HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 04092018 - TWIC Agenda PktTRANSPORTATION,
WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE
April 9, 2018
9:00 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, 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, if applicable. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation
and Development), Pg. 4.
4.REVIEW record of meeting for March 12, 2018, Transportation, Water and
infrastructure Committee Meeting. This record was prepared pursuant to the Better
Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205 (d) of the Contra Costa County Ordinance
Code. 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), Pg. 5.
5.REVIEW record of meeting for December 11, 2017, Transportation, Water and
infrastructure Committee Meeting. This record was prepared pursuant to the Better
Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205 (d) of the Contra Costa County Ordinance
Code. 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), Pg. 13.
6.RECEIVE report on the Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan, provide COMMENT and DIRECT staff as appropriate including
bringing the report to the full Board of Supervisors with a Committee
recommendation, and to pursue funding opportunities for project implementation.
(Jamar Stamps, Department of Conservation and Development), Pg. 19.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.1 of 176
7.CONSIDER report on Local, Regional, State, and Federal Transportation
Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate including
CONSIDERATION of specific recommendations in the report. (John Cunningham,
Department of Conservation and Development), Pg. 112.
8.CONSIDER Fiscal Year 2018/2019 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Account Project List for Unincorporated Contra Costa County, and DIRECT
staff as appropriate including bringing the report full Board of Supervisors with a
recommendation from the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee.
(Steve Kowalewski, Department of Public Works), Pg. 146.
9.RECEIVE Communication, News, Miscellaneous Items of Interest to the
Committee and DIRECT staff as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department of
Conservation and Development), Pg. 162.
10.The next meeting is currently scheduled for May 14, 2018, 9:00 A.M.
11.Adjourn
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 96 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
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.2 of 176
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
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.3 of 176
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:04/09/2018
Subject:Administrative Items, if applicable.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
This is an Administrative Item of the Committee.
Referral Update:
Staff will review any items related to the conduct of Committee business.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER Administrative items and Take ACTION as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.4 of 176
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:04/09/2018
Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for March 12, 2018, Transportation, Water
and Infrastructure Meeting.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
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.
Referral Update:
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: http://www.cccounty.us/4327/Transportation-Water-Infrastructure
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the March 12, 2018, Committee
Meeting with any necessary corrections.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
03-12-18 TWIC Sign-In Sheet
03-12-18 TWIC Mtg Minutes
HANDOUT - ofo Dockless Bikeshare
HANDOUT - ofo Fact Sheet
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.5 of 176
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.6 of 176
D R A F T
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
March 12, 2018
9:00 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, 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: Candace Andersen, Vice Chair
Attendees: Chris Romero, Contra Costa Centre Transit Village
Leslie Stewart, CC County Haz-Mat Commission
George Smith, CC County Haz-Mat Commission
Stephen Kowalewski, CC County Public Works Dept.
Jody London, CC County DCD
Maureen Toms, CC County DCD
John Cunningham, CC County DCD
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).
No public comment.
3.CONSIDER Administrative items and Take ACTION as appropriate.
No administrative items.
4.Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the December 11, 2017, Committee Meeting
with any necessary corrections.
Action on this item was deferred to the next Committee meeting.
5.CONSIDER recommendations on referrals to the Committee for 2018, REVISE as necessary, and DIRECT
staff to bring the list to the full Board of Supervisors for approval.
The Committee APPROVED the list of 2018 list of referrals and DIRECTED staff to bring the item to the
full Board of Supervisors.
6.RECEIVE Communication from the Hazardous Materials Commission regarding school siting and safety
(re: proxmity to rail lines, industrial facilities), DISCUSS options and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
The Committee RECEIVED the report, APPROVED the staff recommendation, and DIRECTED staff as
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.7 of 176
The Committee RECEIVED the report, APPROVED the staff recommendation, and DIRECTED staff as
follows: in the recommended communication to the State include a proposal that would have the state
adopting templates or a model process in order to limit the cost exposure to local school districts for any new
regulations, look for opportunities to include concepts proposed by the Collaborative for High Performance
Schools in new school siting requirements, in any communication or proposed policy, emphasize a
collaborative approach with the state and school districts where possible, and proceed with the development
of an ordinance in consultation with County Counsel regarding the ability for local agencies to impose
requirements on school districts.
7.RECEIVE report, DISCUSS options, and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
The Committee RECEIVED the report on dockless bikeshare and DIRECTED staff as follows, proceed
with the development of policies and agreements, during the development process consult with dockless
vendors and accommodate their business model where appropriate, address examine opportunities to
coordinate with the City-County Engineering Advisory Committee.
8.CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as
appropriate including specific recommendations in the report above.
The Committee RECEIVED the report, APPROVED the staff recommendation, and further DIRECTED
staff as follows, with the SB 914 support recommendation express concern for the exclusion of roads from
CMAR eligible project types, and ensure that the weight limitations being sought by the Coalition Against
Bigger Trucks does not impede deployment of electric busses.
Staff Note: CABT representatives confirmed that the limitations being sought are strictly for tractor trailer
vehicle types, not busses.
9.REVIEW, REVISE as appropriate, and ADOPT the 2018 Calendar.
The Committee approved the 2018 Calendar with the exception of the August meeting which presented a
conflict.
Staff Note: The August meeting was subsequently moved to Monday, August 20th at 2:00pm.
10.The next meeting is currently scheduled for April 9, 2018, 9:00 a.m.
11.Adjourn
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 96 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.
John Cunningham, Committee Staff
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.8 of 176
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.9 of 176
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.10 of 176
Unlock Every Corner of the World
DO WNLOAD
TH E ofo APP
UNLOCK
A N EARBY B IKE, AFTER LOCAT ING
IT THROUGH THE A PP
GO!
SI MPLY LOC K TH E BIKE
T O EN D Y OUR T RIP
HOW IT WORKS
ofo is a unique dockless bike-sharing system that
revolutionizes the way we get around. Users lock and
unlock shared bikes through the ofo mobile app.
A BETTER BIKE SHARE
OPERATING IN
20
COUNTRIES
200+
CITIES
200 +
CAMPUSES
ofo USERS TRAVEL 13 MILLION M ILE S IN O N E DAY, CIRCUMNAVIG
ATI
N
G
T
HE EARTH 530 TIMESofo CITIES IN THE WORLD & U.S.
Worcester, MA
South Miami, FL
Seattle, WA
San Diego, CA
Phoenix Area
Los Angeles Area
Malden,Revere,Chelsea,MA
Boston Area
Denver Area
Aurora,Centennial,Greenwood Village,Lone Tree,CO
Bellflower,Griffith Park,Pico Rivera,CA Dallas Area
Dallas,Plano,Arlington,TX
DC Area
Washington DC
Silver Spring,
Takoma Park,
MD
Durham, NC
Charlotte, NC
Scottsdale,Tempe,Mesa,AZ
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.11 of 176
Unlock Every Corner of the World
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and ofo have joined forces to
raise public awareness about climate change. The partnership, which provides
financial support to innovative projects that address urban environmental challenges,
will reach 100 million people with campaign messages about the adverse effects of
climate change and ways to reduce CO2 emissions.
UNDP
ofo joined forces with Rihanna’s Clara Lionel Foundation to fund a comprehensive five-year
partnership called “1 KM Action.” The initiative provides funding to CLF’s Global Scholarship
Program that helps hundreds of girls attend secondary schools in Malawi; it also donates bikes
to those scholarship recipients to combat the regional transportation challenges contributing to
Malawi’s high drop-out rate.
Clara Lionel Foundation
ofo has entered into an exclusive partnership with the design innovators at Studio
Roosegaarde to develop the first smog-free bicycle in China. Similar to Studio
Roosegaarde’s Smog Free Tower, the bicycles provide a healthy and energyfriendly
solution to both traffic congestion and pollution issues in the city.
Studio Roosegaarde
ofo signed an agreement with C40 to support research studies in mobility, especially 'walkability'
and 'bikeability'.
C40 Cities
UR PARTNERS
IMPACT
SMALLER CARBON FOOTPRINT
ofo riders have saved more than 2 million
tons of carbon emissions - the equivalent of
over 160 million gallons of gas.
Instead of one bike serving one person,
ofo bikes serve about 10 unique users
each day.
In Q2 2017, Beijing’s traffic congestion
dropped 4.1%, with a similar reduction
across the top 20 ofo cities worldwide.
HIGHER EFFICIENCY TRAFFIC REDUCTION
ofo riders 1 ofo bike160 million
gallons of gas
10 different users traffic
dropped 4.1%
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.12 of 176
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:04/09/2018
Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for December 11, 2017, Transportation,
Water and Infrastructure Meeting.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
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.
Referral Update:
Action on this item was deferred until the full Committee meets in April.
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: http://www.cccounty.us/4327/Transportation-Water-Infrastructure
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the December 11, 2017,
Committee Meeting with any necessary corrections.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
12-11-17 TWIC Sign-In Sheet
12-11-17 TWIC Mtg Minutes
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.13 of 176
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.14 of 176
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.15 of 176
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.16 of 176
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
December 11, 2017
9:00 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Diane Burgis, Chair
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair
Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee
Present: Diane Burgis, Chair
Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair
Attendees: Elaine Welch, Mobility Matters
Sam Sotelo, Mobility Matters
Lisa Hammon, Choice in Aging
Lia Bristol, Office of Supervisor Karen Mitchoff
Jill Ray, Office of Supervisor Candace Andersen
Carl Romer, CC PWD
Steve Kowalewski, CC PWD
Brian Balbas, CC PWD
Rochelle Johnson, CC PWD
Tanya Drlik, HSD
Mark Seedall, CC WD
Ernie Avila, CC WD
Mark Watts, Advocate
Jody London, DCD
Ryan Hernandez, DCD
Maureen Toms - DCD
John Cunningham - DCD
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).
Leyland Frayseth, a Contra Costa Resident, provided a copy to TWIC of his comments to the California
Water Commission regarding the Los Vaqueros Proposition 1 funding application. Those comments are
attached. Subsequently, Contra Costa County Water Agency staff advised that no response from the County
is necessary.
3.CONSIDER Administrative items and Take ACTION as appropriate.
N/A
4.Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the October 9, 2017, Transportation, Water,
and Infrastructure Committee meeting with any necessary corrections.
The Committee unanimously APPROVED the meeting record.
5.Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the November 7, 2017, Transportation, Water,
and Infrastructure Committee Special Meeting with any necessary corrections.
The Committee unanimously APPROVED the meeting record.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.17 of 176
6.RECEIVE the report on Mobility Matters Ride’s 4 Veteran’s Program, and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
The Committee received the report and provided the following feedback to Mobility Matters representatives,
1) explore opportunities to expand the rider/volunteer base, 2) improve the cost per ride, 3) regularly provide
the Supervisor's staff announcement text for newsletters, email blasts, etc, 4) document the need for service
in the community. The Committee indicated to TWIC staff that at this time the report should not be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors but that a final/close out report should come before TWIC when it is
ready.
7.RECEIVE Report on Sustainable Groundwater Management in Contra Costa County and DIRECT staff as
appropriate.
The Committee RECEIVED the report and took no action.
8.ACCEPT Integrated Pest Management report, and take ACTION as appropriate.
The Committee RECEIVED the update and DIRECTED staff to 1) bring the report to the full Board of
Supervisors in early 2018 on consent, 2) use the District office communication channels to distribute
information regarding bed bugs, and 3) develop a comprehensive report for the Board of Supervisors
regarding water saving measures including turf conversion, graywater, and other, related landscaping
issues, the report will include analysis of current costs, conversion cost estimates, projected savings,
proposed prioritization scheme, and running list of conversion projects.
9.RECEIVE this status report on the light coordination effort between PG&E and the County Public Works
Department and Cities for street light maintenance.
The Committee RECEIVED the report and DIRECTED staff to: 1) bring the report to the Board of
Supervisors on consent, and 2) ensure the database of locations is available to staff.
10.CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Issues: Legislation, Studies,
Miscellaneous Updates, take ACTION as appropriate, including CONSIDERATION of any specific
recommendations in the report above.
The Committee RECEIVED the report and DIRECTED staff to work with staff in the County
Administrator's office relative to a taxicab ordinance for the unincorporated area specifically to explore an
expedited local solution while the regional effort is developed.
11.REVIEW Status Report and DIRECT staff to forward the report to the Board of Supervisors with revisions as
appropriate.
The Committee RECEIVED the year-end Committee report and DIRECTED staff to bring the report to the
Board of Supervisors.
12.RECEIVE information and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
13.Adjourn to the next Transportation, Water and Infrastructure meeting, to be announced at a later date for 2018.
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 96 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.
John Cunningham, Committee Staff
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.18 of 176
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:04/09/2018
Subject:RECEIVE report on the Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 17
Referral Name: Review Transportation Plans
Presenter: Jamar Stamps - AICP, Senior Planner Contact: Jamar Stamps
(925)674-7832
Referral History:
12/07/2015: ACCEPT report on I-680/Treat Boulevard Bike/Pedestrian Plan and take ACTION as
appropriate.
Staff provided an update to the TWIC indicating additional analysis was required to complete the
Plan. Estimated cost of additional work was $20,705, eventually funded by Measure J Subregional
Transportation Needs funds.
Referral Update:
Project Area
The approximately ½-mile study segment (Exhibit A) encompasses Treat Boulevard from the
North Main Street intersection (City of Walnut Creek), through the I-680 Over-crossing and
Contra Costa Centre BART Station Transit Oriented Development (“TOD”), to the Jones
Road/Iron Horse Trail Bridge (County).
Background
The Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (“Plan” or “Study”)
was undertaken to address challenges and barriers to bicycling and walking within the ½- mile
Study segment by developing concepts that emphasize a higher level of comfort for bicyclists and
pedestrians.
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (“CCTA”) Measure J – Transportation for Livable
Communities Grant program (2014) and Measure J Subregional Transportation Needs (2017)
funded the Study.
Study development was in collaboration with the City of Walnut Creek, with participation from
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.19 of 176
interested agencies like Caltrans, CCTA, TRANSPAC and transit service providers. Alta +
Planning & Design (“consultant”), with assistance from sub-consultant DKS Associates,
developed technical work for the Plan. County staff and the consultant team also gained valuable
public input through multiple meetings and community workshops held between 2014 and 2017.
Overall, six Corridor Concepts (1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4, 4A) and five focused-analysis Off-Ramp
Alternatives (A, B, C, D, E) were considered. The “Preferred Project” is Corridor Concept 4A
combined with Off-Ramp Alternative C (i.e. “Concept 4A/Alternative C”).
Summary: Preferred Project Analysis (Concept 4A/Alternative C)
• Preferred Project design based on agency staff and public input and technical analysis.
• Provides better multi-modal balance while maintaining optimum corridor performance,
minimizes pedestrian discomfort, and avoids Caltrans
design exceptions.
• Includes geometric modifications to the Oak Road and I-680 Off-Ramp intersections to improve
pedestrian and bicycle crossings.
Tables 1, 2 and 3 (Exhibit B) show traffic data from key locations along the Study Corridor in
“existing” and “future” year scenarios. These locations would undertake the most dramatic
improvements under the Preferred Project. The analysis shows each key location performs
optimally under the Preferred Project. Additionally, Caltrans commented that conversion of the
outside (#4) travel lane, between the eastbound Buskirk Avenue and Jones Road segment, would
move a bottleneck closer to the freeway intersection thereby increasing delay. However, the
analysis shows a reduction in delay despite Caltrans assertion, due to the following:
1. This bottleneck occurs because the lane configuration between Treat Boulevard and Cherry
Lane reduces from four through lanes, to three through lanes and one right turn-only lane (up to
Cherry Lane).
2. The Preferred Project creates lane uniformity on Treat Boulevard (three through lanes),
therefore eliminating the bottleneck instead of moving it.
3. Jones Road (south of Treat Boulevard) is a low volume collector street that primarily serves as
access to the Renaissance Hotel. The Preferred Project has no impact on the right turn movement
from Treat Boulevard.
In the “No Build” scenario, the Study Corridor will inevitably experience higher future traffic
volumes due to typical increases in background traffic. Implementing the Preferred Project has
nominal impact to overall corridor performance (Exhibit B, Table 4), and in fact improves
performance at key points in the Study corridor while providing better multi-modal balance.
Next Steps
Estimated Project Cost – $2.5 million
Staff will provide updates to the Board, through the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure
Committee, at key milestones during implementation.
1.Secure Funding: Staff will pursue grants and other eligible sources to fund activities identified
below.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.20 of 176
2.Preliminary Design: Preliminary design will include detailed plans, including relatively
accurate locations, dimensions, materials, and features, which will assist in developing a
corresponding refined preliminary cost estimate. The preliminary plans would be the basis for
environmental documents for the project. Following the preliminary design County staff may
conduct additional community outreach.
3.Environmental Studies and Documentation: Environmental studies and findings are required to
comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). If using federal funds,
additional documents would be required to address the National Environmental Policy Act
(“NEPA”). The environmental studies must review and address a broad range of potential
environmental issues.
4.Permits: The County will obtain the necessary permits and agreements for the project to
proceed, such as an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans.
5.Construction Documents: The preliminary plans will be refined into final design plans that
contain construction drawings, specifications, and cost estimates.
6.Right-of-Way Acquisition: If necessary, Real Estate Services will work with property owners to
acquire easement or other type of temporary or permanent land rights to allow project
implementation.
7.Bidding and Contracting: Contract bid documents will be prepared and the project will be
advertised for public bid. The County will analyze bids and contract with the most qualified
contractor.
8.Construction: The contactor will construct the project with County oversight.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER the report, provide COMMENT and DIRECT staff as appropriate including 1)
bringing the Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan to the full
Board of Supervisors for approval, and 2) pursue funding opportunities for implementation, as
directed by the Committee.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None to the General Fund. A Contra Costa Transportation Authority – Transportation for Livable
Communities (Measure J) grant and Subregional Transportation Needs (Measure J) funds, funded
development of the Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Staff
time for recommended activities are covered under existing budgets (50% Road Fund and 50%
Measure J Fund).
Attachments
Exhibit A – Project Study Area Map
Exhibit B – Traffic Data Tables
Exhibit C - DRAFT FINAL_TreatBikePedPlan(mod plan set).
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.21 of 176
§¨¦680
N Main StOak Rd Geary Rd Treat Blvd Jones RdBuskirk AveLas Juntas Way
Wayne CtParnell
C
t
Sunnyvale Ave
CherryLnHoneyTrl
Del Hombre LnRoble Rd
Brockhurst CtOa
k R
d
Walnut Creek
Walnut Creek
Map created 11/3/2011by Contra Costa County Department Conservation and Development Community Development Division--GIS Group651 Pine Street, 4th Floor North Wing, Martinez, CA 94553-009537:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384WThis map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.I 0 325 650162.5 Feet
Contra Costa CentreProposed Study Area
Legend
BART Stations
BART Track
Parcels
Proposed Study Area
Walnut Creek City Limits
Walnut Creek
Pleasant Hill Concord
Lafayette
Martinez
Lafayette
§¨¦680
Taylor BlvdN Main StTreat BlvdGeary Rd
Oak Park Blvd
Gregory Ln
Treat Blvd
Vicinity Map
SITE
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.22 of 176
Table 1 Treat Boulevard/Northbound I-680 Off-Ramp1 (2014)
Northbound I-680 Off-Ramp/Treat Boulevard
Peak Hour
Existing No Build Alternative 4C
Ramp
Queue
Length
(ft.)
Delay
(sec) LOS
Ramp
Queue
Length
(ft.)
Delay
(sec) LOS
A.M.0 30.3 C 687 44.4 D
P.M.0 17.5 B 510 41.6 D
(2040)
Northbound I-680 Off-Ramp/Treat Boulevard
Peak Hour
Future No Build Alternative 4C
Ramp
Queue
Length
(ft.)
Delay
(sec) LOS
Ramp
Queue
Length
(ft.)
Delay
(sec) LOS
A.M.0 31.4 C 1036 61.2 E
P.M.0 19.9 B 604 40.2 D
Table 2 Buskirk Avenue to Jones Road Segment (Eastbound)2 (2014)
Oak Road/Treat Boulevard – Eastbound Through
Peak Hour
Existing No Build Existing + Proposed
Lane
Configuration Delay
(sec) LOS Lane
Configuration Delay
(sec) LOS
A.M.46.8 D 51.9 D
P.M.11.6 B 54.8 D
(2040)
Oak Road/Treat Boulevard – Eastbound Through
Peak Hour
Future No Build Future + Proposed
Lane
Configuration Delay
(sec) LOS Lane
Configuration Delay
(sec) LOS*
A.M.70.4 E 74.6 E
P.M.51.6 D 29.6 C
1 DKS Traffic Analysis of Revised Concept 4 (10/9/2017)
2 DKS Feasibility Study and Evaluation Traffic Analysis of Revised Concept 4 (3/6/2017)
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.23 of 176
Table 3 Buskirk Avenue to Jones Road Segment (Eastbound) (2014)
Jones Road/Treat Boulevard – Eastbound Through
Peak Hour
Existing No Build Existing + Proposed
Lane
Configuration Delay
(sec) LOS Lane
Configuration Delay
(sec) LOS
A.M.35.8 D 17.0 B
P.M. 44.0 D 34.1 C
(2040)
Jones Road/Treat Boulevard – Eastbound Through
Peak Hour
Future No Build Future + Proposed
Lane
Configuration Delay
(sec) LOS Lane
Configuration Delay
(sec) LOS
A.M.86.8 F 34.4 C
P.M. 162.0 F 144.3 F
Table 4
3 DKS Alternatives Traffic Analysis Report (7/22/2015)
Existing vs. Preferred Project3
Approach Peak
Hour
Total
Delay/Vehicle
(sec/veh)
Average Speed
(mph)
Arterial Level of
Service (“LOS”)
Existing Preferred
Project Existing Preferred
Project Existing Preferred
Project
Westbound A.M. 22 20 15 15 D D
P.M. 23 19 13 15 E E
Eastbound A.M. 36 36 9 9 F F
P.M. 32 27 10 11 E E
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.24 of 176
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and
Development
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
OCTOBER 2017
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.25 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Alta Planning + Design | iii
Table of Contents
Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.Plan Development Process ...................................................................................................................... 4
3.Planning Context ......................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1. City of Walnut Creek Bicycle Master Plan (2011) ............................................................. 5
3.2. Contra Costa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2009) .......................................................... 5
3.3. Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan (1998) .................................................... 5
4.Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 7
4.1. Design Assumptions .................................................................................................................... 7
4.2. General Traffic Conditions ........................................................................................................ 7
4.3. Land Use and Urban Design ..................................................................................................... 8
4.4. User Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 9
4.5. Collisions ........................................................................................................................................ 10
5.Alternative Concepts ................................................................................................................................. 11
5.1. Concept Overview ....................................................................................................................... 11
5.2. Pedestrian Improvements ........................................................................................................ 12
5.3. Concept 1A: Standard Bicycle Lanes ................................................................................... 13
5.4. Concept 1B: Buffered Bike Lanes .......................................................................................... 13
5.5. Concept 2: Shared Use Path and Buffered Bike Lanes ................................................. 13
5.6. Concept 3: Shared Use Path, Cycle Track and Sidewalk.............................................. 15
5.7. Concept 4: Shared Use Path and Sidewalk ....................................................................... 16
5.8. Concept 4A: Enhanced Bike Lanes and Shared Use Path ........................................... 17
6.Concept Evaluation ................................................................................................................................... 19
6.1. Traffic Analysis for All Concepts ........................................................................................... 19
6.2. Multi-Criteria Analysis ................................................................................................................ 21
Appendix A: Study Participants ......................................................................................................................... 25
Appendix B: Existing Conditions by Location .............................................................................................. 27
Appendix C: Concept 4A and 4B Traffic Study and
Alternative Concepts 4C, 4D, and 4E Memorandum ................................................... 33
Appendix D: Additional Traffic Data ................................................................................................................ 45
Appendix E: Concept Plans and Features ..................................................................................................... 49
Appendix F: Concept 4A Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................... 67
Separately available: full Traffic Analysis Report with modeling output and traffic count data
tables (DKS Associates)
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.26 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
1
Summary
The Contra Costa Centre Transit Village is a Transit Oriented Development (“TOD”) in
unincorporated Walnut Creek, clustered around the Pleasant Hill BART station. It is characterized
by mixed commercial, office and residential land uses. Pedestrians and cyclists access the area
principally via the Iron Horse Trail or a narrow (5’) sidewalk along the north side of the I-680
overcrossing bridge.
Treat Boulevard creates challenges for the users of transit as the wide roadways (up to nine lanes)
and intersections become barriers for pedestrians to cross. Without bicycle infrastructure, the
first/last mile for transit users becomes even more constrained.
The Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (“Plan” or “Study”)
was undertaken to address challenges and barriers to bicycling and walking within the ½- mile
Study segment by developing concepts that emphasize a higher level of comfort for bicyclists and
pedestrians.
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (“CCTA”) Measure J – Transportation for Livable
Communities Grant program (2014) and Subregional Transportation Needs (2017) funded the
Study.
Study development was in collaboration with the City of Walnut Creek, with participation from
interested agencies like Caltrans, CCTA, TRANSPAC and transit service providers. Alta +
Planning & Design, with assistance from sub-consultant DKS Associates, developed technical
work for the plan. County staff and the consultant team also gained valuable public input through
multiple meetings and community workshops held between 2014 and 2017.
Overall, six Corridor Concepts (1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4, 4A) and five focused-analysis Off-Ramp
Alternatives (A, B, C, D, E) were considered. The “Preferred Project” is Corridor Concept 4A
combined with Off-Ramp Alternative C (i.e. “Concept 4A/Alternative C”).
Preferred Project Highlights – Concept 4A/Alternative C
Preferred Project design based on agency staff and public input and technical analysis.
Includes geometric modifications to the Oak Road and I-680 Off-Ramp intersections to
improve pedestrian and bicycle crossings.
Provides better multi-modal balance while maintaining optimum corridor performance,
minimizes pedestrian discomfort, and avoids Caltrans design exceptions.
In the “No Build” scenario, the Study Corridor will inevitably experience higher future traffic
volumes due to typical increases in background traffic. Implementing the Preferred Project has
nominal impact to overall corridor performance, and in fact improves performance at key points
in the Study corridor while providing better multi-modal balance.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.27 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
3 | Alta Planning + Design
1.Introduction
The Contra Costa Centre Transit Village is a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in
unincorporated Walnut Creek, characterized by mixed commercial and office land uses. Bicycle
parking at the BART station is plentiful and heavily utilized. Despite these trip generators, the
I-680 overcrossing has a narrow (5’) sidewalk on the north side only, and no bicycle facilities.
Other than the regional Iron Horse Trail, there are no bicycle facilities along or across the
corridor.
