aspects of infrastructure project design. It would be used as a stand-alone assessment to
quickly compare alternative alignments or to prepare for a more detailed assessment.
Stage 2 – Third-party, objective rating verification allows CCTA, and/or other owners, to
submit the project for recognition; includes a guidance manual and scoring system; and
requires someone trained in the use of the Envision™ rating system to be an integral part of
the project team to document sustainability achievements. An independent, third-party
Verifier will validate the project team's assessment.
Stage 3 – Tool for complex or multi-stage projects is under development.
Stage 4 – Optimization support tool is under development.
Chapter 4 Sustainability and Resources Stewardship
4-4 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Envision™ has 60 sustainability criteria, or credits, divided into 5 sections: Quality of Life,
Leadership, Resource Allocation, Natural World, and Climate and Risk, further described below.
Each credit write-up includes intent, metric, levels of achievement, description, an explanation
of how to advance to a higher achievement level, evaluation criteria and documentation,
sources, and related credits.
Quality of Life: Purpose, Community, Well-Being – Specifically addresses TriLink’s impact
on communities from the health and well-being of individuals to the well-being of the larger
social fabric as a whole.
Leadership: Collaboration, Management, Planning – Comprises the tasks that demonstrate
effective leadership and commitment by all parties involved in TriLink: the meaningful
commitment from the owner, team leaders, and constructors.
Resource Allocation: Materials, Energy, Water – Measures the use of renewable and
nonrenewable resources for the project (i.e., managing needed resources).
Natural World: Siting, Land & Water, Biodiversity – Allows the Study Team to assess
TriLink’s effect on the preservation and renewal of ecosystem functions. This section
addresses how to understand and minimize negative impacts while considering ways i n
which the infrastructure can interact with natural systems in a synergistic and positive way.
Climate and Risk: Emission, Resilience – Looks at two main concepts: minimizing emissions
that may contribute to increased short- and long-term risks and ensuring that TriLink is
resilient to short-term hazards or altered long-term future conditions.
The amount of points earned in each credit depends on the level of achievement:
Improved: Performance that is above conventional.
Enhanced: Sustainable performance that is on the right track and that superior performance
is within reach.
Superior: Sustainable performance that is noteworthy.
Conserving: Performance that achieves essentially zero impact.
Restorative: Performance that restores natural or social systems.
In addition, Innovation Points are assigned in each of the five categories for exceptional
performance beyond the expectations of the system and the application of methods that push
innovation in sustainable infrastructure. Innovation credits act as bonus points that would be
added to the TriLink score. For example, ways that the TriLink study could gain innovation
points include the following:
Chapter 4 Sustainability and Resources Stewardship
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 4-5
September 12, 2013
Provide job development and training that far exceed the restorative level and
fundamentally revitalize a community’s economy.
Provide a stormwater management system as a community-wide resource for capturing
stormwater, preventing erosion, and treating stormwater prior to release back into natural
hydrologic systems.
4.3 Potential Green Uses of the Corridor
There is potential for the use of a wide variety of features and materials to enhance the
sustainability of the corridor. Some examples include the following:
Many agencies, such as Oregon Department of Transportation, are using solar power to
generate electricity for infrastructure, such as interchange lighting, parking meters, bridge
heating during freezing weather, and traffic signals.
Solar road panel prototypes are being developed by Solar Roadways in Idaho.
The West Coast Electric Highway includes charging stations every 60 miles or so along I-5
through Washington and Oregon, from the Canadian to the California border.
Recycled materials (e.g., plastic, reclaimed/recycled concrete and asphalt materials; roofing
shingle waste; scrap tires; waste rock) could be incorporated into the project as pavement,
base, or subbase materials; embankment; rip-rap for slope protection; and landscaping, for
examples.
Carbon sequestration by planting native vegetation.
Infiltration, retention, evapotranspiration for handling roadway runoff.
Vehicle-to-roadside sensor communication for self-driving vehicles.
Embedding light-emitting diode (LED) lights in the road surface to make nighttime driving
safer.
“Induction priority lane” for electric cars (i.e., underground induction coils charge vehicles
as they drive down the lane).
Partnering with I-Gate using TriLink corridor for demonstration projects.
During the next phase of the project, which includes preliminary engineering and
environmental studies, these and other uses will be evaluated for incorporation into the
project.
Chapter 4 Sustainability and Resources Stewardship
4-6 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
4.4 Habitat Conservation Strategies
4.4.1 East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community
Conservation Plan
The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy is a joint exercise of powers authority (JEPA)
formed by the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg and Contra Costa County to
implement the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP (or Plan). The HCP/NCCP provides a
framework to protect natural resources in eastern Contra Costa County, while improving and
streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts on endangered species. The
Plan will allow the JEPA agencies, East Bay Regional Park District, and Contra Costa County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District (collectively, the Permittees) to control
endangered species permitting for activities and projects in the region that they perform or
approve. The Plan also provides comprehensive species, wetlands, and ecosystem conservation
and contributes to the recovery of endangered species in northern California. The Plan avoids
project-by-project permitting that is generally costly and time consuming for applicants and
often results in uncoordinated and biologically ineffective mitigation.
The construction of TriLink improvements would need approvals from many agencies, which
could result in major delays, uncertainty, and significant costs; this causes some projects to
spiral out of control. Project-by-project compliance with wetland and species regulations is not
always best for the resources. This type of compliance emphasizes species surveys while lacking
a means to effectively coordinate the avoidance and mitigation requirements of distinct
projects. The Final HCP/NCCP provides a coordinated, regional approach to conservation and
regulation. It replaces the current process of project-by-project permitting and fragmented
mitigation, and instead benefits conservation, agencies, and project proponents alike.
Rather than individually surveying, negotiating, and securing mitigation, TriLink construction
could receive its endangered species permits by paying a single fee (and/or dedicating land),
conducting limited surveys, and adhering to limited protocols to avoid and minimize impacts
during construction. The fees would be collected by the Plan’s Implementing Entity, combined
with grants and other funding sources, and used to purchase habitat lands or easements from
willing sellers. These funding sources would also pay for monitoring, habitat enhancement, and
management for acquired lands.
Whether the project is able to go through the simpler HCP/NCCP process depends on the
project alignment selected. Construction of the TriLink improvements might be considered a
covered activity if the improvements are fully consistent with the HCP/NCCP requirements;
Chapter 4 Sustainability and Resources Stewardship
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 4-7
September 12, 2013
however, if inconsistent, construction could not be permitted through the HCP/NCCP and
would be required to obtain a separate State and federal endangered species permit from
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW).
4.4.2 East Alameda County Conservation Strategy
The purpose of the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) is to preserve
endangered species by developing a shared vision for long-term habitat protection. The EACCS
assesses areas all across East Alameda County for their conservation value and establishes
guiding biological principles for conducting conservation in the county. Part of that guidance
includes working with willing landowners to implement long-term conservation stewardship
that would offset impacts from local land use, transportation, or other infrastructure projects.
Compliance with the EACCS is voluntary, but USFWS has issued a Biological Opinion for projects
consistent with the EACCS. CDFW has not issued any State-level permits for the EACCS, but it is
generally requiring projects to be consistent with EACCS as part of California Endangered
Species Act (CESA) permitting.
The plan may be used to facilitate the permitting process through adherence with the EACCS
standards, although the Strategy was mostly oriented to land use development and not large-
scale transportation improvements; therefore, it is likely that UFSWS will require the project to
go through a separate Section 7 Biological Opinion process and not use the previously issued
Biological Opinion.
There are other recommendations in EACCS that will be reviewed when examining biological
constraints in subsequent phases of the TriLink study.
4.4.3 San Joaquin Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan
The San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) sets
standards and measures to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development on
undeveloped lands within San Joaquin County. The establishment of preserve lands
compensates for impacts to threatened, endangered, rare, and unlisted SJMSCP-covered
species and other wildlife, and compensation for some nonwildlife-related impacts to
recreation, agriculture, scenic values, and other beneficial open space uses. The SJMSCP
includes widening of the existing Byron Highway to four lanes in its covered activities;
therefore, any proposed improvements using the existing Byron Highway would likely be
considered a covered activity under the SJMSCP. If an alignment were to depart from Byron
Chapter 4 Sustainability and Resources Stewardship
4-8 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Highway in San Joaquin County, then this would not be a covered activity under the SJMSCP
without an amendment. Alignments not consistent with the SJMSCP may be processed through
a separate Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and CESA compliance process, but there may
be agency concern in doing so.
4.5 SB 375 and Greenhouse Gas
Under current California state policy direction, as defined in SB 375 and other key legislation,
any major new transportation investment will need to address a series of questions related to
how the corridor elements support the State’s sustainability goals. As part of the TriLink
Feasibility Study, the Study Team has conducted a preliminary, high-level assessment of how
the project supports the major sustainability goals.
The Ten-County Model was used to evaluate VMT and vehicle hours of delay (VHD) for four
scenarios: the base year (2010), the base year plus the TriLink corridor elements, the future
year (2040), and the future year plus the TriLink corridor elements. As discussed in Section 3.3,
the base year (2010) scenario reflects a hypothetical situation if the TriLink project were
implemented immediately. VMT is a total measure of automobile travel, reflecting the sum of
mileage covered over a specific time period. VHD represents the aggregate excess travel time
experienced by motorists.
VMT is the key indicator of the transportation and land use sector’s greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, and it is projected to rise significantly, absent strategies to counter the trend. To
capture the full effects of the project, model runs were conducted to estimate how total
regional VMT would change with and without TriLink in an area bounded by I-680 on the west,
the Delta on the north, I-5 on the east, and I-205/580 on the south. As shown in Table 4.5-1,
daily VMT is forecast to decrease by approximately 4 million vehicle miles of travel in 2040 with
TriLink.
Table 4.5-1 Daily VMT within Regional Influence Area
Year No Project (million) With Project (million) Change (million)
2010 82 81 1
2040 107 103 4
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013.
Chapter 4 Sustainability and Resources Stewardship
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 4-9
September 12, 2013
In addition to VMT, VHD was calculated as the difference between congested travel time and
uncongested travel time to determine congestion relief in area communities and the region.
Measures that relieve congestion in one location also reduce delay elsewhere in the network
because traffic is reduced on corridors to and from these areas. With TriLink, daily VHD in 2040
for the study area would be reduced by 57 percent.
An initial, high-level GHG assessment was conducted based on the VMT results from the four
scenarios described above. The relationship between VMT and GHG is affected by the speed at
which vehicle travel occurs. The following assumptions about speeds were made to facilitate
the estimation of emission effects:
1. Free-flow speeds are assumed to occur throughout the 16 off-peak hours; those free-flow
speeds are assumed to be 65 mph for freeways, 55 mph for expressways, 35 mph for
arterials, 25 mph for collectors, and 20 mph for local streets.
2. During the 4-hour periods in both the AM and PM peaks, congested speeds on freeways,
expressways, and arterials are assumed to be 25 percent slower than free-flow speeds. No
congestion effects are assumed on facilities classified lower than major arterials.
3. No change in average fleet fuel economy is assumed between 2010 and 2040.
Using the above conservative assumptions, estimates of carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions and
fuel consumption were developed for the four scenarios based on the VMT results provided by
the modeling team. As shown in Table 4.5-2, in 2040 with TriLink, annual CO2 emissions
decrease by approximately 400,000 metric tons and 42 million gallons of fuel is saved.
Table 4.5-2 Regional GHG Assessment Results
Measure
2010 2040
No Project With Project No Project With Project Change
Metric Tons of
CO2 (Annual) 8 million 7.9 million 10.4 million 10 million -400 thousand
Fuel Consumed
(Annual Gallons) 910 million 898 million 1.19 billion 1.15 billion -40 million
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013.
Based on the Sightline Institute research (2007), constructing one lane-mile of highway and
maintaining it for 50 years releases roughly 3,175 metric tons of CO2. Based on the number of
potential lanes, including transit, and the average segment lengths of the alignment options,
Chapter 4 Sustainability and Resources Stewardship
4-10 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
constructing and maintaining TriLink would result in 400,598 metric tons of CO2. Therefore in
2040, TriLink would offset the emissions associated with construction and maintenance, just
after the first full year of operation.
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 5-1
September 12, 2013
Chapter 5
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
AND THE BUILT
ENVIRONMENT
This section summarizes the
analysis conducted for
environmental resources,
planning policy, existing
infrastructure and future planned infrastructure for the proposed TriLink alignments.
5.1 Biological Resources and Planning Policy
A preliminary biological resources analysis of the proposed TriLink study alignments was
conducted. Data from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) occurrences of rare 11
plant and animal species, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), pertinent habitat conservation
plans: EACCS, San Joaquin Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP),
and ECCC Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP),
Natural Resource Conservation Service soils data, and sensitive habitat and biological resources
were evaluated to identify potential conflicts with respective alignments within the project
corridor study area. Figure 5.1-1, located at the end of Section 5.1, shows the biological
resources identified in the study area.
5.1.1 Species Occurrence and Sensitive Habitats
The preliminary biological resource analysis conducted for the TriLink study area12 includes information
on special-status wildlife and plant species and their approximate locations. Special-status plants are
listed under State endangered or rare regulatory status and are categorized as California Rare Plant
11 “Rare” for the CNDDB is used broadly to include formally listed Federal and State species, candidate species,
and other biological resources that are considered sensitive by CDFW, Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
USFWS, and other agencies, as well as non-listed plant species considered to be rare by the California Native
Plant Society (CNPS). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the assessment of impacts to all
“rare” species whether they are formally listed under the Federal or State endangered species act or not and
regardless of whether they are formally protected by other local, State, or Federal laws.
12 Study area was based on a five mile buffer from the centerline of each proposed alignment.
Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment
5-2 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Ranks, which include rare or endangered in California and elsewhere, rare or endangered in
California but more common elsewhere, or plants of limited distribution (not considered
significant in the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA]). Similarly, special-status wildlife
is listed under federal threatened or endangered and State fully protected, species of special
concern, threatened, or watch list regulatory status. The identified wildlife and plant species
are listed in Table 5.1-1 and shown in Figures 5.1-2 and 5.1-3.
Table 5.1-1 Identified Wildlife and Plant Species in the Study Area
Special-Species Wildlife Species
Regulatory Status*
Federal State
Invertebrates
1 Curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle
2 Midvalley fairy shrimp
3 Vernal pool fairy shrimp T
Amphibians
4 California red‐legged frog T SSC
5 California tiger salamander T T
Reptiles
6 Coast horned lizard SSC
7 San Joaquin whipsnake SSC
8 Western pond turtle SSC
Birds
9 Burrowing owl SSC
10 California horned lark WL
11 Ferruginous hawk WL
12 Golden eagle FP
13 Loggerhead shrike SSC
14 Northern harrier SSC
15 Swainson's hawk T
16 Tricolored blackbird SSC
17 White‐tailed kite FP
Mammals
18 American badger SSC
19 San Joaquin kit fox E T
20 San Joaquin pocket mouse
Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 5-3
September 12, 2013
Table 5.1-1 Identified Wildlife and Plant Species in the Study Area
Special-Species Plant Species
Regulatory Status*
Federal State California Rare Plant
1 Alkali milk vetch 1B
2 Big tarplant 1B
3 Brewer's western flax 1B
4 Brittlescale 1B
5 Caper‐fruited tropidocarpum 1B
6 Chaparral ragwort 2
7 Delta button celery E 1B
8 Delta mudwort 2
9 Diamond‐petaled poppy 1B
10 Heartscale 1B
11 Mason's lilaeopsis R 1B
12 Recurved larkspur 1B
13 Round‐leaved filaree 1B
14 San Joaquin spearscale 1B
15 Shining navarretia 1B
16 Stinkbells 4
17 Woolly rose mallow 1B
*Indicates the following Regulatory Status
Federal / State
C Candidate
D Delisted
E Endangered
FP Fully Protected
R Rare
SSC Species of Special Concern
T Threatened
California Rare Plant
1A Presumed extinct in California
1B Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere
2 Rare or endangered in California but more common elsewhere
3 Plant for which more information is needed
(not considered significant in CEQA)
4 Plant of limited distribution (not considered significant in CEQA)
Most of the federally threatened and endangered, State threatened and endangered, State
species of special concern, rare, or locally important species within the study area are in
grassland and wetland habitat. There are occurrences of species in the croplands on the valley
floor, but these are typically transient species such as Swainson’s hawk (State threatened) and
San Joaquin kit fox (federally endangered and State threatened) that forage in those areas.
Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment
5-4 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
The area around Byron Airport in Contra Costa County extending south just across the Alameda
county line is a unique landscape of vernal pools,13 alkali wetlands,14 and alkali meadows15 and
scalds.16 It supports several sensitive species, such as the vernal pool fairy shrimp (federally
threatened), California tiger salamander (federally and State threatened), and California red-
legged frog (federally threatened), as well as rare plants.17 The area is a Core Recovery Area in
the USFWS Vernal Pool Species Recovery Plan; therefore, USFWS is likely to require higher than
typical mitigation ratios for impacts to the Core Recovery Area that are not mitigated within the
same Core Recovery Area. There are documented occurrences of vernal pool fairy shrimp in
pools throughout the region. The area west of Byron Airport is a high-priority conservation area
in the ECCC HCP/NCCP largely because a long-term conservation goal specified within this plan
is to create an upland habitat corridor for California red-legged frog and California tiger
salamander from the cultivated valley floor into the grasslands of Altamont Pass. There are
occurrence records for both species in wetlands and ponds throughout the region.
San Joaquin kit fox is known to occur throughout the region, with more than 30 records of
observation in the Byron Hot Springs and Clifton Court Forebay, observed from 1973 to 2002
(CDFW, 2013). Based on the distribution of occurrences, it is assumed by USFWS and CDFW that
San Joaquin kit fox move through the region on the low slopes between Altamont Pass and the
Central Valley floor. Movement routes are likely circuitous as kit fox negotiate numerous water
projects, conveyance canals, irrigation ditches, and roadways. Retaining movement routes for kit
fox are highlighted as priorities in both the ECCC HCP/NCCP and the EACCS. Southeastern Contra
Costa County and northeastern Alameda County are highlighted as high-priority conservation
areas for this species in those plans. Construction outside of existing road alignments has the
potential to further interrupt San Joaquin kit fox movement. New roadways along existing road
alignments can also provide an opportunity to increase wildlife linkage permeability in a region
if roadways are elevated or if proper-sized culverts are included in the project design.
13 Vernal pools are areas that pond water on the surface for extended durations during winter and spring, and dry
completely during late spring and summer. http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/water/hcp/archive/
final_EIS/pdf/ch_3_affected_env.pdf. Accessed on May 31, 2013.
14 Alkali wetlands support ponded or saturated soil conditions and occur as perennial or seasonally wet features
on alkali soils. (Alkali soils are clay soils with high pH (> 8.5), a poor soil structure and a low infiltration capacity.
Often they have a hard calcareous layer at 0.5 to 1 meter depth.) http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/depart/cd/water/hcp/archive/final_EIS/pdf/ch_3_affected_env.pdf. Accessed on May 31, 2013.
15 Alkali meadows generally occur on alkaline soil units. http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/depart/cd/water/hcp/archive/final_EIS/pdf/ch_3_affected_env.pdf. Accessed on May 31, 2013.
16 Harsh alkaline conditions that are characterized by a salty crust that forms on the soil surface.
http://creeksidescience.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/guidebook-to-the-bppas-of-the-east-bay-for-easy-
download-smallest.pdf. Accessed on May 31, 2013.
17 In this case, “rare plants” means plants that are on the CNPS List 1 or 2. Some of these plants are federally or
State listed; many are not. All are considered “rare” for the purposes of CEQA; therefore, they would need to
be analyzed in the CEQA document for the project.
Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 5-5
September 12, 2013
There are more than 50 records of burrowing owl throughout the region observed from 1989 to
2009, with many occurrences in the last 5 years. There are 2 burrowing owl conservation banks
in the study area and many other areas where burrowing owls have been documented breeding
in the recent past.
In addition to the wildlife species, there are several rare plant species associated with alkali meadow
and scald, alkali wetland, and vernal pool habitats. The alkali habitats in the region have been
surveyed often for species presence. The most important plant to note is the recurved larkspur. This
plant only occurs in areas around Byron Airport and in the pockets of alkali-associated habitat types
in Alameda County. The plant is more common in the southern San Joaquin Valley, but this
isolated population is extremely limited in distribution; therefore, it is considered highly sensitive.
Alkali soils are not a regulated sensitive resource in themselves; however, nutrient-poor soils
have the potential to support a variety of endemic (i.e., occur in no other habitat) plants and
animals, as well as unique land cover types such as alkali wetlands and alkali grasslands. The
natural rarity of alkali soils, combined with habitat loss and declines in the populations of alkali
endemic species, have contributed to the sensitivity of the endemic species found in the area,
many of which are protected by Federal and State regulations. All four potential corridor
elements and their alignment options would impact alkali soils.
