Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 08072014 - TWIC Agenda Pkt            TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE August 7, 2014 ****PLEASE NOTE CHANGE IN TIME*** 1:30 P.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair Supervisor Candace Andersen, Vice Chair Agenda Items: Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee              1.Introductions   2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).   3. Administrative Items. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development   4. CONSIDER approving the Record of Action for the June 5, 2014 Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee meeting. Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached to this meeting record. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)   5. CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)   6. RECEIVE update on the progress of the Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study and provide COMMENT and DIRECTION to staff as appropriate. (Robert Sarmiento, Department of Conservation and Development)   7.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Thursday, September 4, 2014.   8.Adjourn   1 The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend TWIC meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the TWIC less than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at the County Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. For Additional Information Contact: John Cunningham, Committee Staff Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250 john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us 2 Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in meetings of its Board of Supervisors and Committees. Following is a list of commonly used abbreviations that may appear in presentations and written materials at meetings of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOB Area of Benefit BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BATA Bay Area Toll Authority BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan BGO Better Government Ordinance (Contra Costa County) BOS Board of Supervisors CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CalWIN California Works Information Network CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAO County Administrative Officer or Office CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFS Cubic Feet per Second (of water) CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission DCC Delta Counties Coalition DCD Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development DPC Delta Protection Commission DSC Delta Stewardship Council DWR California Department of Water Resources EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EIR Environmental Impact Report (a state requirement) EIS Environmental Impact Statement (a federal requirement) EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HBRR Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation HOT High-Occupancy/Toll HOV High-Occupancy-Vehicle HSD Contra Costa County Health Services Department HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IPM Integrated Pest Management ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA/JEPA Joint (Exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LCC League of California Cities LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy MAC Municipal Advisory Council MAF Million Acre Feet (of water) MBE Minority Business Enterprise MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Protection Act OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center PDA Priority Development Area PWD Contra Costa County Public Works Department RCRC Regional Council of Rural Counties RDA Redevelopment Agency or Area RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposals RFQ Request For Qualifications SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SR2S Safe Routes to Schools STIP State Transportation Improvement Program SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers WBE Women-Owned Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority WRDA Water Resources Development Act 3 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:08/07/2014   Subject: Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.:   Referral Name: Presenter: Contact: Referral History: Administrative Items. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development Referral Update: Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Attachments No file(s) attached. 4 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:08/07/2014   Subject: Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.:   Referral Name: Presenter: Contact: Referral History: CONSIDER approving the Record of Action for the June 5, 2014 Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee meeting. Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached to this meeting record. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development) Referral Update: County Ordinance (Better Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205[d]) requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the meeting. Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached to this meeting record. Links to the agenda and minutes will be available at the TWI Committee web page: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/twic Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the June 5, 2014 Committee meeting with any necessary corrections. Attachments June 5, 2014 TWIC Meeting Minutes 5 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE June 5, 2014 1:00 P.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez   Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair Supervisor Candace Andersen, Vice Chair Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee   Present: Mary N. Piepho, Chair      Candace Andersen, Vice Chair          Staff Present:John Cunningham, Principal Planner  Attendees: Brice Bins, Chief Deputy Treasurer-Tax Collector  Carrie Ricci, Public Works Department  Julie Bueren, Public Works Department  Michael Gibson, Alamo Improvement Association  Michael Kent, Contra Costa Health Services  Mike Casten, Undersheriff  Nancy Wein, Public Works Department  Stephen Siptroth, Deputy County Counsel  Steve Kowalewski, Public Works Department  Tanya Drlik, CCHS - IPM Staff  Tim Ewell, County Administrator's Office  Tom Geiger, Assistant County Counsel                   1.Introductions    See the attached sign-in sheet and "Attendees" section above.   2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).    No public comment was provided.   3.Administrative Items    N/A   4.Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the May 1, 2014 Committee meeting with any necessary corrections.       CONSIDER approving the Record of Action for the June 5, 2014 Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee meeting. Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached to this meeting record. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)   5.CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate.       The Committee received the report and provided the following direction to staff, 1) bring a position of 6  The Committee received the report and provided the following direction to staff, 1) bring a position of "oppose unless amended" on AB 2173 (Bradford) Vehicles: Motorized Bicycles and coordinate with the East Bay Regional Park District on the action, 2) direct Transportation Planning staff to coordinate with the District III Supervisor's office on County attendance at the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority meetings.   6.Receive letter from the Office of the State Fire Marshal       The Committee unanimously moved to receive the letter and directed staff to report back to the Committee as needed.   7.It is proposed to further develop the complete streets alternative for Appian Way by performing the steps below, with the goal of developing the most cost-effective, environmentally sensitive, community-based design. The timeline indicated under each step is approximate. 1. Partner with the City of Pinole (July/August 2014): A portion of Appian Way evaluated in the above study is within the City of Pinole. Staff will meet with city staff to discuss the project and develop ways to collaboratively move the project forward within the city limits in conjunction with the portion in the unincorporated area. 2. Preliminary Engineering (May-December 2014): This work will take the concept developed in the study to the next level with the end product being a set of preliminary plans.  The work will include field visits to determine current site conditions (topography, existing improvements, visible utilities, drainage considerations etc…), and engineering to develop a set of preliminary plans. The plans will detail the number of lanes and widths, horizontal alignment, geometric design of sidewalk, curb and gutter, bicycle lanes, storm water treatment areas and ADA compliant curb ramp improvements.  The plans will also identify existing and proposed right of way and concept areas for landscaping with associated maintenance costs, in addition to locations for street furniture such as benches and bus shelters. The recent themes for landscaping and street furniture developed as part of the San Pablo Dam Road Walkability Project will be considered and included where appropriate. 3. Appian Way/Valley View Road intersection: Two options will be investigated (May - September 2014).  A. Modification of existing signalized intersection - An intersection layout will be developed identifying the number of lanes and lane widths for existing and future year traffic volumes based on the proposed layout in the study. B. A roundabout operational analysis and concept design will be prepared of the intersection for existing and design year traffic volumes to determine roundabout lane configurations. 4. Community outreach (September/October 2014): An open house will be held with residents, property owners and businesses along and adjacent to Appian Way to present the first version of the preliminary plans and seek input on the proposed improvements, as well as alternatives at the Appian Way intersection with Valley View Road. In addition, staff will attend meetings with the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council in the same time frame. 5. Based on community input, the preliminary plans will be refined and cost estimates prepared of the proposed improvements, with the goal to develop the most cost-effective, environmentally sensitive, community-based design. Staff will evaluate ways to phase the project. Additional community outreach is anticipated to occur at this stage (Fall/Winter 2014). 6. Funding (2015 plus): Staff will seek opportunities for funding the next phases of the project using a likely combination of County Roadway Funds, CCTA measure J Program Funds and other regional and state transportation funding grants.       The Committee unanimously directed staff to 1) bring a follow-up report to the Board of Supervisors on the implementation plan including confirmation of outreach to the Municipal Advisory Committee and other community outreach, and 2) report back to the Committee on the status by the end of the year.   8.The County Stormwater Manager recommends:    7 8.The County Stormwater Manager recommends:  County Watershed Program staff will continue to meet with County Departments and other agencies, and Continue to refine estimated costs of trash reduction strategies. Meet with staff from Supervisor’s Gioia’s office.  Meet with the Municipal Advisory Councils of the five selected communities to present the Trash Plan requirements and proposed approaches to meet them. Meet with Executive Directors of Chambers of Commerce, service organizations, faith communities and citizen leaders in each of five selected communities. Adopt RecycleMore’s Plastic Bag Ordinance to create plastic bag ordinance parity in West Contra Costa County. Begin discussions of who will fund which trash reduction strategy. Return to the TWI Committee in September with the next quarterly report.       The Committee, unanimously, directed staff to: 1) meet with and update individual Board of Supervisors, 2) meet with the appropriate Municipal Advisory Committees, 3) draft a letter to the State Water Resources Control Board communicating a) the County's desire to meet the reduction targets, b) identifying the gains the County has achieved, and c) outlining our next steps to achieve the reduction targets. 4) draft a separate letter to the State Water Resources Control Board raising issue with the exclusion of in-stream cleanup as counting towards the reduction target, 5) when bringing this item to the Board of Supervisors review the constraints and costs the County faces, and describe how the defined pollutants go beyond "trash". amd 6) proceed with the development of the "RecycleMore" ordinance.   9.Accept report       The Committee unanimously received the quarterly report on the Integrated Pest Management Program.   10.I. REVIEW the proposed implementation framework related to the regulation of taxicab services within the unincorporated area. II. PROVIDE feedback to staff regarding the proposed implementation framework. III. DIRECT staff to begin drafting an ordinance to implement the proposed implementation framework, including establishment of a fee for services rendered in processing new applications and renewals for a taxicab permit by the Office of the Sheriff. CONSIDER reviewing the proposed implementation framework related to the regulation of taxicab services within the unincorporated area; PROVIDE feedback; and DIRECT staff to draft an Ordinance to implement the proposed implementation framework, including establishment of a fee for services rendered for processing new applications and renewals for a taxicab permit by the Office of the Sheriff. (Timothy Ewell, County Administrator’s Office) Attachment A: September 5, 2013, TWIC Staff Report Attachment B: Ordinance No. 1684 “Taxicab Drivers” Attachment C: Ordinance No. 83-13 – Taxicab Ordinance Repealed Attachment D: Taxicab Ordinance Survey Results – CSAC, March 2014       The Committee received the report and provided the following direction to staff 1) establish a protocol to grant an exemption to a taxi operator who has an existing permit(s), 2) develop a system by which the County can identify taxi drivers operating out of the unincorporated area, 3) include in the regulatory structure a process that, with the issuance of a business license, triggers a requirement to get a taxi permit, 4) once the ordinance is passed notify all operators in the unincorporated areas, and 5) return to the Committee in September with an update.   11.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Thursday, July 3, 2014.    The Committee directed staff to schedule a meeting for July 3, 2014 unless there are no items in which case the next regularly scheduled Committee meeting will be on August 7, 2014 at 1:00 PM in Room 101 at 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA.   12.Adjourn    The meeting adjourned in the afternoon of June 5, 2014.   8   The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend TWIC meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the TWIC less than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at the County Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time.  For Additional Information Contact:  John Cunningham, Committee Staff 9 Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order):  Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in meetings of its Board of Supervisors and Committees. Following is a list of commonly used abbreviations that may appear in presentations and written materials at meetings of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOB Area of Benefit BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BATA Bay Area Toll Authority BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan BGO Better Government Ordinance (Contra Costa County) BOS Board of Supervisors CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CalWIN California Works Information Network CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAO County Administrative Officer or Office CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFS Cubic Feet per Second (of water) CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission DCC Delta Counties Coalition DCD Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development DPC Delta Protection Commission DSC Delta Stewardship Council DWR California Department of Water Resources EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EIR Environmental Impact Report (a state requirement) EIS Environmental Impact Statement (a federal requirement) EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HBRR Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation HOT High-Occupancy/Toll HOV High-Occupancy-Vehicle HSD Contra Costa County Health Services Department HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IPM Integrated Pest Management ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA/JEPA Joint (Exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LCC League of California Cities LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy MAC Municipal Advisory Council MAF Million Acre Feet (of water) MBE Minority Business Enterprise MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Protection Act OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center PDA Priority Development Area PWD Contra Costa County Public Works Department RCRC Regional Council of Rural Counties RDA Redevelopment Agency or Area RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposals RFQ Request For Qualifications SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SR2S Safe Routes to Schools STIP State Transportation Improvement Program SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers WBE Women-Owned Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority WRDA Water Resources Development Act For Additional Information Contact: Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250 john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us 10 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5. Meeting Date:08/07/2014   Subject:CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. Submitted For: John Kopchik, Interim Director, Conservation & Development Department  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 1   Referral Name: Review legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham, (925) 674-7833 Referral History: This is a standing item on the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee referral list and meeting agenda. Referral Update: In developing items to bring forward for consideration by the TWI Committee, staff receives input from the Board of Supervisors, the County's adopted Legislative Platforms, our legislative advocates, partner agencies and organizations, and the Committee itself. At this time staff is highlighting the items and RECOMMENDATIONS below for the Committees consideration: LOCAL 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) Update & Planning for Possible 2016 Ballot Measure: (Given that this will be a standing item for the foreseeable future, information from the prior months report will be in italics) RECOMMENDATION:Receive report on the CTP update and the proposed County review process and direct staff as appropriate.  The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is in the process of developing the 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) which will be finalized at the end of 2014. The planning process is expected to produce a financially unconstrained project/program list of approximately $5B. This list will ultimately be narrowed down to approximately $2.5B. At that point a more detailed discussion regarding revenue options to pay for the proposed programs and projects will take place. The level of engagement of the County/Board of Supervisors will vary depending on 11 what funding option, if any, is pursued. At the 4/16/14 CCTA Board meeting staff reported that work has begun in developing a budget and scope for a possible 2016 sales tax measure. Also discussed was 1) the development of a governance structure (both internal and external) to oversee the process and 2) whether or not modification of the existing ordinance or an entirely new ordinance would be more appropriate. Considering discussion at CCTA regarding the possibility of a 2016 ballot measure and the necessary, direct involvement of the Board of Supervisors in such an effort, staff recommends bringing a report to the full Board of Supervisors. In support of the discussion on this item, the following are attached:  CCTA Release of Draft 2014 CTP Update for Public Review (CCTA Release of CTP July 2014.pdf) Volume 1 - Draft 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan - Executive Summary (DRAFT 2014 CTP Update Executive Summary.pdf) 2014 CTP Update: Issues and Opportunities Paper: A document prepared in 2013 to inform the CTP update, information includes commute patterns, relevant policies, demographic information, etc. (CCTA Issues and Opportunities Paper.pdf) The CTP is separated in to three volumes and are available for download at the links below:  Volume 1: Full CTP Update: http://ccta.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=63&meta_id=4579 Volume 2: Subarea Action Plans compiled for viewing in one file: http://ccta.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=63&meta_id=4580 Volume 3 - Draft Comprehensive Transportation Project and Programs Listing Available for viewing here: http://ccta.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=63&meta_id=4581 2014 CTP August 2014 Update At the request of the TWI Committee, County staff has arranged for CCTA to be at the August 5, 2014 Board of Supervisors meeting to review the update to the CTP and the research (polling, stakeholder interviews, etc) that has been conducted in support of the update.  Staff recommends the following process for the development and review of comments on the CTP: August 7, 2014: Transportation, Water, & Infrastructure Committee: Initial discussion regarding CTP 1. August 12, 2014: CCTA Presentation to Board of Supervisors on CTP Update & Voter Research.  2. August - September: Staff review & draft comments on CTP, meetings w/individual Board of Supervisors 3. September 4, 2014: Transportation, Water, & Infrastructure Committee meeting review of draft comments 4. September 23, 2014: Board of Supervisors consideration of comments on CTP to CCTA.5. 12 Initial Items for Consideration by the Committee While Reviewing CTP Update: As discussed above, staff is proposing a process to develop formal County comments for consideration by the Board of Supervisors for submittal to CCTA. However, several items are highlighted below that may be appropriate for consideration at this time:  Prior Direction from the TWI Committee on the CTP Update Late in 2013 the TWI Committee discussed CCTA outreach efforts which included "stakeholder interviews" in support of the CTP update. CCTA consultants (Gray-Bowen, and Zell & Associates) conducted interviews in conjunction with polling conducted by EMC Research. The County Administrator (CAO) was to be interviewed during the stakeholder interview effort. That interview has not yet taken place. In preparation for the CAO interview, the TWI Committee discussed priorities which were forwarded to the CAO by staff. Those priorities are listed below: • Increased Local Road Maintenance Funding: Nationally, there is a well-documented, growing need to address our aging infrastructure. On the local level it is no different, the County is straining to maintain adequate pavement conditions while being required to be compliant with new water quality, complete streets (bicycle & pedestrian accommodation), and other greenhouse gas reduction statutes and initiatives. • Major Projects: TriLink Corridor Project (State Route 239): All sub-regions of the County enjoy excellent freeway access to other areas with the exception of east Contra Costa County which is, effectively, a geographic cul-de-sac. This area is projected to continue to receive the majority of residential growth in Contra Costa, the need for improved access will only increase. While the project has numerous access and economic development benefits, the proposed facility is routed through an environmentally sensitive area. Options to offset any potential impact include the avoidance of sensitive areas and an adequate mitigation program. • Bus Service Improvements: Transit agencies in this County are ill-equipped to respond to the projected increase in demand for both fixed route bus service and paratransit service for the elderly and disabled. Increases in demand for fixed route are due to the dependency of sustainable communities strategies on robust transit service. Increases in demand for paratransit are due to demographic shifts, the trend toward centralization of medical facilities, and epidemiological trends. Both types of service are likely to require an increase in funds to meet these growing needs. In the case of paratransit however, some fundamental changes in how service is administered will be needed if the County is able accommodate the growth in demand. • Comprehensive Safe Routes to School Program (SR2S): School trips have a substantial effect on local traffic patterns. A comprehensive SR2S program would include a more systematic approach to building infrastructure (sidewalks, paths), providing school busing, teaching safe cycling curriculum (rules of the road), and advocating for necessary statutory reforms such as school zone expansion, vulnerable road user protection, school zone traffic calming, etc. Many of these concepts are already being discussed at CCTA with the ad hoc Safe Routes to School Masterplan Task force. (Comment from Staff: See possible linkage to the County's school safety effort discussed below) Outstanding Issue Identified by CCTA Regarding the Treatment of Trails & Transit in the CTP Just prior to releasing the CTP, at the July 16, 2014 Board Meeting, CCTA staff highlighted an issue raised by the Southwest Area Transportation Committee (SWAT) regarding the inclusion of trails as "routes of regional significance" in the Action Plans and the CTP as a whole. This issue is being highlighted to the TWI Committee given that 1) it was flagged by CCTA as an unresolved issue in the CTP, and 2) CCTA intends on revisiting the issue with all Regional Transportation Planning Committees during the CTP review process. There was a robust debate on the issue at the July13 Planning Committees during the CTP review process. There was a robust debate on the issue at the July CCTA Board meeting, observations from staff on that debate are summarized below: • The SWAT recommendation was highlighted in the discussion. However, CCTA's Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) provided direction to CCTA on this specific matter. That direction was not discussed at the CCTA Board. Considering the TCC represents the entire county and is advisory to the CCTA Board, it may have been helpful to bring the TCC input to the attention of the CCTA Board. That direction was: "TCC recommends that CCTA staff develop an approach to incorporating non-motorized facilities in to the Regional Routes and the CTP as a whole in consultation with RTPCs and local jurisdictions…inclusive of BART”. • Comments during the July 16 CCTA Board discussion seemed to indicate support for the inclusion of non-motorized facilities in the CTP and Action Plans and included (paraphrased), "...what would be the downside to including the Class I trails in the plan?" "...this (greater recognition of bicycle facilities) is the direction things are going, we need to change with the times...". • One issue being raised regarding trails and BART in the CTP is that neither CCTA or local jurisdictions control the Class I facilities or the BART system. However, the highway system facilities are included as Routes of Regional Significance and they are under control of the state. The highways, Class I facilties, and BART system are all similar in that local influcence is largely by way of access control which substantially affects how these facilities operate and serve our constituents.  • The CTP is, in part, the local manifestation of statewide legislation which increases the importance of non-motorized travel, the Complete Streets Act of 2008, AB32/SB375 (Priority Development Areas and the Sustainable Communities Strategy emphasize non-motorized travel) and the general rise of “active transportation” concepts and funding. That said, a consistent countywide approach is warranted.  • The primary concern is that the prominence of the bicycle facilities, primarily the off-street/Class I paths, should be raised in the CTP. CCTA staff has proposed an approach for inclusion which will be discussed at the RTPCs and ultimately back at the CCTA Board. Staff will review this proposal during our internal review of the CTP.  STATE Tracked Bills/Bills of Interest Attached to this report is 1) a complete list of bills currently being tracked (Leg Report AsOfJuly2014.pdf) and 2) a table of bills that the TWI Committee and/or the BOS has either discussed or taken a position (Positions on Legislation of Interest - 2014.pdf) that includes positions of other entities where available. Mark Watts and/or County staff will provide additional, verbal updates at the Committee meeting on bills of interest. RECOMMENDATION: Receive report on Tracked Bills/Bills of Interest or other legislation taken up by the Committee and direct staff as appropriate including bringing specific position recommendations to the full Board of Supervisors. SB 1183 (DeSaulnier): Surcharge for Bicycle Infrastructure: The Public Works and Conservation and Development Department identified this bill for discussion by the Committee. (See attached, SB 1183 (DeSaulnier) Surcharge for Bicycle Infrastructure Analysis.pdf): This bill would authorize a city, county, or regional park district to impose, with two-thirds voter approval, a vehicle registration surcharge to fund local bicycle infrastructure improvements and maintenance. 14 AB 2173, Bradford. Vehicles: motorized bicycles: The Committee discussed this bill in May 2014 with no action taken. At the June Committee meeting concerns from a constituent were heard and the Committee directed staff to bring to the Board of Supervisors a recommended position of "Oppose Unless Amended". Subsequent the June meeting the Bill was substantially amended, enrolled and passed on to the Governor who signed it on June 25, 2014. The provisions in the bill expanding the operation of electric bicycles on paths were ultimately removed. School Siting & Safety RECOMMENDATION: Receive report on School Siting & Safety and direct staff as appropriate including bringing specific recommendations to the full Board of Supervisors. In late June 2014 the TWI Commitee members, County staff and Mark Watts met with Senator Mark DeSaulnier, and Assembly Members Joan Buchanan and Susan Bonilla on County concerns with school siting policies and broader school safety issues. A summary of the meetings and proposed next steps are below.  School Siting: The County communicated our concerns with school siting practices to the delegation. The feedback that we received was that any change in policy should respect the autonomy of the school districts. Shortly after meeting with the delegation, County staff and Mark Watts developed school siting reform concepts consistent with feedback from our delegation in terms of what would be acceptable to include in pending legislation. Mark Watts will have an update on the status of our proposal and additional updates on the topic.  School Safety: In addition to the issue of school siting reform, a proposal to address broader school safety was discussed with our delegation who was receptive and interested in bring legislation forward in 2015. The concepts that were discussed include concepts that have been defined in the County's School Siting and Safety Initiative white paper.  The Committee should consider the following in discussing next steps: • Recent, local survey data (1) developed by CCTA indicates the main reason that children do not walk or ride to school is "driver behavior" and "speeding" in school zones. The concepts in our School Siting and Safety Initiative white paper address that very problem.  • Given the positive response from our delegation regarding a potential school safety bill in 2015 combined with CCTAs current CTP Update effort there may be an opportunity for collaboration. As indicated in the 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) Update item above, CCTA has an existing effort to bolster their Safe Routes to School Program. The Committee could discuss a joint effort to create mutually supportive 1) school safety legislative proposal with with 2) CCTAs enhanced Safe Routes to School Program.  • Both the Office of Planning and Research and the Department of Education are scheduled to release draft policies that would effect school siting. Once the policies are released staff will 1) bring draft comments to the TWI Committee and 2) begin coordinating with our local and state partners on a joint response.  (1) CCTA SR2S Master Plan: Existing Conditions: Data Summary: 1. Table 8: Top 10 Reasons Students do not Walk or Bike to School, by Planning Area: The responses “driving too fast” or “driver behavior” is on 4 of 5 subregions responses and the ranking ranges from #10 to #2. 