This study intends to assess active transportation improvement options, recommend a phased
approach to implementation, and provide concept plans and cost estimates for funding
programming.
Figure 1-1 shows a vicinity map of the study corridor.
Figure 1-1: Project Locality
This project includes the following intersections:
1.Treat Boulevard/Geary Road and N. Main Street
2.Treat Boulevard and Buskirk Avenue/I‐680 northbound ramps
3.Treat Boulevard and Oak Road
4.Treat Boulevard and Jones Road/Iron Horse Trail
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.28 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 4
2.Plan Development Process
Plan Initiation
The Plan was funded with a $75,000 grant
from Contra Costa Measure J (2004)
Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC)
program, administered through the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA).
In April 2014, the consultant team met with
Contra Costa County at a “kick-off’ meeting to
review the overall scope, data needs,
schedule, vision and goals of the Plan. The
Team collected necessary geographic, design
and vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian data for
analysis.
Outreach
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
including staff from Contra Costa County,
Walnut Creek, and Caltrans was convened
three times (see Appendix A for a list of TAC
members). In addition to the TAC, meetings
were held with the following stakeholders: Figure 2-1: Plan Process
7/27/14 Lamorinda Development
12/12/14 Contra Costa Centre property management
2/20/15 Bike East Bay
Design Alternatives
The summer and fall of 2014 were dedicated to the analysis of existing plans, GIS data, field
research, traffic analysis and the development of three design concepts. The design concepts,
described in further detail below, were evaluated and reviewed by the TAC and the Walnut
Creek Transportation Commission.
Recommended Concept
In May 2015, the TAC met to review the recommended concept. Principal topics included
highway network planning, freeway access constraints, design details, and traffic modeling.
Based on TAC input and a multi-criteria analysis Concept 4 was selected as the recommended
alternative, offering balance between bicycle and pedestrian improvements with motorist level
of service and cost effectiveness.
A Draft Plan was released in September 2015. Based on public comments on the draft
document, a revised version of the Concept 4 design was developed in 2016, and additional
traffic analysis was conducted. This current plan identifies Revised Concept 4 as the
recommended alternative.
Existing
Conditions
•Site Tour and Data Collection
•Base Model
•TAC Meeting 1 (Apr 2014)
•Stakeholder Meetings
Concepts
•Develop three concepts
•TAC Meeting 2 (May 2014)
•Walnut Creek Transportation
Commission (Oct 2014)
•Community Workshop (Dec 2014)
Feasibility
Study
•Refine and Model Options
•Evaluate Options
•TAC Meeting 3 (May 2015)
Plan
Development
•Preliminary Engineering for
Recommended Option
•Cost Estimates to Support
Funding Applications
•Draft Plan (September 2015)
•Revised Plan (May 2017)
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.29 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
5 | Alta Planning + Design
3.Planning Context
Previous plans in the area identify proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements, policies,
and priorities for Treat Boulevard and the nearby area. A brief description of each related plan
is listed below.
3.1. City of Walnut Creek Bicycle Master Plan (2011)
According to this plan, the City of Walnut Creek allows bicyclists to use sidewalks along heavily
travelled arterials, including Treat Boulevard. Various segments of Treat Boulevard within the
city limits are designated as Class III bicycle routes, although sharing a lane with high volumes
of traffic on a 35 mph roadway is not a condition that will suit most people.
Figure 3-1: Extract of Walnut Creek Bicycle Master Plan showing Treat Boulevard as a proposed Class
III
3.2. Contra Costa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2009)
The Contra Costa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan names “Routes to transit” as one of three types
of pedestrian priority locations. The Pleasant Hill BART station is mentioned as a priority
location along with the other BART stations in Contra Costa County. No specific improvements
are prescribed for the Treat Boulevard study corridor.
The Contra Costa Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan identifies Treat Boulevard as a part of the
Countywide Bicycle Network (CBN) but does not propose a specific treatment.
3.3. Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan (1998)
The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan states that a circulation system for bicycles
and pedestrians will be provided to support travel between parking areas, transit stops,
buildings, the Iron Horse Trail, and the Bart Station.
The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan cites the following bicycle and pedestrian
objectives for transportation and circulation:
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.30 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 6
Transportation and Circulation Objective #5 Provide for safe and convenient
pedestrian and bicycle movement between the BART Station, Station Area parking,
local transit boarding areas, and major facilities in the Station Area and between the
Station Area and nearby residential and commercial areas.”
Urban Design Objective #8 Develop areas intensively used by pedestrians at a human
scale with adjoining uses which will visually and functionally enliven the area.
The Specific Plan design concepts identify Treat Boulevard as the major entranceway to the
Station Area and encourage a pedestrian-friendly environment:
Emphasize Treat Boulevard as the major entranceway to the Station Area and visually
identify this role by the placement of the pedestrian overpass at Oak Road and the
pedestrian/bicycle overpass at Jones Road, and the provision of elevated public
plazas or pedestrian corridors in the vicinity of the northeast and southeast corners of
the intersection (Subareas 12 and 15). Provide sufficient public outdoor space to
accommodate the pedestrian activities focused at this location as a result of adjoining
office development, BART parking and local transit stop.
Create a pedestrian-friendly street-level environment by discouraging blank building
walls and encouraging windows, doors, and other building facade features.
The Specific Plan identifies policies for bicycle and pedestrian circulation that relate to Treat
Boulevard. The policies are shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Specific Plan Policies
Policy Description Status
Policy 1 A pedestrian overpass shall be provided at the
intersection of Treat Boulevard and Oak Road.
No longer supported and has
been removed from Plan
Policy 2 A pedestrian and bicycle overpass should be
provided at Jones Road for the Iron Horse Trail.
Complete
Policy 3 If feasible, development on Area 12 should provide for
a continuous pedestrian-way from the north end of
the pedestrian overpass at Oak Road to the BART
Station.
Complete
Policy 7 Undertake a community design program for both
pedestrian and bicycle overcrossings as soon as
feasible given availability of funding and reasonably
defined site geometrics.
Complete
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.31 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
7 | Alta Planning + Design
4.Existing Conditions
A site tour was held with the TAC on May 19, 2014. The consultant team also performed several
additional field reviews through the month of May.
4.1. Design Assumptions
During the site tour meeting, the design assumptions were confirmed as follows:
Lane widths shall be no less than 11’ or 10.5’ for turn lanes
Medians can be narrowed
All proposals are to remain within the public right of way
4.2. General Traffic Conditions
The corridor has a 35 mph speed limit. The roadway has excess capacity during off-peak hours
as it is sized based on level of service and demand during peak hours.
There are nine lanes in some locations (Figure 4-1), presenting a long distance for pedestrians
to cross the street. Reducing this distance, providing longer walk times, or reducing wait times
for pedestrians can improve the pedestrian experience. Lane widths within the study area are
typically 12’ but vary from 11’ to 17’.
Long cycle lengths provide higher motor vehicle capacity for the main movements, but delays
for other movements and for pedestrians can cause frustration. Long cycle lengths also lead to
risk taking such as red-light running.
Figure 4-1: Existing Conditions Lane Configurations and Signal Phasing
Yield controlled channelized right turns are present at all westbound intersections and
eastbound at Jones Road. Northbound Buskirk Avenue and southbound Oak Road also have
channelized right turns. Dedicated receiving lanes for continuous free flow are present at
westbound right turn at Main Street, the southbound right turn at Oak Road, and the
northbound right turn at Buskirk Avenue. Although channelized right turns are advantageous
for automobile traffic, they present a less comfortable and safe environment for pedestrians
and cyclists, who must cross faster moving right turning traffic that frequently does not expect
to conflict with pedestrians.
Appendix B presents a more detailed description of existing conditions by location along the
corridor, along with traffic count and base model data.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.32 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 8
4.3. Land Use and Urban Design
The land uses on Treat Boulevard include office, retail, hotel, and mixed-use residential. The
Walgreens shopping center on the northeast corner of Treat Boulevard and North Main Street
is not slated for expansion, although the parking lot may be reconfigured to connect to BevMo,
a beverage retail establishment directly north.
The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Plan identifies urban design objectives for building height,
form and mass, public spaces, pedestrian circulation, landscaping, signage, building design, and
defensible space. Buildings on Treat Boulevard have a minimum three-story height and setback
of 20 feet from the street.
The most recent mixed-use development on the north side of
Treat Boulevard, between Jones Road and Oak Road, has
continuous sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, benches, and trees.
A Starbucks on the easternmost corner provides outdoor
seating. A parking lane separates pedestrians from the traffic
on Treat Boulevard. The light colored concrete on the parking
strip and extended right-turn lane is a de-facto space for
bicycling.
Photo 1 The north side of Treat
Boulevard between Jones Road
and Oak Road has continuous
building frontage and a
pedestrian-friendly public realm.
The south side of the block between Jones Road and Oak
Road is reminiscent of typical suburban design. The office
buildings are set back approximately 50 feet away from the
street. Unlike the north side, which has a continuous building
frontage along the sidewalk, the south building’s V-shape sets
the entrance to the building back even further. The sidewalk
is separated from the traffic by a landscape strip and
occasional trees.
Photo 2 The south side of Treat
Boulevard has a meandering 6’
wide sidewalk
This style is consistent along the majority of the study
corridor, with and without the landscape strip, with sidewalk
widths varying between 4-8 feet. Along the Embassy Suites
frontage on the north side of Treat Boulevard between Oak
Road and Buskirk Avenue, there is an 8’ wide sidewalk
separated from traffic by an 8’ wide landscape strip. Trees line
both sides of the sidewalk, providing a shade canopy during
the summer.
Photo 3 The north side of Treat
Boulevard has a tree-lined 8’
wide sidewalk
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.33 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
9 | Alta Planning + Design
4.4. User Analysis
A field review of the study corridor was conducted in July 2014 during peak hours to observe
pedestrian, driver, and bicyclist behavior. The fieldwork included interviews with pedestrians.
The majority of pedestrians were observed walking on the north side of the study corridor.
When asked about their experience walking on Treat Boulevard, pedestrians noted that the
walk across the I-680 overbridge is “unpleasant” and “always seems to take longer than it
should.” Another pedestrian noted that the signals along Treat Boulevard are “really slow,” and
can take “double the time if you have to cross two ways.”
The pedestrian phases were timed during field
observations. Pedestrians waited up to 120 seconds
before receiving a walk indication. At the Treat
Boulevard and Oak Road intersection, pedestrians were
observed crossing the street during the do-not-walk
phase. These pedestrians would cross to the center
median, and then wait for the walk signal, presumably to
get a head start (Figure 4-2). This suggests that the
signal phasing may be too long to accommodate
pedestrian commuters, particularly those traveling to
catch a BART train.
The pedestrian plaza between the Embassy Suites Hotel
and Vodafone Building north of Treat Boulevard (Figure
4-3) serves as a common path for pedestrians and
bicyclists traveling to and from the BART Station.
Figure 4-2: Some pedestrians cross to
the median on a Do Not Walk signal
to get a head start on the next ped
phase
Figure 4-3: Plaza route
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.34 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 10
Few people were observed bicycling on Treat Boulevard, choosing instead to ride on the
sidewalk. On the I-680 overbridge, the majority of riders used the narrow (5’) north sidewalk.
In some instances, the bicyclist or pedestrian would step into the street to pass a group.
Drivers were observed failing to yield to pedestrians in channelized right turn lane crosswalks,
particularly at the northeast corner of Treat Boulevard and Oak Road. Some drivers blocked
pedestrian movement by pausing in crosswalks while waiting in a traffic queue.
4.5. Collisions
Recent collision data was requested through Contra Costa County and collected from the
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). Violation type was recorded for 13 of
the 16 total collisions (Table 4-1). Automobile Right of Way was the most common violation for
a bicycle/vehicle collision, and Pedestrian Right of Way was the most common violation for a
pedestrian/vehicle collision.
The cluster of collisions at Jones
Road shown in Figure 4-4 may
precede the construction of the
Iron Horse Trail overbridge.
The next most frequent location
is around Buskirk Avenue, where
three bicycle collisions have
been reported.
Table 4-1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions Crash Type
Violation Bicycle Pedestrian
Automobile Right of Way 2 1
Improper Turning 2 0
Other Hazardous Violation 1 0
Other Improper Driving 0 1
Pedestrian Right of Way 0 3
Unsafe Lane Change 1 0
Unsafe Starting or Backing 2 0
Total 8 5
Figure 4-4: Reported Collisions Map
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.35 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
11 | Alta Planning + Design
5. Alternative Concepts
5.1. Concept Overview
Three concepts were initially developed for the Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
For Concept 1, a lower cost, lower impact version of 1A was also considered.
Concept 4 was developed after conducting traffic modeling and outreach.
Following the release of the public draft plan, Concept 4A was developed, along with
alternatives 4B-4E.
Principal elements of each concept are given in Table 5-1; more details and plan view graphics
are provided in Appendix D. An evaluation of the concepts is provided in section 0 of this
document.
Table 5-1 Concept Comparisons
Concept Location Main Street to
Buskirk Avenue
Buskirk Avenue to
Oak Road
Oak Road to
Jones Road
Concept 1A
(short term)
North side /
Westbound
Bike lane Sharrows Sharrows
South side /
Eastbound
Bike lane Sharrows Sharrows
Concept 1B
North side /
Westbound
Buffered bike lane Buffered bike lane Buffered bike lane
South side /
Eastbound
Buffered bike lane Buffered bike lane Buffered bike lane
Concept 2
North side /
Westbound
Two way shared path Two way shared path Buffered bike lane
South side /
Eastbound
Bike lane Buffered bike lane Buffered bike lane
Concept 3
North side /
Westbound
Two way shared path Two way shared path Cycle track
South side /
Eastbound
Sidewalk Sidewalk Sidewalk
Concept 4
North side /
Westbound
Two way shared path Two way shared path Sharrows
South side /
Eastbound
Sidewalk No change No change
Concept 4A
North side/
Westbound
Bike lane Two way shared path
and bike lane
Bike lane
South side/
Eastbound
Buffered bike lane Buffered bike lane Buffered bike lane
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.36 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 12
5.2. Pedestrian Improvements
All concepts, with the exception of 1A, propose pedestrian enhancements at crosswalks along
the study corridor. These improvements include:
Enhancing the existing crosswalks at channelized free right turns along the study
corridor with high visibility continental or ladder striping, “sharks-teeth” yield markings
and signs
Reconstructing the channelization island at Treat Boulevard and Buskirk Avenue to
meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.
A sample graphic showing a channelized right turn lane with “shark’s teeth” yield markings,
high visibility ladder style crosswalk, and tactile ground surface indicators on the ADA standard
curb ramps is shown in Figure 5-1. For those concepts where bicycle lanes are provided, this
graphic indicates how a bike lane would be configured where the turn lane is an “add-lane.”
The bike lane is straight and motorists must merge across the path of bicyclists.
Figure 5-1: Conceptual provisions for pedestrians and bicyclists at a channelized right turn lane
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.37 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
13 | Alta Planning + Design
5.3. Concept 1A: Standard Bicycle Lanes
Concept 1A proposes bike lanes on Treat Boulevard between Main Street and Buskirk Avenue
by narrowing travel lanes to the County specified minimum 11’ width. East of Buskirk Avenue,
bike lanes could only be accommodated if travel lanes were reduced to 10’ width (below the
County specified minimum). Accordingly, sharrows could be employed. While sharrows are
permitted on roadways with 35 mph speed limits, they are not an ideal solution as few people
will “take the lane” with motorists traveling at that speed. Green paint would be provided at
the bike lane entrances and at conflict points to make the bike lanes more visible to motorists.
Altogether, the Concept 1A enhancements would be easy to implement and less costly than
the other alternatives; however, they would offer limited improvement to the bicycle and
pedestrian experience on Treat Boulevard. Concept 1A does not remove any travel lanes and
would have minimal impact on the driving experience or traffic movements. Concept 1A could
be considered as an option for short-term improvements.
5.4. Concept 1B: Buffered Bike Lanes
Concept 1B proposes buffered bike lanes along the full extent of the study corridor. The buffer
between the bike lane and adjacent motor vehicle lane offers bicyclists an increased sense of
safety. Green paint at the bike lane entrances and the conflict zones make the bike lanes more
visible to motorists. These enhancements can be done by converting the outside travel lanes
into the buffered bike lanes.
Figure 5-2: Concept 1B buffered bike lanes at I-680
Concept 1B would remove the outside eastbound and westbound travel lanes, remove the
eastbound channelized right-turn lane at Treat Boulevard and Jones Road, and narrow the curb
radius at the eastbound I-680 on-ramp between Main Street and Buskirk Avenue. Although
removing the southbound channelized right turn at Oak Road reduces capacity, it also
eliminates the weaving operation between Oak Road and the I-680 ramps, which improves
traffic operation and safety along Treat Boulevard.
5.5. Concept 2: Shared Use Path and Buffered Bike Lanes
Concept 2 proposes converting the existing north side sidewalk into a shared use path between
Main Street and Oak Road, adding buffered westbound bike lanes between Oak Road and
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.38 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 14
Jones Road, and adding eastbound buffered bike lanes for the full extent of the study area. The
vertical curb provides an enhanced sense of safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Figure 5-3: Concept 2 shared use path (north side) and buffered bike lane (south side) at I-680
At Treat Boulevard and Oak Road, bicyclists would be partially separated from motor vehicles
with curbs and islands to reduce the risk of collisions between bicyclists and right-turning
vehicles. Channelized right turns at Oak Road and Jones Road would be removed.
Figure 5-4: Concept 2 at Oak Road
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.39 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
15 | Alta Planning + Design
Concept 2 can be implemented by narrowing lanes, and converting the outside eastbound lane
between Buskirk Avenue and Jones Road into a buffered bike lane. Although capacity is
reduced by removing the southbound channelized right turn at Oak Road, this also eliminates
the weaving operation between Oak Road and the I-680 ramps, which improves traffic
operation and safety along Treat Boulevard. The expansion of the north sidewalk into a two-
way shared-use path, the construction of the protected intersection, and the removal of the
channelized right turns would result in higher costs than Concept 1A and 1B.
5.6. Concept 3: Shared Use Path, Cycle Track and Sidewalk
Concept 3 proposes converting the existing north sidewalk into a shared use path between
Main Street and Oak Road, and adding a westbound cycle track between Oak Road and Jones
Road. The shared use path is used by both pedestrians and bicyclists. It provides bicyclists with
a grade separation from motor vehicles and therefore a greater sense of safety. The cycle track
would be a bike lane separated from the travel lanes by a row of parked cars. This physical
separation from the travel lanes provides bicyclists with a greater sense of safety. The
eastbound outside lane would have sharrows, which are a marginal but low cost solution on
roadways with speed limits up to 35 mph (as with Treat Boulevard).
Concept 3 proposes removing channelized right turns at Oak Road and Jones Road,
designating the sidewalk between Main Street and Buskirk Avenue as a 10-foot wide two-way
shared-use path, adding a sidewalk to the south side between Main Street and Buskirk Avenue,
and expanding the existing south sidewalk with a landscape strip between Buskirk Avenue and
Oak Road. The south sidewalk would offer pedestrians an alternative walking option to the new
shared-use path, where pedestrians would share the same space with bicyclists.
Figure 5-5: Concept 3 shared use path (north side) and sidewalk (south side) at I-680
Concept 3 can be done by narrowing lanes, removing channelized right turns, and converting
the right-turn lane between Oak Road and Jones Road into the cycle track. Although capacity
is reduced by removing the southbound channelized right turn at Oak Road, this also removes
the weaving operation between Oak Road and the I-680 ramps, which improves traffic
operation and safety along Treat Boulevard. This design results in some impact to the
intersection level of service (LOS) and results in more overall network delay and higher travel
times due to the removal of one eastbound and one westbound travel lane. Concept 3 has a
small delay impact at Oak Road during the morning peak hour and Main Street during the
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.40 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 16
afternoon peak hour. The expansion of the north sidewalk into a two-way shared-use path, the
removal of the channelized right turns, and the construction of the south side sidewalk would
result in higher costs than Concept 1A and 1B.
5.7. Concept 4: Shared Use Path and Sidewalk
This study originally was to include development of up to three concepts. Through an iterative
development process and with stakeholder input, selected elements of the original three
concepts were combined into Concept 4. While this concept does not provide as substantial
an improvement for bicyclists and pedestrians as might be achieved with some elements not
carried forward from the other concepts, it is a compromise predicated on the assumption that
all travel lanes must be retained and must be at least 11’ wide. Plans are provided for this
concept in Appendix D.
5.7.1. Main Street to Buskirk Avenue
The concepts that included traffic lane removals are not supported by the traffic modeling, but
lane width reductions enable the installation of paths on both sides of the bridge:
On the north side, the existing sidewalk would be replaced with a 12’ wide shared use
path. Minor improvements would be made to reduce potential conflicts at the
Walgreens driveways.
On the south side, Treat Boulevard has enough space for either an on-street eastbound
bike lane or a new southern sidewalk facility without removing travel lanes. Concept 4
includes a south side sidewalk to improve pedestrian connectivity, because eastbound
bicyclists will be able to use the north side shared-use path or the curbside traffic lanes.
Figure 5-6: Concept 4 shared use path (north side) and sidewalk (south side) at I-680 (as per Concept
3)
5.7.2. Buskirk Avenue to Oak Road
All travel lanes remain in Concept 4 due to the heavy traffic volume at Buskirk Avenue turning
right towards northbound I-680. As such, the cycle track element was not included.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.41 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
17 | Alta Planning + Design
5.7.3. Oak Road to Jones Road
Neither bike lanes, sharrows nor cycle tracks were chosen for this section of Treat Boulevard
for the following reasons:
Eastbound bike lanes cannot be accommodated without removal of a traffic lane or
reduction of lane widths below the County’s minimum to 10’. Modeling indicates an
unacceptable impact on motorist level of service. Furthermore, Treat Blvd is currently
not a hospitable route for bicycling east of Jones Road and there is low demand relative
to the rest of the corridor; therefore, this portion of the route is likely to attract only
more confident “vehicular” bicyclists.
Eastbound sharrows were not chosen for this section because the volume and speed of
traffic would not provide a comfortable environment for bicyclists. Instead, bicyclists
should be encouraged to use the shared-use path on the north side of the road.
Westbound sharrows were chosen for this section to accommodate and direct bicyclists
either westbound onto the shared-use path or northbound toward the BART station
once they reach the Oak Street and Treat Boulevard intersection. The sharrows will be
located on the dedicated westbound right-turn lane, which will have lower traffic
volumes and provide a more comfortable environment for people on bikes.
The landing points for the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing are approximately 500 feet
north and south of the intersection.
Implementation of a separate bikeway along Treat Boulevard in this block may be possible in
the long-term, depending on the motor traffic volume and wider network changes that may
occur.
5.8. Concept 4A: Enhanced Bike Lanes and Shared Use Path
Concept 4A was developed based on public comments, and balances bicycle and pedestrian
improvements with motorist level of service and cost effectiveness. Improvements along the
corridor include:
From Main Street to Buskirk Avenue, buffered bicycle lanes with green markings at
conflict points are provided by narrowing existing lanes
From Buskirk Avenue to Oak Road, buffered green bicycle lanes are provided in addition
to a new shared use path on the north side
From Oak Road to Jones Road, a bicycle lane is provided on the north side while a
buffered bicycle lane is provided on the south side; both directions have green markings
at conflict points
Because of right-turn conflicts and traffic delays caused by Concept 4A, four alternative
concepts were evaluated for the I-680 offramp intersection at Treat Boulevard and Buskirk
Road.
Alternative 4B
Alternative concept 4B closes the free right turn lane from the I-680 onramp onto Treat
Boulevard by creating a curb extension. This eliminates a conflict point with motor vehicles
merging across the bike lane. The I-680 approach is reconfigured to accommodate one left-
turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane within the existing travelway.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.42 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 18
The elimination of the free right-turn lane created substantial traffic delay, and as a result
Alternative 4B was excluded from some analyses as a nonviable option. Subsequent
alternatives 4C, 4D, and 4E were developed in an attempt to reduce this traffic delay.
Alternative 4C
In addition to the modifications described in Alternative 4B, Alternative 4C changes the right-
hand through lane to a through/right-turn lane. The resulting approach includes one left-turn
lane, one through lane, one through/right-turn lane, and one right-turn lane.
This improves traffic conditions slightly, but reduces pedestrian comfort by adding a lane of
cars that will be turning across the crosswalk.
Alternative 4D
In addition to the modifications described in Alternative 4B, Alternative 4D adds a second right-
turn lane by removing shoulders and narrowing all lanes to 11 feet. The resulting approach
includes one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and two right-turn lanes.
This improves traffic conditions, but reduces pedestrian comfort with two lanes of traffic
turning across the crosswalk. It would also create a longer crosswalk across the I-680 ramp,
increasing pedestrian exposure, and require either a Caltrans design exception or a ramp
widening.
Alternative 4E
In addition to the modifications described in Alternative 4C, Alternative 4E adds a second right-
turn lane by removing shoulders and narrowing all lanes to 11 feet. The resulting approach
includes one left-turn lane, one through lane, one through/right-turn lane, and two right-turn
lanes.
This improves traffic conditions, but reduces pedestrian comfort with three lanes of traffic
turning across the crosswalk. It would also create a longer crosswalk across the I-680 ramp,
increasing pedestrian exposure, and require either a Caltrans design exception or a ramp
widening.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.43 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
19 | Alta Planning + Design
6.Concept Evaluation
6.1. Traffic Analysis for All Concepts
This section includes a summary of the separate detailed traffic report. When looking at the
average intersection LOS, the design concepts result in little impact for the current year (2014)
traffic volumes (Table 6-1) or for the future year (2040) traffic volumes (Table 6-2). Concept
1A was not analyzed because it does not involve any changes to the number of lanes or
intersection layouts. Alternatives to Concept 4A are shown in Table 6-3 (current year) and
Table 6-4 (future year).