5.1.2 Waters, Wetlands, and Riparian Habitat
Portions of all of the alignments encroach on federally designated Critical Habitat for vernal pool
ecosystems. One segment of the corridor element would cross through alkali wetlands near Bruns
Road. Other segments in the corridor would impact alkali wetlands near Byron Airport.
Segments also would cross areas of human-made canals, wetlands, and discontinuous riparian
habitat, but efforts were made to have each alignment avoid alkali wetlands and meadows.
A wetland delineation would be conducted and a report prepared to document the extent of
wetlands and waters of the U.S., which fall under jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act), as well as waters of the State, which
fall under jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB)
(under the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act), and streams and riparian habitat, which
are under jurisdiction of CDFW (per Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code). The
delineation would need to be submitted to USACE for verification to receive a jurisdictional
determination, which would determine the extent of Federal jurisdictional waters that would
be impacted by the selected alignment. The State agencies would also need to concur with the
delineation of their jurisdiction. Impacts to wetlands/waters of the U.S. and the State would
Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment
5-6 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
need to be mitigated (likely at a minimum 2:1 ratio and possibly more), monitored per a plan
that would need to be developed, and subject to Federal and State agency approval.
5.1.3 Existing Mitigation/Conservation Areas
There are many areas that have been acquired for mitigation or conservation purposes within
the study area. A particular focus of prior conservation has been in the area north and west of
Byron Airport. Previously conserved areas include a combination of private mitigation holdings,
private mitigation banks, and public mitigation lands. Additional research is necessary to
confirm all conservation lands along the project alignments.
In Contra Costa County, there is reportedly a Burrowing Owl Conservation Bank north of Byron
Airport. There are also reportedly conservation lands on both sides of Armstrong Road.
Alignments around the airport may require the conversion of some of those mitigation lands.
The ECCC Habitat Conservancy (Conservancy) has acquired several parcels west of Byron
Airport to partially fulfill its obligations under the ECCC HCP/NCCP. Those lands were
purchased with a combination of HCP fees and grant monies, and they are held by the East
Bay Regional Parks District. Several of these lands are bisected with select alignments.
Alignments along and near Armstrong Road would result in the loss of protected open space
land associated with the Los Vaqueros Reservoir.
In Alameda County there are several private mitigation holdings, including an area
reportedly preserved as Mitigation by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), but they
may not be directly impacted by certain alignments.
5.1.4 Potential Future Protected Areas
Aside from existing protected areas, the ECCC HCP/NCCP and the EACCS have identified lands for
future conservation priority. In Contra Costa County, there is a block of high-priority conservation
area west and south of Byron Airport. Those lands have been identified to protect the upland habitat
corridor for California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander, as previously discussed.
The ECCC HCP/NCCP also has obligations to protect and restore wetlands and riparian areas. Many
of those future restoration efforts will be completed in the southeastern part of the county.
The EACCS has identified high conservation priority areas due to their rarity. Conservation
priorities include protection of known occurrences of San Joaquin spearscale and recurved
larkspur and surveys of other potential habitat; enhancement and creation of additional
linkages across existing water conveyance infrastructure; protection of alkali meadow and
scalds, which will provide protection of habitat for San Joaquin spearscale, recurved larkspur,
longhorn shrimp, and vernal pool fairy shrimp; and protection of critical habitat for California
Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 5-7
September 12, 2013
red-legged frog. Some alignments cross through an alkali scald/meadow/wetland area east of
Bruns Road that is a high priority for conservation due to the presence of several sensitive
species and the rarity of this habitat.
5.1.5 Expected Future Impact Assessments and Determinations
Special-Status Plants
Two preconstruction surveys, over two blooming seasons, for each species with potential to
occur in the impact area of the selected alignment are expected to be necessary to further
determine the presence or absence of each rare plant species to support CEQA and the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation and project permitting. Should special-
status plant species be found within the impact area of the selected alignment, they would
need to be avoided or relocated to suitable preserved habitat. If relocation would occur, then a
monitoring plan with success criteria would need to be developed and implemented.
Special-Status Animals
Due to the presence of habitat and occurrences, impacts would need to be avoided, minimized,
mitigated and/or compensated for per CEQA, NEPA, FESA, and CESA requirements. Known
wildlife species with habitat throughout the region that are expected to occur include vernal
pool fairy shrimp, California red-legged frog, San Joaquin kit fox, burrowing owl, Swainson’s
hawk, and nesting migratory birds. Potential impacts to these species may occur regardless of
the selected alignment. Some degree of California red-legged frog habitat, burrowing owl
habitat, Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, and San Joaquin kit fox habitat preservation,
compensation, and/or restoration is ultimately expected to be necessary, regardless of the
selected alignment. Portions of all alignments encroach on federally designated Critical Habitat
for vernal pool fairy shrimp and Contra Costa goldfields. Potential impacts to species movement
will be considered when siting and designing any roadway in either of these corridor elements.
Roadways will be designed to accommodate wildlife movement by incorporating elevated
sections or wildlife undercrossing. Additionally, a preconstruction nesting migratory bird survey
will be conducted to ensure the avoidance of active nests should construction associated with
the TriLink facility commence during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31).
5.1.6 Habitat Conservation Plans and Conservation Strategies
Construction of the TriLink facility might be considered a covered activity if the facility is fully
consistent with these HCPs and conservation strategies within the study area. These include the
ECCC HCP/NCCP, San Joaquin County MSCP and Open Space Plan, and EACCS.
Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment
5-8 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
5.1.6.1 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP
Below are some preliminary findings about the proposed alignments and the ECCC HCP/NCCP:
The HCP/NCCP anticipates that the SR 239 project would consist of the expansion of
Byron Highway to a multi-lane freeway somewhere within the 1,500-foot-wide corridor around
the existing highway. The HCP/NCCP describes that a new alignment could be constructed
between Byron Highway west to the existing railroad tracks, which are approximately 80 feet
from the center of the highway, or farther east near the community of Discovery Bay. The
HCP/NCCP also includes high-priority conservation areas west and south of Byron Airport.
Some alignments would not be a covered activity under the current HCP/NCCP because it is
not in the area described for SR 239 in the plan and because it would cut across an area of
high conservation priority for the ECCC HCP/NCCP, including some existing conservation
land acquired through HCP/NCCP implementation. These alignments could be included in
the HCP/NCCP as an amendment, if agreed to by USFWS and CDFW, as this amendment
would require a change in the conservation strategy for this part of the County.
Other alignments would not be a covered activity under the current HCP/NCCP because it is
mostly located west of the railroad and is not located within the 1,500-foot-wide corridor of
the existing Byron Highway. These alignments may also affect priority conservation areas
south of Byron Airport and vernal pools or alkali wetlands in this area.
There are some alignments compatible with the HCP/NCCP goals in this area as they avoid
impacts to high-priority conservation and minimize potential impacts to vernal pools and
alkali wetlands; however, for this to be a covered activity, it would require an amendment
of the HCP/NCCP agreed to by USFWS and CDFW.
Any alignment along Armstrong Road could be a covered activity under the current
HCP/NCCP if it complied with specific design requirements. These include an elevated
viaduct design, wildlife crossings, minimum sizing for culverts, fencing designs, or median
designs for wildlife, and other requirements to minimize effects on habitat and hydraulic
connections in an area containing existing preservation lands. The HCP/NCCP notes that an
alignment north of Byron Hot Springs might require many of these design elements, but the
HCP/NCCP currently only mandates their use for an alignment south of Byron Hot Springs.
5.1.6.2 San Joaquin County MSCP
An alignment along Byron Road would likely be considered a covered activity under the MSCP.
This is the only alignment that is partially within San Joaquin County.
Figure 5.1-1: Biological Resources
Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment
5-10 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment
5-12 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment
5-14 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 5-15
September 12, 2013
5.1.6.3 East Alameda County Conservation Strategy
Alignments that would cross priority alkali meadows and wetlands along Bruns Road in
Alameda County could be in conflict with the conservation priorities of the EACCS, depending
on the type, size, and location of impacts.
More details on the biological resources within the TriLink study vicinity can be reviewed in
Chapter 7, Comparison of Corridor Elements.
5.2 Water Resources
The TriLink alignments would cross many creeks, aqueducts, canals, and ditches, depending on
the alignment chosen. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map identifies
multiple named and unnamed water bodies within the TriLink study vicinity; the named water
bodies include Kellogg Creek, Brushy Creek, Old Creek, and Mountain House Creek. The
crossings of note for all alignments include:
California Aqueduct
Delta Mendota Canal
Local aqueducts, irrigation canals, and ditches
In addition to the creek crossings, additional water bodies, such as the Clifton Court Forebay,
Italian Slough, and Old River in the study vicinity, may be directly impacted due to the proposed
roadway and bridge construction.
For alignments that cross waterways, there were two options – go around or go over. In many
cases, the simpler solution was bridging over the water features, and this was evaluated for
canals and aqueducts. For larger bodies of water, such as the Clifton Court Forebay, bridging is
impractical and would be tremendously expensive, so this option was not evaluated. In general,
water crossings were avoided if possible to minimize cost and potential environmental impacts.
5.2.1 Watersheds
Most of the study area is within an undefined planning watershed in the San Joaquin Delta and
an undefined planning watershed in the North Diablo Range. In addition, a small portion in the
southern area is within the Carbona planning watershed in west San Joaquin County. Per
Caltrans’ “Construction General Permit Info” Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping
system, the study area is not within any risk watershed. In general, the projects would be
designed to maintain the existing drainage patterns to the maximum extent practicable. Each
Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment
5-16 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
alignment would address the stormwater runoff from the proposed roadway construction by
implementing outlet protection and roadside ditches.
5.2.2 Drainage
In the design phase, the drainage design for the alignments would be based on procedures
presented in the sixth edition of the Highway Design Manual (HDM) from Caltrans (2006) and
the Hydraulic Engineering Circular Number 22 (HEC-22) Urban Drainage Design Manual from
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2009). For any frontage or service road
relinquished to local agencies, the drainage design would conform to local requirements.
In general, the alignments would be designed to maintain the existing drainage patterns to the
maximum extent practicable. Alignments would address the stormwater runoff from the
proposed roadway construction through infiltration, retention, or evapotranspiration .
5.3 Floodplains
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Contra
Costa County and Incorporated Areas (2009) and the FEMA FIS for San Joaquin County and
Incorporated Areas (2009) show that there are delineated floodplains associated with several
streams that are potentially affected by the proposed alignments.
Various areas of the proposed alignments would go through Zone A floodplains18, from north to
south, including Brushy Creek and California Aqueduct; Unnamed Creek 2, a tributary to Italian
Slough, Brushy Creek, a tributary to Brushy Creek, California Aqueduct, and an unnamed canal
to Clifton Court Forebay; and several locations near Brushy Creek, a tributary to Brushy Creek,
California Aqueduct, and an unnamed canal to Clifton Court Forebay near Byron Highway.
The City of Tracy Citywide Storm Drainage Master Plan (2012) categorizes Old River as part of
the San Joaquin River system of interconnected waterways that interact with the Delta area.
Old River is contained by levees and, in the event of a levee failure, there are northern portions
of the study area mostly north of I-205 that would be subjected to flooding according to Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) published by FEMA.19
18 Zone A floodplains are those areas with a 1 percent annual chance of flooding and a 26 percent chance of
flooding over the life of a 30-year mortgage.
19 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009 (Map No. 06013C0365F, 06013C0370F, 06013C0525F,
06013C0530F, and 06013C0540F for areas in Contra Costa County, and Map No. 06077C0570F, 06077C0590F,
and 06077C0725F for areas in San Joaquin County).
Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 5-17
September 12, 2013
The FHWA floodplain policies and regulations (23 Code of Federal Regulations 650 Subpart A)
attempt to keep encroachments (i.e., embankments) entirely out of floodplains. Because the
alignments are proposed to be constructed at grade, the impact to floodplains may be lessened.
A Location Hydraulic Study should be conducted in the Project Approval/Environmental
Document (PA/ED) phase to determine whether any of the proposed corridor elements
includes an encroachment on the base floodplain. A map revision is required when construction
in the floodplain increases the base flood elevation by more than 1-foot.
5.4 Water Quality
All of the proposed TriLink alignments are within the CVRWQCB, Region 5, and jurisdictional
area. The 2010 State Water Resources Control Board 303(d) list for Water Quality Segments
identifies three creeks as impaired water bodies in the study area. These three impaired water
bodies are listed below:
1. Kellogg Creek (Los Vaqueros Reservoir to Discovery Bay; partly in Delta waterways, western
portion);
2. Mountain House Creek (from Altamont Pass to Old River, Alameda and San Joaquin
counties; partly in Delta waterways, southern portion); and
3. Old Creek (San Joaquin River to Delta-Mendota Canal; in Delta waterways, southern
portion).
Based on the basin plan for the Central Valley region (CVRWQCB, 2011), the California
Aqueduct and Delta Mendota within the study area are identified as having existing beneficial
uses. The study area, however, is not within any State Water Quality Protection Areas of Special
Biological Significance and is not within any coastal zones as defined by Caltrans; therefore, it
should not have any impacts from tides or waves.
Potential water quality impacts may occur at the creek crossings and the biotic/aquatic or
wetland areas adjacent to creek crossings that are parallel to the study area. The regulatory
requirements, permits, and local guidelines for the proposed TriLink improvements, as well as
the preliminary avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures, have been reviewed.
5.5 Geology
According to the geotechnical and geologic constraints evaluation, no known geologic hazards
are in the study area that would preclude the proposed development of the TriLink alignments.
The primary geotechnical and geologic concerns are the presence of potentially highly
Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment
5-18 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
expansive soils, the possibility of adverse bedding in the roadway cut slopes, possible impacts
of active landsliding to the proposed alignments, and exposure to strong ground shaking from
nearby faults. These geologic concerns are discussed below.
5.5.1 Soils
The soils within the study area are typically clay to clay loam with medium to high plasticity. A
detailed map and explanation of the study area soils are presented in the Geotechnical and
Geologic Constraints Evaluation (2013). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
soil mapping identifies locations with limitations, including high shrink-swell potential and
relatively low soil strength. Other limitations include slopes that exceed 15 percent and rare
occasional flooding.
5.5.2 Groundwater
A review of the California Data Resources Water Data indicates that groundwater in the
northern portion of the proposed alignment is approximately 10 to 20 feet below the ground
surface along the flat portions of the alignment near the existing Byron Highway. Recent water
well data was not available for the southern and eastern portions of the proposed alignments;
however, the Mountain House development data indicate that groundwater can be as shallow
as 5 feet below the ground surface. The depths to groundwater observed for this study will be
used for preliminary consideration only. In addition, the groundwater elevation may fluctuate
due to seasonal variation in rainfall, irrigation, tidal action, pumping rates, or other factors not
evident at the time of exploration.
5.5.3 Landslides
Mapping by Atwater (1982) does not show landslide deposits within the proposed alignments,
and signs of significant landsliding were not observed from aerial photo or topographic and
geologic mapping review; however, given that portions of the site are bordered by or directly
across significant hillsides (particularly in the western portion of the proposed alignments), the
potential for landsliding should be further evaluated during a design-level geotechnical
exploration.
5.5.4 Seismicity and Faulting
The study area is located in an area of moderate seismicity. There are no known surface
expressions of active faults that cross the study area; however, large earthquakes have
historically occurred in the area, so the project would be designed to accommodate strong
Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 5-19
September 12, 2013
earthquake ground shaking. These geologic hazards will be further considered and evaluated
during the design-level geotechnical and geologic study.
5.6 Cultural Resources
The Study Team conducted a preliminary archaeological and architectural resources analysis of
the proposed TriLink study alignments. The analysis included a review of data from the
Northwest Information Center; Central California Information Center (CCIC); the San Joaquin,
Alameda and Contra Costa County Assessor parcel information through Google Earth Pro; and a
windshield reconnaissance survey of built environmental sites.
The windshield survey was limited to views from the public ROW of often large agricultural
properties and limited by a lack of access where no current roads exist. General sensitivity for
buried cultural resources was also considered by assessing soil information and landscape
features. The footprint of the proposed alignments was assumed to be approximately 200 feet
in width, and the study area is based on an approximately 0.25-mile buffer from the centerline
of each proposed alignment.
The preliminary research and windshield reconnaissance survey indicate that there are
sensitivities for prehistoric archaeological deposits, potentially impacting one recorded
archaeological site that is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
There is one alignment potentially impacting two additional properties more than 45 years old.
In addition, this alignment would also be within 0.25-mile of the Byron Hot Springs, which is
potentially eligible for NRHP listing.
Two archaeological resources were identified within the footprint of an alignment near Byron
Airport; however, these resources have not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP/ California
Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). In addition, there is one potential historic built resource
in the area of the airport; however, it is not eligible for the NRHP or CRHR.
There are two alignments that appear to cross many of the same concentrations of large
agricultural properties, many of which include buildings more than 45 years of age, as well as
the Delta Mendota Canal, which has been previously found to be eligible for the NRHP. One
alignment footprint would cross one potentially eligible NRHP property (Assessor’s Parcel
Number [APN] 110110286), as determined through the windshield survey, and it would contain
one prerecorded archaeological resource, with another prerecorded resource within 0.25-mile
of the proposed alignment. It appears a proposed second option to that alignment would not
Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment
5-20 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
cross any prerecorded archaeological resources; however, it would potentially cross within
0.25-mile of an additional five recorded properties compared with other options.
The proposed alignments near Byron Highway have the potential to contain the most
concentrated number of prerecorded and potential historic built resources among any of the
proposed alignments; therefore, they would require the greatest amount of effort in recording
and documenting potential cultural resource impacts. However, most of these resources, with
the exception of two that were found to be eligible for the NRHP, are within the 0.25-mile
buffer of the project area and may not present a high potential for adverse effects to these
resources from the proposed project. The properties within this footprint that are over the age
of 45 years old have been determined not to appear eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C or
CRHR under Criterion 3 through the windshield survey.
5.7 Existing Infrastructure
The TriLink study area contains the following existing infrastructure:
Power Distribution & Transmission Lines/Poles/Electrical Facilities
Clifton Court Forebay
Solar Farms
Wind Resource Area
Byron Airport
UPRR Mococo Line
Delta-Mendota Canal and California Aqueduct
East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Pipelines
Kinder Morgan Products Pipeline
PG&E Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines
The Western Area Power Administration operates the roughly 70-acre Tracy East Substation at
the northwest corner of Mountain House Road and Kelso Road. Power poles carrying overhead
power lines run north/south from this facility to either side of the Clifton Court Forebay in the
north and just west of Tracy in the south. Any conflict with existing power lines/poles would
require relocation.
There are proposed alignments that have the potential to affect access to existing and
proposed solar farms in south Alameda County. GreenVolts 3MW Solar Energy Facility is an
existing site with approximately 20 acres of land across the road from a PG&E substation,
approximately 0.33-mile west of Mountain House Road and on the south side of Kelso Road
Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 5-21
September 12, 2013
(Alameda County Planning Department, 2010). In addition to the solar farms, the hills of
northeast Alameda County north of I-580 are covered with wind turbines.
Nearly 55,000 acres of hilly land in the tri-county area are identified as a wind resource area.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has mapped the extent of renewable wind
resources across the United States20. Although individual wind turbines could be relocated due
to conflicting alignments, design strategies should try to minimize the impact through this area.
Byron is home to the county-owned public-use Byron Airport. The airport is located roughly 2
miles south of the central business district of Byron along Armstrong Road and covers an area
of 1,421 acres, containing two asphalt runways.21 According to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, Byron Airport is categorized
as a reliever airport.22 In addition to the airport buildings and hangers that house 130 aircraft,
the airport has 4 areas at the ends of the runways totaling roughly 149 acres as Runway
Protection Zone (RPZ), as well as a 16.5-foot clearance zone around runways (Byron Airport,
2005). The RPZ is defined as a trapezoidal-shaped area off the runway end to enhance the
protection of people and property on the ground. This is achieved through airport owner
control over the RPZ area including, but not limited to, clearing (and maintaining clear) areas of
incompatible objects and activities. The FAA provides guidance on construction within the RPZ.
UPRR’s Mococo rail line runs immediately east of the existing Byron Highway from Tracy to
Holly Road (just west of Clifton Court Forebay and east of Byron Airport), at which point there is
an at-grade crossing of Byron Highway. The Mococo line continues to the west side of Byron
Highway through Byron and into Brentwood. The TriLink alignment development must consider
the continued operation of the Mococo line.
