Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 03142022 - TWIC Agenda PktTRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE March 14, 2022 9:00 A.M. To slow the spread of COVID-19, in lieu of a public gathering, the meeting will be accessible via Zoom to all members of the public as permitted by Government Code section 54953(e). Supervisor Diane Burgis, 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. You are invited to a Zoom webinar. When: Mar 14, 2022 09:00 AM Pacific Time (US and Canada) Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://cccounty-us.zoom.us/j/81158219844 Meeting ID: 811 5821 9844 Or Telephone, dial: USA 214 765 0478 US Toll USA 888 278 0254 US Toll-free Conference code: 198675 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) 4.REVIEW record of meeting for December 13, 2021, Transportation, Water and Infrastructure 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) (Page 5) 5.RECEIVE the public draft of the Active Transportation Plan Report, dated March 2022, and DIRECT staff of the Public Works Director, on behalf of the County, to incorporate comments and present to the full Board of Supervisors. (Jeff Valeros, Public Works Department) (Page 8) 6.ACCEPT the recommendations from the Hazardous Materials Commission to address the potential impacts of sea level rise and DIRECT staff as appropriate. (Michael Kent, Contra Costa Health Services) (Page 195) 7.CONSIDER recommending that the Chair of the Board of Supervisors sign a letter to express the County's support for the Contra Costa Water District's pursuit of grant funding for the replacement of a section of their Shortcut Pipeline Project. (Ryan Hernandez, Department of Conservation and Development) (Page 202) 8.CONSIDER report on Local, State, Regional, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development) (Page 206) 9.CONSIDER recommendations on referrals to the Committee for 2022, REVISE as necessary, and DIRECT staff to bring the list to the full Board of Supervisors for approval. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development) (Page 232) 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 1 of 248 10.RECEIVE Communication, News, Miscellaneous Items of Interest to the Committee and DIRECT staff as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development) (Page 234) 11.The next meeting is currently scheduled for April 11, 2022. 12.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) 655-2915, Fax (925) 655-2750 john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 2 of 248 Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in meetings of its Board of Supervisors and Committees. Following is a list of commonly used abbreviations that may appear in presentations and written materials at meetings of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOB Area of Benefit BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BATA Bay Area Toll Authority BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan BGO Better Government Ordinance (Contra Costa County) BOS Board of Supervisors CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CalWIN California Works Information Network CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAO County Administrative Officer or Office CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFS Cubic Feet per Second (of water) CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission DCC Delta Counties Coalition DCD Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development DPC Delta Protection Commission DSC Delta Stewardship Council DWR California Department of Water Resources EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EIR Environmental Impact Report (a state requirement) EIS Environmental Impact Statement (a federal requirement) EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HBRR Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation HOT High-Occupancy/Toll HOV High-Occupancy-Vehicle HSD Contra Costa County Health Services Department HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IPM Integrated Pest Management ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA/JEPA Joint (Exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LCC League of California Cities LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy MAC Municipal Advisory Council MAF Million Acre Feet (of water) MBE Minority Business Enterprise MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Protection Act OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center PDA Priority Development Area PWD Contra Costa County Public Works Department RCRC Regional Council of Rural Counties RDA Redevelopment Agency or Area RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposals RFQ Request For Qualifications SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SR2S Safe Routes to Schools STIP State Transportation Improvement Program SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers WBE Women-Owned Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority WRDA Water Resources Development Act 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 3 of 248 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:03/14/2022   Subject:Administrative Items, if applicable.  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: N/A  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925)655-2915 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. 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 4 of 248 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:03/14/2022   Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for December 13, 2021, 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)655-2915 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 December 13, 2021, Committee Meeting with any necessary corrections. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments December 2021 TWIC Minutes 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 5 of 248 D R A F T TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE RECORD OF ACTION FOR December 13, 2021   Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair Supervisor Diane Burgis, Vice Chair    Present: Candace Andersen, Chair      Diane Burgis, Vice Chair    Staff Present: John Cunningham  Attendees:Mark Watts, Wade Finlinson, Michael Vitalich                   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 were discussed.   4.Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the November 8, 2021, Committee Meeting with any necessary corrections.       The Committee unanimously APPROVED the meeting record.   5.RECEIVE the 2021 Annual Report from the Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee and DIRECT staff as appropriate.       Staff provided an overview, acknowledged the IPM Committees work, and discussed the oversight of glyphosate. An unidentified call-in participant had questions re: pesticides and agricultural crops. The Committee directed staff to bring the report to the full Board of Supervisors.   6.CONSIDER report on Local, Regional, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate.       The Committee RECEIVED the report. 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 6 of 248   7.RECEIVE information and DIRECT staff as appropriate.      The Committee RECEIVED the communication, news and miscellaneous items of interest   8.The next meeting is TBA, 2022.   9.Adjourn      For Additional Information Contact:  John Cunningham, Committee Staff Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250 john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 7 of 248 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5. Meeting Date:03/14/2022   Subject:Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Submitted For: Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer  Department:Public Works Referral No.: 12   Referral Name: Monitor the implementation of the County Complete Streets Policy  Presenter: Jeff Valeros, (925) 313-2031 Contact: Jeff Valeros, (925) 313-2031 Referral History: On February 12, 2019 and July 9, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved the submittal of a Transportation Development Act grant application to Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for the Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan, which was awarded funding. On July 9, 2019, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution to accept grant funding from the Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Program from Caltrans. Referral Update: The Public Works Department and Conservation and Development Department have undertaken the preparation of Contra Costa County’s first Active Transportation Plan (ATP). The ATP will serve as a roadmap to enhance active transportation safety and mode share for the unincorporated areas in Contra Costa County. By definition, active transportation comprises any self-propelled, human-powered travel, such as walking and bicycling. The ATP’s vision statement is as follows: Contra Costa County will have an equitable transportation system that supports active transportation for all users of all ages and abilities, allowing all to travel conveniently, reliably, and free from harm. The goals and objectives for the ATP were developed in support of this vision and with consideration of other local and state plans and policies, desires of local residents, and emerging trends and opportunities in active transportation. The County’s recently adopted Vision Zero Plan, Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s (CCTA) 2018 Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and CCTA’s Contra Costa Vision Zero Framework & Systemic Safety Approach (Vision Zero Framework) each have goals supporting increases in bicycling and walking, and this ATP is consistent with such planning documents. Other statewide plans include the California Transportation Plan and the California State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. This plan was created to help facilitate the following goals: 1. Prioritize active transportation investments based on factors such as collision history or systemic risk, location in an impacted community, location near key destinations, and funding opportunities. 2. Shift trip modes by Contra Costa County residents and visitors from motor vehicles to active modes such as walking and biking to create a more sustainable community and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 3. Provide a vision for arterials and collectors within the unincorporated County roadway network to assist County departments in planning for private development, capital projects, and maintenance efforts. The County has been disseminating information during the ATP process through its website, ActiveContraCosta.org. County staff and the consultants, Fehr & Peers and Alta + Planning, used creative outlets to obtain input from county residents since in-person, workshop meetings were no longer a viable option due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Community engagement efforts included the following: social media outreach; sidewalk decals that direct residents to the project website; interactive webmap 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 8 of 248 where residents could provide direct input on areas of concern; an online survey; virtual meetings with various stakeholders and Municipal Advisory Councils; community pop-up events at the Bay Point and Hercules libraries, Pittsburg/Bay Point BART, Alamo Farmers’ Market, and Lefty Gomez Park. The projects proposed in the ATP report were developed and prioritized based on a variety of factors such as: killed or severely injured (KSI) collision history, projects within priority areas, recommendations from previous regional efforts, feedback from key stakeholders, proximity to key destinations (schools, hospitals, affordable housing, etc.), projects within Equity Priority Areas as defined by MTC, and ease of constructability. As of March 8, 2022, the draft ATP report has been made available for public review and comment. This review period will be open for two weeks, to which then the consultant will review all input received and incorporate appropriate feedback before finalizing the report. The County plans to bring the final ATP report for acceptance by the Board of Supervisors shortly after the period of public comment has ended. This must be done by April 12, 2022 in order to fulfill the requirements from the Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Program. Following the acceptance, the County will utilize the ATP report as a tool when prioritizing future active transportation-related capital projects and as a resource when pursuing grant funding. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECEIVE the public draft of the Active Transportation Plan Report, dated March 2022, and DIRECT staff of the Public Works Director, on behalf of the County, to incorporate comments and present to the full Board of Supervisors. Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impact. Attachments Draft Final Active Transportation Plan 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 9 of 248 draft final version March 2022 Prepared By Contra Costa County ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 10 of 248 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 11 of 248 The Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan (ATP) provides a comprehensive look at the needs and opportunities to improve bicycling and walking throughout the unincorporated areas of the County. The plan outlines investments in new bicycle facilities, upgraded crossings, enhanced trail connections, and improved walkways. These investments prioritize improvements within historically underserved and impacted communities. The process of developing this Plan began with documenting community needs and input, and builds off the County’s efforts in the recently adopted Vision Zero Action Plan. The Action Plan included a systemic look at safety and collision history within the County, including improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians. This Plan is intended to serve as an implementing action of the Vision Zero Action Plan, as well as guide future grant and funding applications for active transportation projects that support mode shift to walking and bicycling. The Plan includes: • An introduction to the project and overview of unincorporated Contra Costa County (Chapter 1) • A guiding vision statement with associated goals and actions (Chapter 2) • A review of the existing conditions for bicycling and walking within the County (Chapter 3) • Detailed feedback from multiple phases of public outreach and engagement (Chapter 4) • An overview of projects and programs designed to respond to community input and prioritize investments where they’re needed most (Chapter 5) • A set of seven project groupings for priority implementation, along with cost, construction, and funding implications (Chapter 6) In support of the County’s goals for sustainability, safety for all road users, economic vitality, and equitable investment, the projects and programs in this Plan represent an exciting and critical set of opportunities for the County’s first-ever Active Transportation Plan. 3Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 12 of 248 Acknowledgements Contra Costa County Staff Jerry Fahy Monish Sen Mary Halle Jeff Valeros Alexander Zandian Robert Sarmiento Kelly Kalfsbeek Project Team Fehr & Peers Meghan Mitman Kari McNickle Ashlee Takushi Terence Zhao Susie Hufstader Alta Planning & Design Mauricio Hernandez Ben Frazier 4 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 13 of 248 TABLE OF CONTENTS 6 Chapter 1: Introduction 22 Chapter 2: Vision and Goals 26 Chapter 3: Existing Conditions 74 Chapter 4: Community Input and Collaboration 92 Chapter 5: Project Development and Support Programs 114 Chapter 6: Implementation 154 Appendix A: Project List 162 Appendix B: Funding Sources 172 Appendix C: Collision Profiles 5Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 14 of 248 CHAPTER 1 6 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 15 of 248 INTRODUCTION 7Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 16 of 248 Purpose of this Plan The Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan (ATP ) will serve as a roadmap to enhance active transportation safety and mode share for the unincorporated areas in Contra Costa County. Active transportation is any self- propelled, human-powered travel, such as walking and bicycling. By prioritizing active transportation, Contra Costa County hopes to create a more sustainable and healthy community and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Parallel to this Plan is the development of the County’s Vision Zero Action Plan (CCC Vision Zero Plan). By embracing Vision Zero, the County is committed to the elimination of severe injuries and fatalities resulting from traffic collisions on County roadways. The CCC Vision Zero Plan focuses on a range of policies, programs, and practices that support the Safe System approach. Embracing the Safe System approach as part of this ATP aligns with the 2022 National Safety Strategy released by the US DOT1, and Caltrans’ pivot in their safety philosophy and commitment with the most recent Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Committing to and providing a Safe System, Figure 1 The Safe System Approach Source: Fehr & Peers for FHWA 1 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ zerodeaths/docs/FHWA_SafeSystem_ Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf especially for vulnerable road users, is a foundational need for the County. This Plan reinforces this notion and adds additional opportunities for mode shift to active uses building on that baseline of safe mobility. 8 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 17 of 248 What Are Complete Streets? Complete Streets are designed to prioritize safety, comfort, and access to destinations for all users and modes of travel. Complete Streets are unique to a community’s context and the needs of the surrounding area. A complete street design often balances benefits for those walking, biking, and taking transit, including improvements such as safety enhancements at crosswalks, better bus stop waiting areas, and enhanced bicycle facilities. This Plan, the first of its kind for the County, presents a major opportunity for the County to enhance the existing multimodal transportation network by integrating bicycle, pedestrian, safe routes to school, and accessibility improvements using a Complete Streets approach. The County ATP builds upon many elements that help make the County an exciting destination for residents and businesses, as well as the many visitors to the region. Just as many factors influence how travelers behave, numerous factors influence what actions an agency can take. While this effort is focused on bicycle, pedestrian, ADA, and safe routes to school planning, considerations have been made related to economic vitality, efficient movement of goods/ people, public health, and ecological challenges. Facilitating an increase in walking and biking can confer a variety of benefits such as reduced congestion, improved safety, comfort, health, air quality, economic vitality, and quality of life. Increased walking and bicycling will also support the County’s requirements under new regulatory frameworks, including mandates to reduce greenhouse gases and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Benefits of Active Transportation Walking, biking, and rolling are transportation methods integral to the health of individuals and communities. The benefits of active transportation include the following: • Connects families to schools, parks, work, shopping, restaurants, and bus stops, as well as other members of the community • Improves health and reduces the incidence of disease and obesity • Reduces air pollution and greenhouse gas production • Supports local businesses and economic vitality • Creates more vibrant and lively streets • Saves money on gas and car maintenance 9Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 18 of 248 Environment By enabling people to make short trips on foot or bicycle instead of a car, active transportation can help communities address several environmental challenges. The most discussed, and perhaps most critical, environmental benefits of active transportation are reduced air pollution and emissions of greenhouse gases. Current data show that the transportation system is responsible for approximately 40% of the greenhouse gas emissions in California.2 Other environmental benefits include energy savings, less noise pollution, less water pollution, and even reduced pressure to develop agricultural and open space. 2 Contra Costa Transportation Authority, 2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, https://ccta.net/wp-content/ uploads/2021/07/2017-CTP- Vol-1.2017.10.05.pdf, pg ES-6. Mobility Active transportation gives people who cannot or choose not to drive more and affordable options for getting around independently to meet their daily needs. Those who benefit most from improvements to walking and biking include children (particularly for going to school); many seniors and people with disabilities; and low-income families, for whom the cost of owning and operating a car can be prohibitive. Transportation options are also important for drivers who would like to spend less time behind the wheel shuttling themselves or others around. Drivers also benefit from less congestion, less demand for parking, and fewer vehicle miles traveled (VMT) when more people walk and bicycle. Even a small number of people shifting their mode choice to walking and biking can have a positive impact on reducing traffic congestion. Health Active transportation allows people to build physical activity into everyday life by enabling them to walk or bike to their destination(s). Even a moderate amount of daily exercise offers an impressive range of benefits to both physical and mental health. These benefits range from lower risk of heart disease, adult-onset diabetes, high-blood pressure, and stress to more energy, flexibility, and muscle strength. Physical activity can also help combat obesity and lower asthma rates. Livability Promoting active transportation leads people to walk and bike more and to drive less, which can improve quality of life in important ways. When residents are out on foot or on bike, they interact more with neighbors. Residential streets become calmer and quieter, encouraging community interaction. Streets become not only safer, but also livelier with an increased presence of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 10 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 19 of 248 Equity Active transportation can benefit the bottom line of households, businesses, and cities. The economic benefits of walking and biking include lower transportation costs for individuals and families, increased property values in traffic-calmed neighborhoods, savings to cities from less wear and tear on streets, less demand for roadway improvements and parking lots, and a greater ability for communities to attract new residents and employers. Schoolchildren walking near Walnut Heights Elementary School 11Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 20 of 248 Public Participation Obtaining input from Contra Costa County residents was an important piece of the ATP development process. A project website was created and community workshops were held to solicit feedback on high priority areas within the County. Community participation was solicited through the following: • An interactive project website to promote outreach and educational materials, document workshops and events, host the online survey and interactive map, and allow the public to provide feedback on the draft plan • A Public Engagement Plan with trusted community organizations to engage on the County’s impacted communities, non-English speaking households, people without Internet access, and other hard-to-reach populations • Targeted community meetings to discuss key issues around active transportation relevant to each organization or group’s mission • Pop-up engagement events that included engagement toolboxes on educational materials, project information, event flyers, and culturally relevant engagement activities, along with mobile workshops to understand community- specific needs and increase public visibility and understanding of the Plan • Four community workshops to receive feedback on the Plan at all stages of analysis and recommendations Full details on the public participation process and outcomes can be found in Chapter 4. On 2nd Avenue in Crockett overlooking the Carquinez Bridge 12 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 21 of 248 3101 3101 ·123 ·160·242 ·24 ·4!"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_VZ\basemap\Project_Locations.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 2 Regions and Communities in Unincorporated Contra Costa County North Richmond Kensington East Richmond Heights Rollingwood El Soberante Tara Hills Bayview-Montalvin Rodeo Crockett Port Costa Saranap Contra Costa Centre Canyon Briones Pacheco Vine Hill Alamo Blackhawk Tassajara Diablo Clyde Mountain View Bay Point Discovery Bay Bethel Island Byron Knightsen West County Communities Central County Communities East County Communities Incorporated areas Unincorporated areas Parks 13Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 22 of 248 About Contra Costa County Unincorporated Contra Costa County is a dispersed set of urban, suburban, and rural communities spread throughout Contra Costa County. Contra Costa County is broadly divided into three sub-regions, and the unincorporated areas include the following communities, as shown on Figure 2: • West County — Kensington, El Sobrante, North Richmond, Rodeo, Crockett, Port Costa, Bayview- Montalvin, East Richmond Heights, Rollingwood, Tara Hills • Central County — Canyon, Pacheco, Vine Hill, Clyde, Contra Costa Centre (Pleasant Hill BART station), Saranap, Alamo, Blackhawk, Tassajara, Briones, Diablo, Mountain View • East County — Bay Point, Bethel Island, Knightsen, Discovery Bay, Byron Contra Costa County’s landscape is widely varied, and in most places generally suburban and rural in character. The estimated countywide population is 1,165,927, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (2020). Of this total population, approximately 174,000 residents live in unincorporated areas. A demographic assessment reveals the following: • Contra Costa County is racially diverse: About 26% of the population identifies as Hispanic or Latinx, 9% as Black, and 18% as Asian. Communities with populations of over 70% people of color include North Richmond, Bay Point, and Tara Hills. • Contra Costa County is linguistically diverse: Large Hispanic/Latinx populations are located in both North Richmond (54%) and Bay Point (58%), where more than 20% of people have limited English proficiency.3 • Contra Costa County has high income inequality: The median income in unincorporated Contra Costa is $132,600, which is higher than Contra Costa County as a whole ($99,716).4 However, 16% of people in unincorporated Contra Costa are low income, with 38% of those low-income residents living in low- income communities where more than 28% of people are below 200% of the 3 The Metropolitan Transportation Commission defines Limited English Proficiency as a person above the age of five years, who do not speak English at least “well” as their primary language or had a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English at least “well,” as defined by the U.S. Census. 4 U.S. Census 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates. 14 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 23 of 248 federal poverty level.5 The highest concentrations of poverty in Contra Costa County are located in just a few neighborhoods, including North Richmond, Rodeo, and Bay Point. The median incomes in these communities are all less than the threshold of 80% of the state median income, or $60,200. 5 MTC defines low income as a person living in a household with incomes less than 200% of the federal poverty level established by the Census Bureau. A community is considered low income when 28% or more of people in the census tract meet this definition. https://bayareametro.github.io/ Spatial-Analysis-Mapping-Projects/ Project-Documentation/Equity-Priority- Communities/ • Many Contra Costa County residents get around by car: In Contra Costa County overall, 98% of households have access to an automobile. However, in a few neighborhoods in unincorporated Contra Costa County, that number is much lower. In Bay Point and Rodeo, for example, 9-10% of households have no vehicle access. These numbers are significantly above countywide and Bay Area region-wide averages and indicates a high need for active transportation and public transportation to facilitate equitable mobility. Key Destinations and Land Uses Figure 3 shows key destinations for bicyclists and pedestrians throughout the County. Destinations include: • Schools • Parks • Civic destinations, including libraries and post offices • Affordable housing, including senior housing 15Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 24 of 248 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_ATP\contextual.