Table 6-1: All Concepts - Intersection LOS Comparison for Current Year (2014)
Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing Concept 1B Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Concept 4A
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
Main Street*
A.M. 55.7 E 60.0 E 60.1 E 60.1 E 60.1 E 53.1 D
P.M. 42.9 D 41.1 D 42.2 D 42.2 D 42.2 D 42.9 D
I-680 NB and
Buskirk Ave
A.M. 30.3 C 32.9 C 30.3 C 30.3 C 30.3 C 34.7 C
P.M. 17.5 B 17.7 B 17.4 B 17.4 B 17.4 B 19.5 B
Oak Road
A.M. 46.8 D 55.5 E 53.6 D 53.6 D 49.3 D 49.2 D
P.M. 19.3 B 39.4 D 40.1 D 40.1 D 34.1 C 36.8 D
Jones Road*
A.M. 37.6 D 28.8 C 29.8 C 29.8 C 29.9 C 32.8 C
P.M. 49.8 D 37.7 D 38.2 D 38.2 D 37.9 D 48.3 D
Table 6-2: All Concepts - Intersection LOS Comparison for Future Year
Intersection Peak
Hour
No Build Concept 1B Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Concept 4A
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
Main Street*
A.M. 83.1 F 86.0 F 83.3 F 83.3 F 83.3 F 60.1 E
P.M. 67.9 E 67.4 E 75.9 E 75.9 E 75.9 E 60.0 E
I-680 NB and
Buskirk Ave
A.M. 31.4 C 36.4 D 30.5 C 30.5 C 30.5 C 36.5 D
P.M. 19.9 B 24.9 C 13.7 B 13.7 B 13.8 B 26.1 C
Oak Road
A.M. 63.8 E 63.3 E 67.3 E 67.3 E
67.5
(67.6)
[61.9]1
E 53.8 D
P.M. 46.3 D 48.9 D 45.5 D 45.5 D
36.7
(29.3)
[30.5]
1
D 42.7 D
Jones Road*
A.M. 61.9 E 61.9 E 49.6 D 49.6 D 49.6 D 59.7 E
P.M. 211.9 F 212.4 F 212.1 F 212.1 F 212.1 F 143.9 F
1 Free right turn removal at Oak Road Mitigation 1, (Mitigation 2), and [Mitigation 3]
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.44 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 20
Table 6-3: Concept Alternatives 4A-4E – Intersection LOS Comparison for Current Year (2014)
Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing Concept 4A Concept 4B Concept 4C Concept 4D Concept 4E
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
I-680 NB and
Buskirk Ave
A.M. 30.3 D 34.7 C 112.9 F1 44.4 D2 43.1 D - -
P.M. 17.5 C 19.5 B 62.1 E1 41.6 D2 41.3 D - -
1This alternative failed, and was therefore not included in future year analyses
2HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations.
Table 6-4: Concept Alternatives 4A-4E – Intersection LOS Comparison for Future Year
Intersection Peak
Hour
No Build Concept 4A Concept 4B Concept 4C Concept 4D Concept 4E
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
I-680 NB and
Buskirk Ave
A.M. 31.4 C 36.5 D - - 61.2 E1 88.3 F 46.9 D*
P.M. 19.9 B 26.1 C - - 40.2 D1 52.6 D 31.7 C*
1HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.45 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
21 | Alta Planning + Design
6.2. Multi-Criteria Analysis
All concepts were evaluated for future conditions based on a list of criteria described below.
For each concept, the reallocation of the eastbound curbside lane to a bike lane has been
omitted as the traffic impact was estimated to be unacceptable. The evaluation criteria are
described below; the scores can be seen in Table 6-5 on the next page.
Bicycle Experience: the perceived safety and convenience of traveling the corridor by
bike.
Pedestrian Experience: the perceived safety and convenience of traveling the corridor
by foot.
Driving Experience: the comfort and convenience of traveling the corridor by
automobile.
Ease of Implementation: the amount of planning, design and construction required to
implement the concept.
Cost: the amount of funding required to implement the concept.
Traffic Impacts (level of service): defined in the separate Traffic Report and relates to
the amount of delay in travel speeds along the corridor and at intersections.
Concept 4 scores highest – a balance between bicycle and pedestrian improvements with
motorist level of service and cost effectiveness.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.46 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 22
Table 6-5: Concept Evaluation
Criterion No
Build
Concept
1A
Concept
1B
Concept
2
Concept
3
Concept
4
Concept
4A
No
change
Limited
Bike
Lanes
Buffered
Bike
Lanes
Shared
Use Path
and
Buffered
Bike
Lanes
Shared
Use Path,
Cycle
Track and
South side
Sidewalk
Shared
Use Path
and South
side
Sidewalk
Enhanced
Bike Lanes
and Shared
Use Path
Bicycle
Experience
0 1 2 3 2 2 2
Pedestrian
Experience
0 0 1 2 3 3 1
Driving
Experience
0 0 2 2 2 2 2
Ease of
Implementation
3 3 2 0 -1 0 1
Cost
-1 -1 -2 -3 -3 -3 -2
Traffic Impacts
(level of
service)
-1 0 -2 -2 -1 0 0
Total Score 1 2 3 2 2 4 4
Table 6-6 Scoring Levels
Very
Significant
Negative
Significant
Negative
Minor
Negative Neutral Minor
Positive
Significant
Positive
Very
Significant
Positive
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.47 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
23 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 6-7: Concept Alternatives Evaluation
Criterion No Build Concept
4A
Concept
4B
Concept
4C
Concept
4D
Concept
4E
No change
Enhanced
bike lanes
and shared
use path
Eliminates
free right-
turn lane
Adds right-
turn option
to #3 lane
Adds
second
right-turn
lane
Adds
second
right-turn
lane and
right-turn
option to
#3 lane
I-680 Approach
Configuration
Bicycle
Experience
0 2 3 3 3 3
Pedestrian
Experience
0 1 3 2 2 1
Driving
Experience
0 2 2 2 2 2
Ease of
Implementation
3 1 -1 -1 -2 -2
Cost
-1 -2 -3 -3 -3 -3
Traffic Impacts
(level of
service)
-1 0 -3 -2 -2 -1
Total Score 1 4 1 1 0 0
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.48 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
25 | Alta Planning + Design
Appendix A: Study Participants
Client
Jamar Stamps Planner, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation
and Development
Technical Advisory Committee
Jeremy Lochiro City of Walnut Creek
Angela Villar Engineer, Contra Costa County Public Works
Coire Reilly Contra Costa County Health Services Department
Anh Phan Nguyen Caltrans
Denise Seib Contra Costa Centre Association
Laura Case Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Office
John Vallor Contra Costa County MAC
Brad Beck Contra Costa County Transportation Authority
Alta Planning + Design
Brett Hondorp, AICP Principal-In-Charge
John Lieswyn, PTP, MET Consultant Team Project Manager
Alexandra Sweet Senior Planner
DKS
Thomas Krakow, P.E. Principal-In-Charge
David Mahama, P.E. Project Manager
Maria Tribelhorn, E.I.T Assistant Transportation Engineer
Others
IDAX Data Collection
Quality Counts, LLC Data Collection
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.49 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
27 | Alta Planning + Design
Appendix B: Existing Conditions by Location
North Main Street
Both the westbound left turn/U-turn and westbound right turn movements are heavy at this
intersection. Due to the high turning volumes and high left lane utilization, the queue from
westbound traffic turning into N. Main Street backs to the I-680 ramps during the A.M. peak
hour. The westbound left turn bays are not adequate for the forming left turn queues and
vehicles sometimes queue in the through lanes, creating potential for rear-end collisions and
congestion.
The southbound left turn volumes are high at N. Main Street during both the morning and
afternoon peak periods. Queues spill back beyond the turn bays during both time periods.
Currently N. Main Street operates in coordination with Ygnacio Valley Road (coordinated north-
south), rather than in coordination with the Treat Boulevard corridor, which may contribute to
the formation of westbound queues. East-west coordination could be considered as a potential
alternative for this location. Ygnacio Valley Road is about 3 miles south of the Treat
Boulevard/N. Main Street intersection. There are four traffic signals on N. Main Street between
Ygnacio Valley Road and Treat Boulevard. Additionally, Ygnacio Valley Road, N. Main Street
and Treat Boulevard have interchanges with the I-680 freeway.
Photo 4 View of westbound Treat Boulevard
approaching N. Main Street. Existing bicyclist use
of sidewalk in conflict with Walgreens driveway
turning movements.
Photo 5 View of Treat Boulevard and N. Main
Street. Right-turn slip lane creates two points of
potential conflict between motorists and
pedestrians.
The City of Walnut Creek will be paving North Main Street from Treat Boulevard northward in
2015 and from Treat Boulevard southward in 2016. Minor configuration and/or striping changes
may be accommodated at that time.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.50 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 28
I-680 Overcrossing
The bridge that crosses over I-680 between N. Main Street and I-680 Northbound off-ramp has
no sidewalk on the south side and a narrow (5’ to 8’) sidewalk on the north side. Despite the
fact the sidewalk is not wide enough to comfortably accommodate two pedestrians walking
side-by-side, it is also shared by cyclists due to the roadway traffic conditions and lack of
separate bicycle facilities. The I-680 overcrossing has three westbound through lanes and two
eastbound through lanes and two eastbound left-turn lanes. The bridge carries over 20,000
vehicles per day in each direction, for a total average daily traffic of about 40,000 motor
vehicles.
The bridge has wide shoulders in both directions, but particularly in the westbound direction,
which presents an opportunity to increase the pedestrian and bicycle space. This could be
accomplished through one or a combination of the following: lane adjustment, addition of a
sidewalk on the south side of the bridge, widening of the existing sidewalk, and/or addition of
bicycle lanes or a cycle track. The construction of a shared path on one side would provide
service to both pedestrians and bi-directional travel for cyclists on one side of the road. The
path provides excellent service to non-automobile modes, but requires 15’ of space including
path, shoulder, and traffic buffer.
Photo 6 View east along the existing 5’ wide
sidewalk on the I-680 overcrossing. Pedestrians
are observed walking in the traffic lane to
overtake one another.
Photo 7 View west along the sidewalk on the
overcrossing. A pedestrian commented that the
walk on the overcrossing “is unpleasant and
always seems to take longer than it should.”
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.51 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
29 | Alta Planning + Design
I-680 Ramps/Buskirk Avenue
The I-680 northbound ramps at Buskirk Avenue present a challenge to pedestrians wishing to
cross the intersection. The northbound right turn traffic onto Treat Boulevard is heavy and due
to channelization does not always yield to pedestrians and bicycles.
During the morning peak period, the northbound left turn queues occasionally exceed the left
turn lane storage capacity. During the evening peak period, the eastbound Treat Boulevard
traffic turning left onto the I-680 ramp was observed to exceed the left turn storage.
Photo 8 View west of the I-680 overcrossing
sidewalk from Buskirk Avenue. Current 5’ wide
sidewalk is insufficient for two-way pedestrian
use. Bicyclists were observed using this facility to
travel east and west instead of using the
roadway.
Photo 9 View west of the I-680 overcrossing,
south side from Buskirk Avenue. No sidewalk or
bike lane exists along this side of the
overcrossing.
Photo 10 North crosswalk of Buskirk Avenue
typifies some of the existing curb ramps with
uneven surfaces difficult to traverse for those
with mobility impairments.
Photo 11 The northbound I-680 offramp has
heavy right turn volumes at peak times
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.52 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 30
Treat Boulevard between Oak Road and the I-680 Ramps/Buskirk Avenue
Westbound
The southbound right turn lane at Oak Road has its own receiving lane westbound, which
immediately becomes a right turn only onto Buskirk Avenue and the I-680 NB on ramp. This
layout causes weaving conflicts on westbound Treat Boulevard due to the high demand for
northbound I-680. Further exacerbating this issue, the BART support columns separate the
lanes of travel and limit visibility for traffic merging from the right lane.
These conditions contribute to the formation of a westbound queue during the afternoon peak
hour. Weaving conflicts demand driver attention, often taking away driver awareness of
pedestrians and bike riders. Due to this lack of attention, bike riders are currently safest riding
in the middle of the lane rather than at the edge of the lane, which is ideally where a bicycle
lane would be located. As indicated by low bicycle volumes on this segment (three westbound
during the P.M. peak hour), few cyclists brave this environment. Weaving traffic and high right
lane utilization through this segment cause traffic to spill back to Oak Road, reducing the
number of vehicles that can travel westbound through the Oak Road and Jones Road
intersections during a green light, effectively “wasting” green time at these intersections.
Photo 12 View of westbound Treat Boulevard
from Oak Road. Traffic from Oak Road merges
into the right lane for I-680 northbound.
Photo 13 View looking east on the north side of
Treat Boulevard. The 8’ wide treelined sidewalk
is also used by bicyclists traveling both
directions.
Eastbound
The eastbound segment on Treat Boulevard
between the I-680 ramps and Oak Road is also
characterized by high weaving volumes during
the morning and afternoon peak periods.
Heavy traffic from the I-680 northbound ramp
merge into the eastbound lanes where weaving
conflicts arise between motorists turning at
Oak Road or Jones Road. The BART support
columns separate the lanes and limit visibility,
exacerbating this issue. Photo 14 View east towards Oak Road on the
south side of Treat Boulevard.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.53 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
31 | Alta Planning + Design
Oak Road
Oak Road is commonly used for pedestrian access to the BART station. About 90 pedestrians
cross Treat Boulevard at Oak Road during the morning peak hour. Because the cycle length is
long (160 seconds in the morning), some pedestrians cross illegally against the light by finding
gaps in queued traffic or between platoons of cars. During the morning peak period, the
westbound left turn and northbound left turn queues occasionally exceed the left turn lane
storage capacity.
Photo 15 View north along Oak Road. Cyclists
accessing BART use the shared path on the west
side of Oak Road, cross at Coggins Drive to the
east side of Oak Road to continue north to BART
or cross Oak Road and continue up the path on
the east side of Oak Road.
Photo 16 View west on the east side of Oak
Road, showing northbound free right turn lane
and splitter island: cars speed around the corner,
or block the crosswalk while waiting to merge.
Photo 17 At the intersection of Oak Road and
Treat Boulevard, pedestrians have up to a two-
minute wait time to cross the street. One
pedestrian commented on the length of the
crosswalk and time required to cross. Several
pedestrians were observed walking down the
Treat Boulevard median.
Photo 18 Pedestrians can wait in the middle of
the roadway if they started crossing late in the
phase and did not make it across before the end
of the phase. While the pushbutton is in reach of
wheelchair users, the relatively narrow median
and lack of protection from turning vehicles
makes it an intimidating place to wait.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.54 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 32
Treat Boulevard between Jones Road and Oak Road
Westbound
During the P.M. peak period, about 70 vehicles
complete the westbound right turn movement
from Treat Boulevard to Oak Road. There is an
existing free right turn for this movement. This
volume could be accommodated without the
existing free right turn.
The pace speed during periods ranges
between 21 – 35 mph in both directions.
Photo 19 Bicyclists are likely to be currently
utilizing the lighter colored concrete strip to the
right of the dashed lane line
Eastbound
East of Jones Road the number of eastbound
through lanes drops from four to three, and
based on field observations it appears most
through vehicles avoid the rightmost lane for
this reason. With fewer destinations and the
limited bicycling facilities east of Jones Road,
this segment is a lower priority for bikeway
improvements.
Photo 20 Treat Boulevard looking east toward
Jones Road. A non-compliant MUTCD sign tells
drivers to “observe pedestrian right of way.”
Jones Road
Few pedestrians and bicyclists are observed using the Treat Boulevard crosswalk at Jones
Road, perhaps electing to use the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing. Westbound Treat Boulevard
traffic making a left turn into Jones Road occasionally exceeds the left turn storage capacity
during the morning and evening peak period.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.55 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
33 | Alta Planning + Design
Appendix C: Concept 4A and 4B Traffic Study
and Alternative Concepts 4C, 4D, and 4E
Memorandum
The following traffic study and analysis memo was prepared for this plan by DKS, and is
reproduced here in its entirety.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.56 of 176
1970 Broadway, Suite 740
Oakland, CA 94612
510.763.2061
www.dksassociates.com
DATE: October 9, 2017 1
TO: Brett Hondorp, AICP, Alta
FROM: David Mahama, PE, DKS
CC: Erin Vaca, DKS
SUBJECT: Contra Costa County I-680 / Treat Blvd Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan – Feasibility Study and Evaluation Traffic Analysis of
Concepts 4a and 4b
#14070-001
Introduction With the goal of providing more livable communities, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development has decided to complete the I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. To finish the bicycle and pedestrian transportation network, Contra Costa County has targeted Treat Boulevard between Main Street and Jones Road to provide safe and convenient access from the Iron Horse Trail to businesses and restaurants on Main Street, focusing especially on the I-680 interchange. The Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program is the funding source for this project, which is managed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). This project includes the following intersections:
•Treat Boulevard/Geary Road and Main Street
•Treat Boulevard and Buskirk Avenue/I-680 northbound ramps
•Treat Boulevard and Oak Road
•Treat Boulevard and Jones Road/Iron Horse TrailThe field observations on this corridor indicate that there are high vehicle turning volumes that conflict with pedestrians, high weaving volumes that create a challenging environment for cyclists, and that the current infrastructure could be improved to better serve pedestrians and cyclists. The performance of the four study intersections was evaluated for AM and PM peak periods for the current year (2014) traffic conditions and future year (2040) traffic conditions. Four initial study concepts (Concept 1B, Concept 2, Concept 3, and Concept 4), geometric improvements as well as traffic signal timing improvements were evaluated to determine the performance of the network. Once the initial alternatives were evaluated by the stakeholders, a final concept (Concept 4a) was developed.
1 This document has been revised from the version dated March 6, 2017 to reflect standardized naming conventions
for the design alternatives.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.57 of 176
Experts Connecting Communities
This report presents a traffic impact evaluation for the Concept 4a pedestrian and bicycle related improvements to the transportation environment along Treat Boulevard. This final design is a modified version of Concept 4 and can be found in Appendix A. This revision includes the elimination of the free southbound right turn lane at the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection, which is expected to eliminate traffic weaving along the segment of Treat Boulevard between Oak Road and Buskirk Avenue in the westbound direction.
Current Year Analysis (2014) For the current year (2014 volumes), overall network performance is not largely impacted as compared to the existing condition for the revised concept. Individual intersection level of service (LOS) was analyzed to assess the potential impacts of the revised concept. A queuing analysis was also included for traffic movements of concern and Table 1 presents the results of the analysis. As shown in Table 1, intersection delay is high in general under existing conditions. LOS generally remains the same, except at Oak Road, which deteriorates. The biggest impact occurs at the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection in the P.M. This is due to the reconfiguration of the southbound movement – the free right is removed as well as one of the through lanes. The queuing analysis shows little to no impact at the Treat Boulevard/Main Street intersection. At the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection, southbound through queues are expected to increase in the A.M. and in the P.M. This is due to the reconfiguration of the southbound approach. It should be noted that the southbound right turning vehicles are expected to experience shorter queue lengths. This is due to the additional right turn lane. Furthermore, queuing is expected to increase for the westbound right turn at the Treat Boulevard/I-680 ramps/Buskirk Avenue intersection during the P.M. peak hour. For the proposed alternatives the signal timing parameters were optimized to benefit the overall performance of the Treat Boulevard corridor in the westbound and eastbound directions. Optimization of the corridor is expected to result in improved performance of the Treat Boulevard/Jones Road intersection but decreased efficiency of the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection. Lastly, a variation of the Concept 4a was assessed. The variation includes the removal of one eastbound lane between the Treat Boulevard/I-680 ramps/Buskirk Avenue and Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersections and modifying the two intersections described as follows: 1)Eliminate the northbound free right-turn at the Treat Boulevard/I-680 ramps/BuskirkAvenue intersection. 2) Remove the eastbound right turn lane at the Treat Boulevard/OakRoad intersection, which will result in converting the curbside through lane to a sharedthrough-right lane. The traffic analysis results of this Alternative 4b are shown in Table 1.Because the Treat Boulevard/I-680 ramps/Buskirk Avenue intersection is expected tooperate unacceptably in the A.M., the alternative was excluded from future considerations.Furthermore, the expected queues for the northbound right turning vehicles was shown toextend back on the ramp all the way to NB I-680 in the A.M. and extend almost all the way tothe freeway in the P.M.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.58 of 176
Experts Connecting Communities
Future Year Analysis (2040) Individual intersection delay and LOS were analyzed to assess the potential impacts of the revised concept for the future year (2040). A queuing analysis was also completed for movements of concern. Table 2 presents the findings for this analysis. As shown, intersection delay is high in general for the future year. In general, the removal of the free right turn (Concept 4a) has a negative impact on delay and queuing at Oak Road during the morning and evening peak periods. Since the improvement involves the removal of the SB free right turn as well as a removal of one of the through lanes, SB through movements are subject to much queueing, especially in the A.M. For the future year alternatives, the signal timings were optimized to benefit the overall performance of the Treat Boulevard corridor in the westbound and eastbound directions. This optimization results in higher delays for side street and left turn movements, as indicated by the high delay at Treat Boulevard/Jones Road during the p.m. peak hour. Although performance degrades slightly with the free right turn removal at Oak Road, the high weaving volumes observed between Oak Road and the I-680 ramps are mitigated. Removing the inefficient and unsafe weaving behavior on this segment reduces the potential negative impact of the improvements at the corridor level.
Conclusion Implementation of Concept 4a is expected to result in some increased delay and queuing for motorists at specific intersections on Treat Boulevard. The alternative Concept 4b has been shown to be ineffective as it leads to unacceptable LOS levels even with 2014 volume levels. Therefore, this alternative was not considered in future analysis. The reconfiguration of the southbound approach at the Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersection is expected to result in increased delay and queuing. This is to be expected as one of the southbound through lanes is removed, the free southbound right turn is removed and replaced with two southbound right turn lanes. As a result, the southbound through queue is expected to increase and vehicles in this movement experience higher delays. It should be noted that the removal of free right-turn is expected to achieve the goal of eliminating the potentially dangerous weaving along Treat Boulevard between Oak Road and Buskirk. Furthermore, the queues for the southbound right turning vehicles are expected to decrease. When compared to the benefits for other transportation modes, the increased delay for motorists is relatively small.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.59 of 176
Table 1: Intersection LOS Comparison for Current Year (2014)
Intersection Peak
Hour
Existing Concept 4a Concept 4b
Control
Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of
Interest
Queue
Length
(ft)
Control
Delay
(s)
LOS Movmt. of
Interest
Queue
Length
(ft)
Control
Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of
Interest
Queue
Length
(ft)
Treat Boulevard and Main Street* A.M. 55.7 E WBLT 356 53.1 D WBLT 378 Not Applicable WBRT 0 WBRT 0 P.M. 42.9 D WBLT 174 42.9 D WBLT 160 WBRT 890 WBRT 0 Treat Boulevard and I-680 Northbound Ramps/Buskirk Avenue A.M. 30.3 C WBRT 126 34.7 C WBRT 130 112.9 F WBRT 640 NBRT 0 NBRT 0 NBRT 1446 P.M. 17.5 B WBRT 169 19.5 B WBRT 638 62.1 E WBRT 638 NBRT 0 NBRT 0 NBRT 1308
Treat Boulevard and Oak Road A.M. 46.8 D SBRT 140 49.2 D SBRT 68 49.7 D SBRT 69 SBTH 295 SBTH 681 SBTH 731 P.M. 19.3 B SBRT 382 36.8 D SBRT 161 41.6 D SBRT 163 SBTH 127 SBTH 323 SBTH 323 Treat Boulevard and Jones Road* A.M. 37.6 D No movement of interest 32.8 C No movement of interest Not Applicable P.M. 49.8 D 48.3 D Notes: HCM 2010 analysis unless specified by *. *HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations. Queue Length = 95th Percentile Queue Length
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.60 of 176
Experts Connecting Communities
Table 2: Intersection LOS Comparison for Future Year (2040)
Intersection Peak Hour
Concept 4a
Control
Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of
Interest
Queue
Length (ft)
Treat Boulevard and Main Street* A.M.60.1 E WBLT 410 WBRT 0 P.M.60.0 E WBLT 410 WBRT 0
Treat Boulevard and I-680 Northbound Ramps/Buskirk Avenue A.M.36.5 D WBRT 131 NBRT 0 P.M.26.1 C WBRT 193 NBRT 0
Treat Boulevard and Oak Road A.M.53.8 D SBRT 82 SBTH 706 P.M.42.7 D SBRT 189 SBTH 557 Treat Boulevard and Jones Road* A.M.59.7 E No movement of interest P.M.143.9 F Notes: HCM 2010 analysis unless specified by *. *HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations.Queue Length = 95th Percentile Queue Length
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.61 of 176
Experts Connecting Communities
STUDY PARTICIPANTS
Client Jamar Stamps Planner, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development
Technical Advisory Committee Jeremy Lochiro City of Walnut Creek Angela Villar Engineer, Contra Costa County Public Works Coire Reilly Contra Costa County Health Services Department Anh Phan Nguyen Caltrans Denise Seib Contra Costa Centre Association Laura Case Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Office John Vallor Contra Costa County MAC Brad Beck Contra Costa County Transportation Authority
Alta Planning + Design Brett Hondorp Principal-In-Charge John Lieswyn, PTP, MET Consultant Team Project Manager, Alta Planning Alexandra Sweet Planner, Alta Planning
DKS Peter Coffey, P.E. Principal-In-Charge David Mahama, P.E. Project Manager Tal Sztainer, E.I.T Associate Transportation Engineer
Others IDAX Data Collection Quality Counts, LLC Data Collection
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.62 of 176
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 9, 2017 1
TO: Laurentiu Dusciuc, PE, Alta
FROM: David Mahama, PE, DKS
Erin Vaca, TE, DKS
SUBJECT: Contra Costa County I-680 / Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Feasibility: Traffic Analysis of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 of Revised
Concept 4
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ON CONCEPTS 4A AND 4B
Previous analysis of Concepts 4a and 4b for this project was documented in a memorandum
dated March 6, 2017 (revised October 9, 2017). This previously completed analysis assessed
the Concept 4a which involved the removal of one eastbound lane between the Treat
Boulevard/I-680 ramps/Buskirk Avenue and Treat Boulevard/Oak Road intersections and
modifications of the two intersections. Under this alternative, the Treat Boulevard/I-680
ramps/Buskirk Avenue intersection was modified to eliminate the northbound free right turn
lane.
Under existing (2014) traffic conditions, Concept 4b was shown to result in excessively long
queues and unacceptable delay during the AM peak hour as shown below in Table 1. Because
the Treat Boulevard/I-680 ramps/Buskirk Avenue intersection would be expected to operate
unacceptably in the A.M., this alternative was excluded from future consideration. Furthermore,
the expected queues for the northbound right turning vehicles were expected to extend back on
the ramp all the way to NB I-680 in the A.M. and extend almost all the way to the freeway in the
P.M.