The Delta-Mendota Canal runs parallel to the California Aqueduct for most of its journey within
the study area. The California Aqueduct is a system of canals, tunnels, and pipelines that
conveys water collected from the Sierra Nevada Mountains and valleys of Northern and Central
California to Southern California. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) operates and
maintains the California Aqueduct. Water flows down long meandering concrete-lined canal
segments built at a slight grade, which have a typical section of 40 feet at the base and an
average water depth of about 30 feet. At points of intersection with the TriLink facility, these
20 “Ca_50mwind.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Web. 23 April 2013.
<http://www.nrel.gov/gis/cfm/data/GIS_Data_Technology_Specific/United_States/Wind/metadata/ca_50m_m
etadata.htm#1>.
21 FAA Airport Master Record for C83, effective 2007-10-25
22 FAA National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems: 2007-2011.
Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment
5-22 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
canals will be bridged with standard roadway overcrossings and abutments, footings, and piles
will be designed to avoid affecting these conveyance systems.
The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) has two water pipelines in the study area. The
Old River Pipeline runs south of SR 4, from the Old River in the east, passing north of Byron, and
ends approximately just south of the intersection between Camino Diablo Road and Walnut
Boulevard. At this location, the Old River Pipeline connects to the Los Vaqueros Pipeline, which
runs to the north from the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, approximately following the path of Walnut
Boulevard, Vasco Road, and the SR 4 Bypass. The TriLink alignment development must consider
these pipelines when determining interchange and grade separate locations in order to avoid
conflicts with abutments, footings, and piles, in particular at the locations of Walnut Boulevard
and Vasco Road, and Marsh Creek Road and Vasco Road.
Kinder Morgan has a pipeline running through the study area, from Richmond to Fresno via
Concord. This type of pipeline is typically used to transport various fuels, including gasoline, jet
fuel, diesel fuel, and natural gas. The pipeline is within the UPRR easement on the edge of the
project area, and will need to be taken into account when planning any potential grade
separations over the UPRR Mococo Line and any potential transit improvements within the
existing UPRR easement.
PG&E has several natural gas transmission pipelines within the study area. Line 002 runs from
just west of the interchange between I-205 and Mountain House Parkway to the northwest
toward Byron Airport, running along the edge of the hilly terrain. The line crosses the California
Aqueduct and passes through the Byron Airport right-of-way. West of the Byron Hot Springs,
Line 002 crosses Vasco Road and continues northwest approximately parallel to Vasco Road on
the west. Line 401 connects to Line 002 just north of the California Aqueduct and continues
northeast along the aqueduct before heading north along Byron Hot Springs Road on the
eastern border of the Byron Airport. The pipeline turns to the east and crosses Byron Highway
just north of the at-grade crossing of Byron Highway and the UPRR rail line, near the
intersection of Byron Highway and Clifton Court Road, before turning north and passing east of
Byron.
The TriLink alignment will consider these pipelines when determining interchange and grade
separate locations in order to avoid potential conflicts with abutments, footings, and piles. In
particular, the alignment crossing of the California Aqueduct, the interchange with the Airport
Connector and the I-580 Link (Options 2a and 2b), the interchange or grade separation between
the North Link and Camino Diablo Road, and the interchange between the North Link and
March Creek Road will consider these pipelines.
Chapter 5 Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 5-23
September 12, 2013
5.8 Planned Infrastructure
In addition to the existing infrastructure within the TriLink study area, additional planned solar
farms, as well as planned development communities, were noted.
The Cool Earth solar farm is a proposed project located south of Kelso Road and west of
Patterson Park Road, between Tracy and Byron in unincorporated Alameda County. The
140-acre project site is located on a 146.49-acre parcel (APN 099B-7175-5-4 and
099B-7175-005-01), owned by Steve Haney (mailing address: 17499 Kelso Road, Byron, CA). The
project site would be leased by Cool Earth Solar, Inc., for a lease duration of 30 years, and the
site would be returned to its original condition by Cool Earth Solar, Inc., upon lease termination
(Alameda County Planning Department, 2011).
Part of the TriLink design development includes improving regional connectivity and promoting
future growth for planned communities. The City of Tracy and the Mountain House CSD have
produced general plans for their planned growth. The purpose of a General Plan is to express
the broad goals and policies, and specific implementation measures, which will guide decisions
on future growth, development, and the conservation of resources through the year for a set
time period. Each city and county adopts and updates its general plan to guide the growth and
land development of their community, for the current period and long term. The general plan is
the foundation for establishing goals, purposes, zoning, and activities on each land parcel to
provide compatibility and continuity to the entire region, as well as each individual
neighborhood. The general plans for the City of Tracy and the Mountain House CSD were
incorporated into the TriLink alignment study.
5-24 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 6-1
September 12, 2013
Chapter 6
CORRIDOR
ELEMENTS
There are five corridor elements
in the TriLink program of
improvements that were studied
as potential connections between
Brentwood and Tracy. These five
corridor elements include the
Airport Connector, South Link,
North Link, I-580 Link, and a Transit Link. Each corridor element has its own function and, aside
from the I-580 Link, independent utility, and therefore the ability to be constructed
independently. The Airport Connector and South Link would provide improvements to existing
infrastructure and support local connectivity and mobility. These corridor elements would
primarily serve the need for people movement within the study area, as well as provide better
access to existing and planned infrastructure and development. The North Link and I-580 Link
together comprise a freeway connection between SR 4 in Brentwood and the I-580/I-205
interchange west of Tracy. These elements would facilitate goods movement into, out of, and
within the study area, and they would provide better access to existing and planned
infrastructure and development.
Various alignment options were developed for each corridor element. The goals during
development of the alignments included using existing transportation infrastructure and ROW,
providing direct connections to provide efficient solutions and reduce VMT, minimizing the
impact to existing non-transportation infrastructure and facilities, and avoiding impacts to
various planning considerations, in particular planning considerations without mitigation
opportunities.
The Airport Connector and South Link are proposed improvements of existing facilities, so only
one alignment was studied for these two corridor elements. Three alignment options were
developed for the North Link corridor element. Four alignment options were studied for the
I-580 Link. These alignments can be seen in Figure 6.0-1. The North Link Option 3 alignment and
the I-580 Link Option 2c alignment have both been subsequently dropped from the feasibility
analysis due to cost and constructability concerns, and ROW constraints, respectively.
Figure 6.0-1: Corridor Elements and all Alignments Considered
Chapter 6 Corridor Elements
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 6-3
September 12, 2013
The Transit Link is anticipated to follow the roadway alignments, either in provided median
space or adjacent to the roadway of the North Link, Airport Connector, and South Link to
connect the residential and job hubs of Brentwood, Mountain House, and Tracy. The Transit
Link could be one of many forms, such as express bus service, bus rapid transit (BRT), eBART,
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), or an ACE (Altamont Commuter Express) rail line. There are
three alignment options for the Transit Link, as shown in Figure 6.0-2:
1. Option 1 – This transit component is proposed in the median of the North Link Option 1
alignment, to the north of the Airport Connector, and to the north of the South Link, either
within the current UPRR ROW, if possible, or to the northeast of the UPRR ROW.
2. Option 2 – This transit component is proposed in the North Link Option 2 alignment, to the
north of the Airport Connector, and to the north of the South Link, either within the current
UPRR ROW, if possible, or to the northeast of the UPRR ROW.
3. Option 3 – This transit component is independent of the North Link alignments and would
be within the current UPRR ROW along the South Link.
Transit Link Options 1 and 2 would tie into the planned eBART station in Brentwood. Transit
Option 3 would tie into the planned eBART station at Hillcrest Avenue in Antioch. All transit
options would connect to the Tracy Transit Center.
While construction costs and ridership projections may not initially warrant a dedicated rail line
such as BART or ACE, ROW would be preserved for construction, and this service could be
preceded with express bus service or a BRT line.
6.1 Design Criteria and Planning Considerations
Three main facility types were considered for the alignment options connecting Brentwood to
I-580 and I-205: a major arterial with no access control, a conventional highway with partial
access control, and a freeway with full access control (see descriptions in Section 6.2). In all
cases, alignment and grade standards were applied for the highest capacity facility type
possible for each corridor element to allow minimal rework if corridor elements have a phased
implementation. Design speeds were determined for each facility type (major arterial – 60 mph,
conventional highway – 65 mph, freeway – 80 mph) based on the guidance of the Caltrans
HDM, and Facility Design Criteria for the TriLink program were developed using the HDM and
local standards, ensuring that the facilities would be compatible with other proposed projects
in the study area. Design criteria were established for many roadway characteristics, including
design speed, roadway alignment and grade, sight distance, and cross-section geometrics.
Figure 6.0-2: Transit Link Alignment Options
Chapter 6 Corridor Elements
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 6-5
September 12, 2013
6.1.1 Facility Descriptions
The major arterial facility is a four-lane facility with a median, bicycle lanes, and shoulders. The
median allows sufficient width for a left-turn pocket, as well as a pedestrian refuge at crossing
locations. Additional pedestrian and bicycle features include a sidewalk and a multiuse
pathway. Access to the major arterial facility would occur at every cross street location, as well
as driveway locations.
The conventional expressway facility is a full Caltrans standard facility with four lanes and
standard median, shoulders, and clear recovery zones. The conventional expressway has a
higher design speed than the major arterial, and access is limited to intersections with major
cross routes, at a greater spacing than the major arterial. Access via driveways is not provided.
The freeway facility is a full Caltrans standard facility with four lanes and standard median,
shoulders, and clear recovery zones. Along the facility, enough ROW width to accommodate a
potential future six-lane facility with dedicated transit envelope is reserved. The freeway facility
has full access control, with minimal access points provided via interchanges along the corridor.
During the refinement of corridor elements and alignments, the major arterial and freeway
facility types were selected. While some segments may initially be constructed as conventional
expressway facilities, their design standard would follow the criteria of a freeway facility for
roadway geometrics to allow future conversion into a freeway facility.
6.1.2 Planning Considerations
The TriLink corridor is heavily constrained by existing physical considerations, such as the Clifton
Court Forebay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, and UPRR’s Mococo rail line to the
northeast and by the rolling terrain to the southwest, which serve as general margins for the
study area. In between, physical considerations, such as the Delta Mendota Canal, California
Aqueduct, an electrical substation and transmission lines, wind and solar farms, Byron Airport,
the Mountain House development, and various other existing buildings, are joined by biological
considerations such as habitat areas, alkali soils, vernal pools, wetlands, and prime agricultural
lands. The considerations throughout the study area can be seen in Figure 1.2-3.
6.1.3 Airport Connector
The Airport Connector is a major arterial facility providing an important connection between
Vasco Road and Byron Highway (see Figure 6.0-1). Currently, the main travel route from
Brentwood to Tracy consists of Vasco Road and Byron Highway, connected by Camino Diablo
Chapter 6 Corridor Elements
6-6 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Road. This route requires a left turn in either direction (i.e., northbound or southbound travel)
and consists of two at-grade crossings with UPRR’s Mococo rail line. During peak travel times,
this two-lane route handles high volumes of traffic.
The proposed Airport Connector improves the connection between Vasco Road and
Byron Highway with a 2.7-mile-long major arterial facility along the existing two-lane
Armstrong Road. Armstrong Road runs east-west, immediately north of Byron Airport. It does
not, however, connect directly to Vasco Road or Byron Highway. An intersection with
Vasco Road would be created, and the Airport Connector would directly connect to
Byron Highway to the east of the airport, approximately at the location of the current at-grade
crossing of the Mococo rail line by Byron Highway. This direct connection removes a left turn in
the northbound direction between Tracy and Brentwood, and it also avoids both of the at-
grade crossings with the Mococo Rail line, improving safety and reducing potential accidents.
A grade crossing would be constructed for Byron Highway just north of the existing at-grade
crossing, which would tie in to the Airport Connector with an intersection.
The Airport Connector provides independent utility as a connection between Vasco Road and
Byron Highway for local and regional traffic, as well as improves accessibility for Byron Airport.
The Airport Connector also functions as part of the entire TriLink program of improvements,
providing potential connections to the North Link and I-580 Link via several potential
interchanges, varying for the alignments of the I-580 Link. The interchange for the West I-580
Link alignment is located west of Byron Airport, in the same location as the intersection of the
Airport Connector and Vasco Road would otherwise occur. For the I-580 Link Option 2a and
I-580 Link Option 2b alignments of the I-580 Link, the interchange is to the east of Byron
Airport, between Byron Hot Springs Road and Byron Highway. The potential interchanges are
described in further detail in Section 6.2.
In Figure 6.1-1, the Airport Connector cross section contains an 18-foot-wide median to provide
a standard 12-foot-wide turn lane and a 6-foot-wide pedestrian refuge at intersection locations.
A 2-foot-wide inner shoulder and 12-foot-wide travel lane make up the 14-foot-wide inner
lanes, and the outer lanes are 12 feet wide. Outside 8-foot-wide shoulders allow for bicycle
travel. On the north side of the Airport Connector, there is a 10-foot-wide sidewalk and a
2-foot-wide buffer between the sidewalk and the ROW line. On the south side of the Airport
Connector, there is a 10-foot-wide buffer between the shoulder and a multiuse pathway. The
multiuse pathway has a total width of 14 feet: a 10-foot-wide travelway with a 2-foot-wide
shoulder on either side. There is a 2-foot-wide buffer between the multiuse pathway shoulder
and the ROW line, resulting in a 122-foot-wide ROW. The multiuse pathway on the south side
Chapter 6 Corridor Elements
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 6-7
September 12, 2013
of the Airport Connector is consistent with the cross section for the South Link and with the
multiuse pathway through the Mountain House development. This establishes a continuous
route for pedestrians and cyclists to Tracy. The 8-foot-wide shoulders also provide higher-speed
bicycle travel, providing a link between Brentwood and Tracy.
Figure 6.1-1 Airport Connector Cross Section (looking west)
A transit component is also being studied in conjunction with the Airport Connector. This transit
component could be one of many forms, from express bus to BRT to eBART to full BART build-
out. This transit component would be located along the north side of the Airport Connector
segment between the North Link and the South Link, connecting to the transit components of
the North Link and the South Link.
The Airport Connector potentially impacts several planning considerations, including the Byron
Airport property, the Wildlands bank, lands acquired under the ECCC HCP, wetlands, alkali soils,
prime agricultural land, vernal pools, protected open space, and biologically sensitive habitat.
The existing ROW for Armstrong Road is narrow at 50 feet, with planning considerations on
either side (Byron Airport and biologically sensitive habitat to the south, Wildlands bank to the
north, vernal pools on both sides). To the west of the existing Armstrong Road, just to the east
of Vasco Road, there is a parcel that has been purchased under the ECCC HCP and contains
wetlands that have been restored. The Airport Connector could impact the northern edge of
this parcel depending on the geometric alignment. In addition, to the east of the existing
Armstrong Road are alkali soils. See Chapter 7 for evaluation of potential impacts and
mitigation measures.
The Airport Connector alignment along Armstrong Road could be a covered activity under the
current HCP/NCCP if it complied with the specific design requirements. These include an
Chapter 6 Corridor Elements
6-8 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
elevated viaduct design, wildlife crossings, minimum sizing for culverts, fencing designs, median
designs for wildlife, and other requirements to minimize effects on habitat and hydraulic
connections in an area containing existing preservation lands. The Airport Connector could be
designed to meet these specific requirements.
6.1.4 South Link
The South Link is a 7.9-mile-long major arterial facility providing a connection between the
Airport Connector, the Mountain House development, and Tracy. The South Link runs along
Byron Highway from the existing at-grade crossing with UPRR’s Mococo rail line to the
I-205/Lammers Road/Eleventh Street interchange project in Tracy (see Figure 6.0-1). The
I-205/Lammers Road/Eleventh Street interchange project is proposing a six-lane major arterial
facility through the interchange, narrowing to a two-lane facility north of the interchange
before connecting to Byron Highway on the northwest edge of the city. The Mountain House
development is also proposing a six-lane major arterial through its development, narrowing to
two lanes on either side. The South Link would fill the gap between these two projects,
improving the existing narrow two-lane roadway into a four-lane major arterial with median,
shoulders, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities to match the cross sections of the other
projects. The South Link would also close the gap between the Mountain House development
and the proposed Airport Connector, providing a direct path from Tracy to the Airport
Connector.
In Figure 6.1-2, the South Link cross section contains an 18-foot-wide median to provide
standard 12-foot-wide turn lanes and 6-foot-wide pedestrian refuges at intersection locations.
A 2-foot-wide inner shoulder and 12-foot-wide travel lane make up the 14-foot-wide inner
lanes, and the outer lanes are 12 feet wide. Outside 8-foot-wide shoulders allow for bicycle
travel. On the east side of the South Link, there is a 12-foot-wide buffer between the shoulder
and the UPRR Mococo rail line ROW. On the west side of the South Link, there is a 10-foot-wide
buffer between the shoulder and a mixed-use pathway. The mixed-use pathway has a total
width of 14 feet: 10 feet of travelway with a 2-foot-wide shoulder on either side. There is a
2-foot-wide buffer between the multiuse pathway shoulder and the ROW line, resulting in a
122-foot-wide ROW. The multiuse pathway on the south side of the South Link is consistent
with the cross section for Byron Highway through the Mountain House development, and it
provides pedestrian and bicycle connectivity from Mountain House to Byron and Tracy. The
8-foot-wide shoulders provide higher-speed bicycle travel, providing a link between Brentwood
and Tracy.
Chapter 6 Corridor Elements
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 6-9
September 12, 2013
Figure 6.1-2 South Link Cross Section (looking north)
A transit component is also being studied in conjunction with the South Link. This transit
component could be one of many forms, from express bus to BRT to eBART to full BART build-
out. This transit component would be located to the east of the South Link, either within the
current UPRR ROW, if possible, or farther east of the UPRR ROW. A dedicated ROW for transit
provides the highest level of service and avoids conflicts with left-turning vehicles onto and off
of the South Link. While a BRT system could be located in the roadway ROW with center-
running lanes, a dedicated BRT ROW would provide a higher level of service, and a BART system
would not be possible in the roadway ROW without elevating the tracks and providing a
concrete barrier separation.
The South Link has minimal impacts to planning considerations because it follows the existing
Byron Highway alignment and has minimal ROW impacts, affecting only alkali soils and prime
agricultural land. A transit component along the South Link could impact the Primary Delta
Protection Zone if the existing Mococo Rail line ROW is not available for transit operations.
The South Link alignment would potentially impact alkali soil along approximately 20 percent of
the alignment. Since alkali soils can support more geographically limited special-status plant
and animal species, areas of each proposed alignment that would impact alkali soils are
expected to require additional preconstruction surveys, impact avoidance measure
implementation, and potentially mitigation.
6.1.5 North Link
The North Link is a freeway facility connecting to the planned SR 4 improvements at the current
Vasco Road and Walnut Boulevard intersection and to the Airport Connecter in the area of
Byron Airport (see Figure 6.0-1). The North Link would be an extension of SR 4, a CCTA Project
over the last 24 years that improved access to the Brentwood and ECCC area through
improvements along SR 4 from the junction with SR 160 to along Vasco Road at Walnut
Chapter 6 Corridor Elements
6-10 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Boulevard in Brentwood. The North Link would continue this progression of improvements and,
along with the I-580 Link, would complete the freeway connection through eastern Contra
Costa County and eastern Alameda County by connecting to the I-580/I-205 interchange west
of Tracy.
The proposed North Link would continue the SR 4 improvements with a freeway facility along
two potential alignments. The 4.1-mile-long Option 1 alignment continues from the end of the
proposed SR 4 project on Vasco Road at Walnut Boulevard, following along Vasco Road to the
south, and connects to the Airport Connector and the I-580 Link Option 1, west of
Byron Airport. The alignment generally follows the alignment of Vasco Road with a few
improvements, mainly to straighten the alignment, to meet the design standards of a freeway
facility. The 5.2-mile-long Option 2 alignment continues from the end of the proposed SR 4
project on Vasco Road at Walnut Boulevard, following along Vasco Road to the point where
Vasco Road turns to the south. From here, Option 2 diverges from Vasco Road and proceeds
east, passing north of the Byron Hot Springs before turning south, crossing Byron Hot Springs
Road, and connecting with the Airport Connector and I-580 Link Option 2a, to the east of the
existing Armstrong Road. A new interchange would be constructed at the divergence from
Vasco Road. The North Link connects to the Airport Connecter and the I-580 Link with an
interchange either to the west or to the east of Byron Airport, depending on the North Link
alignment option. The potential interchanges are described in further detail in Section 6.2.
Figure 6.1-3 shows the cross section for the North Link, which is a Caltrans standard four-lane
freeway cross section with a widened median. The median is 90 feet wide, containing a 5-foot-
wide inner shoulder in each direction. In both directions, there are two 12-foot-wide lanes with
10-foot-wide outer shoulders. Three (3) feet from the shoulder is the hinge point, and then
there are 30 feet of clear recovery zone to the ROW line or Class I bikeway. On the east side of
the roadway, adjacent to the clear recovery zone, there is a 14-foot-wide wide Class I bikeway.