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 3 Key Attractions Source: California Department of Education, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Libraries Post offices Affordable housing Incorporated areas Unincorporated areas Parks Schools 16 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Walnut Walnut CreekCreek AntiochAntioch RichmondRichmond MartinezMartinez ConcordConcord Bay PointBay Point San RamonSan Ramon ^N 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 25 of 248 Impacted Communities Service to historically marginalized and underserved communities is a key factor in many grant funding programs such as California’s Active Transportation Program. This plan presents four different indicators of impacted communities6, often referred to as environmental justice communities. • Household median income – census tracts with median household income less than 80% of the statewide median, of $60,188 (American Community Survey (ACS) 2015-2019) (Figure 4) • Free or reduced-price meal eligibility – the share of students at a school who are eligible for subsidized meals. Schools with at least 75% eligible students are considered disadvantaged by the Active Transportation Program’s guidelines (Figure 5) • CalEnviroScreen 4.0 score percentile – a measure of environmental health by census tract. Inputs include socioeconomic factors, population characteristics, pollution factors, and environmental factors. Tracts with higher percentiles are more disadvantaged. The worst scoring 25% are considered disadvantaged by the ATP guidelines (Figure 6) 6 The term “impacted community” is based off of MTC’s definition for Disadvantaged Communities. These communities are defined as low-income areas that are disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation. • California Healthy Places Index – a measure of the community conditions shaping health outcomes. Factors include economic, education, transportation, social, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare access. Census tracts in the worst scoring 25% are considered disadvantaged by the ATP guidelines (Figure 7) 17Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 26 of 248 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_ATP\contextual.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 4 Median Household Income Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 2015 - 2019 More than 120% of state median income Between 80% and 120% of state median income Less than 80% of state median income Incorporated areas Unincorporated areas Parks 18 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Walnut Creek Antioch Richmond Martinez Concord Bay Point San Ramon ^N 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 27 of 248 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_ATP\contextual.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 5 Schools in Contra Costa County by Student Body Eligibility for Free and Reduced Price Meals Source: California Department of Education 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Incorporated areas Unincorporated areas Parks 19Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Walnut Walnut CreekCreek AntiochAntioch RichmondRichmond MartinezMartinez ConcordConcord Bay PointBay Point San RamonSan Ramon ^N 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 28 of 248 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_ATP\contextual.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 6 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score Percentile Source: California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 0-25th percentile (best) 25-50th percentile 50-75th percentile 75-100th percentile (worst) 20 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Walnut Creek Antioch Richmond Martinez Concord Bay Point San Ramon ^N 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 29 of 248 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_ATP\contextual.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 7 California Healthy Places Index by Census Tract Source: Public Health Alliance of Southern California 0-25th percentile (worst) 25-50th percentile 50-75th percentile 75-100th percentile (best) 21Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Walnut Creek Antioch Richmond Martinez Concord Bay Point San Ramon ^N 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 30 of 248 CHAPTER 2 22 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 31 of 248 VISION AND GOALS 23Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 32 of 248 Vision Statement Contra Costa County will have an equitable transportation system that supports active transportation for users of all ages and abilities, allowing all to travel conveniently, reliably, and free from harm. The goals and objectives for this plan were developed in support of this Vision and with consideration of other local and state plans and policies, desires of local residents, and emerging best practices and opportunities in active transportation. The County’s General Plan, Vision Zero Plan, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s (CCTA) 2018 Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2018 CBPP), and CCTA’s Vision Zero Framework & Systemic Safety Approach (Vision Zero Framework) each have goals supporting increases in bicycling and walking. Other statewide plans include the California Transportation Plan and the California State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The MTC Regional Active Transportation Plan is currently under development, but will be an additional resource once published. Goals and Actions This plan was created to help facilitate the following goals and actions. 1 Prioritize active transportation investments based on factors such as collision history or systemic risk, location in an impacted community, location near key destinations, and funding opportunities. Action 1-1: Use the High-Injury Network (HIN) to identify hot spots and systemic risks to apply for grant funding to implement projects prioritizing impacted communities’ access to key destinations Action 1-2: Enhance equity for communities that have seen less infrastructure investment and are disproportionately impacted by collisions Action 1-3: Support neighborhood retail and local business vitality through projects that connect to and through key destinations 24 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 33 of 248 Shift trip modes by Contra Costa County residents and visitors from motor vehicles to active modes such as walking and biking to create a more sustainable community and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Action 2-1: Enable children to walk and bike to school by providing safe and accessible routes to school Action 2-2: Fill key gaps in the network by providing first/last mile connections and reducing the stress level at crossings and interchanges Action 2-3: Implement Class IV bike lanes, also known as protected or separated bicycle facilities. This physical separation of bicyclists from motor vehicles can reduce the level of stress, improve comfort for all users, and contribute to an increase in mode shift. 2 Provide a vision for arterials and collectors within the unincorporated County roadway network to assist County departments in planning for private development, capital projects, and maintenance efforts. Action 3-1: Commit to Complete Streets and Safe System approaches and clarify how existing County procedures, policies, and plans may conflict Action 3-2: Collaborate with key County stakeholders, neighboring jurisdictions, and Caltrans for larger funding efforts to complement infrastructure with non- infrastructure projects and create regionally significant projects 3 25Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 34 of 248 CHAPTER 3 26 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 35 of 248 EXISTING CONDITIONS 27Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 36 of 248 Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks Currently, Contra Costa County has 25.1 miles of shared-use, off-street paths, 56.4 miles of roadway with designated bicycle facilities, and 440.6 miles of sidewalks in unincorporated areas. These networks are summarized in Table 1 and mapped in Figure 8. Table 1 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks Type Miles Sidewalks*440.6 Class I Bike Paths (Multi-Use)25.1 Class II Bike Lanes 54.0 Class III Bike Routes 2.4 Class IV Bikeways 0 * Per side of street: that is, one mile of street with sidewalks on both sides would count as two miles of sidewalks. Bicycling and walking travel modes are employed and enjoyed by the community and visitors to Contra Costa County. Throughout this document, all references to pedestrians are inclusive of persons with disabilities who use mobility aids (scooters, manual and powered wheelchairs) to access public pedestrian walkways. The County’s existing roadway network primarily serves vehicular traffic for regional routes of significance. Bicycle and pedestrian networks often have gaps where unincorporated Contra Costa County meets various incorporated jurisdictions. Two people on horse- back using a crosswalk in Bay Point 28 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 37 of 248 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_ATP\contextual.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 8 Existing Bike Facilities in Contra Costa Source: CCTA Class I paths Class II bike lanes Class III bike routes Incorporated areas Unincorporated areas Parks 29Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Walnut Walnut CreekCreek AntiochAntioch RichmondRichmond MartinezMartinez ConcordConcord Bay PointBay Point San RamonSan Ramon ^N 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 38 of 248 Existing Bicycle Facilities Cities and counties around the Bay Area and nationwide are using a “level of traffic stress” (LTS) analysis to help determine the comfort of bicycling in their communities. An LTS analysis takes different travel corridor characteristics into consideration, including the number of travel lanes; speed of traffic; number of vehicles; presence of bike lanes; width of bike lanes; and presence of physical barriers providing protection from traffic. Based on these variables, a bicycle facility can be rated with an LTS ranging from 1 to 4. The least stressful (most comfortable) facilities are given an LTS 1 rating. Facilities with this rating are typically shared- use paths; separated bikeways; low-volume and low-speed bike routes; and bike lanes on calm and narrow streets. The most stressful (least comfortable) facilities are given an LTS 4 rating. Facilities with this rating are typically major arterials with multiple lanes of traffic (with or without bicycle lanes in some cases, depending on speeds) or narrower streets with higher speed limits. The 2018 CBPP7 further details a low-stress Countywide Bikeway Network (CBN), that when implemented, will provide connected facilities to serve all ages and abilities, address the barriers created by high- stress arterials and collectors, and provide key connections between destinations and infrastructure for local bikeways. Furthermore, the 2018 CBPP also includes an LTS analysis of how the implementation of the CBN would increase the existing 149 miles of low-stress facilities to 513 miles of low-stress facilities countywide. 7 2018 Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, https://ccta.net/wp-content/ uploads/2018/10/5b8ec26192756.pdf, pgs 43-53. Contra Costa County’s existing and proposed bikeway network consists of four primary bikeway types, as classified in Chapter 1000 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (2015). • Bike Paths and Shared-Use Paths (Class I) • Standard Bike Lanes and Buffered Bike Lanes (Class II) • Bike Routes and Boulevards (Class III) • Separated Bikeways (Class IV) Cross sections of different examples of these facilities are presented in Figure 9. 30 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 39 of 248 Figure 9 Cycling Comfort and Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Completely separated right-of-way for exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians Not to scale 8’-12’ Paved Path 2’ Shoulder 2’ Shoulder SHARED-USE PATH (CLASS I) BICYCLE LANE (CLASS II) Not to scale Sidewalk Bike Lane Sign (Optional) Sidewalk7-8’ Parking 5’-6’ Bike Lane 5’-6’ Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane BICYCLE BOULEVARD (CLASS III) Not to scale Sidewalk SidewalkParking Parking ParkingTravel Lane Bicycle Boulevard Signs Travel Lane BICYCLE ROUTE (CLASS III) Not to scale Sidewalk SidewalkTravel Lane Bicycle Route Signs Travel Lane CYCLE TRACK/SEPARATED BIKEWAY (CLASS IV) Not to scale Sidewalk 5’-7’ Bike Lane & 3-5’ min. Buffer 5’-7’ Bike Lane & 2-3’ min. Buffer SidewalkParking Travel Lane Travel Lane BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE (CLASS II) Not to scale Sidewalk 0’-2’ Striped BufferSidewalkParking 5’-6’ Bike Lane 5’-6’ Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane0’-3’ Striped Buffer1.5’-3’ Striped BufferOn-street striped lane for one-way bike travel Modified on-street bike lane with painted buffer Shared on-street facility with improvements to prioritize bicycle traffic Shared on-street facility Physically separated bike lane 31Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 40 of 248 Bike Paths and Shared-Use Paths (Class I) Bike paths and shared-use paths provide a separate right- of-way for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians. They tend to have minimal cross-traffic and are often located along creeks, canals, and former rail lines. Bike paths are considered the lowest stress facilities for bicyclists. The Iron Horse Trail, the Delta de Anza Trail, and the Bay Trail are major regional shared-use paths that link unincorporated Contra Costa County communities with neighboring cities, recreation areas, and regional transit. In several locations, like the Iron Horse Trail crossing of Treat Boulevard, grade-separated crossings provide access across barriers. Other smaller trail segments like the Wildcat Creek Trail and the Rodeo Creek Trail provide access and connectivity within neighborhoods. Pedestrians and bicyclists using a Class I path in Walnut Creek 32 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 41 of 248 Standard Bike Lanes (Class II) Standard bike lanes designate an exclusive space for bicyclists using pavement markings and signage. The bike lane is located adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and flows in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are typically on the right side of the street, between the adjacent travel lane and curb, road edge, or travel lane. Within Contra Costa County bike lanes are striped on many streets, such as Fred Jackson Way, Willow Pass Road, Pacheco Boulevard, and Danville Boulevard. Class II bike lane along Appian Way 33Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 42 of 248 Buffered Bike Lanes (Class IIB) Buffered bike lanes are standard bike lanes paired with a designated buffer space, separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane. This type of bikeway provides greater distance between vehicles and bicycles; provides space for bicyclists to pass each other; provides greater space for bicycling without making the bike lane appear so wide that it might be mistaken for a travel lane; and encourages bicycling by contributing to the perception of safety. Contra Costa County currently installs bike lanes with buffers where space allows, for instance along Oak Road, Pacheco Boulevard in front of Las Juntas Elementary, and Bailey Road. Class IIB buffered bike lane near Las Juntas Elementary School on Pacheco Boulevard 34 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 43 of 248 Bike Routes and Boulevards (Class III and Class IIIB) Bike routes are designated streets where bicyclists and automobile drivers are encouraged to share the road. The routes are typically designated with signage, but some streets also use sharrows to indicate where bicyclists should position themselves on the road. Bike routes are typically used where there is not enough right-of-way to provide a standard bike lane, or along low-volume, low-speed streets where bicyclists can comfortably share the road with automobile drivers. The County has installed Class III bike routes as appropriate throughout the County, for instance Oak Road, Blackhawk Road, and Rollingwood Drive. Class IIIB bicycle boulevards are similar to Class III bike routes, in that they are routes shared with auto traffic. Bicycle boulevards are primarily on low-speed and low-volume streets and can close important gaps in the bicycle network with insufficient space for dedicated lanes. Bicycle boulevards provide further enhancements to bike routes to encourage slow speeds and discourage non-local vehicle traffic via traffic diverters, chicanes, traffic circles, and/ or speed tables. Bicycle boulevards can also feature special wayfinding signage to nearby destinations or other bikeways. In Contra Costa, rural roads that are popular for recreational cycling are designated as Class III bicycle routes. No routes are currently designated and designed as bicycle boulevards, but many neighborhoods streets in the County are good candidates, where traffic calming and wayfinding could help encourage bicycling for local trips. Bike Route signage in unincorporated Contra Costa County, near Walnut Creek A sharrow marking on Oak Road 35Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 44 of 248 Separated Bikeways/Cycletrack (Class IV) Separated bikeways are often referred to as “cycle tracks” and they are a relatively newer class of bicycle facility. They have different forms but all share common elements—they provide space that is intended to be exclusively or primarily used for bicycles, and are physically separated from motor vehicle travel lanes, parking lanes, and sidewalks with a vertical element. Separated bikeways may be one-way or two-way and may be at street level or at sidewalk level. If at sidewalk level, a curb or median separates it from motor traffic, while different pavement color/ texture separates it from the sidewalk. If at street level, it can be separated from motor traffic by raised medians, on-street parking, or bollards. Separated bikeways provide dedicated and protected space for bicycling making them an attractive facility for riders of all ages and abilities. No Class IV bike lanes currently exist in unincorporated Contra Costa County, but future opportunities are being considered where it is contextually appropriate. A Class IV separated bikeway on Bancroft Road in Walnut Creek 36 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 45 of 248 Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking encourages bicycling by supporting the final stage of the trip. Locations with high ridership are excellent candidates for bicycle parking: these destinations include civic, residential, commercial, and office spaces. At these locations, both short-term and long-term parking should be accommodated. Short-term bicycle parking is temporary bicycle parking intended for visitors. Bicycle racks are a common form of short-term parking and are typically located in front of stores and other well-lit locations to discourage theft. Installing permanent bicycle racks near main entrances also helps bicyclists feel welcome and encourages them to ride their bicycle again on a return trip. Bicycle racks that allow at least two points of contact, such as the wheel and frame, provide the most protection against theft and accidental damage. Long-term bicycle parking is intended for employees, students, commuters, and residents to protect bicycles for extended periods. Long-term facilities are more secure and provide protection from weather elements. Long-term bicycle parking includes bike lockers, bike cages, and bike rooms. These facilities would likely require a third party to install and maintain. • Bike cages are fully enclosed, roofed shelters that house racks of bicycle parking, typically found at schools. • Bike lockers are outdoor enclosures that accommodate one or two bicycles and are usually leased monthly or paid short-term use. • Bicycle rooms are commonly found inside office or residential buildings and provide secure indoor parking. They may feature amenities such as bike pumps and quick- fix tools for employees and residents. Bike storage at Contra Costa Centre BART 37Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 46 of 248 Attitudes Towards Bicycling People typically fall into one of the following categories as bicyclists: • Strong and Fearless People in this group are highly skilled and have the most riding experience. They will use their bicycles on arterials even when there are no bikeways present. Studies suggest that “strong and fearless” riders represent less than 1% of people in a community. This group of riders will feel comfortable using facilities with any LTS rating. • Enthused and Confident This group consists of skilled riders who are also comfortable sharing the road but prefer using bikeways when they are available. “Enthused and confident” riders make up about 7% of people in a community. They typically feel comfortable using facilities with an LTS rating of 1, 2, or 3. • Interested but Concerned This group of people is curious about bicycling and enjoys riding, but are concerned about safety and therefore do not ride regularly. They typically avoid riding their bicycles on major arterials unless there are facilities that provide a high degree of protection. “Interested but concerned” riders represent the majority in a community (around 60%). Riders in this group may only feel comfortable using facilities with an LTS rating of 1 or 2. • No Way No How People in this group are simply not interested in riding a bicycle. Riding a bicycle may not appeal to them for several reasons. It may be inconvenient, or they may not be physically able to ride. This group represents approximately 33% of people in a community. 8 Jennifer Dill and Nathan McNeil, “Revisiting the Four Types of Cyclists: Findings from a National Survey,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2587: 90-99, 2016. These categories are explored further in Figure 10. Addressing comfort is one of the most important things any community can do to create a more bicycle- friendly environment. Several studies have shown that a community’s interest in biking can be increased by providing comfortable streets with lower- stress environments.8 38 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 47 of 248 Figure 10 Cycling Comfort and Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Number of Travel Lanes Presence of Bike Lanes Width of Bike LanesSpeed of Traffic Number of Vehicles Presence of Physical Barrier THE FOUR TYPES OF BICYCLISTS LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS Level of traffic stress (LTS) is a way to evaluate the stress a bike rider will experience while riding on the road. It is used to categorize roads by the types of riders above who will be willing to use them based on: Most children can feel safe riding on these streets. The mainstream “interested but concerned” adult population will feel safe riding on these streets. Streets that are acceptable to “enthused and confident” riders who still prefer having their own dedicated space. High-stress streets with high speed limits, multiple travel lanes, limited or non-existent bikeways, and long intersection crossing distances. 7%5%51%37% STRONGandFEARLESS ENTHUSEDandCONFIDENT INTERESTEDbutCONCERNED NOwayNOhow LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 39Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 48 of 248 Existing Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities include shared-use facilities, sidewalks, and crosswalks. Shared-Use Facilities Class I bikeways, frequently known as shared-use paths or trails, are shared by both pedestrians and cyclists. These facilities are described earlier in this chapter. Sidewalks Sidewalks are paved areas immediately adjacent to the vehicular right-of-way for the exclusive use of pedestrians and may be used by people riding bicycles unless prohibited. Existing sidewalks in the county may include concrete, asphalt, or decomposed granite surfaces. Unlike shared-use paths, they are directly adjacent to the main right-of-way. include adding pedestrian countdowns during the “Flash Don’t Walk” signal phase; providing the walk phase during each signal cycle without having to press the push button (also referred to as “pedestrian recall”); prohibiting right turn on red; and automatically giving pedestrians a leading pedestrian interval (LPI) at crossings. • Uncontrolled: This is a type of crosswalk that is not located at stop-signs or traffic signals. In some cases, uncontrolled crosswalks are also found in the middle of a larger block to provide quicker access between streets. • Sharks teeth, or yield markings, are typically installed before a marked crossing to notify motorists to stop and yield to pedestrians Crosswalks A legal crosswalk, whether marked or unmarked, in California is designed as the extension of the sidewalk as a desire line across the road at an intersection. Marked crosswalks feature striping and other enhancements to delineate a street crossing for pedestrians. Two types of marked crosswalks include: • Controlled: This type of crosswalk is located at stop- signs and traffic signals. They provide the most protection for pedestrians since they require drivers to come to a complete stop for to people in the crosswalk. Opportunities for enhancement may 40 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 49 of 248 A pedestrian crossing the street in Contra Costa Centre 41Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 50 of 248 Pedestrian Priority Areas The 2018 CBPP identified countywide pedestrian priority areas (PPAs) that met at least one of the following criteria: • High residential density • High combined residential and retail employment density • High combined total employment and retail employment density • High total employment density • Within a Priority Development Area9 with higher forecast growth • Within ½ mile of a Major Transit stop, as defined by MTC’s Infill Opportunity Zones10 • Within ¼ miles of a public school • Within 500 feet of the highest concentration (top 10 percentile) of pedestrian collisions over the past 10 years 9 Priority Development Area (PDA) is identified by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as places near public transit that are planned for new homes, jobs, and community amenities. Accessed at: https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/land-use/ priority-development-areas-pdas 10 MTC (2017). Infll Opportunity Zone Eligibility. Accessed at: https://mtc. maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=- c50040747a804c35b8f4e12dd04d 0f05 These locations identified in Figure 11 highlight areas where conflicts with vehicles and pedestrian are greatest - where residential, employment, transit, or retail densities are highest. The PPAs identified in the 2018 CBPP lay the foundation for the implementation of continuous and safe pedestrian networks that provide the first and last mile connections to transit and key destinations. The shoreline at Port Costa 42 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 51 of 248 Figure 11 Pedestrian Priority Areas Source: CCTA 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_ATP\contextual.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Pedestrian Priority Areas 43Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Walnut Creek Antioch Richmond Martinez Concord Bay Point San Ramon ^N 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 52 of 248 Connections with Transit and Carpooling Other transportation options, including bus stops, park and ride lots, and rail stations, are available within unincorporated Contra Costa County. All the services below offer bicycle racks or allow bicycles on board. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (County Connection, CCCTA) County Connection buses are operated by the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA) and serve 11 jurisdictions that include unincorporated areas of central Contra Costa County. The service includes 25 weekday routes, 8 express routes, and 7 weekend routes; the service frequency on most routes ranges between 30 and 90 minutes. County Connection also provides public paratransit services throughout Central Contra Costa. Contract services for various business parks, business, schools, and airports are available with first- and last-mile connections, along with the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Shuttle which operates between central County park and ride lots and the Pleasanton ACE train station. Pedestrians at the Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre BART Station 44 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 53 of 248 Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (ECCTA, Tri-Delta Transit) Tri-Delta Transit is operated by the Eastern Contra Costa County Transit Authority (ECCTA). Tri-Delta serves Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley, Brentwood, and the unincorporated areas of east Contra Costa County, including Bay Point. Tri-Delta operates 14 local bus routes Monday-Friday, 5 local bus routes on weekends and holidays, 7 Tri MyRide vans, door-to-door bus service for senior citizens and people with disabilities, and shuttle services for community events. All buses have bicycle racks and are wheelchair accessible. Tri-Delta Transit also offers Tri MyRide OnDemand Transit that operates from 5:00 AM to 9:00 PM on weekdays. Western Contra Costa Transit Authority (WestCAT) WestCAT was established to provide transit connections between western Contra Costa County and the cities of Hercules and Pinole with 14 weekday routes and 4 routes on weekends. Their Lynx service from the Hercules Transit Center to the Salesforce Transit Center runs weekday service between 5:00 AM until 9:20 PM. WestCAT also provides ADA Paratransit services, Senior Dial- A-Ride, and four express routes to El Cerrito Del Norte BART. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) AC Transit serves 13 cities and adjacent unincorporated areas of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, with local bus lines within the East Bay and Transbay bus lines across the bridges into San Francisco and the Peninsula. AC Transit is the third largest bus system in California, connecting with nine other public and private transit systems, 21 BART stations, six Amtrak stations, and three ferry terminals. 45Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 54 of 248 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) BART provides regional transit service to major job centers in the Bay Area. One BART station is located in unincorporated Contra Costa County – the Pleasant Hill/ Contra Costa Centre Station, while the Pittsburg/Bay Point Station is located just off the border of unincorporated Contra Costa County and directly serves many Bay Point residents. Additionally, many unincorporated communities in Contra Costa are also served by BART stations located in neighboring cities. Richmond and El Cerrito Plaza Stations serve neighborhoods in West County; Walnut Creek, Concord, and North Concord/Martinez Stations serve Central County (along with Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Center); and Antioch Station serves East County. • Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre Station The Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre Station is located in a pocket of unincorporated County, just north of Walnut Creek and east of Pleasant Hill. This station is within a half- mile of Interstate 680 and the regional Iron Horse Trail and serves as a hub for various transit providers serving the Bay Area. The various apartments, retail spaces, and commercial spaces provide continuous sidewalks to access the station. To the east of the station along Jones Road, the pedestrian bridge and Iron Horse Trail provide a Class I path to access the station. Roadways near the station due to receive new bicycle facilities include Treat Boulevard to the south and Las Juntas Way to the north. • Pittsburg/Bay Point Station Pittsburg/Bay Point Station is a major commuter station located at the intersection of Highway 4 and Bailey Road. Pittsburg/Bay Point has a large park and ride facility and is accessible on foot via Bailey Road and W Leland Road in the City of Pittsburg. Both streets have Class II bike lanes and sidewalks. The Delta de Anza Trail comes very near the station entrance. However, due to the large parking lot, long driveways, and proximity to highway off-ramps, station access on foot and by bike can be challenging. 46 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 55 of 248 Mode Share American Community Survey: Means of Transportation to Work The American Community Survey (ACS) collects statistics on Means of Transportation to Work for every Census geography level larger than a block. This dataset estimates the local share of home- based work travel for workers 16 years and older by foot and bike as well as other modes. Because the ACS only polls a representative sample of residents in each geography level per year (on Table 2 Means of Transportation to Work (2019 5-Year Average) Geography Population (2020)2 Means of Transportation to Work by Workers 16+ Years old1 Transit Walked Bicycle Unincorporated Contra Costa County 174,257 9.35%1.18%0.41% Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimates: means of transportation to work, Contra Costa County average, about 1% of the local population), its metrics are constrained by a margin of error. This existing conditions analysis only refers to the ACS mode share metrics at the unincorporated community (“Census-designated place” (CDP)) level, where sample sizes are large enough and margins of error small enough for reasonably precise analysis. The ACS Means of Transportation to Work dataset is undoubtedly useful for understanding home-based work commute mode share in residential areas, but it is less appropriate for estimating active mode share for all trip types and beyond residential areas. For example, the ACS metrics will fail to reflect recreational active travel in rural areas, active travel by students from homes to schools, and work-related active travel to residential areas by domestic workers. See Table 2 for the active transportation mode shares for home-based work trips in (CDPs) countywide. This information will contribute to an assessment of active transportation needs in each unincorporated community. 47Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 56 of 248 California Household Survey: Countywide Mode Split The 2018 CBPP included countywide analysis of travel patterns by trip type and length. Contra Costa residents drive alone or carpool for most of the trips they take; of all trips, only 15% are made by walking, biking or transit11 (see Table 3). For commute trips only, most Contra Costa residents drive alone, with about 20 percent of residents using non-auto transportation (transit, walking, biking). Contra Costans, however, are more likely to walk for shorter trips, less than one mile in length, and are more likely to bike for trips less than three miles long (see Table 3). For the majority of short trips, however, residents still primarily drive, along or in a carpool. Some of these trips less than one-mile- long have the potential to be converted to walking or biking trips, and those less than three- miles-long could potential be converted to bicycle trips. The 2018 CBPP bicycle backbone network along with the recommendations included in Chapter 6, will help to create barrier connections (freeways, waterways, etc.), improve safety, reduce modal conflicts, link to transit, and support bicycling. By creating safe and connected networks, additional trips may be converted to those of active transportation modes, rather than drive-alone trips. 11 2018 Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. California Houshold Survey (CHTS), conducted February 2012 to January 2013. https://ccta.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/5b8ec26192756.pdf Table 3 Contra Costa Mode Split by Trip Type and Length Mode All Trips Commute Trips Only Short Trips 1 mile or less Short Trips 1 to 3 miles Drive Alone 42%73%32%43% Carpool 42%8%38%51% Transit 4%15%0%1% Walk 10%3%27%2% Bicycle 1%1%3%2% Other 1%0%0%1% Total 100%100%100%100% Source: CA Household Travel Survey (CHTS) 2012, Fehr & Peers 48 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 57 of 248 A pedestrian with a dog using an enhanced crosswalk to cross Danville Blvd in Alamo 49Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 58 of 248 Strava Data The County Public Works Department has access to Strava data through an agreement with the Strava Metro platform. Strava is an app and Internet service used for tracking bicycling, walking, and running trips through GPS data. The Metro tool aggregates and anonymizes this data at a countywide scale and can provide a perspective on where and how frequently users are riding within a given region. Historically, Strava data can overrepresent recreational trips, particularly bicycle trips done by “Strong and Fearless” style riders. However, it can still provide a useful perspective on where people choose to walk or ride and increases or decreases in trips over time. Table 4 Strava Countywide Summary of Active Travel Participants by Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 Bike 20,066 20,217 34,774 33,438 Walk 22,357 22,267 43,935 50,810 Source: Strava Metro 2022, Fehr & Peers Data is provided at a countywide scale for the entirety of Contra Costa County, included incorporated areas. Figures 12 and 13 show the number of total trips and individual users who used Strava within the County for each month from 2018 through 2021. The significant uptick of trips taken in 2020 as compared to prior years is likely due to the impact of COVID-19, with many residents seeking ways to recreate and exercise within their communities during statewide travel restrictions. VMT Reduction Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) changes how the impacts of land use and transportation projects and plans are measured under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The state has determined that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will be the metric used to determine these impacts. Projects and plans that increase VMT will have impacts under CEQA. Active transportation can be an alternative to decrease vehicle travel to reduce or offset increases in VMT, and thus mitigate impacts. 50 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 59 of 248 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 2018 2019 2020 2021 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 2018 2019 2020 2021 Figure 12 Individual Users by Month/Year - Bike Source: Strava Metro 2022, Fehr & Peers Figure 13 Individual Users by Month/Year - Walk/Hike/Run Source: Strava Metro 2022, Fehr & Peers 51Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 60 of 248 A pedestrian crossing the street in Contra Costa Centre 52 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 61 of 248 Collision Analysis In 2021, the County undertook a comprehensive evaluation of safety and collisions as part of their Vision Zero effort (expected adoption in 2022). High level trends for pedestrians and bicyclists are also presented here, with more details available in the Vision Zero Action Plan. Table 6 Collisions by Year, 2014-2018 Year Pedestrian Bicyclist Motor Vehicle 2014 18 36 359 2015 24 34 340 2016 19 42 425 2017 30 39 404 2018 24 27 435 Table 5 Collisions by Mode and Location, 2014-2018 Severity Pedestrian Bicyclist Motor Vehicle Number Share of Modal Collisions Share of All Collisions Number Share of Modal Collisions Share of All Collisions Number Share of Modal Collisions Share of All Collisions Fatalities 11 9.6%0.5%5 2.8%0.2%47 2.4%2.1% Severe Injuries 22 19.1%1.0%24 13.5%1.1%158 8.0%7.0% All collisions*115 -5.1%178 -7.9%1,963 -87.0% Source: Transportation Injury Management System, 2021; Fehr & Peers, 2021 *All collisions includes all collisions resulting in fatalities or injuries of any severity Source: Transportation Injury Management System, 2021; Fehr & Peers, 2021. 53Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 62 of 248 Annual Collision Trends Annual collision trends show a rise in collisions since 2014. The total number of collisions across all modes rose from 413 in 2014 to 486 in 2018. Fatal and severe injury (KSI) collisions dipped in 2016, but show an upward trajectory. Fatal collisions peaked in 2015 and 2018, with 17 and 19 fatalities, respectively. Motor vehicle KSI collisions experienced a dip in 2016 but have increased since then. Bicycle-involved KSI collisions decreased from 2015 to 2016, remained constant between 2016 and 2017, and peaked in 2018 with eight KSI collisions. Pedestrian-involved KSI collisions saw a spike between 2016 and 2017, with KSI collisions jumping from four in 2016 to ten in 2017. Pedestrian and bicycle- involved collisions account for 23% of all KSI collisions. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Collisions Year Motor Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian Figure 14 KSI Collisions by Year and Mode Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) 54 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 63 of 248 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Collisions Year Motor Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian • The number of KSI collisions for all modes decreased in 2014, but saw an especially steep increase in KSI collisions from 2016 through 2018 (Figure 14). • The number of annual fatal collisions fluctuated from 2014 through 2018, with five fatal collisions in 2014 and 2016, a spike of 17 fatal collisions in 2015 and an increase from 15 to 19 fatal collisions between 2017 and 2018 (Figure 15). Figure 15 Fatal Collisions by Year and Mode Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) 55Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 64 of 248 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 KSI CollisionsAll CollisionsYear All Collisions KSI Collisions 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 KSI CollisionsAll CollisionsYear All Collisions KSI Collisions Figure 16 Bicycle-Involved Collisions by Year Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) Figure 17 Pedestrian-Involved Collisions by Year Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) 56 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 65 of 248 Collision Severity Vulnerable road users, including bicyclists and pedestrians, are more susceptible to fatal or severe injury collisions. In terms of collision mode, pedestrian- involved collisions led to the highest percentage of KSI collisions at 30%, with 10% of those collisions being fatal. KSI collisions comprised 10% of motor vehicle collisions and 15% of bicycle-involved collisions. 88%90%85% 70% 9%8% 12% 20% 3%2%3% 10% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% All Collisions Motor Vehicle Bicycle PedestrianPecent of CollisionsMode Involved Injury Severe Injury Fatal Figure 18 Collision Severity by Mode Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) 57Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 66 of 248 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Overnight (7PM-6AM) Morning Peak (6AM-10AM) Midday (10AM-3PM) Evening Peak (3PM-7PM)KSI CollisionsAll CollisionsTime of Day All Collisions KSI 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Overnight (7PM-6AM) Morning Peak (6AM-10AM) Midday (10AM-3PM) Evening Peak (3PM-7PM)KSI CollisionsAll CollisionsTime of Day All Collisions KSI Figure 19 Bicycle-Involved Collisions by Time of Day Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) Figure 20 Pedestrian-Involved Collisions by Time of Day Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) 58 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 67 of 248 Figure 21 Male and Female* Involvement in Bicycle- Involved Collisions Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) Figure 22 Male and Female* Involvement in Pedestrian-Involved Collisions Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Female Male Parties %Victims %Census 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Female Male Parties %Victims %Census 59Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 68 of 248 Figure 23 Race/Ethnicity of Parties and Victims for Bicycle- Involved Collisions Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) Figure 24 Race/Ethnicity of Parties and Victims for Pedestrian- Involved Collisions Source: Contra Costa County Systemic Safety Analysis Report (February 2021) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Asian Black Hispanic White Other Parties %Victims %Census PED 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Asian Black Hispanic White Other Parties %Victims %Census 60 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 69 of 248 Bike infrastructure along San Pablo Dam Road 61Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 70 of 248 High-Injury Network A high-injury network (HIN), as mapped in Figure 25, was created to highlight roadways with a high concentration of severe injuries and fatalities across all modes within the County. This HIN accounts for 143 miles of roadway, representing 22% of the 651 miles of roadways the County maintains, and 12% of the 1,150 miles of non-freeway roads in unincorporated Contra Costa County. The number of non- freeway collisions that occurred in the study area between 2014 and 2018 was 2,174. The high- injury network captures 70%, or 1,528, of these collisions: 252 of the 2,174 non-freeway collisions were either killed or severely injured (KSI), and 73% of these collisions, or 184, are captured on the HIN. Building on the HIN, a series of collision systemic profiles were developed to summarize the notable trends across the HIN and extrapolate to similar locations within the County. These profiles supported the development of the County’s Safety Action Plan. The bicycle and pedestrian profiles are further detailed in Appendix C, and were also used to develop the project list and recommendations as part of this ATP. Street scene in Port Costa 62 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 71 of 248 ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_VZ\basemap\HIN.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions !1, 1 High-Injury Network Incorporated Areas Figure 25 High Injury Network Source: Fehr & Peers KSI Collisions HIN Incorporated areas Unincorporated areas Parks 63Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Walnut Creek Antioch Richmond Martinez Concord Bay Point San Ramon ^N 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 72 of 248 A pedestrian crossing equipped with an RRFB in downtown Rodeo 64 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 73 of 248 Relationship to Other Plans & Programs This ATP builds on various existing Plans and Programs. Key takeaways including supporting goals, policies, and projects are included below. Contra Costa County General Plan Contra Costa County’s current General Plan was adopted in 2005 and includes goals, policies, and implementation measures to guide decisions on future growth, development, and the conservation of resources through 2020. The General Plan is currently undergoing an update that will provide an overview of the County’s plans to address land use, transportation, housing, climate change, environmental justice, and other prominent issues over the next 20 years. The 2020 General Plan’s Transportation and Circulation Element includes the following Fundamental Concept and specific goals and policies related to active transportation. When the County’s 2040 General Plan is adopted, goals and policies from that plan shall supersede those that follow. Fundamental Concept Streets should be designed, maintained according to the “Complete Streets” philosophy, which accomplishes the following: • Specifies that ‘all users’ includes pedestrians, bicyclists, transit vehicles and users, and motorists, of all ages and abilities. • Aims to create a comprehensive, integrated, connected network. • Recognizes the need for flexibility: that all streets are different and user needs will be balanced. • Is adoptable by all agencies to cover all roads. • Applies to both new and retrofit projects, including design, planning, maintenance, and operations, for the entire right of way. • Makes any exceptions specific and sets a clear procedure that requires high-level approval of exceptions. • Directs the use of the latest and best design standards. • Directs that complete streets solutions fit in with context of the community. • Establishes performance standards with measurable outcomes. 65Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 74 of 248 Goals 5-A: To provide a safe, efficient, and integrated multimodal transportation system. 5-G: To provide access to new development while minimizing conflict between circulation facilities and land uses. 5-I: To encourage use of transit. 5-J: To reduce single-occupant auto commuting and encourage walking and bicycling. 5-K: To provide basic accessibility to all residents, which includes access to emergency services, public services and utilities, health care, food and clothing, education and employment, mail and package distribution, freight delivery, and a certain amount of social and recreational activities. 5-L: To reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources through provision of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Policies Circulation Phasing and Coordination 5-3: Transportation facilities serving new urban development shall be linked to and compatible with existing and planned roads, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities and pathways of adjoining areas, and such facilities shall use presently available public and semi-public rights of way where feasible. 66 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 75 of 248 Circulation Safety, Convenience and Efficiency 5-11: The use of freeways for community circulation shall be minimized by prioritizing transit circulation, safe, direct non-motorized routes, and secondarily by additional arterials and expressways. 5-13: The use of pedestrian and bicycle facilities shall be encouraged. Proper facilities shall be designed to accommodate bikes, pedestrians, and transit. 5-14: Physical conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicular traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians shall be minimized. 5-15: Adequate lighting shall be provided for pedestrian, bicyclist, and vehicular, safety, consistent with neighborhood desires. 5-16: Curbs and sidewalks shall be provided in appropriate areas. 5-21: New development shall contribute funds and/ or institute programs to provide adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities where feasible. 5-22: New subdivisions should be designed to permit convenient pedestrian access to bus transit and efficient bus circulation patterns. Alternative Transportation/Circulation Systems 5-23: All efforts to develop alternative transportation systems to reduce peak period traffic congestion shall be encouraged. 5-24: Use of alternative forms of transportation, such as transit, bike, and pedestrian modes, shall be encouraged in order to provide basic accessibility to those without access to a personal automobile and to help minimize automobile congestion and air pollution. 5-25: Improvement of public transit shall be encouraged to provide for increased use of local, commuter and intercity public transportation. 5-30: Street systems shall be designed and/or modified to discourage additional through traffic in existing residential areas, but not at the expense of efficient bus transit or bikeways. 67Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 76 of 248 Climate Action Plan The County’s Board of Supervisors adopted the Climate Action Plan (CAP) in December 2015. The CAP is comprised of polices and measures that, when implemented, will enable the County to meet its target for greenhouse gas emission reductions. The CAP includes the following transportation and land use strategies for implementing the bicycling and walking network as a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from what would otherwise have been trips in private automobiles. The following, included in the 2015 CAP, relate directly to the Active Transportation Plan.The County is currently updating its CAP, expected to be complete in late 2022. Goal: Reduce transportation emissions Action Items • Improve transit services to help alter long-term patterns of automobile dependence Goal: Reduce vehicle miles traveled Action Items • Collaborate with BART and other transit providers to increase ridership in the County • Prioritize alternative mode access to BART and other transit stations 68 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 77 of 248 Action Items • Collaborate with local transportation, land use agencies, nonprofits, and other stakeholders to expand bicycle and pedestrian facilities and existing public transportation (BART, Amtrak, AC Transit, County Connection, and Tri Delta Transit) • Work with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, local school districts, and advocacy organizations such as the East Bay Bicycle Coalition to encourage bicycle safety classes in all schools • Update County road standards, as opportunities arise, to accommodate all modes of transportation in local street designs (i.e., complete streets). Implement standards as part of routine maintenance and striping. • Through periodic updates to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, identify opportunities to improve access to community-wide bicycle and pedestrian networks by closing gaps in the network, removing barriers, and providing additional bike- and pedestrian-oriented infrastructure Goal: Maintain and expand access to goods, services, and other destinations through increased transportation alternatives (mobility improvements) and improved proximity (land use improvements). • Establish a 2020 mode share goal for bicycling by a Board of Supervisors resolution, identify specific actions to reach the goal, integrate the goal into future General Plan updates, and appeal to other agencies to adopt the same goal • Identify funding sources to support increased walking and bicycling activity 69Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 78 of 248 Contra Costa County Ordinance Code The County’s Ordinance Code includes ordinances that address how development should occur within the County. Multiple sections are relevant to this plan, as they provide guidance and requirements on topics such as the installation of sidewalks, bicycle parking, and the implementation of transportation demand management (TDM) programs. Guidance on TDM is intended to further the transportation goals of the County General Plan, the Measure C Growth Management Program, Contra Costa County’s Congestion Management Program, and the Bay Area Clean Air Plan. Chapter 96-8 Sidewalks and Paths Article 96-8.404 Width and Thickness [of sidewalks and paths] Sidewalks shall be at least four feet wide, exclusive of curbs, and not less than three and five-eighths inches thick. If sidewalks are less than six feet in width they shall not be obstructed by utility installations, mailboxes, or by planting Chapter 82-16 Off-Street Parking Article 82-16.412 Bicycle Parking Depending on the respective land use, long-term and short-term bicycle parking must meet the requirements included in this section. Additional requirements include the following: • Bicycle parking must be located near every terminus of dedicated bicycle trails or routes, or at locations that are accessible by bicycles, and if no bicycle trails or routes terminate on the lot to be served by the bicycle parking, the parking must be located as close as possible to main entrances and exits of buildings, structures, or facilities without obstructing any door, entry way, path, or sidewalk. • The bicycle parking must be located in an area that is visible from vehicle parking or circulation areas, or pedestrian circulation areas. • The bicycle parking location must be identified with guide signs or wayfinding signs that meet the requirements of sign type “3” in sign series “D4” of the then current Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. • Long-term bicycle parking must be accessible and usable by tenants, employees, or other occupants of the building or facility that it serves. 