CONCEPTS 4C AND 4D
Despite the results described above, interest remained in Concept 4a because of the potential
safety benefits to bicyclists of eliminating the free right turn lane at the Treat Boulevard/I-680
ramps/Buskirk Avenue intersection. Two additional variations were developed which retained
the removal of the free right turn lane but supplemented the capacity of the northbound right
turn movement. Under Concept 4c, the northbound approach of the intersection consists of one
left turn lane, one through lane, one shared through-right lane, and a right turn lane. Under
1 This document has been revised from the version dated September 12, 2017 to reflect standardized
naming conventions for the design alternatives.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.63 of 176
Table 1. Concepts 4a and 4b under Current Year (2014) Traffic for Treat Boulevard and I-680
Northbound Ramps/Buskirk Avenue Intersection
Peak
Hour
Existing Alternative 4a Alternative 4b
Control
Delay
(s)
LOS
Movmt.
of
Interest
Queue
Length
(ft)
Control
Delay
(s)
LOS
Movmt.
of
Interest
Queue
Length
(ft)
Control
Delay
(s)
LOS
Movmt.
of
Interest
Queue
Length (ft)
A.M.30.3 C
WBRT 126
34.7 C
WBRT 130
112.9 F
WBRT 640
NBRT 0 NBRT 0 NBRT 1446
P.M.17.5 B
WBRT 169
19.5 B
WBRT 638
62.1 E
WBRT 638
NBRT 0 NBRT 0 NBRT 1308
Notes: HCM 2010 analysis unless specified by *.
*HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations.
Queue Length = 95th Percentile Queue Length
Concept 4d, the cross section includes one left turn lane, two through lanes, and two right turn
lanes. Diagrams of these designs can be found in Appendix A.
This memorandum documents the analysis of these two alternatives with respect to overall
performance, delay, and queuing at the Treat Boulevard/I-680 ramps/Buskirk Avenue
intersection. A modified version of Concept 4d, Concept 4e, is presented as the best option for
this intersection.
ANALYSIS OF CONCEPTS 4C AND 4D UNDER FUTURE YEAR
(2040) TRAFFIC
While Concepts 4c and 4d perform adequately under existing traffic conditions (see Table 2),
neither would operate acceptably under future traffic conditions (see Table 3). As shown in
Table 3, both alternatives show a high level of delay and a 95th percentile northbound right turn
queue in excess of 1000 feet during the AM peak hour. As stated previously, this length queue
will reach back to the I-680 freeway.
A modification to the proposed alternatives was tested whereby the second through lane in
Concept 4d was changed to a shared through-right lane. This modification is termed Concept
4e. The triple right turn lanes can be accommodated by three receiving lanes on Treat
Boulevard. With this modification, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS with the
northbound right turn queue under 600 feet, a length contained within the ramp north of the split
to the weigh station.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.64 of 176
Table 1: Concepts 4c and 4d under Current Year (2014) Traffic for Treat Boulevard and I-
680 Northbound Ramps/Buskirk Avenue Intersection
Peak
Hour
Concept 4c Concept 4d
Control
Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of
Interest
Queue
Length (ft)
Control
Delay (s) LOS Movmt. of
Interest
Queue
Length (ft)
A.M. 44.4 D*
WBRT 633
43.1 D
WBRT 698
NBRT 687 NBRT 611
P.M. 41.6 D*
WBRT 218
41.3 D
WBRT 495
NBRT 510 NBRT 484
Notes: HCM 2010 analysis unless specified by *.
*HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations.
Queue Length = 95th Percentile Queue Length
Table 3: Concepts 4c - 4e under Future Year (2040) Traffic for Treat Boulevard and I-680
Northbound Ramps/Buskirk Avenue Intersection
Peak
Hour
Concept 4c Concept 4d Concept 4e
Control
Delay
(s)
LOS
Movmt.
of
Interest
Queue
Length
(ft)
Control
Delay
(s)
LOS
Movmt.
of
Interest
Queue
Length
(ft)
Control
Delay
(s)
LOS
Movmt.
of
Interest
Queue
Length
(ft)
A.M. 61.2 E*
WBRT 735
88.3 F
WBRT 332
46.9 D*
WBRT 332
NBRT 1036 NBRT 1002 NBRT 536
P.M. 40.2 D*
WBRT 853
52.6 D
WBRT 459
31.7 C*
WBRT 401
NBRT 604 NBRT 534 NBRT 323
Notes: HCM 2010 analysis unless specified by *.
*HCM 2000 analysis due to HCM 2010 limitations.
Queue Length = 95th Percentile Queue Length
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.65 of 176
Conclusion
By 2040, Conecepts 4c and 4d are expected to result in unacceptable operating conditions at
the intersection of Treat Boulevard and I-680 off ramp/Buskirk Avenue during the AM peak hour.
Instead, Concept 4e with two dedicated right turn lanes and one shared through-right lane
presents a reasonable tradeoff between vehicle delay and improved conditions for bicyclists and
is the recommended option for this intersection. Implementing this alternative will likely require
some modifications to the median and shifts in striping on Treat Boulevard in order to create
comfortable dimensions for motorists using the three receiving lanes. If desired, the shared
through-right lane can operate on an as-needed basis during the AM peak hour with
implementation of a variable lane assignment control sign installed at the intersection.
Alternatively, the shared through-right movement may be allowed at all times with appropriate
lane legends and striping.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.66 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
45 | Alta Planning + Design
Appendix D: Additional Traffic Data
The following traffic data and motor traffic level of service modeling is summarized from the
separate Traffic Technical Memorandum.
Traffic Data
Data was collected as follows:
Turning movement counts for all users collected with a 24-hour video count during a
sunny, dry day on Tuesday May 13, 2014 along Treat Boulevard at North Main Street,
Buskirk Avenue, Oak Road and Jones Road
Weekday and weekend motor traffic counts collected with pneumatic tube counters
placed on Treat Boulevard between the Jones Road and Oak Road intersections over
the seven-day period between May 31 to June 5, 2014
Based on the tube counts, approximately 48,000 vehicles per average weekday use Treat
Boulevard (both directions). Figure C-1 presents the peak period turning movement counts for
the four study intersections. Full datasets are available in the separate traffic analysis report.
Figure C-1: AM (PM) peak period turning movement counts
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.67 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 46
Table C-6-8 and Table C-6-9 summarize the morning and afternoon peak period pedestrian
and bicycle counts for the study intersections.
Table C-6-8: Existing Pedestrian Count Summary
Table C-6-9: Existing Bicycle Count Summary
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.68 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
47 | Alta Planning + Design
Motorist Traffic Level of Service Model
This data was used to build an existing conditions traffic model that evaluates motorist level of
service (LOS), which will be one of the metrics used to evaluate potential improvements. The
corridor measures of effectiveness are presented in Table C-6-10. The intersection average
control delay and corresponding LOS grade values are presented in Table C-6-11. For context,
the length of the study segment is 0.43 miles. Under 35 mph free flow conditions with no stops
for traffic signals, it would take about 45 seconds to traverse the segment.
Table C-6-10: Measures of Effectiveness from Existing Conditions Synchro Model
Table C-6-11: Intersection Average Level of Service from Existing Conditions Synchro Model
LOS “D” is defined in the HCM as “approaching unstable/tolerable delay: drivers may have to
wait through more than one red signal. Queues may develop but dissipate rapidly”. With all
intersections modeled to be operating at LOS “D” or better (with the exception of Main Street,
which is “E” in the morning peak), there is some excess capacity before excessive delay
conditions would be expected to develop. However, the County has advised that with predicted
future volumes in mind, no reduction in the number of lanes will be considered in this corridor.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.69 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Contra Costa County | 48
Multi-Modal Level of Service Model
Multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) for Treat Boulevard in the current condition has been
calculated for motorized and non-motorized modes of traffic using ARTPLAN 2012, the arterial
street component of the LOSPLAN software suite. The underlying analysis methods are based
on HCM 2010 procedures, which are the first attempt to quantify the inter-relationship of
modes. These procedures are currently being revised to better account for a wider range of
user types and environments.
The HCM MMLOS methods are based on user perceptions of various conditions as assessed
through video labs. The model omits consideration of the variety in bicyclist types and impacts
of various crossing facilities. Bicycle LOS is gauged based on the average effective width of the
outside through lane, motorized vehicle volumes, motorized vehicle speeds, heavy vehicle
(truck) volumes, and pavement condition. Pedestrian LOS is gauged based on the existence of
a sidewalk, lateral separation of pedestrians from motorized vehicles, motorized vehicle
volumes, and motorized vehicle speeds. For all modes, a letter grade of “A” indicates superior
LOS. LOS results for autos are not comparable to LOS as calculated by other traffic analysis /
simulation methods.
A summary of the results is provided in Table C-6-12. It should be noted that it is not necessary
to have a dedicated bicycle facility for a roadway to be assigned a LOS grade, because a
bicyclist may ride anywhere except where explicitly prohibited. These grades do not
necessarily reflect what all people may consider acceptable, rather they are a relative grade
based on the method’s video lab participant perceptions of conditions. While a grade of “D”
may be acceptable to some confident bicyclists, it is not likely that most members of the
general public would consider sharing a traffic lane with motorists along Treat Boulevard.
In comparing the bicycle and pedestrian grades for various segments and peak periods, the
values are intuitive in that the segment between Main Street and Buskirk Avenue has fewer
provisions for these modes. The better bicycle grades for the eastbound direction during the
afternoon peak are due to the lower eastbound traffic volumes at that time of day.
Table C-6-12: Multi-Modal Level of Service – Base Condition
Segment Direction Peak Hour Auto Bike Ped
Main Street to Buskirk Avenue EB PM D D D
WB AM D E D
Buskirk Avenue to Oak Road EB PM D C C
WB AM D D C
Oak Road to Jones Road EB PM D C C
WB AM D D C
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.70 of 176
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Appendix E: Concept Plans and Features The following pages of this appendix contain: Table describing the principal features of each conceptConcept 1A, 1B, 2, and 3 sketch plans, visual simulations and cross sectionsConcept 4 Preliminary CAD plansConcept 4A and I-680 Off-Ramp Alternatives 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4EConcept 4A/Alternative 4C (Preferred Project)Design Renderings (Preferred Project)04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.71 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 64 Table B-6-13 Treat Boulevard Detailed Concept Descriptions Mode Concept 1A: Bike Lanes Concept 1B: Buffered Bike Lanes Concept 2: Shared Use Path and Buffered Bike Lanes Concept 3: Shared Use Path, Cycle Track and Southside Sidewalk Concept 4: Shared Use Path and Southside Sidewalk Concept 4A: Enhanced Bike Lanes and Shared Use Path Main Street to Buskirk Avenue Bicycle o Add 5-foot WB bike laneo Add 7-foot EB bike laneo Add WB buffered bike laneo Add EB buffered bike laneo Expand north side sidewalk to 12-foottwo-way shared-use patho Expand north side sidewalk to 12-foot two-way shared-use patho Add sharrows to EB outer laneo Expand north side sidewalk to 12-foottwo-way shared-use patho Add 5 foot WB bike laneo Add 5 foot EB buffered bike lanewith 2 foot striped bufferPedestrian o No changeo No changeo Expand north side sidewalk to 12-foottwo-way shared-use patho Expand north side sidewalk to 12-foot two-way shared-use patho Add 7-foot sidewalk on south sideo Expand north side sidewalk to 12-foottwo-way shared-use patho Add 7-foot sidewalk on south sideo No changesAutomobile o Narrow WB lanes (keep all lanes) o Narrow outer eastboundlane (keep all lanes)o Convert Walgreensdriveways into two 15-footone-way drivewayso Remove outside WB lane (twoWB lanes)o Narrow outer EB lane (keep alllanes)o Convert Walgreens drivewaysinto two 15-foot one-waydrivewayso Narrow WB lanes (keep all lanes)o Narrow outer EB lane (keep all lanes)o Convert Walgreens driveways intotwo 15-foot one-way drivewayso Narrow WB lanes (keep all lanes)o Narrow outer EB lane (keep alllanes)o Convert Walgreens driveways intotwo 15-foot one-way drivewayso Narrow WB lanes (keep all lanes)o Narrow outer EB lane (keep all lanes)o Convert Walgreens driveways intotwo 15-foot one-way drivewayso Narrow all lanesBuskirk Avenue to Oak Road Bicycle o Update pedestrian islands tomeet ADA standardso Add WB buffered bike laneo Add EB buffered bike laneo Expand north side sidewalk to 8-10-foot two-way shared-use patho Add EB buffered bike laneo Create protected intersectionseparating bikes from turningvehicles at Oak Roado Expand north side sidewalk to 8-10-foot two-way shared-use patho Add sharrows to EB outer laneo Expand north side sidewalk to 8-10-foot two-way shared-use patho Add WB bike laneo Add EB bike lane (bufferedbeginning near BART overcrossing)Pedestrian o No changeo No changeo Expand north side sidewalk to 8-10-foot two-way shared-use patho Expand north side sidewalk to 8-10-foot two-way shared-use patho Expand north side sidewalk to 8-10-foot two-way shared-use patho Designate existing north sidesidewalk as shared patho Update pedestrian islands to meetADA standardsAutomobile o No change o Remove SB right channelizedright turn lane and convert tobuffered bike lane (Treat Blvd /Oak Rd)o Convert curbside travel lanes tobuffered bike laneso Remove SB right channelized rightturn lane convert WB outer lane totwo-way shared-use path from OakRoad to BART overpasso Remove EB outer travel lane andconvert to buffered bike laneo Convert third WB travel lane to right-turn pocketo Remove SB channelized right turno Convert WB outer lane to two-way shared-use path from OakRoad to BART overpasso Narrow EB outer lane toaccommodate expanded sidewalko Convert third WB travel lane toright-turn pocketo Remove northwest corner channelizedright turn laneo Convert WB outer lane to two-wayshared-use path from Oak Road toBART overpasso Remove northeast corner channelizedright turn laneo Remove SB right channelized rightturn lane convert WB outer lane totwo-way shared-use path from OakRoad to BART overpass04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.72 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 65 | Alta Planning + Design Mode Concept 1A: Bike Lanes Concept 1B: Buffered Bike Lanes Concept 2: Shared Use Path and Buffered Bike Lanes Concept 3: Shared Use Path, Cycle Track and Southside Sidewalk Concept 4: Shared Use Path and Southside Sidewalk Concept 4A: Enhanced Bike Lanes and Shared Use Path Oak Road to Jones Road Bicycle o No change o Add WB buffered bike lane o Add EB buffered bike lane o Add WB buffered bike lane o Add EB buffered bike lane o Add WB cycle track (protected bike lane) o Add EB sharrows o Add WB sharrows o Add WB bike lane o Add EB buffered bike lane Pedestrian o No change o No change o No change o No change o No change o No change Automobile o No change o Convert WB right turn lane into buffered bike lane o Convert outer EB lane into buffered bike lane o Remove WB channelized right turn at Treat Blvd / Jones Rd intersection o Convert WB right turn lane into buffered bike lane o Convert outer EB lane into buffered bike lane o Remove WB channelized right turn at Treat Blvd / Jones Rd intersection o Convert WB right turn lane into cycle track o Move parking to create “floating” parking lane o Remove WB channelized right turn at Treat Blvd / Jones Rd intersection o No change o Convert outer EB lane into buffered bike lane o Remove WB channelized right turn at Treat Blvd / Jones Rd intersection 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.73 of 176
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Concept 1A 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.74 of 176
13'JONES RDIRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAILJONES RDOAK RDTREAT BLVDBUSKIRK AVETREAT BLVDN. MAIN STBART SUPPORT COLUMNSBARTSCALE 1"=100'Treat Boulevard- Concept 1A: Short Term Improvement OptionConcept 1A Treat Blvd: Main to Buskirk 11'5'10'11'11'11'12'11'12'12'12'13'11'11'11'11’11'5’7’11'5'12'12'12'11'11'11'14'20'15'13'14'12'12'12'12'5'11'11'11'14'14'12'14'11'11'11'5'11'11'12'11'11'14'14'11'11'12'11'11'5'12'11'11'14'15'11'11'11'7'11'6'High visibilitycrosswalksHigh visibilitycrosswalksGreen color at bike lane entranceAdd 7’ bike laneNarrow outer laneConsolidate into 15' wide one-way drivewaysGreen colorin conflict zonesHigh visibilitycrosswalksHigh visibilitycrosswalksBike lane intersection markingsGreen color at bike lane entranceNarrows lanes all thru lanes, add 5’ bike laneEastbound and westbound sharrows between Jones and BuskirkBike lane pocket, narrow lanes from 12’ to 11’ if necessaryAdd yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Reconstruct both Buskirk channelization islands to meet ADA standardsAdd yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Bike laneBike laneTravel laneTravel laneTravel laneSide-walkTravel lanePavedmedian11' 11'11'Travel lane11'11' 5'5'5'7'04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.75 of 176
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Concept 1B 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.76 of 176
13'JONES RDIRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAILJONES RDOAK RDTREAT BLVDBUSKIRK AVETREAT BLVDN. MAIN STBART SUPPORT COLUMNSBARTSCALE 1"=100'Treat Boulevard11'11'5'10'11'11'11'12'11'12'12'12'13'11'12'12'11'11'12'12'5'12'12'12'11'11'11'10'4’20'13'14'12'12'12'12'5'11'11'11'14'14'12'7’4’5’6’11'11'11'5'11'11'12'11'11'14'11'11'12'11'11'5'12'11'11'8’4’5'11'PPConsolidate into 15’ wide one-way driveways5’ bike lane with2’ bufferAdd 8’ bike lane and 6’ bufferGreen colorin conflict zonesAdd two stage turn boxNarrow curbradiusConvert outer laneto 10’bike lane with 4’ bufferConvert outer lane to8’ bike lane and 5’ bufferConvert outer laneto right turn onlyGreen striping in conflict zonesGreen striping in conflict zonesRight turn merges 150’ in advance of intersectionRight turn merges 150’ in advance of intersectionConvert right turn laneto 6’ bike lane with 4’ buffersParking remainsGreen color at bike lane entranceConvert outer lane to 7’ bike lane with 4’ bufferTwo-stage turn queueRemove free right turn laneHigh visibilitycrosswalksReduce to 6’bike lane entranceBike lane intersection crossing markingsTwo-stage turn queue boxGreen color at bike lane entranceGreen color at bike lane entranceGreen color at bike lane entranceHigh visibilitycrosswalksConvert free - Concept 1B: Buffered Bike LanesTreat Blvd: Main to BuskirkTreat Blvd: Buskirk to Oak Treat Blvd: Oak to JonesView west along Treat Blvd near the BART overpassView west along Treat Blvd near Jones RdView west along Treat Blvd near Buskirk Ave Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Buffer6'Bike lane8'Travel laneSidewalk10'Side-walk12'5’Travel lane12'Travel lane12'Travel lane12' 12'Travel laneTravel lane12'4' 4' 8'Plantedmedian13’Bike laneBuffer4'Bike lane7'Travel laneSidewalk6'Side-walk12'6’Travel lane12'Travel lane12'Travel lane12' 11'Travel laneTravel laneParking lane11'4' 4' 8' 10'Median5’Bike laneReconstruct both Buskirk channelization islands to meet ADA standardsBike laneBike laneTravel laneTravel laneBufferTravel laneSide-walkTravel lanePavedmedian11' 11'12'12'8'6'2' 5'5'5'04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.77 of 176
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Concept 2 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.78 of 176
13'JONES RDIRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAILJONES RDOAK RDTREAT BLVDBUSKIRK AVETREAT BLVDN. MAIN STBART SUPPORT COLUMNSBARTSCALE 1"=100'Treat BoulevardPP11'11'5'10'11'11'11'12'11'12'12'12'13'11'12'12'11'11'11'11'11'3'12'12'12'11'11'11'14'20'8'5'13'14'12'12'12'12'5'11'11'11'12'7’4’5’6’11'11'11'5'11'11'12'11'11'14'11'11'12'11'11'5'12'11'11'5'11'View west along Treat Blvd near the BART overpassView west along Treat Blvd near Jones RdView west along Treat Blvd near Buskirk Ave - Concept 2: Shared Use Path and Buffered Bike LanesTreat Blvd: Main to BuskirkTreat Blvd: Buskirk to Oak Treat Blvd: Oak to JonesConsolidate into 15’ one-way drivewaysReconfigureisland5’ bike lane with2’ bufferExpand sidewalk to12’ two-way shared-use pathGreen colorin conflict zonesAdd two-stage turnqueue boxesNarrow curbradius to 30’Convert sidewalk to two-wayshared-use pathConvert outer lane for8’ bike lane and 5’ bufferProtected intersectionseparates bikes from turning vehiclesHigh visibilitycrosswalksRemove free rightturn laneConnect to east path to BARTRight turn merges 150’ in advance of intersectionConvert right turn laneto 6’ bike lane with 4’ buffersParking remainsGreen color at bike lane entranceConvert outer lane to 7’ bike lane with 4’ bufferAllows for a two-stage left-turnRemove free right turn laneHigh visibilitycrosswalksBike lane intersection crossing markingsTwo-stage turn queue boxGreen color at bike lane entranceConvert outer lane to two-wayshared-use pathExtend curbKeep existing sidewalkConvert free right turn lane to 7’ bike Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Reconstruct both Buskirk channelization islands to meet ADA standardsBike laneTravel laneTravel laneTravel laneShared-Use PathTravel lane11' 11'11'Travel lane11'11'2' 12'3'5'Buffer6'Bike lane8'Travel laneSidewalk10'Side-walk12'5’Travel lane12'Travel lane12'Travel lane12' 12'Travel laneTravel lane12'4' 4' 8'Plantedmedian13’Bike laneBuffer6'Bike lane7'Travel laneSidewalk6'Side-walk12'6’Travel lane12'Travel lane12'Travel lane12' 12'Travel laneTravel laneParking lane12'4' 4' 8' 10'Median5’Bike lane04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.79 of 176
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Concept 3 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.80 of 176
13'JONES RDIRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAILJONES RDOAK RDTREAT BLVDBUSKIRK AVETREAT BLVDN. MAIN STBART SUPPORT COLUMNSBARTSCALE 1"=100'Treat BoulevardPPPPP- Concept 3: Shared Use Path, Cycle Track and SidewalkTreat Blvd: Main to Buskirk (remix)Concept 3 Treat Blvd: Buskirk to OakConcept 3 Treat Blvd: Oak to JonesView west along Treat Blvd near the BART overpassView west along Treat Blvd near Jones RdView west along Treat Blvd near Buskirk Ave YIELDConsolidate into 15’ wide one-way drivewaysExpand sidewalk to12’ two-way shared-use pathAdd two-stage turnqueue box Convert sidewalk to two-wayshared-use pathHigh visibilitycrosswalksRemove free rightturn laneConnect to east path to BARTGreen color at bike lane entranceRemove free right turn laneConvert free right turn lane to bike laneBike lane intersection crossing markingsConvert outer lane to two-wayshared-use pathKeep existing sidewalkReconfigureisland5’ cycle track with 3’buffer, 10’ floating parkingRemove bulb outs to make room for cycle trackNarrow curbradius to 30’Expand sidewalk to 6’with 3’ landscape stripNarrow outer laneto 11’Add 7’ sidewalkAdd crosswalksNarrow lanes to accommodate sidewalk11'11'5'10'11'11'11'12'11'12'12'12'11'12'12'12'11'11'11'5'12'12'12'11'11'11'14'20'11’13'14'12'12'12'12'5'11'11'11'12'11'11'11'5'11'11'12'11'14'11'11'12'11'11'5'12'11'11'12'11'Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Add yield line and Yield Sign (R1-2)Travel laneTravel laneTravel laneShared-Use PathSide-walkTravel lane11' 11'11'Travel lane11'11' 12'3'7'Travel laneSidewalkShared Use 12'Travel lane11'3'6'Travel lane12'Travel lane12'Travel lane11' 11'Travel laneTravel laneTravel lane11' 14'2-4' 8-10'Plantedmedian13’Travel laneSidewalkSide-walk11'6’Travel lane14'Travel lane11'Travel lane12'Travel lane12'11'Travel laneTravel laneBike LanParking lane11'10' 3' 5' 8-10'Median5’14'Extend curbReconstruct both Buskirk channelization islands to meet ADA standards04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.81 of 176
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Concept 4 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.82 of 176
TREAT BLVDN. MAIN ST13'17'5'10'11'12'12'17'11'12'BUSKIRK AVESOUTHBOUND 680R40'12'17'12'12'14'5'18'18'NARROW LANESTO ACCOMODATE7' SIDEWALK11'11'11'11'10'12'11'7'17'11'11'11'12'11'12'7'WIDEN SIDEWALK TO 12 FT MINIMUMTWO-WAY SHARED USE PATHHIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK(TYPICAL)NARROW DRIVEWAYS ANDCONVERT TO ONE-WAY DRIVEWAYSRECONFIGURE ISLANDADD BICYCLESIGNAL FACES ATINTERSECTIONR40'NARROW LANESTO ACCOMODATE7' SIDEWALKNORTHBOUND 680FUTURE IMPROVEMENTSRECONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLTO INCLUDE BICYCLE LEFT TURNWAITING AREASHARED LANE MARKINGS (TYPICAL)CONFORM TO EXISTING SIDEWALKMAINTAIN WIDE LANE TOALLOW U-TURN MOVEMENTSHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIANPROPOSED LANEWIDTH (TYP)EXISTING LANEWIDTH (TYP)FUTUREIMPROVEMENTSBICYCLE TURNWAITING AREAEXISTING CURBADA CURB RAMPSEXISTING TREES,LANDSCAPING ANDDRIVEWAY TO REMAINAAADA CURB RAMPS11'11'RECONSTRUCT DRAINAGE INLETRELOCATE STREET LIGHTYIELD LINE(TYPICAL)STEEL BICYCLE RAILINGFENCE (TYPICAL)STEEL BICYCLE RAILINGFENCE (TYPICAL)MATCHLINESEE SHEET 2SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JUNE 4, 2015OF10 15' 30' 60' 90'TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C494724Concept 4 - PHASE 1SECTION A-ANTSEXISTING LANDSCAPINGTO REMAINCONFORMNEW CURB & GUTTERREMOVE EXISTING CURB & GUTTERDESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:JLLDJL2014-122 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.83 of 176
OAK RD13'14'12'5'12'11'11'11'14'5'11'12'R30'12'12'12'15'11'12'12'14'12'12'11'12'14'11'11'TREAT BLVD12'11'11'11'BART SUPPORT COLUMNSBUSKIRK AVEBARTR60'R60'R30'12'12'11'11'11'14'20'15'13'10'DESIGNATE EXISTING 10' SIDEWALKFOR TWO-WAY SHARED USE.(PRIVATE PROPERTY)ADA CURB RAMPADA CURB RAMPRECONFIGURE ISLAND10'EXISTING 8' PATH TOBART STATION(PRIVATE PROPERTY)14'RECONFIGURE ISLANDADA CURB RAMPSHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIANYIELD LINE(TYPICAL)HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK(TYPICAL)10'EXISTING DRIVEWAYWIDEN SIDEWALK TO PROVIDE 10'MIN CLEARANCE AT BART COLUMNBART SUPPORTCOLUMNSCROSSWALK TOBART STATIONDESIGNATE EXISTING 10' SIDEWALKFOR TWO-WAY SHARED USE.(PRIVATE PROPERTY)STEEL BICYCLE RAILINGFENCE (TYPICAL)SEE SHEET 4 FORFUTURE IMPROVEMENTSMATCHLINESEE SHEET 3MATCHLINESEE SHEET 140 15' 30' 60' 90'SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JUNE 4, 2015OF2TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C49472Concept 4 - PHASE 1DESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:JLLDJL2014-122 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.84 of 176
TREAT BLVDJONES RD11'11'11'11'11'12'5'11'12'12'11'12'R25'R75'R65'11'11'14'12'5'11'14'11'12'6'7'IRON HORSEREGIONAL TRAILR35'R35'R25'SHARED LANE MARKINGS(TYPICAL)HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALKS(TYPICAL)14'YIELD LINE(TYPICAL)MATCHLINESEE SHEET 20 15' 30' 60' 90'4SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JUNE 4, 2015OF3TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C49472Concept 4 - PHASE 1DESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:JLLDJL2014-122 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.85 of 176