2. Table 10: Top 5 Programs or Improvements that Could Encourage Students to Walk or Bicycle to/from School, Jurisdictions vs. School Administrators: The #1 response from administrators was “If traffic congestion or speeding around school was relieved”. 3. Table 11: Top 5 Programs or Improvements that Could Encourage Students to Walk or Bicycle to/from School, by Planning Area: Every subregion had “Relieving traffic congestion/speeding 15 to/from School, by Planning Area: Every subregion had “Relieving traffic congestion/speeding around schools” in the top 3. It was #1 in three subregions. FEDERAL Previous reports to the TWI Committee discussed reauthorization of the the federal transportation funding bill. The current bill is Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) and the proposed successor is the GROW AMERICA (Generating Renewal, Opportunity, and Work with Accelerated Mobility, Efficiency, and Rebuilding of Infrastructure and Communities throughout America) Act. Map-21 is set to expire on October 1, 2014.  Since the last report to the Committee focus has shifted away from a comprehensive reauthorization effort (GROW AMERICA) towards a more realistic effort to "patch" Highway Trust Fund revenue. This was the subject of a letter signed by the Chair of the Board of Supervisors in March 2014. See attached letter, 3-10-14 MTC to Delegation Re: Highway Trust Fund .  In short, the issue of the insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is fundamental and indisputable. That is to say 1) it is an absolutely critical revenue source that funds highway construction, mass transit and other activities, and 2) due to revenues dropping (effect of fuel efficiency and inflationary erosion) the fund is anticipated to be insolvent in August 2014.  As of the writing of this report, a vote is scheduled on the Highway Trust Fund patch on July 31st. Congress is scheduled to go on recess on August 1st. If a HTF patch is not passed, the Department of Transportation has indicated that payments to state will cease.  A verbal update will be provided to the Committee at the August 7th TWI Committee meeting.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate including CONSIDERATION of specific recommendations in the report above. Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impact Attachments 3-10-14 MTC to Delegation Re: Highway Trust Fund Smith, Watts, Martinez July 2014 State Transportation Leg Report.pdf Positions on Legislation of Interest - 2014.pdf Leg Report AsOfJuly2014.pdf CCTA Issues and Opportunities Paper.pdf CCTA Release of CTP July 2014.pdf DRAFT 2014 CTP Update Executive Summary.pdf June 5, 2013 TWIC Meeting Minutes 16 March 10, 2014 The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo U.S. House of Representatives 241 Cannon House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515-0001 RE:Protecting the Highway Trust Fund from Insolvency Dear Congresswoman Eshoo: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the undersigned S.F. Bay Area transportation partners request your help in enacting a solution to maintain the long-term financial viability of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). This is an urgent matter that must be addressed within the next five months; the HTF may be in deficit as soon as August 2014 according to U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony R. Foxx. In the absence of new funds, reimbursements will have to be rationed, putting a strain on the construction industry which is already struggling in California due to the winding down of bond funding. The most critical deadline will arrive on October 1, 2014, by which point MAP 21 expires and the HTF will need at least $19 billion just to maintain current highway and transit spending according to the Congressional Budget Office. Transportation has traditionally relied upon federal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuels as the primary funding mechanism for the Highway Trust Fund. Yet the current 18.4 cent per gallon gasoline excise tax has not been raised since 1993 and has lost almost 40 percent of its purchasing power over that period. At the same time, the number of miles driven per person each year is actually falling and many consumers are choosing more fuel-efficient vehicles. These are positive trends but taken in combination with a steadily eroding gas tax, they have driven the HTF to the brink of insolvency. We encourage you to send the attached letter to the House Ways and Means Chairman David Camp urging him to begin the process of enacting a fix to the HTF problem as soon as possible.Our preferred solution is to raise and index the federal excise tax on motor fuels, along with other existing user fees. Barring that approach, all revenue ideas should be considered.We pledge to collaborate and support your efforts and those of your colleagues this election year. Sincerely, 17 Attachment Art Dao Executive Director, Alameda County Transportation Commission Osby Davis Board Chair, Solano Transportation Authority Steve Heminger Executive Director, MTC Mark Hughes Chair, SolTrans Randell Iwasaki Executive Director, Contra Costa Transportation Authority Ash Kalra, Chairperson Board of Directors Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Joel Keller BART Board President Jeanne Krieg Chief Executive Ocer, Tri Delta Transit Karen Mitcho Chair, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Rick Ramacier General Manager, County Connection Nina Rannells Executive Director, Water Emergency Transportation Authority Dianne Steinhauser Executive Director, Transportation Authority of Marin Edward D. Reiskin Director of Transportation, SFMTA Sandy L. Wong Executive Director, City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Jim Wunderman, President and CEO, Bay Area Council Jessica Zenk Senior Director, Silicon Valley Leadership Group 18 March __, 2014 Chairman Dave Camp House Ways and Means Committee 1102 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-6348 Dear Chairman Camp, As you know, the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), our country’s primary source of federal surface transportation funding, is expected to encounter a revenue shortfall beginning this August and become bankrupt by the beginning of fiscal year 2015. The federal government’s investment in surface transportation is critical to our economy. Not only does this investment support direct jobs in the transportation industry, even more importantly, it lays the foundation for economic growth, much of which depends on having a robust transportation infrastructure that enables the efficient movement of people and goods across the nation. Based on the latest financial examination of the HTF by the Congressional Budget Office, the account will need an additional $19 billion in FY 2015 in order to maintain current federal highway and transit funding levels. Cuts to these programs are completely untenable given the multi-billion needs of our nation’s roadways, bridges and transit systems just to bring them into a state-of-good repair. We strongly recommend that the House Ways and Means Committee recognize the urgency of this situation and report legislation that will stabilize the long-term financial condition of the HTF before August 2014. Without Congressional action, 1.7 million jobs will be lost with an estimated 163,000 jobs in California alone. As the Ways and Means Committee wrestles with how to address the long-term solvency of the HTF, all revenue options should be considered, including the federal excise taxes on motor fuels as proposed in H.R. 3636 (Blumenauer), a fiscally responsible approach that avoids deficit spending and has served the nation well for the last 82 years. Sincerely, The undersigned members of the San Francisco Bay Area Congressional Delegation 19 Smith, Watts &Martinez, LLC. Consulting and Governmental Relations 980 Ninth Street, Suite 2000  Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 446-5508  Fax: (916) 266-4580 MEMORANDUM    TO:  John Cunningham     FROM:  Mark Watts    DATE:  July 31, 2014    SUBJECT: TWIC State Legislative Report       School Siting:   Gov. Jerry Brown continues to resist legislative efforts to approve a K12/Higher Education GO bond;  his concerns expressed in his proposed budget back in January remain reflective of his ongoing  skepticism about local school projects relying on significant help from the state as well as concern  over the state’s “Wall of Debt”.   The key measure shaping up at this point is AB 2235 by Assembly Member Buchanan which is  scheduled to be heard in the Senate Appropriations committee on August 8. Reflective of the  uncertainty surrounding the approval of a GO bond, the bill at present contains an unspecified dollar  amount for the bond for voter consideration.     The expected pressure to move a GO Bond to the ballot was viewed as an opportunity to incorporate  elements of the adopted county‐adopted Legislative Platform related to School Siting into the  measure. To this end, Members of the TWIC met with key county delegation members to press for  consideration of the platform elements to be included in AB 2235.     I will have a more detailed update on the reaction of the author’s office to the county request at the  time of the TWIC meeting.     Iron Horse Update:    Following my session with the Chief Deputy director of Caltrans, who has receive to our position that  the legacy CTC allocations could be modified to provide relief to the County, I have had several  technical discussion sessions with Caltrans budget office. At present I am scheduled to meet with the  Deputy Director for Finance on August 6 to get into more detail on whether they would endorse our  approach and assist with the CTC setting our request for relief on an upcoming CTC agenda.      I will have a verbal update at TWIC on my meeting.       20 California Transportation Infrastructure Priorities (CTIP) Work Group:    The Administration is bringing its focus on transportation finance challenges through the formation of  a working group under the auspices of the California State Transportation agency (CalSTA). The 2013‐ 14 budget directed the new Transportation Agency to work with stakeholders to develop funding  priorities and long‐term funding options. Throughout 2013, the so‐called California Transportation  Infrastructure Priorities Work Group (CTIP) examined the current status of the state’s transportation  system and discussed challenges that lie ahead. The interim recommendations offered both a vision  for California’s transportation future and a set of immediate action items toward achieving that vision  centered on the concepts of preservation, innovation, integration, reform and funding.    The highlight of the interim report was a 2014‐15 budget year proposal to advance the repayment of  outstanding loans to transportation program totaling $337 million that were owed by the General  Fund; this was adopted by the legislature and augmented by an additional $142 million to fund local  road maintenance, bringing the grand total for 2014‐15 to $479 million with approximately half  dedicated to city and county road formulas.      Picking up from the initial interim report of the CTIP released in February, 2014, the Secretary  extended the CTIP effort into 2014 with the establishment of four sub‐working groups with distinctly  focused areas of study:    ‐ STIP Reform  ‐ Goods Movement  ‐ Road User Charge (RUC)  ‐ Long Term Funding Options (Voter Threshold, others)    The first round of 2014 renewed Sub‐Work Group meetings were conducted in late spring and  emphasized group interaction to produce preliminary recommendations to the Secretary with a  second round of discussion to further develop consensus recommendations. It is expected full CTIP  meetings will be conducted in August to produce the framework for a final report.    Update for Cap and Trade Funding for Transportation and Transit, based on adopted budget.    The onset of the auction of greenhouse emission credits under the state’s landmark cap and trade  program in 2012 and 2013 realized an approximate $500 million in state revenues and the 2013‐14  state budget act essentially sequestered those funds by “loaning” them to the general fund. This  provided the Administration time to assess the relative success of the auction process. This then led  to the 2014‐15 state budget wherein the Governor proposed an aggressive spending plan, with an  emphasis on dedicating a sizeable proportion to the state’s high speed rail program development.  Further in the development of the 2014‐15 state budget, the Governor and legislative leaders  reached an agreement on both a budget year allocation plan, complete with specific appropriations  to identified programs, and a long range allocation plan starting in 2015 based on dedicated  proportions of the overall revenues directed to the various categories.     For 2014‐15, a total of $872 million was appropriated to a wide range of greenhouse gas (GHG)  reduction strategies, with $250 million for High Speed rail, $50 million for transit and rail capital, $130  21 million for Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs and the balance to various  state agency efforts. These dedicated programs will require the development of metrics by CARB to  ensure optimal GHG reductions are derived as well as additional agency‐based guidelines on process  and definitions for eligible project types; it is expected that initial funding allocations from these  appropriations will flow in the third quarter of the fiscal year.     The longer range, ongoing program will present very real opportunities for communities within the  county to benefit given the nature of the types of eligible project that are contemplated. For  example, 10 percent of all ongoing Cap and Trade funds are continuously appropriated for the Transit  and Intercity Rail Capital Program, a grant program for transit and rail related capital projects that is  administered by the State Transportation Agency and awarded by the California Transportation  Commission. Additionally, the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AFSC) program will  provide fusing for infill projects, affordable housing in or near TOD projects and the like.     22 Adopted Positions on Legislation of Interest – 2014 (Information Updated from Last Month is in bold/italics) Bill CC County ABAG BAAQMD CCTA CSAC LofC MTC Other Notes Assembly Bill 1324 (Skinner) Transactions and Use Taxes: City of El Cerrito Watch Watch Watch AB 2651 (Linder) Vehicle Weight Fees: Transportation Bond Debt Watch  Watch Watch Support and Seek Amendment AB 2728 (Perea) Vehicle Weight Fees: Transportation Bond Watch  Bill will not progress this year Watch Watch Support and Seek Amendment SB 1418 (DeSaulnier) Vehicle Weight Fees: Transportation Bond Debt Service Watch  Bill will not progress this year Watch Support Assembly Bill 1811 (Buchanan) High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Support 4/22/14 Watch Watch Support and Seek Amendment Assembly Bill 2398 (Levine) Vehicles: Pedestrians and Bicyclists Support 4/22/14 No Interest Watch Support Assembly Bill 1532 (Gatto) Vehicle Accidents Support 4/22/14  Watch Support Support Senate Bill 1151 (Cannella) Vehicles: School Zone Fines Support and Request Amendment 4/22/14 Support Watch Support Assembly Bill 2235 (Buchanan) Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2014 Watch 4/22/14 Watch Assembly Bill 1724 (Frazier) Construction Manager/General Contractor method: regional transportation agencies: Watch 4/22/14 Support No Interest Watch Support 23 Bill CC County ABAG BAAQMD CCTA CSAC LofC MTC Other Notes Assembly Bill 2173 (Bradford): Vehicles – Motorized Bicycles TWIC Recommendation of “oppose unless amended” Bill signed by Governor prior to BOS consideration SB 1183 (DeSaulnier) Surcharge for Bicycle Infrastructure Hurst – Watch; Buss – Support Watch PWD request for discussion FEDERAL Senate 1708: (Merkley [OR])/ House of Representatives 3494: (Blumenauer [OR]) The Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act Support 4/22/14 S. 1708: 15 cosponsors (13D, 1R, 1I) H.R. 3494: 93 cosponsors (85D, 8R) G:\Transportation\Legislation\2014\Positions on Legislation of Interest - 2014.docx 24 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 1/21 California Status actions entered today are listed in bold. File name: 2014TransLeg Author:Bonilla (D) Title:Construction: Prevailing Wage Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:12/03/2012 Last Amend:06/16/2014 Disposition:Pending File:175 Location:Senate Third Reading File Summary:Revises the definition for construction to include postconstruction phases and cleanup work at the jobsite, for purposes of the requirements in existing law regarding the payment of prevailing wages on public works construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work done under contract and paid in whole or in part out of public funds. Status:07/01/2014 In SENATE. Read second time. To third reading. Author:Perez J (D) Title:Infrastructure and Revitalization Financing Districts Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/04/2013 Last Amend:08/12/2013 Disposition:Pending File:A-6 Location:Assembly Inactive File 1.CA AB 26 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 2.CA AB 229 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 25 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 2/21 Summary:Authorizes the creation by a city, county, city and county, and joint powers authority, of an infrastructure and revitalization financing district and the issuance of debt with voter approval. Authorizes the creation of a district and the issuance of debt. Authorizes a district to finance projects in redevelopment project areas and former redevelopment project areas and former military bases. Status:09/11/2013 In ASSEMBLY. From Unfinished Business. To Inactive File. Author:Mullin (D) Title:Local Government: Assessment Or Property-Related Fee Fiscal Committee:no Urgency Clause:yes Introduced:02/15/2013 Last Amend:02/10/2014 Disposition:Pending File:A-15 Location:Assembly Inactive File Summary:Authorizes the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, in accordance with specified provisions of the California Constitution, to impose a parcel tax or a property-related fee for the purpose of implementing stormwater management programs. Status:05/15/2014 In ASSEMBLY. To Inactive File. Author:Lowenthal B (D) Title:Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Sustainable Communities Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/20/2013 Last Amend:04/15/2013 Disposition:Failed 3.CA AB 418 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 4.CA AB 574 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 26 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 3/21 Summary:Requires the State Air Resources Board to establish standards for the use of moneys allocated in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for sustainable communities projects. Requires the board to establish the criteria for the development and implementation of regional grant programs. Requires the State Transportation Commission to designate the regional granting authority within each region of the state to administer the allocated moneys for regional grant programs. Status:01/31/2014 Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution. 02/03/2014 From Committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to JR 56. Author:Frazier (D) Title:Driver's Licenses: Veteran Designation Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/22/2013 Last Amend:06/09/2014 Disposition:Pending Committee:Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing:08/04/2014 10:00 am, John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203) Summary:Allows an applicant for a driver's license or identification card to request that the license or care be printed with the word veteran. Requires the applicant to present proof of veteran status on a specified form. Requires the county veterans service offices to verify an applicant's veteran status for this purpose. Authorizes an additional fee to a person who requests such designation. Status:06/26/2014 From SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING: Do pass to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Author:Bocanegra (D) Title:Strategic Growth Council Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/22/2013 5.CA AB 935 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 6.CA AB 1179 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 27 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 4/21 Last Amend:06/17/2014 Disposition:Pending Committee:Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing:08/11/2014 10:00 am, John L. Burton Hearing Room 4203 Summary:Amends existing law that creates the Strategic Growth Council with specified duties relating to the coordination of actions of State agencies relative to improvement of air and water quality, natural resource protection, transportation, and various other matters. Adds the Superintendent of Public Instruction or his or her designee to the Council but would authorize him or her to vote only on decisions that are within the jurisdiction of that office. Status:06/30/2014 In SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: Not heard. Author:Ting (D) Title:Bikeways Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/22/2013 Last Amend:07/01/2014 Disposition:Pending Summary:Requires the Department of Transportation to establish and update minimum safety design criteria for each type of bikeway, with consideration for the safety of vulnerable populations. Authorizes a local agency to utilize other minimum safety criteria if adopted by resolution at a public meeting. Repeals relates requirements of the Department to include a report to the Legislature about the steps taken to implement certain requirements. Status:07/01/2014 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. MTC:Support Author:Skinner (D) Title:Use Taxes: City of El Cerrito/Contract Costa County Fiscal no 7.CA AB 1193 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 8.CA AB 1324 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 28 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 5/21 Committee: Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/22/2013 Last Amend:06/30/2014 Disposition:Pending File:220 Location:Senate Third Reading File Summary:Authorizes the City of El Cerrito and the County of Contra Costa, if certain requirements are met, to each impose a separate transactions and use tax for general purposes at no more than a specified rate, that, in combination with other specified taxes, each would exceed the combined rate limit provided under the Transactions and Use Tax Law. Provides these tax rates would not be included in the calculation of the local sales and use tax limitation in existing law. Status:07/01/2014 In SENATE. Read second time. To third reading. Author:Gatto (D) Title:Vehicle Accidents Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:01/21/2014 Last Amend:06/26/2014 Disposition:Pending Committee:Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing:08/04/2014 10:00 am, John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203) Summary:Provides that a driver of a vehicle involved in an accident where a person is struck shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident and provide specified information including his or her name and current residence address. Provides that a violation of these provisions would be either an infraction or a misdemeanor. Requires the immediate suspension of the driver's license of a convicted driver for a specified time period. Status:06/26/2014 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. 9.CA AB 1532 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 10.CA AB 1581 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 29 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 6/21 Author:Buchanan (D) Title:School Facilities: Construction Contracts Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/03/2014 Last Amend:04/10/2014 Disposition:Pending Summary:Requires a school facilities lease instrument and the agreement with the lowest responsible bidder to include a requirement for the person, firm or corporation that constructs a building to be leased and used by the school district upon a designated site, including the prime contractor and electrical, mechanical and plumbing subcontractors, to comply with specified prequalification questionnaires and financial statement requirements. Requires the governing board to establish a process for prequalification. Status:06/30/2014 In SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: To Suspense File. Author:Frazier (D) Title:Construction Manager/General Contractor: Transit Agency Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/14/2014 Last Amend:06/10/2014 Disposition:Pending Summary:Authorizes regional transportation agencies to use the Construction Manager/General Contractor project delivery method to design and construct certain projects. Requires specified information provided to a regional transportation agency to be verified under oath. Requires a regional transportation agency using the Construction Manager/General Contractor project delivery method to comply with prevailing wage provisions and to reimburse the Department of Industrial Relations for its enforcement costs. Status:06/10/2014 From SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING with author's amendments. 06/10/2014 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING. 11.CA AB 1724 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 12.CA AB 1811 30 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 7/21 Author:Buchanan (D) Title:High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Fiscal Committee:no Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/18/2014 Enacted 07/08/2014 Disposition:Enacted Chapter:94 Summary:Amends the value pricing high-occupancy vehicle program that authorizes the entry and use of high-occupancy vehicle lanes by single-occupant vehicles for a fee. Authorizes the program to require a high-occupancy vehicle to have an electronic transponder or other electronic devices for law enforcement purposes. Status:07/08/2014 Signed by GOVERNOR. 07/08/2014 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter No. 94 Author:Frazier (D) Title:Department of Transportation: Vehicle and Equipment Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/19/2014 Last Amend:03/28/2014 Disposition:Pending Committee:Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing:08/04/2014 10:00 am, John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203) Summary:Authorizes the Department of Transportation to purchase and equip heavy mobile fleet vehicles and special equipment by means of best value procurement, subject to an annual limitation. Requires the Department of General Services to prepare an evaluation of the best value procurement pilot. Requires posting on the Department of Transportation's Internet Web site. Status:06/24/2014 From SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING: Do pass to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 13.CA AB 1857 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 31 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 8/21 Author:Muratsuchi (D) Title:Vehicles: High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:yes Introduced:02/20/2014 Last Amend:06/12/2014 Disposition:Pending File:190 Location:Senate Third Reading File Summary:Increases the number of identifiers that the Department of Motor Vehicles is authorized to issue under provisions authorizing the issuance of such identifiers to certain vehicles permitted to use high-occupancy vehicle lanes. Status:07/01/2014 In SENATE. Read second time. To third reading. Author:Bradford (D) Title:Vehicles: Motorized Bicycles Fiscal Committee:no Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/20/2014 Enacted 06/25/2014 Disposition:Enacted Chapter:60 Summary:Redefines a motorized bicycle or moped by increasing the gross brake horsepower the motor can produce. Status:06/25/2014 Signed by GOVERNOR. 06/25/2014 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter No. 60 14.CA AB 2013 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 15.CA AB 2173 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 16.CA AB 2235 32 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 9/21 Author:Buchanan (D) Title:Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities B Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:yes Introduced:02/21/2014 Last Amend:06/23/2014 Disposition:Pending Committee:Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing:08/11/2014 10:00 am, John L. Burton Hearing Room 4203 Summary:Enacts the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2014 to authorize an unspecified amount of state general obligation bonds to provide aid to school districts, county superintendents of schools, county boards of education, charter schools, the California Community Colleges, the University of California, the Hastings College of the Law, and the California State University to construct and modernize education facilities and school district facilities funding. Status:06/25/2014 From SENATE Committee on GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE: Do pass to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Author:Daly (D) Title:Toll Facilities: Revenues Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/21/2014 Last Amend:06/26/2014 Disposition:Pending Summary:Requires any toll revenues generated from a managed land on the state highway system that is administered by a local agency to be expended only within the respective corridor in which the managed lane is located. Defines managed lane for these purposes. Status:06/26/2014 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 17.CA AB 2250 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 33 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 10/21 Author:Levine (D) Title:Vehicles: Pedestrians and Bicyclists Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/21/2014 Last Amend:06/19/2014 Disposition:Pending Committee:Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing:08/04/2014 10:00 am, John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203) Summary:Provides penalties for drivers who violate rules of the road, including violations regarding pedestrians and bicyclists wherein the violation proximately causes bodily injury or great bodily injury to a vulnerable road user. Status:06/23/2014 Withdrawn from SENATE Committee on PUBLIC SAFETY. 06/23/2014 Re-referred to SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Priority:High Author:Frazier (D) Title:Public Contracts: Change Orders Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/21/2014 Last Amend:06/30/2014 Disposition:Pending Committee:Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing:08/11/2014 10:00 am, John L. Burton Hearing Room 4203 Summary:Requires a public entity, when authorized to order changes or additions in the work in a public works contract awarded to the lowest bidder, to issue a change order promptly. Requires if this requirement is not met, the entity to be liable to the original contractor for the completed work in accordance with the contract. Authorizes the submission of a change order for completed extra work performed by a subcontractor. Authorizes subcontractor request. Requires subcontractor notification. 18.CA AB 2398 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 19.CA AB 2471 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 34 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 11/21 Status:06/30/2014 In SENATE. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Author:Linder (R) Title:Vehicle Weight Fees: Transportation Bond Debt Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/21/2014 Disposition:Pending Summary:Prohibits weight fee revenue from being transferred from the State Highway Account to the Transportation Debt Service Fund or to the Transportation Bond Direct Payment Account, and from being used to pay the debt service on transportation general obligation bonds. Status:05/12/2014 Withdrawn from ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION. 05/12/2014 In ASSEMBLY. Ordered to second reading. Author:Perea (D) Title:Vehicle Weight Fees: Transportation Bond Debt Service Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/21/2014 Last Amend:04/24/2014 Disposition:Pending Summary:Prohibits weight fee revenues from being transferred from the State Highway Account to the Transportation Debt Service Fund or the Transportation Bond Direct Payment Account, or any other fund or account for the purpose of payment of the debt service on transportation general obligation bonds. Prohibits loans of the weight fee revenues to the General Fund. Status:05/23/2014 In ASSEMBLY Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: Held in committee. 