70 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 79 of 248 Chapter 82-32 Transportation Demand Management The purpose of this chapter is to implement the provisions of the general plan to promote a more balanced transportation system that takes advantage of all modes of transportation by: • Incorporating pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access into improvements proposed in development applications; • Incorporating the overall intent and purpose of this chapter into the land use review and planning process; • Allowing requests for reductions in the off-street parking requirements for residential or nonresidential projects that have a conceptual TDM Program; • Providing information to residents on opportunities for walking, bicycling, ridesharing and transit. MTC Regional Active Transportation Plan MTC’s Regional Active Transportation Plan, currently underway, will help guide investments in infrastructure and regional policy development and implementation supporting Plan Bay Area 2050. The key elements of the Active Transportation Plan include: • Development of a regional active transportation network, a Plan Bay Area Blueprint strategy, that builds off adopted state, regional, county, and local bicycle / pedestrian / trail plans; • Stakeholder engagement through a Technical Advisory Committee and community- based organizations; • Policy and program analysis, updated with an equity and Vision Zero focus, including the review and update of MTC’s Complete Streets Policy (MTC Resolution 3765); • Funding analysis to identify the constraints and potential future funding scenarios to build-out a regional active transportation network and implement the Plan Bay Area 2050 strategies; and • Creation of a prioritized 5-Year Implementation Plan, in coordination with Plan Bay Area 2050’s Implementation Plan, that will include actions to support active transportation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic’s transportation-related needs. 71Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 80 of 248 Contra Costa County Safety Action and Vision Zero Plans In 2020, the County kick-started a safety planning process for unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County, which began as a Safety Action Plan (funded as a Systemic Safety Analysis Report, SSAR, from Caltrans) and evolved into a Vision Zero Action Plan. CCTA’s Vision Zero Framework served as the base for the CCC Vision Zero Plan’s HIN, also used for this report. To provide the latest information, five years of the most recent collision data were analyzed to create a collision landscape analysis, high-injury network (HIN), and collision profiles, which was then matched with countermeasures to reduce these types of collisions on County roadways. This analysis was presented to a stakeholder advisory group to solicit feedback and identify an engineering-focused project list for the County to use when applying for grant funding. Community feedback was also collected as part of the Safety Action Plan, where feedback was gathered around safety when walking, biking, and driving in the County. The Vision Zero Plan focused on implementation strategies that fall under the Vision Zero Core Elements: Leadership and Commitment, Safe Roadways and Safe Speeds, and Data- Driver Approach, Transparency, and Accountability. Additional safety countermeasures were identified to include road users and post-crash care, supplementing the Safety Action Plan’s engineering- focused countermeasures on roadway design and speed reduction. The countermeasures were organized under five categories: safe road users, safe speeds, post-crash care, equity considerations, and emerging technologies. The Vision Zero Plan also included a list of existing programs, funding sources, and an action plan for the County. The Action Plan strategies to reduce KSI collisions on County roadways identified the party/parties responsible for leading the action and supporting agencies. The Safety Action and Vision Zero Plans identified locations throughout the County with high concentrations of collisions, including a special emphasis on bicycle- and pedestrian-involved collisions. The findings from these plans allowed the ATP team to identify key issues and risk factors associated with these locations and take a systemic approach to identify other locations throughout the County with similar risk profiles. 72 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 81 of 248 CCTA Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan CCTA’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, adopted in 2018, focused on creating a plan to encourage and support walking and biking in Contra Costa County. Elements of this Plan included a County Baseline Report to better understand the on-the- ground conditions in each sub- region along with webmaps that allow local jurisdictions to edit their bicycle and pedestrian networks and coordinate regionally significant facilities. The Plan covers topics such as low-stress bikeway networks, connectivity to transit, bicycle super highways, advanced treatments for pedestrian and bicycle design, and a level of traffic stress (LTS) analysis for the highest ranked priority projects. The proposed bicycle and pedestrian backbone network and pedestrian priority areas were used as a starting point for many of the projects outlined in this plan. Caltrans District 4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans Caltrans District 4’s Active Transportation Plan identifies and prioritizes pedestrian needs along and across the State Highway System (SHS) to guide future infrastructure investments. The Plan includes maps and charts that describe the walking conditions and connections to transit along the SHS in District 4. A prioritized list and map of location-based pedestrian needs is provided, accompanied by a toolkit and implementation strategy to address these needs with local partners and the public. The list of recommended projects in the Plan will overlap with active transportation projects to be constructed through the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). While the Caltrans plans focus on state-owned facilities, the District 4 Plan has some overlap with projects in this ATP, and close coordination and collaboration will be needed for successful implementation. Examples include: additional Class I trail improvements at Bailey Rd and Highway 4, reconstruction of the Hilltop Drive/I-80 interchange to improve bicycle and pedestrian access, and a trail connection along Highway 4 between Concord and Bay Point. 73Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 82 of 248 CHAPTER 4 74 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 83 of 248 COMMUNITY INPUT AND COLLABORATION 75Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 84 of 248 and advertising methods are detailed in the following sections. The ATP included a two-phase engagement process: Phase 1 Phase 1 focused on listening to the community and soliciting feedback on existing conditions, access to key destinations, and community concerns about accessibility and comfort for people walking, biking, and rolling. This phase of the project lasted from March through July 2021, to accomplish the following goals: • Develop a shared vision and goals for active transportation in Contra Costa County • Identify key corridors and destinations, active transportation infrastructure gaps, and opportunities for improvement Engagement Strategy This section provides an overview of the public outreach process that was central to the development of the recommendations in this plan. Hearing from a diverse and representative group of County residents and stakeholders was vital for the development of this Active Transportation Plan (ATP). Using in-person and virtual engagement methods the project team made reasonable efforts to reach a diverse group of Contra Costa County residents and stakeholders while following appropriate health and safety protocols in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. An example of this effort includes installing temporary decals throughout the County that included a QR code to the Plan’s website. Digital engagement materials were made available in English and Spanish. Specific engagement Phase 2 Phase 2 presented draft infrastructure recommendations to the community. Draft recommended improvements were presented to the community for review and comment. Phase 2 was completed between the months of September 2021 and January 2022. Phase 2 had the following goals: • Ensuring all stakeholders were provided with information about the draft project recommendations • Receiving feedback on desired adjustments to draft project recommendations 76 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 85 of 248 Engagement Events and Activities A multi-pronged approach of events and activities was used to increase participation from the community at large with a focus on historically underserved communities. Phase 1 of community engagement included two virtual community workshops, an interactive webmap on the project website, an online survey, and three virtual stakeholder meetings. Phase 2 included one virtual community workshop, an interactive webmap containing project recommendations, five community pop-up events, and presentations at six targeted community meetings. Community Engagement Themes Throughout both phases of the ATP’s community engagement process, several key themes emerged from County residents and stakeholders: • Need to improve safety, especially for safe routes to schools • Need to improve access to essential destinations like parks, trails, and grocery stores • Desire to use trails as low- stress connectors between unincorporated areas and cities • Need to prioritize transit access, especially walking improvements (sidewalks and crossings) around bus stops • Need to provide more separated bikeways and trails throughout the County because they provide the most separation from vehicles • Need to provide traffic calming and more direct walking and biking options • Need to provide secure bike parking at community destinations across the County • Need to improve walking- and bicycle-focused wayfinding signs, especially along trails • Need to provide more amenities (benches, water fountains, lighting, etc.) along trails • Need to provide educational programs and opportunities, including driver education • Desire from cities and other jurisdictions to coordinate with the County on maintenance (capital and scheduling) • Need to address large or asymmetrical intersections, multilane roadways, and high-speed traffic on local and mountain roads, which can be mental and physical barriers for walking, biking, and rolling. 77Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 86 of 248 Community outreach at Hercules Branch Library 78 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 87 of 248 Afternoon workshop interactive PollEverywhere question Phase 1 Outreach Community Workshops Two virtual community workshops were hosted during the month of May 2021. The workshops were held virtually under strict COVID-19 health and safety protocols. The project team promoted the workshops using Contra Costa County Public Works social media and through community partners. During the workshops, attendees shared their thoughts on walking, bicycling, and rolling in unincorporated Contra Costa County, places they walk and roll to, and what their priorities and vision for the future are. Workshop attendees highlighted the need for better connections to destinations, including the following: • Parks, recreational centers, and community centers • Transit including BART and bus stops • Schools • Retail areas, including grocery stores • The Bay Trail, the shoreline, and other open space areas Other high priorities for residents included the need for traffic calming, especially on residential streets and cross-county corridors (e.g., San Pablo Dam Road), and the need for more separated and off-street facilities for users of all ages and abilities. Evening workshop interactive PollEverywhere question. 79Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 88 of 248 Screenshot from the afternoon workshop. 80 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 89 of 248 Project Website and Interactive Webmap A project website (www.activecontracosta.org) and interactive webmap were created to provide a central location where the community could review the goals of the project, learn about upcoming events, and provide input on specific issues found throughout the County roadways. The interactive webmap allowed users to drop points at specific locations where they found safety and connectivity concerns, as well as draw current or potential routes that they would consider walking, biking, or rolling. To provide additional context, the existing bicycle and pedestrian networks were included in the map showcasing the network throughout unincorporated areas. The community provided 97 comments; fellow website users liked/disliked those comments 170 times. The community provided ten narrative comments via the “contact us” form. Within unincorporated areas, comments focused on the following key themes: • Cross-county corridors like San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo Dam Road, Alhambra Valley Road, and Appian Way are, in some cases, the only practical way to move between destinations. However, these corridors prioritize cars and are stressful for bicyclists and pedestrians • The County should complete sidewalks and improve intersection safety around schools • Gaps in the Bay Trail should be closed, and with better access provided to the Bay Trail, canal trails, and other separated facilities Active Contra Costa Website 81Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 90 of 248 Stakeholder Meetings The County facilitated three virtual stakeholder meetings. Each meeting included stakeholders around three thematic groups: community- based organizations (CBOs), schools, and partner agencies. The following organizations and agencies participated in stakeholder meetings: • City of San Ramon • City of Orinda • City of San Pablo • City of Antioch • City of Richmond • City of Walnut Creek • BART • AC Transit • CCTA • John Swett Unified School District • District 1 Supervisor’s Office • Bike East Bay • WCCTAC • 511 Contra Costa County • Mobility Matters Online Survey The community survey was available on the project website from April through August 2021. It requested information from residents about their current travel behavior, comfort levels walking and biking, and allowed the general public to provide additional feedback about general active transportation issues in Contra Costa County. The survey was completed by 226 community members. A high percentage (76%) of respondents indicated they walk multiple times a week, and 54% said they bike numerous times a week. Respondents used public transit occasionally, with only 14% regularly riding public transit, but 69% reported riding the bus or train occasionally. 84% percent of respondents said they walk or bike for their health and “enjoy walking/biking.” 75% of respondents said they currently walk or bike “for fun/exercise” and to parks and stores. Respondents also provided information about their comfort while walking, biking, or rolling around Contra Costa County. Currently, 71% of respondents feel comfortable walking around their community, and 43% feel comfortable biking in their community. 53% of all respondents felt that more/ better bike lanes, greater separation from vehicles, more sidewalks, and safer ways to cross the street would encourage them to walk, bike, and roll more around their communities. 82 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 91 of 248 Takeaways from stakeholder meetings included the following: • Need to improve access to community destinations like parks, schools, and community centers (for all ages and abilities) • Need to build better first-last mile connections to major transit stops and stations • Need to improve the existing walking and bicycling facilities to help increase the number of active and shared trips across the County • Need for the County to partner with community organizations and other County agencies to promote and educate the community about walking and biking options • Need to slow vehicle speeds to make walking, rolling, and bicycling more comfortable Community outreach at Alamo Farmer’s Market 83Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 92 of 248 Phase 2 Outreach The second phase of outreach began in October 2021 and focused on gathering feedback on the proposed projects to be included in this plan. Community outreach at Bay Point Branch Library 84 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 93 of 248 Interactive Webmap In October 2021, the interactive webmap was updated to include the draft recommendations for the pedestrian and bicycle networks. Users were able to like, dislike, and leave comments on draft proposed projects. The webmap also allowed users to trace additional recommendations along roadways in need of sidewalk and/or improved bicycle facilities for the project team to consider. The Contra Costa County Public Works Facebook and Instagram pages as well as complementary social media ads were used to promote the project website. The County ran focused ads, in English and Spanish, on Facebook and Instagram in unincorporated areas of the County to increase participation and reach a larger share of the community. The County also ran targeted ads in disadvantaged communities and communities with lower exposure to other engagement methods. Ads were shown to over 32,000 people, resulting in almost 800 website visits from ads alone. Between September and December 2021, about 1,400 stakeholders visited the project website (over 2,100 visits over the project’s life). Users provided over 150 likes/dislikes and 23 comments on project recommendations. Users also added 35 different roadway segments for the project team to consider for additional project recommendations. The top three community-liked projects included: • Danville Boulevard Buffered Bike Lanes • Stone Valley Road Buffered Bike Lanes • San Pablo Dam Road Separated Bikeway An example of the social media ad on Facebook. 85Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 94 of 248 The project recommendations interactive map showing the Stone Valley Road recommendation. Likes and comments on the Iron Horse Trail extension recommendation. 86 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 95 of 248 Community Pop-Up Events The County hosted pop-up tables at five different community spaces: Lefty Gomez Park in Rodeo, Alamo Certified Farmers’ Market, Pittsburg/ Bay Point BART Station, Bay Point Brach Public Library, and Hercules Branch Public Library. Brief descriptions of each event follow. Lefty Gomez Park – Rodeo Project staff hosted a pop-up table at Lefty Gomez Park at the Rodeo 2021 Chili and Salsa Cookoff and Car Show (11 AM – 3 PM). The event included food, entertainment, dozens of vehicles, and vendors. The project team prepared countywide maps to gather feedback on walking and bicycling conditions throughout the unincorporated County. The project team also promoted the project website. Project staff engaged with about 30 residents during the event. Community members talking to project staff during the event and a collection of comments left on the plotted map. Image source: Alta and Fehr & Peers 87Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 96 of 248 Alamo Certified Farmers’ Market – Alamo Project staff hosted a pop-up event at the Alamo Certified Farmer’s Market during Sunday morning and afternoon (9 AM – 1:30 PM) on October 17, 2021. Project staff presented draft recommendations to the public and handed out business cards to direct people to the project website containing proposed network recommendations. The team engaged with over ten residents during the event. Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station – Bay Point On Wednesday, October 20th, 2021 the project team distributed business cards promoting the project website at the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station during the evening commute period (4-7 PM). The project team distributed over 200 business cards and answered all questions people had regarding the Active Transportation Plan and recommendations process. The Farmer’s Market booth allowed residents to point out areas they wanted to discuss across the County. Image sources: Alta and Fehr & Peers. The project team distributed business cards (right image) to BART riders entering and leaving the station. Image sources: Alta. 88 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 97 of 248 Bay Point Branch Public Library – Bay Point Project staff hosted a table at the Bay Point Public Library during the afternoon school pick- up (2:15 – 4:45 PM) on Tuesday, October 26, 2021. Project staff presented draft recommendations and distributed business cards to direct people to the updated project website and interactive webmap. The team engaged with over 50 elementary, middle, and high school students, along with a handful of school staff during the event. Hercules Branch Public Library – Hercules Project staff hosted a pop-up table in front of the Hercules Public Library during the afternoon (2 PM to 6 PM) on Tuesday, November 9, 2021. The project team engaged with 38 elementary and middle school students and their parents who were heading to and from the library. The project team presented draft recommendations and distributed business cards to direct people to the updated project website and interactive map during the event. Project staff gathering student feedback about their walking and bicycling routes to school. Image sources: Contra Costa County. At the library events, younger children could color walking and biking-related drawings while older children and adults discussed project recommendations. Image sources: Alta. 89Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 98 of 248 Presentations at Community Meetings The project team also presented draft project recommendations to six different community committees: • Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (CCTA) – September 27, 2021 • Senior Mobility Advisory Council – October 25, 2021 • North Richmond Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) – October 5, 2021 • Bay Point MAC – October 5, 2021 • Rodeo MAC – October 28, 2021 • El Sobrante MAC – November 10, 2021 During these meetings, project staff shared prior community feedback, presented draft project recommendations, listened to feedback from committee/council members, and promoted the interactive map on the project website. These meetings were open to the public, and community members were invited to comment on the ATP during the public comment period. 90 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 99 of 248 Community outreach at Bay Point Branch Library 91Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 100 of 248 CHAPTER 5 92 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 101 of 248 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS 93Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 102 of 248 This Chapter discusses the planned bicycle and pedestrian projects, as well as supporting programs for unincorporated Contra Costa County. Project Development The plan was developed to implement the goals outlined in Chapter 2; namely, to promote mode shift by improving the safety and comfort of pedestrians and bicyclists, increase connectivity and close gaps in the network, improve access to schools and community facilities, enhance equity for communities that are disproportionately impacted by collisions and have seen less infrastructure investment, and foster collaboration between key stakeholders and neighboring jurisdictions to create regionally significant projects. Projects included in this plan were developed and prioritized based on a variety of factors including: • Killed or Severely Injured (KSI) collision history • Location within a CCTA Pedestrian Priority Area or along the CCTA Bicycle Backbone Network • Recommendations from previous regional efforts identified in plans from Contra Costa County, CCTA, and Caltrans • Feedback from key stakeholders and the community • Proximity to key destinations such as schools, affordable housing, senior centers, post offices, libraries, parks, transit stops, etc. • Location within impacted communities as identified by MTC’s Equity Priority Areas, the Healthy Places Index, CalEnviroScreen, ACS data, the Community Air Risk Evaluation Program, and the California Department of Education • Ease of constructability of project Each of these factors were identified by the project team, key stakeholders, and the public as criteria needing to be met when identify a robust project list, that includes 6 near-term priority projects. The planned bicycle and pedestrian networks and associated projects were shared for public review during Phase 2 outreach activities (detailed in Chapter 2) and subsequently updated based on the community feedback received. 94 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 103 of 248 Bike infrastructure along San Pablo Dam Road 95Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 104 of 248 Walk Audits A series of walk audits were conducted to assess bicycling and walking facilities within impacted communities of unincorporated Contra Costa County. The audits focused on identifying existing issues and concerns and identifying potential improvements. Each audit involved touring roadways around at least one school, existing trail, and/or community amenity, as well as locations flagged as challenging for bicycling or walking by community members and key stakeholders. Audits were conducted by the project team, with support from advocacy groups, community members, and County staff from the Public Works, Public Health, and Conservation and Development Departments. • Bay Point: Riverview Middle School, Pacifica Avenue, Port Chicago Highway, Delta de Anza Trail, Bella Vista Avenue, and Hanlon Way • North Richmond: Shields-Reid Community Center, Verde Elementary School, Wildcat Creek Trail, and Richmond Parkway • Rodeo: Rodeo Hills Elementary School, Lefty Gomez Recreation Center, Rodeo Creek Trail, and the Bay Trail Observations from the walk audits directly informed the development of the project recommendations. Bicyclists at Lefty Gomez Park 96 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 105 of 248 Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks Planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities are shown in Figures 26-32. The build out of these networks is a long-term vision for active transportation facilities within the unincorporated County. The network includes accessibility and sidewalk improvements for pedestrians; bike lanes, bicycle boulevards, and separated bikeways for bicyclists; and crossing improvements, shared- use paths, and trails to benefit both bicyclists and pedestrians. The proposed networks are designed to provide connection within and between communities, to key destinations, and to serve as recreational assets. A complete list of the projects that constitute this plan can be found in Appendix A. Table 7 New Miles of Planned Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Type Total Miles Sidewalks*10.8 Class I Bike Paths (Multi-Use)62.0# Class II Bike Lanes 36.2 Class II Buffered Bike Lanes 24.7 Class III Bike Routes & Bike Boulevards 42.7 Class IV Separated Bikeways 24.3 Notes: * Per side of street: that is, one mile of street with sidewalks on both sides would count as two miles of sidewalks. # This total includes future regional trails to be led by partner agencies. See Chapter 6 for more details. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022. 97Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 106 of 248 3101 3101 ·123 ·160·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_ATP\projects_nolabels.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 26 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (Countywide) Class I paths (exising/proposed) Class II bike lanes (exising/proposed) Class III bike routes (exising/proposed) Class IV bikeways (proposed) Pedestrian facilities (proposed) Incorporated areas Unincorporated areas Parks 98 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan Walnut Walnut CreekCreek AntiochAntioch RichmondRichmond MartinezMartinez ConcordConcord Bay PointBay Point San RamonSan Ramon ^N 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 107 of 248 ∙4 !"80 Barrett Ave SanPabloAveS y c a m o re AveWillowAve Lupine R d Redwood RdRheem Ave FalconWay 23rd StR ichm ondP k w y Ohio Ave7th StAppi anWayCastro StPinoleVa ll e y R d Garvin AveRumrillBlvd S a n PabloDam Rd Mar ket Ave Va ll e y Vi e wR d OlindaRd AtlasR d Giant RdHilltop Dr 6th StKeyBl vdBlumeDrP h e a s a n t D r Amador St RefugioValley R d A rli n g t o n BlvdShaneDrGiantHwyS i m a s Ave 29th StM a y RdS h a w n D rP a r r Blvd A m end RdTur quoi seD r C a s tro R a n c h Rd A lha m b r a Valley R d Tara H i l l s D r ElPortal D rMacdonald Ave%&580C:\CCC_ATP\projects.