OAK RD12'5'12'11'11'11'14'5'11'12'R60'R30'14'12'12'11'12'14'11'11'TREAT BLVD12'11'11'11'BART SUPPORT COLUMNSBARTR60'R30'12'12'11'11'11'14'20'15'13'16'EXISTING SIDEWALKTO REMAINDESIGNATE EXISTING 10' SIDEWALKFOR TWO-WAY SHARED USE.(PRIVATE PROPERTY)CONVERT SLIP LANE TOTWO-WAY BIKE LANECONVERT FREE RIGHT TURNLANE TO BIKE LANE10'10'11'11'11'6'11'6'10'10'7'PLANTER TO CLOSE SLIPLANE ACCESSBIKE RAMPEXISTING 8' PATH TOBART STATION(PRIVATE PROPERTY)14'14'RELOCATE MASTARM SIGNALRELOCATE MASTARM SIGNALR30'R20'RECONFIGURE ISLANDREMOVEISLANDSPATH EDGE STRIPEADD "BIKES YIELD TOPEDESTRIANS" SIGNS10'EXISTING DRIVEWAYBART SUPPORTCOLUMNSCROSSWALK TOBART STATIONOAK RD11'11'11'14'16'11'11'10'7'10'11'REMOVECROSSWALKOAK RD11'11'11'14'16'11'11'10'7'10'11'RETAINCROSSWALKMATCHLINESEE SHEET 340 15' 30' 60' 90'SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: AUGUST 14, 2015OF4TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C49472Concept 4 - FUTURE IMPROVEMENTSDESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:JLLDJL2014-122POTENTIAL VARIATIONS (REFER TO SECTION 7 OF THE PLAN):MITIGATION 1:SIGNAL TIMING ADJUSTMENTS ONLY (NO GEOMETRIC CHANGES)MITIGATION 2:1 SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE1 SOUTHBOUND THROUGH LANE2 SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANESREMOVAL OF WEST CROSSWALKNO BIKE LANE POCKETMITIGATION 3:1 SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE2 SOUTHBOUND THROUGH LANES1 SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANERETAIN WEST CROSSWALKNO BIKE LANE POCKETSOUTHBOUND RIGHT / EASTBOUND LEFT OVERLAP 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.86 of 176
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Concept 4A 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.87 of 176
TREAT BLVDN. MAIN ST
BUSKIRK AVE
SOUTHBO
U
N
D
6
8
0
NORTHBO
U
N
D
6
8
0
11'11'11'5'5'12'11'11'11'11'11'10'10'12'5'5'12'11'2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFERHIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK (TYPICAL)RECONFIGURE ISLAND2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFERCONFORM TO EXISTING SIDEWALKSHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIANPROPOSED LANEWIDTH (TYP.)ADA CURB RAMPSYIELD LINE(TYP.)BIKE CROSSINGSKIP MARKINGSEXISTINGSIDEWALK TOREMAINBICYCLE CROSSING TREATMENT (TYP.)9'2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFERFLEXIBLEDELINEATORS (TYP.)NB I-680 OFF-RAMP
WALNUT CREE
K
CONTRA COST
A
C
O
U
N
T
Y
MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET 2SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JULY, 2017OF10 15' 30' 60' 90'TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C494723DESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LDJPBH2016-355Concept 4A04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.88 of 176
OAK RD
BUSKIRK AVE
B
A
R
T 10'12'12'12'11'11'11'11'11'11'12'11'11'8'14'5'11'11'10'10'10'12'11'11'11'12'5'11'11'11'36'37'38'17'17'DESIGNATE EXISTING 10' SIDEWALKFOR TWO-WAY SHARED USE.(PRIVATE PROPERTY)ADA CURB RAMP(TYP.)RECONFIGURE ISLANDRECONFIGUREISLANDSHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIANYIELD LINE(TYP.)HIGH VISIBILITYCROSSWALK (TYP.)PLANTER TO CLOSE SLIPLANE ACCESSADD "BIKES YIELD TOPEDESTRIANS" SIGNSINSTALL ADDITIONAL RIGHTTURNING LANECONVERT FREE RIGHT TURN LANE TO BIKE LANECONVERT SLIP LANE TOTWO-WAY BIKE LANEPATH EDGE STRIPEDASHED BIKE LANEFOR MERGING AREA(TYP.)BICYCLE CROSSINGTREATMENT (TYP.)RECONFIGURE ISLANDPROPOSED LANEWIDTH (TYP.)BIKE RAMP2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFERSIGNAL POLE TO BE RELOCATEDSHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIAN3' STREET WIDENING2' STREET WIDENINGREMOVE EXISTINGCROSSWALKAPPROXIMATEPROPERTY LINEEXISTING 8' PATH TOBART STATION(PRIVATE PROPERTY)6'FLEXIBLEDELINEATORS (TYP.)5'2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFER2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFER40'40'5'OAK RD
NB I-680 OFF-RAMP TREAT BLVDAPPROXIMATEPROPERTY LINE(CALTRANS)
MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET 3
SEE SHEET 1
30 15' 30' 60' 90'SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JULY, 2017OF2TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C49472Concept 4ADESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:MATCHLINE
LDJPBH2016-35504-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.89 of 176
TREAT BLVDJONES RD
IRON HORS
E
REGIONAL
T
R
A
I
L 5'11'11'10'10'10'12'11'11'8'11'11'10'10'11'11'5' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFER (TYP.)REMOVE FREE RIGHT TURN LANECONVERT OUTERLANE TO BIKE LANEPROPOSED LANEWIDTH (TYP.)SHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIANREMOVE ISLANDADA CURB RAMP (TYP.)REALIGN CROSSWALKS (TYP.)DASHED BIKE LANEFOR MERGINGAREA (TYP.)5'CONVERT TOTHROUGH-RIGHTTURN LANEMATCHLINESEE SHEET 2
0 15' 30' 60' 90'3SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JULY, 2017OF3TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C49472DESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LDJPBH2016-355Concept 4A04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.90 of 176
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan I-680 Off-Ramp Alternatives 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.91 of 176
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan I-680 Off-Ramp AlternativesAlternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D and Alternative E 1 L, 1 T, 1 T/R, 1 R 1 L, 2 T, 1 R 1 L, 1 T, 1 T/R, 1 R 1 L, 2 T, 2 R (Con. D) 1 L, 1 T/R, 2 R (Con. E) Lane Configurations: L = Left, T = Through, R = Right Alternative E Alternative E 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.92 of 176
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Concept 4A/Alternative 4C (Preferred Project) 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.93 of 176
TREAT BLVDN. MAIN ST
BUSKIRK AVE
SOUTHBOUND
6
8
0
NORTHBOUND
6
8
0
11'11'11'5'5'12'11'11'11'11'11'10'10'12'5'5'12'11'2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFERHIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK (TYPICAL)RECONFIGURE ISLAND2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFERCONFORM TO EXISTING SIDEWALKSHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIANPROPOSED LANEWIDTH (TYP.)ADA CURB RAMPSYIELD LINE(TYP.)BIKE CROSSINGSKIP MARKINGSEXISTINGSIDEWALK TOREMAINBICYCLE CROSSING TREATMENT (TYP.)9'2' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFERFLEXIBLEDELINEATORS (TYP.)NB I-680 OFF-RAMP
WALNUT CREEK
CONTRA COSTA CO
U
N
T
Y
MATCHLINE
SEE SHEET 2SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JULY, 2017OF10 15' 30' 60' 90'TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C494723DESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LDJPBH2016-355Concept 4A04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.94 of 176
7'REMOVE SLIP LANE ANDCONSTRUCT CURBEXTENSIONBUFFERED BIKE LANE TOREPLACE OUTER LANE7'CONVERT TO OPTIONALTHROUGH-RIGHT TURNLANEOAK RD
B
A
R
T 10'12'12'12'11'11'12'11'11'8'14'5'11'11'10'10'10'12'11'11'11'11'11'11'36'37'38'5'40'40'5'OAK RD TREAT BLVD12'12'12'11'11'11'12'BUSKIRK AVENB I-680 OFF-RAMP APPROXIMATEPROPERTY LINE(CALTRANS)0 15' 30' 60' 90'SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JULY, 20172BTREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C49472Concept 4A/Alternative 4CDESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:Concept 4A/Alternative 4CLDJPBH2016-35504-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.95 of 176
TREAT BLVDJONES RD
IRON HORSE
REGIONAL TRAI
L 5'11'11'10'10'10'12'11'11'8'11'11'10'10'11'11'5' STRIPED BIKELANE BUFFER (TYP.)REMOVE FREE RIGHT TURN LANECONVERT OUTERLANE TO BIKE LANEPROPOSED LANEWIDTH (TYP.)SHORTEN NOSE OF MEDIANREMOVE ISLANDADA CURB RAMP (TYP.)REALIGN CROSSWALKS (TYP.)DASHED BIKE LANEFOR MERGINGAREA (TYP.)5'CONVERT TOTHROUGH-RIGHTTURN LANEMATCHLINESEE SHEET 2
0 15' 30' 60' 90'3SCALE:SHEETwww.altaplanning.comAS SHOWNDATE: JULY, 2017OF3TREAT BOULEVARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANPROJECT NUMBER C49472DESIGNED:DRAWN:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LDJPBH2016-355Concept 4A04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.96 of 176
Contra Costa Center I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Design Renderings (Preferred Project) 1.Treat Boulevard/North Main Street Intersection (view looking east)2.Treat Boulevard/Buskirk Ave Intersection (view looking north)3.Treat Boulevard/Buskirk Avenue Intersection (view looking west)4.Treat Boulevard (view looking east toward Oak Road Intersection)5.Treat Boulevard/Oak Road Intersection (view looking west)6.Treat Boulevard/Jones Road Intersection (view looking east)1 2 34 5604-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.97 of 176
Treat Boulevard/North Main Street Intersection (view looking east) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.98 of 176
Treat Boulevard/North Main Street Intersection (view looking east) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.99 of 176
Treat Boulevard/Buskirk Ave Intersection (view looking north) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.100 of 176
Treat Boulevard/Buskirk Ave Intersection (view looking north) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.101 of 176
Treat Boulevard/Buskirk Avenue Intersection (view looking west) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.102 of 176
Treat Boulevard/Buskirk Avenue Intersection (view looking west) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.103 of 176
Treat Boulevard (view looking east toward Oak Road Intersection) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.104 of 176
Treat Boulevard (view looking east toward Oak Road Intersection) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.105 of 176
Treat Boulevard/Oak Road Intersection (view looking west) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.106 of 176
Treat Boulevard/Oak Road Intersection (view looking west) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.107 of 176
Treat Boulevard/Jones Road Intersection (view looking east) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.108 of 176
Treat Boulevard/Jones Road Intersection (view looking east) Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.109 of 176
Contra Costa Centre I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contra Costa County | 66 This page is intentionally blank 04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.110 of 176
Appendix F: Concept 4A/Alternative C Cost Estimate
NO.Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost
1 Mobilization & Demobilization 1 LS $143,000 $143,000
2 Traffic Control 1 LS $85,000 $85,000
3 Water Pollution Control 1 LS $21,000 $21,000
4 Remove Concrete 11900 SF $10 $119,000
5 Remove Curb 1600 LF $20 $32,000
6 Remove Asphalt Concrete 23200 SF $6 $139,200
7 Remove Striping 1 LS $28,000 $28,000
8 Miscellaneous Demo 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
9 Adjust Utilities to Grade 45 LS $800 $36,000
10 Steel Railing Fence 900 LF $90 $81,000
11 Drainage Inlet and Pipe Connection 8 EA $8,000 $64,000
12 Asphalt Concrete Pavement 5750 SF $12 $69,000
13 Concrete (Sidewalk, Median, Curb Ramp) 22400 SF $15 $336,000
14 Concrete Curb 1000 LF $25 $25,000
15 Curb and Gutter 1870 LF $55 $102,850
16 Retaining Wall 330 SF $90 $29,700
17 Landscape and Irrigation 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
18 Green Pavement Marking 10760 SF $15 $161,400
19 Signage and Striping 1 LS $90,000 $90,000
20 Signal Improvements 1 LS $170,000 $170,000
Sub Total $1,757,150
Contingency (25%)$439,288
Design & Env. (15%) $263,573
TOTAL (In 2017 $)$2,460,010
ABBR.Unit
LF Linear Foot
LS Lump Sum
SF Square Foot
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.111 of 176
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:04/09/2018
Subject:CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related
Issues: Legislation, Studies, Miscellaneous Updates, take ACTION as
Appropriate
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 1
Referral Name: REVIEW legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925)
674-7883
Referral History:
This is a standing item on the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee referral list
and meeting agenda.
Referral Update:
In developing transportation related issues and proposals to bring forward for consideration by
TWIC, staff receives input from the Board of Supervisors (BOS), references the County's adopted
Legislative Platforms, coordinates with our legislative advocates, partner agencies and
organizations, and consults with the Committee itself.
Recommendations are summarized in the Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s) section at the end of
this report. Specific recommendations, if provided, are underlined in the report below. This report
includes up to four sections, 1: LOCAL, 2: REGIONAL, 3: STATE, and 4: FEDERAL .
1.LOCAL
No written report in April.
2.REGIONAL
No written report in April.
3.STATE
3.1: Legislative Report
The April State legislative reports from the County's advocate, Mark Watts, is attached. The
report covers the following issues:
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.112 of 176
Senate Leadership Changes
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), State Highway Operation and Protection
Program (SHOPP)
Update: Proposition 69 and Status of SB 1 Repeal Initiative
Note that the Board of Supervisors is taking this issue up at their April 10th meeting with the following
recommendation:
ADOPT Resolution No. 2018/130 which establishes; SUPPORT for Proposition 69, a
constitutional amendment (Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5) to prevent new
transportation funds from being diverted for non-transportation purposes, and
OPPOSITION to the proposed November ballot proposition (Proposed Initiative
17-0033) that would repeal the new Senate Bill 1 (2017) transportation funds and make
it more difficult to raise state and local transportation funds in the future, as
recommended by the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee.
AB 2923 (Chiu) Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) - Transit Oriented Development (TOD). A
copy of the bill is attached.
SB 827 (Wiener) – Transit Rich Housing Bonus. A copy of the bill is attached.
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS state issues of note, and take ACTION as appropriate.
4.FEDERAL
No written report in April.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and
take ACTION as appropriate including CONSIDERATION of any specific recommendations in
the report above.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
There is no fiscal impact.
Attachments
April TWIC 2018 Report
TWIC Legislation of Potential Interest April 2018
AB2923(Chiu) BART-TOD
SB827(Wiener)Planning&Zoning-TransitRichHousingBonus
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.113 of 176
Smith, Watts &Hartmann, LLC.
Consulting and Governmental Relations
925 L Street, Suite 220 Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 446-5508 Fax: (916) 266-4580
MEMORANDUM
TO: Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee
c/o John Cunningham, Committee Staff
FROM: Mark Watts
DATE: March 23, 2018
SUBJECT: April 2018 TWIC Report
New Senate Leadership
On March 21, State Senator Toni Atkins (D - San Diego) replaced Senator Kevin DeLeon as the President pro
Tem of the Senate. Previously, Senator Atkins served as Speaker of the State Assembly and was a member of
the San Diego City Council.
It is anticipated that there will be changes in senior Senate positions as Senator Atkins pulls together her “team”
and this will also likely include shifts in the chairs and membership of several committees.
California Transportation Commission Acts to Approve 2018 STIP and SHOPP
The California Transportation Commission (CTC) was also busy at work on Wednesday, March 21st. Among
other actions taken, the CTC approved the 2018 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which
designates over $3 billion in funding in the next five years. The plan reverses $1.5 billion in cuts that had to be
made in the 2016 STIP due to falling transportation revenues. The passage of SB 1 now allows the previously
dropped projects to be restored and a host of new capacity-enhancing state highway, intercity rail, and transit
projects to be added.
For Contra Costa County two key projects will now be able to move forward:
Route 4 Operational Improvements, $7.5 million
Restore the Route 680/4 Interchange, $18.8 million.
In addition, the CTC also adopted the 2018 State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) of $18
billion over the next four years. Once again, SB 1 revenues will provide the critical underpinning of the program
which features essential maintenance and repairs to the state highway system. This allocation also
underscores the emphasis in SB 1 on “fix it first” projects that will help increase safety and reduce operating
costs for highway users.
Proposition 69 and Status of SB 1 Repeal Initiative - Updates
Proposition 69 – The COALITION TO PROTECT LOCAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS (CPLTI) was
formed by the Fix Our Roads (FOR) coalition to support this measure on the June 2018 ballot.
At present, key members of the CPLTI include the League of Cities, CSAC and a growing group of allied
organization such as Transportation California, labor, and individual communities. In essence, the Coalition
members come from business, labor, local government, transportation advocates and taxpayers.
Recent polling by the coalition indicates that there are key messages for the campaign effort: (1) Prop 69
protects new transportation funds from being diverted, (2) ensuring they may only be used for transportation
purposes.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.114 of 176
2
SB 1 Repeal Initiative - The proponents of the initiative measure to repeal SB 1 appear to have re-engaged in
their efforts after a hiatus of funded signature gathering.
CPTLI will also continue to mobilize against this repeal initiative measure should it receive the requisite number
of acceptable signatures
New Legislation of Interest
AB 2923 (Chiu) – BART TOD
This bill directs the BART Board to develop new TOD guidelines that establish new local zoning requirements
for property controlled by BART within ½ mile of a BART station and would then require that local jurisdictions to
adopt an ordinance that accepts the application of the guidelines within 2 years of the BART Board approval.
Beyond this, in the event that local zoning remains out of consistency, BART is authorized to approve local
zoning standards for BART–owned property within ½ mile of a station entrance.
SB 827 (Wiener) – Transit Rich Housing Bonus
This bill requires local governments to grant a “bonus” for transit rich housing projects that incorporate a range
of planning standards such as inclusionary housing requirements and relocation programs. The bill defines
“transit-rich” housing projects as residential projects within either ½ mile of a major transit stop or ¼ mile of a
‘high quality transit corridor”.
Zoning exemptions to be considered as part of the bonus include relief from controls on residential density,
maximum parking standards, and maximum building height limits. On this last point, the bill has been amended
to specify the bill’s allowable maximum building height at 85”, except for parcels facing streets less than 70’ in
width; these would have maximum building height standards of 55’.
Legislative Calendar Upcoming Hearings of Interest:
Senate
March 22 – April 2 - Legislative Spring Recess (no hearings or meetings)
April 3 – Joint Transportation and Budget Subcommittee #2 meeting to consider the High-Speed Rail Authority
(HSRA) Draft 2018 Business Plan.
Assembly
April 2 – Assembly Transportation Committee is set to consider the High-speed Rail Authority Draft Business
Plan
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.115 of 176
California
Status actions entered today are listed in bold.
1. CA AB 1436 County Highways
Authorizes the board of supervisors of a
county to adopt a resolution relating to
specified activities relating to streets by a
certain number of votes. Makes
nonsubstantive changes to existing law.
Latest Action
06/28/2017
In SENATE Committee on
GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE: Not
heard.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Watch
2. CA AB 1745 Vehicles: Clean Cars 2040 Act
Requires all new passenger vehicles to be
zero emissions vehicles after a specified date.
States that zero emissions vehicles cannot
produce exhaust emissions of any criteria
pollutant or greenhouse gas under any
operational mode or condition. Exempts large
commercial vehicles (larger than a specified
number of pounds) and does not apply to
vehicles owned by people moving into
California from other states.
Latest Action
01/16/2018
To ASSEMBLY Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Pending, Watch
LCC: Watch
3. CA AB 1756 Transportation Funding
Repeals the Road Repair and Accountability
Act of 2017 which establishes, among other
things, a comprehensive transportation
funding program by increasing the motor
vehicle fuel (gasoline) tax.
Latest Action
01/16/2018
To ASSEMBLY Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Pending
LCC: Watch
4. CA AB 1759 General Plans: Housing Element:
Production Report
Requires the Department of Housing and
Community Development to review each
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.116 of 176
production report submitted by a city or
county in accordance with specified provisions
to determine whether that city or county has
met the applicable minimum production goal
for that reporting period.
Latest Action
02/12/2018
To ASSEMBLY Committees on
TRANSPORTATION and HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Pending
LCC: Watch
5. CA AB 2206 Vehicles: Registration Information
Requires the registration card issued for a
vehicle to display, as a separate line item, the
amount of the transportation improvement
fee that is included in the cost of registration
for the vehicle.
Latest Action
03/15/2018
To ASSEMBLY Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
03/15/2018
From ASSEMBLY Committee on
TRANSPORTATION with author's
amendments.
03/15/2018
In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and
amended. Re-referred to Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Watch
LCC: Watch
6. CA AB 2272 State Highways: Relinquishment
Authorizes the State Transportation
Commission to relinquish to the City of Palm
Springs any portion, or the entirety, of Route
111 within its city limits or sphere of
influence, upon terms and conditions the
Commission finds to be in the best interests
of the state, if the Department and the city
enter into an agreement providing for that
relinquishment.
Latest Action
03/15/2018
To ASSEMBLY Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
03/15/2018
From ASSEMBLY Committee on
TRANSPORTATION with author's
amendments.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.117 of 176
03/15/2018
In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and
amended. Re-referred to Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
LCC: Watch
7.CA AB 2307 High Speed Rail Authority: Senate
Confirmation
Provides that the members of the Authority
appointed by the Governor are subject to
appointment with the advice and consent of
the Senate.
Latest Action
03/15/2018
To ASSEMBLY Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
03/15/2018
From ASSEMBLY Committee on
TRANSPORTATION with author's
amendments.
03/15/2018
In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and
amended. Re-referred to Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Watch
LCC: Watch
8. CA AB 2712 Bonds: Safe, Reliable High Speed
Passenger Train
Amends the Safe, Reliable High Speed
Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st
Century. Requires redirection of the unspent
proceeds received from outstanding bonds
issued and sold for other high speed rail
purposes prior to the effective date of these
provisions, for distribution as refunds to state
taxpayers in the manner prescribed at the
time an appropriation is made.
Latest Action
03/12/2018
From ASSEMBLY Committee on
TRANSPORTATION with author's
amendments.
03/12/2018
In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and
amended. Re-referred to Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Watch
LCC: Watch
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.118 of 176
9. CA AB 2730 Franchise Tax Board: Collection Of
Delinquent Tolls
Removes the Franchise Tax Board's authority
to collect unpaid tolls, toll evasion penalties,
and any related administrative service fees by
issuance of an order and levy for earning
withholding and by notice for withholding to a
depository institution.
Latest Action
03/22/2018
From ASSEMBLY Committee on
REVENUE AND TAXATION with author's
amendments.
03/22/2018
In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and
amended. Re-referred to Committee on
REVENUE AND TAXATION.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Watch
LCC: Watch
10. CA AB 2734 California Transportation Commission
Excludes the California Transportation
Commission from the Transportation Agency.
Establishes it as an entity in state
government, and requires it to act in an
independent oversight role.
Latest Action
03/15/2018
To ASSEMBLY Committees on
TRANSPORTATION and
ACCOUNTABILITY AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Watch
LCC: Watch
11. CA AB 2851 Regional Traffic Signal Optimization
Plans
Requires all moneys, except for fines and
penalties, collected by the State Air
Resources Board from a market-based
compliance mechanism relative to reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions to be deposited
in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
Requires each city located within the
jurisdiction of a metropolitan planning
organization to develop and implement a
traffic signal optimization plan. Creates the
Traffic Signal Optimization Fund.
Latest Action
03/19/2018
To ASSEMBLY Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.119 of 176
03/19/2018
From ASSEMBLY Committee on
TRANSPORTATION with author's
amendments.
03/19/2018
In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and
amended. Re-referred to Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Watch
LCC: Watch
12.CA AB 2877 Vehicular air pollution: nonemergency
medical transport
Requires the state board to develop and
implement a program, as a part of the Air
Quality Improvement Program, to provide
grants to a county with rural, desert, or
mountain regions for the purchase of clean
vehicles to provide seniors and disabled
populations located in a rural, desert, or
mountain region with nonemergency medical
transportation services.
Latest Action
03/19/2018
To ASSEMBLY Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
03/19/2018
From ASSEMBLY Committee on
TRANSPORTATION with author's
amendments.
03/19/2018
In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and
amended. Re-referred to Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
13. CA AB 2919 Transportation: Permits
Requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife,
the State Water Resources Control Board, and
the California Coastal Commission, upon
receipt of a completed request from the
Department of Transportation for a permit for
a project, to complete its review of the
request no later than two years after receipt.
Latest Action
03/19/2018
To ASSEMBLY Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
03/19/2018
From ASSEMBLY Committee on
TRANSPORTATION with author's
amendments.
03/19/2018
In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.120 of 176
amended. Re-referred to Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Pending
LCC: Watch
14. CA AB 2923 San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
District
Requires the BART board of directors to adopt
a new transit-oriented development (TOD)
guidelines by a majority vote at a duly
noticed public meeting that establish
minimum local zoning requirements for BART-
owned land that is located on contiguous
parcels larger than 0.25 acres, within 1/2
mile of an existing or planned BART station
entrance, in areas having representation on
the BART board of directors.
Latest Action
03/12/2018
To ASSEMBLY Committees on LOCAL
GOVERNMENT and NATURAL
RESOURCES.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Pending
LCC: Watch
15. CA AB 3019 Attorneys: Voluntary Donation:
Substance Abuse Recovery
Relates to the licensure and regulation of
attorneys. Requires the mandatory
membership fees billing statement to include
a voluntary checkoff box for members to
make an optional donation to the Other Bar,
which is an existing specified program
designed for attorneys in substance abuse
recovery, and would require the State Bare to
transfer any funds collected to the Other Bar.