20.CA AB 2651 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 21.CA AB 2728 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 35 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 12/21 Author:Campos (D) Title:Local Government Finance: Public Safety Services Fiscal Committee:no Urgency Clause:no Introduced:01/22/2013 Disposition:Pending Summary:Authorizes the imposition, extension, or increase of a special tax for funding fire, emergency response, police, or sheriff services, upon the approval of 55% of the voters voting. Creates an additional exception to the 1% limit for a rate imposed by a city, county, or special district to service bonded indebtedness incurred to fund certain fire, emergency response, police, or sheriff buildings or facilities, and equipment that is approved by 55% of the voters of the city, county, or special district. Status:04/04/2013 To ASSEMBLY Committees on LOCAL GOVERNMENT and APPROPRIATIONS. Author:Blumenfield (D) Title:Local Government Financing: Voter Approval Fiscal Committee:no Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/13/2013 Last Amend:04/04/2013 Disposition:Pending Summary:Proposes an amendment to the Constitution to create an additional exception to the 1% limit for an ad valorem tax rate imposed by a city, county, city and county, or special district, to service bonded indebtedness incurred to fund specified public improvements and facilities, or buildings used primarily to provide sheriff, police, or fire protection services, that is approved by 55% of the voters of the city, county, city and county, or special district. Status:06/27/2013 To SENATE Committees on GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE and ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. 22.CA ACA 3 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 23.CA ACA 8 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 36 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 13/21 Author:Steinberg (D) Title:Sustainable Communities Investment Authority Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:12/03/2012 Last Amend:09/03/2013 Disposition:Pending File:A-5 Location:Senate Inactive File Summary:Authorizes certain public entities of a Sustainable Communities Investment Area to form a Sustainable Communities Investment Authority to carry out the Community Redevelopment Law. Provides for tax increment funding receipt under certain economic development and planning criteria. Establishes prequalification requirements for receipt of funding. Requires monitoring and enforcement of prevailing wage requirements within the area. Excludes certain types of farmland. Status:09/12/2013 In SENATE. To Inactive File. Author:Wolk (D) Title:Infrastructure Financing Districts: Voter Approval Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:12/03/2012 Last Amend:08/26/2013 Disposition:Pending File:A-9 Location:Assembly Inactive File Summary:Revises provisions governing infrastructure financing districts. Eliminates the requirement of voter approval for creation of the district and for bond issuance, and authorizes the legislative body to create the district subject to specified procedures. Authorizes the creation of such district subject to specified procedures. Authorizes a 24.CA SB 1 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 25.CA SB 33 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 37 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 14/21 district to finance specified actions and project. Prohibits financing until a certain requirement is met. Prohibits assistance to a vehicle dealer or big box retailer. Status:09/11/2013 In ASSEMBLY. To Inactive File. Author:DeSaulnier (D) Title:Regional Entities: San Francisco Bay Area Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/22/2013 Last Amend:06/30/2014 Disposition:Pending Committee:Assembly Appropriations Committee Hearing:08/06/2014 9:00 am, State Capitol, Room 4202 Summary:Requires members agencies of the San Francisco Bay Area joint policy committee to complete an analysis of common functions and identify opportunities to save costs, reduce redundancies and further the goals of the member agencies. Requires the analysis to also include a statement relative to the expected reduction of overhead, operation, and management costs. Requires the maintenance of an Internet Web site containing relevant committee activities. Requires a public engagement advisory committee. Status:06/30/2014 In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Author:DeSaulnier (D) Title:Public Works Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/10/2014 Last Amend:06/11/2014 Disposition:Pending 26.CA SB 792 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 27.CA SB 969 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 38 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 15/21 Summary:Authorizes provisions of existing law to be known and cited as the Public Works Project Oversight Improvement Act. Defines a megaproject as a specified transportation project. Requires the agency administering a megaproject to establish a peer review group and to take specified actions to manage the risks associated with a megaproject including establishing a comprehensive risk management plan, and regularly reassessing its reserves. Requires project-related information to be posted on an agency's Web site. Status:07/02/2014 In ASSEMBLY Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: To Suspense File. Author:Vidak (R) Title:Transportation Funds: Disadvantaged Small Communities Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:yes Introduced:02/12/2014 Last Amend:04/21/2014 Disposition:Pending Summary:Requires that no less than a specified percentage of funds available for regional improvement projects to be programmed in the regional transportation improvement program for disadvantaged small communities. Requires regional transportation agencies and county transportation commissions, in programming these moneys, to prioritize funding congestion relief and safety needs. Status:04/29/2014 In SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING: Failed passage. 04/29/2014 In SENATE Committee on TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING: Reconsideration granted. Author:Beall (D) Title:Schoolsites: Selection: Entry/Exit Access: Plans Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/18/2014 28.CA SB 990 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 29.CA SB 1067 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 39 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 16/21 Last Amend:05/07/2014 Disposition:Pending Summary:Provides for the required number of entries and exits in all new schoolsites that are safely accessible to pupils walking and bicycling. Requires the State Department of Education to advise districts and charter schools on new schoolsite acquisitions that includes specified criteria. Provides the schedule for the Department to review new schoolsite plans. Requires the establishment of standards of schoolsite selection criteria. Provides for necessary public hearings. Status:05/23/2014 In SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: Held in committee. Author:DeSaulnier (D) Title:Vehicles: Mileage-Based Fee Pilot Program Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/19/2014 Last Amend:06/25/2014 Disposition:Pending Committee:Assembly Appropriations Committee Hearing:08/06/2014 9:00 am, State Capitol, Room 4202 Summary:Establishes a Mileage-Based Fee Task Force to study mileage-based fee alternatives to the gas tax and to make recommendations to the Department of Transportation and the State Transportation Commission on the design of a pilot program. Requires the preparation and submission of a related report to specified committees of the Legislature. Status:06/25/2014 In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Author:Pavley (D) Title:Sustainable Communities: Strategic Growth Council Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency no 30.CA SB 1077 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 31.CA SB 1122 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 40 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 17/21 Clause: Introduced:02/19/2014 Last Amend:05/05/2014 Disposition:Pending Summary:Requires the Strategic Growth Council to manage and award financial assistance for the purpose of supporting the implementation of sustainable communities strategies or alternate planning strategies, to be funded by the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Requires guidelines for funds use. Authorizes such assistance for the development and implementation of agricultural, natural resource, and open space land protection plans consistent with sustainable communities and greenhouse gas emission reduction plans. Status:05/23/2014 In SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: Held in committee. Author:Cannella (R) Title:Vehicles: School Zone Fines Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/20/2014 Last Amend:06/23/2014 Disposition:Pending Committee:Assembly Appropriations Committee Hearing:08/06/2014 9:00 am, State Capitol, Room 4202 Summary:Requires that an additional fine imposed for specified violations be doubled or increased if the violation occurred when passing a school building or school grounds, and the highway is posted with a standard warning sign and an accompanying sign notifying motorists that increased penalties apply for traffic violations that are committed within that school zone. Requires the fine moneys to be deposited in a specified fund for funding school safety zone projects under the Active Transportation Program. Status:06/23/2014 In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Author:Steinberg (D) 32.CA SB 1151 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 33.CA SB 1156 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 41 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 18/21 Title:Carbon Tax Law of 2014 Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/20/2014 Disposition:Pending Summary:Imposes a carbon tax of an unspecified amount per ton of carbon-dioxide-equivalent emission on suppliers of fossil fuels. Status:03/06/2014 To SENATE Committees on GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE and RULES. Author:DeSaulnier (D) Title:Surcharge for Bicycle Infrastructure Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/20/2014 Last Amend:06/25/2014 Disposition:Pending Committee:Assembly Appropriations Committee Hearing:08/06/2014 9:00 am, State Capitol, Room 4202 Summary:Authorizes a city, county, or regional park district to impose and collect, as a special tax, a motor vehicle registration surcharge for bicycle infrastructure purposes. Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to administer the surcharge and to transmit the net revenues to the local agency. Requires the local agency to use the revenues for improvements to paved and natural surface trails and bikeways, including existing and new trails, and for associated maintenance purposes. Requires related reports. Status:06/25/2014 In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Author:Hernandez E (D) Title:High Occupancy Toll Lanes 34.CA SB 1183 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 35.CA SB 1298 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 42 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 19/21 Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/21/2014 Last Amend:06/17/2014 Disposition:Pending Committee:Assembly Appropriations Committee Hearing:08/06/2014 9:00 am, State Capitol, Room 4202 Summary:Specifies additional requirements for agreements between the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of the California Highway Patrol that identify respective obligations and liability of each party relating to the program. Requires reimbursement of state agencies from toll revenue of the cost incurred in the implementation of the program and maintenance of State highway facilities in connection with the program. Status:06/23/2014 From ASSEMBLY Committee on TRANSPORTATION: Do pass to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Author:DeSaulnier (D) Title:Vehicle Weight Fees: Transportation Bond Debt Service Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:yes Introduced:02/21/2014 Last Amend:05/01/2014 Disposition:Pending Summary:Repeals provisions of existing law which allow for the transfer of weight fees on the registration of commercial motor vehicles from the State Highway Account to reimburse the General Fund for debt service on transportation bonds. Requires of specified percentage of the revenues derived from the increase in motor fuel excise taxes to be deposited in the State Highway Account to be allocated to city and county streets and roads, and another percentage to the State Highway Operation and Protection Program. Status:05/23/2014 In SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: Held in committee. 36.CA SB 1418 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 37.CA SCA 4 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 43 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 20/21 Author:Liu (D) Title:Local Government Transportation Project: Voter Approval Fiscal Committee:no Urgency Clause:no Introduced:12/03/2012 Last Amend:08/28/2013 Disposition:Pending Summary:Proposes an amendment to the Constitution to provide the imposition, extension, or increase of a special tax by a local government for the purpose of providing funding for local transportation projects requires the approval of a related proposition that includes certain requirements. Prohibits the local government from expending any revenues derived from a special transportation tax approved by the voters at any time prior to the completion of a identified capital project funded by specified revenues. Status:08/29/2013 Re-referred to SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Author:Corbett (D) Title:Transportation Projects: Special Taxes: Voter Approval Fiscal Committee:no Urgency Clause:no Introduced:12/14/2012 Last Amend:05/21/2013 Disposition:Pending Summary:Proposes an amendment to the Constitution to provide that the imposition, extension, or increase of a special tax by a local government for the purpose of providing funding for transportation projects requires the approval of 55% of its voters voting on the proposition, if the proposition includes certain requirements. Status:08/29/2013 Re-referred to SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Author:Hancock (D) 38.CA SCA 8 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 39.CA SCA 11 Introduced Passed 1st Committee Passed 1st Chamber Passed 2nd Committee Passed 2nd Chamber Enacted 44 8/1/2014 State Net https://statenet.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=13827&host=psweb1c085&query_id=JwWRmfmVrmXu&app=lpfs&mode=display 21/21 Title:Local Government: Special Taxes: Voter Approval Fiscal Committee:no Urgency Clause:no Introduced:01/25/2013 Last Amend:05/21/2013 Disposition:Pending Summary:Proposes an amendment to the Constitution to condition the imposition, extension, or increase of a special tax by a local government upon the approval of 55% of the voters voting on the proposition, if the proposition proposing the tax contains specified requirements. Status:06/27/2013 Re-referred to SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. 45 2014 Update Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan Issues and Opportunities March 2014 46 Commissioners Kevin Romick, Chair Council Member, City of Oakley Julie Pierce, Vice-Chair Mayor, City of Clayton Janet Abelson Mayor, City of El Cerrito Newell Arnerich Council Member, Town of Danville Tom Butt Council Member, City of Richmond David Durant Council Member, City of Pleasant Hill Federal Glover Board of Supervisors, District 5 Dave Hudson Council Member, City of San Ramon Mike Metcalf Council Member, Town of Moraga Karen Mitchoff Board of Supervisors, District 4 Robert Taylor Mayor, City of Brentwood Ex-Officio Members Amy Worth, MTC Joel Keller, BART Myrna de Vera, Bus Operators Randell H. Iwasaki, Executive Director 2999 Oak Road, Suite 100 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 925-256-4700 www.ccta.net A Message to Contra Costa Residents As our agency embarks on its 25th year, we are eager to build on the success and legacy of Measure J, the half-cent transportation sales tax approved by Contra Costa voters in 2004. Measure J has helped fund the Caldecott Tunnel’s fourth bore, improvements on I-680 and State Route 4, the I-80 Integrated Corridor Manage- ment project, expanded transit service, new bikeways and trails, and maintaining your local streets and roads. As we plan for the future, we want you to continue to share your opinions and stay involved in shaping our county’s transportation future. Every five years, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) evaluates and updates its Countywide Transportation Plan, or CTP, our 30-year blueprint for the county’s transportation future. With feedback from stakeholders throughout the county, updating the CTP helps ensure that we accurately plan, fund, and imple- ment your transportation vision for Contra Costa. The pages that follow describe the factors that may affect our net- work of roads, freeways, transit, sidewalks and trails over the next 30 years, as well as the vision and goals identified the last time we engaged you in this process. You will also find highlights of in- vestment projects we’ve accomplished through the CTP and funds from Measure C and Measure J. This brochure is our starting point for a 2014 update of the CTP. Your input is crucial for informing whether the path we’re on is the right one, or whether we need to chart a new course in addressing the issues and challenges facing our current transportation network. I encourage you to become involved in the 2014 CTP process and help us decide which projects are important and how we should spend any future revenue. The last page of this brochure describes how you can become involved in the 2014 CTP process. You can also email your comments directly to us at: 2014CTP@ccta.net. I look forward to working with you to create this new vision for Contra Costa’s transportation future. Sincerely, Randell H. Iwasaki, Executive Director Cover Photo: Caldecott Tunnel at night (by Karl Nielsen/Metropolitan Transportation Commission) 47 Caldecott Tunnel (Photo by Karl Nielsen/Metropolitan Transportation Commission) Transit Oriented DevelopmentWalnut Creek BART Station Transportation Investments Made Through Measures C and J All of Contra Costa has benefitted from the trans- portation improvements funded by Measure J and  Measure C. The Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore, the widening of State Route 4, BART exten- sions in East County, new BART parking in West County, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, the I-80 Integrated Corridor Management project, railroad grade separations, and the Martinez multi- modal center were all funded. The measures also helped fund local street maintenance, transit and paratransit operations, school bus service, commute alternative programs, express buses, and transporta- tion for livable communities programs. Over the life of Measure J, transportation programs should receive about $1.56 billion or 58 percent of the estimated $2.7 billion in revenues expected. The remaining 42 percent, or $1.14 million, would go to specific transportation projects. Out of the $1.1 billion generated by Measure C, transporta- tion programs got about $344 million (one-third of the total), while the remaining $700 million went to projects, bond financing, and program/project management. All of the funding from the two measures goes to fund transportation projects and programs. SUMMARY OF SALES TAX EXPENDITURES (Rounded to Nearest $Million) PROJECT CATEGORIES PAST FUTURE TOTAL Roadways — highways, arterials & maintenance $755 $1,031 $1,786 Transit — rail, bus, express bus, ferry, paratransit, commute alternatives $434 $738 $1,172 Pedestrian & Bike — bicycle and pedestrian, Safe Routes to School $11 $323 $334 Other — financing costs and operations $144 $373 $517 Sum $1,344 $2,465 $3,809 TOTAL MEASURE J AND MEASURE C EXPENDITURES Leveraged Funds on Measure C/J Projects $1,721 $970 $2,691 Total Funds $6,500 1 48 Planning for Our Future: Contra Costa by the Numbers 2010–2040 As more people choose to live and work in the Bay Area, every county in our region will experience growth. Contra Costa’s expected growth — in the form of population, jobs, households, and residents — will strain our current transportation resources and increase travel and commute time within the transportation network. To minimize these impacts, it is vital that our roads and highways and our transit and bike facilities can meet the challenges of a growing population. Contra Costa County Population Growth, 2010-2040 by Region - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 Central (TRANSPAC) East (TRANSPLAN) Lamorinda (LPMC) TriValley (TVTC) West (WCCTAC) Contra Costa County Population Growth, 2010-2040 by Region 2040 Population 2010 Population - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 Central (TRANSPAC) East (TRANSPLAN) Lamorinda (LPMC) TriValley (TVTC) West (WCCTAC) Contra Costa County Job Growth, 2010-2040 by Region 2040 Jobs 2010 Jobs Contra Costa County Job Growth, 2010-2040 by Region Vehicle miles traveled in Contra Costa will increase 18 percent by 2040 2 49 Challenges Ahead Population in Contra Costa has grown continually over the past several decades. Census data shows that our population grew from 804,000 in 1990 to just over one million residents in 2010. New fore- casts for the region indicate that, while growth is slowing slightly, Contra Costa is estimated to add another 270,000 residents between 2010 and 2040, an increase of about 27 percent. Job growth, however, is expected to speed up. Be- tween 1990 and 2010, Contra Costa added about 50,000 jobs, a 17 percent increase. We’re expecting to add over 122,000 jobs, a 36 percent increase, by 2040, raising the total to half a million jobs. While both jobs and population will increase into 2040, some areas of the county will grow faster than others. The chart on the previous page shows the expected countywide population growth by sub-region. Population growth in East County is expected to be the highest, at 41 percent, followed by the Tri-Valley, at 33 percent. Additionally, the Lamorinda and Central areas are expected to ex- perience less growth, at 13 and 20 percent, respec- tively. How We Get to Work Commuters in Contra Costa have a variety of op- tions for their daily commute: drive alone, carpool, use transit, walk, or bike. More recently, many companies have begun to allow employees to “tele- commute” or work from home. What has changed most dramatically over the 30 years between 1980 and 2010 are the number of people who now indicate they work from home and the number of people who commute togeth- er. As shown above, the percentage of people who work from home has more than doubled, from 1.9 percent in 1980 to 5.6 percent in 2010. The economy is also recovering from the recent recession. As shown in the chart on the next page, unemployment levels are expected to continue dropping towards pre-recession levels. Highway 4 widening construction Treat Boulevard pedestrian overcrossingInterstate 680 improvements Title:  Work  From  Home:  Share  of  Commute  Trips  in  Contra  Costa        Title:  Carpools:  Share  of  Commute  Trips  in  Contra  Costa       0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 1980 1990 2000 2010 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 1980 1990 2000 2010 Work From Home: Share of Commute Trips in Contra Costa 3 50 HOV lanes on I-680 will increase traffic carrying capacity Mount Diablo and other open space, protected by urban limit linesBike lockers at Pleasant Hill BART Station Unemployment Rate, 2007-2103What Does this Mean for Traffic? The worst days of the Great Recession seem to be ending, welcome news for the economy and resi- dents of the Bay Area. This also means, however, more people on the road and on BART, making for heavier traffic and crowded commutes. While more residents will work from home and avoid the commute, traffic congestion will remain a growing problem. People will continue to travel from home to work, school, and other destinations. As a result, we can expect past trends to continue, roadway traffic to increase, and more hours spent on congested roadways. (See the chart on the lower right.) According to our forecasts, by 2040, traf- fic between East County and Central County will increase by 70 percent. Other corridors will experi- ence significant traffic growth as well. The good news is that we also expect more people to take transit such as BART or a bus, or switch to walking or bicycling. And there is more good news. California has always been a front-runner in low-emissions vehicle technology. As progress con- tinues, and more hybrid and electric cars join the fleet, harmful emissions from tomorrow’s vehicles will be reduced to a small fraction of what they are today. Average Daily Hours of Congestion, 1986-2012 Contra Costa County Data Sources: 1986-2008 Hi-Comp Report; 2009-2012 Mobility Performance Report Average Daily Hours of Congestion 10,000 5,000 0 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008201020124 51 What is the Countywide Transportation Plan? The Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) is our 30-year blueprint for maintaining and improving the county’s roads, freeways, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The CTP lays out a vision for the county’s transportation future, the goals and strategies for achieving that vision, and future trans- portation priorities for program and project fund- ing. Delivering a coordinated approach that creates a balanced, functional transportation system, while strengthening links between land use decisions and transportation, is no small feat. Especially since the CTP must also consider and reflect Contra Costa’s cultural, geographic, and economic diversity. The CTP is intended to carry out the Authority’s five major goals, while responding to changes in the area’s population and the ways in which resi- dents understand and use the transportation system. In many areas of Contra Costa, transportation de- mand will rise faster than increases in roadway ca- pacity, largely because we’re running out of room to expand roads. As the cost of expansion continues to rise, the Authority must identify realistic ways to keep both people and goods moving. 5 Electric vehicle charging stations support increased use of electric vehicles VISION Strive to preserve and enhance the quality of life of local communities by promoting a healthy environment and a strong economy to benefit all people and areas of Contra Costa, through 1) a balanced, safe, and efficient transportation network; 2) cooperative planning; and 3) growth management. The transportation network should integrate all modes of transportation to meet the diverse needs of Contra Costa. GOALS ƒSupport the efficient and reliable movement of people and goods using all available travel modes ƒManage growth to sustain Contra Costa’s economy, preserve its environment and support its communities ƒExpand safe, convenient and affordable alternatives to the single- occupant vehicle ƒMaintain the transportation system ƒContinue to invest wisely to maximize the benefits of available funding 52 Map 6 Completed or Under Construction Additional Funding Needed MAJOR PROJECTS 0 2 4 6 MILES Major Projects Funded Through Measure C and Measure J Martinez Multi-modal Transit Center Capitol Corridor Train Station Hercules Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Seismic Retrofit Benicia-Martinez Bridge HOV & Class I Bike Path Caldecott Tunnel 4th Bore I-80/San Pablo Dam Rd Interchange: Reconstruct I-680: Auxiliary Lanes Sycamore Valley Road to Crow Canyon Road I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Modify Interchange Central County Crossover I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Project I-80: Eastbound HOV lanes Willow Road to Crockett Interchange State Route 4 Bypass: Westbound SR 4 Bypass to Northbound State Route 160 State Route 4 Bypass: Sand Creek Road Interchange State Route 4 Bypass: Balfour Road Interchange Vasco Road Safety Improvements State Route 4 Widening East County Rail Extension (eBART) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SanRamon Danville Moraga Lafayette Orinda PleasantHill WalnutCreek Concord Clayton PittsburgMartinezHercules Pinole Richmond SanPablo ElCerrito Antioch Oakley Brentwood ALAMEDA COUNTY Richmond Transit Village BART Parking Structure Marina Bay Parkway Railroad Grade Separation I-80/Central Ave Interchange Modifications wBART extension to Hercules I-680/SR-4 Interchange Improvements Clayton Road On and Off Ramps Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing at Treat Blvd I-680 Direct Access Ramps eBART Extension to Brentwood eBART Railroad Ave Station I-680 Northbound HOV Extension I-680 Southbound HOV Extension Pacheco Transit Hub SOLANO COUNTY SACRAMENTO COUNTY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY T r i -L i n k S t u d y Ar ea53 Map 7 Completed or Under Construction Additional Funding Needed MAJOR PROJECTS 0 2 4 6 MILES Major Projects Funded Through Measure C and Measure J Martinez Multi-modal Transit Center Capitol Corridor Train Station Hercules Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Seismic Retrofit Benicia-Martinez Bridge HOV & Class I Bike Path Caldecott Tunnel 4th Bore I-80/San Pablo Dam Rd Interchange: Reconstruct I-680: Auxiliary Lanes Sycamore Valley Road to Crow Canyon Road I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Modify Interchange Central County Crossover I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Project I-80: Eastbound HOV lanes Willow Road to Crockett Interchange State Route 4 Bypass: Westbound SR 4 Bypass to Northbound State Route 160 State Route 4 Bypass: Sand Creek Road Interchange State Route 4 Bypass: Balfour Road Interchange Vasco Road Safety Improvements State Route 4 Widening East County Rail Extension (eBART) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SanRamon Danville Moraga Lafayette Orinda PleasantHill WalnutCreek Concord Clayton PittsburgMartinezHercules Pinole Richmond SanPablo ElCerrito Antioch Oakley Brentwood ALAMEDA COUNTY Richmond Transit Village BART Parking Structure Marina Bay Parkway Railroad Grade Separation I-80/Central Ave Interchange Modifications wBART extension to Hercules I-680/SR-4 Interchange Improvements Clayton Road On and Off Ramps Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing at Treat Blvd I-680 Direct Access Ramps eBART Extension to Brentwood eBART Railroad Ave Station I-680 Northbound HOV Extension I-680 Southbound HOV Extension Pacheco Transit Hub SOLANO COUNTY SACRAMENTO COUNTY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY T r i -L i n k S t u d y Ar ea54 Strategies for Achieving Our Goals 8 SUPPORT THE EFFICIENT AND RELIABLE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS MANAGE GROWTH TO SUSTAIN CONTRA COSTA’S ECONOMY AND PRESERVE ITS ENVIRONMENT Reduction in congestion can occur through a variety of strategies, including capital improvements to the roadway system itself, influencing the location and nature of new growth, increased traffic management, and expansion of multi-modal mobility, which has been a cornerstone of our planning. Examples of what’s been accomplished: ƒCaldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore: CCTA developed a new, two-lane tunnel that connects Orinda to Oakland, relieving congestion along this heavily-traveled segment of Highway 24. ƒHighway 4 Corridor Project: Considered one of the top ten worst commutes in America, CCTA is leading a $1.3 billion dollar transportation investment in East County to widen the highway, reduce congestion, and improve transit access for more than 250,000 residents. ƒI-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Project: Optimizes the use of the existing infrastructure within the corridor to reduce congestion, reduce travel time, provide real time information to drivers and improve safety. New Caldecott Tunnel opened in 2013 Highway 4 Corridor project Achieving this goal involves: ƒStrengthening Partnerships ƒCooperative Planning ƒMore coordination of land use planning ƒSupporting the Urban Limit Line ƒPromoting infill development ƒRespect community character and the environment Examples of what’s been accomplished: ƒEstablishment of the Urban Limit Line: In local jurisdictions across the county, voters have approved Urban Limit Lines as part of the requirements of Measure J. ƒImplementation of the Growth Management Program: To meet the Measure J requirements, local jurisdictions throughout Contra Costa have updated the Growth Management Element of their General Plans to reflect the Authority’s model element. Downtown Pittsburg Richmond intermodal station 55 9 EXPAND SAFE, CONVENIENT AND AFFORDABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE SINGLE-OCCUPANT VEHICLE MAINTAIN THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WestCAT Bus Stop Pleasant Hill BART Station Ways of achieving this goal include expansion of BART and bus service, paratransit, pedestrian and bicycle routes, and carpools. Examples of what’s been accomplished: ƒ511 Contra Costa: CCTA provides funding that enables trip planning services for commuters and residents who need help planning bike routes, managing public transit options, or finding the best rideshare program. ƒBus Transit: CCTA provides funding for local bus services (5% of Measure J revenues), express bus services (4.3%), transportation service for seniors and the disabled (4%), and commute alternatives (1%), for a total expenditure of $10,725,000 annually. ƒReal-Time Ridesharing: CCTA is using new technology to enable local commuters to coordinate carpooling opportunities. Through the smart-phone app Car.ma, drivers and riders can find each other in advance or on the fly to plan a shared travel schedule or route. ƒPedestrian