This 14-foot width accommodates a 10-foot-wide bikeway with 2-foot-wide shoulders on either
side. This results in a ROW of 239 feet.
The 90-foot-wide median in the North Link, as opposed to a Caltrans standard 62-foot-wide
median, is a result of the transit component of the North Link. North of the TriLink study area,
BART runs in the median of SR 4. In addition, SR 4 has been designed to accommodate a
potential future BART or eBART extension. As the North Link continues the progression of
improvements along SR 4 and Vasco Road, providing space for a transit component in the North
Link median is an important feature. The 90-foot-wide median provides adequate width for a
transit component (46 feet) and the required space to widen the facility to six lanes in the
Chapter 6 Corridor Elements
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 6-11
September 12, 2013
future (two 12-foot-wide lanes, two 10-foot-wide inner shoulders) without requiring any
additional ROW. This transit component could be one of many forms, from BRT to eBART to full
BART build-out.
Figure 6.1-3 North Link Cross Section (looking north)
The North Link Option 1 alignment would have minimal impacts to planning considerations
because it follows the existing Vasco Road alignment and has minimal ROW impacts. The
existing Vasco Road ROW passes through prime agricultural land and a vernal pool area;
however, any impacts to these considerations would be minimal. The North Link Option 1
alignment also provides the opportunity to improve habitat connectivity by improving wildlife
crossings over the existing Vasco Road.
The North Link Option 2 alignment potentially impacts several planning considerations,
including prime agricultural lands, vernal pools, and alkali soils. Additionally, Option 2 runs in
close proximity to Byron Hot Springs, which is a cultural resource.
The North Link Option 2 would impact alkali soils along approximately 15 percent of the
alignment, and the North Link Option 1 alignment would impact alkali soils along approximately
3 percent of the alignment. Because alkali soils can support more geographically limited special-
status plant and animal species, areas of each proposed alignment that would impact alkali soils
are expected to require additional preconstruction surveys, impact avoidance measure
implementation, and potentially mitigation.
Analyzing just the impacts of the various North Link alignments alone is not sufficient because
the impacts associated with each of the I-580 Link alignments must be taken into consideration.
Due to the connection location with the Airport Connector, the I-580 Link Option 1 is paired
with the North Link Option 1, and the I-580 Link Options 2a and 2b alignments are paired with
the North Link Option 2 alignment to complete the direct freeway connection between SR 4
and the I-580/I-205 interchange.
Chapter 6 Corridor Elements
6-12 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
6.1.6 I-580 Link
The I-580 Link is a freeway facility connecting the Airport Connecter in the area of Byron Airport
to the existing I-580/I-205 interchange in eastern Alameda County (see Figure 6.0-1). The I-580
Link is a continuation of the North Link, continuing the progression of improvements from SR 4
to the North Link and completing the freeway connection through eastern Contra Costa County
and eastern Alameda County. The I-580 Link, in conjunction with the North Link, would provide
a direct freeway connection from SR 4 and the eastern Contra Costa County communities of
Brentwood, Pittsburg, and Antioch to the I-580/I-205 interchange, Tracy, and points to the
south and east in the San Joaquin Valley. The I-580 Link provides north-south regional mobility
and inter-regional goods movement.
The I-580 Link connects SR 4 and the North Link to the I-580/I-205 interchange with a freeway
facility along three potential alignments. The 9.2-mile-long Option 1 alignment continues from
the end of the North Link Option 1 alignment along existing Vasco Road south, passing to the
west of Byron Airport. From there, the alignment turns to the southeast, entering Alameda
County and passing to the southwest of the Mountain House School, before turning south and
connecting to the existing I-580/I-205 interchange. The 8.1-mile-long Option 2a alignment
continues from the end of the North Link Option 2 alignment to the east of Byron Airport and
proceeds south into Alameda County, where it follows the same path as the Option 1
alignment, to the southwest of the Mountain House School and to the south to the I-580/I-205
interchange. The 8.7-mile-long Option 2b alignment also continues from the end of the North
Link Option 2 alignment, but just south of the interchange with the Airport Connector, the
Option 2b alignment veers to the southeast and runs adjacent to Byron Highway. Once into
Alameda County, the alignment turns south and continues to the I-580/I-205 interchange. If the
Option 2b alignment runs adjacent to Byron Highway, Byron Highway would serve as a frontage
road, with access to the I-580 Link occurring at the interchange with the Airport Connector. If
the Byron Alignment is placed on Byron Highway, an interchange would be constructed in
Alameda County to provide access from Byron Highway onto the new freeway facility. Traffic
wanting to continue north on Byron Highway can exit the I-580 Link at the Airport Connector
interchange and proceed north on Byron Highway over the grade separation.
In Figure 6.1-4, the cross section for the I-580 Link is a Caltrans standard four-lane freeway
cross section. The median is 62 feet wide, containing 5-foot-wide inner shoulders in each
direction. In both directions, there are two 12-foot-wide lanes with 10-foot-wide outer
shoulders. Three (3) feet from the shoulder is the hinge point, and then there is a 30-foot-wide
clear recovery zone to the ROW line. This results in a 196-foot-wide ROW. If the I-580 Link
Option 2b alignment runs on top of the existing Byron Highway, a multiuse pathway would be
Chapter 6 Corridor Elements
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 6-13
September 12, 2013
added to the southwest of the cross section between Byron Highway and the Airport
Connection, in the same manner as what is included in the North Link cross section, to connect
to the multiuse pathway of the Airport Connector and the South Link.
Figure 6.1-4 I-580 Link Cross Section (looking north)
The I-580 Link would connect to the Airport Connector and the North Link through two
potential interchange locations. The Option 1 alignment would have one interchange location,
while the Option 2a and 2b alignments would have an interchange at the same location.
The Option 1 alignment would contain an interchange to the west of Byron Airport, where the
Airport Connector ties into Vasco Road and the North Link. The Option 2a and 2b alignments
would contain an interchange to the east of Byron Airport along the Airport Connector,
between Byron Hot Springs Road and Byron Highway. Modifications to the existing I-580/I-205
interchange would also be necessary to connect to the new I-580 Link. More information on
these interchanges can be found in Section 6.2.
The three different I-580 Link alignments all impact different planning considerations.
The I-580 Link Option 1 alignment impacts protected open space, lands acquired under the
ECCC HCP, vernal pools, alkali soils, prime agricultural land, alkali scalds, and wetland. The
protected open space is on the lands acquired under the ECCC HCP and in the area of a
proposed interchange between the Airport Connector/Vasco Road and the I-580 Link/North
Link. In comparison to the Option 2a and 2b alignments, the impacts to the alkali soils for the
Option 1 alignment are minimal.
The I-580 Link Option 2a alignment impacts biologically sensitive habitat, vernal pools, alkali
soils, prime agricultural land, alkali scalds, and wetland. The biologically sensitive habitat
impacted is on the southeast corner of the Byron Airport property.
Chapter 6 Corridor Elements
6-14 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
The I-580 Link Option 2b alignment impacts vernal pools and alkali soils.
Analyzing just the impacts of the various I-580 Link alignments alone is not sufficient because
the impacts associated with each of the North Link alignments must be taken into
consideration. Due to the connection location with the Airport Connector, the I-580 Link
Option 1 is paired with the North Link Option 1, and the I-580 Link Option 2a and 2b alignments
are paired with the North Link Option 2 alignment to complete the direct freeway connection
between SR 4 and the I-580/I-205 interchange.
The I-580 Link Option 2a would impact alkali soils along approximately 25 percent of the
alignment, and the I-580 Link Option 1 would impact alkali soils along approximately 10 percent
of the alignment. Because alkali soils can support more geographically limited special-status
plant and animal species, areas of each proposed alignment that would impact alkali soils are
expected to require additional preconstruction surveys, impact avoidance measure
implementation, and potentially mitigation.
6.1.7 North Link and I-580 Link Potential Alignment Packages
There are three potential alignment packages between the I-580 and North Link alignment
options.
1. North Link and I-580 Link Option 1: Option 1 includes the western alignment for the North
Link and I-580 Link.
Figure 6.1-5 North Link and I-580 Option 1
North Link
Option 1
I-580 Link
Option 1
Airport
Connector
South Link
Chapter 6 Corridor Elements
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 6-15
September 12, 2013
2. North Link Option 2 and I-580 Link Option 2a: This option includes the eastern alignment
for the North Link and the middle alignment for the I-580 Link.
Figure 6.1-6 North Link Option 2 and I-580 Option 2a
3. North Link Option 2 and I-580 Link Option 2b: The easternmost alignments are the North
Link Option 2 and the I-580 Option 2b, which run parallel to the existing Byron Highway.
Figure 6.1-7 North Link Option 2 and I-580 Option 2b
Airport
Connector
South Link
I-580 Link
Option 2a
North Link
Option 2
North Link
Option 2
South Link
Airport
Connector
I-580 Link
Option 2b
Chapter 6 Corridor Elements
6-16 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
6.2 Access and Circulation
The TriLink program proposes several new interchanges, as well as modifications to the existing
I-580/I-205 interchange, to connect the I-580 Link for each alignment option. The North Link
Options 1 and 2 and the I-580 Links provide the most direct connection between SR 4 and the
I-580/I-205 interchange. The North Link Option 1/I-580 Link Option 1 provides this connection
with one system interchange and one local interchange, while the North Link Option 2/I-580 Link
Option 2a potentially requires two system interchanges, and the North Link Option 2/I-580 Link
Option 2b potentially requires three system interchanges, as shown in Figure 6.2-1. The I-580 Link
Options 1 and 2a are fully access controlled, without any interchange between the I-580/I-205
interchange at the Airport Connector in Contra Costa County. As a result, these alignments are
compliant with Alameda County’s growth restrictions. The I-580 Link Option 2b would require an
interchange with Byron Highway in Alameda County if the alignment is to run over the existing
Byron Highway; however, this interchange would only provide access to and from Byron Highway
toward San Joaquin County, and no direct access into Alameda County would be provided.
The North Link Option 1/I-580 Link Option 1 alignment would contain an interchange to the
west of Byron Airport where the Airport Connector ties into Vasco Road and the North Link, as
shown in Figure 6.2-1. The low-capacity interchange option would consist of an Airport
Connector/Vasco Road overcrossing over the North Link/I-580 Link. Off-ramps would be in a
spread diamond layout. In addition, the southbound North Link off-ramp would diverge to
provide a direct connection to southbound Vasco Road, and northbound Vasco Road to
northbound North Link movement would be handled with a loop ramp. The high-capacity
interchange would also contain an overcrossing and a spread diamond layout with a direct
connection from the southbound North Link to southbound Vasco Road, but it would also
contain flyover direct connection from northbound Vasco Road to northbound North Link
instead of the loop ramp, resulting in a three-level interchange.
The North Link Option 1/I-580 Link Option 1 alignment would also contain an interchange for
local access at Camino Diablo Road. This interchange would be a spread diamond interchange.
Chapter 6 Corridor Elements
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 6-17
September 12, 2013
Figure 6.2-1 Potential Interchange and Grade Separation Locations
The North Link Option 2/I-580 Link Option 2a alignment would contain an interchange to the
east of Byron Airport along the Airport Connector, between Byron Hot Springs Road and Byron
Highway, as shown in Figure 6.2-1. The low-capacity interchange option would consist of an
Airport Connector overcrossing of the North Link and I-580 Link with a spread diamond layout.
The Byron Highway grade separation over the UPRR Mococo rail line would tie into the
overcrossing to the east of the interchange. The high-capacity interchange would also feature
the overcrossing and spread diamond layout, but it would also contain a loop ramp providing a
direct connection from the southbound North Link to the eastbound Airport Connector (and
thus southbound South Link) and a direct connection from the westbound Airport Connector to
the northbound North Link.
The North Link Option 2/I-580 Link Option 2a alignment would have an overcrossing at Camino
Diablo Road but not an interchange as with the Option 1 alignment. An interchange at the
Airport
Connector
South Link
I-580 Link
North Link
LEGEND
- Interchange Location
- Grade Separation
Location
Chapter 6 Corridor Elements
6-18 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
departure point from Vasco Road would be constructed, and Vasco Road would continue north
from that point on as a new two-lane local roadway to Camino Diablo Road. This new roadway
would provide the local access that is currently being provided, and would continue under the
Option 1 alignment, at the Camino Diablo Road intersection. The low-capacity interchange
would consist of a spread diamond interchange with a direct connection from the southbound
North Link to southbound Vasco Road. The high-capacity interchange would add a direct
connection flyover ramp for northbound Vasco Road to northbound North Link, resulting in a
three-level interchange. An interchange at Camino Diablo Road is not included in the Option 2a
alignment because the need for an interchange at the Vasco Road divergence would create
substandard interchange spacing per the Caltrans HDM, and it would result in weaving issues
between the Camino Diablo interchange and the Vasco Road interchange.
The North Link Option 2/I-580 Link Option 2b alignment would contain an interchange to the
east of Byron Airport along the Airport Connector, between Byron Hot Springs Road and Byron
Highway, as shown in Figure 6.2-1. The low-capacity interchange option would consist of an
Airport Connector overcrossing of the North Link and I-580 Link and directly connecting to the
Mococo Line overcrossing. On- and off-ramps would be in a spread diamond layout. The high-
capacity interchange would also feature the overcrossing and spread diamond layout, but it
would also contain a loop ramp providing a direct connection from southbound Byron Highway
to the southbound I-580 Link. The North Link Option 2/I-580 Link Option 2b alignment would
contain a third interchange if the I-580 Link Option 2b runs on top of the existing Byron
Highway. In this case, the South Link from Tracy would curve to the southwest and cross over
the I-580 Link and end just to the west of the I-580 Link. A spread diamond interchange would
be constructed to connect the South Link to the I-580 Link in the low-capacity option, with a
trumpet interchange in the high-capacity option.
The existing interchange between I-580 and I-205 is already a complex interchange prior to
adding in connections to the I-580 Link. The existing topography, the Delta Mendota Canal, and
the California Aqueduct make adding this new connection challenging. The TriLink program
would add connections between the I-580 Link and all of the existing legs of the interchange.
These connections would be the southbound I-580 Link to westbound I-580, southbound I-580
Link to eastbound I-580, southbound I-580 Link to eastbound I-205, eastbound I-580 to
northbound I-580 Link, westbound I-580 to northbound I-580 Link, and westbound I-205 to
northbound I-580 Link. Connections that currently do not exist between legs (westbound I-580
to eastbound I-205 and westbound I-205 to eastbound I-580) would not be added as part of the
TriLink program. This would result in a four-level interchange.
Chapter 6 Corridor Elements
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 6-19
September 12, 2013
The anticipated interchange options for the various alignments are summarized in Table 6.2-1.
Table 6.2-1 Potential Interchange and Grade Separation Locations
Alignments Potential Interchange Locations Potential Grade Separation Locations1 North Link Option 1 I-580 Link Option 1 Vasco Road / Camino Diablo Road
Vasco Road / Armstrong Road
Byron Highway / Armstrong Road
I-580 Link / I-580 / I-205
Armstrong Road (N/S portion)
Bruns Road
West Kelso Road
Mountain House Road
Grant Line Road North Link Option 2 I-580 Link Option 2a Vasco Road (roughly 1 mile south of
Camino Diablo Road)
Byron Highway / Armstrong Road
I-580 Link / I-580 / I-205
Camino Diablo Road
Byron Hot Springs Road
West Kelso Road
Mountain House Road
Grant Line Road I-580 Link Option 2b Vasco Road (roughly 1 mile south of
Camino Diablo Road)
Byron Highway / Armstrong Road
Byron Highway /
I-580 Link / I-580 / I-205
Camino Diablo Road
Byron Hot Springs Road
North Bruns Way
Bruns Road
Mountain House Road
Kelso Road
Grant Line Road
1 Grade separation and transportation modes, for example, an overcrossing of a local roadway.
6.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
The TriLink program of improvements aims to provide a true multimodal corridor, which means
that pedestrian and bicycle features would be included along with roadway and transit
features.
The study area currently remains void of pedestrian and bicycle facilities outside of the termini
in Brentwood and Tracy, where minimal facilities are present. The existing roadway
infrastructure is not suitable for cycling, and there are no pedestrian facilities along Byron
Highway or other local roadways. The only existing bicycle facility in the study area is the
California Aqueduct bikeway. Despite the lack of existing facilities, there are several bicycle
Chapter 6 Corridor Elements
6-20 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
facilities planned on the southern end of Brentwood, as well as in Tracy. The Mountain House
development also plans to add bicycle lanes and a multiuse pathway along Byron Highway
within its limits. As a result, the TriLink program has a great opportunity to link these separate
facilities together and provide high-class bicycle connectivity between Brentwood and Tracy,
and the existing California Aqueduct bikeway via Burns Road. The specifics of these bicycle and
pedestrian facilities within the roadway cross sections were described in Section 6.1.
Figure 1.2-2 shows the existing and proposed TriLink bicycle facility improvements.
6.4 Safety Improvements
The proposed improvements of the TriLink Program will contribute to a safer environment
throughout the corridor. Improving the substandard existing facilities of Byron Highway,
Armstrong Road, and Vasco Road up to current recognized standards will improve not only the
level of safety for motorists, but also for cyclists and pedestrians.
The proposed cross section improvements along Byron Highway and Armstrong Road will
include two lanes in each direction, allowing the passing of slower vehicles without entering the
oncoming traffic lane. A median will provide separation between the opposing lanes of traffic,
and left-turn bays will provide a refuge for turning vehicles. Standard shoulder widths provide a
buffer from roadside obstacles, some recovery area for errant vehicles, and a safe location for
disabled vehicles. The existing Byron Highway and Armstrong Road do not currently contain
multiple lanes for passing, medians, left-turn bays, or standard-width shoulders. Dedicated
facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, including the multiuse pathway and median pedestrian
refuges, will provide safe passageways for cyclists and pedestrians along Byron Highway and
Armstrong Road, as opposed to having to compete for space with automobiles along the edge
of the travel lanes. The existing Byron Highway crosses the UPRR Mococo rail line, and the at-
grade rail crossing will be replaced with a grade separation, removing the conflict between
vehicles and trains. The forecasted shift in truck traffic from Byron Highway to the new I-580
Link will also improve safety along Byron Highway.
Similarly, Vasco Road will also see an increase in safety measures through improving the
roadway geometrics to the current standards along the North Link segment. Providing
additional travel lanes, a median, and standard-width shoulders will provide the same safety
benefits along Vasco Road as along Byron Highway. Replacing the existing intersection at
Camino Diablo Road with a grade separation will reduce the potential conflicting movements,
which will occur at lower speeds at signalized local intersection at the on- and off-ramp termini.
The North Link segment will be designed to full Caltrans freeway design standards, resulting in
additional design elements that will improve the safety, such as a clear recover zone, setbacks
Chapter 6 Corridor Elements
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 6-21
September 12, 2013
to fixed objects, and larger curve radii, which are not currently provided at some locations
along the existing Vasco Road. A dedicated bicycle pathway along the North Link will provide
cyclists with a separated facility away from the vehicular traffic.
The I-580 Link will also be designed to full Caltrans freeway design standards, providing the
same benefits as along the North Link. In addition, this new roadway will provide a more direct
route for regional traffic. As an access-controlled facility with few interchanges, the I-580 Link
will have less conflicting vehicular movements than the existing route through western Contra
Costa and Alameda counties for regional traffic. The new facility will redirect regional traffic
from local roadways, reducing the number and nature of the vehicles on the local roadway
network.
6.5 Corridor Elements Cost Estimates
As part of the feasibility study, a programming-level estimate was developed to help define the
scope of work and delivery options, manage risk, and support the implementation analysis and
consideration of further alternative development. Due to the preliminary nature of the
feasibility study, the goal was to develop a range of costs for programming, amid many
potential variables in the program.
There is a wide range of possible outcomes for the TriLink program and, at this stage in the
program development process, the cost estimate needed to take into account the variety in
alignment options and lengths, both those already developed in the feasibility study and
potential revisions through the design process. In addition, each alignment has various options
for interchanges that can greatly influence the final project costs. One area where a wide range
of options affects the project cost is the implementation strategy and timeline. At this time, it is
not known what alignments will be constructed, when that construction will occur, and in what
configuration the components will be constructed (e.g., number of lanes, capacity of
interchanges). The costs shown in Table 6.4-1 represent a full build-out of each component in
2013 dollars. Escalating the construction costs to the midpoint of year-of-expenditure dollars
will increase the cost from each segment. Additional costs may be incurred due to additional
construction required based on the selected implementation strategy. To best cover all of the
possible project cost outcomes, a range of costs for each segment was developed.