Latest Action
03/12/2018
To ASSEMBLY Committee on
JUDICIARY.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Watch
LCC: Watch
16. CA AB 3246 Transportation Omnibus Bill
Requires the Controller to inform the
Department of Motor Vehicles on or before
February 1 that a county's authority to collect
the fee imposed on motor vehicles is
suspended. Deletes the provision which
requires the Division of Aeronautics within the
Department of Transportation to coordinate
and disseminate specified information to
pilots to increase awareness of wire hazards
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.121 of 176
and to communicate techniques for
identifying and avoiding wires.
Latest Action
03/22/2018
To ASSEMBLY Committee on
TRANSPORTATION.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Watch
LCC: Watch
17. CA SB 578 Highways: Safety Enhancement-Double
Fine Zone
Designates the segment of county highway
known as Vasco Road, between the State
Highway Route 580 junction in Alameda
County and the Marsh Creek Road
intersection in Contra Costa County, as a
Safety Enhancement-Double Fine Zone upon
the approval of the boards of supervisors of
Alameda County and Contra Costa County.
Latest Action
02/01/2018
In SENATE. Returned to Secretary of
Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Watch
LCC: Watch
18. CA SB 760 Bikeways: Design Guides
Authorizes a city, county, regional, other local
agency, when using alternative minimum
safety design criteria for the planning and
construction of bikeways, to consider
additional design guides, including the Urban
Street Design Guide of the National
Association of City Transportation Officials.
Authorizes a state entity that is responsible
for the planning and construction of roadways
to consider additional design guides.
Latest Action
01/29/2018
In SENATE. Read third time. Passed
SENATE. *****To ASSEMBLY.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Watch
LCC: Watch
19. CA SB 775 Global Warming: Market-Based
Compliance Mechanisms
Amends the California Global Warming
Solution Act of 2006 which designates the
State Air Resources Board as the state
agency charged with monitoring and
regulating sources of emission of greenhouse
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.122 of 176
gases. Requires the Board to adopt a
regulation establishing as a market-based
compliance mechanism a market-based
program of emission limits for covered
entities. Relates to funds.
Latest Action
02/01/2018
In SENATE. Returned to Secretary of
Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Pending
LCC: Watch
20. CA SB 827 Planning and zoning: transit-rich housing
bonus
Requires a local government to grant a
development proponent of a transit-rich
housing project a transit-rich housing bonus if
that development meets specified planning
standards. Defines transit-rich housing.
Requires an applicant who receives a transit-
rich housing bonus to provide benefits to
eligible displaced persons who are displaced
persons for moving and related expenses as
well as for relocation benefits.
Latest Action
03/01/2018
From SENATE Committee on
TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING with
author's amendments.
03/01/2018
In SENATE. Read second time and
amended. Re-referred to Committee on
TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Pending
LCC: Oppose
21. CA SB 1262 Construction Manager/General
Contractor Project
Removes the cap on the number of projects
for which the Department of Transportation is
authorized to use the Construction
Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC)
method, eliminates the minimum construction
costs limitation, and makes conforming
changes to existing provisions.
Latest Action
03/20/2018
From SENATE Committee on
TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING with
author's amendments.
03/20/2018
In SENATE. Read second time and
amended. Re-referred to Committee on
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.123 of 176
TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Watch
LCC: Watch
22. CA SB 1328 Mileage-Based Road Usage Fee
Extends the operation of the California
Transportation Commission to create a Road
Usage Charge (RUC) technical Advisory
Committee until a specified date. Requires
the technical advisory committee to assess
the potential for mileage-based revenue
collection for California's roads and highways
as an alternative to the gas tax system.
Latest Action
03/01/2018
To SENATE Committee on
TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Watch
LCC: Watch
23. CA SB 1384 Repatriation Infrastructure Fund
Relates to federal corporate repatriation
statute pursuant to which foreign earnings of
United States-based corporations that are
currently invested abroad are moved to the
United States. Requires the remaining
repatriation revenues to be transferred to the
Repatriation Infrastructure Fund in the State
Treasury, which the bill would create.
Latest Action
03/08/2018
To SENATE Committees on
GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE and
RULES.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Watch
LCC: Watch
24. CA SB 1427 High-Occupancy Vehicle and High-
Occupancy Toll Lanes
Provides the intent of the Legislature to enact
legislation to improve the performance of
High-Occupancy Vehicles and High-
Occupancy Toll lanes by providing additional
resources for the enforcement of lane
occupancy requirements.
Latest Action
03/08/2018
To SENATE Committee on RULES.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.124 of 176
BAAQMD: Support
CSAC: Watch
LCC: Watch
25. CA SCA 6 Local Transportation Measure: Special
Taxes: Voter
Requires that the imposition, extension, or
increase by a local government of a special
tax as may otherwise by authorized by law,
whether a sales or transactions and use tax,
parcel tax, or other tax for the purpose of
providing funding for transportation purposes
be submitted to the electorate by ordinance
and approved by a certain percentage of the
voters voting on the proposition.
Latest Action
05/25/2017
In SENATE Committee on
APPROPRIATIONS: Held in committee.
Private File: TWIC-TransLeg
CSAC: Support
LCC: Watch
MTC: Support
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.125 of 176
california legislature—2017–18 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2923
Introduced by Assembly Members Chiu and Grayson
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Mullin)
February 16, 2018
An act to add Sections 28765.5 and 28765.7 to the Public Utilities
Code, relating to transportation.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 2923, as introduced, Chiu. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
District: transit-oriented development.
(1) Existing law establishes the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
District (BART) with various powers and duties and establishes a board
of directors as the legislative body of the district. Existing law requires
the board to determine all questions of district policy and what transit
facilities should be acquired or constructed, and authorizes the board
to establish zones within the district to undertake the acquisition or
construction of any transit facilities.
This bill would require the board to adopt new transit-oriented
development (TOD) guidelines by a majority vote at a duly noticed
public meeting that establish minimum local zoning requirements for
BART-owned land that is located on contiguous parcels larger than
0.25 acres, within 1⁄2 mile of an existing or planned BART station
entrance, in areas having representation on the BART board of directors.
The bill would require that the approval or amendment of TOD
guidelines comply with specified requirements and would require local
jurisdictions to adopt an ordinance that approves the application of TOD
guidelines within 2 years of the date that the TOD guidelines are
approved by the board. The bill would provide that the board’s approval
99
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.126 of 176
of TOD guidelines is subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and would designate the board as the lead agency for
CEQA review.
The bill would require the board, where local zoning remains
inconsistent with the TOD guidelines after this 2-year period, to approve
local zoning standards for any BART-owned land within 1⁄2 mile of any
existing or planned BART station entrance within the BART district in
areas represented on the board. The bill would require the board to
adopt a permit streamlining process for specified TOD project applicants
and would provide that a TOD project shall include a specified 20%
affordable housing requirement and comply with specified labor
requirements.
By increasing the duties of local public officials, the bill would impose
a state-mandated local program.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory
provisions noted above.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 28765.5 is added to the Public Utilities
line 2 Code, to read:
line 3 28765.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the San Francisco
line 4 Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) board of directors shall
line 5 adopt transit-oriented development (TOD) zoning standards by a
line 6 majority vote at a duly noticed public meeting that establish
line 7 minimum local zoning requirements for BART-owned land that
line 8 is located on contiguous parcels larger than 0.25 acres, within
line 9 one-half mile of an existing or planned BART station entrance, in
line 10 areas having representation on the BART board of directors.
line 11 (1) Zoning standards published in the current BART Guidelines
line 12 shall serve as the baseline for BART TOD zoning. Approved TOD
line 13 zoning standards shall establish the lowest permissible height
line 14 limits, lowest permissible density limits, and the highest
99
— 2 —AB 2923
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.127 of 176
line 1 permissible parking maximums, as established by Table 1 and
line 2 Figure 1 of BART TOD Guidelines (2017).
line 3 (2) In approving TOD zoning standards, the board shall establish
line 4 and include the lowest permissible floor-area-ratio limits for each
line 5 TOD place type.
line 6 (3) TOD zoning standards shall be approved by the board by
line 7 April 1, 2019, and may be amended by the board thereafter
line 8 pursuant to this section. If the board fails to approve new guidelines
line 9 by April 1, 2019, the existing Table 1 of BART TOD Guidelines
line 10 (2017) shall serve as the minimum local zoning requirements for
line 11 local jurisdictions, with the Transit Oriented Place Types indicated
line 12 in Figure 1 of the BART TOD Guidelines (2017).
line 13 (b) The approval of, and amendments to, the TOD zoning
line 14 standards shall comply with all of the following:
line 15 (1) The board shall hold a public hearing to receive public
line 16 comment on proposed standards or proposed changes to standards.
line 17 The district shall conduct direct outreach to communities of
line 18 concern.
line 19 (2) Not less than 30 days before a public hearing of the board
line 20 to consider the standards, the district shall provide public notice
line 21 and make the draft guidelines available to the public.
line 22 (3) The board shall approve or reject any proposed standards at
line 23 a publicly noticed meeting of the board not less than 30 days
line 24 following the original public hearing.
line 25 (c) Before or at the same time as approving TOD zoning
line 26 standards, the board shall approve travel demand management
line 27 requirements for TOD projects on district-owned real property.
line 28 (d) (1) Where local zoning is inconsistent with the TOD zoning
line 29 standards, the local jurisdiction shall adopt an ordinance that
line 30 approves the application of the TOD zoning standards within two
line 31 years of the date that the TOD zoning standards were approved
line 32 by the board.
line 33 (2) The local zoning ordinance shall conform to the TOD zoning
line 34 standards without the application of any bonuses or waivers
line 35 allowable under any state or local density bonus provisions.
line 36 (e) The board shall make a finding as to whether the local zoning
line 37 ordinance is consistent with the TOD zoning standards. Local
line 38 zoning shall remain in place unless the board determines that it is
line 39 inconsistent with TOD zoning standards. If, according to the
line 40 board’s finding, the local zoning ordinance remains inconsistent
99
AB 2923— 3 —
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.128 of 176
line 1 with the TOD guidelines after the two-year period specified in
line 2 paragraph (1) of subdivision (d), the TOD zoning standards shall
line 3 become the local zoning standards for any BART-owned land
line 4 within one-half mile of any existing or planned BART station
line 5 entrance in areas represented on the board. A jurisdiction may
line 6 update zoning to comply with TOD zoning standards until such
line 7 time that a BART TOD developer enters into the development
line 8 process.
line 9 (f) (1) The board's approval of TOD zoning standards and local
line 10 zoning standards shall be subject to the California Environmental
line 11 Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of
line 12 the Public Resources Code). The board shall serve as the lead
line 13 agency for CEQA review.
line 14 (2) Any CEQA review of rezoning to conform with TOD zoning
line 15 standards, and of TOD projects proposed on BART-owned land
line 16 shall incorporate the CEQA review for approval of TOD zoning
line 17 standards to the greatest degree possible. An agency may not
line 18 prepare CEQA documents on rezoning to implement TOD zoning
line 19 standards subsequent to BART’s CEQA review of the approval
line 20 of TOD zoning standards absent a finding of substantial evidence
line 21 that the rezoning creates a significant negative impact, based on
line 22 standards in effect at the time that the CEQA review on the
line 23 approval of the TOD zoning standards was performed.
line 24 (g) A TOD development proponent may submit an application
line 25 for a development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial
line 26 approval process not subject to a conditional use permit if the
line 27 development satisfies the objective planning standards specified
line 28 in subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 of the Government Code that
line 29 are consistent with the BART TOD zoning standards regardless
line 30 of a local jurisdiction’s status regarding its regional housing needs
line 31 allocation.
line 32 SEC. 2. Section 28765.7 is added to the Public Utilities Code,
line 33 to read:
line 34 28765.7. (a) Notwithstanding Section 65913.4 of the
line 35 Government Code, in the event that TOD zoning standards,
line 36 objective planning standards, general plan, or design review
line 37 standards are mutually inconsistent, the TOD zoning standards
line 38 shall be the controlling standards. To the extent that the zoning
line 39 standards do not resolve inconsistencies, the general plan shall be
line 40 the controlling standard.
99
— 4 —AB 2923
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.129 of 176
line 1 (b) The board may waive any requirement that it finds to be
line 2 inconsistent with Section 65913.4 of the Government Code.
line 3 (c) The board shall do all of the following to avoid the loss of
line 4 affordable housing units and to prevent the direct displacement of
line 5 tenants:
line 6 (1) Require that parcels that currently have residential uses, or
line 7 within the past five years have had residential uses that have been
line 8 vacated or demolished, that are or were subject to a recorded
line 9 covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable
line 10 to persons and families of low or very low income, or subject to
line 11 any other form of rent or price control through a public entity’s
line 12 valid exercise of its police power, shall be subject to a policy that
line 13 requires the replacement of all those affordable housing units to
line 14 the same or lower income level as a condition of any development
line 15 on the parcel within the TOD project area.
line 16 (2) Require that tenants directly displaced from affordable
line 17 housing units by a TOD project be prioritized for placement in
line 18 affordable housing units within new developments located on
line 19 BART-owned land.
line 20 (3) Develop a plan to do both of the following:
line 21 (A) Increase affordable housing options for very low and
line 22 low-income residents within and around a TOD project area,
line 23 particularly in communities of concern, as defined in MTC’s
line 24 regional transportation plan, where there is potential for residential
line 25 displacement due to changing market and development conditions.
line 26 (B) Deliver housing for essential workers within and around
line 27 TOD projects.
line 28 (d) A TOD project shall do both of the following:
line 29 (1) Include at least a 20-percent minimum of the affordable
line 30 residential housing units for very low, low-, and moderate-income
line 31 households and subject to a recorded affordability restriction for
line 32 at least 55 years with a priority on residential units for very low,
line 33 low-, and moderate-income households.
line 34 (2) Comply with the labor requirements of Section 65913.4 of
line 35 the Government Code and any other applicable BART labor
line 36 policies.
line 37 (e) The board may identify specific TOD projects that are in
line 38 the approval process with a local jurisdiction on or before
line 39 imposition of the TOD zoning standards adopted pursuant to
line 40 subdivision (a) of Section 28765.5 that are proceeding with local
99
AB 2923— 5 —
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.130 of 176
line 1 zoning approval and entitlement pursuant to existing local zoning
line 2 authority.
line 3 SEC. 3. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that
line 4 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to
line 5 local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
line 6 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division
line 7 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
99
— 6 —AB 2923
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.131 of 176
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 1, 2018
SENATE BILL No. 827
Introduced by Senator Wiener
(Principal coauthor: Senator Skinner)
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Ting)
(Coauthor: Senator Hueso)
January 3, 2018
An act to add Section 65917.7 to Chapter 4.35 (commencing with
Section 65918.5) to Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code,
relating to land use.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 827, as amended, Wiener. Planning and zoning: transit-rich
housing bonus.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires, when an applicant proposes
a housing development within the jurisdiction of a local government,
that the city, county, or city and county provide the developer with a
density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production
of lower income housing units or for the donation of land within the
development if the developer, among other things, agrees to construct
a specified percentage of units for very low, low-, or moderate-income
households or qualifying residents.
This bill would authorize a require a local government to, if requested,
grant a development proponent of a transit-rich housing project to
receive a transit-rich housing bonus. bonus if that development meets
specified planning standards, including complying with demolition
permit requirements, local inclusionary housing ordinance requirements,
preparing a relocation benefits and assistance plan, any locally adopted
objective zoning standards, and any locally adopted minimum unit mix
98
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.132 of 176
requirements. The bill would define a transit-rich housing project as a
residential development project the parcels of which are all within a 1⁄2
mile radius of a major transit stop or a 1⁄4 mile radius of a stop on a
high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are further defined. corridor.
The bill would exempt a project awarded a housing opportunity bonus
an eligible applicant who receives a transit-rich housing bonus from
various requirements, including maximum controls on residential density
or floor area ratio, density, maximum controls on floor area ratio that
are lower than a specified amount, minimum automobile parking
requirements, maximum height limitations, and zoning or design
standards that restrict the applicant’s ability to construct the maximum
number of units consistent with any applicable building code, and
maximum height limitations, as provided. controls that have the effect
of limiting additions onto existing structures or lots that comply with
those maximum floor area ratios and height limitations. The bill would
require an eligible applicant who receives a transit-rich housing bonus
to provide benefits to eligible displaced persons who are displaced by
the development, including requiring the applicant to offer a right to
remain guarantee to those tenants, and to make payments to eligible
displaced persons for moving and related expenses as well as for
relocation benefits. The bill would also require an eligible applicant
to submit a relocation benefit and assistance plan for approval to the
applicable local government to that effect, and to provide specified
information and assistance to eligible displaced persons.
The bill would declare that its provisions address a matter of statewide
concern and apply equally to all cities and counties in this state,
including a charter city.
By adding to the duties of local planning officials, this bill would
impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
98
— 2 —SB 827
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.133 of 176
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that this act
line 2 addresses a matter of statewide concern and shall apply equally to
line 3 all cities and counties in this state, including charter cities.
line 4 SEC. 2. Chapter 4.35 (commencing with Section 65918.5) is
line 5 added to Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, immediately
line 6 following Chapter 4.3, to read:
line 7
line 8 Chapter 4.35. Transit-Rich Housing Bonus
line 9
line 10 65918.5. For purposes of this chapter:
line 11 (a) “Development proponent” means an applicant who submits
line 12 an application for a transit-rich housing bonus pursuant to this
line 13 chapter.
line 14 (b) “Eligible applicant” means a development proponent who
line 15 receives a transit-rich housing bonus.
line 16 (c) “FAR” means floor area ratio.
line 17 (d) “High-quality transit corridor” means a corridor with fixed
line 18 route bus service that has service intervals of no more than 15
line 19 minutes during peak commute hours.
line 20 (e) “Local government” means city, including a charter city, a
line 21 county, or city and county.
line 22 (f) “Transit-rich housing project” means a residential
line 23 development project the parcels of which are all within a one-half
line 24 mile radius of a major transit stop or a one-quarter mile radius
line 25 of a stop on a high-quality transit corridor. A residential
line 26 development project does not qualify as a transit-rich housing
line 27 project if that project would result in the construction of housing
line 28 in zoning districts that prohibit the construction of housing as a
line 29 principal or conditional use, including, but not limited to,
line 30 exclusively industrial or manufacturing zoning districts. A project
line 31 shall be deemed to be within a one-half mile radius of a major
line 32 transit stop or a one-quarter mile radius of a stop on a high-quality
line 33 transit corridor if both of the following apply:
line 34 (1) All parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent
line 35 of their area outside of a one-half mile radius of a major transit
line 36 stop or a one-quarter mile radius of a stop on a high-quality transit
line 37 corridor.
98
SB 827— 3 —
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.134 of 176
line 1 (2) No more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units,
line 2 whichever is less, of the project are outside of a one-half mile
line 3 radius of a major transit stop or a one-quarter mile radius of a
line 4 stop on a high-quality transit corridor.
line 5 65918.6. (a) Notwithstanding any local ordinance, general
line 6 plan element, specific plan, charter, or other local law, policy,
line 7 resolution, or regulation, a local jurisdiction shall, if requested,
line 8 provide an eligible applicant with a transit-rich housing bonus
line 9 that shall exempt the project from all of the following:
line 10 (1) Maximum controls on residential density.
line 11 (2) Maximum controls on FAR lower than those specified in
line 12 paragraph (4) of subdivision (c).
line 13 (3) Minimum automobile parking requirements.
line 14 (4) Maximum building height limits that are less than those
line 15 specified in subdivision (b).
line 16 (5) Zoning or design controls that have the effect of limiting
line 17 additions onto existing structures or lots if such additions comply
line 18 with the height and FAR limits established in subdivision (b) or
line 19 paragraph (4) of subdivision (c).
line 20 (b) An eligible applicant shall be exempt from local maximum
line 21 height limits as follows:
line 22 (1) If the transit-rich housing project is within a one-quarter
line 23 mile radius of either a major transit stop or a stop on a high-quality
line 24 transit corridor, the maximum height limitation shall not be less
line 25 than 85 feet, except in cases where a parcel facing a street that is
line 26 less than 70 feet wide from property line to property line, in which
line 27 case the maximum height shall not be less than 55 feet. If the
line 28 project is exempted from the local maximum height limitation, the
line 29 maximum height limitation for a transit-rich housing project shall
line 30 be 85 feet or 55 feet, as provided in this paragraph.
line 31 (2) If the transit-rich housing project is within one-half mile of
line 32 a major transit stop, but does not meet the criteria specified in
line 33 paragraph (1), any maximum height limitation shall not be less
line 34 than 55 feet, except in cases where a parcel facing a street that is
line 35 less than 70 feet wide from property line to property line, in which
line 36 case the maximum height shall not be less than 45 feet. If the
line 37 project is exempted from the local maximum height limitation, the
line 38 maximum height limitation for a transit-rich housing project shall
line 39 be 55 feet or 45 feet, as provided in this paragraph.
98
— 4 —SB 827
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.135 of 176
line 1 (3) For purposes of this subdivision, if a parcel has street
line 2 frontage on two or more different streets, the maximum height
line 3 limitation pursuant to this subdivision shall be based on the widest
line 4 street.
line 5 (c) A development proponent may submit an application for a
line 6 development to be subject to the transit-rich housing bonus process
line 7 provided by subdivision (b) if the application satisfies all of the
line 8 following planning standards:
line 9 (1) Any demolition permit that is related to an application for
line 10 a transit-rich housing project is subject to all demolition permit
line 11 controls, restrictions, and review processes enacted by the
line 12 applicable local government. Additionally, an applicant shall be
line 13 ineligible for a transit-rich housing bonus if the housing
line 14 development is proposed on any property that includes a parcel
line 15 or parcels on which existing rental units that are subject to any
line 16 form of rent or price control through a local government’s valid
line 17 exercise of its police power would need to be demolished, unless
line 18 the local government passes a resolution explicitly authorizing a
line 19 review process for demolition permit applications.
line 20 (2) The development complies with any local inclusionary
line 21 housing ordinances. For purposes of this paragraph, local
line 22 inclusionary housing ordinances include either of the following:
line 23 (A) A mandatory requirement, as a condition of the development
line 24 of residential units, that the development include a certain
line 25 percentage of residential units affordable to, and occupied by,
line 26 households with incomes that do not exceed the limits for
line 27 moderate-income, lower income, very low income, or extremely
line 28 low income households specified in Sections 50079.5, 50093,
line 29 50105, and 50106 of the Health and Safety Code. The ordinance
line 30 may provide alternative means of compliance that may include,
line 31 but are not limited to, in-lieu fees, land dedication, off-site
line 32 construction, or acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units. If
line 33 the ordinance is adopted after January 1, 2018, it shall meet all
line 34 the requirements of Section 65850.01.
line 35 (B) For the purposes of this section, if a community does not
line 36 have a mandatory requirement as described in subparagraph (A),
line 37 a locally adopted voluntary incentive-based program that grants
line 38 a range of incentives to developments that include an objective
line 39 and knowable amount of on-site affordable housing. The knowable
line 40 amount of on-site affordable housing and number of incentives
98
SB 827— 5 —
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.136 of 176
line 1 shall be calculated based on the project’s proximity to different
line 2 types of public transportation, and include proximity to both
line 3 regular bus lines, bus rapid transit, and rail stations. In the case
line 4 that a local inclusionary housing ordinance is a voluntary or
line 5 incentive-based program as described in this subparagraph, on-site
line 6 affordable housing requirements for a transit-rich housing project
line 7 shall be calculated based on the height, density, floor area ratio,
line 8 bulk, and automobile parking included in the final design of the
line 9 transit-rich housing project.
line 10 (3) The development proponent prepares and submits to the
line 11 applicable local government a relocation assistance and benefits
line 12 plan as described in subdivision (d) of Section 65918.8.
line 13 (4) Except as specified in subdivision (a), the transit-rich
line 14 housing project complies with all local objective zoning design
line 15 standards that were in effect at the time that the applicant submits
line 16 its first application to the local government pursuant to this section,
line 17 except as provided in Section 65918.10, provided that those local
line 18 zoning design standards shall not result in a FAR for the
line 19 development that received the bonus that is less than the following:
line 20 (A) 2.5 FAR for lots with a maximum height limit of 45 feet
line 21 pursuant to this section.
line 22 (B) 3.25 FAR for lots with a maximum height limit of 55 feet
line 23 pursuant to this section.
line 24 (C) 4.5 FAR for lots with a maximum height limit of 85 feet
line 25 pursuant to this section.
line 26 (5) Any locally adopted objective zoning standard that involves
line 27 no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is
line 28 uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform
line 29 benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the
line 30 development applicant or proponent and public officials before
line 31 the application is submitted, including but not limited to essential
line 32 bulk and FAR requirements, except as specified in paragraph (4),
line 33 codified design standards, and development fees.
line 34 (6) Any locally adopted minimum unit mix requirements,
line 35 provided that those requirements do not have the effect of requiring
line 36 more than 40 percent of all units in a transit-rich housing project
line 37 to have two bedrooms or more.
line 38 (d) An eligible applicant who receives a transit-rich housing
line 39 bonus pursuant to this section may also apply for a density bonus,
line 40 incentive or concession, or waiver or reduction, pursuant to Section
98
— 6 —SB 827
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.137 of 176
line 1 65915. For purposes of calculating any base development standard,
line 2 including maximum allowable residential density, for purposes of
line 3 granting a density bonus, incentive or concession, or a waiver or
line 4 reduction of a development standard pursuant to that section, any
line 5 transit-rich housing bonus granted pursuant to this chapter shall
line 6 be used as that base development standard.
line 7 (e) An eligible applicant who receives a transit-housing bonus
line 8 pursuant to this section, and who requests a streamlined,
line 9 ministerial, approval process pursuant to Section 65913.4, shall
line 10 be deemed to be in compliance with local zoning requirements for
line 11 purposes of determining eligibility pursuant to paragraph (5) of
line 12 subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4, and for purposes of enforcing
line 13 legal protections for new developments under Section 65589.5.
line 14 65918.7. In the event that a transit-rich housing project is
line 15 issued a demolition permit by a local government as described in
line 16 paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65918.6, the project
line 17 shall comply with any state or local tenant relocation benefit and
line 18 assistance program or ordinance serving residential tenants living
line 19 in the units that will be demolished. Moreover, in the event that
line 20 issuance of a demolition permit would result in the direct
line 21 displacement of a residential tenant or tenants, the local
line 22 government may not issue demolition permits for rental housing
line 23 units as a part of the application for a transit-rich housing project,
line 24 unless the development proponent complies with relocation benefits
line 25 and assistance and a right to remain guarantee, as follows:
line 26 (a) The development proponent prepares and submits a
line 27 relocation assistance and benefits plan to the jurisdiction as
line 28 described in subdivision (d) of Section 65918.8.
line 29 (b) The development proponent offers all eligible displaced
line 30 persons a right to remain guarantee that is a right of first refusal
line 31 for a comparable unit in the transit-rich housing project after it
line 32 finishes construction, and a new lease for that unit at a rate not
line 33 to exceed the base rent defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f)
line 34 of Section 65918.9.
line 35 65918.8. (a) An eligible applicant that receives a transit-rich
line 36 housing bonus shall comply with the procedures and requirements
line 37 in this section in providing relocation benefits and a right to remain
line 38 guarantee to any eligible displaced person.
line 39 (b) For purposes of this chapter, “eligible displaced person”
line 40 means the following:
98
SB 827— 7 —
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.138 of 176
line 1 (1) Any person who occupies property that is located within the
line 2 development, and who will become displaced by the development.
line 3 (2) Any person who moves from property located within the
line 4 boundaries of the development after an application for a
line 5 development proposal subject to a transit-rich housing bonus is
line 6 deemed complete.
line 7 (c) An eligible applicant shall inform all eligible displaced
line 8 persons regarding the projected date of displacement and,
line 9 periodically, should inform those persons of any changes in the
line 10 projected date of displacement.
line 11 (d) A development proponent shall prepare a detailed relocation
line 12 benefits and assistance plan, and submit that plan to the applicable
line 13 local government for approval to determine whether the plan
line 14 complies with the requirements of this section. That plan shall
line 15 include all of the following:
line 16 (1) A diagrammatic sketch of the project area.
line 17 (2) Projected dates of displacement.
line 18 (3) A written analysis of the aggregate relocation needs of all
line 19 eligible displaced persons and a detailed explanation as to how
line 20 these needs are to be met.
line 21 (4) A written analysis of relocation housing resources, including
line 22 vacancy rates of the neighborhood and surrounding areas.
line 23 (5) A detailed description of relocation payments to be made
line 24 and a plan for disbursement.
line 25 (6) A cost estimate for carrying out the plan.
line 26 (7) A standard information statement to be sent to all eligible
line 27 displaced persons who will be permanently displaced.
line 28 (8) Plans for public review and comment on the development
line 29 project and relocation benefits and assistance plan.
line 30 (e) A development proponent shall provide notice of the
line 31 relocation benefits and assistance plan to all eligible displaced
line 32 persons at least 30 days before submitting the plan to the local
line 33 government for approval pursuant to subdivision (d).
line 34 (f) After the applicable local government approves the relocation
line 35 benefits and assistance plan pursuant to subdivision (d), the eligible
line 36 applicant shall do all the following:
line 37 (1) Notify all eligible displaced persons of the following:
line 38 (A) The availability of relocation benefits and assistance.
line 39 (B) The eligibility requirements of relocation benefits and
line 40 assistance.