and Bicycle Improvements. Measure J funds have improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities across the county. This goal depends upon acquiring adequate, stable funding for transit operations and reducing the backlog of rehabilitation and maintenance needs. In the long term, the strategy is to increase preventative maintenance, which will promote the long-term health of the transportation system and help the economy. Examples of what’s been accomplished: ƒLocal Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds: Local street maintenance also is funded by the CCTA under Measure J. Each year, local jurisdictions receive 18% of gross sales tax proceeds (approximately $12.5 million) to use towards maintenance of local streets and roads. Receipt of funds is contingent upon compliance with the Measure J Growth Management Program. ƒMaintain and Improve East Bay Regional Park District Trails: Some of the funds available through Measure J go to maintain and improve paved regional trails in Contra Costa. These include the Contra Costa Canal Trail, the Delta-de Anza Trail, and the Bay Trail. Highway 4 widening Highway 4 construction 56 Key Considerations for the 2014 CTP Update The goal of the 2014 CTP is to identify and imple- ment specific actions and strategies that support our shared goal of safe, strong, and efficient transporta- tion networks that improve the quality of life for Contra Costa residents. As we work together to de- velop solutions for our county, we also need to be mindful of new challenges and opportunities that may affect the CTP’s goals. Funding Funding is critical to meeting the stated goals of the CTP and helping Contra Costa remain one of the most desirable places to live and work in the Bay Area. In addition to examining how we can most responsibly and efficiently use existing funding sources such as traditional State and federal funds, Cap and Trade funds, OneBayArea Grants, and voter-approved Measure J funds, we also need to consider potential sources of new revenue like open road tolling and congestion pricing at gateways or in central business districts, as well as pricing based on parking demand. Improving Mobility for the Next Generation The Contra Costa Transportation Authority has long been concerned with how we can continue to maintain and improve our roads, freeways, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in ways that sustain our economy, our environment and our quality of life. Making new improvements, while maintaining what we have, will be a prominent issue for the 2014 CTP as CCTA addresses new State legislation such as SB 375. This legislation, and the Sustainable Communities Strategies required by it, supports the development of job centers and neighborhoods that are easier to access by transit and safe and conve- nient to walk or bicycle in, changes that will reduce the need for long commutes to work, shopping and other destinations. We also need to ensure that our roads and transit systems are resilient: can we continue to get around following an earthquake? Will increased frequency of storm surges harm our rail lines and roadways? $11 billion $4.8 billion Needed: $11 Billion Source: Plan Bay Area. Available Funding Under Measure J And Regional Transportation Plan (Including State And Federal Funds): $4.8 Billion 10 Contra Costa’s Funding Shortfall 57 Using Transportation Technology Technology has radically changed the pace of inno- vation and the world of transportation. Throughout our history, people have used technology to address problems. Over the last two centuries, technology has revolutionized how we move people and goods. Instead of horse-drawn carriages and wind-driven ships, we now rely on trains, planes, buses and cars. These new technologies haven’t been without their downsides. For example, the engines propelling our ships, trains, planes and vehicles are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. And the increased speeds these technologies allow have con- tributed to the sprawling character of many of our communities. Technology, however, can also help address the negative effects of our modern transportation net- work. The increased use of electric (or partially electric) vehicles will reduce greenhouse gas emis- sions in our urban areas (though this may be offset by the need to increase electricity generation), and the increased use of electric vehicles will increase the need for charging infrastructure. While auton- omous vehicles may make more efficient use of our roadways and may reduce the number of collisions, they could also require dramatic changes in how we design our roadways. Other technologies focus on the roadway itself. In- telligent transportation systems, or ITS, can benefit our transportation network by improving safety and efficiency. This benefits the environment by limiting the waste of fuel and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. ITS encompasses many techniques including electronic toll collection (such as FasTrak in the Bay Area), ramp metering, traffic signal co- ordination, and traveler information systems for freeways, arterials and transit systems. Our new plan needs to consider how this evolving transportation technology should be incorporated into our transportation system. Managing the Effects of Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Emissions on Our Climate Climate change will have to be considered in the CTP due to the California Governor’s Execu- tive Order mandating an 80 percent reduction of greenhouse gases below 1990 levels by 2050. Any efforts to increase the resiliency of the our trans- portation system will also need to take into account future vulnerabilities such as baylands and access points, near San Francisco Bay. Creating a resilient transportation system contributes to the long-term health and economy of Contra Costa. The CTP guides investments in Complete Streets, with multi-modal facilities and transit service Bus CarpoolClass II Bike Lane 11 58 Implementing Plan Bay Area Constrained Core Concentration Initial Vision/Core Concentration Focused Growth Outward Growth Current Regional Plans 9.4% 9.1% 8.2% 7.9% 7.0% SCS Regional Contribution*** Scenarios IMPROVED FUEL EFFICIENCY (PAVLEY I & II) LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARDS REGIONAL LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION (SCS)Million Metric Tons CO2 Equivalent15% 0% 50 1990 2000 2010 100 250 300 350 150 200 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 2020 2030 2040 2050 Projected Land Use & Transportation Emissions Reductions 80% 427 4 3 2 1 610 1 2 3 4 5 Science and Technology Report, 2011 NON-TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACTUAL/PROJECTED EMISSIONS ***MTC’s regional contribution amplied to reect the contributions of all California MPOs FIGURE 3: Regional Land Use and Transportation SCS ACHIEVING ST ATEWIDE AB 32 GHG REDUCTION TARGETS Source: Plan Bay Area ACHIEVING THE GOVERNOR’S DIRECTIVE: REACHING STATEWIDE AB 32 GHG REDUCTION TARGETS 800 *Million Metric Tons CO2 Equivalent **Estimate based on California Council on Science and Technology Report, 2011 427427 85 Target 2050 Emissions (20% of 1990 Emissions): 85 Tons* Required to meet Governor’s Executive Order S-3-05 Forecast 2050 Emissions** 507 Achieving the Govenor’s Directive: Reaching Statewide AB 32 GHG Reduction Targets 12 The recently adopted Plan Bay Area, created by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), envisioned that implementation details would be taken up in partnership with transporta- tion planning agencies and local jurisdictions. As such, the CTP Update will need to address how elements included in Plan Bay Area fit into our vi- sion for Contra Costa. Elements of Plan Bay Area that will need to be con- sidered include: ƒPr iority development areas (PDAs); ƒUse of Cap and Trade funds; ƒOther initiatives, including those for freeway performance, carpooling and vanpooling, smart driving strategies, streamlining the environ- mental review process, goods movement, and industrial lands inventories; ƒMT C’s Regional Prosperity Plan that removes barriers for the disadvantaged and discusses the unresolved regional issues of mobility and equity; ƒComplete Streets, which serve all modes, and reasonable accommodations for all modes; and ƒHow and when to incorporate Plan Bay Area’s land use forecasts for transportation into model updates. 59 Be a Part of the Countywide Transportation Plan Process! What do you think is missing? What projects are important to you? How do you think we should spend any future revenue? Your input is critical to the 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan update. You can contribute your ideas and share your thoughts on the goals and priorities that will shape our shared transportation future through the various public engagement oppor- tunities detailed below. CTP Schedule for Completion Follow updates on our website! Visit our website to stay current on the 2014 CTP Update and discover additional opportunities to be part of the discussion at: www.ccta.net/funding/our_future Email Us Your Comments Email your comments directly to our staff at: 2014CTP@ccta.net Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Complete Action Plans  Complete Draft 2014 CTP and EIR  Public Outreach Adoption of 2014 CTP  13 60 2999 Oak Road, Suite 100 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 925-256-4700 www.ccta.net Revision 1, April 28, 2014 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 2014 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Volume 1 Prelim i n a r y Draft f o r Planni n g Commit t e e r eview July 2, 2014 Attachment A Executive Summary 72 Cover  photo  by  Noah  Berger  |  CCTA   Commissioners   Kevin  Romick,  Chair,  East  County,      City  of  Oakley   Julie  Pierce,  Vice  Chair,  East  County,    City  of  Clayton   Janet  Abelson,  Mayor,  West  County,    City  of  El  Cerrito   Newell  Arnerich,  Southwest      County,    Town  of  Danville   Tom  Butt,  West  County,      City  of  Richmond   David  Durant,  Central  County,      City  of  Pleasant  Hill   Federal  Glover,      County  Board  of  Supervisors   Dave  Hudson,  Southwest  County,      City  of  San  Ramon   Mike  Metcalf,  Southwest  County,      Town  of  Moraga                                 Karen  Mitchoff,      County  Board  of  Supervisors   Robert  Taylor,  Mayor,  West  County,    City  of  Brentwood   Ex-­‐‑Officio  Members   Amy  Worth,  City  of  Orinda   Myrna  De  Vera,  Mayor,  City  of      Hercules   Gail  Murray,  Director,  BART  Board      of    Directors     Executive  Director   Randell  H.  Iwasaki,  P.E.   73                         The  preparation  of  this  report  has  been  financed  through  a  grant  from  the  U.S.   Department  of  Transportation  and  the  Federal  Highway  Administration.  The   content  of  this  report  does  not  necessarily  reflect  the  official  views  or  policy  of   the  U.S.  Department  of  Transportation.   74 Preliminary  Draft  for  Planning  Committee  Review    I-i Volume  1     Table  of  Contents   Executive Summary ................................................................................. I-1   1  Introduction ............................................................................................ I-19   About the Comprehensive Transportation Plan ..................................................... I-18     Contra Costa by the Numbers: Context and Implications for Travel ............... I-29   The Regional Transportation Planning Committees ............................................... I-22   Plan Bay Area: What does it mean for Contra Costa? .......................................... I-33     Contents of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan ........................................... I-41   Review and Approval Process ...................................................................................... I-41   2  Visions, Goals and Strategies ................................................................ I-43   Vision ................................................................................................................................. I-43   Goals and Strategies for the 2014 Update ................................................................ I-44   3  The Transportation System ................................................................. I-49   Roadways .......................................................................................................................... I-50   Transit, including Buses, Rail, Paratransit, and Ferries .......................................... I-53   High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes .................................................................................... I-60   Trails in Contra Costa of Countywide or Regional Importance ......................... I-66   Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................... I-65   Facilities for Goods Movement .................................................................................... I-75   Revenues Available and New Funding Needed ........................................................ I-78   4  Cooperative Planning: Action Plans and Growth Management ........................................................................................... I-81   Components Of The Action Plans .............................................................................. I-85   Action Plan Summaries .................................................................................................. I-85   West County ................................................................................................................... I-86   Central County ................................................................................................................ I-92   East County ...................................................................................................................... I-98   75 2014  Countywide  Comprehensive  Transportation  Plan:  Volume  1   Preliminary  Draft   I-ii Preliminary  Draft  for  Planning  Committee  Review   Lamorinda ....................................................................................................................... I-104   Tri-Valley ......................................................................................................................... I-110   Growth Management Program .................................................................................. I-114   5  Implementation ................................................................................... I-119   Funding the Plan ............................................................................................................. I-120   Detailed Implementation Tasks ................................................................................. I-121   Appendix A: Routes of Regional Significance ............................................... I-129   Appendix B: Glossary ...................................................................................... I-135   Volume 2: Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance Volume 3: Comprehensive Transportation Project List       76 Preliminary  Draft  for  Planning  Committee  Review    I-1 Executive  Summary   OVERVIEW The  Contra  Costa  Countywide  Transportation  Plan,  or  CTP,  is   the  blueprint  for  Contra  Costa’s  transportation  system  over  the   next  30  years.  This  long-­‐‑range  vision  for  transportation  identifies   the   projects,   programs,   and   policies   that   the   Authority   Board   hopes  to  pursue  over  the  lifetime  of  the  Plan.  The  CTP  identifies   goals  for  bringing  together  all  modes  of  travel,  networks  and  op-­‐‑ erators,  to  meet  the  diverse  needs  of  Contra  Costa.   By  improving  the  transportation  system,  we  can  help  to  address   the  challenges  that  a  growing  population,  more  jobs,  and  more   traffic  will  bring.  The  Plan  lays  out  a  vision  for  our  transporta-­‐‑ tion  future,  the  goals  and  strategies  for  achieving  that  vision,  and   the  future  transportation  investments  needed  to  promote  a  grow-­‐‑ ing   economy,  advance  technological   changes,   protect   the   envi-­‐‑ ronment,  and  improve  our  quality  of  life.       77 2014  Countywide  Comprehensive  Transportation  Plan:  Volume  1   Preliminary  Draft   I-2 Preliminary  Draft  for  Planning  Committee  Review   CHALLENGES AHEAD Census  data  shows  that  the  population  of  Contra  Costa  grew  from  804,000  in   1990  to  just  over  one  million  residents  in  2010,  an  increase  of  30  percent  over   twenty  years.  New  forecasts  for  the  region  indicate  that,  while  yearly  population   growth  is  slowing  slightly,  Contra  Costa  will  still  add  another  270,000  residents   by  2040,  a  27  percent  increase  over  the  next  thirty  years.   Unlike  population,  job  growth  is  expected  to  speed  up.  Between  1990  and  2010,   the  number  of  jobs  in  Contra  Costa  grew  only  17  percent.  We’re  expecting  the   rate  of  job  growth  to  more  than  double  to  35  percent,  resulting  in  nearly  half  a   million  jobs  by  2040.   While  both  jobs  and  population  will  increase,  some  areas  of  the  county  will  grow   faster  than  others.  Population  growth  in  West  County,  Central  County  and  East   County  is  expected  to  be  the  highest,  at  29  percent  each,  followed  by  Lamorinda   and  the  Tri-­‐‑Valley,  at  16  percent  each  by  2040.  Job  growth  in  East  County  and   Central  County  is  expected  to  outpace  other  areas  with  increases  of  40  percent   and  37  percent,  respectively,  with  the  slowest  rate  of  job  growth  found  in  Lamor-­‐‑ inda,  with  an  expected  increase  of  25  percent  by  2040.   How We Get to Work Commuters  have  a  variety  of  options  for  getting  to  work:  driving  alone,  carpool-­‐‑ ing,  taking  transit,  walking,  or  biking.  Alternatively,  in  recent  years  many  com-­‐‑ panies  have  begun  to  allow  employees  to  telecommute  from  home.   Since  1980,  the  percentage  of  commuters  who  drive  alone  has  remained  steady  at   about  70  percent.  Similarly,  transit  ridership  has  also  held  steady,  at  approxi-­‐‑ mately  9  percent.  What  has  changed  most  dramatically  over  the  30  years  between   1980  and  2010  is  the  number  of  people  who  now  indicate  they  work  from  home:   the  percentage  of  people  who  work  from  home  has  more  than  doubled,  from  1.9   percent  in  1980  to  5.6  percent  in  2010,  as  shown  in  Figure  E-­‐‑1.  Will  that  percent-­‐‑ age  continue  to  increase  through  2040?  And  if  so,  could  telecommuting  reach   levels  of  10  to  20  percent?  That  would  be  a  major  balm  to  congestion.     78 Executive  Summary   Preliminary  Draft   Preliminary  Draft  for  Planning  Committee  Review  I-3   Figure E-1: Work From Home, Share of Commute Trips, 1980-2010 Source: CCTA, 2013.   The  economy  is  also  recovering  from  the  recent  recession.  As  shown  in  Figure  E-­‐‑ 2  below,   unemployment   levels   have   been   steadily   dropping   towards   pre-­‐‑ recession  levels  since  2010.   79 2014  Countywide  Comprehensive  Transportation  Plan:  Volume  1   Preliminary  Draft   I-4 Preliminary  Draft  for  Planning  Committee  Review   Figure E-2: Unemployment Rate, 2007-2013 Source: CCTA, 2013. What does this mean for traffic? The  end  of  the  Great  Recession  comes  as  welcome  news  for  the  economy  and  res-­‐‑ idents  of  the  Bay  Area.  This  may  mean,  however,  more  people  on  the  road  and   on  BART  and  buses,  making  for  heavier  traffic  and  more  crowded  commutes.   Although  more  residents  may  work  from  home  to  avoid  the  commute,  traffic   congestion  will  remain  a  growing  problem.  People  will  continue  to  travel  from   home  to  work,  school,  and  other  destinations.  As  a  result,  we  can  expect  past   trends  (shown  in  Figure  E-­‐‑3)  to  continue,  with  further  increases  in  roadway  traf-­‐‑ fic,  and  more  hours  spent  on  congested  roadways.   80 Executive  Summary   Preliminary  Draft   Preliminary  Draft  for  Planning  Committee  Review  I-5   Figure E-3: Average Daily Hours of Congestion, 1986-2012 Source: 1986-2008 Hi-Comp Report; 2009-2012 Mobility Performance Report.   According  to  our  forecasts,  by  2040,  traffic  between  East  County  and  Central   County  will  increase  by  70  percent.  Other  corridors  will  experience  significant   traffic  growth  as  well.   The  good  news  is  that  we  also  expect  more  people  to  take  transit  such  as  BART   or  a  bus,  or  switch  to  walking  or  bicycling.  The  number  of  hours  per  person  that   vehicles  are  driven  has  been  dropping  over  the  last  decade,  a  trend  that  pre-­‐‑dates   the  Great  Recession.  And  there  is  more  good  news.  California  has  always  been  a   front-­‐‑runner   in   low-­‐‑emissions   vehicle   technology.   As   progress   continues,   and   more  hybrid  and  electric  cars  join  the  fleet,  harmful  emissions  from  tomorrow’s   vehicles  will  be  reduced  to  a  small  fraction  of  what  they  are  today.   We  also  need  to  look  no  farther  than  our  own  backyard  to  see  what  further  inno-­‐‑ vations  lie  ahead.  In  Mountain  View,  the  autonomous  Google®  car  is  being  per-­‐‑ fected,  and  here  in  Contra  Costa  we  have  volunteered  to  have  our  streets  and   81 2014  Countywide  Comprehensive  Transportation  Plan:  Volume  1   Preliminary  Draft   I-6 Preliminary  Draft  for  Planning  Committee  Review   roads  serve  as  a  test-­‐‑bed  for  a  federally-­‐‑funded  pilot  program  intended  to  accel-­‐‑ erate  the  deployment  of  connected-­‐‑autonomous  vehicles  (CAVs).   CCTA’S GOALS AND STRATEGIES The  Authority  has  identified  five  goals  and  corresponding  strategies  for  the  2014   CTP.     Goals 1. Support  the  efficient,  safe,  and  reliable  movement  of  people  and  goods   using  all  available  travel  modes;   2. Manage   growth   to   sustain   Contra   Costa’s   economy,  preserve   its   envi-­‐‑ ronment  and  support  its  communities;   3. Expand   safe,   convenient   and   affordable   alternatives  to   the   single-­‐‑ occupant  vehicle;     4. Maintain  the  transportation  system;  and   5. Continue  to  invest  wisely  to  maximize  the  benefits  of  available  funding.   Issues & Opportunities The  goal  of  the  2014  CTP  is  to  identify  and  implement  specific  actions  and  strate-­‐‑ gies   that  support   our   shared   goal   of   safe,   strong,   and   efficient   transportation   networks  that  improve  the  quality  of  life  of  Contra  Costa  residents.  As  we  work   together  to  develop  solutions  for  our  county,  we  also  need  to  be  mindful  of  new   challenges  and  opportunities  that  may  affect  the  CTP’s  goals.   Funding Funding  is  critical  to  meeting  the  stated  goals  of  the  CTP  and  helping  Contra   Costa  remain  one  of  the  most  desirable  places  to  live  and  work  in  the  Bay  Area.   In  addition  to  examining  how  we  can  most  responsibly  and  efficiently  use  exist-­‐‑ ing  funding  sources  -­‐‑  such  as  traditional  State  and  federal  funds,  Cap  and  Trade   funds,  OneBayArea  Grants,  and  voter-­‐‑approved  Measure  J  funds  -­‐‑  we  also  need   to   consider  new  sources   of   revenue.   O pen   road   tolling,  congestion   pricing  at   gateways  or  in  central  business  districts,  and  pricing  based  on  parking  demand   are  a  few  potential  sources.   82 Executive  Summary   Preliminary  Draft   Preliminary  Draft  for  Planning  Committee  Review  I-7   Changing Travel Choices As  noted  earlier,  the  number  of  vehicle  miles  traveled  (VMT)  per  capita  has  been   decreasing  over  the  last  decade.  This  drop  is  driven  primarily  by  the  changing   habits  of  the  “millennials”,  the  generation  born  after  1982.  This  group  is  driving,   and  even  getting  a  license  to  drive,  less  frequently.  Partly,  this  results  from  the   high  cost  of  owning  and  operating  a  vehicle,  especially  with  the  significant  stu-­‐‑ dent  debt  many  millennials  carry.  And  partly  it  results  from  changes  in  where   millennials  –  and  many  retiring  Baby  Boomers  –  are  choosing  to  live,  namely  in   close-­‐‑in,  walkable  neighborhoods.  This  change  does  not,  however,  seem  related   to  unemployment.  Both  states  with  higher  and  lower  unemployment  rates  have   seen  drops  in  VMT. If  this  recent  trend  continues,  it  would  mean  that  forecasts  of  increased  conges-­‐‑ tion  may  be  excessively  dire.  But  even  so,  we  expect  that,  in  many  locations,  we   will  see  more  delays  on  our  roads,  especially  where  people  must  go  further  to  get   to  work.   Improving Mobility for the Next Generation The  Authority  has  long  been  concerned  with  how  we  can  continue  to  maintain   and  improve  our  roads,  freeways,  transit,  and  pedestrian  and  bicycle  facilities  in   ways  that  sustain  our  economy,  our  environment  and  our  quality  of  life.   Making  new  improvements,  while  maintaining  what  we  have,  is  a  prominent   issue  for  the  2014  CTP  as  the  Authority  addresses  new  State  legislation  such  as   SB  375.  This  legislation,  and  the  Sustainable  Communities  Strategies  required  by   it,  supports  the  development  of  job  centers  and  neighborhoods  that  are  easier  to   get  to  by  transit  and  safe  and  convenient  to  walk  or  bicycle  in,  changes  that  will   reduce  the  need  for  long  commutes  to  work,  shopping  and  other  destinations.   We  also  need  to  ensure  that  our  roads  and  transit  systems  are  resilient:  can  we   continue   to   get   around   following   an   earthquake?   Will   increased   frequency   of   storm  surges  harm  our  rail  lines  and  roadways?   Using Transportation Technology Throughout  our  history,  people  have  used  technology  to  address  problems.  Over   the  last  two  centuries,  technology  has  revolutionized  how  we  move  people  and   goods.  Instead  of  horse-­‐‑drawn  carriages  and  wind-­‐‑driven  ships,  we  now  rely  on   trains,  planes,  buses  and  cars.  These  new  technologies  haven’t  been  without  their   downsides.  For  example,  the  engines  propelling  our  ships,  trains,  planes,  and   83 2014  Countywide  Comprehensive  Transportation  Plan:  Volume  1   Preliminary  Draft   I-8 Preliminary  Draft  for  Planning  Committee  Review   vehicles  are  a  major  contributor  to  greenhouse  gas  emissions.  And  the  increased   speeds  these  technologies  allow  have  contributed  to  the  sprawling  character  of   many  of  our  communities.       As  technology  advances,  it  is  shifting  the  ways  that  people  use  and  access  the  transportation  system;  for  example,  real-­‐‑time   ridesharing  is  facilitated  in  Contra  Costa  County  by  companies  such  as  Carma,  pictured  above.     Source:  Noah  Berger,  CCTA.       Technology  can  also  help  address  the  negative  effects  of  our  modern  transporta-­‐‑ tion  network.  The  increased  use  of  electric  (or  partially  electric)  vehicles  will  re-­‐‑ duce  greenhouse  gas  emissions  in  our  urban  areas  (though  this  may  be  offset  by   the  need  to  increase  electricity  generation),  and  the  increased  use  of  electric  vehi-­‐‑ cles  will  increase  the  need  for  charging  infrastructure.  While  autonomous  vehi-­‐‑ cles  may  make  more  efficient  use  of  our  roadways  and  may  reduce  the  number   of  collisions,  they  could  also  require  dramatic  changes  in  how  we  design  our   roadways.   Other  technologies  focus  on   the  roadway  itself.  Intelligent   transportation   sy s-­‐‑ tems,  or  ITS,  can  benefit  our  transportation  network  by  improving  safety  and  ef-­‐‑ ficiency.  This  benefits  the  environment  by  limiting  the  waste  of  fuel  and  reducing   greenhouse   gas   emissions.   ITS   encompasses   many   techniques,   including   elec-­‐‑ tronic  toll  collection  (such  as  FasTrak  in  the  Bay  Area),  ramp  metering,  traffic   84 Executive  Summary   Preliminary  Draft   Preliminary  Draft  for  Planning  Committee  Review  I-9   signal  coordination,  and  traveler  information  systems,  for  freeways,  arterials  and   transit  systems.   The  2014  plan  considers  how  this  evolving  transportation  technology  should  be   incorporated  into  our  transportation  system.   Technology   advancements   sometimes   require   changes   to   our   infrastructure;   for   example,   as   electric   vehicles   are   increasingly  used  across  Contra  Costa,  more  electric  vehicle  charging  stations  are  needed  to  support  them.     Source:  Noah  Berger,  CCTA.   Managing the Effects of Greenhouse Gases Climate  change  will  have  to  be  considered  in  our  growth  management  plan  due   to  the  California  Governor’s  order  mandating  an  80  percent  reduction  of  green-­‐‑ house  gases  below  1990  levels  by  2050,  as  shown  in  Figure  E-­‐‑4.  Any  efforts  to  in-­‐‑ crease  the  resiliency  of  the  our  transportation  system  in  light  of  future  sea  level   rise  will  also  need  to  take  into  account  future  vulnerabilities,  such  as  bay-­‐‑lands   and  access  points  near  San  Francisco  Bay  and  the  implications  for  infrastructure   and  land  use.   85 2014  Countywide  Comprehensive  Transportation  Plan:  Volume  1   Preliminary  Draft   I-10 Preliminary  Draft  for  Planning  Committee  Review   Figure E-4: Reaching Statewide AB 32 GHG Reduction Targets   Constrained Core Concentration Initial Vision/Core Concentration Focused Growth Outward Growth Current Regional Plans 9.4% 9.1% 8.2% 7.9% 7.0% SCS Regional Contribution*** Scenarios IMPROVED FUEL EFFICIENCY (PAVLEY I & II) LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARDS REGIONAL LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION (SCS)Million Metric Tons CO2 Equivalent15% 0% 50 1990 2000 2010 100 250 300 350 150 200 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 2020 2030 2040 2050 Projected Land Use & Transportation Emissions Reductions 80% 427 4 3 2 1 610 1 2 3 4 5 Science and Technology Report, 2011 NON-TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACTUAL/PROJECTED EMISSIONS ***MTC’s regional contribution amplied to reect the contributions of all California MPOs FIGURE 3: Regional Land Use and Transportation SCS ACHIEVING ST ATEWIDE AB 32 GHG REDUCTION TARGETS Source: Plan Bay Area ACHIEVING THE GOVERNOR’S DIRECTIVE: REACHING STATEWIDE AB 32 GHG REDUCTION TARGETS 800 *Million Metric Tons CO2 Equivalent **Estimate based on California Council on Science and Technology Report, 2011 427427 85 Target 2050 Emissions (20% of 1990 Emissions): 85 Tons* Required to meet Governor’s Executive Order S-3-05 Forecast 2050 Emissions** 507 86 Executive  Summary   Preliminary  Draft   Preliminary  Draft  for  Planning  Committee  Review  I-11   COOPERATIVE PLANNING The  2014  CTP  relies  on  collaboration  with  and  between  our  partners,  both  at  the   countywide   and   regional   levels.  As   a   critical  component   of   the   countywide   transportation  planning  process,  each  of  the  county’s  five  Regional  Transporta-­‐‑ tion   Planning   Committees   (RTPCs)   creates   an  Action   Plan,   which  identifies   a   complete  list  of  Actions  to  be  completed  as  a  result  of  the  Action  Plan.  The  2014   Action  Plans  are  unique  in  the  sense  that  they  focus  on  additional  consideration   of   multimodal   transit   options   including   pedestrian   and   bicycling   facility   im-­‐‑ provements  and  changes.     The  2014  updates  of  the  plans  also  demonstrate  an  increased  concern  for  intra-­‐‑ regional   routes   and   impact   of   traffic   diverting   from   inter-­‐‑regional   routes,   in-­‐‑ creased   support   for   freeway   management   strategies,   and   the   recognition   of   BART   and   freeway   management   as   important   inter-­‐‑regional   strategies.  The   Growth  Management  Program  (GMP),  which  is  Contra  Costa’s  program  to  en-­‐‑ force   collaborative   transportation   and   land   use   planning,  began   a   new   stage   when  Measure  J  passed  in  2009.  With  the  implementation  of  Measure  J,  the  GMP   remains  in  effect  through  2034.   Role of Action Plans in Identifying and Evaluating New Projects As  part  of  the  Action  Plan  planning  process,  each  RTPC  identified  projects  and   programs  in  the  form  of  Actions  to  be  included  in  the  Action  Plan  for  the  Routes   of  Regional  Significance.  The  2014  Action  Plans  used  the  2009  Action  Plans  as  a   base,  with  new  Actions  and  Regional  Routes  of  Significance  identified  through   discussion,  collaboration,  and  reviewing  by  each  committee.  Each  Action  Plan   states  its  vision,  goals,  and  policies;  designates  Routes  of  Regional  Significance;   sets  objectives  for  these  routes;  and  presents  specific  Actions  to  achieve  these  ob-­‐‑ jectives.  The  Actions  are  listed  on  both  a  route-­‐‑by-­‐‑route  and  a  regional  scale  and   aim  to  support  the  transportation  objectives  as  specified  by  each  RTPC’s  respec-­‐‑ tive  committee(s).  