Chapter 6 Corridor Elements
6-22 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Table 6.4-1 TriLink Preliminary Cost Estimates (2013 dollars)
Segment Estimated Cost ($M)
Airport Connector $30 million to $ 50 million
North Link $ 70 million to $ 120 million
South Link $ 80 million to $ 120 million
I-580 Link $ 450 million to $ 500 million
Transit Link Varies by Mode
Total $ 630 million to $790 million
The assumptions developed by the Study Team to establish the project cost raw order-of-
magnitude range were based on potential project alternatives and major areas of risk, with
appropriate consideration for contingency necessary to support feasibility analysis. While
general alignment possibilities have been studied, there are still several influential factors
present at the feasibility study stage that can modify the project cost.
The TriLink study preliminary cost estimates used a parametric estimating process by utilizing
unit costs gathered from similar type and magnitude projects through a statistical relationship
between historical data and other variables. Quantities were developed for items dependent on
the alignment length and component cross section. Allowances were determined for items not
directly tied to the known roadway geometrics. These costs estimates include construction,
mobilization, contingency, support services, ROW, and environmental mitigation.
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 7-1
September 12, 2013
Chapter 7
EVALUATION OF
CORRIDOR
ELEMENTS
All alignments developed during
the TriLink study were developed
to address the five key areas
identified during the stakeholder
outreach process. These include
the following:
Regional Connectivity
Planned Development and Job Realization
Roadway Safety
Emergency Response
Goods Movement
Additional consideration criteria stem from the natural environment, physical built
environment, planning entitlement, and policy stipulation throughout the study area; these are
discussed below. All of these criteria were developed under a comprehensive vision of the
project’s influence.
7.1 Study Considerations/Criteria
The Study Team collected data from numerous sources to develop a variety of physical and
policy considerations obtained from aerial photography, GIS mapping, site observation, and
from city, county, and local agencies. These considerations have been cataloged, and
boundaries for each have been established using AutoCAD and ArcGIS software packages as
shown in Figure 7.1-1. The alignment evaluation process involved documenting the potential
impacts and rating each alignment based on whether there would be “no discernible impact,”
“less impact,” or “more impact” on each consideration.
Chapter 7 Evaluation of Corridor Elements
7-2 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
7.2 Evaluation Results
The potential impacts of the four components and their alignment options are described in the
following subsections and summarized in Table 7.3-1.
7.2.1 Biological Resources
The potential alignments were developed to minimize impacts to biological resources whenever
possible. The biological resources evaluated include sensitive habitat, special-status wildlife and
plant species habitat, protected open space or prime farmland, waters, wetlands, and riparian
habitat. See Chapter 5 for more information on these biological resources, including rare plants,
animal species, and soils regarding their conservation designation. The potential impacts to
biological resources are described below and summarized in Table 7.3-1.
Planning for TriLink is still in early stages, so it is important to identify all potential biological
impacts. However, it is likely that most impacts can either be avoided through careful roadway
siting or mitigated through on-site or off-site mitigation. These possibilities will be considered
further as project design progresses.
7.2.1.1 Sensitive Habitat
All four proposed corridor elements and their optional alignments would result in some impact
to sensitive habitat; however, construction outside of existing road alignments, specifically the
I-580 Link and the North Link, would result in greater impact because they are not next to
existing roadways.
The I-580 Link Option 1 would impact sensitive habitats around Byron Airport, resulting in
habitat fragmentation. In addition, both the I-580 Link Option 1 and the I-580 Link Option 2a
would pass through an alkali scald/meadow/wetland area east of Bruns Road that is a high
priority for conservation efforts due to the presence of several sensitive species and the rarity
of this habitat. The I-580 Link Option 2b alignment would avoid alkali wetlands and meadows;
therefore, it would have a lesser impact.
7.2.1.2 Special-Status Wildlife and Plant Species Habitat
Special-Status Wildlife Species
The I-580 Link Option 1 alignment would displace the greatest amount of these critical habitat
areas. The San Joaquin kit fox has been documented throughout the region in which all
alignments are located, with the greatest density of recorded sitings near the I-580 Link Option
1 and North Link Option 1 alignments.
Figure 7.1-1: Corridor Considerations
Chapter 7 Evaluation of Corridor Elements
7-4 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 7 Evaluation of Corridor Elements
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 7-5
September 12, 2013
Special-Status Plant Species
Two preconstruction surveys, over two blooming seasons, for each species with potential to
occur in the study area are expected to be necessary to further determine the presence or
absence of each rare plant species. Should special-status plant species be found within the
impact area of the selected alignment, they would need to be avoided or relocated to suitable
preserved habitat. No impact can be determined at this phase of the feasibility study.
Biological Priority Protection Areas—Alkaline Soils
The North Link Option 1 alignment would impact alkali soils along approximately 3 percent of
the alignment, and the North Link Option 2 alignment would impact alkali soils along
approximately 15 percent of the alignment. The I-580 Link Option 1 alignment would impact
alkali soils along approximately 10 percent of the alignment, the I-580 Link Option 2a alignment
would impact alkali soils along approximately 25 percent of the alignment, and the I-580 Link
Option 2b alignment would impact alkali soils along approximately 15 percent of the alignment.
The Airport Connector and South Link alignments both have a high likelihood of affecting alkali
soils, with impacts occurring within approximately 60 percent and 20 percent of each
respective alignment.
Sandy Soils
According to the data provided by the East Bay California Native Plant Society (CNPS), as well as
the three counties in the region, all alignments are clear of sandy soils.
7.2.1.3 Protected Open Space or Prime Agricultural Land
The I-580 Link Options 1 and 2b and the Airport Connector would impact open space land and
farmland. The North Link, South Link, and I-580 Link Option 2a would have less impact with
minimal or no ROW impacts to prime farmland.
7.2.1.4 Habitat Conservation Plan Requirements
The Airport Connector and I-580 Link Option 1 would run through habitat conservation lands as
laid out in the ECCC HCP/NCCP, the San Joaquin County HCP and Open Space Plan, and EACCS.
None of the other alignments are expected to impact habitat conservation lands as specified in
these documents.
7.2.2 Waters, Wetlands, and Riparian Habitat
Portions of all of the alignments, except the South Link and I-580 Link Option 2b, would
encroach on vernal pool ecosystems. The I-580 Link Option 1 alignment would bisect the
Chapter 7 Evaluation of Corridor Elements
7-6 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
western lobe of this Critical Habitat area. All of the I-580 Link alignments would cross through
alkali wetlands near Bruns Road. Furthermore, the I-580 Link alignments and North Link
alignments would impact alkali wetlands near Byron Airport. The I-580 Link Option 2b
alignment would cross areas of manmade canals, wetlands, and discontinuous riparian habitat,
but the alignment would avoid alkali wetlands and meadows.
7.2.3 Water Resources
The study area includes the California Aqueduct, the Delta Mendota Canal, Clifton Court
Forebay, Los Vaqueros Reservoir, Bethany Reservoir and the Italian Slough. The number of
creek crossings for each alignment option is listed in Table 7.2-1.
Table 7.2-1 Potential Creek Crossings in the Study Area
Corridor Elements and Alignment Options Number of Creek Crossings
North Link Option 1 4
North Link Option 2 7
Airport Connector 7
South Link 9
I-580 Link Option 1 18
I-580 Link Option 2a 15
I-580 Link Option 2b 10
7.2.4 Cultural Resources
A cultural resource analysis of the TriLink study area was conducted, as described in Chapter 5.
The results from this analysis were used to evaluate the alignment options based on potential
impacts to archaeological and historical sites. The results are summarized in Table 7.3-1.
7.2.4.1 Archaeological Sites
The Airport Connector Link has several archaeological sites within its alignment footprint. The I-
580 Link Option 1 alignment also has one documented site within the alignment footprint.
These sites would need to be avoided during project design or mitigated prior to construction.
The North Link Options 1 and 2 have several known archaeological sites within ¼ mile of the
alignment; it should be possible to avoid impacts to these sites during project design and
construction. All of the other alignments have no known archaeological sites inside of or within
¼ mile of the alignment.
Chapter 7 Evaluation of Corridor Elements
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 7-7
September 12, 2013
7.2.4.2 Historical Built Resources
The South Link has several recorded historical built resources within the alignment footprint.
The I-580 Link Options 1, 2a, and 2b each have one recorded built resource within the
alignment footprint. These resources would need to be avoided during project design or
mitigated prior to construction.
The Airport Connector Link would have at least one resource within ¼ mile of the alignment; it
should be possible to avoid impacts to these sites during project design and construction.
The other alignments have no known historical resources inside of or within ¼ mile of the
alignment.
7.2.5 Existing Infrastructure
The alignments were developed to minimize potential impacts to existing infrastructure
whenever possible. The existing infrastructure evaluated includes surface visible utilities, such
as power lines, solar farms, wind resources, Byron Airport facilities, and the UPRR Mococo Line.
7.2.5.1 Power Lines/Poles/Electrical Facilities
All of the alignments avoid the existing Western Area Power Administration Tracy East
Substation. Existing power lines run across the proposed alternatives for the I-580 Link, which
would require the relocation of existing power lines/poles. The North Link, South Link, and
Airport Connector all have no apparent impact on existing power poles.
7.2.5.2 Solar Farms
All of the alignments are clear of the existing Green Earth Solar Farm; however, GreenVolts
access comes from West Kelso Road. With the addition of an overpass at West Kelso Road, the
I-580 Option 1, Option 2a, and Option 2b alignments that run on either side of Green Volts
(approximately 0.25-mile and 0.75-mile away, respectively) should have no discernible impact.
If an overpass was not added at West Kelso Road, access would be impacted by the I-580 Link
alignments. All of the other alignments have no known impact.
7.2.5.3 Wind Resource Area
Most of the hills in northeast Alameda County, southeast Contra Costa County, and the western
edge of San Joaquin County are within a designated wind resource area. Only the North Link
and South Link are clear of conflict with the Wind Resource Area. All of the I-580 Link
alignments and the Airport Connector would impact wind resource area property.
Chapter 7 Evaluation of Corridor Elements
7-8 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
7.2.5.4 Byron Airport Runway Protection Zone
Only the Airport Connector Link contains infrastructure that passes through the RPZ cones as
specified by The Byron Airport Land Use and Airport Property Drawing (2005). All other
alignments would have no conflict. In addition, no alignments have conflict with planned land
uses around the airport.
7.2.5.5 Union Pacific Railroad Mococo Line
The Airport Connector and South Link would include new improvements to the existing
roadway section that parallels the UPRR Mococo Line, as well as several bridges over the
railroad. Although these should not impact the existing train schedule, there would be some
ROW impacts in these locations. All of the other alignments are clear of the railroad’s ROW and
have no impact.
7.2.6 Planned Infrastructure
The alignments were developed to minimize potential impacts with planned infrastructure
whenever possible. The planned infrastructure evaluated includes solar farms and planned
development communities.
7.2.6.1 Solar Farms
The I-580 Link Option 2b runs adjacent to the proposed Cool Earth solar facility located along
West Kelso Road roughly 0.75-mile east of GreenVolts Solar Farm. Provided that an overpass is
included for West Kelso Road, access to the facility would not be impacted. All other alignments
appear to have no impact to the location or access for the proposed Cool Earth Solar Farm.
7.2.6.2 Planned Communities
The TriLink alignments would provide connections to planned communities within the study area.
Only the South Link alignment would run through the planned community of Mountain House.
The proposed South Link design would be consistent with existing Mountain House plans and
would affect existing ROW along existing Byron Highway through the Mountain House
Community Service District. All of the other alignments do not pass though planned communities.
7.2.7 Construction Cost
The Study Team prepared conceptual cost estimates for each of the four corridor elements and
their optional alignments, based on similar projects constructed within the last few years.
Factors contributing to the cost for a particular alignment include infrastructure construction
Chapter 7 Evaluation of Corridor Elements
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 7-9
September 12, 2013
costs (i.e., roadway, bridge overcrossings, interchanges), ROW acquisition, utility relocation,
and environmental mitigation. These were used as an additional consideration for evaluation.
Based on preliminary cost estimates, it appears that the North Link Option 2 would be roughly
50 percent more costly than the North Link Option 1, due to additional ROW required and lack
of existing infrastructure for the southern portion of the alignment.
For the I-580 Link, Option 2b would have the lowest construction cost, and Option 1 would have
the highest cost. Because the I-580 Link would require all new ROW and construction, the
variance in cost between the options is much less than between the two North Link options. For
a more detailed summary of the cost estimates, see Section 6.4.
7.2.8 Right-of-Way Impacts
The TriLink alignments would require acquisition of new ROW. Where possible, the TriLink
alignments would use existing infrastructure and ROW to minimize cost and relocations.
The additional ROW required for each alignment was calculated and used to evaluate the four
corridor elements and their optional alignments. There are three factors to ROW impacts—
usability of existing roadway infrastructure, full and partial property acquisitions, and overall
facility footprint.
The North Link Option 1 would have less property acquisition impact than Option 2 because its
alignment uses mostly existing Vasco Road ROW north of Armstrong Road and the overall
facility footprint is minimized. The North Link Option 2 would require acquisition of new ROW
where it splits from Vasco Road and turns east of the Byron Airport. All of the options for the I-
580 Link would have a very high ROW impact. All three potential alignments are based on
entirely new construction (i.e., no existing infrastructure), with substantial property
acquisitions. However, the overall facility footprint and new ROW would be less for Option 2b
than for Options 1 and 2a.
The Airport Connector Link would include improving and widening existing Armstrong Road, as
well as new construction for nearly half of the Link. The alignment would use existing
infrastructure and ROW along with several new property acquisitions.
Although much of the South Link would include improvements to existing Byron Highway,
widening nearly the entire length from the proposed interchange with the Airport Connector in
the north to the new Lammers Road/Eleventh Street interchange in Tracy adds a significant
amount of new ROW to this link.
Chapter 7 Evaluation of Corridor Elements
7-10 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
7.2.9 Engineering
Grade separations, constructability, design standards, and geotechnical and geologic
constraints were all considered in the development of the TriLink alignments. These are
described below.
7.2.9.1 Grade Separations
Grade separations would be necessary at any arterial road that TriLink would cross, along with
crossings at waterways and with the UPRR Mococo Line. These would require bridge structures
and earthwork fill material, both of which increase construction cost.
The I-580 Link Option 1 alignment would require more grade separations than Options 2a and
2b. The two North Link Options would require similar numbers of grade separations. The
South Link would also require some grade separations, while there would be few if any grade
separations on the Airport Connector Link.
7.2.9.2 Constructability
Each TriLink alignment was evaluated on the basis of the complexity of their construction. The I-580
Link Option 1 and Option 2b were found to pose more complications with regard to terrain, water
crossings, and existing infrastructure than Option 2a, so an increased cost was applied to these
options Option 2b was found to be the least costly among the I-580 Link alignment options.
7.2.9.3 Geotechnical Considerations
A preliminary geotechnical and geologic constraints evaluation was conducted for the TriLink
study area, which provided information on site geology, seismicity, and faulting and the
possibility of landslides. See Section 5.5 for details on the evaluation.
There are no known geologic hazards within the study area that would preclude the proposed
development of the TriLink project; however, there are concerns, including the presence of
potentially highly expansive soils, a potentially high water table, the possibility of adverse
bedding in the roadway cut slopes, the possible impacts of active landslides to the proposed
alignment, and exposure to strong ground shaking from nearby faults. None of the alignments
are more susceptible to these conditions than are any of the others.
7.3 Summary of Results
Table 7.3-1 summarizes the alignment evaluation results described in Section 7.2 for the
various options under consideration for the North Link and the I-580 Link. As shown in Table
7.3-1, impacts vary by alignment.
Chapter 7 Evaluation of Corridor Elements
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 7-11
September 12, 2013
For the North Link, both Options 1 and 2 have a relatively limited number of impacts, with
differing impacts for each Option. On balance, Option 2 appears to have slightly fewer impacts
than Option 1, but this finding could change as detailed studies are conducted.
For the I-580 Link, Option 2b appears to be preferable, particularly because of its lower degree
of impact on biotic resources. However, there are a few issues, such as impacts on solar
installations, where Options 1 and 2a are preferable, so no specific conclusions should be
drawn without further study.
These potential impacts will be evaluated in detail in the later phases of study, before a
preferred alignment option is selected.
Table 7.3-1 Alignment Evaluation Results
Considerations Section
Alignments
North Link I-580 Link Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2a Option 2b Biological Resources Sensitive Habitat 7.2.1.1 ○ ○ ● ● ◐
Special-Status Wildlife Species
7.2.1.2
● ○ ● ○ ○
Special-Status Plant Species ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Alkaline Soils ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐
Sandy Soils ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Protected Open Space or
Prime Agricultural Land 7.2.1.3 ◐ ◐ ● ◐ ●
Habitat Conservation Plan
Requirements 7.2.1.4 ○ ○ ● ○ ○
Waters, Wetlands, and
Riparian Habitat (excludes
water crossings for canals/
aqueducts)
7.2.2 ● ● ● ● ◐
Legend:
No Discernible Impact (○), Less Impact (◐), and More Impact (●)
Chapter 7 Evaluation of Corridor Elements
7-12 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Table 7.3-1 Alignment Evaluation Results
Considerations Section
Alignments
North Link I-580 Link Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2a Option 2b Creek Crossings 7.2.3 ◐ ◐ ● ● ● Cultural Resources Archaeological Sites 7.2.4.1 ◐ ◐ ● ○ ○
Historical Built Resources 7.2.4.2 ○ ◐ ● ● ● Existing Infrastructure Power Lines / Poles / Electrical
Facilities 7.2.5.1 ○ ○ ◐ ◐ ◐
Solar Farms 7.2.5.2 ○ ○ ◐ ◐ ◐
Wind Resource Area 7.2.5.3 ○ ○ ● ● ●
Byron Airport Runway
Protection Zone 7.2.5.4 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
UPRR Mococo Line 7.2.5.5 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Planned Infrastructure Solar Farms 7.2.6.1 ○ ○ ○ ○ ◐
Planned Communities 7.2.6.2 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Construction Cost 7.2.7 ◐ ● ● ◐ ◐
Right-of-Way Impacts 7.2.8 ◐ ● ● ● ● Engineering Grade Separations 7.2.9.1 ◐ ◐ ● ◐ ◐
Constructability 7.2.9.2 ○ ○ ◐ ○ ◐
Geotechnical Considerations 7.2.9.3 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Legend:
No Discernible Impact (○), Less Impact (◐), and More Impact (●)
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 8-1
September 12, 2013
Chapter 8
PROPOSED
IMPLEMENTATION
SCENARIOS
The proposed TriLink (SR 239)
corridor extends into three
counties and touches upon
several cities and communities.
Consequently, development and
implementation of the TriLink corridor will involve extensive cooperation among multiple
agencies. The purpose of this chapter is to review options for implementation of the proposed
corridor elements and highlight the key efforts and decisions required by the sponsor agencies
to properly frame the route’s potential adoption, funding, design, and construction.
8.1 Organizational Structure
8.1.1 Joint Exercise of Powers
One potential option for the local jurisdictions is to enter into a joint powers agreement (JPA, or
joint exercise of powers agreement [JEPA]). This is a formal, legal agreement between two or
more public agencies that share a common power and want to jointly implement and build
programs such as TriLink. Officials from those public agencies formally approve a cooperative
arrangement. Joint powers can be thought of as a confederation of governments that work
together and share resources for mutual support or common actions.
Examples of areas where JPAs are used commonly include groundwater management, road
construction, habitat conservation, airport expansion, redevelopment projects, and regional
transportation projects. JPAs may be used where an activity naturally transcends the
boundaries of existing public authorities.
The JPA could be developed to meet the unique requirements of TriLink because there is no set
formula for how governments should use their joint powers. CCTA could administer the terms
of the agreement, which may be a short-term, long-term, or perpetual-service agreement. If a
JPA requires substantial staff time from one member agency, but not the others, the managing
agency (e.g., CCTA as sponsor) may hire extra staff to work on the joint powers project.
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
8-2 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
The JPA acronym can mean different things – joint powers agreement, joint powers agency, and
joint powers authority – which may create confusion if not used carefully.
Some JPAs are cooperative arrangements among existing agencies, while others create new,
separate institutions. Each are described below:
1. Cooperative arrangements among existing agencies. Under this type of agreement, the
parties do not create a separate agency or authority. Instead, the agreement delegates to
one of the parties the power and responsibility to perform some task and/or exercise some
power on behalf of all the parties, usually subject to some oversight and control by a
governing board or other mechanism established by the agreement.
With this type of JPA, a member agency agrees to be responsible for delivering a service on
behalf of the other member agencies. For example, Alameda and Contra Costa counties; the
cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon; and the Town of Danville entered
into a JEPA pertaining to the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fees for Traffic
Mitigation to collect a fee on all new development to fund all or a portion of regional
transportation improvement projects. Each party to the agreement has certain
responsibilities, and no new entity or agency was created.