98
— 8 —SB 827
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.139 of 176
line 1 (C) The procedures for obtaining relocation benefits and
line 2 assistance.
line 3 (2) Determine the extent of the need of each eligible displaced
line 4 person for relocation benefits and assistance.
line 5 (3) Provide the current and continuing information on the
line 6 availability, prices and rentals of comparable sales and rental
line 7 housing, and as to security deposits, closing costs, typical down
line 8 payments, interest rates, and terms for residential property in the
line 9 area to all eligible displaced persons.
line 10 (4) Assist each eligible displaced person to complete
line 11 applications for payments and benefits.
line 12 (5) Assist each eligible displaced person to obtain and move to
line 13 a comparable replacement dwelling.
line 14 (6) Supply to each eligible displaced person information
line 15 concerning federal and state housing programs.
line 16 (7) Inform all persons who are expected to be displaced about
line 17 the eviction policies to be pursued in carrying out the project,
line 18 which policies shall be in accordance with the relocation benefits
line 19 and assistance plan approved pursuant to subdivision (d).
line 20 (g) An eligible applicant’s obligation to provide relocation
line 21 benefits and assistance to an eligible displaced person shall cease
line 22 if any of the following occurs:
line 23 (1) An eligible displaced person moves to a comparable
line 24 replacement dwelling and receives all assistance and payments to
line 25 which he or she is entitled.
line 26 (2) An eligible displaced person moves to substandard housing,
line 27 refuses reasonable offers of additional assistance in moving to a
line 28 decent, safe and sanitary replacement dwelling, and receives all
line 29 payments to which he or she entitled.
line 30 (3) The eligible applicant has failed to trace or locate the
line 31 eligible displaced person after making all reasonable efforts to do
line 32 so.
line 33 (4) An eligible displaced person from his or her dwelling refuses,
line 34 in writing, reasonable offers of assistance, payments and
line 35 comparable replacement housing.
line 36 (h) An eligible applicant shall not evict an eligible displaced
line 37 person from property, except as a last resort. If an eligible
line 38 displaced person is evicted as a last resort pursuant to this
line 39 subdivision, that eviction in no way affects the eligibility of that
line 40 person for relocation payments.
98
SB 827— 9 —
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.140 of 176
line 1 65918.9. An eligible applicant that receives a transit-rich
line 2 housing bonus shall make relocation payments to or on behalf of
line 3 eligible displaced persons that otherwise meets all basic eligibility
line 4 conditions set out in Section 65918.8, for all actual reasonable
line 5 expenses incurred for moving and related expenses to move
line 6 themselves, their family, and their personal property, and for
line 7 relocation benefits. In all cases, the amount of payment shall not
line 8 exceed the reasonable cost of accomplishing the activity in
line 9 connection with a claim that has been filed. In making payments
line 10 under this section, the eligible applicant shall comply with all of
line 11 the following:
line 12 (a) For purposes of this section, “moving and related expenses”
line 13 include all of the following:
line 14 (1) Transportation of persons and property, not to exceed a
line 15 distance of 50 miles from the site from which they were displaced,
line 16 except where relocation beyond 50 miles is justified.
line 17 (2) Packing, crating, unpacking and uncrating personal
line 18 property.
line 19 (3) Storage of personal property, for a period not to exceed 12
line 20 months.
line 21 (4) Insurance of personal property while in storage or transit.
line 22 (5) The reasonable replacement value of property lost, stolen
line 23 or damaged (not through the fault or negligence of the displaced
line 24 person, his agent, or employee) in the process of moving, where
line 25 insurance covering such loss, theft or damage is not reasonably
line 26 available. A claim for payment hereunder shall be supported by
line 27 written evidence of loss which may include appraisals, certified
line 28 prices, bills of sale, receipts, canceled checks, copies of
line 29 advertisements, offers to sell, auction records, and other records
line 30 appropriate to support the claim.
line 31 (b) An eligible applicant may pay an eligible displaced person
line 32 for their anticipated moving expenses in advance of the actual
line 33 move. An eligible applicant shall provide advance payment as
line 34 described in this subdivision whenever later payment would result
line 35 in financial hardship to the eligible displaced person. In
line 36 determining financial hardship for purposes of this subdivision,
line 37 particular consideration shall be given to the financial limitations
line 38 and difficulties experienced by low and moderate income persons.
line 39 (c) This section does not preclude an eligible applicant from
line 40 relying upon other reasonable means of relocating an eligible
98
— 10 —SB 827
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.141 of 176
line 1 displaced person, including contracting to have that eligible
line 2 displaced person moved to satisfy the requirements of this section,
line 3 and arranging for assignment of moving expense payments by
line 4 eligible displaced persons.
line 5 (d) An eligible displaced person who elects to self-move may
line 6 submit a claim for their moving and related expenses to the eligible
line 7 applicant in an amount not to exceed an acceptable low bid or an
line 8 amount acceptable to the displacing entity. An eligible displaced
line 9 person is not required to provide documentation of moving
line 10 expenses actually incurred.
line 11 (e) Except in cases of a displaced person conducting a self-move
line 12 as provided in subdivision (d) above, an eligible displaced person
line 13 who submits a claim for relocation payments under this section
line 14 shall include a bill or other evidence of expenses incurred. An
line 15 eligible applicant may enter into a written arrangement with the
line 16 eligible displaced person and the mover so that the eligible
line 17 displaced person may present to the eligible applicant an unpaid
line 18 moving bill, and the eligible applicant can then pay the mover
line 19 directly for any moving expenses incurred.
line 20 (f) For purposes of this section, “relocation benefits” means a
line 21 payment of an amount necessary to enable that person to lease or
line 22 rent a replacement dwelling for a period not to exceed 42 months,
line 23 as follows:
line 24 (1) The amount of payment necessary to lease or rent a
line 25 comparable replacement dwelling shall be computed by subtracting
line 26 42 times the base monthly rental of the displaced person, from 42
line 27 times the monthly rental for a comparable replacement dwelling,
line 28 provided, that in no case may such amount exceed the difference
line 29 between 42 times the base monthly rental as determined in
line 30 accordance with this subdivision and 42 times the monthly rental
line 31 actually required for the replacement dwelling occupied by the
line 32 eligible displaced person.
line 33 (2) The base monthly rental shall be the lesser of the average
line 34 monthly rental paid by the eligible displaced person for the
line 35 three-month period before the eligible applicant submitted the
line 36 relocation benefits and assistance plan pursuant to subdivision
line 37 (d) of Section 65918.8, or 30 percent of the eligible displaced
line 38 person’s average monthly income.
line 39 (3) A dependent who is residing separate and apart from the
line 40 person or family providing support, whether that residence is
98
SB 827— 11 —
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.142 of 176
line 1 permanent or temporary shall be entitled to payment under this
line 2 section, but that payment shall be limited to the period during
line 3 which the displaced dependent resides in the replacement dwelling.
line 4 At the time the displaced dependent vacates that dwelling, no
line 5 further payment under this section shall be made to that person.
line 6 (4) Except where specifically provided otherwise, the eligible
line 7 applicant may disburse payments for relocation benefits under
line 8 this section in a lump sum, monthly or at other intervals acceptable
line 9 to the displaced person.
line 10 (g) Upon request by an eligible displaced person who has not
line 11 yet purchased and occupied a replacement dwelling, but who is
line 12 otherwise eligible for a replacement housing payment, the eligible
line 13 applicant shall certify to any interested party, financial institution,
line 14 or lending agency, that the eligible displaced person will be eligible
line 15 for the payment of a specific sum if they purchase and occupy a
line 16 dwelling within the time limits prescribed.
line 17 65918.10. (a) If, on or after January 1, 2018, a local
line 18 government adopts an ordinance that eliminates residential zoning
line 19 designations or decreases residential zoning development capacity
line 20 within an existing zoning district in which the development is
line 21 located than what was authorized on January 1, 2018, then that
line 22 development shall be deemed to be consistent with any applicable
line 23 requirement of this chapter if it complies with zoning designations
line 24 that were authorized as of January 1, 2018.
line 25 (b) The Department of Housing and Community Development
line 26 may, at any time, review any new or revised zoning or design
line 27 standards after the operative date of the act adding this section to
line 28 determine if those local standards are consistent with the
line 29 requirements of this section. If the department determines that
line 30 those standards are inconsistent, the department shall issue, in a
line 31 form and manner provided by the department, a finding of
line 32 inconsistency, and those standards shall be rendered invalid and
line 33 unenforceable as of the date that finding is issued.
line 34 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
line 35 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
line 36 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service
line 37 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
line 38 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section
line 39 17556 of the Government Code.
98
— 12 —SB 827
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.143 of 176
line 1 SEC. 2. Section 65917.7 is added to the Government Code, to
line 2 read:
line 3 65917.7. (a) As used in this section, the following definitions
line 4 shall apply:
line 5 (1) “Block” has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (a)
line 6 of Section 5870 of the Streets and Highways Code.
line 7 (2) “High-quality transit corridor” means a corridor with fixed
line 8 route bus service that has service intervals of no more than 15
line 9 minutes during peak commute hours.
line 10 (3) “Transit-rich housing project” means a residential
line 11 development project the parcels of which are all within a one-half
line 12 mile radius of a major transit stop or a one-quarter mile radius of
line 13 a high-quality transit corridor. A project shall be deemed to be
line 14 within a one-half mile radius of a major transit stop or a one-quarter
line 15 mile radius of a high-quality transit corridor if both of the following
line 16 apply:
line 17 (A) All parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent
line 18 of their area outside of a one-half mile radius of a major transit
line 19 stop or a one-quarter mile radius of a high-quality transit corridor.
line 20 (B) No more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units,
line 21 whichever is less, of the project are outside of a one-half mile
line 22 radius of a major transit stop or a one-quarter mile radius of a
line 23 high-quality transit corridor.
line 24 (4) “Major transit stop” has the same meaning as defined in
line 25 Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code.
line 26 (b) Notwithstanding any local ordinance, general plan element,
line 27 specific plan, charter, or other local law, policy, resolution, or
line 28 regulation, a transit-rich housing project shall receive a transit-rich
line 29 housing bonus which shall exempt the project from all of the
line 30 following:
line 31 (1) Maximum controls on residential density or floor area ratio.
line 32 (2) Minimum automobile parking requirements.
line 33 (3) Any design standard that restricts the applicant’s ability to
line 34 construct the maximum number of units consistent with any
line 35 applicable building code.
line 36 (4) (A) If the transit-rich housing project is within either a
line 37 one-quarter mile radius of a high-quality transit corridor or within
line 38 one block of a major transit stop, any maximum height limitation
line 39 that is less than 85 feet, except in cases where a parcel facing a
line 40 street that is less than 45 feet wide from curb to curb, in which
98
SB 827— 13 —
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.144 of 176
line 1 case the maximum height shall not be less than 55 feet. If the
line 2 project is exempted from the local maximum height limitation, the
line 3 governing height limitation for a transit-rich housing project shall
line 4 be 85 feet or 55 feet, as provided in this subparagraph.
line 5 (B) If the transit-rich housing project is within one-half mile of
line 6 a major transit stop, but does not meet the criteria specified in
line 7 subparagraph (A), any maximum height limitation that is less than
line 8 55 feet, except in cases where a parcel facing a street that is less
line 9 than 45 feet wide from curb to curb, in which case the maximum
line 10 height shall not be less than 45 feet. If the project is exempted
line 11 from the local maximum height limitation, the governing height
line 12 limitation for a transit-rich housing project shall be 55 feet or 45
line 13 feet, as provided in this subparagraph.
line 14 (C) For purposes of this paragraph, if a parcel has street frontage
line 15 on two or more different streets, the height maximum pursuant to
line 16 this paragraph shall be based on the widest street.
line 17 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
line 18 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
line 19 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service
line 20 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
line 21 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section
line 22 17556 of the Government Code.
98
— 14 —SB 827
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.145 of 176
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 8.
Meeting Date:04/09/2018
Subject:CONSIDER Fiscal Year 2018/2019 Road Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Account Project List for Unincorporated Contra Costa
County.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 1
Referral Name: Review Legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.
Presenter: Steve Kowalewski Contact: Jerry Fahy (925)313-2276
Referral History:
On April 28, 2017, the Governor signed Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which is known as the Road Repair
and Accountability Act of 2017. SB1 creates the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account
(RMRA) which provides much needed transportation funding for California to address basic road
maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety needs on both the state highway and local streets
and road system.
SB1 includes new performance and reporting requirements in order to be eligible for the RMRA
funds. The Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) reviewed the project list
for Fiscal Year 2017/2018 on August 14, 2017. The information and recommendations in this
report, once approved by the TWIC and the Board of Supervisors, will fulfill these new
requirements.
Referral Update:
SB1 Funds were available to cities and counties starting in Fiscal Year 2017/2018. The California
State Association of Counties has provided the estimated revenues the County can expect that will
be generated from this transportation bill. The first year of the program was a partial year and the
County expects to receive about $4.9 million from the RMRA program under SB1. We expect the
RMRA amount to increase to $13.8 million for Fiscal Year 2018/2019 and steadily grow with the
built-in inflationary index in future years.
SB1 emphasizes the importance of accountability and transparency in the delivery of California’s
transportation programs. Therefore, in order to be eligible for RMRA funding, state statute
requires cities and counties to provide basic RMRA project reporting to the California
Transportation Commission (CTC).
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.146 of 176
Prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds from the State Controller in a fiscal year, a
city or county must submit to the CTC a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds.
All projects proposed to receive funding must be reviewed and approved the applicable city
council or county board of supervisors at a regular public meeting.
The list of projects must include a description and location of each proposed project, a proposed
schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement (see
Attachment A – a project list using the CTC recommended template, and Appendix B for location
maps of the various projects). The project list does not limit the flexibility of an eligible city or
county to fund projects in accordance with local needs and priorities so long as the projects are
consistent with RMRA priorities as outlined in the applicable code sections. Some example
projects and uses for RMRA funding include, but are not limited to the following:
• Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
• Safety Projects
• Railroad Grade Separations
• Complete Streets Components (including active transportation purposes, pedestrian and bicycle
safety projects, transit facilities, and drainage and stormwater capture projects in conjunction with
any other allowable project)
• Traffic Control Devices
Streets and Highways Code Section 2030(b)(2) states that funds made available by the program
may also be used to satisfy a match requirement in order to obtain state or federal funds for
projects authorized by this subdivision.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
REVIEW the recommended list of Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account
(RMRA)(Senate Bill 1) funded road projects, RECEIVE public comment and DIRECT staff to
perform any changes or revisions to the recommended project list. RECOMMEND the Board of
Supervisors receive public comment, revise as appropriate, approve project list, and direct staff to
proceed with submitting the Fiscal Year 2018/2019 list of projects to the California
Transportation Commission prior to the May 1, 2018 submittal deadline for approval.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
If a project list is not reviewed by the TWIC, forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for approval,
and submitted to the CTC by the May 1, 2018 deadline, the County will not be eligible to receive
its portion of RMRA funds and the projects listed above will not be constructed.
Attachments
2018-03-30 TWIC Memo on SB1 Project List Submittal 2018 - Appendix A
2018-03-29 RMRA maps - Appendix B
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.147 of 176
Page 1 of 8
Appendix A
Local Streets and Roads Project List
As required by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 – Local Streets and Roads
Funding, Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA)
General Information
Name: Unincorporated Contra Costa County
Point of Contact:
Steve Kowalewski
Deputy Director
Contra Costa County Public Works Department
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
(925) 313-2225
steve.kowalewski@pw.cccounty.us
Legislative Districts:
Senate – 3, 7, 9
Assembly – 11, 14, 15, 16
Jurisdiction’s Average Network PCI and date/year of measurement:
County Average PCI = 72 (as of September 2017)
Fiscal Year: 18/19
Rationale for Project List Selection for FY 18/19 RMRA allocation
Staff has developed a recommended list of projects for the Transportation Water and
Infrastructure Committee and the Board of Supervisors to consider for submitting to the
Commission.
When developing the recommended project list for RMRA funds, staff considered:
Eligibility criteria for RMRA funds
Emergency storm damage projects that exceeded existing road fund revenue capacity
Maintenance and rehabilitation priorities
Roadway safety
Expiring grants where local funds are necessary to complete the funding package
Geographic equity
Projects where expenditures had already occurred for design of the project and had
been shelved due to declining revenues
Multi-modal benefits in accordance with the Board of Supervisor’s Complete Streets
policy
Positive impact to Road Program performance metrics
Clearing the queue of delayed projects that were a result of declining gas tax revenues
Meeting customer expectations
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.148 of 176
Page 2 of 8
It should be noted that this project list is a small subset of the proposed project delivery list that
is outlined in the adopted Capital Road Improvement and Preservation Program document and
only focuses on how the RMRA funds will be expended as required by the Commission.
PROPOSED PROJECTS (Total RMRA = $13.8M)
Proposed Project 1: Road Drainage Maintenance (RMRA = $1.1 M)
Description:
Ditch Cleaning – This routine maintenance item is to perform drainage ditch cleaning
from flood control channels and ditches to remove debris and vegetation which may
obstruct the passage of stormwater and cause local flooding. (RMRA = $200k) County
Project No.: 0672-6U2303
Clean Catch Basin – This routine maintenance item is to perform cleaning of sediment
and prevent obstructions of catch basins (drainage inlets) and related pipe systems. The
county has over twenty thousand catch basins throughout the unincorporated portions of
the County. (RMRA = $600k) County Project No.: 0672-6U2308
Inspect Catch Basin – This routine maintenance item is to perform inspections of catch
basins and associated systems. This includes a visual inspection of the drainage inlet
and any clean water inserts. Follow-up video inspections may be required for deeper
inlets and/or suspected structural issue concerning the inlets. (RMRA = $300k) County
Project No.: 0672-6U2308
RMRA Priority: Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Location:
Countywide
Latitude: 37.7° to 38.1°
Longitude: -121.5° to -122.4°
Proposed Schedule for Completion:
Anticipated construction year – 2018
Estimated Useful Life:
15 - 40 years (ditch – dirt roadway to concrete V-ditch)
40 years (concrete structures)
Proposed Project 2: Traffic Safety Devices Maintenance (RMRA = $800k)
Description:
Traffic Signing – This routine maintenance item is to perform sign repair, replacement,
and installation along the unincorporated County roadways. (RMRA = $300k) County
Project No.: 0672-6U2504
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.149 of 176
Page 3 of 8
Traffic Striping – This routine maintenance item is to perform new painting, routine
painting and replacement of pavement striping along the unincorporated County
roadways to enhance public safety. (RMRA = $500k) County Project No.: 0672-6U2504
RMRA Priority: Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Location:
Countywide
Latitude: 37.7° to 38.1°
Longitude: -121.5° to -122.4°
Proposed Schedule for Completion:
Anticipated construction year – 2018
Estimated Useful Life:
10 years (roadway signage)
2 - 4 years (roadway striping - thermoplastic)
Proposed Project 3: Pavement Repairs and Preparation (RMRA = $5.0M)
Description:
Pot Hole Patching – This routine maintenance item is to perform spot pavement
repairs of pot holes along the unincorporated County roadways to eliminate surface
hazards. (RMRA = $700k) County Project No.: 0672-6U2101
Pavement Fabric Patching – This routine maintenance item is to perform pavement
fabric patching along the unincorporated County roadways to correct minor pavement
defects and prevent further cracking. The patch will remove an area of existing
damaged asphalt and excavate to the roadway fabric portion. The roadway base will be
compacted and leveled to support the new fabric layer and asphalt layer. (RMRA =
$500k) County Project No.: 0672-6U2102
Pavement Failure Repair - Backhoe – This routine maintenance item is to conduct
pavement failure repair along the unincorporated County roadways. This task requires
the removal of a larger area of cracked or damaged pavement with a backhoe. The
roadway base will be compacted and overlaid with new asphalt. (RMRA = $600k)
County Project No.: 0672-6U2103
Pull Box Paving – This is a roadway paving operation to place asphalt on localized
roadway depressions to provide a smooth riding surface for the motorized public along
the unincorporated County roadways. (RMRA = $625k) County Project No.: 0672-
6U2104
Hand Patching – This is similar to pot hole patching to conduct spot pavement repairs
along unincorporated County roadway, but on a smaller scale. (RMRA=$600k) County
Project No.: 0672-6U2105
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.150 of 176
Page 4 of 8
Crack Sealing – This pavement preservation task is to seal cracks in the roadway.
Cracks are typically filled in to seal the roadway structural section from water
penetration. The goal is to prolong the service live of the pavement and/or prepare the
roadway surface for an overlay. (RMRA = $700k) County Project No.: 0672-6U2106
Leveling – This task is associated with leveling of large settlements, depressions,
surface irregularities and recent large pavement repairs. This is to provide a smooth
riding surface for the motorized public along unincorporated County roadways. (RMRA =
$500k) County Project No.: 0672-6U2107
Grinder Follow-up Paving – This task is associated with placing roadway asphalt on
localized settlements and pavement repairs. This is conducted as a follow-up to grinding
operations to provide a smooth riding surface. (RMRA = $80k) County Project No.:
0672-6U2107
Pavement Failure Repair – Grinder – This task is to remove badly cracked or broken
pavement. The roadway is then replaced with new asphalt and roadway base rock. This
task supports pavement preservation operations and also extends the service life of the
roadway pavement. (RMRA = $600k) County Project No.: 0672-6U2123
Pavement Grinding – Bobcat – This task is to remove flaws and tripping hazards in
the roadway or curb edge through machine grinding. (RMRA = $90k) County Project
No.: 0672-6U2108
RMRA Priority: Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Location:
Countywide
Latitude: 37.7° to 38.1°
Longitude: -121.5° to -122.4°
Proposed Schedule for Completion:
Anticipated construction year – 2018
Estimated Useful Life:
7 years (pavement surface treatment)
Proposed Project 4: County-Wide Surface Treatments (RMRA = $5.3M)
Countywide:
Description:
Double Chip Seal Project (2018) – This project will apply a double chip seal to
various roads as a pavement preservation project in the unincorporated Contra Costa
County. Work will also include surface preparation and pavement striping and markings.
(RMRA = $1.30M) County Project No. 0672-6U2162
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.151 of 176
Page 5 of 8
Slurry Seal Project (2018) – This project will apply a slurry seal to various roads as a
pavement preservation project in the unincorporated Contra Costa County. Work will also
include surface preparation and pavement striping and markings. (RMRA = $500k)
County Project No. 0672-6U2163
Single Chip Seal Project (2018) – This project will apply a single chip seal to various
roads as a pavement preservation project in the unincorporated Contra Costa County.