Figure  E-­‐‑6  shows  the  Action  Plan  approval  process.       The Growth Management Program (GMP) The  GMP  will  continue  to  provide  cooperative  planning  on  a  countywide  basis,   as  mandated  by  Measure  J.  So  far,  the  GMP  has  vastly  improved  interjurisdic-­‐‑ tional  communications  regarding  transportation  and  land  use  issues.  By  working   with  the  cities  and  towns  to  manage  growth,  the  Authority  has  facilitated  crea-­‐‑ tion  of  a  regional  mitigation  program  that  has  generated  more  than  $250  million   in  new  revenues  for  regional  transportation  projects.  The  GMP  will  continue  to   87 2014  Countywide  Comprehensive  Transportation  Plan:  Volume  1   Preliminary  Draft   I-12 Preliminary  Draft  for  Planning  Committee  Review   be  implemented  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  Measure  J  through  2034.   As  shown  in  Figure  E-­‐‑5,  the  Measure  J  GMP  has  seven  components  that  local  ju-­‐‑ risdictions  must  implement  to  maintain  compliance  with  the  GMP,  and  receive   funding  for  local  streets  and  roads  in  return.     Figure E-5: The Measure J Growth Management Program     Implementing Plan Bay Area Adopted  last  year,  Plan  Bay  Area  is   the   Bay   Area’s   long -­‐‑term  transportation,   land  use,  and  housing  strategy  through  the  year  2040.  It  includes  the  Bay  Area’s   Regional  Transportation  Plan  and  Sustainable  Communities  Strategy.  Plan  Bay   Area  was  created  by  the  Metropolitan  Transportation  Commission  (MTC)  and   the  Association  of  Bay  Area  Governments  (ABAG)  in  response  to  State  legisla-­‐‑ tion  (SB  375).  Plan  Bay  Area  envisioned  that  implementation  details  would  be   taken  up  in  partnership  with  transportation  planning  agencies  and  local  jurisdic-­‐‑ tions.  As  such,  the  2014  CTP  addresses  how  elements  included  in  Plan  Bay  Area   fit  into  our  vision  for  Contra  Costa.       Growth Management Program To receive Measure J local street funds, a jurisdiction must: Adopt a Growth Management Program Adopt an Urban Limit Line Develop a local and regional transportation mitigation program Show progress on providing housing options and consider bicycle, pedestrian and trafc access in new developments Participate in cooperative, multi-jurisdiction planning Adopt a transportation demand management program Develop a ve-year capital improvement program 88 RTPCsAction Plan Process Update CCTA RTPCs REVISE Action Plan Goals & Objectives IDENTIFY new/rened MTSOs & Actions consistent with revised goals COMPILE updated Action Plan for circulation & review RTPCs RECEIVE Comments from the Public RTPCs INCORPORATE comments AND APPROVE Final Action Plans CCTA CERTIFIES Final EIR & Adopts Final CTP with Final Action PLans RTPCs ADOPTS Final Action Plans FORWARD updated Action Plan to CCTA CCTA ISSUES Draft CTP and Draft EIR Public Review REVIEW status of Action Plans and Existing MTSOs Figure E-6: Action Plan Development and Approval Process 89 2014  Countywide  Comprehensive  Transportation  Plan:  Volume  1   Preliminary  Draft   I-14 Preliminary  Draft  for  Planning  Committee  Review   Elements  of  Plan  Bay  Area  that  are  reflected  in  this  plan  include:    Priority  Development  Areas  (PDAs);      Use  of  California  Cap  and  Trade  funds;      Other   initiatives,   including   those   for   freeway   performance,   carpooling   and  vanpooling,  smart  driving  strategies,  streamlining  the  environmental   review  process,  goods  movement,  and  industrial  lands  inventories;    MTC’s  Regional  Prosperity  Plan,  which  removes  barriers  for  the  disad-­‐‑ vantaged  and  discusses  the  unresolved  regional  issues  of  mobility  and   equity;      Complete   Streets,   which   serve   all   modes,   and   reasonable   accommod a-­‐‑ tions  for  all  modes;  and      How   and   when   to   incorporate  Plan   Bay   Area’s  land   use   forecasts   for   transportation  into  model  updates.   IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN The  2014  CTP  will  play  an  important  role  in  shaping  our  transportation  policy   and  investment  decisions.  But  how  will  the  Plan  be  carried  out?  The  Authority   will  need  to  work  with  many  agencies  to  fund  and  prioritize  the  programs  and   projects  that  will  work  towards  achieving  its  goals.  The  CTP  outlines  the  strate-­‐‑ gies,  the  partnerships  and  the  guidelines  essential  for  a  smooth  transition  from   concept  to  reality,  building  on  lessons  learned  since  the  first  CTP  was  prepared   in  1995.   Detailed  implementation  tasks  fall  under  the  following  seven  broad  categories:    Implement  Measure  J  funding  programs    Plan  for  Contra  Costa’s  transportation  future    Support  growth  management    Develop  transportation  improvements    Improve  system  management   90 Executive  Summary   Preliminary  Draft   Preliminary  Draft  for  Planning  Committee  Review  I-15    Build  and  maintain  partnerships    Fund  transportation  improvements   The  2014  CTP  represents  the  Authority’s  long-­‐‑term  plan  for  achieving  a  healthy   environment  and  a  strong  economy  that  benefits  the  people  and  areas  of  Contra   Costa  through   investment   in   our   transportation   system,   cooperative   planning   and  growth  management.  Working  with  its  partner  agencies,  the  Authority  will   apply  these  strategies  outlined  in  the  2014  CTP  to  achieve  the  vision  for  Contra   Costa’s  future.     FUNDING OVERVIEW Over  the  life  of  Measure  J,  the  Authority  anticipates  total  revenues  of  $2.7  billion   (escalated  dollars)  from  the  one-­‐‑half  percent  sales  tax.  Of  these,  about  58  percent,   or  $1.56  billion,  is  dedicated  to  programs  such  as  local  streets  and  roads,  bus  op-­‐‑ erations,  and  Transportation  for  Livable  Communities.  The  remaining  42  percent,   or  $1.14  billion,  goes  to  specific  transportation  projects.     Measure  C  (1988-­‐‑2004)  had  a  different  project/program  split.  Of  the  $1.1  billion   generated  by  Measure  C,  specific  transportation  projects  received  60  percent  of   total  revenues,  while  programs  received  40  percent.   Measures  C  and  J  have  made  a  substantial  dent  in  funding  needed  for  projects   and  programs,  not  only  from  the  revenues  they  generated,  but  also  the  funding   they  attracted  from  other  sources.  As  shown  in  the  table  below,  total  past  and   future   project   expenditures,   including   state   and   federal   funds   leveraged   by   Measures  C  and  J,  total  $6.5  billion.   91 2014  Countywide  Comprehensive  Transportation  Plan:  Volume  1   Preliminary  Draft   I-16 Preliminary  Draft  for  Planning  Committee  Review   TABLE E-1: MEASURES C AND J PAST AND FUTURE PROJECT EXPENDITURES MEASURE C AND MEASURE J (X $1,000) PAST UPCOMING TOTAL Roadway (highways, arterials and maintenance) $754,989 $1,030,733 $1,785,722 Transit (bus, ferry, express bus, paratransit, commute alternatives) $433,548 $737,643 $1,171,192 Pedestrian & Bicycle (TLC, trails, safe transport for children, subregional needs) $11,152 $322,812 $333,964 Other $143,915 $372,998 $516,913 Subtotal $1,343,605 $2,464,187 $3,807,792 Leveraged funds on Measure C & J projects $1,721,000 $970,000 $2,691,000 TOTAL FUNDS $2,064,605 $3,434,187 $6,498,792   The  CTP  contains  a  detailed  listing  of  projects  covering  all  modes  of  transport.   As  shown  in  the  table  below,  the  total  cost  of  proposed  future  projects  is  estimat-­‐‑ ed  at  nearly  $11.7  billion,  of  which  only  $4.8  billion  is  funded  through  local,  re-­‐‑ gional,  state,  and  federal  sources   TABLE E-2: TOTAL COSTS OF PROPOSED FUTURE PROJECTS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($1,000) SHARE OF TOTAL Arterial/Roadway $1,954,075 16.8% Bicycle/Pedestrian/SR2S/TLC $579,159 5.0% Transit $5,072,089 43.5% Freeway/Expressway/Interchanges $3,875,997 33.3% Intermodal/Park-and-Ride $131,854 1.1% Studies $38,035 1.3% TOTAL COST $11,651,209 100.0%   In  addition  to  the  projects,  there  are  a  number  of  transportation  programs  that   are  needed  to  preserve,  protect,  and  operate  our  investments  and  to  serve  our   travellers.  The  CTP  estimates  that  approximately  $14  billion  would  be  required   to  carry  these  programs  through  to  2040.  Of  this,  only  $11.4  billion  is  funded.  The   following  table  summarizes  the  cost  by  program  type.     92 Executive  Summary   Preliminary  Draft   Preliminary  Draft  for  Planning  Committee  Review  I-17       A  major  challenge  facing  the  Authority  is  to  prioritize  this  $26  billion  in  projects   and   programs,   and   determine   which   should   receive   highest   priority   over   the   next  30  years.  In  addition,  the  Authority  must  seek  new  sources  of  funding  to   bridge  an  approximate  $10  billion  funding  gap.  Through  renewal  of  the  sales  tax   measure,  and  by  keeping  a  close  eye  on  other  funding  opportunities  that  may   present  themselves,  the  Authority  will  continue  working  diligently  to  achieve   Contra  Costa’s  transportation  vision  for  2040.       TABLE E-3: TOTAL COSTS OF PROPOSED PROGRAMS PROGRAM TYPE TOTAL COST (X $1,000) SHARE OF TOTAL Arterial/Roadway $5,977,720 41.1% Bicycle/Pedestrian $231,599 1.6% Bus $1,419,053 9.8% Freeway/Expressway/Interchanges $935,440 6.4% Green Programs $500,000 3.4% Innovation $100,000 0.7% Paratransit $113,500 0.8% Rail/Rapid Transit $5,229,000 35.9% Safe Routes to Schools $23,013 0.2% TDM $26,600 0.2% TOTAL COST $14,556,726 100.0% 93 2014  Countywide  Comprehensive  Transportation  Plan:  Volume  1   Preliminary  Draft   I-18 Preliminary  Draft  for  Planning  Committee  Review   This  page  intentionally  blank       94 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:08/07/2014   Subject:Update on Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Submitted For: John Kopchik, Interim Director, Conservation & Development Department  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: Multiple  Presenter: Robert Sarmiento Contact: Robert Sarmiento, (925) 674-7822 Referral History: N/A Referral Update: Background In 2013 the County received a Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) grant from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) to study a trail connection between the Lafayette-Moraga Trail and the Iron Horse Trail. After an initial kick-off meeting on March 8, 2013, the County, Walnut Creek, and Lafayette entered into an MOU on June 21, 2013 to jointly participate in the study. On December 5, 2013, the first public workshop was held to solicit feedback regarding the study and potential alignments for a new separated multi-use facility. Status This past July, Alta Planning (consultant on the project) released a Draft Preferred Alignment Report (Exhibit A), which identified a draft concept for public review. Details are in the Draft Preferred Alignment Report and will be discussed by staff, but in general, the draft preferred alignment (from west to east) would run along:  Olympic Boulevard to California Boulevard in Downtown Walnut Creek California Boulevard south to Newell Avenue Newell Avenue to the Iron Horse Trail 95 A segment of the draft preferred alignment that would serve as an alternate option to the main alignment would run along Newell Avenue from Olympic Boulevard to California Boulevard. The draft preferred alignment will contain a number of short-term improvements, such as buffered bike lanes, narrower vehicular lanes, wayfinding signs, and sharrows. Longer-term, more complex, and costlier improvements will ultimately be necessary to achieve the goal of the 'ultimate project'- a separated facility that connects the two existing trails. Currently, the report has been circulated among the County neighborhood organizations in the study area:  Parkmead Community Association Saranap Homeowners Organization Saranap Community Association In addition, the draft report was presented at the following City commissions:  Walnut Creek Circulation Commission Lafayette Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee The draft concepts for the unincorporated portion of the study corridor will be reviewed at the TWI Meeting by staff.  There will be a second public meeting in August or September to solicit feedback on the draft preferred alignment. After input is collected, Alta will begin work on a final alignment report, which will go for final approval at the Board of Supervisors and formal adoption.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECEIVE update on the progress of the Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study and provide COMMENT and DIRECTION to staff as appropriate. Fiscal Impact (if any): There will be no fiscal impact to the County's General Fund. This study is being funded by CCTA-TLC funds. Attachments EXHIBIT A - Olympic Corridor Draft Preferred Alignment Report 96 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector StudyDraft Preferred Alignment ReportJuly 2014PREPARED BY:Alta Planning + DesignIN ASSOCIATION WITH:DKS Associates, Inc.Harrison Engineering Inc.The Environmental CollaborativePREPARED FOR:Contra Costa CountyCity of LafayetteCity of Walnut CreekThis project is funded through a grant from the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority97 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | i Acknowledgements Technical Advisory Committee Brad Beck, Senior Transportation Planner, Contra Costa Transportation Authority Jeremy Lochirco, Senior Planner, City of Walnut Creek Jerry Fahy, Civil Engineer, Contra Costa County Public Works Department Jim Townsend, Manager Trails Development Program, East Bay Regional Park District John Cunningham, Principal Planner, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Leah Greenblat, Transportation Planner, City of Lafayette Mary Halle, Associate Civil Engineer, Contra Costa County Public Works Department Mike Carlson, Civil Engineer, Flood Control/Clean Water Contra Costa County Public Works Department Consulting Team Alta Planning + Design Randy Anderson, PLA, Principal-in-Charge Jennifer Donlon Wyant, Project Manager Kristin Maravilla, Designer Harrison Engineering Randell Harrison, PE, QSD T. Ryan O’Kane, PE DKS Associates Thomas Krakow, PE Joshua Pilachowski, PhD, EIT Environmental Collaborative James. A. Martin Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Background and Context ..................................................................................................................................... 2 3. Connector Development Vision, Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................... 4 4. Alignments Considered ........................................................................................................................................ 5 5. Proposed Preferred Alignment............................................................................................................................ 8 6. Segment 1: Olympic Boulevard, Lafayette Moraga Trail to Pleasant Hill Road ............................................ 14 7. Segment 2: Olympic Boulevard, Pleasant Hill Road to Newell Court ............................................................. 16 8. Segment 3: Olympic Boulevard, Newell Court to Tice Valley Boulevard/ Boulevard Way ........................... 20 9. Segment 4: Olympic Boulevard, Boulevard Way/Tice Valley Boulevard Intersection to Newell Avenue .. 22 10. Segment 5: Olympic Boulevard, Newell Avenue to S.B. I-680 On/Off Ramps ............................................... 24 11. Segment 6: Olympic Boulevard, S.B. I-680 On/Off Ramps to S. California Boulevard .................................. 27 12. Segment 7: S. California Boulevard, Olympic Boulevard south to Newell Avenue ...................................... 31 13. Segment 8: Newell Avenue, S. California Boulevard to Broadway ................................................................ 34 14. Segment 9: Newell Ave West of I-680 ................................................................................................................ 38 15. Segment 10: Southern Connections to IHT ...................................................................................................... 38 16. Implementation and Phasing ............................................................................................................................ 39 17. Trail Maintenance ............................................................................................................................................... 42   98 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report ii | Alta Planning + Design This page intentionally blank. 99 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 1 1. Introduction The Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study is an investigation to connect two well-used, multi-use regional trails in Contra Costa County – the Lafayette-Moraga Trail and the Iron Horse Regional Trail – with low stress, convenient, and family friendly bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The communities along the corridor envision a connecting bikeway that will help them connect, become healthier, and create value. Attractive and low stress facilities such as this vision for the Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector (Connector) are attractive and welcoming to the broad community and contribute to economic development. The Connector will provide many benefits to the communities of Lafayette, Contra Costa County and Walnut Creek. These benefits include:  Connecting community members to work  Connecting community members to recreation activities  Connecting community members to schools  Connecting community members to shopping  Supporting economic activity  Supporting active living through walking or bicycling  Supporting community development by slower travel by walking or bicycling This Report describes the preferred alignment and types of facilities that will serve community members of all ages and abilities. 100 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 2 | Alta Planning + Design 2. Background and Context 2.1 Study Overview The Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study (Study) assessed several potential alignments for improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the Olympic Boulevard Corridor, connecting two paved multi‐use regional trails in Contra Costa County: the Lafayette‐Moraga Trail (LMT) and the Iron Horse Trail (IHT). The LMT connects the cities of Lafayette and Moraga and the community of Canyon. The IHT extends from Concord to Dublin, following the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way (ROW). The Study objective is to identify the best alignment or combination of alignments to connect the two trails. This Study is funded by Contra Costa Measure J (2004) Transportation for Livable Communities grant administered by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority). Consistent with the grant program description in the voter approved Measure J, the trail connector will improve walking and bicycling access to housing, schools, job centers and transit by:  Providing a high quality non‐motorized facility connecting housing and jobs, services, and retail areas including Mt. Diablo Boulevard and St. Mary's College in Lafayette and Downtown Walnut Creek;  Providing a high quality non-motorized facility(s) connecting housing to schools;  Providing an improved bicycle and pedestrian connections to transit in Lafayette and downtown Walnut Creek; and  Improving access to the IHT which, in turn, provides additional non‐motorized, countywide access to retail, recreational areas, and job centers. 2.1.1 Scope and Study Area The Study began in spring 2013 and examined several possible alignments and identified a draft preferred alignment connecting the LMT and the IHT. The Study Area spans three jurisdictions including the City of Lafayette, unincorporated Contra Costa County, and the City of Walnut Creek (Figure 1). The Study as of spring 2014 recommends improvements which could be implemented in phases, in addition to geographic phasing of improvements. The recommendations include short‐term/low cost improvements as well as longer term/larger scale projects that would require substantial reconstruction of road corridors and travel lanes, or collaboration with private property owner’s regarding potential modification of private frontage improvements. In any case, these improvements are intended to provide a connector between the LMT and IHT, which would significantly improve safety and accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. Figure 1: Study Area 101 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 3 2.1.2 Existing Conditions Report An Existing Conditions Report, provided as a separate document, includes detailed background information for and analysis of potential alignment options. It describes the relevant background, policies, conditions, issues, objectives, and potential challenges in the Study Area for each possible alternative. Review of these alternatives through a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), local Stakeholders Group, and a general public workshop resulted in the preferred/recommended alternatives presented here. 2.1.3 Technical Advisory Committee The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the project consisted of staff from Contra Costa County, the cities of Walnut Creek and Lafayette, the East Bay Regional Park District, and the Contra Costa Flood Control District (CCFCD). The TAC provided valuable input on previous and current planning efforts, identified opportunities and challenges, and guided the alignment selection. The TAC met through a series of meetings in 2013 and 2014. 2.1.4 Stakeholder Meetings and Public Input A Stakeholder meeting was held on August 15, 2013. The purpose of this meeting was to gather input from representative groups on existing conditions, opportunities and challenges for the Connector Trail. Groups invited to participate included:  Acalanes School District  Parkmead Association  Bike East Bay  Parkmead Elementary  Bike Walnut Creek  Saranap Association  Broadway Shopping Center  Sierra Club  Caltrans  Sun Valley Swim Club  Greenbelt Alliance  Supervisor Andersen’s Office  Hall Equities Group  Supervisor Mitchoff’s Office  Kaiser Permanente  Sustainable Lafayette  Lafayette Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee  Walnut Creek Chamber of Commence  Lafayette Circulation Commission  Walnut Creek Downtown Business Association  Lafayette Homeowners Association: Olympic Oaks  Walnut Creek School District  Lafayette Homeowners Association: Pleasant Hills and Valley  Walnut Creek Watershed Council  Lafayette Park, Recreation and Trails Commission  White Pony Preschool Following the stakeholder meeting, a public meeting was held on December 5, 2013 where approximately 35 community members attended. Similar to the stakeholder meeting, this meeting focused on existing conditions, opportunities and challenges. In addition to the formal meetings, Bike East Bay organized a bike ride of route alternatives on October 12, 2013. County and consultant staff participated on the ride. Parent riding to the Lafayette Moraga Trail 102 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 4 | Alta Planning + Design 3. Connector Development Vision, Goals and Objectives 3.1 Vision Statement The Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector will close a major gap in the Central Contra Costa County trail network. This gap closure will link the Lafayette-Moraga and Iron Horse Regional Trails creating a network of comfortable, convenient off-street trails and on-street bike and pedestrian facilities connecting to area schools, employment centers, transit hubs, shopping districts, neighborhoods, community facilities, parks, and open spaces. This Connector, along with the Lafayette-Moraga and Iron Horse Regional Trails and the Contra Costa Canal Trail, which joins the Iron Horse Regional Trail 1.5 miles to the north, will connect the majority of Central Contra Costa cities with the off-street trail network. This vision statement was developed with input from a variety of stakeholders, including Contra Costa County and the cities of Lafayette and Walnut Creek. Residents were invited to share their vision for the Connector during several public events. The ideal vision for the Connector expressed in the public participation process is a separated, buffered “cycle track” facility (see Section 5.3 for descriptions of a cycle track and other facility types), ideally with a separate path or sidewalk for pedestrians. This type of facility accommodates the broadest range of users with the highest degree of comfort and safety. Some parts of the Olympic Boulevard Corridor already have a well-separated shared use path that may be an appropriate comparable facility for a suburban setting. The study team carefully evaluated the opportunities, challenges and requirements to create a continuous separated shared use or bicycle-oriented path through the entire corridor. 3.2 Goals and Objectives This Study identifies the following goals and objectives for the Connector based on County, Walnut Creek, and Lafayette planning document goals and objectives for the Connector or pedestrian and bicycle facilities in general:  Goal: The project should improve bicycle and pedestrian safety and connectivity in Contra Costa County by meeting the following objectives:  Provide an enjoyable, low-stress1 experience along the route that is similar to the experience of using the LMT and IHT and away from the noise and fumes from local roads and highways where feasible.  Ensure that the facility offers a direct route and meets or exceeds best practices for pedestrian and bicycle facility design.  Provide links and improve access to connector pedestrian and bicycle facilities and important destinations along the corridor (e.g., employment and shopping centers, transit hubs, schools, parks, and open spaces).  Improve safety conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians in the corridor by minimizing potential conflicts with motor vehicles and different user groups.  To maximize the range of potential users, consider the needs and capabilities of each user group and users of all ages and abilities in the trail design.  Maximize the functional aspects of any recommendation in terms of convenience, gradients, directness, cost, and connectivity to major destinations, while minimizing negative impacts to traffic operations.  Design a project that is within the financial resources of the County and cities to construct and maintain.  Design the project to be consistent with local, state and federal standards, policies, and goals on pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including ADA.  Goal: The project should minimize impacts to the existing environment by meeting the following objectives.  Design the project to avoid significant adverse impacts to the environment.  Avoid or minimize impacts to private property. 1 As used in this Study, a low stress facility is a facility that meets Level of Stress (LTS) 1 or 2 of four levels as defined by Mekuria, Furth & Nixon in “Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity” (Mineta Transportation Institute, May 2012). LTS 1 is considered suitable for almost all bicyclists, including children trained to safely cross intersections. LTS 2 is suitable to most adult bicyclists but demanding more attention than might be expected from children. 3.3 Design Guidelines The Connector, or other pedestrian and bicycle improvements, should conform to California design standards. Pathway design in California is governed by many design documents, the most important of which include the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and the Access Board Draft Final Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas. The Urban Bikeway Design Guide of the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) is an important reference for the latest techniques2. The 2001 Contra Costa County Trail Design Resource Handbook supplements the HDM by providing guidance on when and how to exceed the HDM minimum standards for Class I bikeways. The cities of Lafayette and Walnut Creek do not have specific design standards for paved trails and defer to Caltrans standards. The Iron Horse Trail at South Broadway and Newell Avenue 2 Caltrans endorsed the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide and the Urban Street Design Guide in April 2014. 103 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 5 4. Alignments Considered 4.1 Alignment Selection Criteria and Environmental Challenges Considered Alignment Selection Criteria The criteria used to guide the development of the preferred alignment were informed by the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan’s evaluation criteria for prioritizing projects as well as input from the TAC, Stakeholder Group and the community. The criteria include:  Range of Users: The Connector should attract and meet the needs of a broad array of distinct groups of users, including school children, students, seniors, the disabled, families, commuters and recreationalists.  User Experience: The Connector should provide a low-stress family friendly experience that functions for the intended and likely user groups, and addresses potential conflicts between user groups: pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with disabilities.  Neighborhood Compatibility: The Connector should strive to maintain neighborhood character and may provide traffic calming.  Public Support: The Connector should have public and local jurisdiction support.  Destinations: The Connector should strive to serve key existing and planned activity centers such as shopping areas, employment centers, transit centers, stations or stops, civic buildings, parks, schools, libraries and other community facilities.  Feasibility: The options should meet basic tests of cost vs. benefit, with cost considerations including environmental impact, right-of-way acquisition, and construction cost, and benefits including the ability of the facility to accommodate a wide range of users.  Right-of-Way: The Connector should include minimal requirement to secure additional ROW and/or agreements from other parties to complete the trail improvements.  Environmental Issues: The Connector should have minimal potential to adversely impact geologic stability, storm drainage, biological or cultural resources, aesthetics, noise, water quality, or other factors typically addressed during the state or federal environmental review process. South California Boulevard, Walnut Creek Photo courtesy of John Cunningham Engineering Challenges In order to achieve a low-stress, family friendly connection for a wide range of users, several challenge points in the Study Area were considered and addressed, such as:  Use of available ROW and functional allocation of space: There is little opportunity to acquire additional ROW in this highly-developed corridor. There are heavy, often fast traffic flows, and many complicated intersections and turn movements.  Transitions from Class I Bikeways to Class II or Class III facilities: Ideally, the most appropriate facility can be planned for any given situation, but transitions between paths and bike lanes or routes may create challenges for how bicyclists can safely cross the street, along with wayfinding/directional issues.  Connection through downtown Walnut Creek/the Broadway Plaza area: Downtown Walnut Creek is one of the premier retail and entertainment attractions in the county. It is walkable for pedestrians, but has no well-defined east/west route for bicyclists.  Crossings of and connections to busy roads: This will be critical to the safety and utility of the potential improvements.  I-680 undercrossings: Each of the identified alignments has a constrained undercrossing of I-680. Sidewalks are present, but are currently too narrow for a shared bicyclist and pedestrian facility.  Creek alignments: These alignments are challenging due to lack of public ROW, potential conflicts with adjacent land uses, resources, and flood control operations. Specific solutions to these challenges are described in Chapter 5. Proposed Preferred Alignment. A number of constraints, such as limited ROW and cost concerns, may warrant consideration of an interim phase before an ultimate alignment can be implemented. 