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 27 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (North Richmond/El Soberante area) Class I paths (exising/proposed) Class II bike lanes (exising/proposed) Class III bike routes (exising/proposed) Class IV bikeways (proposed) Pedestrian facilities (proposed) Incorporated areas Unincorporated areas Parks 99Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 108 of 248 ∙4 !"80 S y c a m o r e A v eWil l ow A v eV iewpointeBlvd Lupine R d RedwoodRdSanPabloAve F r a n klin C a n y o n RdParker AveCum mings S k y w a y Pomona S t Refugio ValleyRdTurquoiseDr CoralD rVista d e l Río Mc Ewe n RdCr o c k e t t Blvd C a r q uin e zScenic Dr S e v e n th S t C:\CCC_ATP\projects.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 28 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (Rodeo/Crockett area) Class I paths (exising/proposed) Class II bike lanes (exising/proposed) Class III bike routes (exising/proposed) Class IV bikeways (proposed) Pedestrian facilities (proposed) Incorporated areas Unincorporated areas Parks 100 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 109 of 248 ·242 ·4 Marsh DrCenter AveHoweRd Muir RdBrownStPineStEscobarSt Chilpancingo Pkwy S o l a n o WayConcor d A v e Franklin Can yon R d A r n o l d D r Pa c he c oBlvdM a rin a V is t a Ave Alhambra AveA r n o l d In d u s tria lW ay E St I m h o f f DrMor elloAveWaterfro n t R d B e r r e l l e s s a S t PortChicagoHwyGr ant St B a t e s A v eShell AveOlivera Rd %&680 C:\CCC_ATP\projects.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 29 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (Martinez/Pacheco area) Class I paths (exising/proposed) Class II bike lanes (exising/proposed) Class III bike routes (exising/proposed) Class IV bikeways (proposed) Pedestrian facilities (proposed) Incorporated areas Unincorporated areas Parks 101Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 110 of 248 ·242 ·4 A r n o ld In d u strialW a y Canal Rd W Leland Rd N Parkside DrDriftwoodDrEvora Rd Willow Pass Rd SanMarcoBlvdPort ChicagoHwy Polaris Dr BaileyRdBates Ave AlvesRanchRdC:\CCC_ATP\projects.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 30 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (Bay Point/Port Chicago area) Class I paths (exising/proposed) Class II bike lanes (exising/proposed) Class III bike routes (exising/proposed) Class IV bikeways (proposed) Pedestrian facilities (proposed) Incorporated areas Unincorporated areas Parks 102 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 111 of 248 ∙24 Ti ceCr e e k DrRos s moor P kw y D e e r Hi l l R d M o u n t D i a b l o B lv d D iab loR dLa G o n d a WayDanvi l le B lvd San Mi guelDr Olympic B lvd SMai nStBlvdW ayL iv o r n a Rd MoragaRdTic eValley B lv d G l e n si d e DrBlackhawkRdSBroadwaySaintMary'sRdCrestAv e MirandaAveSaklan I ndi a nDrC a m in o Pabl oCaminoDiablo RheemB l v d GreenValleyRdWa l n u t Blv d Rudgear Rd StoneValleyRd %&680 C:\CCC_ATP\projects.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 31 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (Tri-Valley area) Class I paths (exising/proposed) Class II bike lanes (exising/proposed) Class III bike routes (exising/proposed) Class IV bikeways (proposed) Pedestrian facilities (proposed) Incorporated areas Unincorporated areas Parks 103Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 112 of 248 ·160 ·4 Hillcrest AveJam esDonlon B l v d Lone Tree Way Main StSomersvilleRdL StS a n d Creek R d E Leland Rd RailroadAveDeerValleyRdWilbur Ave N ParksideD r Laurel Rd Va s c o R d Buchanan Rd Empire AveE 18th St A StGStBalfour Rd Br e n t wo o dBlvd M arsh Cr eek R dMo r g a n Terri toryRdByron HwyC a m in o D ia b lo Bixler RdSellers AveE Cypr ess R d N erolyRd Country Hills D rHarborSt Walnut BlvdC:\CCC_ATP\projects.mxdCountywide High Injury Network and KSI Collisions Figure 32 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (Eastern area) Class I paths (exising/proposed) Class II bike lanes (exising/proposed) Class III bike routes (exising/proposed) Class IV bikeways (proposed) Pedestrian facilities (proposed) Incorporated areas Unincorporated areas Parks 104 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 113 of 248 Overview of Improvements Future walking and bicycling trips will depend on a number of factors such as the availability of well connected facilities, appropriate education and promotion programs designed to encourage walking and bicycling, and location, density, and type of future land development. With appropriate bicycling and walking facilities in place and implementation of employer trip reduction programs, the number of people walking or biking to work, school, or to shop could increase above its current rate. CCTA’s 2018 Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan12 provides guidance on corridor improvements with context sensitive design in Appendix C, Best Practices: Pedestrian and Bicycle Treatments and acknowledges a need for trade-offs across competing modal demands. A layered network approach balances tradeoffs by prioritizing certain modes on identified streets and providing continuity for the chosen mode while accommodating other modes or encouraging use on parallel streets. In planning for a countywide plan such as this one, this approach was taken for project recommendations by providing select treatments for a prioritized mode while ensuring increased safety for all modes. Once recommendations are implemented, the active transportation network will provide safer and more direct travel paths throughout the County. Improvements are in line with the following criteria: • Connection to Activity Centers: Schools, community facilities, the library, the community center, parks, open space, and neighborhood commercial districts should be accessible by foot or bicycle. Residents should be able to walk or bike from home to both local and regional destinations. • Comfort & Access: The system should provide safe and equitable access from all areas of the County to both commute and recreation destinations and should be designed for people of all levels of ability. • Purpose: Each link in the system should serve one or a combination of these purposes: encourage bicycling for recreation, improve facilities for commuting, and provide a connection to the Countywide bike network. On street facilities should be continuous and direct, and off-street facilities should have a minimal number of arterial crossings and uncontrolled intersections. • Connection to Regional Networks: The system should provide access to regional bikeways, regional trails, and routes in adjacent communities. 12 Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan – Appendix C: Pedestrian and Bicycle Treatments. July 2018. https://ccta.net/ wp-content/uploads/2018/10/5b86dd3529524.pdf 105Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 114 of 248 Crossing and Intersection Improvements Several crossing improvements are recommended, either as standalone spot improvements or as part of broader projects to increase safety and comfort for pedestrians, as well as bicyclists at certain trail crossings. The decision to install a marked crosswalk at an uncontrolled location should be based on engineering judgement, engineering study, or other considerations as appropriate for each individual case. Some of these considerations may include the following: • Pedestrian travel demand, typically 20 pedestrians per hour or more • Service of a facility or use that generates higher pedestrian travel or serves a vulnerable population (for example children, elderly, or persons with disabilities). This may include schools, hospitals, senior centers, recreation/ community centers, libraries, parks, and trails. Service of such facilities can justify pedestrian improvements to areas of less demand than 20 pedestrians per hour. • Sight distance requirements, using appropriate stopping sight distance guidance from AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design for Highways and Streets or Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual • Delay to pedestrian movements • Distance to nearest crossing • Guidance of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Additional improvements for crossings at uncontrolled locations, such as the use of high visibility markings, median refuges, and curb extensions, should be considered as appropriate. Further design guidance on the determination of crossing treatments can be found in Appendix C, Best Practices: Pedestrian and Bicycle Treatments of the 2018 CCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and the FHWA STEP Guide.13 Signalized intersections are typically large with multiple lanes of traffic in each direction, especially where arterial and/ or collectors roadways meet. At these locations, crosswalks are typically marked, but have long crossing distances. In some cases, intersections may have slip lanes, further lengthening crossing distances for pedestrians and bicyclists; these lanes are not signalized, allowing vehicles to make these turns at higher speeds. At all-way stop controlled intersections, vehicles stop and give the right-of-way 13 Federal Highway Administration. Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP). https://safety.fhwa. dot.gov/ped_bike/step/resources/ 106 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 115 of 248 to pedestrians and bicycle crossing the street. Some all-way stop controlled intersections do not have marked crosswalks. Vehicles may encroach into the intersection at these locations, impeding the pedestrian travel way and cause sight distance issues for those crossing. Recommendations to enhance safety for pedestrians and bicyclists at controlled crossings include: • Ensuring pedestrian walk speeds of 3.5 feet/second at signalized crossings and walk speeds as low as 2.5 feet/second at select locations, such as near schools, parks, and senior centers. • Installing countdown signals at signalized intersections where missing • Installing advanced stop bars in advance of each crosswalk • Enhance accessibility with directional curb ramps (two per corner) instead of diagonal ramps and ensuring that all are ADA compliant • Marked crosswalks on all legs of the intersection that serve a key desire line • Median refuge islands and thumbnails, as width and path of turn maneuvers allow • Good and unobstructed sightlines • Slip lane removal, where feasible, and mitigation for pedestrian safety where they remain with a raised crosswalk or protected right- turns • Far-side bus stops, instead of locations on the near-side of the intersection or in front of mid-block crossings • Minimized cycle lengths at signalized intersections • Protected turn phasing instead of permitted across marked crosswalks • Installing pedestrian and traffic preemption • Installing bike boxes at signalized intersections, cohesive with surrounding bicycle facilities 107Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 116 of 248 Intersection Redesign In some cases, full intersection reconstruction is needed to address safety and access issues for people walking and biking. Examples may include skewed intersections, intersections that need slip lane removal, or locations that are significantly overbuilt and require re-purposing of space for walking and biking. With Complete Streets corridor projects like road diets, intersection re-design can also support speed management and access to intersecting bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Intersection design in these cases can include: • Roundabout The types of conflicts that occur at roundabouts are different from those occurring at conventional intersections; namely, conflicts from crossing and left-turn movements are not present in a roundabout. The geometry of a roundabout keeps the range of vehicle speed narrow, which helps reduce the severity of crashes when they do occur. Pedestrians only have to cross one direction of traffic at a time at roundabouts, thus reducing their potential for conflicts. When considering roundabouts, designers should assess opportunities to include bikeways and consider pedestrian desire lines. • Protected Intersections Protected intersections use corner islands, curb extensions, and colored paint to delineate bicycle and pedestrian movements across an intersection. Slower driving speeds and shorter crossing distance increase safety for pedestrians. This intersection design separates bicycles from pedestrians and should be considered at signalized intersections with separated Class IV bikeways or Class I paths. Supportive Infrastructure and Programs To ensure comfortable trips for bicyclists and pedestrians, supporting infrastructure is needed at intersections and along roadways to make the trip safe and comfortable for all users, wayfinding is needed to help users reach and identify destinations, and for bicyclists, secure bicycle parking is needed at destinations. Wayfinding Wayfinding signage can be used on both bicycle and pedestrian facilities to guide users to connecting facilities and destinations. Good wayfinding signs can also encourage bicyclists and pedestrians to visit local businesses. These signs provide the most value when installed at trail junctions, intersections of key bicycling and walking routes, and at navigation decision points. Chapter 9B of the California 108 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 117 of 248 MUTCD provides guidance on sign design and installation. A limited number of wayfinding signage has been installed in conjunction with regional trails, such as the Bay Trail. The County will be adopting an updated signage program that includes directional/wayfinding signs. Working in conjunction with the operators of regional trails, the County will install additional signage directing users to businesses districts, schools, and community facilities. Including the distance in miles to nearby destinations on signs can encourage additional walking and bicycling to those destinations. Because the County has many boundaries with neighboring cities, the wayfinding program should ideally collaborate with cities on design and format of signage. This will improve legibility and consistency of the bike and pedestrian network as a whole. This collaboration should also include regional entities like CCTA, the East Bay Regional Park District and Bay Trail. Bicycle Parking Having a secure location to store your bike once you reach your destination is an important part of making a bike trip feasible. Bicycle parking is typically installed by developers as part of residential and commercial projects. The County’s Municipal Ordinance Code outlines long- term and short-term bicycle parking requirements for residential, cultural/educational, commercial, and industrial/ manufacturing land uses. The Code does not currently outline requirements for County-owned facilities, such as hospitals, clinics, parks, libraries, and community centers. Bicycle parking should be installed as appropriate at all these locations. Near bicycle parking locations, installing fix-it stations allows bicyclists to quickly repair their bicycle if needed. Repair stations promote bicycle commuting and provide cyclists with amenities to make their experience better and safer. Street Amenities Sidewalk amenities such as benches, shade structures (manmade or street trees), parklets, public art, and other landscaping feature make a location more inviting and comfortable. These amenities allow pedestrians and bicyclists to take breaks throughout their journey, provide shade throughout the trip, and create a welcoming space. Pilot Projects When planning new pedestrian and bicycle facilities, the County could coordinate with community advocates and nonprofits to consider, if funds are available, temporary infrastructure improvements on a pilot basis. These pilot projects, also known as “living previews” or “tactical urbanism,” can be built using inexpensive materials, and may be short-term or for specific events. Pilot projects provide hands-on experience new ways to use public space. can help test concepts and built support for active transportation investments. 109Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 118 of 248 Maintenance The County has an informal maintenance policy in place for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and often relies on citizen reports for issues, including through the County’s Mobile Citizen app.14 While this is acceptable for some maintenance issues such as pedestrian signals and other facilities that need infrequent maintenance, more formal policies would provide benefits for other issues. Additionally, responsibility for maintenance of sidewalks fall on the owners of fronting property, as opposed to the County. Thus, implementation of a formal maintenance policy that addresses both incidental and periodic maintenance of frequently used facilities would encourage good practices and address other ongoing or 14 https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/7875/Mobile-Citizen periodic maintenance issues. Multiple public comments spoke to concerns about debris, glass, and overgrown vegetation on County facilities, including existing shared-use paths. This can be particularly problematic for wheelchair and mobility device users, who may be unable to use some facilities or be forced to travel in the roadway due to these obstructions. Bicyclists may be required to move into vehicle traffic or be deterred from riding. To address these concerns, the County could add policies for regular shoulder or bike lane sweeping on corridors frequently used by bicyclists or other users, especially where there are no sidewalks, and incidental sweeping policies to address debris that may accumulate. Similarly, a regular program of vegetation maintenance along shared-use paths under the County’s purview would reduce these concerns. The addition of new facilities within the County, including Class IV Separated Bikeways, may necessitate investments in street sweeping vehicles that can navigate the smaller widths of these bikeways. The County could also consider entering into a cooperative agreement with other jurisdictions throughout the county to share costs or the usage of such vehicles. 110 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 119 of 248 Speed Limit Policies & Programs Crossing and Intersection Improvements In October 2020, California Assembly Bill (AB) 43 was passed. This bill highlights methodology to lower speed limits on additional corridors. AB 43 features the following five major components, focused on providing local jurisdictions more flexibility in setting speed limits, especially regarding vulnerable road users: • Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) option to extend enforceable time period • Post E&TS agency can elect to retain current or the most recent past speed limit. • Speed Limit Reduction reduction of additional 5 mph based on several factors, including designation of local “Safety Corridors” • Prima Facie Speed Limits options for 15 and 25 mph in certain zones • Business Activity Districts option for 20 or 25 mph The County should look for opportunities to reduce speed limits with this methodology, prioritizing locations on the high-injury network and/or those with high activity levels and vulnerable communities. Data-Driven Speed Management To identify and prioritize locations that could benefit from speed limit reductions and/or design changes, a holistic analysis of speed differentials between prevailing speed and target speed could be instructive. Wejo Travel Speed and Driving Events Data allows users to understand travel speeds of vehicles on roadways. This data, combined with the development of target speeds based on context, is a mapping exercise that could be moved forward to assist the county with prioritizing locations for speed limit modifications. 111Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 120 of 248 Non-Infrastructure Programs To build public support and use of active transportation infrastructure investments, the County will support and collaborate with partners on outreach, engagement, and education activities. Public Works can use existing programs as venues for project outreach and to educate community members about new and planned facilities. Non-infrastructure programs also need ongoing support and funding. Because many infrastructure grant programs also include opportunities for non-infrastructure or supportive program components, Public Works will coordinate with staff from existing programs to identify opportunities for joint funding. Existing programs that present opportunities for collaboration include: • Safe Routes to School programs are led through partnerships including Street Smarts Diablo, 511 Contra Costa, and Contra Costa Health Services. Public Works can coordinate with Safe Routes to Schools programs to identify and refine plans for school safety infrastructure projects. • Bicycle Education programs provided by Bike East Bay are encouragement classes for adults, youth, and families. Programs may take the form of on- or off-the- bike safety trainings, bike mechanics classes, theft prevention workshops, social rides, learn-to-ride classes, and more. The County can partner with Bike East Bay to seek funding to provide or support free classes in tandem with infrastructure plans and projects. Bike East Bay also provides driver- focused education classes about operating safely around people bicycling and walking. Classes may be targeted toward transit, delivery, or other professional drivers, or for teen learners. • The Concord Bike Kitchen is a community bike shop and youth education program led by Bike Concord located at Olympic High School in Concord. Because Olympic High serves students from a large area including unincorporated areas, it is an excellent venue for outreach and collaboration on funding opportunities. • Bay Area Bike Mobile is a regional program that provides mobile bicycle repair for schools and communities. Community events where the Bike Mobile is in attendance are good venues for local outreach on infrastructure projects. 112 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 121 of 248 Other non-infrastructure programs that Public Works will take a lead role in include: Walking and Bicycling Audits Walking and bicycling audits identify barriers for travel between home and key destinations. They generally include a tour of a school area or neighborhood where participants identify issues related to walking and biking, followed by a debriefing and brainstorming session to rank concerns and identify potential solutions. Audits are typically completed by planners, engineers, and other staff with experience in pedestrian and bicycle issues. They often include input from stakeholders like school faculty and/ or administrators, district or community program staff, parents, and students. The stakeholders systematically document conditions that impact people walking or bicycling to and from school or other destinations and note specific locations on a map. The County will routinely conduct walk and bike audits when planning infrastructure projects in school zones, business districts, and near other key destinations. Bay Area Bike to Work Day (BTWD) Bay Area BTWD, recently renamed to “Bike to Wherever Day” during the COVID-19 shelter in place orders, is a celebration of bicycles as a fun and healthy way to get to work. The County will participate in BTWD by hosting energizer stations on various trails or at BART Stations. The energizer stations provide participants with refreshments, giveaways, and bicycle information during the morning and evening commutes. BTWD is part of National Bike Month in May. Franklin Canyon Road in Briones 113Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 122 of 248 CHAPTER 6 114 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 123 of 248 IMPLEMENTATION 115Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 124 of 248 Given the scope of projects within this plan, implementation will take many years to complete. Implementation of each project is dependent upon the availability and acquisition of funding. Improvements associated with work on adjacent roadways or maintenance projects can be undertaken in a relatively easier and lower cost fashion than if implemented separately. In these cases, some lower priority improvements may be implemented before higher-priority improvements, depending on the location. Projects requiring land acquisition, utility relocation, or substantial drainage modifications may require extra time to implement. Detailed feasibility and design studies based on local conditions will also be necessary for the implementation of many projects. Implementation of this plan is expected to occur: • through active transportation projects and grants pursued to implement this plan • in conjunction with maintenance and improvement projects, such as slurry seals, pavement reconstruction, roadway widening, or sidewalk rehabilitation projects • in conjunction with adjacent land development projects Completion of projects in this plan will be reported by staff to the County Board of Supervisors and on the County’s website. The County will periodically update this plan, ideally on a five-year timeline, to reflect evolving needs and progress toward completion. Costs and Funding This plan includes a wide range of projects with varying degrees of cost. Project cost estimations were developed to give a general idea of the anticipated cost for each proposed project. The cost estimates were based solely on construction costs and do not include other typical soft costs associated with projects. These include but are not limited to design, environmental, and permitting costs, traffic control, mobilization, SWPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention), construction management, and inspection. Projects were divided into categories based on similar project descriptions. For corridor projects, a detailed cost estimate was prepared for one “guiding” project in each category. This analysis yielded a low-end and high- end total project cost and per linear foot cost for the guide projects. The guide project low/high-end per linear foot estimates were averaged and then applied to the similar 116 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 125 of 248 projects in their corresponding categories. For intersection and spot improvement projects, estimations were calculated from recent project cost data. Each project was grouped into one of four cost range categories denoted by one-to- four-dollar signs as shown in Appendix A. The categories are listed as follows: • “$” for projects costing less than $500,000 • “$$” for projects between $500,000 and $1,500,000 • “$$$” for projects between $1,500,000 and $5,000,000 • “$$$$” for projects over $5,000,000. Multiple federal, state, regional, county, and local organizations provide funding for pedestrian and bicycle projects and programs. A summary of funding sources is provided in Appendix B, Funding Sources.Pedestrian using a push button 117Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 126 of 248 Construction Considerations During a development’s construction period, construction zones may encroach on sidewalks, crosswalks, or bicycle lanes. Both pedestrians and bicyclists may find themselves having to make detours that may feel unsafe, difficult to navigate, or both. This can be especially dangerous for children, the elderly, those with disabilities, and others who rely on a well- maintained and well-marked path for safe mobility or for bicyclists who may encounter sudden pavement changes or construction debris in their path. FHWA provided guidance on pedestrian and bicycle safety in work zones in a webinar hosted by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center.15 Alternative access routes should include the following: • Route located on the same side of street if feasible • Smooth, continuous surface – no abrupt changes in curb or grade of roadway • Maintain existing width of sidewalk or bike lane • Work zone communications should be audible and/or detectable • Protect and separate pedestrians and bicyclists with devices that maintain accessibility and protect users from equipment • Install temporary traffic control devices with wayfinding messaging, and provide workers with high- visibility apparel • Provide a temporary bus stop location if a project impedes access • Avoid or remove obstacles on sidewalks, paths, and bicycle lanes Through a project’s review process, County staff should also review site plans and traffic control plans to ensure adequate access and safety are maintained through the duration of construction. 