Work will also include surface preparation and pavement striping and markings. (RMRA =
$500k) County Project No. 0672-6U2162
RMRA Priority: Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Location:
Countywide (Bay Point and Central County)
Latitude: 37.7° to 38.1°
Longitude: -121.5° to -122.4°
Proposed Schedule for Completion:
Anticipated construction year – 2018
Estimated Useful Life:
7 years (pavement surface treatment)
Bay Point Area and Central County:
Asphalt Rubber Cape Seal Project (2018)
Description:
The project will apply an asphalt rubber chip seal covered with a type II slurry seal to
various roadways in the Bay Point (76 streets), Martinez (6 streets), Walnut Creek
Overlook (24 streets), Parkmead (33 streets) areas and a type II slurry seal on roadways
in Bay Point and Clyde areas (18 streets) and the Bella Vista and Clyde Trails. Work will
also include surface preparation and pavement striping and markings. (RMRA = $3M)
County Project No. 0672-6U2154
RMRA Priority: Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Location:
Cape Seal: Bay Point (76 streets), Martinez (6 streets), Walnut Creek Overlook (24
streets), Parkmead (33 streets)
Slurry Seal: Bay Point and Clyde areas (18 streets) and the Bella Vista and Clyde Trails
Proposed Schedule for Completion:
Anticipated construction year – 2018
Estimated Useful Life:
7 years (pavement surface treatment)
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.152 of 176
Page 6 of 8
Proposed Project 5: Pomona Street Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project – Phase
II (RMRA = $175k)
Description:
The project will improve two pedestrian crossings on Pomona Street near three schools
and a community center. At Pomona Street and 3rd Avenue, Pedestrian-Actuated
Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons (RRFB) and other pedestrian improvements will be
added. At Pomona Street and Rolph Avenue, bulb outs and ramps will be added. County
Project No. 0622-6U4090
RMRA Priority: Complete Streets Components
Location:
Pomona Street at 3rd Avenue
o 38.052399°, -122.222940°
Pomona Street at Rolph Avenue
o 38.052394°, -122.219860°
Proposed Schedule for Completion:
Anticipated construction year – 2018
Estimated Useful Life:
50 years (concrete)
12 years (RRFB)
Proposed Project 6: Tara Hills Pedestrian Infrastructure Project (RMRA = $420k)
Description:
The project will construct 20+ ADA compliant curb ramps on the roads surrounding the
Tara Hills Elementary School and North Campus Continuation High School. County
Project No. 0662-6R4211
RMRA Priority: Complete Streets Components
Location:
Dolan Way, Flannery Road, Shamrock Drive, Tara Hills area
37.993478°, -122.316368°
Proposed Schedule for Completion:
Anticipated construction year – 2018
Estimated Useful Life:
50 years (concrete)
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.153 of 176
Page 7 of 8
Proposed Project 7: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Project – Central & East
County (RMRA = $350k)
Description:
The project will install ten RRFB’s at uncontrolled crosswalks at seven school sites in
Central and East County. County Project No. 0662-6R4112
RMRA Priority: Complete Streets Components
Location:
1 – Delta Road, Knightsen Elementary School, Knightsen area
o 37°58'7.72"N 121°39'38.55"W
2 – Newport Drive, Timber Point Elementary School, Discovery Bay area crossing
o Two crossing sites
37°54'28.43"N 121°37'13.99"W
37°54'19.35"N 121°37'10.82"W
3 – Willow Lake Road, Discovery Bay Elementary School, Discovery Bay area
o 37°54'2.50"N 121°35'56.17"W
4 – Marina Road, Shore Acres Elementary School, Bay Point area
o Two crossing sites
38° 2'10.26"N 121°58'14.53"W
38° 2'10.29"N 121°58'11.49"W
5 – Pacifica Avenue, Riverview Middle School, Bay Point area
o Two crossing sites
38° 2'2.52"N 121°58'2.55"W
38° 2'2.53"N 121°57'56.32"W
6 – Castle Rock Road, Northgate High School, Walnut Creek area
o 37°54'27.44"N 122° 0'25.22"W
7 – Magnolia Way, Parkmead Elementary School, Walnut Creek area
o 37°53'13.37"N 122° 4'6.83"W
Proposed Schedule for Completion:
Anticipated construction year – 2018
Estimated Useful Life:
12 years (flashing beacons)
Proposed Project 8: Blackhawk Road Bikeway Project (RMRA = $210k)
Description:
The project will stripe a class 2 bike lane for 3.3 miles and class bikeway for 0.3 miles (a
portion at each end of the project) and connect to existing class 2 and class 3 bikeways
using thermoplastic striping. The bikeway will also use green pavement markings at
transition areas. County Project No. 0662-6R4018
RMRA Priority: Complete Streets Components
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.154 of 176
Page 8 of 8
Location:
Blackhawk Road, between Camino Tassajara and Mount Diablo Scenic Drive,
Blackhawk/Danville area
37.799376°, -121.921493°
Proposed Schedule for Completion:
Anticipated construction year – 2018
Estimated Useful Life:
2 - 4 years (thermoplastic striping)
Proposed Project 9: Alhambra Valley Road Embankment Repair ($450k)
Description:
The project will reconstruct the creek embankment and the roadway. The creek
embankment that supported Alhambra Valley Road eroded during a severe storm event
several years ago. Since then, traffic has been routed to one lane with stop control in
both directions. The remainder of Alhambra Valley Road is a rural two-lane roadway
winding through the hills between Martinez and Pinole. The proposed project length is
about 800 feet with a road widening to support two 12-foot wide travel lanes and 4-foot
shoulders for bicyclists. County Project No. 0662-6U4095
RMRA Priority: Roadway Safety, Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Location:
Alhambra Valley Road between Castro Ranch Road and Bear Creek Road
37.966073°, -122.207126°
Proposed Schedule for Completion:
Anticipated construction year – 2018
Estimated Useful Life:
40 years (roadway re-construction)
NW:sr
G:\transeng\BUDGET\RMRA\RMRA reporting\2018-03-30 TWIC Memo on SB1 Project List Submittal 2018 - Appendix A - 04-02-18.docx
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.155 of 176
APPENDIX B
LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS OVERALL PROJECT MAP
COUNTY PROJECT NO. xxxx-xxxxx
POMONA STREET PED. SAFETY IMPROV. PROJECT
TARA HILLS PED
INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECT
ALHAMBRA VALLEY RD
CREEK EMBANKMENT
REPAIR BLACKHAWK RD
BIKEWAY PROJECT
PED CROSSING
ENHANCEMENTS
CENTRAL AND EAST
COUNTY
Notes:
•See the following pages for detailed map of each individual project shown above.
•Detailed maps for Countywide Projects are not provided.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.156 of 176
RMRA PROJECT #5
POMONA STREET PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
COUNTY PROJECT NO. 0662-6U4090
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.157 of 176
RMRA PROJECT #6
TARA HILLS PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT
COUNTY PROJECT NO. 0662-6R4211
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.158 of 176
RMRA PROJECT #7
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ENCHANCEMENTS
CENTRAL AND EAST COUNTY
COUNTY PROJECT NO. 0662-6R4112
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.159 of 176
BLACKHAWK ROAD BIKEWAY PROJECT
RMRA PROJECT #8
COUNTY PROJECT NO. 0662-6R4018
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.160 of 176
RMRA PROJECT #9
ALHAMBRA VALLEY ROAD
CREEK EMBANKMENT REPAIR
COUNTY PROJECT NO. xxxx-6U4095
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.161 of 176
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 9.
Meeting Date:04/09/2018
Subject:REVIEW Communication, News, Miscellaneous Items of Interest to the
Committee and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: N/A
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
Items of interest are a standing item on the TWIC agenda.
Referral Update:
Communication Received:
03-21-18 RTPC Memo summary of items discussed at the same dated Contra Costa
Transportation Authority Board Meeting.
News/Articles/Editorials/Etc:
03-28-18: Mercury News: BART to crack down on Limebikes left at
station This article is provided by Warren Lai of Public Works.
03-21-18: Washington Post: Falling transit ridership poses an ‘emergency’ for cities, experts
fear The article is being provided with the comment that County staff has had conversations with
Contra Costa transit leaders on this topic in which similar concerns are expressed. Public transit
may be facing a print journalism level adjustment.
Miscellaneous:
03-16-18 email from Leland Frayseth to the California Department of Water Resources regarding
a Los Vaqueros Inundation map.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.162 of 176
RECEIVE information and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
03-16-18 Leland F. to CA Dept. of Water Resources
03-21-18 RTPC Memo
03-28-18 BART Limebike Crackdown
03-21-18 WaPo-Falling transit ridership poses ‘emergency’ for cities
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.163 of 176
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.164 of 176
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.165 of 176
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.166 of 176
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.167 of 176
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.168 of 176
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.169 of 176
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.170 of 176
BART to crack down on LimeBikes left at stations
By Erin Baldassari | ebaldassari@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group
PUBLISHED: March 28, 2018 at 6:29 am | UPDATED: March 29, 2018 at 6:09 pm
LimeBikes are left — some scattered and some parked — at the South San Francisco BART station in this undated photo by
BART’s bike program manager, Steve Beroldo. (Courtesy BART)
With the growing popularity of shared, dockless bikes in the Bay Area comes a new problem for
BART: bicycles carelessly strewn at stations, discarded on platforms or left in front of entrances.
The transit agency is cracking down on the growing phenomenon, said Steve Beroldo, BART’s
bike program manager, by forcing LimeBike and similar companies to remove recklessly
discarded or broken bikes, paint bike parking areas at stations so it’s clear where users should
leave them and ensure the companies have enough insurance in case someone trips over a bike
and wants to sue BART.
Although dockless bikes are relatively new to the United States and the Bay Area, the trend has
exploded in China, where heaps of bikes clutter sidewalks and public parks.
Since it rolled out in 2017, LimeBike has launched in Alameda, South San Francisco, Walnut
Creek, Albany and El Cerrito and is looking to expand elsewhere. The company introduced
electric bikes earlier this year and began offering electric kick scooters this month.
Unlike the baby blue Ford GoBikes, which require users to return the bikes to a designated
docking station, the bright green self-locking LimeBikes can be left anywhere.
That’s led to 20 to 30 bikes left at stations at any given time, sometimes in an orderly fashion,
and sometimes not, Beroldo said. Robert Raburn, a BART board director, said he’s seen an
increasing number of incidents at the Fruitvale and MacArthur stations with the dockless bikes
being left on station platforms or right in front of fare gates.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.171 of 176
“There haven’t been any incidents where someone has tripped over a bike yet,” Beroldo said.
“But I think it’s potentially a problem, and we need to operate the stations in a way that’s safe
and orderly.”
But that doesn’t mean BART wants to block the dockless bikes from parking at stations — after
all, Beroldo’s main goal is to increase the number of people ditching their cars and opting for
alternative modes of travel to and from the transit system.
For it’s part, LimeBike say it’s happy to cooperate. Jack Song, a spokesman for the company,
said it’s been “a positive, collaborative effort” working with BART.
“This partnership allows more convenience to the riders who are looking for additional
transportation options,” Song said in a statement.
The pending contract between BART and LimeBike comes on the heels of news from the shared
scooter company, Bird, that is deploying roughly 350 dockless, electric kick-scooters Tuesday in
San Francisco and San Jose, adding another provider to the shared mobility mix.
Bird CEO and founder Travis VanderZanden on Tuesday appealed to other shared bike and
scooter providers to take his “Save our Sidewalks” pledge: a promise to pick up discarded
bicycles daily, not increase the number of bikes or scooters unless they’re actually being used,
share usage information with cities and return $1 per bicycle or scooter to cities where they
operate to help those cities “build more bike lanes, promote safe riding, and maintain our shared
infrastructure.”
“We’ve all seen the results of out-of-control deployment in China,” VanderZanden said in a
letter to the leaders of shared bike and scooter companies LimeBike, Ofo, Mobike, LimeBike
and Jump. “We cannot let this happen to our cities here in the U.S.”
•Tags:
•Apps
•BART
•Bicycles
•Bike Sharing
•PM Report
•Regional
•Technology
•Transit
•Transportation
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.172 of 176
The Washington Post
Transportation
Falling transit ridership poses an
‘emergency’ for cities, experts fear
By By Faiz SiddiquiFaiz Siddiqui March 21March 21
Transit ridership fell in 31 of 35 major metropolitan areas in the U.S. last year, including each of the seven cities that serve theTransit ridership fell in 31 of 35 major metropolitan areas in the U.S. last year, including each of the seven cities that serve the
majority of riders, with losses largely stemming from buses, but punctuated by reliability issues on systems like Metro,majority of riders, with losses largely stemming from buses, but punctuated by reliability issues on systems like Metro,
according to an annual overview of public transit usage.according to an annual overview of public transit usage.
The analysis by the New York-based TransitCenter advocacy group, using data from the U.S. Department of Transportation’sThe analysis by the New York-based TransitCenter advocacy group, using data from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s
National Transit Database, raises alarm about the state of “legacy” public transit systems in the Northeast and Midwest andNational Transit Database, raises alarm about the state of “legacy” public transit systems in the Northeast and Midwest and
rising vehicle ownership and car-based commuting in cities nationwide.rising vehicle ownership and car-based commuting in cities nationwide.
Researchers concluded that factors such as lower fuel costs, increased teleworking, higher car ownership and the rise ofResearchers concluded that factors such as lower fuel costs, increased teleworking, higher car ownership and the rise of
alternatives such as Uber and Lyft are pulling people off trains and buses at record levels.alternatives such as Uber and Lyft are pulling people off trains and buses at record levels.
The data also showed 2017 was the lowest year of overall transit ridership since 2005, according to TransitCenter, and busThe data also showed 2017 was the lowest year of overall transit ridership since 2005, according to TransitCenter, and bus
ridership alone fell 5 percent.ridership alone fell 5 percent.
“I think it needs to be considered an emergency,” said Jarrett Walker, a transit planner who served as a consultant on a top-“I think it needs to be considered an emergency,” said Jarrett Walker, a transit planner who served as a consultant on a top-
down bus network redesign to curb cratering ridership in Houston. “When we don’t share space efficiently we get in eachdown bus network redesign to curb cratering ridership in Houston. “When we don’t share space efficiently we get in each
other’s way. And that is a problem for the livelihood, the viability, the livability and the economy of a city. ... It means moreother’s way. And that is a problem for the livelihood, the viability, the livability and the economy of a city. ... It means more
traffic, more congestion.”traffic, more congestion.”
D.C.’s Metro fell in the middle of the pack with a 3.2 percent decline in overall trips between 2016 and 2017. The trend wasD.C.’s Metro fell in the middle of the pack with a 3.2 percent decline in overall trips between 2016 and 2017. The trend was
largely driven by a six percent decline in bus ridership. Dramatic losses to subway ridership, including a 10 percent decline inlargely driven by a six percent decline in bus ridership. Dramatic losses to subway ridership, including a 10 percent decline in
2016 had appeared to level off by 2017, when the total number of trips fell by about a percent and a half.2016 had appeared to level off by 2017, when the total number of trips fell by about a percent and a half.
Metro has said about 30 percent of its ridership losses are tied to reliability issues, with telework, a shrinking federalMetro has said about 30 percent of its ridership losses are tied to reliability issues, with telework, a shrinking federal
workforce, Uber and Lyft and other factors to blame for the rest.workforce, Uber and Lyft and other factors to blame for the rest.
Exceptions to the trend, Seattle, Phoenix and Houston, either expanded transit coverage and boosted service or underwentExceptions to the trend, Seattle, Phoenix and Houston, either expanded transit coverage and boosted service or underwent
ambitious network overhauls, as in Houston’s case. (New Orleans ridership stayed flat.) In 2015, the Houston bus system wasambitious network overhauls, as in Houston’s case. (New Orleans ridership stayed flat.) In 2015, the Houston bus system was
transformed overnight from a traditional hub-and-spoke design focused on downtown to a grid that apportioned equal servicetransformed overnight from a traditional hub-and-spoke design focused on downtown to a grid that apportioned equal service
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.173 of 176
Read More Read More
to other parts of the city. In the aftermath of the redesign, the system saw significant weekend ridership gains and quelled ato other parts of the city. In the aftermath of the redesign, the system saw significant weekend ridership gains and quelled a
trend of dramatic losses that included losing a fifth of its ridership over a little more than a decade.trend of dramatic losses that included losing a fifth of its ridership over a little more than a decade.
“Meeting the competing demands of the“Meeting the competing demands of the
energy industry will take new thinking—andenergy industry will take new thinking—and
an unprecedented level of collaboration.an unprecedented level of collaboration.
Chowa, a traditional Japanese approach toChowa, a traditional Japanese approach to
problem-solving, could be the answer.”problem-solving, could be the answer.”
That was not the case for the majority of U.S. cities. Between 2016 and 2017, ridership fell in each of the seven largest transitThat was not the case for the majority of U.S. cities. Between 2016 and 2017, ridership fell in each of the seven largest transit
markets: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, D.C., San Francisco, Boston and Philadelphia.markets: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, D.C., San Francisco, Boston and Philadelphia.
Transit researchers said it is crucial for cities and transit agencies to slow the losses even amid declining revenue, asTransit researchers said it is crucial for cities and transit agencies to slow the losses even amid declining revenue, as
alternatives threaten to lure people back into cars, particularly as shared rides become cheaper with the arrival of autonomousalternatives threaten to lure people back into cars, particularly as shared rides become cheaper with the arrival of autonomous
vehicles. The problem: the declines mean a decrease in farebox recovery, which can often lead to fare increases and reducedvehicles. The problem: the declines mean a decrease in farebox recovery, which can often lead to fare increases and reduced
service, as in Metro’s case.service, as in Metro’s case.
“The thing that’s perhaps a little bit more scary about this downturn [is] the prospect of technology will continue to nibble“The thing that’s perhaps a little bit more scary about this downturn [is] the prospect of technology will continue to nibble
away [riders],” said Steven Polzin, program director for mobility policy research at the University of South Florida’s Center foraway [riders],” said Steven Polzin, program director for mobility policy research at the University of South Florida’s Center for
Urban Transportation Research, laying out the factors responsible: online shopping, distance learning, teleworking, ride-shareUrban Transportation Research, laying out the factors responsible: online shopping, distance learning, teleworking, ride-share
apps and alternatives such as bikeshare.apps and alternatives such as bikeshare.
Polzin described what he called a “tough political sell” for agencies faced with decreasing ridership.Polzin described what he called a “tough political sell” for agencies faced with decreasing ridership.
“Ridership declines, and then fare revenue declines, and then you have to cut service which means ridership declines more,” he“Ridership declines, and then fare revenue declines, and then you have to cut service which means ridership declines more,” he
said. “So folks get nervous about the cyclical nature of the decline because of lost fare revenue. But they also undermine kind ofsaid. “So folks get nervous about the cyclical nature of the decline because of lost fare revenue. But they also undermine kind of
the public will to invest additional subsidy dollars and service as well. It’s very hard to go to your government and say ‘mythe public will to invest additional subsidy dollars and service as well. It’s very hard to go to your government and say ‘my
ridership is down 10 percent, and I need more money to subsidize 10 percent less riders.’”ridership is down 10 percent, and I need more money to subsidize 10 percent less riders.’”
CONTENT FROM MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES GROUP CONTENT FROM MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES GROUP
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.174 of 176
Planners warn that cities simply do not have the capacity to handle a wholesale shift to other modes — whether today’s versionPlanners warn that cities simply do not have the capacity to handle a wholesale shift to other modes — whether today’s version
of ride-hailing, driving or eventual ride sharing through autonomous vehicles. Those alternatives, Walker said, are no matchof ride-hailing, driving or eventual ride sharing through autonomous vehicles. Those alternatives, Walker said, are no match
for “the basic geometry problem that only transit can solve — which is to move large numbers of people through a city in veryfor “the basic geometry problem that only transit can solve — which is to move large numbers of people through a city in very
little space.”little space.”
However, some researchers said declining ridership is not always indicative of transit’s failures.However, some researchers said declining ridership is not always indicative of transit’s failures.
Los Angeles-area transit agencies have seen dramatic bus ridership declines since the mid-2000s, with overall bus ridershipLos Angeles-area transit agencies have seen dramatic bus ridership declines since the mid-2000s, with overall bus ridership
falling about 30 percent over the course of a decade, according to the TransitCenter analysis.falling about 30 percent over the course of a decade, according to the TransitCenter analysis.
Michael Manville, an assistant professor of Urban Planning at the University of California, Los Angeles co-authored aMichael Manville, an assistant professor of Urban Planning at the University of California, Los Angeles co-authored a
January 2018 study that found many of the losses could be attributed to increased car ownership, particularly among low-January 2018 study that found many of the losses could be attributed to increased car ownership, particularly among low-
income and immigrant populations, who were in a better position to afford cars following the Great Recession.income and immigrant populations, who were in a better position to afford cars following the Great Recession.
“I think it puts transportation planners in a bit of an unusual position ... if in fact the reason for that departure is low-income“I think it puts transportation planners in a bit of an unusual position ... if in fact the reason for that departure is low-income
people are doing better, getting the ability to move around like everyone else, it’s hard to say that what we should do is getpeople are doing better, getting the ability to move around like everyone else, it’s hard to say that what we should do is get
them to remove themselves from their cars and back on trains and buses,” Manville said. “Transit systems should deliverthem to remove themselves from their cars and back on trains and buses,” Manville said. “Transit systems should deliver
quality service to low-income people. But low-income people do not owe us a transit system.”quality service to low-income people. But low-income people do not owe us a transit system.”
(Researchers also pointed out the increased ease of obtaining a car, through factors such as subprime auto loans.)(Researchers also pointed out the increased ease of obtaining a car, through factors such as subprime auto loans.)
Walker warned of the future the trends could portend.Walker warned of the future the trends could portend.
“That can’t just be a free market conversation of transit losing ridership, that’s fine, let the best mode win,” he said. “City“That can’t just be a free market conversation of transit losing ridership, that’s fine, let the best mode win,” he said. “City
governments have an urgent imperative to do what’s necessary to make it attractive for people to use modes that use spacegovernments have an urgent imperative to do what’s necessary to make it attractive for people to use modes that use space
efficiently.”efficiently.”
Metro’s and other systems’ reliability issues have hit low-income riders hardest, and now those systems are having a toughMetro’s and other systems’ reliability issues have hit low-income riders hardest, and now those systems are having a tough
time winning them back in the face of increasing alternatives, advocates say.time winning them back in the face of increasing alternatives, advocates say.
Kristen Jeffers, founder and editor of Kristen Jeffers, founder and editor of The Black UrbanistThe Black Urbanist blog, said riders are leaving because of declining service and the blog, said riders are leaving because of declining service and the
increased availability of other options to fill the gaps.increased availability of other options to fill the gaps.
“Now that you have a car or a bike or a scooter on an app in your hand, and it’s right there — in a lot of major cities, why not“Now that you have a car or a bike or a scooter on an app in your hand, and it’s right there — in a lot of major cities, why not
use that? “ Jeffers said. “Now you don’t have the indignity of being stuck on the side of the road for a bus that never comes.”use that? “ Jeffers said. “Now you don’t have the indignity of being stuck on the side of the road for a bus that never comes.”
She said transit systems need to regain trust through community outreach and going out of their way to cater to riders whoShe said transit systems need to regain trust through community outreach and going out of their way to cater to riders who
might previously not have had a choice.might previously not have had a choice.
“Treating the bus like a prestige system,” she said, similar to their treatment of heavy rail systems in the past.“Treating the bus like a prestige system,” she said, similar to their treatment of heavy rail systems in the past.
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.175 of 176
Metro is pondering a wholesale redesign of its bus system, with a study “to examine travel patterns, customer demand,Metro is pondering a wholesale redesign of its bus system, with a study “to examine travel patterns, customer demand,
technology opportunities and how to most cost-effectively deliver Metrobus service to riders,” according to agencytechnology opportunities and how to most cost-effectively deliver Metrobus service to riders,” according to agency
spokeswoman Sherri Ly. The agency has yet to award a contract for the study, she said.spokeswoman Sherri Ly. The agency has yet to award a contract for the study, she said.
Meanwhile another West Coast city, Seattle, is viewed as the model for how transit agencies can recoup ridership in an era ofMeanwhile another West Coast city, Seattle, is viewed as the model for how transit agencies can recoup ridership in an era of
population growth, an improving economy and rapid technological change — in part because of the popularity of buses. Thepopulation growth, an improving economy and rapid technological change — in part because of the popularity of buses. The
city’s bus ridership has steadily grown from 92 million to 119 million trips over 16 years, the TransitCenter analysis shows.city’s bus ridership has steadily grown from 92 million to 119 million trips over 16 years, the TransitCenter analysis shows.
Meanwhile light-rail ridership has ballooned amid expansions, to 32 million trips last year.Meanwhile light-rail ridership has ballooned amid expansions, to 32 million trips last year.
The city, which has some of the worst traffic congestion in the country, hosts about 45,000 Amazon employees and had addedThe city, which has some of the worst traffic congestion in the country, hosts about 45,000 Amazon employees and had added
60,000 workers to its center city core since 2010, according to Andrew Glass-Hastings, director of transit and mobility for the60,000 workers to its center city core since 2010, according to Andrew Glass-Hastings, director of transit and mobility for the
Seattle Department of Transportation.Seattle Department of Transportation.
Meanwhile Seattle voters have approved three high-dollar, transit-friendly initiatives that in the eyes of public officials haveMeanwhile Seattle voters have approved three high-dollar, transit-friendly initiatives that in the eyes of public officials have
paid dividends and will continue to boost ridership: a $50 million annual funding boost to bus service, a billion-dollar buspaid dividends and will continue to boost ridership: a $50 million annual funding boost to bus service, a billion-dollar bus
rapid transit expansion and a $54-billion light-rail expansion plan that would build 62 miles of light-rail in a project that willrapid transit expansion and a $54-billion light-rail expansion plan that would build 62 miles of light-rail in a project that will
extend into the 2030s. The improved bus service has meant the build-out of priority bus lanes and higher frequencies, withextend into the 2030s. The improved bus service has meant the build-out of priority bus lanes and higher frequencies, with
buses coming every four to six minutes, Glass-Hastings says. The state also requires large employers to buses coming every four to six minutes, Glass-Hastings says. The state also requires large employers to enact programs thatenact programs that
encourage alternatives encourage alternatives to workers driving alone to work, resulting in commuter-benefit programs.to workers driving alone to work, resulting in commuter-benefit programs.
The lesson, says Glass-Hastings: “You can’t neglect your transit system for decades, have it be in disrepair and expect people toThe lesson, says Glass-Hastings: “You can’t neglect your transit system for decades, have it be in disrepair and expect people to
continue to use it, especially in a day and age when alternatives are so readily available.”continue to use it, especially in a day and age when alternatives are so readily available.”
The Washington, D.C. region, like many transit-centric cities, is a major player in the battle for Amazon’s second headquarters,The Washington, D.C. region, like many transit-centric cities, is a major player in the battle for Amazon’s second headquarters,
which brings the promise of about 50,000 jobs. Glass-Hastings said H2Q could be a coup for whichever city lands it. Aboutwhich brings the promise of about 50,000 jobs. Glass-Hastings said H2Q could be a coup for whichever city lands it. About
95 percent of workers to the new Center City jobs commute by a mode other than driving alone, he said, and in Amazon’s case95 percent of workers to the new Center City jobs commute by a mode other than driving alone, he said, and in Amazon’s case
its workers’ transit costs are company-covered.its workers’ transit costs are company-covered.
But there was a message for cities in Amazon’s preference of Seattle, he said:But there was a message for cities in Amazon’s preference of Seattle, he said:
“You can’t just drop 50,000 people in sort of a transit desert and expect them to seek out the bus.”“You can’t just drop 50,000 people in sort of a transit desert and expect them to seek out the bus.”
Faiz Siddiqui is a reporter with The Washington Post's transportation team. His coverage includes Metro, Uber and
Lyft. Follow @faizsays
04-09-18 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet - Pg.176 of 176