104 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 6 | Alta Planning + Design The study strives to avoid significant adverse impacts to the environment Biological Challenges The study corridor is largely developed, which limits the likelihood for occurrence of sensitive biological resources. Based on the field reconnaissance, sensitive resources appear to be limited to regulated trees and the jurisdictional waters associated with Las Trampas and San Ramon Creeks. The potential for occurrence of special-status species along most of the Connector alignment is considered highly unlikely. The two exceptions to this are 1) the possible presence of a number of special-status species in the natural habitat along the creek corridors at bridge crossings, and 2) the possibility that nests of birds are in active use in trees along the trail alignment. Special-status species possibly associated with the aquatic and riparian habitat of the creek corridors could be addressed through conduct of preconstruction surveys by a qualified biologist, worker training and construction exclusion, and appropriate monitoring. Any active nests regulated under State Fish and Game Code and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act could be addressed through controls on timing of vegetation removal, preconstruction surveys by a qualified biologist and appropriate avoidance until young birds have successfully fledged if an active nest has been located within the vicinity of improvements. The crossings of Las Trampas Creek at South California Boulevard and San Ramon Creek at Newell Avenue would require new bridge structures through regulated habitat. Based on the assumed alignment, the new bridge structures would require removal of mature native trees and affect the banks at both crossings. The extent of disturbance would depend on bridge design, including the need for any support footings, removal of existing vegetation, and other variables. Both streams are perennial and construction may require temporary dewatering of the active channel, again depending on design. Authorizations would be required by both the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and if disturbance below the ordinary high water mark is required (including temporary dewatering during construction) then authorization would also be required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Involvement from these agencies would focus on minimizing project-related impacts to areas in their various jurisdictions, and potential mitigation efforts including creating, restoring, or enhancing wetlands to compensate for those affected. Given that jurisdictional waters would be affected (new bridges over Las Trampas and San Ramon Creeks in the long-term options) and agency authorizations would be required, this would be considered a significant impact of the project with a high level environmental constraint. The potential impacts of the project on tree resources will depend on final improvement designs. Based on a preliminary review, however, a considerable number of regulated trees could be removed. A survey of tree trunk location, size and species would be necessary to accurately assess potential impacts on regulated tree resources. Tree loss would occur along some roadway segments and at the new bridge crossings of Las Trampas Creek on South California Boulevard and San Ramon Creek at Newell Avenue. Given the proximity of tree trunks and root systems to the existing roadway prism, careful construction practices would be critical to minimizing damage and decline of trees to be retained along the Connector alignment. Given that regulated trees would be lost and affected, this would be considered a significant impact of the project with a high level of environmental constraint. 105 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 7 4.2 Eliminated Route Alternatives This Study reviewed all the public roads that provide significant east-west connections between the two regional trails, as well as portions of the Las Trampas Creek corridor that have maintenance roads or are in public ownership, and connecting streets or other public corridors between the alternative routes that might be used to create a complete connection. This section describes routes that were initially considered but were eliminated through the technical and public review process. These are shown on Figure 2. A more detailed analysis of the eliminated route alternatives is provided in the Existing Conditions Report. Connections to the Olympic Boulevard Route (orange): Fatal Flaws: Steep hills and environmental challenges Paulson Lane is a connection within the City of Walnut Creek from Olympic Boulevard southeast via Paulson Lane, a buffer strip in the I-680 ROW, a trail and bridge along and across Las Trampas Creek (discussed in more detail under the Las Trampas Creek Route below) and another buffer strip in I-680 ROW to Newell Avenue (alternative to the western part of Newell Avenue). I-680 Off-Ramp / ROW is a connection within the City of Walnut Creek south along the I-680 off-ramp from Olympic Boulevard to Newell Avenue (uses same bridge across Las Trampas Creek). Alpine Road / Botelho Drive / S. California Boulevard is a connection within the City of Walnut Creek from Olympic Boulevard east of I-680 south on Alpine Road, east on Botelho Drive, and south on S. California Boulevard to Newell Avenue. Boulevard Way / Mt. Diablo Boulevard Route (blue): Fatal Flaws: Steep hills, poor sight distance, narrow streets, relatively circuitous route, challenge of navigating under the 24/680 interchange and ramps, and the heavy traffic on Mt Diablo Boulevard. Boulevard Way in unincorporated Contra Costa County runs from the Olympic Boulevard/Tice Valley Road intersection north and east to the City of Walnut Creek at Mt. Diablo Boulevard; then following Mt. Diablo Boulevard east to the IHT. An alternative to using the north-south portion of Boulevard Way was also evaluated. Condit Road / Leland Drive / Meek Place / Sunset Loop /Kinney Drive is a connection from Olympic Boulevard north along Pleasant Hill Road, then east via Condit Road, Leland Drive, Meek Place, and Sunset Loop in the City of Lafayette, and Kinney Drive to Boulevard Way in unincorporated Contra Costa County. Las Trampas Creek Route (purple): Fatal Flaws: Indirect connections with the roadway network, limited right-of-way, and potential conflict with adjacent residences. Most of Las Trampas Creek is in private ownership and has residences abutting the creek. However, the portion of the creek from Bridge Road east to Olympic Boulevard in unincorporated Contra Costa County has creek access roads and easements owned by the Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and portions of the creek under and east of I-680 within the City of Walnut Creek are in public ownership by Caltrans. Potential routes to extend or connect to the Creek Route included:  Warren Road and Dewing Lane in unincorporated Contra Costa County from Boulevard Way to Olympic Boulevard (if a bridge is implemented), and;  Bridge Road in unincorporated Contra Costa County from Warren Road to Olympic Boulevard, would require construction of a new pedestrian bridge over the creek. Figure 2: Eliminated Route Alternatives 106 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 8 | Alta Planning + Design 5. Proposed Preferred Alignment 5.1 Alignment Overview The preferred route shown in Figure 3 is based on the initial review process and identified community preference. Preferred Route: from the LMT along Olympic Boulevard to California Boulevard, south on California Boulevard to Newell Avenue; Newell Avenue east to the IHT. Strengths: Primary existing route for bicycle and walking trips, most direct route, most opportunity for low-stress facility improvement, and most popular alignment identified by community members and stakeholders. Olympic Boulevard is the main east/west arterial connecting downtown Walnut Creek to the Rossmoor community and to Lafayette. This is also the primary existing route for bicycle and pedestrian connections; it is the most direct route; it has significant existing facilities, and the most opportunity for improvement toward the goal of a pathway facility separated from traffic – ideally with separate space for pedestrians and bicyclists. Starting at Reliez Station Road in the City of Lafayette, the route continues east along Olympic Boulevard through unincorporated Contra Costa County, to the City of Walnut Creek west of I-680. The first portion of the route includes improved segments of pathways separated from the roadway west of Tice Valley Boulevard and a “sidepath” adjacent to the roadway extending from Tice Valley Boulevard to Olympic at Newell Avenue.. The eastern portion of Olympic Boulevard, starting with the I-680 interchange, has very heavy traffic and constrained width, as does California Boulevard and the portion of Newell Avenue east of California Boulevard. The western portion of Newell Avenue provides an alternative to the eastern portion of the preferred Connector alignment. This portion of Newell Avenue is a narrow, winding, tree-lined residential street. Vehicle turns into Newell from Olympic are blocked to deter through vehicle traffic. There is very limited space for bicycle or pedestrian facility improvements, but Newell will inevitably continue to be an important bicycle and pedestrian connection, especially to the southern portion of the City of Walnut Creek. This is already a popular route for bicyclists and an important route to Parkmead Elementary School and the Dorris-Eaton School on the west side of I-680 and Las Lomas High School on the east. The eastern portion of Newell Avenue is a heavily –travelled 4 to 6 lane connector through office and commercial areas and serves the busy Kaiser Hospital and adjacent parking structures. 5.2 Chapter Organization Short and long-term alternatives for improvement of the Connector alignment are presented moving west to east. The route is divided into a series of 14 maps (see Figure 3) in order to show sufficient detail. The maps are grouped into 10 segments reflecting changes and similarities of conditions along the route. Maps are accompanied by a series of cross-sections and descriptions of potential short-term and long-term improvements. In some cases there are alternative approaches for how space can be secured to construct the Connector improvements. Figure 3: Preferred Route Alignment 107 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 9 5.3 Preferred Alignment and Improvement Types 5.3.1 Preferred Alignment Table 1 summarizes the improvement concepts for the preferred alignment. This study provides further detail on the potential scope of improvements that could occur given the opportunities, constraints, prior and current plans and polices, and the expressed interests of the community. Table 1: Summary of Recommended Improvements Route Segment and Intersections Jurisdiction Potential Improvement Related Plans, Efforts 1 Olympic Blvd.: Reliez Station Rd. to Pleasant Hill Rd. Lafayette Short Term: Convert existing bike lanes to buffered bike lanes by narrowing vehicle lanes; extend existing path on S. side; signing and marking improvements at crossing of Reliez Station Rd.; wayfinding improvements at Pleasant Hill Rd. intersection Long Term: None – there is already a separate trail Pending study by City of Lafayette. City of Lafayette is seeking funding to study a roundabout at Pleasant Hill Rd. intersection. 2.1 Olympic Blvd.: Pleasant Hill Rd. to Windtree Ct. Lafayette Short Term: Create buffered bike lanes as above Long Term: Widen existing path on north side to create 10 foot sidepath (requires retaining wall tapering up to 10 feet tall, and median narrowing with tree replacement) 2.2 Olympic Blvd.: Windtree Ct. to Newell Ct. Lafayette & CC County Short Term: Create buffered bike lanes Long Term: Widen existing path on north side to create 14 foot sidepath (requires narrowing median and lane shift to S. at east end; redesign of Newell Ct. intersection and connections 3 Olympic Blvd.: Newell Ct. to Boulevard Way/ Tice Valley Rd. CC County Short Term: Create buffered bike lanes; connect existing Class I path on S. side to Tice intersection; provide bike pockets and crossing improvements at intersection Long Term: Extend continuous path or sidewalks along N. side (requires approx. 4 foot lane shift to the south) 4 Olympic Blvd.: Boulevard Way/ Tice Valley Rd. to Newell Ave. CC County Short Term: Create continuous bike lanes; improve existing sidepath; improve crosswalks to Newell Ave.; improve right turn for bikes from EB Olympic Blvd. to SB Newell Ave. Long Term: Continue the sidepath approximately 100 feet to connect to Newell Avenue (may be included w/ Segment5) 5 Olympic: Newell Ave. to I-680 CC County Short Term: Create bike lanes in constrained portions at turn pockets; buffered bike lanes on other portions Long Term: Expand the existing sidewalks fronting the Villa townhome complex to create a 10 to 12 foot wide sidepath by narrowing lanes and wide portions of medians, eliminating up to 8 curbside parking spaces out of 30. At one location it may be necessary to shift the south side curb 2 feet south to create needed space, involving tree removal. 6.1 Olympic Blvd.: I-680 to Alpine Road Walnut Creek Short Term: Create bike lanes on S. side; bike pockets on N side Long Term: Create a sidepath along the south side of Olympic from Paulson Lane to Alpine Road by constructing retaining walls. Provide enhanced crossing improvements. City of Walnut Creek has submitted a grant application for improvements at I-680 undercrossing 6.2 Olympic Blvd.: Alpine Rd. to S. California Blvd. Walnut Creek Short Term: Convert existing bike lanes to buffered bike lanes by narrowing vehicle lanes Long Term: Add a bike path north of the existing sidewalk on the south side. Create space either by removing a vehicle lane or shifting the roadway 10 to 12 feet north in conjunction with future redevelopment of the properties on the north side Route Segment and Intersections JurisdictionPotential Improvement Related Plans, Efforts7 S. California Blvd.: Olympic Blvd. to Newell Ave. Walnut CreekShort Term: Add “sharrows” with green backing to designate lanes as shared with bikes Long Term: On first block convert existing wide sidewalk/plaza on E. side to separate bike path on curb side and sidewalk on inside with street tree, light, and utility space in between. On second block create sidepath by eliminating 2 parking spaces S. of Botelho and 3 to 4 parking spaces on W. side S. of creek and shifting lane W.s, extending curb, and installing bicycle/pedestrian bridge over creek 8.1 Newell Ave: S. California Blvd. to S. Main Walnut CreekShort Term: Add green backing to existing “sharrows” designating lanes as shared with bikes; create bike lanes from S. California Blvd. west on Newell Ave. to I-680 undercrossing Long Term: Create sidepath on N. side by narrowing lanes and extending north side curb; OR add a bike path to south of existing sidewalk (create space either by removing a vehicle lane OR narrowing lanes and acquiring 5 – 6 feet of ROW on the south side and shifting roadway south); OR create an all-new sidewalk and bike path in conjunction with future redevelopment of the properties on the north side City has concept plan for a mid-block crosswalk at Kaiser that might conflict with long-term options 8.2 Newell Ave: S. Main St. to Broadway and IHT Walnut CreekShort Term: Add green backing to existing “sharrows” designating lanes as shared with bikes Long Term: Add a bike path to south of existing sidewalk (create space either by removing a vehicle lane) OR create an all-new sidewalk and bike path by narrowing lanes and acquiring 5 – 6 feet of ROW beyond the existing sidewalk on north side; OR create an all-new sidewalk and bike path in conjunction with future redevelopment of the properties on the north. Install a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over creek; sidepath or sidewalk plus bike path continued to Broadway as part of mall redevelopment project; crossing improvements at Broadway intersection to connect to IHT Broadway Plaza redevelopment plan includes plan for shared use path along Newell Ave. City has concept plan for adding a lane on this portion – reflected in long-term concept. Sidepath shown is not as wide as improvement concept 9 Newell Ave.: Olympic Blvd. to I-680 (a tributary route) CC County Wayfinding and marking of route County working with residents on traffic calming concepts 10 Southern connections via Lilac, S. Main, Lancaster, Creekside (tributary routes) Walnut Creek Provide wayfinding signage to aid in connections to/from Olympic/Newell Connector 108 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 10 | Alta Planning + Design 5.3.2 Design Concepts The Indianapolis Cultural Trail is an 8-mile world class urban bike and pedestrian path in downtown Indianapolis, Indiana. It was mentioned by public participants in the current study as a good example of a major trail facility. It seamlessly connects neighborhoods, cultural districts and entertainment amenities while serving as the downtown hub for central Indiana’s vast greenway system. The Cultural Trail was made possible by a large public and private collaboration led by Central Indiana Community Foundation, the City of Indianapolis and several not-for-profit organizations. Preferred Design Concept 1: Bike path or “cycle track” with separate sidewalk or pedestrian path One configuration of the preferred bicycle/pedestrian facility is illustrated in Figure 4. This would include a bike path or “cycle track”, ideally 10 to 12 feet wide, depending on adjacent obstacles, and separated from motor vehicle lanes by a buffer such as a landscape or decorative pavement strip and/or curb, pylons, or low barrier. A barrier of railing height would not be desirable because bicyclists could hit it and fall into the vehicle lanes. The inner side, away from the curb, would be occupied by a sidewalk with 5 to 8 feet of clear space, depending on the setting and density of anticipated pedestrian traffic. The street trees, street lights, and utilities such as power poles, boxes, signals, and signal controller equipment that typically occupy the outer few feet of the sidewalk space would occupy a 3 to 5 foot zone between the sidewalk and the bike path. Note that this concept is not compatible with bus stops; additional space for the bus stop would need to be provided in the street outside the bike path, or the bus stop would need to be located on a portion of the route that had a shared use path as described under Design Concept 2. Design Concept 1 is recommended as a long-term improvement in portions of downtown Walnut Creek where there is sufficient space or the space could be created by future lane reduction or private property redevelopment. Indianapolis Cultural Trail Figure 4: Preferred Design Concept 1 – Bike path or “cycle track” with separate sidewalk (on left) Figure 5: Preferred Design Concept 1 – Bike path or “cycle track” with separate sidewalk (on right) 109 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 11 Preferred Design Concept 2: Shared use side path with bike lanes Where there is not enough room to create a bike path with separate sidewalk, or in some cases to provide on-street dedicated bicycle space, the preferred design concept is a side path. A sidepath is defined in this case as a 10 to 14 foot wide path shared by bicyclists and pedestrians. Typically it is located in the public right-of-way, and takes the place of a sidewalk on that side of the road. It may or may not qualify as a Caltrans Class I Bike Path, which must meet geometric standards defined in Section 1000 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. This could be due to lack of 5-foot separation from a roadway or a vertical treatment between the path and roadway, less than standard width, or other departure from Caltrans standards. Many portions of the existing preferred route have bike lanes – defined as a 5 foot or wider striped shoulder space which ideally will be marked and signed as a bike lane. These are preferred to shared use paths by many bicyclists, and the study recommends that they be preserved in conjunction with other improvements – ideally adding a 2 foot buffer between vehicle lanes and the bike lanes to create “buffered bike lanes.” In no case are existing bike lanes recommended to be removed to create space for a side path or bike path. Figure 6: Preferred Design Concept 2 – Shared use “sidepath” with bike lanes (on right) Special Considerations for Driveway Crossings Special design measures are needed at locations where a bike path/sidewalk or sidepath crosses a driveway to minimize conflict and ensure visibility and awareness. These challenges have been addressed on cycletracks and paths throughout the nation, as illustrated by the example below from Seattle. Driveway crossings are varied in their existing configuration. The following guidelines and the design concepts in Figure 7 are provided for use in addressing potential conflicts with vehicles at driveways during future more detailed stages of design.  If raised, maintain the height of the cycle track/bike path through the crossing, requiring automobiles to cross over.  Prohibit curbside parking 30 feet prior the crossing.  Use colored pavement markings, colored pavement and/or shared lane markings through the conflict area.  Place warning signage to identify the crossing Driveway crossings on Broadway Cycle Track, First Hill Streetcar, Seattle, WA Figure 7: Driveway Crossing Guidance 110 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 12 | Alta Planning + Design High Visibility Crosswalk Advance Stop Lines Community Wayfinding RRFB Crossbike Sidepath Type Treatment Buffered Bike Lane Green Bike Lanes Through Conflict Areas Two Stage Turn Box 5.3.3 Design Guidelines The conceptual plans on the following pages include a number of treatments which are described below in greater detail. High Visibility Crosswalks There are a number of different marked crosswalk types, including the high visibility continental style as shown to the right. These types of crosswalks are more visible to drivers and are generally recommended at locations with high pedestrian activity, where slower pedestrians are expected (such as near schools), and where high numbers of pedestrian related collisions have occurred. In addition to using striping to increase visibility of crosswalks, there are a number of recommended textured crosswalks at key gateway areas. Advance Stop Lines Advance stop lines are a painted stripe in the roadway set back from the crosswalk, directing drivers to stop at least 4 feet before the crosswalk. On multi-lane roads advance stop lines increase pedestrian visibility for drivers in other travel lanes, especially important around schools, as students are harder to see than adults. Advance stop lines also discourage encroachment upon the crosswalk at a red light, leaving more free space for pedestrians to cross. Community Wayfinding A wayfinding system consists of comprehensive signing to guide roadway users to their destinations along preferred routes. The system can be supplemented with pavement markings that primarily benefit bicyclists. There are three general types of wayfinding signs: confirmation signs, turn signs and decision signs. Confirmation signs indicate to bicyclists they are on a designated roadway. Turn signs indicate where a route turns from one street onto another. Decision signs mark the junction of two or more routes, inform roadway users of key destinations and indicate the destination, distance and direction. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) are pedestrian actuated devices mounted adjacent to the roadway. The beacon lights are rectangular LED lights installed below a pedestrian crosswalk sign that flash in an alternating pattern when activated. The beacon is dark when not activated. Caltrans has received approval from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for use of RRFBs on a blanket basis at uncontrolled pedestrian crosswalk locations in California, including State highways and all local jurisdictions’ roadways. Bike Pocket A bike pocket is a bike lane between a through lane and a dedicated right turn lane that helps bicyclists traveling straight through an intersection position themselves correctly and minimize right-hook conflicts with vehicles. Crossbike A crossbike is a crossing treatment for bicyclists similar to a pedestrian crosswalk. It alerts motorists that there may be bicyclists crossing at this location, and encourages cyclists to cross in these predicable, marked locations. Side Paths A side path is a wide sidewalk or path, typically shared by bicyclists and pedestrians. It may or may not qualify as a Caltrans Class I Bike Path due to lack of 5-foot separation from a roadway or a vertical treatment between the path and roadway, less than standard width, or other departure from Caltrans standards. Special consideration should be made to minimize conflict and ensure visibility and awareness at intersections and driveways. Buffered Bike Lanes A buffered bike lane is a bike lane that is buffered by a striped “shy zone” between the bike lane and the moving vehicle lane. With the shy zone, the buffered lane offers a more comfortable riding environment for bicyclists who prefer not to ride adjacent to traffic. This design has a number of benefits including:  Provides greater shy distance between cars and bicyclists  Provides space for bicyclists to pass each other  Provides greater space for the bicycle travel lane without making the lane appear so wide that it may be mistaken for car use  Appeals to not just experienced bicyclists, but people who bicycle on occasion and those new to bicycling The recommended buffered bike lane design is the same design as a recently implemented Caltrans buffered bikeway on Sloat Boulevard in San Francisco, and is a modified version of the design guidance presented in the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide. The key difference is the proposed design has an inner dashed stripe; this will permit vehicles to cross when necessary, for example to enter or exit driveways. Green Bike Lanes Through Conflict Areas Green bike lanes through conflict areas is the application of green coloring applied to pavement in conflict zones. Benefits of this treatment include:  Alerts roadway users to expect bicyclists  Assigns the right of way to bicyclists The FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) has provided blanket approval for green colored pavement and Caltrans has also approved this treatment. Two-Stage Turn Boxes Two-stage turn boxes assist bicyclists with making left turns at multi-lane intersections. This treatment is typically applied on multi-lane streets with high traffic speeds and/or volumes. A two-stage turn box helps a bicyclist make an L-shaped left turn by crossing one leg of the intersection at a time. It provides a number of benefits including:  Improves bicyclist comfort.  Provides formal waiting area for bicyclists making left turns outside of the crosswalk. This treatment is not a Caltrans approved traffic control device, however the City of Walnut Creek can apply to Caltrans for approval to experiment. 111 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 13 Gateway Treatments This conceptual plan includes recommendations for a number of gateway treatments. Gateways communicate to drivers they are entering a community and often include physical and texture treatments such as markers and textured crosswalks. Example gateway treatments are presented below; however, specific recommendations for treatments along the Connector are not included as part of this Report. Stamped Asphalt Crosswalk Gateway Marker 112 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 14 | Alta Planning + Design 6. Segment 1: Olympic Boulevard, Lafayette Moraga Trail to Pleasant Hill Road Existing Conditions:  Reliez Station Road Intersection: This is a stop-controlled T-intersection for motorists, and trail users on the LMT have a stop sign before they exit the trail. The primary vehicle movements are turning to and from Reliez Station Road, which creates conflicts for bicyclists, especially for bicyclists transitioning to and from the existing bike lanes. Northbound motorists turning east onto Olympic Boulevard and westbound motorists turning south onto Reliez Station Road often don’t look to the west for bicyclists or pedestrians coming off of the trail.  Existing Class I LMT enters the Olympic Boulevard/Reliez Station Road intersection from the west, transitioning to bike lanes along Olympic Boulevard or a Class I path through an East Bay Regional Park District open space corridor (immediately adjacent to Las Trampas Creek) and past two parking lots and one parking lot driveway that serve users of the LMT.  An approximately 5 foot wide asphalt walkway exists on the south side of the road, but it gradually transitions to an informal path to the east. Pleasant Hill Road Intersection: Crosswalks are present at all approaches to the stop-controlled Pleasant Hill Road intersection, including across the channelized right-turn lanes on the southbound and westbound approaches. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Provide crossing improvements at Reliez Station Road, add buffered bike lanes, improve and extend existing walkway on south side of Olympic Boulevard, and provide improved route wayfinding.  The existing conventional bike lanes can be converted to buffered bike lanes by narrowing the existing vehicle lanes and potentially shifting the center stripe. In at least one location the existing pavement is up to 2 feet narrower than the cross-section shown. This would necessitate widening on the north side, which could conflict with the roots of a non-native black acacia and a medium-sized live oak.  Reliez Station Road Intersection: Crossing signing and striping improvements will help reduce the conflict for bicyclists transitioning between the LMT and the existing bike lanes. These include ‘trail crossing’ signage, enhanced crossbike markings, and advance stop bars for motorists (Figure 9a). Relocating an existing asphalt curb will facilitate a smoother trail-to-road connection.  Pleasant Hill Road Intersection: Only additional wayfinding signs are proposed. Tree Impact: Potential impact on roots of 2 trees due to widening. Figure 8: Olympic Boulevard Station 7+50 (facing east) 113 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 15 Figure 9: Segment 1 – Olympic Boulevard, Lafayette Moraga Trail to Pleasant Hill Road Figure 9a: Olympic Blvd / Reliez Station Rd Intersection Detail 114 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 16 | Alta Planning + Design 7. Segment 2: Olympic Boulevard, Pleasant Hill Road to Newell Court 7.1 Segment 2.1: Olympic Boulevard, Pleasant Hill Road to Windtree Court Existing Conditions:  The western portion of this segment has a landscaped median 4 feet wide at the turn lane and 14 to 15 feet wide with street trees to the east, followed by a 14 to 14 foot painted median, which transitions to turn pockets at Windtree Court.  There are steep cut slopes on both sides of the road, starting at approximately Sta. 17+00 and extending to 19+00 on the north side. A short retaining wall separates an existing 4 foot path from the rocky slope on the north side. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Provide buffered bike lanes.  Buffered bike lanes can be created by narrowing the existing vehicle lanes and painted medians. Long-Term Improvement Concept: Widen and improve the existing path on the north side as a shared use path, while retaining the buffered bike lanes.  A separated sidepath 10 feet wide with a 3 foot buffer could be created by reducing the width of the median to 10 feet, involving replacement of the existing trees, and constructing a taller retaining wall on the north side – tapering up to approximately 10 feet high.  Fire hydrants, signs, utility poles, mature oaks and other trees would intrude into the pathway space, reducing clear width to as little as 8 feet in some locations. Tree Impact (Long-Term Concept): No trees removed. Some leaning tree limbs and vegetation would be trimmed along the sidepath. Figure 10: Olympic Boulevard Stations 16+50, 17+50, and 21+50 (all facing east) 115 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 17 Figure 11: Segment 2.1- Olympic Boulevard, Pleasant Hill Road to Windtree Court 116 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 18 | Alta Planning + Design 7.1 Segment 2.2: Olympic Boulevard, Windtree Court to Newell Court Existing Conditions:  A 4 to 6 foot wide pedestrian path exists on north side, separated from bike lane by an asphalt curb. The space between the curb and the adjacent property line is as wide as 12 feet at the west end, although hedges and other private improvements intrude into it.  The roadway includes 5 to 8 foot wide bike lanes, and the existing striped median is 14.5 to 15 feet wide.  Beyond Sta. 29+00 two properties extend out further and narrow the available right-of-way, and native trees further reduce space that would otherwise be available for a path – which narrows to 4 feet at this point (see section Sta. 28+80).  Near the intersection with Newell Court, the space between the curb and fence/ROW line is approximately 6 feet, and the median narrows to approximately 5 feet at the intersection. A path on the south side of Olympic Boulevard connects with a crosswalk at the Newell Court signalized intersection. The median is 5 feet wide, and the distance beyond the northern curb and property line is only approximately 6 feet. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Provide buffered bike lanes.  Buffered bike lanes can be created by narrowing the vehicle lanes and median. Long-Term Improvement Concept: Provide buffered bike lanes. Widen and improve the existing path on the north side as a shared use path.  A separated sidepath 10 feet wide could be created by reducing the median to 5 feet and shifting the north side lane approximately 10 feet south between Sta. 26+80 and 28+80.  West of Sta. 27+00 there are turn pockets for Windtree Court that would prevent narrowing the median more than approximately a foot, but the separated sidepath could be created using the 12 foot wide frontage and an additional 1 or 2 feet from median and lane.  