2. New, separate institutions called joint powers agencies or joint powers authorities. Under
this type of agreement, the government agency parties contract under the Joint Exercise of
Powers Act to create a new government agency – a joint powers authority or a joint powers
agency. A JPA is a legal entity separate and distinct from the member agencies that
created it.
Like the first type of JPA, in which one agency administers the terms of the agreement, a
joint powers agency shares powers common to the member agencies, and those powers are
outlined in the JPA.
Recent relevant examples of joint powers authorities (or agencies) include the following:
In 2001, the Transbay JPA, composed of several transportation boards and counties
around the San Francisco Bay Area as members, was set up to design, build, operate,
and maintain an intermodal terminal and rail extension and to collaborate with the San
Francisco Redevelopment Agency and City departments to create an adjacent new
transit-oriented neighborhood.
Contra Costa County and the cities of Antioch and Brentwood created the SR 4 Bypass
Authority (Authority) in 1989 through a JPA to administer and set policy for the SR 4
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 8-3
September 12, 2013
Bypass project, one of three projects funded by the East County Regional Transportation
Fee program.
In 2008, Stanislaus County and the cities of Modesto, Oakdale, and Riverbank created
the North County Corridor Transportation Expressway JPA, to formally adopt and
environmentally clear an interregional route from SR 99 to SR 108/120 east of Oakdale.
The Capital SouthEast Connector JPA was formed in December 2006 when the cities of
Elk Grove, Folsom, and Rancho Cordova, as well as El Dorado and Sacramento counties,
formalized their collaboration to proceed with planning, environmental review,
engineering design, and development of what was initially called the Elk Grove-Rancho
Cordova-El Dorado Connector Project. Up to that point, the Sacramento Area Council of
Governments had overseen the early planning stages.
The San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA), formed early in 2013, manages the San
Joaquin intercity passenger rail service. CCTA is 1 of 11 potential members of the
proposed SJJPA. The agreement required that at least 6 potential members sign the
agreement for it to go into effect.
If the agreement’s terms are complex, or if one member agency cannot act on behalf of all
members, forming a new government agency is the answer. This new agency typically has
officials from the member agencies on its governing board. For example, three local
governments formed the Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency in July 1995 as the legal governing
body of a new independent community library. Its seven-member board has three trustees
appointed by the City of Belvedere, three by the Town of Tiburon, and one by the Reed Union
School District. This library JPA has the same responsibilities as any public agency, including
personnel, budgeting, operations, and maintenance.
CCTA could establish a JPA specifically to arrange capital financing by selling bonds. These
bonds would create the capital needed to finance TriLink construction. This type of JPA is called
a public financing authority (PFA). PFAs include agencies formed to fund capital projects, such
as the Berkeley Joint PFA, which resulted from an agreement between the City of Berkeley and
the Berkeley Redevelopment Agency. Bonds issued by this JPA provided the capital to build
public facilities, and the costs are being paid back over time by the JPA and from the revenue
generated by the projects.
The new organization may not necessarily include “joint powers” or “JPA” in its name. Yet, if a
public organization relies on a JPA, the organization is a JPA, regardless of its title. JPAs are not
special districts, redevelopment agencies, or nonprofit corporations, although these agencies
can enter into JPAs.
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
8-4 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
A JPA is distinct from the member authorities; it has separate operating boards of directors,
typically composed of officials from the member agencies. The board can be given any of the
powers inherent in all of the participating agencies. The authorizing agreement states the
powers that the new authority will be allowed to exercise. The term, membership, and standing
orders of the board of the authority must also be specified. The joint authority may employ
staff and establish policies independently of the constituent authorities.
8.1.1.1 Statutory Authority
The local agencies would get their authority to work together from a State law called the Joint
Exercise of Powers Act. The JPA would be able to exercise only those powers that are common
to their member agencies. For example, three fire protection districts and an adjacent city can
form a JPA to run a fire department because each member agency has the power to run a fire
department; however, this same JPA cannot maintain the local parks because fire districts lack
that statutory authority.
Joint powers agency’s meetings are open to the public and subject to the Brown Act.
Furthermore, JPAs must follow the Public Records Act, the Political Reform Act, and other
public interest laws that ensure political transparency.
The formation of a JPA begins when public officials negotiate a formal agreement that spells
out the member agencies’ intentions, the powers that they will share, and other mutually
acceptable conditions that define the intergovernmental arrangement. It will provide the
method by which the purpose will be accomplished or the manner in which the power will be
exercised. Each member agency’s governing body then approves the JPA.
If a JPA creates a new joint powers agency, the JPA must file a Notice of a Joint Powers
Agreement with the Secretary of State. Until public officials file those documents, a JPA cannot
incur any debts, liabilities, or obligations, or exercise any of its powers.
An agreement that creates a new joint powers agency describes the size, structure, and
membership of the JPA’s governing board and documents the JPA’s powers and functions. As a
legally separate public agency, the JPA can sue or be sued, hire staff, obtain financing to build
public facilities, and manage property. JPAs usually protect their member agencies from a JPA’s
debts or other liabilities.
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 8-5
September 12, 2013
8.1.1.2 Forming a JPA
The process to form a JPA is simple.
a. Participating agencies negotiate the terms of the agreement;
b. Each participant agency approves and executes a JPA; and
c. JPA files a notice with the Secretary of State and a statement of information with the
Secretary of State and the County Clerk. After the formation of the authority, there would
be several start-up related actions to be undertaken.
8.1.2 Memorandum of Understanding
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is also a potential option for TriLink. An MOU is a
document describing a bilateral or multilateral agreement between two or more parties. It
expresses an agreement between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It
is often used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations
where the parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement. MOUs specify mutually
accepted expectations between two or more people or organizations as they work together
toward a common objective. Generally, they are not legally binding, in part because neither
party wants to deal with the ramifications of a binding agreement, nor do they involve the
exchange of money. In these kinds of situations, an MOU is an appealing option because it is
simple and direct, without complex and combative standard terms and conditions of contract
law.
Although each side must put some thought into the MOU, the process for creating one is pretty
straightforward. Generally, each party starts in a planning stage to determine what they want
or need the other party to provide, what they have to offer, what they are willing to negotiate,
and the rationale for an MOU. Most important, the MOU spells out the parties' common
objectives.
Other specific terms of the agreement are usually included too, such as when the agreement
begins, how long it lasts, and how one or both entities can terminate the MOU. An MOU can
also have disclaimers and restrictions, as well as privacy statements. Once they come to an
agreement on those details, all parties sign the MOU.
Local examples of MOUs include the following:
CCTA and Contra Costa County executed an MOU that assigns responsibilities to CCTA that
previously were the County’s for this TriLink study.
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
8-6 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Caltrans has an MOU with FHWA that allows the Secretary of Transportation to assign, and
the State of California to assume, responsibility for one or more highway projects within the
State. For these projects, the State may also be assigned FHWA’s responsibilities for
environmental consultation and coordination under other federal environmental laws. By
statute, the State is deemed to be a federal agency for these assigned responsibilities.
Under an MOU with CCTA and the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Finance Authority,
CCTA has assumed responsibility for the Balfour Road interchange final design services and
utility relocation.
8.1.3 Participants and Leadership Sponsor
With Caltrans and the local agencies – Contra Costa County, CCTA, Alameda County, San
Joaquin County, SJCOG, Alameda CTC, the City of Brentwood, and the City of Tracy – as
potential partners, there are a few scenarios of leadership:
Lead Agency Advantages Disadvantages*
CCTA
Retain local control on schedule, assignment
of resources; can rally resources through use
of consultants and/or local agencies.
Under some innovative financing
laws or project delivery methods,
only Caltrans can act as sponsor.
Caltrans
Increases potential to employ innovative
project delivery methods without special
legislation.
Loss of local control; subject to
resource availability and other
Caltrans commitments.
Alameda CTC Resources readily available through use of
consultants and/or local agency staff.
Project is not high priority to
Alameda CTC, thus subject to
political will.
Under some innovative financing
laws or project delivery methods,
only Caltrans can act as sponsor.
SJCOG Resources readily available through use of
consultants and/or local agency staff.
Loss of local control; subject to
resource availability and other SJCOG
commitments.
* Refer to Section 8.2.2 for details on innovative financing laws and project delivery methods.
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 8-7
September 12, 2013
8.2 Project Delivery Methods
8.2.1 Public Capital Delivery (Traditional Outlay)
The features, modes, and potential benefits of the TriLink corridor elements make it eligible for
a variety of local, State, and federal funding sources; however, California’s transportation
system is facing what many believe to be a funding crisis. Given current funding projections
and, without action at federal, State, or local levels, public transportation funds will be a
challenging source to tap into for development of the TriLink alignments. Nevertheless, public
transportation funds may play a critical part in the project ’s overall future funding scheme. The
information below provides a summary/snapshot of public funds available to the project and
limitations and/or opportunities of each. What follows is a brief overview of the current
transportation funding outlook and the revenue capacity for transportation systems at various
levels of government.
8.2.1.1 State Highway, Local Roadways, and Public Infrastructure Needs
While there have been many studies and analyses that document the aforementioned
transportation funding crisis, ranging from numerous private sector reports to public agency
documentation, the recently completed Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment,
prepared under the direction of the California Transportation Commission, is the most recent
and comprehensive overview of this situation. While the document covers a broad range of
transportation system components, it also provides the capacity to focus in and understand the
nature of the challenge confronting State highway, local roadway, and public transit
infrastructure needs.
According to the Needs Assessment Final Report (January 2013), “…The total cost of all system
preservation, system management, and system expansion projects during the 10-year study
period is nearly $538.1 billion. Of this total, the cost of system preservation projects (both
rehabilitation projects and maintenance costs) during the study period is $341.1 billion, with
the cost of system management projects and system expansion projects over the same period
estimated at $197 billion.” The California Transportation Commission report cites the estimated
revenue from all sources during the 10-year study period at a projected $242.4 billion, which
represents approximately 45 percent of the overall estimated costs of projects and programs
that were identified in the needs analysis, and an estimated shortfall of approximately
$295.7 billion over the 10-year period. Figure 8.2-1 provides an example of the critical funding
needs for a small portion of the overall transportation segment in California.
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
8-8 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Figure 8.2-1 California’s Transportation Funding Needs for Three Key Assets
Source: California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment, 2012 Update Presentation (March 1,
2013, Public Works Officer’s Institute, Pasadena, CA).
The California Transportation Commission, in its 2012 Annual Report to the Legislature, made
the following assessments of key major revenue sources, which were incorporated in the 2012
STIP development process:
Fuel Excise Tax revenues will not grow through 2012. Then, starting in 2013 and continuing
through 2016-17, revenues will increase by approximately 1.8 percent for gasoline and
2.8 percent for diesel each year.
Weight fee revenues produced from assessments on commercial vehicles remained flat
from 2010-11 through 2012. Starting in 2013 and continuing through 2016-17, weight fee
revenues will increase by their 10-year growth rate of 2.3 percent.
Federal Obligation Authority (OA) will remain at the 2008-09 level of $3.0 billion. Federal
Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 was the last year of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), and the level of funding it had
provided is assumed to continue as a constant through the STIP development period.
The approval of MAP-21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century) in 2012 essentially
extended the SAFETEA-LU funding level for 2 years, consistent with the California
Transportation Commission projections. The California Transportation Commission
projected that California’s share of the annual August redistribution of federal OA is
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 8-9
September 12, 2013
assumed to be $109 million per year based on the average received from 2007-08 through
2009-10.
No pre-Proposition 42 loan repayments will occur over the STIP development period, and
other loan repayments will occur in the year consistent with State statute, which is closer to
the end of the decade.
These facts all indicate that State and federal funding streams available to preserve
transportation systems have not kept pace with the demands on them.
8.2.1.2 Revenue
Local Revenues
Local transportation programs, ranging from roadways to public transportation, rely on a
variety of sources of public revenue. These range from a statewide 0.25 percent tax on the sale
of all goods and services for transit purposes, additional locally approved sales taxes –
frequently found in the largest urbanized counties in 0.50 percent increments, a very limited
amount of local property taxes in specific instances, and transit fares.
Contra Costa County, along with Alameda and San Joaquin counties, benefits from belonging to
the family of Self Help Counties, which are those counties with dedicated funding provided
from voter-approved local sales tax revenues. For Contra Costa County, the revenues from this
source come from Measure J, which provided for the continuation of the county's half-cent
transportation sales tax for 25 more years beyond the original expiration date of 2009.
Measure J has contributed to local priority projects such as the additional bore in the Caldecott
Tunnel on SR 24, development of eBART, improvements to SR 4, and I-680, as well as city and
road funding to the communities in the county. The 2012 California Transportation Commission
report indicates that, “Local funds account for about 65 percent ($158.4 billion) of all revenues
for transportation infrastructure in California.”
Through Measure J, the voters approved a Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) in 2004,
which was the basis for the approval of the local tax ordinance; however, the TEP did not
contemplate funding for the TriLink project and, as a consequence, this is currently not a viable
source of funds for the TriLink project development. However, CCTA has embarked on an effort
to update the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP), which was last updated in
2009. The Updated CTP will have a planning horizon through 2040 and is expected to be under
development through 2014. The Updated 2014 CTP may be used at a future point to serve as an
advocacy platform for garnering new transportation funds. The same holds true for Alameda
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
8-10 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
and San Joaquin counties, which will have opportunities to program measure funding into their
respective future regional plan updates.
State Funds
Funds at the State level available for transportation systems are generated from a State excise
tax on gasoline and diesel fuels and weight fees imposed on commercial vehicles. The California
Transportation Commission Needs Assessment Final Report indicates that…“State revenues
provide about 22 percent ($53.1 billion) of the total funds devoted to transportation
infrastructure.” STIP funds, allocated by the California Transportation Commission, are the
primary source of State funds for highway expansion projects.
SB 802 (Torlakson; Chapter 598, Statutes of 2003) added unconstructed State Highway Route
239 to the statutory list of interregional and intercounty routes specified in the statute, which
in turn, authorizes the route, if adopted at some point into the State Highway System, to be
eligible for State funding in the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP).
For background, the ITIP is the 25 percent reservation of STIP resources under direct
programming control of Caltrans, subject to approval by the California Transportation
Commission. The interregional road system (IRRS) serves the movement of people and goods
between regions and consists of a list of the State highway routes included in the system. There
are 87 IRRS routes in statute, 7 of which were added by legislation (in the manner of SR 239)
since the original system plan was developed. The IRRS serves functionally as the “feeder”
system for the programming of funds by Caltrans on State priorities in the ITIP.
As previously mentioned, the State resources available for the STIP, and therefore the ITIP, are
severely restricted looking forward. For example, current estimates are that between $20 and
$30 million in RTIP funds will be available countywide in Contra Costa for FY 2017-18 and
FY 2018-19. With an estimate of $630 million to $770 million for the TriLink corridor
improvements, this amount represents a tiny fraction of funding necessary to deliver the
project. Consequently, unless substantial new revenue resources are made available to support
the STIP, the potential advantage of legislatively designating SR 239 as part of the State IRRS is
yet to be determined.
Federal Funds
State and local transportation agencies enjoy the benefit of annual allotments from the federal
government, based on formula distributions from federal taxes on fuels. If federal funding
remains at today’s levels – which is an open question as we look forward to future federal
reauthorization legislation, the State of California is projected to receive $30.9 billion in federal
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 8-11
September 12, 2013
transportation funds over the next 10 years.23 This amounts to 13 percent of total funding to
the State’s transportation system. The 2012 approval of MAP-21 offers little to this observation
and assumption, as it roughly extended the authorized amount of federal revenues as
previously existed under the prior program authorization.
Discretionary funding opportunities, such as those provided for in the TIGER program, offer an
additional fund source for regionally significant projects such as TriLink. These funds are highly
competitive, with approximately $474 million available nationwide in 2013. The long-term
continuation of this program is uncertain and, coupled with the grant’s primary focus to
administer funds to “shovel ready” projects, SR 239’s competitiveness in this program may be
several years away.
8.2.2 Public-Private Capital Delivery
Throughout the world, in all types of infrastructure, owners and operators have turned to
innovative project delivery and financing methods to meet their mobility challenges. On project
delivery, this includes use of design-build, construction management at risk, and construction
manager/general contractor methods to provide more rapid project delivery, reduce project
costs, and transfer risks from the public to the private sector. These approaches not only speed
up the actual construction of projects, but in most cases take advantage of the inherent
innovation of the private sector entities.
In a similar vein, private financing of projects, in any number of forms, is widely used
throughout the world. Combined with the more modern delivery methods, private financing
provides project sponsors and owners with cost-effective and timely implementation. With a
solid source of revenues identified, private funding under contract with the public entity further
provides the opportunity for the developer team to exhibit innovation on behalf of the public
entity sponsor.
Under present State law, the State and various local transportation agencies have access to
three specific means of innovative financing for their projects – public-private partnerships;
California Transportation Financing Authority; and Infrastructure Financing – while having little
or no access to the authorized two modern delivery methods – construction manager/general
contractor and design-build. The following sections include a detailed assessment of each of
these tools, including applicability to TriLink, and Table 8.2-1 provides a summary assessment of
each.
23 “Federal Transportation Funding: How Does It Work and What Will the New Transportation Act Mean for
California?” from “Policy Matters,” California Senate Office of Research, January 2012, page 7.
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
8-12 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
8.2.2.1 Innovative Financing
Although the California Transportation Commission report did not incorporate an analysis of
the amounts of private funds that have been “invested” in transportation projects, there are
several examples of the use of legislatively enacted authority for projects to be developed
under private funding.
Public-Private Partnership (P3)
State law authorizes Caltrans and regional transportation agencies to enter into an unlimited
number of comprehensive lease agreements with public or private entities to develop
transportation projects, P3 projects, until January 1, 2017. S&H Section 143 provides that P3
projects and associated lease agreements proposed by Caltrans or a regional transportation
agency shall be submitted to the review and approval by the California Transportation
Commission, and that the Commission shall select and approve the projects before Caltrans or
a regional agency begins a public review process leading to a final lease agreement.
To date, one major project, Presidio Parkway (Highway 101- Doyle Drive, San Francisco), has
successfully been procured using this process and is under construction. Several major regional
agencies have been striving to form a “pipeline” of qualifying projects to accelerate their
delivery of local funded programs: Los Angeles County is prominent among these, where LA
Metro is pushing ahead in the development of several project packages being prepared for
California Transportation Commission approval in the coming year.
California Transportation Financing Authority
AB 798 (Chapter 474, Statutes of 2009) established the CTFA in the Treasurer’s Office. This entity
has broad powers to authorize State and regional agencies to access a new innovative financing
mechanism for use in addressing the State’s critical infrastructure needs. Specifically, while the CTFA
mandate is to meet the need for improvements for the State transportation system, consistent with
the State’s GHG reduction goals, air quality improvement goals, and natural resource conservation
goals, CTFA is able to authorize construction of a facility through the issuance of, or the
approval of the issuance of, bonds backed, in whole or in part, by specified revenue streams.
Most importantly, the CTFA may also authorize a project sponsor, or Caltrans, to impose and collect
tolls as one source of revenue to pay debt service and to operate and maintain a project under certain
conditions. To date, only a single project sponsor has sought access to the tolling authority inherent
in the CTFA authority, that being MTC for its regional high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane system.
Unfortunately, the CTFA has no authority to provide project sponsors with access to modern project
delivery methods, and project sponsors must look to other statutory schemes for delivery options.
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 8-13
September 12, 2013
Table 8.2-1 Assessment of Current California Innovative Finance Laws and Innovative Project Delivery Methods
Statutory
Authority
Qualified Sponsor
Defined
Eligible Project
Types Defined
Tolling or User Fee
Included or
Authorized?
Bonding
Authority
Included?
Project Delivery
Method Allowed
Approval
Process
Project Quantity
Limits
Sunset
Date
Other Known Issues
with Specific Law
Suitability for
SR 239/ TriLink Limitations
Innovative Financing
Infrastructure
Financing: AB
2660 (’96),
GC 5956, et seq.
City, county, city
and county,
including a
chartered city or
county, school
district,
community college
district, public
district, county
board of
education, joint
powers authority,
transportation
commission or
authority, or any
other public or
municipal
corporation.
Includes local or
regional -
sponsored
highways,
bridges and
tunnels.
Specifically
excludes
applicability of
state agencies
implementing
projects on State
Highway System
Requires user-fee
revenues to
support
development and
operation of a
project.
User-fee
(presumed to
include tolls) is
authorized under
GC 5956.6(b)(4).
The repeated
reference to user-
fee based revenues
would seem to rule
out Availability
Payment.
Project sponsor
may use private
financing as the
exclusive revenue
source or as a
supplemental
revenue source
with federal or
local funds.
No transportation
design-build or
other delivery tool
specified in the
organic statues
for roadway
projects.
Must be
combined with
other existing
laws.