15 FHWA, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. Improving Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety in Work Zones. December 4, 2019. 118 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 127 of 248 Potential Outcomes Following implementation of the planned networks and supporting programs, substantial improvements may be achieved in the number of active transportation users within the County. Table 8 presents a comparison of bicycle, walk, and transit trips by commuters for counties with similar populations, land use, or geographic traits. By increasing Priority Projects Through the prioritization process noted in Chapter 5, seven projects were identified as near-term priorities for further study and implementation. Each group of projects will contribute to growing the backbone network of facilities for low-stress bicycling and walking, and/or remedy important deficiencies or needs in the network. An overview of each project group, including a discussion on challenges and project features, is provided in the following pages. Although these projects were identified as top priority, it is important to note that additional feasibility and design studies may be needed prior to implementation. Further community input and engagement is anticipated as these projects come to be developed. the facilities available to users, mode share may increase to levels seen in other comparable counties, which could easily result in doubling the number of commute trips made on bicycle or by walking. Because these numbers do not include shopping, school, recreational, or other non-work trips, the actual number of trips may be higher than these comparisons. Table 8 Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Commuter Mode Share Comparison County Pedestrian Bicyclist Transit Contra Costa 0.5%1.6%10.9% Alameda 1.9%3.5%15.8% Marin 1.3%3.4%9.6% Napa 1.1%4.0%1.7% Sonoma 1.0%2.7%1.8% Solano 1.3%0.3%3.4% Monterey 0.6%2.9%1.6% Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimates: means of transportation to work 119Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 128 of 248 North Richmond Neighborhood Network PROJECT 1 120 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 129 of 248 1.6 MILES LENGTH Project Information NEIGHBORHOOD COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT TYPE 1 SCHOOLS IN PROJECT AREA 2 PARKS IN PROJECT AREA 3 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS* 2 BICYCLE COLLISIONS* N/A CURRENT LTS YES SEGMENT ON HIN? YES IN EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITY?* DATA FROM 2014-2018 Project Background North Richmond is a small neighborhood with two key destinations for pedestrians and bicyclists: Verde Elementary School, located at the northern terminus of Giaramita Street, and Shields-Reid Park and Community Center, located at the southern end of the neighborhood in the City of Richmond and bounded by Chesley Avenue, Kelsey Street, Cherry Street, and Alamo Avenue. In particular, students walk and bicycle each day from school to after school programs, and to/from their homes in the neighborhood. The North Richmond Neighborhood Network project focuses on providing traffic calming, sidewalks, safer crossings, and bicycle access for people walking and biking between Verde Elementary, Shields-Reid, and other community destinations on Giaramita Street, Market Avenue, Chesley Avenue. $8,500,000 ESTIMATED COST There is an additional $2,100,000 in estimated project development costs for a total estimated project cost of $10,600,000. 121Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 130 of 248 Project Features • On Market Avenue, narrow overall curb to curb width and widen sidewalk on one side to 10 feet to provide a multi-use path. • On Market Avenue, build curb extensions at all intersections, and provide mini roundabouts or neighborhood traffic circles at the intersections at 1st Street and 2nd Street for speed reduction. • On Giaramita Street and Chesley Avenue, construct bicycle boulevards with traffic calming and pedestrian access improvements. The design will include neighborhood traffic circles and/or speed humps, as well as curb extensions to provide a gateway to the neighborhood street. • Build crosswalks across Chesley Avenue at Giaramita Street • Construct complete sidewalks, closing all gaps in access on both sides of all three streets. Key Challenges • Children biking to Verde Elementary School lack a low-stress bicycle facility. • No bicycle facilities exist on Market Avenue or Chesley Avenue, two key corridors for access in and out of North Richmond. • Existing crosswalks at uncontrolled locations lack safety enhancements and do not correspond with pedestrian desire lines between Shields-Reid Community Center and Verde Elementary. • Long stretches of neighborhood streets without traffic controls allow vehicles to pick up speed and do not support a comfortable walking and biking environment. • Many existing sidewalks are narrow and do not provide a comfortable walking experience for pedestrians. 122 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 131 of 248 Market Ave Market Ave Fred Jackson WayGaramita StChesley Ave Chesley Ave Market Ave (corridorwide) Curb extensions at all intersections Mini roundabouts at 1st St and 2nd St Widen sidewalk on one side to multi-use path Chesley Ave & Garamita St (corridorwide) Implement bike boulevards with pedestrian access and trac calming improvements such as trac circles, speed humps, and curb extensions Sidewalk Improvements Close all sidewalk gaps on both sides on all three streets 1st St2nd St4th St5th StTruman St6th StChesley Ave & Garamita St Intersection Add crosswalks across Chesley Ave 123Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 132 of 248 Port Chicago Highway Complete Corridor PROJECT 2 124 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 133 of 248 0.5 MILES LENGTH Project Information ARTERIAL CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT TYPE 0 SCHOOLS IN PROJECT AREA 1 PARKS IN PROJECT AREA 0 1 3 CURRENT LTS NO SEGMENT ON HIN? YES IN EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITY? PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS*BICYCLE COLLISIONS* * DATA FROM 2014-2018 Project Background A key north-south corridor in Bay Point, Port Chicago Highway connects Willow Pass Road with Pacifica Avenue, providing access to multiple schools, neighborhood food shopping at Shore Acres Shopping Center, and from the Delta de Anza Trail to homes on either side of the corridor. With five vehicle lanes, narrow bike lanes, long stretches with no crosswalks, Port Chicago Highway is an uncomfortable place to walk and bike. The Port Chicago Highway Complete Streets project would study and implement a road diet to reduce the roadway to one lane in each direction, provide separated Class IV bikeways or a shared use path to improve bike connections to the Delta de Anza Trail, and upgrade pedestrian crossings to improve access between residential neighborhoods in Bay Point. $3,600,000 ESTIMATED COST There is an additional $900,000 in estimated project development costs for a total estimated project cost of $4,500,000. 125Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 134 of 248 Project Features • Study and implement five lane to three lane road diet and construct Class IV separated bike lanes or a Class I shared use path. • Upgrade signalized intersections to include ADA-compliant curb ramps and signals, protected left turn phasing, leading pedestrian intervals, and high-visibility crosswalks. • Study the potential addition of a marked crosswalk across the northern leg at Kevin Drive, with high-visibility striping and enhancements for visibility. Depending on ultimate speed limit of the segment, a treatment such as an RRFB may be considered. • Reconstruct the intersection of Port Chicago Highway, Willow Pass Road, and the Delta de Anza Trail. Provide a high-visibility multi-use trail crossing on the west leg, and provide a pedestrian crosswalk at all legs of the intersection. The southbound slip lane should be closed, but if this is not feasible, a raised crosswalk can be provided to slow down traffic, although this may impact heavy truck traffic. • Provide shade trees and landscaping to mitigate summer heat. Key Challenges • Long stretches of roadway without traffic control encourage speeding and limit pedestrian crossing opportunities between neighborhoods. • Existing narrow bike lanes alongside high- speed traffic are uncomfortable and present safety concerns, especially for children and less experienced bike riders. A high level of exposure to vehicle traffic results in a harsh and challenging environment for people walking and biking to neighborhood destinations. • Incomplete crosswalks and long crossing distances at Willow Pass Road impede access to and from the Delta de Anza Trail 126 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 135 of 248 Willow Pass Rd/De Anza Trail Close the south-bound slip lane or construct raised crosswalk Signalized Intersections(corridorwide) High-visibility crosswalks ADA-accessible ramps and signals Road Diet (corridorwide) Implement 5- to 3-lane road diet with Class I or Class IV bike facilities Landscaping(corridorwide) Landscaping and street trees Kevin Dr(outside of map) Add high-visibility crosswalk on north side Port Chicago Hwy Wil l ow P a s s R d Riverside DrCrosswalk at every intersection leg High-visibility trail crossing on west leg Add protected left turn phasing Add LPI 127Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 136 of 248 Willow Pass Road Complete Corridor PROJECT 3 128 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 137 of 248 1.5 MILES LENGTH Project Information ARTERIAL CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT TYPE 0 SCHOOLS IN PROJECT AREA 2 PARKS IN PROJECT AREA 7 7 3 CURRENT LTS YES SEGMENT ON HIN? YES IN EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITY? PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS*BICYCLE COLLISIONS* * DATA FROM 2014-2018 Project Background Willow Pass Road is the main east-west arterial connection between Bay Point and the City of Pittsburg. It is the main transit and commercial corridor in Bay Point and home to Anuta Park and Ambrose Community Center and Garden. Willow Pass Road is also a difficult place to walk and bike, despite a high need for access. With five vehicle lanes, people using the narrow bike lanes and exposed sidewalks need to navigate long distances between crossings and walk or bike alongside fast-moving traffic. It is a high-injury corridor for both pedestrians and bicyclists, with a history of fatal and severe injury collisions. The Willow Pass Road Complete Corridor project will include a feasibility study for a road diet, with the goal of reimagining this multi-modal corridor as a place that is safe and comfortable to walk, bike, take the bus, and drive. With potential to reduce the number of travel or turn lanes or narrow the travel lanes, the project will take a holistic approach to the corridor, aiming to upgrade existing bike lanes to a low stress bicycle facility, provide improved pedestrian crossings, and create a comfortable environment for access to transit. The project will also create a connection to the future Class IV facility on Bailey Road to the Bay Point BART Station. $7,600,000 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST There is an additional $1,900,000 in estimated project development costs for a total estimated project cost of $9,500,000. 129Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 138 of 248 Project Features • Road diet feasibility study along the corridor with the goal of constructing a Class IV separated bikeway. • Enhance existing uncontrolled marked crosswalk locations, including Clearland Drive, Solano Avenue, Madison Avenue, and Bella Vista Avenue. These could include rapid rectangular flashing beacons or pedestrian hybrid beacons based on speed and yielding conditions.16 The outcome of the road diet study will determine the final crosswalk enhancements. • Enhance signalized intersections. Stripe high- visibility crosswalks at all legs of intersections with pedestrian destinations. Signal updates should include northbound and southbound protected or split left turn phasing at Kevin Drive, upgraded clearance intervals at all signals, and leading pedestrian intervals at Bailey Road and Kevin Drive. Pedestrian safety countermeasures should be implemented along with potential protected intersections with Class IV bikeway design and construction. 16 Use the FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations to determine final design. Key Challenges • Willow Pass Road is on the high-injury network for bicycle and pedestrian collisions, with hot spots at intersections and uncontrolled crosswalk locations. • Narrow bike lanes are stressful for bicycling and are not appropriate for children or new bike riders to access neighborhood destinations. 130 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 139 of 248 Road Diet (corridorwide) Implement road diet with a Class IV bikeway and provide low-stress bike and pedestrian facilities throughout Uncontrolled Crosswalks (corridorwide) Enhance with RRFBs or PHBs on speed and yielding conditions Kevin Dr(outside of map) Add northbound turn pocket and implement protected left turn phasing Signalized Intersections(corridorwide) High-visibility crosswalks at every leg of intersection Updated clearance intervals for signals Willow Pass Rd Bailey RdSolano AveBroadway AveAdd LPI ADA-accessible ramps and signals 131Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 140 of 248 San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets (Crockett to Rodeo) PROJECT 4 132 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 141 of 248 3 MILES LENGTH Project Information ARTERIAL CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT TYPE 0 SCHOOLS IN PROJECT AREA 0 PARKS IN PROJECT AREA 0 2 4 CURRENT LTS NO SEGMENT ON HIN? YES IN EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITY? PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS*BICYCLE COLLISIONS* * DATA FROM 2014-2018 Project Background With a new segment of the Bay Trail now open from Hercules to Lone Tree Point in Rodeo, just a few gaps still impede a seamless, low stress bike ride from the Alameda County-Contra Costa County border to the Carquinez Bridge and destinations beyond in Sonoma and Napa Counties. One such gap is a three-mile stretch of San Pablo Avenue between Crockett and Rodeo, where bicyclists climb past refineries and alongside semi-trucks to access the continuation of the Bay Trail. In 2016, Contra Costa County conducted a feasibility study and community outreach to identify a preferred design alternative for providing bicycle and pedestrian access along this section of San Pablo Avenue.17 The result was a recommendation for a road diet and installation of a two-way shared use path along one side of the roadway. This high priority project for funding and implementation will improve safety and connectivity on this critical connector. 17 https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/6006/San-Pablo- Avenue-Complete-Streets-Project $8,300,000 ESTIMATED COST There is an additional $2,100,000 in estimated project development costs for a total estimated project cost of $10,400,000. 133Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 142 of 248 Project Features • Implement a road diet, converting the roadway to one travel lane in each direction with left turn pockets, medians, or truck climbing lanes • Construct a dedicated shared-use path for people biking and walking with a concrete barrier to separate vehicle traffic. • Add striping on Parker Avenue to facilitate access to and from the new shared-use path, including signage and green-backed sharrows to direct bicyclists to the trail at Lone Tree Point Include two-way bike crossings where two-way facilities transition to one-way bike lanes. Use green conflict striping where needed. • Modify lane configuration and crossing markings at Pomona Street to provide connection from existing Class II bike lanes to and from new shared-use path, including new detection loops, signage, pavement markings and minor traffic signal modifications Include two-way bike crossings where two-way facilities transition to one-way bike lanes. Use green conflict striping where needed. Key Challenges • San Pablo Avenue between Crockett and Rodeo is a critical gap in the Bay Trail and regional bicycle and pedestrian network. • Truck traffic from neighboring refineries creates a high stress environment for bicycling with safety risks. • Current refinery operations along San Pablo Avenue. 134 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 143 of 248 Road Diet (corridorwide) Implement road diet to one lane in each direction with left turn pockets, medians, or truck climbing lanes Dedicated shared-use path, with a concrete barrier to separate vehicle trac from bikes and pedestrians Parker Ave Add green-backed sharrows to the trail at Lone Tree Point Pomona St Enhance bike lanes that access the new path San Pablo AveSan Pablo Ave Parker Ave 135Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 144 of 248 San Pablo Avenue Gap Closure (Tara Hills) PROJECT 5 136 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 145 of 248 0.5 MILE LENGTH Project Information ARTERIAL CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT TYPE 2 SCHOOLS IN PROJECT AREA 0 PARKS IN PROJECT AREA 3 0 4 CURRENT LTS YES SEGMENT ON HIN? YES IN EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITY? PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS*BICYCLE COLLISIONS* * DATA FROM 2014-2018 Project Background San Pablo Avenue is the only street with direct access to and through Tara Hills between Hilltop and Pinole. While some bicycle lanes and sidewalks are present, the corridor currently has narrow sidewalks with obstacles to ADA accessibility and narrow, discontinuous bike lanes. The corridor has a history of severe and fatal pedestrian collisions. The San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets project for Tara Hills will study the construction of a Class I pathway, close sidewalk gaps, and upgrade pedestrian crossings. $1,600,000 ESTIMATED COST There is an additional $400,000 in estimated project development costs for a total estimated project cost of $2,000,000. Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 146 of 248 Project Features • Study feasibility to implement a Class I shared- use path on the west side, upgrading and continuing the existing path. • Design and construct a protected intersection at Richmond Parkway, providing high visibility crosswalks, direct connection to the Bay Trail segment on Richmond Parkway, and signal timing to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian access. • Upgrade all curb ramps for ADA accessibility • Stripe high-visibility crosswalks and add advance stop bars at all legs of signalized intersections for more direct access to bus stops and neighborhood destinations. • In addition to providing shared-use path, close Class II bike lane gaps for more confident cyclists. Study a road diet for traffic calming and upgrades to buffered or Class IV bike lanes in addition to a complete shared-use path on the west side. • For speed management, study a road diet, narrow lanes and adjust signal timing to discourage speeding. Key Challenges • Class II bike lanes are discontinuous. • Sidewalks are narrow and deteriorating, with non-compliant ADA ramps. • Long crossing distances and significant conflicts with turning vehicles exist at signalized crosswalks, presenting safety concerns. • There is currently no wayfinding or direct, low-stress connection to the existing shared- use path on Richmond Parkway from neighborhoods along San Pablo Avenue. This limits access to Point Pinole and other recreational destinations. 138 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 147 of 248 Richmond Pkwy High-visibility crosswalk with trail connection Signal timing to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian access Class I Shared-Use Trail Class I trail on west side by upgrading and extending the existing path Signalized Intersections(corridorwide) Crosswalk and advance stop bars at every leg of signalized intersections ADA-compliant curb ramps On-Street Bike Facilities (corridorwide) Narrow lanes In addition to trail, close gaps in Class II bike lanes Study feasibility of road diet to create Class IV bikewaySan Pablo AveS h a m r o c k D r Richmon d P k w y Tighten intersection to provide space for bikes and pedestrians to wait Adjust signal timings to include protected left turn phasing and LPIs 139Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 148 of 248 Pacifica Avenue Safe Routes to School PROJECT 6 140 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 149 of 248 1 MILE LENGTH Project Information NEIGHBORHOOD COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT TYPE 4 SCHOOLS IN PROJECT AREA 1 PARKS IN PROJECT AREA 3 1 1 CURRENT LTS YES SEGMENT ON HIN? YES IN EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITY? PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS*BICYCLE COLLISIONS* * DATA FROM 2014-2018 Project Background Pacifica Avenue is a key connection to schools and community destinations in Bay Point. With four schools on the corridor, a community garden, the YWCA, health centers, the library, and multiple faith organizations, Pacifica Avenue is a critical corridor for walking and biking. On the west end, it also connects to the Delta de Anza Trail. Because of the history of bicycle and pedestrian collisions, the County has already implemented countermeasures at uncontrolled crossing locations and provided Class II bike lanes. The Pacifica Avenue Safe Routes to Schools project will build on existing efforts to provide enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connectivity with a phased approach. There is an additional $500,000 in estimated project development costs for a total estimated project cost of $2,300,000. $1,800,000 ESTIMATED COST 141Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 150 of 248 Project Features • In the near term, close sidewalk gaps with temporary physical separation like an asphalt berm. • Provide additional enhancements at uncontrolled crossing locations, including the potential for a raised crosswalk at each school. • In the medium term, narrow travel lanes and construct a two-way Class IV separated bikeway on the south side of the street to provide dedicated space for children biking between Port Chicago Highway and Riverview Middle School. • In the long term, constructs a two-way Class IV separated bikeway or Class I shared use path on the south side of the street between Port Chicago Highway and Driftwood Drive. Coordinate with the School District and Tri- Delta Transit to separate curb uses and users. • Provide wayfinding and crossings for improved access to the EBMUD Aqueduct Trail. Key Challenges • Narrow sidewalks and bike lanes provide limited space for groups of students to walk and bike to school. • There are gaps in the sidewalks, and drivers frequently park on the walkway where there is no sidewalk. • Uncontrolled crosswalks have had some enhancements, but drivers still go fast in the school zone with continued issues with yielding. • The EBMUD Aqueduct Trail comes near schools on Pacifica Avenue, but additional wayfinding and on-street bicycle and pedestrian improvements are needed to connect to the front door of the schools. 142 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 151 of 248 Near Term Improvements (corridorwide) Add temporary sidewalks with asphalt berm at sidewalk gaps Add raised crosswalks at schools Medium and Long Term Improvements (corridorwide) In the medium term, narrow travel lanes and build two-way Class IV bikeway on south side of street from Port Chicago Hwy to Riverview MS. In the long term, extend Class IV bikeway to Driftwood Dr Pacifica Ave Anchor DrBay DrCanal Drto Port Chicago Hwy to Driftwood Dr and Rio Vista ES Riverview MS Wayfinding Add wayfinding to access for Aqueduct Trail 143Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 152 of 248 Parr Boulevard Complete Streets PROJECT 7 144 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 153 of 248 1 MILE LENGTH Project Information NEIGHBORHOOD COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT TYPE 0 SCHOOLS IN PROJECT AREA 1 PARKS IN PROJECT AREA 0 0 4 CURRENT LTS NO SEGMENT ON HIN? YES IN EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITY? PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS*BICYCLE COLLISIONS* * DATA FROM 2014-2018 Project Background Parr Boulevard is a two-lane road that runs from the Wildcat Marsh Trail in North Richmond to Giant Road in San Pablo. Within North Richmond, Parr Boulevard intersects with the Richmond Parkway, the San Francisco Bay Trail, and Fred Jackson Way. With industrial land uses, Parr Boulevard has multiple large employers, making it a key connection to park space and jobs. Parr Boulevard currently has no sidewalks, bicycle facilities, or shoulders. The Parr Boulevard Complete Streets project will provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities between the Richmond Parkway/Bay Trail and the Union Pacific railroad tracks. This enhanced east-west bicycle and pedestrian route will provide access to future industrial development, the City of San Pablo, and recreational trails along the San Pablo Bay Shoreline. $2,600,000 ESTIMATED COST There is an additional $700,000 in estimated project development costs for a total estimated project cost of $3,300,000. 145Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 154 of 248 Project Features • Study feasibility of separated Class IV and install Class IV or Class II bicycle facility pending feasibility study. • Construct sidewalk on both sides of the street. • Install crosswalks at all intersections. • At Richmond Parkway, install crossing improvements including high-visibility crossing, new ramps and curb extensions, and consider bike loop detectors or other passive actuation for bicyclists. Key Challenges • No sidewalks • No bicycle facilities • No shoulders for walking and bicycling 146 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 155 of 248 Parr Blvd Richmond PkwyFred Jackson WayBike Improvements (corridorwide) Implement Class II or Class IV bike facilities depending on feasibility Intersection Improvements (corridorwide) Add sidewalks on both sides Crosswalk at every intersection Richmond Pkwy High-visibility crosswalks at every leg of intersection Curb extensions to shorten crossing distance Bike loop detectors or other passive actuation for bicyclists 147Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 156 of 248 Regional Corridors Because Contra Costa County’s unincorporated areas have unusual borders interspersed with neighboring cities and towns, close coordination with partner agencies is critical for the implementation and maintenance of a continuous bikeway and trail network. Regional arterial and trail corridors are critical for connectivity across barriers and for access to destinations. The following set of projects represents these key connections. Some are existing bike lane or trail corridors, while others are new. All are part of CCTA’s low-stress backbone network and have significant opportunity for cross- jurisdictional collaboration. Arterial Corridors • San Pablo Avenue As the key north-south arterial corridor in West Contra Costa, San Pablo Avenue provides multi-modal access from Alameda County up to the Carquinez Bridge in Crockett. Priority projects are listed above for segments in Tara Hills and from Crockett to Rodeo. • Appian Way Linking San Pablo Avenue in Pinole to San Pablo Dam Road in El Sobrante, Appian Way is a key connection in the regional bicycle network. Projects will close network gaps with upgraded Class IV bike lanes and a critical safety project at Appian Way and Valley View Road. • Pacheco Boulevard As a main route between Martinez, Pacheco, and Concord, Pacheco Boulevard is an important connection to destinations in Central Contra Costa County. Projects will study and aim to close gaps with Class IV separated bikeways and provide pedestrian safety and connectivity improvements. • Concord Avenue A top priority project from the County’s Vision Zero program, Concord Avenue is a key connection and there is currently a significant gap in bicycle and pedestrian access between Downtown Concord and major destinations like Diablo Valley College and the Sun Valley Shopping Center. The recommended project will study a road diet in collaboration with the City of Concord and provide crossing enhancements, a bikeway connection, and safety improvements for all users. 