East of the second property that intrudes into the right-of-way alignment the curb and path are set back and there is a tapering space extending approximately 150 feet that could accommodate the sidepath.  The space to continue the separate path and the buffered bike lanes can be created by shifting the lanes south approximately 8 feet, which would require realignment on the east side of the intersection to transition back to the current alignment. This would require realignment of the existing Class I path that connects to the southeast corner of the intersection, including relocation of the signals, and controller box.  Hedges, vines, and trees growing along the north edge of the existing path would reduce the clear space to as little as 10 feet – particularly at a mature oak at approximately Sta. 32+50.  The sidepath would end at the east side of the intersection, where it would connect south to the existing Class I path that continues east. Tree Impact (Long-Term Concept): No trees removed – minor trimming. Figure 12: Olympic Boulevard Station 28+80 (facing east) 117 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 19 Figure 13: Segment 2.2 – Olympic Boulevard, Windtree Court to Newell Court Figure 12a: Olympic Blvd / Newell Ct Intersection Detail 118 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 20 | Alta Planning + Design 8. Segment 3: Olympic Boulevard, Newell Court to Tice Valley Boulevard/ Boulevard Way Existing Conditions:  Olympic Boulevard between Newell Court and Tice Valley Boulevard/Boulevard Way is a two lane roadway that includes bike lanes. On-street parking is not allowed.  A 10 foot wide paved Class I path exists on the south side. It has a wood post and rail barrier fence and 11 foot wide mulched and planted shoulders on either side.  A sidewalk exists on the north side at the east end of the segment, and a short segment of sidewalk exists in the center. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Create buffered bike lanes, connect the existing Class I path to Boulevard Way/Tice Valley Road intersection, and provide intersection crossing improvements.  An improved pedestrian crossing signal at Bridgefield Road would facilitate connections from residences on the north side to the Class I path on the south side, and the adjacent bus stop.  The existing Class I path on the south side can be connected to the intersection by extending the path past the gas station at the corner by widening the sidewalk and reducing the right lane width.  Buffered bike lanes can be created by narrowing vehicle lanes and providing green conflict zone markings and a striped bike pocket at the intersection.  Removal of the existing pork chop islands and addition of high visibility crosswalks are recommended to connect the path to the north and east where an existing sidepath continues. Long-Term Improvement Concept: Provide a continuous pedestrian sidewalk or path at least 4 feet wide on the north side.  There are space constraints for creation of a continuous path. From near Newell Ct. to approximately Sta. 38+00 there are many mature trees, including native oaks, as well as vines and street signs, occupying the approximately 4 foot wide space between the curb and the fence. To create the additional space for the sidewalk without removing all the trees, the north side curb and the roadway could be shifted approximately 2 feet to the south, encroaching into the existing 1o foot space between the roadway and the Class I on the south side. This may require relocation of the existing split trail fence. Tree Impact (Long-Term Concept): No trees removed – minor trimming. Figure 14: Olympic Boulevard Stations 46+00 and 51+50 (facing east) 119 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 21 Figure 15: Segment 3 – Olympic Boulevard, Newell Court to Tice Valley Boulevard Figure 14a: Olympic Boulevard / Tice Valley Boulevard Intersection Detail 120 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 22 | Alta Planning + Design 9. Segment 4: Olympic Boulevard, Boulevard Way/Tice Valley Boulevard Intersection to Newell Avenue Existing Conditions:  An existing paved path extends along the north side in a 12 to 14 foot wide space, mostly bordered by fences that separate Olympic Boulevard from the adjacent parallel Cottage Lane, which provides access to several residences along two disconnected segments to the east and west. In between are some residences that take direct access from Olympic Boulevard.  Parking is allowed along the south side, where commercial buildings and a series of single and multi-family residences take access directly off Olympic Boulevard. Removing this parking is not seen to be a viable alternative. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Provide bike lanes and an improved sidepath on the north side.  An improved separated path could be created by providing 10 feet of pavement with a 3 foot planting strip at the curb. Mature trees and other obstructions would narrow the path by as much as 2 feet at some points. There is not sufficient continuous space to provide a Caltrans-compliant Class I path, which requires 5 feet of separation from the roadway.  Space for bike lanes could be created by narrowing the existing lanes, but even if the existing 5 foot wide medians were narrowed there is not enough space to create buffered bike lanes.  The existing narrow drainage opening where the right turn from EB Olympic to SB Newell has been blocked off should be widened to accommodate bike right turns, or a connecting path could be constructed across the corner. Long-Term Improvement Concept: Extend the sidepath to Newell Avenue intersection.  The improved pathway could be continued to Newell Ave., (the current pathway ends west of the Villa condominiums) by utilizing some of the space of a very wide bus pullout, and a portion of landscaped street frontage near the intersection.  High visibility crosswalks are recommended across Olympic at this point to facilitate connections to Newell Avenue. Tree Impact (Long-Term Concept): No trees removed. There is one mature oak on the north side near Sta. 64+00 that would reduce the clear path space to approximately 8 feet, and two ornamental trees near Sta. 81+50 that would reduce the clear space to 9 feet. Figure 16: Olympic Boulevard Station 66+80 (facing east) Figure 17: Olympic Boulevard/Newell Avenue Intersection Detail 121 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 23 Figure 18: Segment 4 – Olympic Boulevard, Boulevard Way/Tice Valley Boulevard Intersection to Newell Avenue 122 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 24 | Alta Planning + Design 10. Segment 5: Olympic Boulevard, Newell Avenue to S.B. I-680 On/Off Ramps Existing Conditions:  A seven foot sidewalk, or a 5 foot sidewalk with 2 foot planting strip, exists on the north side of Olympic fronting the Villa condominium complex, along with curbside parking for residents and visitors.  There are raised paved medians as wide as 16.5 feet and as narrow as 5 feet. There are no existing bike lanes. There is no sidewalk on the south side, or any space for one due to the presence of trees within the approximate 4 foot space between the curb and residential backyard fences. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Create bike lanes, with buffered bike lanes provided where space allows.  Bike lanes could be created on portions with wide medians by restriping the existing lanes (see Sta. 85+00). At the two turn pocket areas and on the eastern portion where the median is narrow bike lanes could be created by restriping the existing lanes, but they would be a minimal 4 feet (see Sta. 96+50).  At the eastern end at the bridge over Las Trampas Creek the buffered bike lanes can be created by restriping the existing lanes (see Sta. 100+00). Long-Term Improvement Concept: Create a 10 foot wide sidepath on the north side with a 2 foot buffer between the bike lane and parked cars.  Implementation would require that all lanes are narrowed to 11 feet, the medians shifted one foot south, the wide medians narrowed to 10 feet, and the 5 foot medians narrowed to 3 feet,  In order to minimize loss of parking, there would be a 4 foot off-set between the lane alignment at the left turn pockets and the alignment beyond them, with a suitable transition between alignments (see Figure 9a).  7 or 8 of the current 30 curbside parking spaces would be lost.  In the vicinity of cross-section at Sta. 96+50 the ROW and roadway narrows. Creating space for a 10 foot wide sidepath would require shifting the south side curb approximately 2 feet into the approximately 4 foot wide space between the curb and the fence. This could potentially remove or impact up to 6 mature trees, including 4 native oaks. Tree Impact (Long-Term Concept): Potential removal of or impact on up to 6 mature trees, including 4 medium-sized native oaks. Figure 19: Olympic Boulevard Stations 85+00 and 88+00 (facing east) 123 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 25 Figure 20: Olympic Boulevard Stations 96+50, 98+50, and 101+00 (facing east) 124 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 26 | Alta Planning + Design Figure 21: Segment 5- Olympic Boulevard, Newell Avenue to SB I-680 Ramps125 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 27 11. Segment 6: Olympic Boulevard, S.B. I-680 On/Off Ramps to S. California Boulevard 11.1 Segment 6.1: Olympic Boulevard, S.B. I-680 On/Off Ramps to Alpine Road Existing Conditions:  This segment has very heavy traffic, especially at commute and shopping/after hours times with vehicles accessing the I-680 on and off-ramps.  The City of Walnut Creek has developed a grant application to improve the undercrossing by widening the sidewalk on the south side to 10 feet by building a retaining wall into the existing embankment, and adding lighting. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Provide bike lane on south side and bike pocket on north side.  Narrowing the lanes would provide enough space to stripe bike lanes, but due to the heavy right turn traffic to the I-680 on-ramps on the north side it would be safer to create a “bike pocket” – a five foot wide through bike lane between the right turn lanes and the through lane.  Crosswalk and/or bike lane striping improvements would be needed at Paulson, the on and off-ramps, and at Alpine Road to support the bike lanes and bike pocket. Long-Term Improvement Concept: Create a Class I path or sidepath at least 10 feet wide on the south side of Olympic.  The proposed sidepath on the north side of Olympic though Segment 5 could connect across Olympic via an improved crosswalk west of the intersection at Paulson Lane and the north side ramps to/from I-680.  With the extension of the existing retaining wall and a slight lane shift, a Class I path could be extended along the south side of Olympic adjacent to Paulson Lane to connect to the path proposed on the south side of the underpass by City of Walnut Creek. Signs and devices to encourage bicyclists to stop before crossing the ramp, especially when eastbound, would help make the crossing safer.  The current City of Walnut Creek concept for the path under 680 shows a 10 foot width. A 12 foot width, created with a slightly higher retaining wall, is recommended to provide additional space for this important connection.  Beyond I-680 (see Sta. 110+50), the path could be continued on the south side to Alpine Road by constructing a taller retaining wall within the ROW of the first office building on the south side. This would allow the existing 6’ sidewalk to be widened to 10 feet. There appears to be feasible within the available ROW.  Crossing Alpine Road with the path at this point would be an engineering challenge due to the steep slope of the side street. Tree Impact (Long-Term Concept): Creating the sidepath at Sta. 110+50 by constructing a taller wall 4 feet further back will require removal/replacement of up to 3 mature ornamental trees. Figure 22: Olympic Boulevard Stations 107+00 and 110+50 (facing east) 126 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 28 | Alta Planning + Design Figure 23: Section 6.1 – Olympic Boulevard, S.B. I-680 On/Off Ramps to Alpine Road 127 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 29 11.2 Segment 6.2: Olympic Boulevard, Alpine Road to S. California Boulevard Existing Conditions:  Bike lanes exist on both sides of the roadway between Alpine Road and S. California Street. Office structures are immediately adjacent to the back of sidewalk on the south central portion; the remainder is fronted by commercial parking lots. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Provide buffered bike lanes.  Conventional bike lanes can be widened into buffered bike lanes if vehicle lanes are narrowed to 11 feet. Long-Term Improvement Concept: Create a cycle track/bike path on the south side. The 6 foot sidewalk/pedestrian space on the south would be retained adjacent to the property line, and a cycle track or bike path would be created, requiring 10 to 12 feet on the curb side, with a street tree, light, and utility zone between the two. The existing trees, lights, and utilities could potentially be left in place. There are 2 scenarios under which the additional space needed for the Cycle Track/Bike Path Alternative could be created: 1) Future Redevelopment: Create the required space on the north side in conjunction with future redevelopment of the shopping center and office parking areas on the north side. The path would be created on the south side, incorporating the existing 6 foot sidewalk. The existing roadway configuration would be shifted to the north. 2) Lane removal: Create the required space by removing one vehicular lane. Recognizing that this would have a significant impact on traffic in this very heavily-used corridor, this alternative would be a strong statement in support of bicycle and pedestrian access as major transportation alternatives. Other cities (San Francisco, Oakland) have made this tough choice, and demonstrated that the increased bicycle access helps offset the reduced motor vehicle traffic capacity. Tree Impact (Long-Term Concept): The lane removal alternative could potentially be implemented without tree removal. The redevelopment alternative could potentially involve removal and replacement of all the trees on the north side – approximately 15 relatively small ornamental street trees – and 3 large pines in the median. Figure 24: Olympic Boulevard Station 115+50 (facing east) 128 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 30 | Alta Planning + Design Figure 25: Segment 6.2- Olympic Boulevard, Alpine Road to S California Boulevard Figure 22a: Olympic Boulevard / S. California Boulevard Intersection Detail 129 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 31 12. Segment 7: S. California Boulevard, Olympic Boulevard south to Newell Avenue Existing Conditions:  This segment has narrow lanes and median. There is no curbside parking up to Botelho; thereafter there is limited curbside parking. There is insufficient space to construct bike lanes. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Add sharrows with green backing. There is insufficient space to construct bike lanes.  The existing lanes are narrow and the medians are approximately 4 feet wide. Even if the median was reduced to a barrier, there would not be enough space gained to create the 10 feet needed for bike lanes.  In theory the curbs could be moved back on one or both sides, and the sidewalk narrowed, but this would be more expensive and disruptive than the conceptual long-term solution. Long-Term Improvement Concept: Create a cycle track or bike path on the east side by utilizing a portion of the wide sidewalk space.  Although there is 20 feet of space from the curb to the structures on the east side of California Boulevard in the portion from Olympic to Botelho, only approximately 10 feet from the face of curb is in the public ROW; only this portion should be used for bicycle space.  Currently the curbside 4-5 feet is occupied by trees, plantings, street lights, and utilities such as signal controller boxes, conflicting with space for bicyclists.  The conceptual solution is to move the tree, light and equipment zone between the bike path and the pedestrian space.  The conceptual solution for the bus shelter located in the bike space near Botelho is to relocate the shelter to the south side of Botelho where the path will be a shared use facility, rather than separate bike and pedestrian space.  Warning signs and buffers would be needed at building exits (which occur only at the north and south corners) and the garage driveway crossing and pedestrian entrance.  Improved crosswalks are recommended at the Olympic Blvd/ S. California Blvd intersection to connect to the proposed path on the southwest corner.  The sidepath can be created south of Botelho by eliminating two on-street parking spaces and extending the curb line out.  A bicycle/pedestrian bridge (presumably prefab) would be needed at Las Trampas Creek, approximately 130 feet long; requiring the removal of at least one tree – a native live oak. Access to the bridge would require a small encroachment onto the adjacent private parcels, and the bridge would require the permission of the Contra Costa County Water Agency.  The sidepath could be continued south by widening the existing 10’ wide sidewalk fronting Trader Joes to 16 feet by eliminating up to 4 curbside spaces on the west side of the street and shifting/retaining the 7 curbside spaces on the east side. This would require moving or replacing street trees, street furniture and utilities. Tree Impact (Long-Term Concept): 7 medium-sized street trees would be removed and replaced in the reorganized sidewalk space between Olympic and Botelho. One medium sized native oak would be removed on the south side of the proposed bridge over Las Trampas Creek. Figure 26: California Boulevard Stations 2+00 and 9+00 (facing north) 130 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 32 | Alta Planning + Design Figure 27: California Boulevard Station 11+00 (facing north) 131 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 33 Figure 28: Segment 7 – South California Boulevard, Olympic Boulevard to Newell Avenue 132 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 34 | Alta Planning + Design 13. Segment 8: Newell Avenue, S. California Boulevard to Broadway 13.1 Segment 8.1: Newell Avenue, S. California Boulevard to Main Street Existing Conditions:  The sidewalk along the north side is 8 feet wide, but street lights, street trees with gates, power poles and projecting planters reduce clear path to as little as 4 feet.  The mixed residential and commercial project at 1500 Newell, currently under construction at the northwest corner of Newell and Main Street, will have a 10 foot wide sidewalk along Newell.  Kaiser Hospital and its’ associated parking structure are located on the south side, where there is an 8 foot or wider sidewalk, a bus stop with pullout, and a landscaped frontage with large mature pines and an oak. Short-Term Improvement Concept: There is insufficient space to construct bike lanes. Sharrows are already in place (not shown). Even if the lanes were narrowed to 11 feet, and the median reduced to a barrier, there would not be enough space gained to create the 10 feet needed for bike lanes. Add sharrows with green backing. Long-Term Improvement Concept: Construct a sidepath or add a bike path or “cycle track” adjacent to the sidewalk on the north side. A sidepath with a shared bicycle/pedestrian space of a net 9 to 10 feet is not really adequate to accommodate the significant use anticipated on this segment, which joins the Newell Ave. West segment and the California Blvd. segment. Consistent with the vision for the Connector, a concept for the more desirable separate facilities is presented:  Sidepath Alternative: Six feet could be added to the existing 8 foot sidewalk on the north side by narrowing the lanes to 11 feet and relocating and narrowing the adjacent 4 foot median to 3 feet. The street trees, street lights, and utilities would need to be relocated to near the new curb to provide space for the shared use path.  Cycle Track/Bike Path Alternative: The 8 foot sidewalk/pedestrian space on the north would be retained adjacent to the property line, and a cycle track or bike path would be created, requiring 10 to 12 feet on the curb side, with a street tree, light, and utility zone between the two. The existing trees, lights, and utilities could potentially be left in place. This alternative would require some reconstruction of the new frontage of 1500 Newell, but only in the public ROW. There are 3 scenarios under which the additional space needed for the Cycle Track/Bike Path Alternative could be created: 1) Redevelopment Alternative: Wait for the properties on the north side to be redeveloped, affording the opportunity to provide more space and build the path (as is occurring to the east with Broadway Plaza). The Newell Promenade shopping center is an older facility, and economics could warrant its’ reconstruction over a medium-term horizon, but Trader Joe’s is a high-performing use that is not likely to be redeveloped, and the Village at 1500 Newell is currently being reconstructed, and while additional sidewalk space is being provided, a Class I path facility was not envisioned. 2) Additional ROW Alternative: Acquire (presumably by willing-seller negotiation) approximately 5 feet of right-of-way along the frontage of the gas station and Kaiser Hospital, and shift the lanes to the south to provide room for the trail facility on the north. This would involve relocating the canopy over the gas pumps, demolishing and reconstructing part of the Kaiser landscape areas and planters, sidewalks and pedestrian plazas with associated lighting and amenities, and a bus stop, and removal of a heritage-size pine tree. 3) Lane Removal Alternative: Remove one of the vehicle lanes on Newell to provide space for the trail. This would have a significant impact on a major connector that already experiences level of service F. This alternative would be a strong statement in support of bicycle and pedestrian access as major transportation alternatives. Other cities (San Francisco, Oakland) have made this tough choice, and demonstrated that the increased bicycle access helps offset the reduced motor vehicle traffic capacity.  There is a current City proposal to construct a mid-block crosswalk with a curb extension (see Figure 13) to accommodate Kaiser employees and visitors. Although this would be a desirable accommodation for bicyclist and pedestrian connectivity, it would also have to be reconstructed if the street shift and/or trail construction occurred. Tree Impact (Long-Term Concept): If the sidepath was created by lane narrowing, or the cycle track/bike path was created in conjunction with redevelopment of the properties to the north, 5 street trees (small and in poor condition) would need to be removed and replaced. If additional space was created by removing a lane, there would be no tree impact. If the space was created by acquiring frontage to the south, one heritage-sized Italian stone pine, three mature street trees, and one small street tree would need to be removed and replaced. Figure 29: Newell Avenue Station 2+25 (facing east) 133 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 35 Figure 30: Segment 8.1- Newell Ave, S California Blvd to Capwell St Figure 30a: S. California Blvd / Newell Ave Intersection Detail 134 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 36 | Alta Planning + Design 13.2 Segment 8.2: Newell Avenue, Main Street to Broadway and the IHT Existing Conditions:  The existing lanes and median in this segment are already relatively narrow. There is a 6 foot wide raised median along the left turn pocket from WB Newell to SB Main. A maximum of approximately 3 feet could be gained by narrowing the median. There is not sufficient space to add bike lanes. Short-Term Improvement Concept: None. There is insufficient space to construct bike lanes, and sharrows are already present.  Even if the lanes were narrowed to 11 feet, and the median reduced to a barrier, there would not be enough space to create the 10 feet needed for bike lanes. Long-Term Improvement Concept: Construct a sidepath or add a bike path or “cycle track” adjacent to the sidewalk on the north side. A sidepath with a shared bicycle/pedestrian space of a net 9 to 10 feet is not really adequate to accommodate the use anticipated on this segment. Consistent with the vision for the Connector, a concept for the more desirable separate facilities is presented:  Sidepath Alternative: 4 feet could be added to the existing 10 foot sidewalk on the north side by narrowing travel lanes to 11 feet and relocating/narrowing the adjacent 6.5 foot median to 4.5 feet. The trees, street lights, and utilities would need to be relocated to near the new curb to provide space for the path. A bike/pedestrian bridge (presumably prefab) would be needed at San Ramon Creek, (about 130 feet long) requiring the removal of at least two trees. Bridge access would require a small encroachment onto adjacent private parcels, and the bridge would require permission of the Contra Costa County Water Agency.  Cycle Track/Bike Path Alternative: The 8 foot sidewalk on the would be retained adjacent to the property line, and a cycle track or bike path would be created, requiring 10 to 12 feet at curb side, with a tree, light, and utility zone between the two. The existing trees, lights, and utilities could potentially be left in place. This would require some reconstruction of the new frontage of 1500 Newell, but only in the public ROW. There are 3 scenarios under which the additional space needed could be created: 1) Redevelopment Alternative: The Broadway Plaza property is currently being redeveloped, and a Class I path is part of the proposal. If the Chase Bank Building at 1390 Main Street is also redeveloped opportunity may be presented to complete the cycle track/bike path connection. 2) Additional ROW Alternative: Acquire (presumably by negotiation) approximately 5 feet of right-of-way at the back of sidewalk along the frontage of the Chase Bank building to provide room for the trail facility on the north, utilizing the existing 10 foot wide sidewalk on the north side. 3) Lane Removal Alternative: Remove one of the vehicle lanes on Newell to provide space for the path. This would have an impact on a major connector that already experiences level of service F (the City is currently planning to add a lane in conjunction with the Broadway Plaza redevelopment project, as shown in the section for Sta. 16+50).This alternative would be a strong statement in support of bicycle and pedestrian access as major transportation alternatives. Other cities (San Francisco, Oakland) have made this tough choice, and demonstrated that increased bicycle access helps offset the reduced motor vehicle capacity.  The sidepath east of the creek anticipated to be constructed as part of the Broadway Plaza redevelopment project. If the sidewalk with cycle track/bike path alternative is pursued, the Broadway Plaza plans would need to be amended to reflect this, as the improvements would extend approximately 7 additional feet into the property.  Crosswalks and ramps on north and west sides of intersection would be improved to accommodate the pathway connections to the north and south IHT segments. Tree Impact (Long-Term Concept): Unless the path was created in conjunction with lane removal, 5 street trees (small and in poor condition) would need to be removed and replaced. Up to 7 mature ornamental trees near the back of the sidewalk might have to be removed and replaced. Figure 31: Newell Avenue Stations 9+50 and 16+50 (facing east) 135 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 37 Figure 32: Segment 8.2- Newell Avenue, Capwell Street to the Iron Horse Trail Figure 28a: Newell Ave / Broadway Intersection Detail 136 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 38 | Alta Planning + Design 14. Segment 9: Newell Ave West of I-680 West of I-680, Newell Avenue is a winding two lane roadway with a ROW width of 50 feet through a residential neighborhood. The pavement width is approximately 25 feet. Newell Avenue provides access to Parkmead Elementary School as well as three other schools. Relatively low vehicle volume and speed makes this portion of Newell more comfortable for bicyclists and pedestrians than other busier roads. Newell Avenue is a popular route with weekend bicyclists, many of whom are headed to the IHT or other routes south to Mt. Diablo, and it is recommended that this route is designated as an option for reaching the IHT. It would be the most low-stress, family friendly option except that it leads to the eastern portion of Newell Avenue, which won’t be a low-stress route until the long term improvements are implemented. In the interim Lilac Drive and the other existing connections to the south, described under Segment 10, are the best connections to the IHT. Improvements at the west and east ends of the segment are covered under Segments 4 and 8.1. Significant physical improvements to better accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists are not feasible or necessary in this setting. The existing narrow sidewalks are blocked in many locations by landscaping or resident-installed features, and though reportedly prohibited, parked cars often block the path. Coordination with individual property owners to correct these conditions is recommended. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Provide wayfinding signage and maps to clarify for bicyclists on Olympic Boulevard and Newell Avenue/downtown Walnut Creek that Newell Avenue west is a connecting route and that Lilac Drive, Lancaster Road and other routes to the south are optional connections to the IHT. Long-Term Improvement Concept: : Provide wayfinding signage and maps to designate that Newell Avenue west is an option to the primary Connector route, and that it merges back into the main route at California Boulevard. 15. Segment 10: Southern Connections to IHT Many bicyclists currently use Olympic Boulevard, Newell Avenue, Lilac Drive, Lancaster Road, Castle Hill Road, Danville Boulevard and other roadways to connect south to the IHT and bicycling destinations in the Danville-San Ramon area, including Mt. Diablo. Parts of these southern connections may also have benefits for access to Las Lomas High School, Kaiser Hospital, high-density residential areas, and other destinations. These connections are not considered for physical improvements, but additional wayfinding would benefit users of the Olympic Boulevard/Newell Avenue route that want to connect to/from the south. Short-Term Improvement Concept: Provide wayfinding signage and maps to clarify that these routes are connections from Olympic Boulevard via Newell Avenue west to the IHT and other destinations to the south. Long-Term Improvement Concept: : Provide wayfinding signage and maps to clarify that these routes connect to Newell Avenue west and the primary Connector route along Olympic, California, and Newell east. Figure 33: Segment 9 – Newell Ave West of I-680 137 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 39 16. Implementation and Phasing This Study is a bold vision for a bicycle and pedestrian Connector that will provide the region with multiple benefits, including transportation alternatives, healthy recreation, and support for environmental sustainability goals. This chapter outlines an implementation approach including an overview of cost estimates, phasing recommendations, and next steps. 16.1 Cost Estimates Note: This chapter presents order-of-magnitude cost estimates for the proposed improvements – presented in the Short-Term and Long-Term Projects Phasing Tables. After the draft improvement concepts are reviewed by the agencies, public and stakeholders, and refined in response to comments, detailed planning-level cost estimates will be prepared. Typical costs include planning, design, construction, and other anticipated implementation steps. Planning-level cost estimates require numerous assumptions about the details of construction and associated requirements. The estimate and assumptions reflect the experience of the consultant team based on similar projects. The estimates will include cost “placeholders” for each stage of project implementation, based on factors of the construction cost, including:  Construction overhead (costs the contract typically includes over and above the individual work items – calculated as a percentage of the total project cost): o Mobilization – 5% o General conditions, bonds, and insurance – 2% o Erosion control, including Best Management Practices (BMPs), Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and reporting – Varies by segment o Traffic control – Varies by segment  A contingency for the level of accuracy of the estimate is included at 20% of total construction.  Design and other implementation costs allowances are included at the following percentages of construction cost: o Survey; boundary and topographic – Varies by segment o Plans, specifications and estimates, including technical studies such as geotechnical or hazardous waste investigations – Varies by segment o Environmental analysis and documentation and related permits – Varies by segment o Mitigation (actual cost will be based on existing conditions and scope of proposed changes) – Varies by segment o Construction engineering – Varies by segment The estimates for some segments include scenarios with acquisition of right-of-way easements where necessary for the trail alignment. This would be strictly on a willing seller basis. The estimates include an approximate area of right-of-way required, and a “placeholder” cost of $5.00 per square foot for acquisition. Actual right-of-way costs would be subject to negotiation. 