Discretion
provided to
qualified
sponsors.
Without limit. None Issues that have
arisen in the
implementation of
this act:
1) Is 100% private
financing always
required, or can
governmental
agencies contribute
financing as well?
2) Must the financing
always be in the form
of equity (cash) or
could contributions
include loans,
carrying costs,
assumptions of risks,
or any combination
thereof?
3) Several terms
generated confusion.
For example, does
"agreement" include
a "license?"
4) Concern arose that
the limitation on
lease/operation
period was too short,
and that the statute
was ambiguous as to
whether leasing to a
private entity is
allowed ("may") or
required ("shall").
1) County or a
transportation
authority may
implement.
2) As an
unadopted state
highway segment
SR 239, this
financing
authority would
work here, if user
fee based.
3) Attempts to
“fix” financial
provisions
(highlighted in
previous adjacent
column) have all
failed due to
opposition of local
public labor.
4) No intrinsic
authority for use
of DB; would need
to use one of five
DB slots under
CTC program,
expiring 12/13.
1) No limitation or
requirement for
alternative
routes.
2) The law covers
wide range of
types of
infrastructure, so
there is no focus
on requirements
specific to each
type (drainage,
flood, etc.)
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
8-14 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Table 8.2-1 Assessment of Current California Innovative Finance Laws and Innovative Project Delivery Methods
Statutory
Authority
Qualified Sponsor
Defined
Eligible Project
Types Defined
Tolling or User Fee
Included or
Authorized?
Bonding
Authority
Included?
Project Delivery
Method Allowed
Approval
Process
Project Quantity
Limits
Sunset
Date
Other Known Issues
with Specific Law
Suitability for
SR 239/ TriLink Limitations
P3:
SB xx4 (’09)
S&H 143
Transportation
planning agency as
defined in statute.
A county
transportation
commission.
Any other local
entity that is
designated by
statute as a
regional
transportation
agency.
A JPA, with the
consent of the
affiliated
transportation
planning agency or
a county
transportation
commission
(Southern
California only).
Highway, public
street, rail,
related facilities
supplemental to
existing facilities
currently owned
by the
department or
regional
agencies.
Authorizes
comprehensive
lease agreements,
specifically
including authority
to impose tolls.
The state has
expanded the
types of revenues
that may apply.
Tolling authority:
S&H 143 (j)(2).
Definition of
transportation
project specifically
incorporates
financing as an
approved element
of an agreement.
Design-build
specifically
permitted,
without limit.
CTC governs
the approval
process.
Prior to CTC
approval, the
sponsor must
submit a
Project
Proposal
report that
addresses a
series of
factors.
Following CTC
approval of
project,
sponsor must
also submit
final lease to
PIAC and
legislature at
least 60 days
before it is
effective.
Without limit 1/1/2017 1) Neither County
nor CCTA may be
sponsor.
2) A JPA may
sponsor, with
approval of MTC.
3) Meets project
type and tolling
authority
requirements for
the project.
4) Approval
process is
protracted and
time is running
out under the
2017 sunset date.
5) Incorporates
DB as an
approved
component.
6) CTC approval
will necessarily
require
community
interest.
1) S&H 143(i) says
contract may not
infringe on right
of state/local to
implement
projects.
2) Contract may
permit
compensation for
impacts on
revenues, except
for project in RTP,
safety projects,
incidental
capacity increase
project, adding
HOV or
converting HOT
lanes, projects
outside
boundaries
defined in lease
agreement.
3) The latter
provision would
permit the
sponsor to define
any restrictions
on parallel
capacity, or not.
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 8-15
September 12, 2013
Table 8.2-1 Assessment of Current California Innovative Finance Laws and Innovative Project Delivery Methods
Statutory
Authority
Qualified Sponsor
Defined
Eligible Project
Types Defined
Tolling or User Fee
Included or
Authorized?
Bonding
Authority
Included?
Project Delivery
Method Allowed
Approval
Process
Project Quantity
Limits
Sunset
Date
Other Known Issues
with Specific Law
Suitability for
SR 239/ TriLink Limitations
California
Transport
Financing
Authority (CTFA):
AB 798 (’09), GC
64100, et seq.
Caltrans or a
regional
transportation
planning agency.
JPA allowed.
Any other local
entity designated
as regional
transportation
agency.
A CMA in the Bay
Area or a CTC in
Southern
California.
Highway, public
street, rail, bus,
or related
facilities,
supplemental to
existing facilities
currently owned
and operated by
Caltrans or
project sponsor.
For highway
projects, the road
segment must be
on the state
highway system;
tolls not
permitted for
local street or
road project.
Tolls, on facilities
where not
otherwise
prohibited by
Statute, collected
by a project
sponsor with the
approval of CTFA.
GC 64112
In addition to
tolls, sponsor may
also pledge
variety of local
transportation
funds, including,
but not limited to
fuel taxes, local
transportation
sales taxes, other
state revenues
approved for this
purpose by the
Legislature or by
initiative, and
developer fees.
None specified in
the organic
statues.
The CTFA and
the CTC must
use an
approval
process that
results in
project
approval by
both agencies
in a manner
that is not
sequential, so
that both
approvals
may occur at
the same
time.
Without limit. None 1) Thus far,
administered on ad
hoc basis, for a single
project (MTC HOT
Lanes).
2) No guidelines for
approval process yet.
3) Local road toll
prohibition is a fatal
flaw.
1) CMA or a JPA
may sponsor.
2) Not applicable
to local road
projects, so this
would have to be
addressed
through separate
legislation.
3) No intrinsic
authority for use
of DB.
1) For project
with tolls, this law
requires non-
tolled alternative
lanes in same
corridor.
2) Also, prohibits
conversion of
non-tolled to
tolled lanes.
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
8-16 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Table 8.2-1 Assessment of Current California Innovative Finance Laws and Innovative Project Delivery Methods
Statutory
Authority
Qualified Sponsor
Defined
Eligible Project
Types Defined
Tolling or User Fee
Included or
Authorized?
Bonding
Authority
Included?
Project Delivery
Method Allowed
Approval
Process
Project Quantity
Limits
Sunset
Date
Other Known Issues
with Specific Law
Suitability for
SR 239/ TriLink Limitations
Innovative Delivery Tools
CM/GC:
PCC 6700
Caltrans Highway, bridge,
or tunnel
N/A N/A N/A N/A Six demo
projects to be
administered by
Caltrans, with at
least three
costing in excess
of $30 million.
None Limited to Caltrans Limitation to six
Caltrans projects
takes this delivery
mechanism out of
play without a
legislative fix.
Design Build:
PCC 6800
Caltrans or local
agency defined to
include self-help
counties, SCVTA,
or statutorily
designated
regional
transportation
agency
Ten state
highway, bridge,
or tunnel
projects. Five
projects for local
street or road,
bridge, tunnel, or
public transit
N/A N/A N/A N/A Ten state
highway
projects (all ten
“slots” taken)
Five local slots,
(none taken to
date).
1/1/2014 1) Neither the County
nor CCTA would
qualify.
This matter could be
clarified in the
context of an
extension of the
design build
Authority.
2) RCTC sought
standalone design
build bill.
3) OCTA is pursuing a
standalone bill in
2013.
1) Without a
change in law,
cannot “pair” DB
authority with
CTFA or
Infrastructure
Financing Act.
2) Sunset
extension would
be needed.
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 8-17
September 12, 2013
AB 2660 (Chapter 1040, Statutes of 1996)
This measure was designed to assist cities, counties, and other local jurisdictions to develop
strategic, user-fee funded infrastructure for delivery and implementation by the private sector.
Specifically, the law authorizes local governmental agencies to use private sector investment
capital to study, design, construct, finance, and operate fee-producing infrastructure facilities.
This law also provides that the infrastructure developed by a private entity may be owned by
either the private entity or the sponsoring governmental agency, and the agreement with the
private entity can be subject to a lease of the facilities to, or ownership by, the private entity for
a term up to 35 years.
To date, no transportation project has been brought forward under this law; however, recently,
the City of Santa Paula successfully implemented a new water treatment facility under these
provisions. AB 2660 does contain a proviso excluding the authority under the bill from its use
for a project on the State Highway System, but local roadways, bridges, and tunnels, as well as
capital projects for transit are all eligible.
These examples underscore the principal that in certain instances, projects may be appropriate
candidates for tolling or other private financing mechanisms under P3s:
For public toll projects, the toll agency will typically obtain construction financing by issuing
bonds secured by future toll revenues.
For toll concession P3s, including those awarded in the 1990s under Streets & Highways
Code Section 143, depending on the revenue forecasts and experience, toll projects might
be not only fully self-funding, but they may produce “excess” funds that will be available for
other public projects in some cases; however, in contrast, there may be some cases for
which toll revenue projections may form the basis of project finance that would require
State and federal support.
For availability payment P3s such as used for the Presidio Parkway (Highway 101, San
Francisco), the private sector invests capital and borrows funds to pay for construction
based on a future stream of public funds.
In all cases, the use of tolling or P3s to provide project funding has the potential to free up the
agency’s other sources of funding for other projects. As part of the initial stages of the TriLink
feasibility study, the Study Team performed a sketch level assessment of toll revenues and
found that tolling could support approximately 25 to 30 percent of the cost of the project.
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
8-18 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
8.2.2.2 Alternative Delivery Methods
The State constitution was amended to provide specific clarification that Caltrans may use
contract engineering services; however, Caltrans operates under a legislatively mandated
annual limit on outside contractors. This makes the overall management of the organization
difficult as projected ebbs and flows of available funding restricts the agency’s ability to match
support staff with workload on a real-time basis.
Admittedly, in recent years the legislature has given the department and, in some cases, local
agency partners, authority for limited use of innovative delivery and funding methods, but
these are due to expire; therefore, they are subject to legislative renewal in the coming years.
In contrast, many local and special transportation agencies, including those developing or
funding projects on the State system itself, have more flexibility to use contract resources to
meet delivery needs.
Design-Build Method
Design-build contracting is frequently used in neighboring states and throughout the world to
deliver modern infrastructure. In essence, the public agency “owner” is empowered to engage
a single entity (or team) that designs and builds the facility, which is then operated by the
public entity. Current state law, which is due to expire at the end of 2013, permits the California
Transportation Commission to authorize Caltrans to undertake 10 projects on the State
Highway System and local entities, as defined, to undertake up to 5 local projects. Of the 10
“slots” dedicated to Caltrans, all 10 have been authorized, and these projects are underway at
present; however, none of the 5 local “slots” have been pursued, largely the result of the fact
that true local agency potential “sponsors” are not aligned with the authority in the law (i.e.,
neither cities, counties, nor Joint Exercise of Powers entities are authorized to use this “tool”).
It is worth noting that, to date, one special-authority bill was enacted to permit the Riverside
County Transportation Commission (RCTC), a self-help county, to develop the SR 91 Corridor
Improvement Program (CIP) under design-build, although the project is locally sponsored on
the State Highway System. The SR 91 CIP design-build contract is nearing the end of the
procurement process, with a notice to proceed anticipated soon.
Relying on the example of the RCTC design-build legislation, the Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) is seeking a similar “one-off” authorizing statute in 2013 to use design-build
authority for the Interstate 405 (I-405) project. This perhaps portends the future for access to
lean delivery methods in California, in the sense that lacking a cohesive statewide authorizing
design-build statute (presuming the present statute expires at the end of 2013), prospective
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 8-19
September 12, 2013
project sponsors will be compelled to seek stand-alone authority for access to design-build,
construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC), or “construction manager at risk”
procurement processes. While this may gain access to alternative project delivery methods, it
does set California on the sidelines among innovative governments as transportation entities in
the state struggle with limited innovative procurement authority.
The renewal or expansion of the design-build authority would allow project sponsors to
combine design-build with any of the innovative finance options discussed above to truly make
a comprehensive development proposal for priority projects. For example, the toll and revenue
bond authority under CTFA would be a more powerful tool if paired with design-build authority;
such an approach, were it available, would conceivably provide a local sponsor with the
opportunity to implement a publicly managed facility based on user fees.
There are two other design-build approaches to consider. These are discussed below.
Design-Build-Operate-Maintain
Under this method, the owner awards a contract by competitive bid following a transparent
tender process. Proposers are usually required to provide a single price for the design,
construction, and maintenance of the facility for whatever period of time is specified.
The advantage of this approach is that it combines responsibility for different functions –
design, construction, and maintenance – under a single entity. This can result in some efficiency
to private partners.
An owner must specify all standards to which it wants its facilities designed, constructed, and
maintained. With this procurement, an owner relinquishes much of the control it typically
possesses with more traditional project delivery.
Design-Build-Finance-Operate
This approach bundles together the design, build, finance, and operation responsibilities and
transfers the package to private sector partners. This is the model closest in conceptual form to
the Presidio Parkway (Doyle Drive) P3. One commonality for these projects is that they are
either partly or wholly financed by debt leveraging revenue streams dedicated to the project.
Although tolls are the most common revenue source, others range from lease payments to
shadow tolls and vehicle registration fees.
Construction Manager/General Contractor Method
Several states, most notably Oregon, have turned to an alternative delivery method referred to
as CM/GC. Under this process, the facility owner or sponsor will be able to engage a design and
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
8-20 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
construction management consultant (construction manager) to act as the department's
consultant during the preconstruction phase and as the general contractor during construction.
During the design phase, the construction manager acts in an advisory role providing
constructability reviews, value engineering suggestions, construction estimates, and other
construction-related recommendations. Later, Caltrans and the construction manager can
agree that the project design has progressed to a sufficient enough point that construction may
begin. The two parties then work out mutually agreeable terms and conditions for the
construction contract, and, if all goes well, the construction manager becomes the general
contractor and construction on the project commences, well before design is entirely complete.
This new tool has been recently enacted under California law for use by Caltrans on the State
Highway System in the form of a demonstration program. The law is intended to permit
Caltrans to experiment with this delivery method and to report on its functionality at the
conclusion of the implementation of up to six projects. Given the success in other states, it is
hoped that the legislature will authorize this method for more broad application at the regional
or local levels in California. Once enacted, regional or local entities could combine this delivery
method with existing financing authority, such as the AB 2660 law or CTFA tolling and revenue
bonding, to accelerate user fee funded projects in an efficient manner.
8.2.3 Comparison of Project Delivery Methods
Table 8.2-2 provides a summary of the advantages, disadvantages, and applicability to TriLink
for the traditional and alternative delivery approaches.
While California provides Caltrans and, in many instances, regional or local agencies with access
to a variety of innovative financing and project delivery tools, it is unclear, given the history of
the legislative role in authorizing these tools, whether any of these will be available in a
timeframe appropriate for use for the development of the TriLink facility. Some challenges to
consider are impending sunset dates on current authority , the limitation of the CM/GC method
to Caltrans and State highways only, and the resistance to innovative delivery methods.
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 8-21
September 12, 2013
Table 8.2-2 Project Delivery Method Comparison
Source: CSW Contractors, Inc.
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
8-22 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
For example, both existing P3 law and design-build authority sunset in the coming years, the
CM/GC method is limited to Caltrans and State highways only, and the pathway to extension or
expansion is clouded by historical legislative resistance to authorizing such modern delivery
methods. Clearly, to preserve the possibility of using any of these modern delivery methods, it
will be necessary to either seek the extension of these laws or follow the lead of public agencies
that have acted to seek their own special legislation.
8.3 Route Adoption
In accordance with State law, SR 239 has resided in Streets & Highway Code Section 539 as a
designated part of the State Highway System for decades, with a simple description of the
termini of such a facility:
S&H Section 539. Route 239 is from Route 580 west of Tracy to Route 4 near
Brentwood.
By virtue of inclusion of the general route in State law, this factor provides the opportunity at
some future point to seek formal inclusion of the route into the State system through the route
adoption process set forth pursuant to S&H Code Section 75. This process authorizes the
California Transportation Commission to select and determine the specific location of the
roadway as a formal part of the State Highway System.
The procedure that the California Transportation Commission follows in adoption of a
legislatively designated, but unconstructed route, such as would be the case for SR 239, as a
more specific State Highway System component is with an alignment generally displayed on a
certified map. Formal approval of a route alignment is accomplished through an adopted
resolution, undertaken concurrent with the California Transportation Commission
consideration of an environmental document under CEQA.
A separate consideration to be undertaken at the time of route adoption is related to whether
the newly designated segment would be developed as a conventional highway or, more likely,
with some measure of “access” control. If a feature of the future development of the route calls
for a higher performing roadway that necessitates limited access by adjacent property owners,
the route would be eligible to be designated as either a “freeway” or as a “limited access”
facility. Such a determination would be made concurrent with the approval by the California
Transportation Commission of the specific route adoption action. Figure 8.4-1 shows the
correlation and timing between the project’s environmental and route adoption process, as
well as the required Caltrans project approvals.
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 8-23
September 12, 2013
8.4 Conclusion
As the key statewide revenue stream begins to wane (e.g., the last of Proposition 1B bond
funding passes through the system into contracts and the closeout of American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act [ARRA] funding draws near), all major actors involved in California’s
transportation community are now wrestling with how best to address the looming shortfall in
transportation funds for State and local agencies. In view of this, CCTA can take the following
steps to prepare to deliver and make progress on the implementation of the TriLink
improvements:
1. Stay the course on project development activities. We have learned that project sponsors
who can show that they are able to deliver a “shovel-ready” project when the State or
federal government provides a new revenue supplement to transportation funding,
whether one-time, or through increased revenues generated, are those agencies usually in
position to “claim” early funding dollars.
2. Look to secure additional local funding commitments. Participate in State and regional
discussions relative to new funding initiatives that may emerge.
3. Be prepared to seek advantageous positioning in legislative or ballot-box efforts to
increases in State funding for local entities.
4. Finally, to optimize delivery of the TriLink facility, in the context of the downward trending
transportation funding environment, CCTA and the other local agencies must weigh the
opportunities that current State laws may provide in the way of accelerated project delivery
methods and innovative finance that can influence earlier capital outlay of the TriLink
program of projects; this would then lead to an opportunity if extension of State laws are
initiated, or, possibly, the development of a stand-alone legislative measure.
Chapter 8 Proposed Implementation Scenarios
8-24 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Figure 8.4-1 SR 239 Route Adoption Environmental Process
Source: Caltrans District 6, Fresno SR 180 Route Adoption Public Hearing, March 2011.
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report 9-1
September 12, 2013
Chapter 9
CONCLUSIONS
9.1 Funding and Delivery
Strategy
Funding the program of projects
identified by the TriLink Study will
be challenging. With an estimated
capital cost of more than
$750 million for all of the TriLink
corridor improvements, available
County, State, and federal funding amounts represent only a tiny fraction of the total necessary
to deliver the program. Furthermore, in the context of the downward trending transportation
funding environment, CCTA must weigh the opportunities that current State laws may provide.
These opportunities may occur in the form of accelerated project delivery methods and/or
innovative financing methods. Such methods may be appropriate candidates for tolling or other
private financing mechanisms under public-private partnerships (P3s). Preliminary
investigations indicate that TriLink could be an asset to the regional goods movement network
and could be partially funded by potential toll revenues. The funding and delivery strategies,
highlighted in Chapter 8, will be reviewed with agency stakeholders before a final strategy is
selected. As discussed in Chapter 6, each corridor element has its own function and, aside from
the I-580 Link, independent utility and, therefore, the ability to be constructed independently in
phases. Fortunately, the option to phase construction relieves the need to identify funding for
the entire program.
9.2 Findings and Next Steps
Four potential corridor elements and their optional alignments were evaluated to determine
potential impacts. These elements include the Airport Connector, South Link, North Link
(Options 1 and 2), I-580 Link (Options 1, 2a, and 2b), and a Transit Link (Options 1, 2, and 3).
The comparison results indicate that the two North Link options have similar impacts, with
some differences in impacts to special-status wildlife species and ROW; however, the North
Link Option 2 is approximately 50 percent more costly than the North Link Option 1. The I-580
Link Option 1 shows more impacts to corridor considerations than the I-580 Link Options 2a and
Chapter 9 Conclusions
9-2 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
2b, and it is the most expensive. Corridor elements were not evaluated against each other, only
alignment options. This is because the corridor elements are not alternatives to each other, but
they are a part of the program of improvements that are being recommended for further study.
The potential impacts identified in this feasibility study will be evaluated in further detail with
the next phases of program development before a preferred alignment option is selected.
Defining a precise alignment would include the following next steps:
Prepare a Project Study Report (Project Development Support) [PSR (PDS)] to allow the
option to use State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding for any or all of the
phases (planning, design and engineering, ROW purchase and/or construction) needed to
implement TriLink.
Recommend a program of improvements in the PSR (PDS) for the Route Adoption Study.
Prepare a Route Adoption Report, which also requires preparing an environmental
document.
Obtain the California Transportation Commission Route Adoption Approval.