148 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 157 of 248 Danville Boulevard through downtown Alamo 149Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 158 of 248 • Danville Boulevard Running parallel to the Iron Horse Trail between Walnut Creek and Danville, Danville Boulevard is a major thoroughfare for road cyclists in Contra Costa County. Recommended projects focus on improving bocycle and pedestrian connections at the intersections of Rudgear Road, Livorna Road, and Stone Valley Road. • Treat Boulevard A key east-west connection that provides access to Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Center BART, Treat Boulevard is an important connection for people walking and biking across I-680 and to transit. The I-680/Treat Blvd Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements project is currently funded and slated for construction in 2024. 18 https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/44097/ Olympic-Connector-Preferred- Alignment?bidId= • San Pablo Dam Road Stretching from San Pablo Avenue in the City of San Pablo to Bear Creek Road in Orinda, San Pablo Dam Road is the only corridor providing access between West Contra Costa, El Sobrante, and the bikeway network entering Orinda and Moraga. The corridor has segments in urban, suburban, and rural areas, with discontinuous bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Recommended projects focus on providing targeted safety improvements at key intersections, connecting bike lanes along the corridor, and providing sidewalk gap closures for access to destinations and transit. • Olympic Boulevard As the primary route between Lafayette and Walnut Creek, Olympic Boulevard represents a significant gap in the trail network between the Lafayette-Moraga Trail and the Iron Horse Trail. Recommended projects for Contra Costa County would implement recommendations of the Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study in collaboration with neighboring jurisdictions.18 150 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 159 of 248 • Bailey Road Running north and south from Bay Point to Concord, Bailey Road is an important regional facility that connects multiple community destinations, trails, and the Pittsburgh/Bay Point Bart Station. Recent projects have improved bicycle and pedestrian access along the roadway by providing continuous sidewalks and bike lanes through the State Route 4 interchange. Projects in this plan around Bailey Road focus on leveraging these investments to further improve crossings and access to trails, schools, and community destinations. The intersection of San Pablo Dam Road and El Portal Drive in El Sobrante 151Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 160 of 248 Trail Corridors Contra Costa County has an excellent existing trail network that provides low-stress bicycle and pedestrian access within communities as well as beyond county lines. Many of these trails are continuing to undergo improvements and expansions. Projects focus on upgrading trail quality, providing more comfortable crossings with safety countermeasures, and closing gaps with on-street facilities. Long-term plans for new trails will require regional coordination and collaboration. The East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan map shows existing and planned regional trail alignments.19 Trail projects should include wayfinding consistent with local and regional branding for visual consistency. Refer to the wayfinding section for additional detail. 19 https://www.ebparks.org/sites/default/files/master_plan_map.pdf The existing trail corridors associated with projects in this plan include: • Iron Horse Trail One of the longest trails in the Bay Area, the Iron Horse Trail extends from Livermore in Alameda County all the way to Concord. With multiple segments in unincorporated Contra Costa, the County plays a key role in maintaining and supporting this regional connection. Recommended projects include an extension to Waterfront Road (to be implemented with regional partners like the East Bay Regional Park District) and local trail crossing enhancements. All Iron Horse Trail crossings of local streets should be considered for raised crossings and visibility enhancements will all routine paving projects. • Contra Costa Canal Trail In a large horseshoe shape, the Contra Costa Canal Trail serves Central County and intersects many local parks and other trails, including the Iron Horse Trail. The County can support and coordinate with the East Bay Regional Park District on the long- term plan to connect the Contra Costa Canal Trail with the Delta de Anza Trail, connecting Concord with Bay Point through the Concord Naval Weapons Station. • Delta de Anza Trail An east-west trail spanning most of East Contra Costa, the Delta de Anza Trail forms the backbone of the bicycle network for Bay Point, Pittsburg, and Antioch. Recommended projects include trail crossing enhancements at key 152 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 161 of 248 locations like Bailey Road and Willow Pass Road. The County can support and collaborate with the East Bay Regional Park District in extending the Delta de Anza Trail to the west to connect with the future extension of the Iron Horse Trail along Walnut Creek to Waterbird Way. • Bay Trail With over 350 miles already open, the vision for the Bay Trail is a complete 500-mile trail corridor ringing the Bay. Contra Costa County can support the complete vision with key trail connections along Richmond Parkway and San Pablo Avenue, and by moving forward local projects that provide access to the Bay Trail. Potential new trail corridors that are associated with projects in this plan include: • Marsh Creek Trail Along Marsh Creek Road in eastern Contra Costa County, a feasibility study is currently underway to evaluate options for a new trail that roughly follows the alignment of Marsh Creek Road. The study area stretches from Clayton city limits at the western end, to the Round Valley Regional Preserve at the eastern end. Due to topographical and environmental constraints within the area, along with adjacent private property limitations, it is anticipated that the proposed alignment would include a mix of on- and off-street separated facilities. Collaboration with EBRPD, Save Mount Diablo, and local property owners will be required for implementation. • Great California Delta Trail The California Delta Protection Commission is leading the planning and development of the Great California Delta Trail, a continuous regional recreation corridor extending around the Delta, including the shorelines of five Delta counties, and linking trail systems from Sacramento to the San Francisco Bay. In Contra Costa County, the completed trail would connect the existing Lafayette-Moraga and Marsh Creek Trails with the Bay Trail at Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline. Projects along Carquinez Scenic Drive in Port Costa and in Bay Point will support and connect to the future Great California Delta Trail. The County can proactively engage with the Delta Protection Commission and the East Bay Regional Park District to collaborate on opportunities to move the long-term plans forward. 153Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 162 of 248 APPENDIX A 154 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 163 of 248 PROJECT LIST This appendix provides lists of prioritized projects, including lengths and costs. Chapters 5 and 6 provide additional details on how project costs and priorities were identified and developed. 155Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 164 of 248 Roadway Name From To Miles Neighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway Type Project Description Cost Estimate Priority 4th St Garretson Ave Vaqueros Ave 0.28 Rodeo Complete Streets Class IIIB Enhance crosswalks especially where hilly terrain creates challenging sight lines. Consider median islands at uncontrolled crossings with poor sight lines. Implement traffic calming and bicycle boulevard. $$High 7th Street Willow Ave Garretson Ave 0.11 Rodeo Complete Streets Class III Construct bicycle boulevard with robust traffic calming for pedestrian comfort. Design expected to include 1-2 neighborhood traffic circles and speed humps along the extent. Update sidewalks and corners as needed for ADA accessibility. $High Appian Way San Pablo Dam Rd Valley View Rd 1.19 El Sobrante Complete Streets Class IV Upgrade existing sidewalk for ADA compliance. Install new Class IV bicycle facilities. Provide bicyclist and pedestrian crossings through traffic signal modifications or installation of a roundabout at intersection with Valley View Road. $$$High At Canal/Mims and Delta de Anza Trail ----Bay Point Intersection -- Install crosswalk on north leg at the Canal Road intersection, update clearance intervals and install advanced dilemma zone detection at Canal Road, coordinate (or cluster) Canal Road and the De Anza Trail crossing. Coordinate with Class IV bikeway on Bailey Rd. At Mims, enhance existing crosswalk with high-visibility striping, implement signal modifications like leading pedestrian interval and consider prohibiting eastbound RTOR. Add traffic calming at corner to slow right turning vehicles. $$High Bella Vista Ave Willow Pass Rd End/Delta de Anza 0.45 Bay Point Complete Streets Class IIIB Construct bicycle boulevard with robust traffic calming for pedestrian comfort. Design expected to include 1-2 neighborhood traffic circles and speed humps along the extent. Long-term project would complete continuous sidewalk on one side. $High Brookside Dr Central St UPRR 0.64 North Richmond Complete Streets Class III Construct sidewalk on one side, stripe shared lane bikeway markings, and install high-visibility crosswalks at intersections.$$$High Canal Rd Bailey Rd County Limit 0.75 Bay Point Bike Class IIB Calm traffic and upgrade bike lane to class IIB, improve intersection at Bailey Rd with leading pedestrian interval and two-stage bike turn boxes.$High Central Street Brookside Dr Pittsburg Ave 0.14 North Richmond Pedestrian --Install new sidewalk to close gaps along Central Street.$$High Chesley Ave Ruby Ave County boundary 0.55 North Richmond Complete Streets Class IIIB Construct bicycle boulevard with robust traffic calming for pedestrian comfort. Design expected to include 2-3 neighborhood traffic circles and speed humps along the extent. Long-term project would widen sidewalk to a consistent width of 7-8 ft. $High Concord Ave I-680 Iron Horse Trail/Walnut Creek 0.84 Pacheco Complete Streets Class IV Study road diet along Concord Ave in coordination with the City of Concord. Consider protected bike lanes, protected intersections, and removal of slip lanes, as well as realignment of crosswalks to provide shorter crossing distances. Install protected left turn phasing at John Glen Dr and New Dr. $$$High Contra Costa Canal Trail Driftwood Dr Bailey Rd 2.49 Bay Point Trail Class I Construct new Class I trail along canal to connect with existing trail. Install high-visibility raised crossings at neighborhood streets and wayfinding signage to bikeway network.$$$$High Cummings Skyway San Pablo Ave Franklin Canyon Rd 4.21 Rural Bike Class IIB Close bike lane gaps, widen and buffer bike lanes. Stripe conflict markings through intersections.$$$High Giaramita St.Chesley Ave Wildcat Creek Trail 0.42 North Richmond Complete Streets Class IIIB Construct bicycle boulevard with robust traffic calming for pedestrian comfort. Design expected to include 1-2 neighborhood traffic circles and speed humps along the extent. Long-term project would widen sidewalk to a consistent width of 7-8 ft on west side of roadway. $High Market Ave Jade St County boundary 0.64 North Richmond Complete Streets Class I Install pedestrian improvements and traffic calming improvements along Market Ave between Fred Jackson Way and 7th Street. Potential to construct wide shared use path/sidewalk on one side for bicycle and pedestrian access. Consider 2-3 raised crosswalks at key desire line intersections. $$$High Pacifica Ave Port Chicago Hwy Driftwood Dr 1.00 Bay Point Bike Class IV Short term project: asphalt berms to close sidewalk gaps, uncontrolled crossing enhancement. Long term project: two-way cycle track on south side- trail to trail connection and safe route to school. Includes concrete sidewalk gap closures. $$$High Parr Blvd Richmond Parkway BNSF Rail 0.97 North Richmond Complete Streets Class II Construct sidewalk on one side, stripe Class II bike lanes, and install high-visibility crosswalks at intersections where needed for access to destinations $$High Pittsburg Ave Richmond Parkway Fred Jackson Way 0.37 North Richmond Complete Streets Class III Construct sidewalk on one side and install shared lane bikeway markings. Install wayfinding signage between trail segments from Wildcat Creek Trailhead when undercrossing at Richmond Parkway is flooded. $$High Pomona St San Pablo Ave I-80 0.25 Crockett Bike Class IIB Stripe Class IIB buffered bike lanes to connect San Pablo Ave to Crockett.$High Pomona St San Pablo Ave I-80 0.38 Crockett Trail Class I Repave, widen, and provide improved wayfinding for path under I-80 $$High Port Chicago Hwy Pacifica Ave McAvoy Rd 0.20 Bay Point Complete Streets Class IV Add separated bikeway and sidewalk connecting to Bay Point Regional Shoreline and future Great Delta Trail.$High Port Chicago Hwy Willow Pass Rd Pacifica Ave 0.53 Bay Point Complete Streets Class IV Study and implement road diet to install Class IV separated bikeways, intersection safety improvements, and high-visibility crosswalks. Study slip lane closure at Port Chicago/Willow pass with trail crossing to Delta de Anza Trail. $$High Roadway Name From To Miles Neighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway Type Project Description Cost Estimate Priority Richmond Pkwy County limit (north)Pittsburg Ave 0.76 North Richmond Trail Class I Upgrade and widen existing Class I path, with ADA and crossing improvements $$$High Richmond Pkwy Pittsburg Ave W. Gertrude Ave 0.63 North Richmond Trail Class I Upgrade and widen existing Class I path, with ADA and crossing improvements $$High San Marco Blvd Willow Pass County border/Hwy 4 0.22 Bay Point Complete Streets Class IV Improve safety at interchange. Construct Class IV bikeways and coordinate with City of Pittsburg and Caltrans to make bicycle and pedestrian connection to Leland.$High San Pablo Ave Richmond Parkway County Boundary (Pinole) 1.04 Tara Hills Complete Streets Class IV Study on-street low-stress bikeway or off-street path. Upgrade sidewalks to meet ADA standards. Close sidewalk gap on east side of roadway from Richmond Parkway to Kay Road.$$$High San Pablo Ave Parker Ave Pomona Street/I-80 on ramps 2.86 Crockett/Rodeo Bike Class IV Implement road diet and install new two-way barrier-separated shared-use path along roadway to serve as a connection between Bay Trail segments.$$$$High San Pablo Ave Rodeo Ave Parker Ave 0.08 Rodeo Bike Class III Add green-back sharrows and wayfinding to connect Bay Trail terminus to San Pablo Ave bike lanes.$High San Pablo Creek Trail Richmond Pkwy Fred Jackson Way 0.38 North Richmond Trail Class I Construct Class I path along south side of San Pablo Creek $$High San Pablo Creek Trail Wildcat Marsh Trail Richmond Pkwy 0.28 North Richmond Trail Class I Construct Class I path along south side of San Pablo Creek $$High San Pablo Dam Rd El Portal Dr Appian Way 1.24 El Sobrante Complete Streets Class IV Complete Streets corridor project including low-stress bicycle facility and intersection improvements.$$$High Wildcat Creek Trail At Richmond Pkwy ----North Richmond Trail Class I Upgrade trail undercrossing to prevent flooding or provide at-grade trail crossing $$High Willow Pass Rd Port Chicago Hwy Crivello Ave 1.47 Bay Point Complete Streets Class IV Complete Streets corridor project, including installation of class IV separated bikeways, intersection safety improvements, crosswalk enhancements, and sidewalk gap closures.$$$High Willow Pass Rd Evora Rd Port Chicago Hwy 0.25 Bay Point Bike and Ped Class IV Construct two-way Class I bike path or Class IV cycle track and sidewalk on south side of Willow Pass Rd.$$High 7th Street Creek Trail Willow Ave 0.07 Rodeo Bike Class IIB Stripe Class IIB buffered bike lanes.$Medium Alhambra Valley Rd County limit County limit 9.42 Briones Bike Class III Rural route safety project: mark bike lanes and shared lanes, calm traffic (speed feedback/edge lines), provide safety measures like warning or speed feedback signs at key locations.$$$Medium Appian Way Valley View Rd County Boundary 0.69 El Sobrante Complete Streets Class IV Upgrade existing sidewalk for ADA compliance. Install new Class IV bicycle facilities. $$Medium Appian Way At Valley View Rd ----El Sobrante Intersection --Reconstruct intersection with new signal OR roundabout. Remove slip lanes and provide bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements.$$Medium Appian Way At Santa Rita Rd ----El Sobrante Intersection --Uncontrolled crosswalk safety improvements - evaluate countermeasure (RRFB or PHB) and potentially include with Appian Complete Streets project.$$Medium Arlington Blvd McBryde Ave Aqua Vista Rd 1.23 East Richmond Heights Bike Class III Install traffic calming and shared lane markings. Traffic calming may include edgeline striping, safety signage, and speed feedback signs.$$Medium Arlington Blvd Amherst Ave Highland Blvd 1.10 Kensington Bike Class III Install traffic calming and shared. lane markings. Traffic calming may include edgeline striping, safety signage, and speed feedback signs.$$Medium Arlington Blvd At McBryde ----East Richmond Heights Intersection --Intersection improvements: stripe crosswalks, close slip lane, study for three-way stop.$$Medium Bailey Rd At Maylard St ----Bay Point Intersection /Pedestrian --Stripe all four legs of crosswalk with high-visibility, upgrade ramps. Coordinate ped improvements with City of Pittsburg.$$Medium Balfour Rd Deer Valley Rd Heritage HS 1.40 East County Bike Class IV Install Class IV bike lanes along Balfour Rd.$$$Medium Bay Trail/CSSLT I-80 Carquinez Scenic Dr. Existing Class I 4.69 Crockett/Port Costa Trail Class I Construct Class I path. Alignment includes segments on Loring Dr. and Carquinez Scenic Dr.$$$$Medium Bay Trail/CSSLT Carquinez Scenic Dr. Existing Class I County boundary (Martinez) 1.69 Martinez Trail Class I Construct Class I path. Alignment includes segments on Carquinez Scenic Dr.$$$Medium Bixler Rd Orwood Rd Hwy 4 3.46 East County/Disco Bay Bike Class IIB Upgrade existing bike lanes to Class II buffered. Pave shoulders and stripe bike lanes where missing $$Medium Blum Rd Pacheco Blvd Imhoff Dr 0.31 Martinez Bike Class III Stripe shared lanes and improve intersections with high visibility crosswalks.$Medium 156 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 165 of 248 Roadway NameFromToMilesNeighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway TypeProject DescriptionCost EstimatePriority 4th StGarretson Ave Vaqueros Ave0.28RodeoComplete StreetsClass IIIB Enhance crosswalks especially where hilly terrain creates challenging sight lines. Consider median islands at uncontrolled crossings with poor sight lines. Implement traffic calming and bicycle boulevard. $$High 7th StreetWillow AveGarretson Ave 0.11RodeoComplete StreetsClass III Construct bicycle boulevard with robust traffic calming for pedestrian comfort. Design expected to include 1-2 neighborhood traffic circles and speed humps along the extent. Update sidewalks and corners as needed for ADA accessibility. $High Appian WaySan Pablo Dam RdValley View Rd1.19El SobranteComplete StreetsClass IV Upgrade existing sidewalk for ADA compliance. Install new Class IV bicycle facilities. Provide bicyclist and pedestrian crossings through traffic signal modifications or installation of a roundabout at intersection with Valley View Road. $$$High At Canal/Mims and Delta de Anza Trail ----Bay PointIntersection-- Install crosswalk on north leg at the Canal Road intersection, update clearance intervals and install advanced dilemma zone detection at Canal Road, coordinate (or cluster) Canal Road and the De Anza Trail crossing. Coordinate with Class IV bikeway on Bailey Rd. At Mims, enhance existing crosswalk with high-visibility striping, implement signal modifications like leading pedestrian interval and consider prohibiting eastbound RTOR. Add traffic calming at corner to slow right turning vehicles. $$High Bella Vista Ave Willow Pass Rd End/Delta de Anza0.45Bay PointComplete StreetsClass IIIB Construct bicycle boulevard with robust traffic calming for pedestrian comfort. Design expected to include 1-2 neighborhood traffic circles and speed humps along the extent. Long-term project would complete continuous sidewalk on one side. $High Brookside DrCentral StUPRR0.64North RichmondComplete StreetsClass IIIConstruct sidewalk on one side, stripe shared lane bikeway markings, and install high-visibility crosswalks at intersections.$$$High Canal RdBailey Rd County Limit0.75Bay PointBikeClass IIBCalm traffic and upgrade bike lane to class IIB, improve intersection at Bailey Rd with leading pedestrian interval and two-stage bike turn boxes.$High Central StreetBrookside DrPittsburg Ave 0.14North RichmondPedestrian--Install new sidewalk to close gaps along Central Street.$$High Chesley AveRuby AveCounty boundary0.55North RichmondComplete StreetsClass IIIB Construct bicycle boulevard with robust traffic calming for pedestrian comfort. Design expected to include 2-3 neighborhood traffic circles and speed humps along the extent. Long-term project would widen sidewalk to a consistent width of 7-8 ft. $High Concord AveI-680 Iron Horse Trail/Walnut Creek 0.84PachecoComplete StreetsClass IV Study road diet along Concord Ave in coordination with the City of Concord. Consider protected bike lanes, protected intersections, and removal of slip lanes, as well as realignment of crosswalks to provide shorter crossing distances. Install protected left turn phasing at John Glen Dr and New Dr. $$$High Contra Costa Canal TrailDriftwood Dr Bailey Rd2.49Bay PointTrailClass IConstruct new Class I trail along canal to connect with existing trail. Install high-visibility raised crossings at neighborhood streets and wayfinding signage to bikeway network.$$$$High Cummings SkywaySan Pablo AveFranklin Canyon Rd4.21RuralBikeClass IIBClose bike lane gaps, widen and buffer bike lanes. Stripe conflict markings through intersections.$$$High Giaramita St.Chesley AveWildcat Creek Trail0.42North RichmondComplete StreetsClass IIIB Construct bicycle boulevard with robust traffic calming for pedestrian comfort. Design expected to include 1-2 neighborhood traffic circles and speed humps along the extent. Long-term project would widen sidewalk to a consistent width of 7-8 ft on west side of roadway. $High Market AveJade StCounty boundary0.64North RichmondComplete StreetsClass I Install pedestrian improvements and traffic calming improvements along Market Ave between Fred Jackson Way and 7th Street. Potential to construct wide shared use path/sidewalk on one side for bicycle and pedestrian access. Consider 2-3 raised crosswalks at key desire line intersections. $$$High Pacifica AvePort Chicago HwyDriftwood Dr1.00Bay PointBikeClass IV Short term project: asphalt berms to close sidewalk gaps, uncontrolled crossing enhancement. Long term project: two-way cycle track on south side- trail to trail connection and safe route to school. Includes concrete sidewalk gap closures. $$$High Parr BlvdRichmond ParkwayBNSF Rail0.97North RichmondComplete StreetsClass IIConstruct sidewalk on one side, stripe Class II bike lanes, and install high-visibility crosswalks at intersections where needed for access to destinations$$High Pittsburg AveRichmond Parkway Fred Jackson Way0.37North RichmondComplete StreetsClass III Construct sidewalk on one side and install shared lane bikeway markings. Install wayfinding signage between trail segments from Wildcat Creek Trailhead when undercrossing at Richmond Parkway is flooded. $$High Pomona St San Pablo AveI-800.25CrockettBikeClass IIBStripe Class IIB buffered bike lanes to connect San Pablo Ave to Crockett.$High Pomona St San Pablo AveI-800.38CrockettTrailClass IRepave, widen, and provide improved wayfinding for path under I-80$$High Port Chicago Hwy Pacifica AveMcAvoy Rd0.20Bay PointComplete StreetsClass IVAdd separated bikeway and sidewalk connecting to Bay Point Regional Shoreline and future Great Delta Trail.$High Port Chicago Hwy Willow Pass Rd Pacifica Ave0.53Bay PointComplete StreetsClass IV Study and implement road diet to install Class IV separated bikeways, intersection safety improvements, and high-visibility crosswalks. Study slip lane closure at Port Chicago/Willow pass with trail crossing to Delta de Anza Trail. $$High Roadway Name From To Miles Neighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway Type Project Description Cost Estimate Priority Richmond Pkwy County limit (north)Pittsburg Ave 0.76 North Richmond Trail Class I Upgrade and widen existing Class I path, with ADA and crossing improvements $$$High Richmond Pkwy Pittsburg Ave W. Gertrude Ave 0.63 North Richmond Trail Class I Upgrade and widen existing Class I path, with ADA and crossing improvements $$High San Marco Blvd Willow Pass County border/Hwy 4 0.22 Bay Point Complete Streets Class IV Improve safety at interchange. Construct Class IV bikeways and coordinate with City of Pittsburg and Caltrans to make bicycle and pedestrian connection to Leland.$High San Pablo Ave Richmond Parkway County Boundary (Pinole) 1.04 Tara Hills Complete Streets Class IV Study on-street low-stress bikeway or off-street path. Upgrade sidewalks to meet ADA standards. Close sidewalk gap on east side of roadway from Richmond Parkway to Kay Road.$$$High San Pablo Ave Parker Ave Pomona Street/I-80 on ramps 2.86 Crockett/Rodeo Bike Class IV Implement road diet and install new two-way barrier-separated shared-use path along roadway to serve as a connection between Bay Trail segments.$$$$High San Pablo Ave Rodeo Ave Parker Ave 0.08 Rodeo Bike Class III Add green-back sharrows and wayfinding to connect Bay Trail terminus to San Pablo Ave bike lanes.$High San Pablo Creek Trail Richmond Pkwy Fred Jackson Way 0.38 North Richmond Trail Class I Construct Class I path along south side of San Pablo Creek $$High San Pablo Creek Trail Wildcat Marsh Trail Richmond Pkwy 0.28 North Richmond Trail Class I Construct Class I path along south side of San Pablo Creek $$High San Pablo Dam Rd El Portal Dr Appian Way 1.24 El Sobrante Complete Streets Class IV Complete Streets corridor project including low-stress bicycle facility and intersection improvements.$$$High Wildcat Creek Trail At Richmond Pkwy ----North Richmond Trail Class I Upgrade trail undercrossing to prevent flooding or provide at-grade trail crossing $$High Willow Pass Rd Port Chicago Hwy Crivello Ave 1.47 Bay Point Complete Streets Class IV Complete Streets corridor project, including installation of class IV separated bikeways, intersection safety improvements, crosswalk enhancements, and sidewalk gap closures.$$$High Willow Pass Rd Evora Rd Port Chicago Hwy 0.25 Bay Point Bike and Ped Class IV Construct two-way Class I bike path or Class IV cycle track and sidewalk on south side of Willow Pass Rd.$$High 7th Street Creek Trail Willow Ave 0.07 Rodeo Bike Class IIB Stripe Class IIB buffered bike lanes.$Medium Alhambra Valley Rd County limit County limit 9.42 Briones Bike Class III Rural route safety project: mark bike lanes and shared lanes, calm traffic (speed feedback/edge lines), provide safety measures like warning or speed feedback signs at key locations.$$$Medium Appian Way Valley View Rd County Boundary 0.69 El Sobrante Complete Streets Class IV Upgrade existing sidewalk for ADA compliance. Install new Class IV bicycle facilities. $$Medium Appian Way At Valley View Rd ----El Sobrante Intersection --Reconstruct intersection with new signal OR roundabout. Remove slip lanes and provide bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements.$$Medium Appian Way At Santa Rita Rd ----El Sobrante Intersection --Uncontrolled crosswalk safety improvements - evaluate countermeasure (RRFB or PHB) and potentially include with Appian Complete Streets project.