16.2 Trail Project Priorities and Phasing Recommendations The following tables summarize the short-term and long-term projects recommended in the Study, organized by jurisdiction, reflecting logical grouping of adjacent segments with similar construction types. Projects could be undertaken as smaller efforts or combined into larger inter-jurisdictional efforts. This multi-jurisdictional regional project approach is consistent with the objectives of the new Active Transportation Program grant funding administered by Caltrans, and will enhance the chances to obtain competitive grant awards for implementation. Actual project phasing is likely to be opportunity-driven, based on funding availability, ability to forge agreements and partnerships, and/or opportunities to incorporate improvements into development proposals. It is always advantageous to implement “low hanging fruit” portions of the trail that can be completed with minimal funding and maximum community involvement to demonstrate progress and maintain interest on the overall effort. Table 2: Short-Term Projects and Phases Route Segment JurisdictionImprovement Notes, CommentsLengthCostLafayette Projects/Phases 1 Olympic Blvd.: Reliez Station Rd. to Pleasant Hill Rd. Lafayette Convert existing bike lanes to buffered bike lanes by narrowing vehicle lanes; extend existing path on S. side; signing and marking improvements at crossing of Reliez Station Rd.; wayfinding improvements at Pleasant Hill Rd. 1323 ft (0.25 mi) $$ 2.1 Olympic Blvd.: Pleasant Hill Rd. to Windtree Ct. Lafayette Create buffered bike lanes as above Lafayette jurisdiction only on north side except at west end – coordinate w/ CC Co 1005 ft (0.19 mi) $$ Contra Costa County Projects/Phases 2.2 Olympic Blvd.: Windtree Ct. to Newell Ct. CC County/ Lafayette Create buffered bike lanes – north western portion Lafayette jurisdiction on north side for short distance - coordinate 1137 ft (0.21 mi) $$ 3 Olympic Blvd.: Newell Ct. to Boulevard Way/ Tice Valley Rd. CC County Create buffered bike lanes; connect existing Class I path on S. side to Tice intersection; provide bike pockets and crossing improvements at intersection 2288 ft (0.43 mi) $$$ 4 Olympic Blvd.: Boulevard Wy./ Tice Valley Rd. to Newell Ave. CC County Create continuous bike lanes; improve existing sidepath (widen narrow portions); improve crosswalks to Newell Ave.; improve right turn for bikes from EB Olympic Blvd. to SB Newell Ave. 2250 ft (0.42 mi) $$$ 5 Olympic: Newell Ave. to I-680 CC County Create bike lanes in constrained portions at turn pockets; buffered bike lanes on other portions 1874 ft (0.35 mi) $$$ Walnut Creek Projects/Phases 6.1 Olympic Blvd.: I-680 to Alpine Road Walnut Creek Create bike lanes on S. side; bike pockets on N side Existing bike lane for last 250’ on NB side 1131 ft (0.21 mi) $$ 6.2 Olympic Blvd.: Alpine Rd. to S. California Blvd. Walnut Creek Convert existing bike lanes to buffered bike lanes by narrowing vehicle lanes No existing bike lane for last 385’ on NB side 847 ft (0.16 mi) $$ 7 S. California Blvd.: Olympic Blvd. to Newell Ave. Walnut Creek Add “sharrows” with green backing to designate lanes as shared with bikes 1228 ft (0.23 mi) $ 8.1 Newell Ave: S. California Blvd. to S. Main Walnut Creek Add green backing to existing “sharrows” designating lanes as shared with bikes; create bike lanes from S. California Blvd. west on Newel Ave. to I-680 undercrossing 725 ft (0.14 mi) $ 8.2 Newell Ave: S. Main St. to Broadway and IHT Walnut Creek Add green backing to existing “sharrows” designating lanes as shared with bikes Work with the Broadway Plaza redevelopment project sponsors to implement design concept recommended in Study 868 ft (0.16 mi) $ Joint Projects/Phases 1 - 9 Varies Lafayette, CC County, Walnut Creek Provide wayfinding signage for Olympic Connector LMT to IHT $ 10 Southern connections via Lilac, S. Main, Lancaster, Creekside (tributary routes) Walnut Creek Provide wayfinding signage to aid in connections to/from Olympic/Newell Connector $ Costs: $ = less than $25,000; $$ = $25,000 to $100,000; $$$ = $100,000 to $300,000; $$$$ = more than $300,000 138 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 40 | Alta Planning + Design Table 3: Long-Term Projects and Phases Route Segment and Intersections Jurisdiction Potential Improvement Notes, Comments LengthCostLafayette Projects/Phases 2.1 Olympic Blvd.: Pleasant Hill Rd. to Windtree Ct. Lafayette/ CC County Widen existing path on north side to create 10 foot sidepath (requires retaining wall tapering up to 10 feet tall, and median narrowing with tree replacement) Lafayette jurisdiction only on north side except at west end – coordinate w/ CC Co 1005 ft (0.19 mi)$$ Contra Costa County Projects/Phases 2.2 Olympic Blvd.: Windtree Ct. to Newell Ct. CC County/ Lafayette Widen existing path on north side to create 14 foot sidepath (requires narrowing median and lane shift to S. at east end; redesign of Newell Ct. intersection and connections Lafayette jurisdiction on north side for short distance - coordinate 1137 ft (0.21 mi)$$ 3 Olympic Blvd.: Newell Ct. to Boulevard Way/ Tice Valley Rd. CC County Extend continuous path or sidewalks along N. side (requires approx. 4 foot lane shift to the south) 2288 ft (0.43 mi)$$$ 4 Olympic Blvd.: Boulevard Wy./ Tice Valley Rd. to Newell Ave. CC County Continue the sidepath approximately 100 feet to connect to Newell Avenue (may be included w/ Segment5) 2250 ft (0.42 mi)$$ 5 Olympic: Newell Ave. to I-680 CC County Expand the existing sidewalks fronting the Villa townhome complex to create a 10 to 12 foot wide sidepath by narrowing lanes and wide portions of medians, eliminating up to 8 curbside parking spaces out of 30. At one location it may be necessary to shift the south side curb 2 feet south to create needed space, involving tree removal. 1874 ft (0.35 mi)$$$$ Walnut Creek Projects/Phases 6.1 Olympic Blvd.: I-680 to Alpine Road Walnut Creek Create a sidepath along the south side of Olympic from Paulson Lane to Alpine Road by constructing retaining walls. Provide enhanced crossing improvements. City of Walnut Creek has submitted a grant application for improvements at I-680 undercrossing 1131 ft (0.21 mi)$$ 6.2 Olympic Blvd.: Alpine Rd. to S. California Blvd. Walnut Creek Add a bike path north of the existing sidewalk on the south side. Create space either by removing a vehicle lane or shifting the roadway 10 to 12 feet north in conjunction with future redevelopment of the properties on the north side 847 ft (0.16 mi)$$$ 7 S. California Blvd.: Olympic Blvd. to Newell Ave. Walnut Creek On first block convert existing wide sidewalk/plaza on E. side to separate bike path on curb side and sidewalk on inside with street tree, light, and utility space in between. On second block create sidepath by eliminating 2 parking spaces S. of Botelho and 3 to 4 parking spaces on W. side S. of creek and shifting lane W.s, extending curb, and installing bicycle/pedestrian bridge over creek 1228 ft (0.23 mi)$$$ 8.1 Newell Ave: S. California Blvd. to S. Main Walnut Creek Create sidepath on N. side by narrowing lanes and extending north side curb; OR add a bike path to south of existing sidewalk (create space either by removing a vehicle lane OR narrowing lanes and acquiring 5 – 6 feet of ROW on the south side and shifting roadway south); OR create an all-new sidewalk and bike path in conjunction with future redevelopment of the properties on the north side Cost depends on design option and space-creation scenario 725 ft (0.14 mi)$$$ Route Segment and Intersections JurisdictionPotential Improvement Notes, Comments LengthCost8.2 Newell Ave: S. Main St. to Broadway and IHT Walnut Creek Add a bike path to south of existing sidewalk (create space either by removing a vehicle lane) OR create an all-new sidewalk and bike path by narrowing lanes and acquiring 5 – 6 feet of ROW beyond the existing sidewalk on north side; OR create an all-new sidewalk and bike path in conjunction with future redevelopment of the properties on the north. Install a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over creek to connect to sidepath or sidewalk plus bike path at redeveloped Broadway Plaza Broadway Plaza redevelopment plan includes plan for shared use path along Newell Ave. 868 ft (0.16 mi)$$$ Joint Projects/Phases 1.9 Varies Lafayette, CC County, Walnut Creek Update wayfinding signage to reflect new/improved Olympic Connector LMT to IHT N.A. $Costs: $ = less than $100,000; $$ = $100,000 to %500,000; $$$ = $500,000 to $2 million; $$$$ = more than $2 million 16.3 Next Steps This section reviews the steps and documentation anticipated for project planning, design, approval, and implementation, anticipating the particular challenges unique to each project type and location. It describes the typical implementation steps that may be required to take the project from the current concepts through construction. It also describes the permits and approvals that may be required for project implementation. The Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study accomplished three major milestones: 1) the collection of base data and analysis of opportunities and constraints in the form of maps and descriptions that can be used for more detailed planning and design: 2) the identification of specific community-supported design concepts, and associated cost estimates, consistent with pertinent agencies’ policies and standards; and 3) the establishment of public and stakeholder priorities and strategies for implementing the design concepts. This planning-level study is of the foundation for further planning and design of the design concepts. Specific and generic next steps toward project implementation are outlined below:  Coordination between Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County, Caltrans and other relevant public agencies and stakeholders to refine the design concepts, and to update and applicable plans to incorporate the conceptual improvements;  Coordination between Lafayette, Walnut Creek, and Contra Costa County to pursue funding for implementing the design concepts;  For preparation of grants and coordination with other projects, utilize the plan maps, improvement cross sections, and initial planning-level cost estimates to advance study of the design concepts;  Continue public and stakeholder engagement on the development of the design concepts and incorporate study concepts throughout the project development process. 139 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 41 16.3.1 Typical Project Implementation Steps Once funding is secured for design a project or phase of combined projects can move through the more detailed stages of design, environmental review, agreements and approvals, and into construction. A general description of elements and steps is provided below. Site Survey - Base Maps and Information Detailed CAD base maps with ROW/property lines, topography (contour lines and/or spot elevations) and features such as roads, trees, buildings and fences must be prepared by a land surveyor or civil engineer covering the improvements and adjacent areas. The pertinent codes, policies, adjacent plans, utilities, and other background information must be analyzed to prepare specific design parameters for the project. Project Agreements - Right-of-Way Acquisition/Permission If acquisition or permission for use of property for the improvements is required, this will need to be secured, at least tentatively, before significant study or design work can begin, and typically must be finalized before preliminary design (when the feasible/desired alignment is defined) or at least before preparation of construction documents. Preliminary Design More detailed plans would be developed, with disciplines participating depending on the scope of improvements. These plans would have relatively accurate locations, dimensions, materials and features, to allow a correspondingly detailed preliminary cost estimate, but they would not have all the information required for bidding and constructing the project. The preliminary plans would be the basis for environmental documents and public and agency review of the project. Environmental Studies and Documentation State and federal law and nearly all grant programs require environmental studies and findings to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If federal funds or interests are involved the document may also need to address the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which has slightly different processes and document requirements. The environmental document must review and address a broad range of potential issues. Often the most complex issues to address are special status (rare, threatened, or endangered) plant and animal species that are protected under law. Technical Studies Technical studies are often required for design and/or to support environmental documentation. This often includes site-specific studies of biological and cultural resources, bluff retreat, hydrology, traffic, soil borings and geotechnical studies for design or foundations for bridges or other factors critical to design and/or project approval. These may be completed before, during or after Preliminary Design, depending on the purpose and type of study. Permits Project sponsors may need to obtain several types of permits and agreements. Potentially required permits are described in detail below. Preparing applications and completing the permitting process in areas with sensitive resources and many legal conditions and constraints can be time-consuming and expensive in settings such as along or across streams and wetlands. Construction Documents The preliminary plan drawings and descriptions will need to be translated into detailed construction plans, specifications, and estimate that can be used to obtain permits that require such detail, and for bidding by contractors. Bidding and Contracting Contract bid documents for the project must be prepared, and the project must be advertised for public bid. The bids must be analyzed, and the sponsoring agency must award a construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder. Construction In addition to the work of the contractor, construction of a public project entails responsible agency and/or consultant staff to oversee the contractor and administer the project, including any grant-imposed procedures or paperwork. 16.3.2 Environmental Permitting and Approvals Where projects involve work in or near a creek, river, or other jurisdictional wetland area, special environmental permit will be required. This section summarizes the major types of permits that may be required and the basic process for each. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Permit A Section 404 Permit application to the USACE for placement of fill, including consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, may be required to satisfy the requirements of Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). A Jurisdictional Delineation Report, or wetland delineation is part of the technical studies required in any location where there is potential for wetlands to occur. This maps and obtains USACE concurrence on jurisdictional “Waters of the U.S.,” including wetlands (if present), and/or “Waters of the State”. Section 401 Water Quality Certification - Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) The project will be required to prepare a RWQCB CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) notification/application to the local RWQCB, which may include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The issuance of the WQC is necessary prior to the issuance of an USACE CWA Section 404(b) (1) permit. Streambed Alteration Agreement – California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) A Section 1602 Notification/Application for a Streambed Alteration Agreement will need to be submitted to CDFG for any work that may impact a stream or related riparian habitat. Encroachment Permit - Caltrans Where the project involves work or permanent improvements within the state ROW that would be built or maintained by others, an encroachment permit from Caltrans will be required. This typically requires a maintenance agreement with either a public agency or a non-profit organization to ensure that the facilities in the state ROW will be adequately maintained. 140 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 42 | Alta Planning + Design 17. Trail Maintenance This chapter provides an overview of general trail maintenance. 17.1 Introduction Development of a monitoring and maintenance plan is an important step in developing a successful connector trail that becomes an attractive asset to the communities. A well maintained trail facility provides numerous benefits, but also requires considerable work. A well-maintained trail will benefit Lafayette, Contra Costa County and Walnut Creek residents by:  Improving user safety  Providing for a more positive user experience  Protecting the agencies and resident’s investment in the trail by identifying and rectifying issues in a cost-effective and timely manner  Minimizing liability concerns  Maintaining positive relations with trail neighbors and the larger community  Creating more local pride in the trail as a positive community resource This chapter provides an overview of the major considerations in developing a maintenance and monitoring plan for the trail, and details the specific facilities that would need to be maintained within each jurisdiction. 17.2 Maintenance Requirements The purpose of the trail maintenance plan is to outline the specific tasks, priorities, schedules, responsible parties, and budget needed to keep the trail in the desired condition. The plan should be provided to anyone involved in maintaining the trail, including agency staff and individuals involved in working with volunteers on maintenance activities. Maintenance activities are generally classified as either routine maintenance or remedial maintenance.  Routine maintenance refers to day-to-day and regularly-scheduled tasks, including trash removal, sweeping, trimming or pruning vegetation along the trail, repairing minor cracks in the trail surface, and cleaning out drainage channels.  Remedial maintenance involves tasks that are of a larger scale, and need to be undertaken less frequently, such as resurfacing the trail, replacing a bridge, or stabilizing a stream bank. Anticipating and budgeting for these expenses can be critical to ensuring that the trail provides a high quality user experience and avoiding the additional costs in deferred maintenance. While an agency typically assumes the lead role for maintaining trails, many communities rely on partnerships between public agencies and community-based organizations, and have experienced positive results:  Community members tend to develop a greater sense of pride, ownership, and personal investment in the trail;  Groups have often added new dimensions to trail projects, taking a leadership role in raising funds or supplying labor for projects such as community art or gardens; and  Public costs required for maintenance activities have been reduced, and the quality of the maintenance has been improved. Maintenance and management needs are a critical factor in the final trail design, as they will impact the annual and long-term costs associated with the trail, and its’ overall usefulness and safety. Determining the specific responsible parties for maintenance and management and responding to their equipment and staff capabilities will be key considerations in trail design: 17.2.1 Components of the Maintenance Plan The final trail maintenance plan should include the following:  List of maintenance tasks and a schedule that reflects maintenance priorities. Approximate frequencies should be included, where appropriate, for regular activities such as tree pruning, trash pick-up, and crack sealing.  Inventory of features on the trail that require regular inspection, particularly structures such as bridges, retaining walls, and culverts. The inventory should also include trail amenities such as restrooms, picnic tables, benches, and information kiosks.  Goals and standards for the quality of maintenance, so the expectations for the condition of the trail features will be clearly understood.  Forms to be completed as part of inspections to document conditions of each item, and the date and time of the inspections.  Identify the responsible entities for each aspect of maintenance, and provide contact information for each. This is discussed in more detail below.  Budget for maintenance activities. If the trail maintenance budget will be incorporated into a larger budget for facility maintenance (e.g. including other trails or parks), this may impact the costs of various items, but the time and materials required for trail maintenance should be estimated.  Emergency access and procedures should be developed in close consultation with police and fire departments; this consideration is particularly important in determining whether bollards or some other type of access control is to be used at intersections of the trail with streets, as well as the spacing between trail access points. At least once a year, and after any significant emergency or maintenance event, the policies should be reviewed with staff or volunteer groups.  Evaluation process for the plan. The maintenance plan should not be treated as a static document. Once the trail is operational, it will be important to periodically evaluate the success of the plan. This will include reviewing the list of maintenance tasks, the schedule for carrying out these activities, and comparing the maintenance budget to what was actually needed over the course of the previous year. Feedback should be solicited from maintenance crews and/or volunteers involved in helping to carry out the plan. 141 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | 43 17.4 Estimating Annual Maintenance Costs Trail maintenance costs can be challenging to estimate because the facilities overlap into the responsibilities of different departments within each agency, as well as multiple agencies in this case;, and the maintenance practices and capabilities vary a great deal from agency to agency. Yet it is important that a regional trail like the proposed Connector have a consistent high level of maintenance. Many trails, especially those that rely heavily on volunteers and with limited budget, tend to conduct maintenance on an “as needed” basis, and may maintain their trails to different standards. Table __ presents trail maintenance cost information provided by other jurisdictions that can be used as a “yardstick” for estimating maintenance costs for the Connector. Some of these include, and break out, costs for operation and management, as opposed to maintenance. Because the Connector is almost entirely in the public road right-of-way it presumably will not need special patrol or management, such as by rangers that trails in open space or greenway settings may require. Table 4: Sample Trail Maintenance and Operation Costs from Other Jurisdictions Management Entity Year of Estimate Estimated Annual Cost Maintenance and Operation Activities Included in Estimate City of San Jose1 2011 $12,500/mile Paved pathway $12,050/acre Landscaping adjacent to trails $2,000/mile Trail rangers East Bay Regional Park District2 2011 $25,000/mile Police patrol, vegetation management, litter pickup and a contribution to a reserve fund for eventual pathway replacement. City of South Lake Tahoe and the Ski Run Business Improvement District3 2011 $14,850 to $15,350/mile 48 pedestrian lighting heads, electric bills for the lighting, water bills, mowing and fertilizing landscaping, and maintaining a 2-mile multi-use path City of Cupertino4 2011 $15,000/pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing Mary Avenue Bridge: bridge cleaning, graffiti removal, maintenance of electrical devices, and a biennial inspection Sonoma County Regional Parks5 2013 $10,281/mile for Class 1 trails Regular park ranger site patrol, sweeping, removing debris and graffiti, mowing and pruning, and safety repairs 1 Email correspondence with Yves Zsutty, Acting Division Manager, Department of Parks, Recreation & Neighborhood Services, City of San Jose, January 18, 2011. 2 Email correspondence with Jim Townsend, Manager, Trails Development Program, EBRPD, January 13, 2011. 3 Phone call with Gary Moore, Director, Parks and Recreation Department, South Lake Tahoe, July 27, 2009. Costs have been adjusted for inflation. 4 Email correspondence with Roger Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works, City of Cupertino, February 3, 2011. 5 Sonoma County Regional Parks Board Report, March 13, 2013 17.4.1 Maintenance Requirements for Short-Term Improvements In most cases the trail facilities already exist; they would be slightly enhanced by the short-term improvement projects with relocated or added lane striping and wayfinding signage. However, formal designation of the route as an important regional connector implies that a higher level of maintenance, particularly of existing sidepaths, will be provided than is currently exhibited. This primarily impacts Lafayette and Contra Costa County jurisdictions. Table __ quantifies the facilities that would be maintained by each jurisdiction after the short-term improvements phase. In many cases the facilities are along residential or commercial frontages where the property owner or tenant is at least partly responsible for maintenance Note: this specific maintenance cost table will be prepared after the draft improvement concepts are reviewed by the agencies, public and stakeholders, and refined in response to comments, detailed planning-level cost estimates will be prepared. Table __: Short-Term Improvements Maintenance Responsibilities (forthcoming) 17.4.2 Maintenance Requirements for Long-Term Improvements Long-term improvements primarily consist of converting areas that are currently vehicle lanes or medians to areas of pedestrian sidewalks or paths, bike paths, or shared-used sidepaths. In almost all cases there is already a facility present that requires maintenance; the long-term improvements scenario increases the area of the bike and pedestrian facility, and moves it out of the street. Maintenance requirements will be increased, especially given the higher standard that should apply to a major regional connector, but an entirely new maintenance responsibility is not created, except at the two proposed trail bridges. Table __ quantifies the facilities that would be maintained by each jurisdiction after the long-term improvements phase. In many cases the facilities are along residential or commercial frontages where the property owner or tenant is at least partly responsible for maintenance Note: this specific maintenance cost table will be prepared after the draft improvement concepts are reviewed by the agencies, public and stakeholders, and refined in response to comments, detailed planning-level cost estimates will be prepared. Table __: Short-Term Improvements Maintenance Responsibilities (forthcoming) 142 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report 44 | Alta Planning + Design 143 Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study Alta Planning + Design | A-1 Appendix A: Community Workshop Meeting Notes Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study Community Workshop #1 December 5, 2013 6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. Parkmead Elementary, Multi‐Purpose Room, 1920 Magnolia Way, Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Meeting Notes Approximately 35 people attended the first Community Workshop for the Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector Study. The workshop began with an open house, during which meeting attendees could review the project posters and ask questions. Following the open house, County staff and consultants presented a project overview, a summary of the project’s existing conditions, and the design toolkit. Attendees then worked in small groups to discuss and record their observations and ideas on the maps provided. Table 5 presents the notes from the Break Out Groups. After this working session, a participant from each table reported out key points from their table. At the close of the meeting, consultants provided a summary of the next steps and upcoming opportunities for public engagement. Table 5: Break Out Group Notes Group 1 Location Notes [General] Polish path example had different pavement types/colors for bikes and pedestrians (photo later provided by commenter) [General] Can the maps and plans be posted on a (County?) website? California (b/w Olympic and Mt. Diablo) California Boulevard has a third lane b/w Olympic and Mt. Diablo – possible route Downtown Walnut Creek Bike parking shortage in Downtown Walnut Creek – more would bike if there were facilities Mt. Diablo South of Mt. Diablo= more intense development; north of Newell = lower density development Mt. Diablo (through Downtown Walnut Creek) Convert one travel lane into a two-way, physically-separated bikeway [graphic drawn on map] Mt. Diablo <<->> California (from Main to Olympic) A lot of extra space [– opportunity for a route] Newell East (b/w California and Broadway) Possible improvements proposed as part of Broadway Plaza Redevelopment Newell West Will people use an alternative facility to Newell West? Newell West Yes, if a Class I separated path and if they are not aggressive / highly competent cyclists Newell West Could help school access Newell West Newell = narrow, but what can be done to improve student access? Location Notes Newell West 1-way Newell w/ cycle track; would residents be OK lighting Newell? Newell West Newell as Class III? Olympic Road diet on Olympic to extend path Under I-680 Floating cycle track round-a-bout – a suspended grade separated roundabout per Dutch example Group 2Location Notes [General] Preferred off-street facility [General] Accommodate bikes, pedestrians, and wheelchairs – increased width to provide comfortable access [General] Dedicated bicycle space to reduce stress [General] Catering to all ages and users – Class I preferred [General] Any safety improvement is a positive [General] Families are most underserved by current facility designs [General] Let’s not only focus on one project California Cycle track (connect w/ BART and Kaiser) Class I path (green line) b/w Newell Court and Tice Valley) Not part of Lafayette Moraga Trail [crossed out on map] Creek ROW Creek has potential for added value, experience Newell (b/w Olympic and California) Opportunity for traffic calming? Newell, Olympic West Potential for couplet with Newell one-way Olympic (b/w Newell and I-680) Challenge area Olympic (b/w Pleasant Hill and Tice Valley) 45 MPH speed limit?; Speed sign? S Main (b/w Olympic and Newell) Cars so slow; feels safer to bike Group 3Location Notes [General] Traffic calming may make certain routes more favorable [General] Cycle track better for families with kids compared to Class II lanes [General] 3 miles is the maximum “walkable” distance Boulevard @ Nicholson, Mt. Diablo, and Oakland Reported collisions Downtown Walnut Creek Route through middle of Downtown might be good or bad (good: access; bad: auto conflicts) Mt Diablo (b/w Boulevard/I-680 and California) Feels like I should drive fast along this stretch Mt. Diablo Mt. Diablo would feel unsafe due to “extension” of freeway speeds Mt. Diablo Fast cars Location Notes Mt. Diablo, Olympic, Newell Mt. Diablo and Olympic have room; less room for improvements on Newell 144 Public Draft Preferred Alignments Report A-2 | Alta Planning + Design Newell Improvements on Newell would benefit kids attending Parkmead, Dorris Eaton, Las Lomas, and Walnut Creek Intermediate Newell b/w Lilac & Eastwood Remain 2-way auto traffic Newell b/w Olympic & Lilac 1-way auto traffic, 2-way cycle track, and raised sidewalk Newell West One-way EB, two-way cycle track, raised sidewalk on south side; two-way east of Lilac Newell, Lilac Kaiser uses Newell and Lilac for “Live Well, Be Well” walking – potential source of funding Olympic @ I-680 Olympic route preferred if I-680 undercrossing significantly improved Olympic @ I-680 Good route for BART, shopping <IF> safety is significantly improved Group 4 Location Notes [General] How do different jurisdictions affect the plan? (County, City, etc.) [General] Recommend a “Share the Road” initiative upon completion [General] Include the BART station as priority destination [General] What is the real target market? Unless it’s Class I, it’s not family-friendly. [General] Education for motorists is needed Arlington Steep Boulevard (under I-680) Consider signing as an alternate route for road cyclists Broadway (b/w Mt. Diablo and Newell) Mid-block crosswalk (connection to Iron Horse Trail?) Creek ROW Creekside trails preferred for separation when feasible Dewing Park Rd & Olympic Possible pedestrian crossing Eastside of I-680 (b/w Mt. Diablo and Olympic) Potential route I-680 & Olympic Issues with I-680 on- and off-ramps Juanita & Saranap Steep Newell & California Problematic intersection Newell East South side is better [than riding on the north side] Olympic Preferred route is Olympic – Class I as much as possible Olympic (b/w Tice Valley and Newell) Reported speeding Olympic @ Bridgefield/King Crossing used often by kids 145