By taking these next steps, progress can be made toward implementation of the TriLink
improvements.
It will be important for CCTA to stay the course on project development activities. By making
progress, typically project sponsors who can show that they are ready to deliver when State or
federal government provides a new revenue supplement to transportation funding can usually
result in a more advantageous position to qualify for and receive early funding dollars. In
addition, CCTA can look to secure additional local funding commitments or participate in State
and regional discussions relative to new funding initiatives that may emerge. Looking forward,
it would be beneficial for CCTA to get prepared to seek advantageous legislative positioning in
ballot-box efforts to increase State funding for local entities or find innovative finance methods
that can influence earlier capital outlay of the TriLink program of projects. The ability to design,
build, operate, and maintain the TriLink program will require the continued cooperation and
innovative thinking of the Study Team and the stakeholders to achieve the goals and realize the
regional benefits.
TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report A-1
September 12, 2013
Appendix A REFERENCES
Alameda County Planning Department. 2011. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration:
Altamont Solar Energy Center Project.
_______________. 2010. Commercial Solar Case Studies – Environmental Impacts.
Association of Bay Area Governments Projections. 2009.
Atwater. 1982. Geologic Maps of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 1985. Route Concept Report: Route 239.
_______________. 1997. State Route 4 Corridor Study. Caltrans District 4, Office of Transportation
Planning, System Planning Branch.
CCTA (Contra Costa County Transportation Authority). 1995. Tri-Valley Transportation
Plan/Action Plan.
_______________. 2012. Planning Committee Staff Report, December 5.
_______________. 2013. Incorporating Sustainability into the 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan,
January 16.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2013. California Natural Diversity Database:
Rare Find 4. Accessed February 11, 2013.
City of Tracy. 2012. City of Tracy Citywide Storm Drainage Master Plan. November.
Contra Costa County. 2011. Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. May.
CVRWQCB (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2011. Basin Plan for the
Central Valley Region. October.
East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Association. 2006. East Contra Costa
County HCP/NCCP Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report,
October. Accessed on May 31, 2013. http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/depart/cd/water/hcp/archive/final_EIS/pdf/ch_3_affected_env.pdf.
Appendix A References
A-2 TriLink (SR 239) Feasibility Study Draft Report
September 12, 2013
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2009). Flood Insurance Rate Map for Contra Costa
County, California and Incorporated Areas. Map Number 06013C0365F, 06013C0370F,
06013C0525F, 06013C0530F, and 06013C0540F. (June 16, 2009).
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map for San Joaquin
County, California and Incorporated Areas. Map Number 06077C0570F, 06077C0590F, and
06077C0725F. October 16.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2008. Vasco Road Median Barrier Project: Findings
and Recommendations Report.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. “Ca_50mwind.” Accessed April 23, 2013.
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/cfm/data/GIS_Data_Technology_Specific/United_States/Wind/metad
ata/ca_50m_metadata.htm#1.
Sightline Institute. 2007. Sightline Research Backgrounder: Increases in greenhouse-gas
emissions from highway-widening projects. October.
SJCOG (San Joaquin Council of Governments). 2009. San Joaquin Council of Governments 2009
Projections.
_______________. I-580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study. 2011.
State of California, Department of Conservation. 2009. “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program.” April 21. Accessed April 8, 2013.
< http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx>.
SWITRS (Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System). 2010. 2010 Annual Report of Fatal and
Injury Motor Vehicle Traffic Collisions.
TY Lin. 2005. Byron Airport Land Use and Airport Property Drawing. March 18.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2011. U.S. Department of Agriculture: Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2011. “Prime & Other Important Farmlands
Definitions”. December 11. Accessed April 8, 2013.
<http://www.pr.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/Soil_Survey/primefarmdefs.htm>.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Vernal Pools. Accessed on May 31, 2013.
http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/water/hcp/archive/final_EIS/pdf/
ch_3_affected_env.pdf.
Contra
Costa
County
November 5, 2013
Martin Engelmann, Deputy Executive Director
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
2999 Oak Road, Suite 100
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Re: DRAFT TriLink Feasibility Report
Dear Mr. Engelmann:
Thank you for attending the October 1, 2013 Board of Supervisors meeting to present the subject report
on this important project. The County supports the TriLink project and recognizes that implementation
will substantially improve access for East Contra Costa County while enhancing goods movement,
safety and economic development potential.
We offer the following general comments below:
Phasing: As acknowledged in the study, the combined costs of all corridor elements will result in a
project unlikely to move ahead as a single initiative. That said, a pragmatic approach to advancing the
TriLink concept should include some programmatic value engineering. Please consider providing
analysis that takes into account maximizing use of existing facilities and prioritizing elements with the
most favorable cost-benefit ratio and are most capable of providing near term benefits.
Challenging Options: As stated in Chapters 5 and 7, implementation of some of the alignment options
would conflict with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (ECCCHCP) and effect
lands recently acquired pursuant to it. Options that avoid conflicts between these two important
regional partnerships are preferred and far more likely to succeed.
Broad Array of Funding Sources Needed: Considering that the proposed project includes substantial
benefits to regions and residents outside Contra Costa County, the funding strategy should reflect the
full range of likely TriLink beneficiaries.
Catherine Kutsuris
Director
Aruna Bhat
Deputy Director
Community Development Division
Jason Crapo
Deputy Director
Building Inspection Division
Steven Goetz
Deputy Director
Transportation, Conservation and
Successor Agency
Department of
Conservation &
Development
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
Phone: 1-855-323-2626
Page 1 of 8
We also offer these detailed comments:
Organizational
Please consider moving the physical description of the corridor elements and alignments presented in
Chapter 6, to immediately after Chapter 2 instead of the current location. This will allow the reader to
understand the regional context and basics of the TriLink improvements under consideration before the
various options are evaluated in the report.
Page ES-2: In order that we may consider this project in the context of other planned projects in the area
please add the proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) preferred tunnel alignment options and
tunnel muck storage areas to the map. Also, please consider altering the graphic depiction of the options
so that they are easier to read/distinguish on the map.
Page ES-5: “The Airport Connector and South Link would provide improvements to existing infrastructure and
support local connectivity and mobility”
We agree that the north and south link would serve local traffic. However, in the future the primary
benefit of even these individual links would be to serve broader regional traffic needs by way of
improved access to the planned interchange in Tracy or to Byron Airport. We agree that “local
connectivity” would be a benefit (in addition to removing truck traffic from Byron) but ancillary to the
regional benefits.
Page ES-6: The I-580 link also provides access to Mountain House.
Page ES-7: Delivery and Funding Strategy: The estimated capital cost of the TriLink improvements is
more than $750 million. It is not clear which improvements are being considered. Later on in the report,
on page 6-22, Table 6.4-1, TriLink Preliminary Cost Estimates (2013 Dollars) a listing of the segments
with an estimated cost range for each is provided. The total is listed as between $630 and $790 million
for all the projects. Please consider providing a range of the estimated costs for the TriLink
improvements in this section.
On this page and throughout the document there is the statement that “…TriLink would do the
following...” What set of improvements is “TriLink” in this context? This should be made clear to the
reader. The reader may assume that one corridor (element) will be chosen over the other at some point in
the process. Is the construction of all the improvements an option under consideration? This should be
clarified.
ES-8: “Defining a precise alignment would include the following next steps”. Please include a phasing strategy
in the next steps.
Page 1-1: Please add or clarify that the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County is included where it
is stated, “East Contra Costa County, which consists of Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood and Oakley…”
Page 2 of 8
Figure 1.0-2 is useful to generally illustrate the point that there is ample room for jobs in the
communities included in the TriLink study. However, it would also be valuable to include a table with
the specific data for the respective general plans of each city/area.
Page 1-4: In addition to capacity issues, the roadway connections between western San Joaquin County
and eastern Contra Costa County are not sufficient for the travel demand they currently serve.
Page 1-4: Change the wording from “inadequate connections” in the statement “East Contra Costa
County has inadequate roadway connections to the east of Antioch, north and south…” to “limited
connections…”
Page 1-4 The statement, “SR4 (former SR4 Bypass) north of Marsh Creek Road is planned to be widened to 4-
lanes” is not correct. The portion of SR4 south of Balfour Road (including the section north of Marsh
Creek Road) is only approved 2 lanes with the right of way based on an 8-lane facility with interchanges
at the local road crossings and transit in the median.
Page 1-4: Please include the basis for the statement regarding Marsh Creek Road: “not providing
sufficient service to the east beyond Brentwood”? Traffic studies show that this roadway will operate at
acceptable levels of service through 2030.
Page 1-4, Footnote 1: Please identify the exact location and details regarding the Gateway Policy in
Alameda County.
Page 1-5: There is discussion that sidewalk and pedestrian paths are missing in “some segments”. What
segments are being referred to? Please include specific language as to location where this is discussed
later in the report. Also, does it make sense to evaluate where existing sidewalks are located, given that
this is a regional study? Figure 1.2-2 is used to show existing and proposed bicycle facilities, however
this exhibit is very general and not very detailed. What is the source of the information?
Page 1-5: “Additionally, Byron Highway carries approximately 9,000 vehicles per day,
with 23 percent truck traffic.” When describing the characteristics of the Byron Highway, please include
the full spectrum of issues. The facility goes through the center of the community of Byron and has non-
standard shoulder width for much of its length.
Figure 1.2-2: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities: The map in the study is inconsistent with both the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s “2009 Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan”
and the County General Plan. Please review the status of Marsh Creek Road and Vasco Road in these
plans. Also, Section 6.3 of the study mentions planned facilities in Brentwood but not facilities in the
unincorporated area as identified in CCTA’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
1.2.3: Roadway Safety:
Please be aware, and note in the study, that the portion of Vasco Road constructed by the Contra Costa
Water District as part of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir project was designed to then current standards
when it was built in 1989. It does not have sharp curves, narrow lanes or steep grades in this section.
Page 3 of 8
During the peak travel hours, Vasco Road does experience congestion and motorists often driver faster
than conditions allow.
Unlike a significant section of Vasco Road, most of Byron Highway has not been upgraded to current
design standards. It has narrow shoulders; it provides access to abutting properties, and functions as the
main street for the community of Byron.
Page 1-8:
Footnote 3: clarify that “East County Area Plan” and County’s Urban Growth Boundary is specific to
Contra Costa County.
Footnote 4: clarify that Gateway policy is established by and within Alameda County.
Page 1-11:
This section discusses “deficiencies” on the Contra Costa County portion of Vasco Road as well as local
roadways. Change the word “deficiencies” to “non-standard features”.
This discussion would be more complete if it addressed the need safety improvements for the entire
length of Vasco Road, and other existing roadways in Alameda County.
The statement, “The lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the corridor also poses a safety
concern”. This sentence should be removed or the following substituted.
“The current facilities do not accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians and pose a challenge for those
types of users.”
Revise the statement “The same combination of design features that do not meet current standards on
Vasco Road also creates safety concerns on Byron Highway” to:
“There are opportunities for improvements to Vasco Road and Byron Highway to address safety
concerns and remove non-standard features.”
What is meant by “increased storm frequency” in section 1.2.4?
Chapter 2 – Outreach and Feedback
Page 3-5: Regarding the lack of support for the project in adjacent jurisdictions, as CCTA moves ahead
with project implementation more substantial policy support from our project partners should be
solicited.
3.4 Goods Movement: The high percentage of truck traffic on Byron Highway is not beneficial for goods
movement or the community. The truck traffic is impeded by local traffic and, in turn, the community is
negatively impacted by the presence of substantial numbers of trucks.
Page 4 of 8
Table 3.5-1: “Congested Minutes Traveled”: A corresponding map would be helpful in interpreting this
table.
3.5.1 Time and Distance Savings, et al: Throughout the document there are references to characteristics
of project components in different areas of the study corridor. Consistent north to south references and
use of maps or other graphics allowing the reader to better interpret the narrative would reduce reader
confusion.
3.5.2: Truck Volumes Forecast: With any TriLink Scenario the County intends on imposing truck
limitations on Byron Highway through the community of Byron. Please confirm the forecasts and
associated assumptions reflect this.
Page 3-10: There is statement that Byron Highway will exceed capacity by 2040 with currently planned
improvements. What is the source and level of improvements?
The Land Use and Traffic Analysis chapter discusses the evaluation of the potential benefit of the
TriLink corridor elements relative to the existing roadway network for the movement of goods,
specifically truck traffic, using data for the years 2010 -2012. In order for the conclusions in this section to
be supported, it is important to pay careful attention to the assumptions for the existing truck routes
relative to when certain sections of roadway were available for truck travel on the SR4 Bypass and local
roadways for the 2010-2012 time period.
All segments of the SR4 Bypass were open to traffic by October 2008 and trucks were allowed on the
north portion of the roadway only between the SR4/SR160 interchange and Lone Tree Way. (Lone Tree
Way is a designated truck route and provides the connection between the SR4 Bypass and SR4 in
Brentwood.) Trucks were required to exit at Lone Tree Way until January 2012 when the SR4 Bypass was
transferred to Caltrans as the new SR4. At that point, trucks were allowed on the entire facility between
the connection points with old SR4. The evaluation of existing travel times for trucks on the SR4 Bypass
in 2010 is not a good measure of existing conditions and average travel times since trucks were not
allowed on the portion of roadway between Lone Tree Way and the Vasco Road/Marsh Creek
intersection.
Page 3-19 Peak travel time periods: There is a sentence stating that Balfour Road between SR4 and
Brentwood Boulevard was “the most congested” for truck travel. The City of Brentwood does not
currently allow trucks to use this section of Balfour Road. Please check with the City to make sure this
designation is compatible.
Page 3-25: There is discussion that “the section of SR 4 between Antioch and Discovery Bay is being
converted to a new bypass rather than continue as the main thoroughfare from Oakley and
Brentwood…” The SR4 Bypass was completed and open to traffic as a continuous section of roadway in
October 2008 and became the new SR4 in January of 2012. This section should be updated. There is also
a statement that SR4 “… is not now useable for regular heavy duty truck trips.”. This section should be
updated as well. Former SR4 no longer is a regional route for trucks, only local truck trips, and has been
relinquished to the respective jurisdictions as a local roadway.
Page 5 of 8
Page 3-28 - 3.5.2 – Truck Volume Forecast: Please provide additional explanation to show how the 27%
figure was calculated in the second paragraph and how the increase of 273% in current truck volume on
Byron Highway was determined.
Table 3.5-4: Please provide additional information for the basis of the figures in this table.
4.3 Potential Green Uses of the Corridor: Please include a new bullet, “Set right of way limits to enable
design of border areas, acoustical berms, depressed roadbeds, greenery to reduce noise impacts, treat roadway
runoff, sequester carbon, improve community aesthetics and provide other community benefits.“
4.5 SB 375 and Greenhouse Gas: The VMT decrease will be counterintuitive to many readers. Please
provide a basis for the finding.
Chapter 5 - Environmental Considerations and the Built Environment
The TriLink study area is located in the Brushy Creek and Kellogg Creek Watersheds, Contra Costa
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CCCFCWCD) Drainage Areas 109 and 110 in
Contra Costa County. Hydrology maps outlining the respective watersheds associated with the corridor
options should be included in the report.
Section 5.1.2 Waters, Wetlands, and Riparian Habitat: This section states that wetland delineation
would be conducted and a report done to document the extent of the wetlands and waters of the U.S.
and other jurisdictional territories. The CCCFCWCD would like to be involved in reviewing and
commenting on the wetland delineation report when it becomes available.
A Drainage Plan should be included in the next phase of the TriLink study. The plan should include
detailed hydrology modeling of the watershed or sub-watershed that would be impacted as a result of
the different corridor alignments. This plan may be included in the wetland delineation report.
Section 5.2 Water Resources: This section identifies creeks, aqueducts, canals, and ditches that may be
affected by the TriLink alignments. The proposed TriLink alignments cross Brushy Creek and Kellogg
Creek. These creeks should be discussed in terms of their existing conditions and areas of potential
improvements as they relate to the study area. Our Public Works Department can put you in contact
with FEMA’s consultant, who is already performing these studies.
Section 5.2.1 Watersheds: Please identify and show all existing watercourses, tributaries, and man-made
drainage facilities within the 5-mile radius plan site that could be impacted by this project. In the next
phases of the TriLink study, the above items would be further evaluated and include an analysis of the
capacity of the existing watercourses; the amount of runoff that would be generated by the different
corridor elements and their alignments options; and a discussion of how the runoff would be distributed
between the natural watercourses, any existing detention basins, and any existing and proposed man-
made drainage facilities.
Page 6 of 8
We recommend that the adequacy and stability of the existing drainage facilities within the plan area be
studied to determine if local drainage design criteria are met and if potential drainage improvements are
necessary in the next phases of the TriLink study. The potential impacts and proposed mitigation
measures to address those impacts as well as an analysis of the capacity and erosion potential of the
existing natural watercourses of Brushy Creek and Kellogg Creek will need to be discussed.
Section 5.6 Cultural Resources: This section discusses the number and type of cultural resources that
may be affected by the various alignments, but does not list the specific alignments or corridor elements.
A summary table would be one method to convey this information.
Section 5.7 – Existing Infrastructure: There are references to the potential for the proposed alignment to
have an impact on existing infrastructure, but no specific alignment options are identified.
5.8 Planned Infrastructure: Add BDCP proposed tunnel alignment and staging/muck areas.
Page 5-22: Correct the reference in the first paragraph from “SR4 Bypass” to “SR4”.
Chapter 6 – Corridor Elements
We recommend that a detailed map of each specific element is included where it is discussed in the
report, in addition to the overall exhibit of all the elements. This will allow the reader to better
understand the information discussed in the respective element section on alignment options, and
locations of grade separations and proposed interchanges
Page 6-1: We believe the following description more completely describes the project:
“The Airport Connector links two regional roadways, Vasco Road and Byron Highway, allowing Byron Highway
traffic to use Vasco Road, bypassing the community of Byron and providing new or improved airport access to
Vasco Road and Byron Highway.”
Page 6-1: The optional alignments for the North Link and I-580 Link could potentially serve the function
of the Airport Connector.
Page 6-3: Recognizing the uncertainties of the transit component of the project acknowledged in the
study (timing, vehicle technology, funding, etc.) please identify adequate right-of-way sets aside during
future project phases to be dedicated to future transit implementation.
Section 6.4 Safety Improvements: Page 6-20: There is discussion about the need for safety
improvements to roadways in Contra Costa County, including Vasco Road. This discussion would be
more complete if it included for need safety improvements for the entire length of Vasco Road, and other
existing roadways in Alameda County.
Change the wording “substandard” existing facilities to “non-standard” existing facilities in the first
paragraph.
Page 7 of 8
6.4 Safety Improvements: Vasco Road was rebuilt to modern standards in 1996. Please document any
nonstandard characteristics. See comments above for Section 1.2.3, Roadway Safety.
6.5 Corridor Elements Cost Estimates: The study acknowledges design requirements of the ECCC HCP.
Please clarify whether or not the cost estimates assume consistency with those requirements.
6.5 Corridor Elements Cost Estimates: Please note that no assessment has been made of existing funding
mechanisms that may be available to fund implementation of any of these corridor elements. Some of
these elements may already have right-of-way dedication, approvals as part of development projects or
through local fee ordinances.
Page 6-9: Please revise the sentence beginning with “The North Link would be an extension of SR-4, a
CCTA project over the last 24 years…” to, “The North Link would be an extension of SR-4, (formerly the
SR4Bypass), a project completed under the direction of the SR4 Bypass Authority over the last 24 years
with the remaining improvements transferred to CCTA for implementation. This project improved
access to the Brentwood…”
Table 7.2.1, Potential Creek Crossings in the Study Area: This table includes the number of creek
crossings. The table should also include the creek names and whether they are natural or man-made
facilities.
Page 9.1: Funding and Delivery Strategy: Please consider inclusion of the following, “(new paragraph)
“As discussed in Chapter 6, each corridor element has been evaluated independently based on its ability to serve the
unique needs of that corridor element. The combined cost of these corridor elements and the wide range in future
traffic volumes warrants evaluation of whether certain alignment options can be refined to serve the more than one
corridor element. For instance, the North Link Option 2/I-580 Option 2a/2b alignments might be refined to
eliminate or significantly reduce the improvements proposed for the Airport Connector. Conversely, the Airport
Connector might be refined to reduce the improvements proposed for the North Link and I-580 Link corridor
elements. Funding constraints also dictate the need to evaluate proposed interchanges to determine whether the
low-capacity options are viable solutions. “
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Report. In addition to the comments above, staff
will be providing a digital file with other, more technical comments. If you have any questions on these
comments please feel free to contact John Cunningham (925-674-7833).
The County appreciates the efforts of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority on this critical project
and we look forward to working with you on implementation in the near future.
Sincerely,
Catherine Kutsuris
Director
Page 8 of 8