$$Medium Arlington Blvd McBryde Ave Aqua Vista Rd 1.23 East Richmond Heights Bike Class III Install traffic calming and shared lane markings. Traffic calming may include edgeline striping, safety signage, and speed feedback signs.$$Medium Arlington Blvd Amherst Ave Highland Blvd 1.10 Kensington Bike Class III Install traffic calming and shared. lane markings. Traffic calming may include edgeline striping, safety signage, and speed feedback signs.$$Medium Arlington Blvd At McBryde ----East Richmond Heights Intersection --Intersection improvements: stripe crosswalks, close slip lane, study for three-way stop.$$Medium Bailey Rd At Maylard St ----Bay Point Intersection /Pedestrian --Stripe all four legs of crosswalk with high-visibility, upgrade ramps. Coordinate ped improvements with City of Pittsburg.$$Medium Balfour Rd Deer Valley Rd Heritage HS 1.40 East County Bike Class IV Install Class IV bike lanes along Balfour Rd.$$$Medium Bay Trail/CSSLT I-80 Carquinez Scenic Dr. Existing Class I 4.69 Crockett/Port Costa Trail Class I Construct Class I path. Alignment includes segments on Loring Dr. and Carquinez Scenic Dr.$$$$Medium Bay Trail/CSSLT Carquinez Scenic Dr. Existing Class I County boundary (Martinez) 1.69 Martinez Trail Class I Construct Class I path. Alignment includes segments on Carquinez Scenic Dr.$$$Medium Bixler Rd Orwood Rd Hwy 4 3.46 East County/Disco Bay Bike Class IIB Upgrade existing bike lanes to Class II buffered. Pave shoulders and stripe bike lanes where missing $$Medium Blum Rd Pacheco Blvd Imhoff Dr 0.31 Martinez Bike Class III Stripe shared lanes and improve intersections with high visibility crosswalks.$Medium 157Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 166 of 248 Roadway Name From To Miles Neighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway Type Project Description Cost Estimate Priority Boulevard Way Garden Ct Olympic Blvd 0.47 Saranap Complete Streets Class IIIB Construct traffic calming, close sidewalk gaps, and mark shared lane.$$Medium Brentwood Blvd/UP tracks/Byron Hwy Main Canal County Limit 8.90 East County Trail Class I Construct Class I path along Union Pacific tracks.$$$$Medium Buchanan Field Path Marsh Dr Concord Ave 0.62 Pacheco Trail Class I Identify alignment and construct Class I path through golf course to Concord Ave.$$Medium Byron Hwy Hwy 4 Camino Diablo 1.31 East County/Byron Bike Class IV Pave shoulders and construct Class II or Class IV bikeway. Construct pedestrian safety improvements in developed areas such as constructing a sidewalk on the west side and high- visibility crosswalks on the stretch between Byers and Holway. Provide traffic calming and multi- modal safety improvements at intersection of Byron Hwy and Holway Dr. $$$Medium Camino Diablo Marsh Creek Rd Byron Hwy 5.20 East County Bike Class II Add Class II/shoulder bike lanes along Camino Diablo $$$Medium Center Ave Blackwood Dr Contra Costa Canal 0.53 Pacheco Complete Streets Class IV Close sidewalk gaps, widen sidewalks, upgrade pedestrian crossings, and construct Class IV separated bikeway. Potential for two-way cycle track on south side with fewer driveways and connection to trails. Narrow curb to curb roadway significantly to calm traffic. $$Medium Center Ave Pacheco Blvd Blackwood Dr 0.12 Pacheco Complete Streets Class IIB Stripe buffered bike lanes and close sidewalk gaps. Widen sidewalks and construct accessible ramps $Medium Center Ave Marsh Dr Pacheco Blvd 0.21 Pacheco Complete Streets Class II Stripe Class II bike lanes and close sidewalk gaps. Provide improved lighting in freeway overpass for pedestrian comfort and personal security.$Medium Crockett Blvd Crockett Ranch Trailhead Cummings Skyway 1.71 Crockett Bike Class IIB Stripe Class IIB or Class IV bike lane.$$Medium Crockett Blvd Pomona St Crockett Ranch Trailhead 0.22 Crockett Trail Class I Construct Class I path connecting Pomona St. and schools to Crockett Ranch Trailhead $Medium Crockett Blvd At Pomona St ----Crockett Intersection --Update intersection with ADA ramps, crosswalks, and bicycle connections.$$Medium Danville Blvd El Portal Dr Rudgear Rd 3.70 Alamo Complete Streets Class IIB Upgrade to buffered bike lanes and improve intersections to continue bikeways. Design and implement dedicated bicycle facilities at Rudgear Rd, Livorna Rd, and Stone Valley Rd. Implement project recommendations from Vision Zero, including intersection improvements, sidewalk gap closures, and crossing improvements. $$$Medium Deer Valley Rd Antioch city limits Marsh Creek Rd 4.69 East County Bike Class II Add Class II bike lanes along Deer Valley Rd.$$$Medium Diablo Rd Calle Arroyo San Andreas Dr 1.30 Blackhawk/Diablo Bike Class II Install Class II bike lanes to close gap.$$Medium Franklin Canyon Rd Cummings Skyway Alhambra Ave 4.36 Trail Class I Study feasibility of a Class I side path. Coordinate with regional partners on potential alignments.$$$$Medium Garretson Ave 4th St 1st St 0.29 Rodeo Bike Class IIIB Construct bicycle boulevard with robust traffic calming for pedestrian comfort. Design expected to include 1-2 neighborhood traffic circles and speed humps along the extent. Include wayfinding to Bay Trail. $Medium Garretson Ave 7th St 4th St 0.39 Rodeo Complete Streets Class IIIB Study school access. Potential to convert parking to angled on one side only with a shared use path. Project assumes significant reconfiguration and some sidewalk construction to address school access and safety. $$Medium Great Delta Trail County Limit (east)McAvoy Rd 1.94 Bay Point Trail Class I Support planning and construction of the Great Delta Trail in collaboration with the Delta Protection Commission and the East Bay Regional Park District.$$$Medium Hanlon Way Bella Vista Ave County Limit 0.34 Bay Point Complete Streets Class IIIB Construct bicycle boulevard with robust traffic calming for pedestrian comfort. Design expected to include 1-2 neighborhood traffic circles and speed humps along the extent. Long-term project would complete continuous sidewalk on one side. $Medium Hwy 4 Willow Pass Rd Port Chicago Hwy 1.42 Bay Point Trail Class I Multi-jurisdictional effort needed to close major gap between Central and East County. Opportunity to collaborate with Caltrans via bike superhighway process. Alignment under study as part of the Great California Delta Trail process. $$$Medium Imhoff Dr Blum Rd Solano Way 1.22 Pacheco/Concord Bike Class IV Construct Class IV separated bikeway. Coordinate with connection to future Iron Horse Trail extension and connection along Hwy 4.$$$Medium Iron Horse Trail Existing Iron Horse Trail (Marsh Drive) Waterfront Rd 2.96 Martinez Trail Class I Complete Iron Horse Trail to Waterfront Rd in coordination with the East Bay Regional Park District and other regional partners.$$$$Medium Livorna Rd Iron Horse Trail Miranda Ave 1.39 Alamo Bike Class II Close Class II bike lane gaps and improve crossings at freeway interchange.$$Medium Roadway Name From To Miles Neighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway Type Project Description Cost Estimate Priority Loftus Rd Canal Rd Willow Pass RD 0.50 Bay Point Complete Streets Class IIIB Construct bicycle boulevard with robust traffic calming for pedestrian comfort. Design expected to include 1 neighborhood traffic circles (Hanlon project overlap) and speed humps along the extent. Long-term project would complete continuous sidewalk on one side. $Medium Main Canal Marsh Creek County Limit 8.44 East County Trail Class I Construct Class I path along both sides of Main Canal up to Bixler Rd. and on north side up to county limit.$$$$Medium Marsh Creek Rd Clayton city limits Deer Valley Rd 9.14 East County Bike Class II Add Class II bike lanes along Marsh Creek Rd $$$$Medium Marsh Dr Iron Horse Trail Center Ave 1.25 Pacheco Trail Class I Construct Class I path along Buchanan Field.$$$Medium May Rd San Pablo Dam Rd County border 0.39 El Sobrante Bike Class IV Road diet with Class II buffered or Clas IV separated bike lanes, including Safe Routes to School component. Include intersection safety improvements.$$Medium McAvoy Rd Port Chicago Hwy Great Delta Trail 0.13 Bay Point Complete Streets Class IV Construct sidewalks and Class IV bikeways connecting to future Great Delta Trail. Time project with planning of Great Delta Trail.$Medium Muir Rd County limit (Contra Costa Canal Trail) Pacheco Blvd 0.19 Pacheco Bike Class IV Study connection from Contra Costa Canal Trail to Pacheco Blvd. Provide safe crossing of Hwy 4 ramps.$Medium Newell Ave Olympic Blvd I-680 0.53 Saranap Pedestrian --Close sidewalk gaps between Walnut Creek and Olympic Blvd.$$Medium Olympic Blvd Pleasant Hill Blvd I-680 1.71 Saranap Complete Streets Class IV Implement Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector (2018 study) with Class IV bikeway. Implement pedestrian crossing and sidewalk gap improvements with project.$$$Medium Pacheco Blvd Blum Rd 2nd Ave S 0.99 Pacheco Complete Streets Class IV Complete Streets corridor project, including Class IV separated bikeways, intersection safety improvements, crosswalk improvements, sidewalk gap closures. Construct protected intersections or bikeway striping at intersections of bike facilities. $$$Medium Pacheco Blvd Martinez Ave Arthur Rd 1.73 Martinez Complete Streets Class IV Complete Streets corridor project including Class IV separated bikeways, intersection safety improvements, crosswalk improvements, and sidewalk gap closures.$$$Medium Pacheco Blvd Arthur Rd Blum Rd 1.29 Pacheco/North Concord Complete Streets Class IV Complete Streets corridor project, including Class IV separated bikeways, intersection safety improvements, crosswalk improvements, sidewalk gap closures. Construct protected intersections or bikeway striping at intersections of bike facilities. $$$Medium Pinehurst Rd County limit County limit 5.05 Canyon Bike Class III Rural route safety project: mark bike lanes and shared lanes, calm traffic, adding speed feedback signs, and provide safety measures at key locations such as widened shoulders in some areas, and potentially some grading changes with repaving. $$$Medium Pomona St I-80 2nd Ave 0.20 Crockett Bike Class III Stripe Class II bike lane in uphill direction. Update wayfinding signage and implement traffic calming including speed feedback and safety signage in downhill direction.$Medium Pomona St 2nd Ave Rolph Ave 0.20 Crockett Bike Class IIB Upgrade existing Class II bike lanes to buffered bike lanes.$Medium Port Chicago Hwy Sussex St Medburn St 0.10 Clyde Trail Class I Close gap in existing trail.$Medium Richmond Pkwy At Parr ----North Richmond Trail Class I Install crossing improvements including high-visibility crossing, new ramps, and curb extensions. Include passive actuation for bicyclists.$$Medium San Pablo Ave At Willow Ave ----Rodeo Intersection -- Install intersection improvements for bicycle and pedestrian safety. Coordinate with Hercules on bicycle and pedestrian connections. Stripe high-visibility crosswalks, study slip lane closure on north and south corners. Provide enhanced bicycle facilities including two-stage turn boxes. $$Medium San Pablo Dam Rd Valley View Rd Castro Ranch Rd 0.77 El Sobrante Complete Streets Class IV Complete Streets project including Class IV bicycle facility and intersection improvements. Close sidewalk gaps.$$$Medium San Pablo Dam Rd May Rd Valley View Rd 0.86 El Sobrante Complete Streets Class IV Complete Streets project including road diet, Class IV bicycle facility, uncontrolled crosswalks at bus stops, and intersection improvements. Close sidewalk gaps.$$$Medium San Pablo Dam Rd Castro Ranch Rd Existing Bike Lane (37.942893, - 122.266069) 0.95 El Sobrante Complete Streets Class IIB Install buffered bike lane to connect to existing bicycle facility.$Medium Shell Rd County limit (north)Pacheco Blvd 0.53 Martinez Bike Class II Pave shoulder and stripe bike lane in uphill direction. Coordinate with Martinez to connect to Marina Vista Ave.$$Medium Stone Valley Rd Danville Blvd Green Valley Rd 3.09 Alamo Bike Class IIB Upgrade to buffered bike lanes.$$Medium Tice Valley Blvd Tice Valley Ln Crest Ave 0.89 Alamo Bike Class II Extend Class II bike lanes to Crest Ave.$$Medium Valley View Rd San Pablo Dam Rd County limit at De Anza High School 0.65 El Sobrante Bike Class II Study road diet, lane narrowing, and/or parking removal to close bike lane gaps for school access. Provide minimum Class II buffered bike lanes. Widen and buffer existing bike lanes.$Medium Walnut Blvd Armstrong Rd Camino Diablo 3.05 East County Bike Class II Add Class II bike lanes along Walnut Blvd.$$$Medium 158 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 167 of 248 Roadway NameFromToMilesNeighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway TypeProject DescriptionCost EstimatePriority Boulevard Way Garden CtOlympic Blvd0.47SaranapComplete StreetsClass IIIBConstruct traffic calming, close sidewalk gaps, and mark shared lane.$$Medium Brentwood Blvd/UP tracks/Byron Hwy Main CanalCounty Limit8.90East County TrailClass IConstruct Class I path along Union Pacific tracks.$$$$Medium Buchanan Field PathMarsh DrConcord Ave0.62PachecoTrailClass I Identify alignment and construct Class I path through golf course to Concord Ave.$$Medium Byron HwyHwy 4Camino Diablo1.31 East County/ByronBikeClass IV Pave shoulders and construct Class II or Class IV bikeway. Construct pedestrian safety improvements in developed areas such as constructing a sidewalk on the west side and high- visibility crosswalks on the stretch between Byers and Holway. Provide traffic calming and multi- modal safety improvements at intersection of Byron Hwy and Holway Dr. $$$Medium Camino DiabloMarsh Creek RdByron Hwy5.20East CountyBikeClass IIAdd Class II/shoulder bike lanes along Camino Diablo$$$Medium Center AveBlackwood DrContra Costa Canal0.53PachecoComplete StreetsClass IV Close sidewalk gaps, widen sidewalks, upgrade pedestrian crossings, and construct Class IV separated bikeway. Potential for two-way cycle track on south side with fewer driveways and connection to trails. Narrow curb to curb roadway significantly to calm traffic. $$Medium Center AvePacheco Blvd Blackwood Dr0.12PachecoComplete StreetsClass IIB Stripe buffered bike lanes and close sidewalk gaps. Widen sidewalks and construct accessible ramps$Medium Center Ave Marsh DrPacheco Blvd0.21PachecoComplete StreetsClass IIStripe Class II bike lanes and close sidewalk gaps. Provide improved lighting in freeway overpass for pedestrian comfort and personal security.$Medium Crockett BlvdCrockett Ranch Trailhead Cummings Skyway1.71 CrockettBikeClass IIBStripe Class IIB or Class IV bike lane.$$Medium Crockett BlvdPomona StCrockett Ranch Trailhead0.22CrockettTrailClass IConstruct Class I path connecting Pomona St. and schools to Crockett Ranch Trailhead$Medium Crockett BlvdAt Pomona St----Crockett Intersection--Update intersection with ADA ramps, crosswalks, and bicycle connections.$$Medium Danville Blvd El Portal DrRudgear Rd3.70AlamoComplete StreetsClass IIB Upgrade to buffered bike lanes and improve intersections to continue bikeways. Design and implement dedicated bicycle facilities at Rudgear Rd, Livorna Rd, and Stone Valley Rd. Implement project recommendations from Vision Zero, including intersection improvements, sidewalk gap closures, and crossing improvements. $$$Medium Deer Valley RdAntioch city limits Marsh Creek Rd4.69East CountyBikeClass II Add Class II bike lanes along Deer Valley Rd.$$$Medium Diablo Rd Calle ArroyoSan Andreas Dr 1.30Blackhawk/Diablo BikeClass IIInstall Class II bike lanes to close gap.$$Medium Franklin Canyon Rd Cummings SkywayAlhambra Ave4.36TrailClass IStudy feasibility of a Class I side path. Coordinate with regional partners on potential alignments.$$$$Medium Garretson Ave4th St1st St0.29RodeoBikeClass IIIB Construct bicycle boulevard with robust traffic calming for pedestrian comfort. Design expected to include 1-2 neighborhood traffic circles and speed humps along the extent. Include wayfinding to Bay Trail. $Medium Garretson Ave7th St4th St0.39RodeoComplete StreetsClass IIIB Study school access. Potential to convert parking to angled on one side only with a shared use path. Project assumes significant reconfiguration and some sidewalk construction to address school access and safety. $$Medium Great Delta TrailCounty Limit (east)McAvoy Rd1.94Bay PointTrailClass ISupport planning and construction of the Great Delta Trail in collaboration with the Delta Protection Commission and the East Bay Regional Park District.$$$Medium Hanlon Way Bella Vista Ave County Limit0.34Bay PointComplete StreetsClass IIIB Construct bicycle boulevard with robust traffic calming for pedestrian comfort. Design expected to include 1-2 neighborhood traffic circles and speed humps along the extent. Long-term project would complete continuous sidewalk on one side. $Medium Hwy 4Willow Pass RdPort Chicago Hwy1.42Bay PointTrailClass I Multi-jurisdictional effort needed to close major gap between Central and East County. Opportunity to collaborate with Caltrans via bike superhighway process. Alignment under study as part of the Great California Delta Trail process. $$$Medium Imhoff DrBlum Rd Solano Way1.22Pacheco/Concord BikeClass IVConstruct Class IV separated bikeway. Coordinate with connection to future Iron Horse Trail extension and connection along Hwy 4.$$$Medium Iron Horse Trail Existing Iron Horse Trail (Marsh Drive) Waterfront Rd2.96MartinezTrailClass IComplete Iron Horse Trail to Waterfront Rd in coordination with the East Bay Regional Park District and other regional partners.$$$$Medium Livorna RdIron Horse Trail Miranda Ave 1.39AlamoBikeClass II Close Class II bike lane gaps and improve crossings at freeway interchange.$$Medium Roadway Name From To Miles Neighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway Type Project Description Cost Estimate Priority Loftus Rd Canal Rd Willow Pass RD 0.50 Bay Point Complete Streets Class IIIB Construct bicycle boulevard with robust traffic calming for pedestrian comfort. Design expected to include 1 neighborhood traffic circles (Hanlon project overlap) and speed humps along the extent. Long-term project would complete continuous sidewalk on one side. $Medium Main Canal Marsh Creek County Limit 8.44 East County Trail Class I Construct Class I path along both sides of Main Canal up to Bixler Rd. and on north side up to county limit.$$$$Medium Marsh Creek Rd Clayton city limits Deer Valley Rd 9.14 East County Bike Class II Add Class II bike lanes along Marsh Creek Rd $$$$Medium Marsh Dr Iron Horse Trail Center Ave 1.25 Pacheco Trail Class I Construct Class I path along Buchanan Field.$$$Medium May Rd San Pablo Dam Rd County border 0.39 El Sobrante Bike Class IV Road diet with Class II buffered or Clas IV separated bike lanes, including Safe Routes to School component. Include intersection safety improvements.$$Medium McAvoy Rd Port Chicago Hwy Great Delta Trail 0.13 Bay Point Complete Streets Class IV Construct sidewalks and Class IV bikeways connecting to future Great Delta Trail. Time project with planning of Great Delta Trail.$Medium Muir Rd County limit (Contra Costa Canal Trail) Pacheco Blvd 0.19 Pacheco Bike Class IV Study connection from Contra Costa Canal Trail to Pacheco Blvd. Provide safe crossing of Hwy 4 ramps.$Medium Newell Ave Olympic Blvd I-680 0.53 Saranap Pedestrian --Close sidewalk gaps between Walnut Creek and Olympic Blvd.$$Medium Olympic Blvd Pleasant Hill Blvd I-680 1.71 Saranap Complete Streets Class IV Implement Olympic Boulevard Corridor Trail Connector (2018 study) with Class IV bikeway. Implement pedestrian crossing and sidewalk gap improvements with project.$$$Medium Pacheco Blvd Blum Rd 2nd Ave S 0.99 Pacheco Complete Streets Class IV Complete Streets corridor project, including Class IV separated bikeways, intersection safety improvements, crosswalk improvements, sidewalk gap closures. Construct protected intersections or bikeway striping at intersections of bike facilities. $$$Medium Pacheco Blvd Martinez Ave Arthur Rd 1.73 Martinez Complete Streets Class IV Complete Streets corridor project including Class IV separated bikeways, intersection safety improvements, crosswalk improvements, and sidewalk gap closures.$$$Medium Pacheco Blvd Arthur Rd Blum Rd 1.29 Pacheco/North Concord Complete Streets Class IV Complete Streets corridor project, including Class IV separated bikeways, intersection safety improvements, crosswalk improvements, sidewalk gap closures. Construct protected intersections or bikeway striping at intersections of bike facilities. $$$Medium Pinehurst Rd County limit County limit 5.05 Canyon Bike Class III Rural route safety project: mark bike lanes and shared lanes, calm traffic, adding speed feedback signs, and provide safety measures at key locations such as widened shoulders in some areas, and potentially some grading changes with repaving. $$$Medium Pomona St I-80 2nd Ave 0.20 Crockett Bike Class III Stripe Class II bike lane in uphill direction. Update wayfinding signage and implement traffic calming including speed feedback and safety signage in downhill direction.$Medium Pomona St 2nd Ave Rolph Ave 0.20 Crockett Bike Class IIB Upgrade existing Class II bike lanes to buffered bike lanes.$Medium Port Chicago Hwy Sussex St Medburn St 0.10 Clyde Trail Class I Close gap in existing trail.$Medium Richmond Pkwy At Parr ----North Richmond Trail Class I Install crossing improvements including high-visibility crossing, new ramps, and curb extensions. Include passive actuation for bicyclists.$$Medium San Pablo Ave At Willow Ave ----Rodeo Intersection -- Install intersection improvements for bicycle and pedestrian safety. Coordinate with Hercules on bicycle and pedestrian connections. Stripe high-visibility crosswalks, study slip lane closure on north and south corners. Provide enhanced bicycle facilities including two-stage turn boxes. $$Medium San Pablo Dam Rd Valley View Rd Castro Ranch Rd 0.77 El Sobrante Complete Streets Class IV Complete Streets project including Class IV bicycle facility and intersection improvements. Close sidewalk gaps.$$$Medium San Pablo Dam Rd May Rd Valley View Rd 0.86 El Sobrante Complete Streets Class IV Complete Streets project including road diet, Class IV bicycle facility, uncontrolled crosswalks at bus stops, and intersection improvements. Close sidewalk gaps.$$$Medium San Pablo Dam Rd Castro Ranch Rd Existing Bike Lane (37.942893, - 122.266069) 0.95 El Sobrante Complete Streets Class IIB Install buffered bike lane to connect to existing bicycle facility.$Medium Shell Rd County limit (north)Pacheco Blvd 0.53 Martinez Bike Class II Pave shoulder and stripe bike lane in uphill direction. Coordinate with Martinez to connect to Marina Vista Ave.$$Medium Stone Valley Rd Danville Blvd Green Valley Rd 3.09 Alamo Bike Class IIB Upgrade to buffered bike lanes.$$Medium Tice Valley Blvd Tice Valley Ln Crest Ave 0.89 Alamo Bike Class II Extend Class II bike lanes to Crest Ave.$$Medium Valley View Rd San Pablo Dam Rd County limit at De Anza High School 0.65 El Sobrante Bike Class II Study road diet, lane narrowing, and/or parking removal to close bike lane gaps for school access. Provide minimum Class II buffered bike lanes. Widen and buffer existing bike lanes.$Medium Walnut Blvd Armstrong Rd Camino Diablo 3.05 East County Bike Class II Add Class II bike lanes along Walnut Blvd.$$$Medium 159Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 168 of 248 Roadway Name From To Miles Neighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway Type Project Description Cost Estimate Priority Willow Pass Rd Avila Rd Evora Rd 0.29 Bay Point Bike Class IV Coordinate with Caltrans on a bicycle safety project through interchange.$Medium Willow Pass Rd At Evora Rd and Willow Pass Ct (west) ----Bay Point Intersection Class I With extension of Delta de Anza Trail, reconstruct intersection with trail crossing.$$Medium Willow Pass Rd At Evora Rd and San Marco Blvd (east) ----Bay Point Intersection --Reconstruct, potentially as a protected intersection. Provide bike/ped crossings on all legs. With Willow Pass cycle track project, construct two-way bike crossings.$$Medium Balfour Rd Sellers Ave Bixler Rd 3.01 East County Bike Class IIB Upgrade to buffered Class II bike lanes where possible.$$Low Bear Creek Rd Alhambra Valley Rd San Pablo Dam Rd 8.30 Rural Bike Class II and III Rural route safety project: mark bike lanes where space in shoulder and shared lanes where not, calm traffic, adding speed feedback and warning signs, and provide safety measures at key locations such as widened shoulders in some areas. Repair pavement where needed for safety. Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions where ROW is not continuous. $$$$Low Bethel Island Rd Wells Rd Gateway Rd 0.63 Bethel Island Complete Streets Class II Consider road diet and install Class II or Class IV bike lanes. Close sidewalk gaps and enhance pedestrian crossings.$Low Boulevard Way County limit Del Hambre Cir Garden Ct 0.48 Saranap Complete Streets Class IIB Implement road diet, upgraded pedestrian crossings, and buffered bike lanes.$Low Canyon Rd Pinehurst Rd Valle Vista trailhead 0.66 Canyon Bike Class II Close bike lane gap between Valle Vista trailhead and Pinehurst Rd.$Low E Cypress Rd Knightsen Ave Jersey Island Rd 0.50 East County/Oakley Bike Class IIB Repave and stripe Class II bike lanes, and upgrade buffered bike lanes where ROW permits. $Low Franklin Canyon Rd Sycamore Ave Cummings Skyway 3.51 Class I Study feasibility of a Class I side path. Coordinate with regional partners on potential alignments. Potential Class I connection along Hwy 4 with Caltrans partnership.$$$$Low Gateway Rd Bethel Island Rd Stone Rd 1.68 Bethel Island Trail Class I Construct Class I shared use path on north side.$$$Low Grayson Creek Trail 2nd Ave Aspen Dr 0.12 Pacheco Trail Class I Pave existing path and coordinate with Concord to connect trail corridor.$Low Hemme Ave Danville Blvd End (Ringtail Cat Staging Area) 0.50 Alamo Complete Streets Class IIIB Complete sidewalks on north side between Danville Blvd and La Sonoma Way. Provide bike boulevard traffic calming along entire length, including speed humps and shared lane markings. Enhance and traffic calm Iron Horse trail crossing and strip high visibility crosswalks at Danville Blvd. $Low Holway Dr Byron Hwy Main Street 0.17 Byron Pedestrian --Construct sidewalk on one side, with high-visibility crosswalks at Main St and close sidewalk gap on Main St between the intersection and the post office.$$Low Los Vaqueros Watershed Trail Walnut Blvd Los Vaqueros Blvd 11.11 East County Trail Class I Coordinate with Contra Costa Water District to provide bicycle/pedestrian access through watershed.$Low Marsh Creek Rd Deer Valley Rd Vasco Rd 5.11 East County Trail Class I Construct Class I path along Marsh Creek Rd $$$$Low Marsh Creek Trail Concord Ave Marsh Creek Rd 0.76 East County Trail Class I Complete Marsh Creek Trail.$$$Low Miranda Ave Stone Valley Rd Livorna Rd 1.24 Alamo Bike Class IIB Upgrade to buffered bike lanes.$$Low Mokelumne Coast to Crest Trail Garin Pkwy County Limit 7.07 East County Trail Class I Construct Class I path along pipeline right of way.$$$$Low Mountain View Blvd Palmer Rd Mynah Ct 0.06 Rudgear Pedestrian --Close sidewalk gaps and provide crosswalks for access to bus stops.$$Low Pacheco Blvd At Arthur Rd ----Vine Hill Intersection --Intersection safety project including high-visibility crosswalks, curb ramps, and potentially slip lane closure with further study.$$Low Palmer Rd Mountain View Blvd Holly Hill Dr 0.33 Rudgear Pedestrian -- Close sidewalk gaps on one side and provide high-visibility crosswalks at Mountain View Blvd, Hawthorne Dr, and Holly Hill Dr where needed to transition between sidewalks. Prioritize sidewalk connections to bus stops. $$Low Piper Rd Gateway Rd Willow Rd 0.95 Bethel Island Trail Class I Construct Class I shared use path on east side.$$$Low Pleasant Hill Rd Camino Verde Rancho View Dr 1.09 West Pleasant Hill Bike Class II Close gaps for continuous Class II bike lane on Pleasant Hill Rd and study protected/off-street facilities $$Low Pleasant Hill Rd At Taylor Blvd ----Pleasant Hill Intersection --Reconfigure intersection to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. Provide controlled and separated crossings.$$Low Pomona St Rolph Ave Baldwin Ave 0.59 Crockett Bike Class II Install traffic calming and uphill bike lanes. Update wayfinding signage and implement traffic calming including speed feedback and safety signage in downhill direction.$Low Roadway Name From To Miles Neighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway Type Project Description Cost Estimate Priority Reliez Valley Rd County limit (near Brookwood) Alhambra Valley Rd 0.57 Briones Bike Class III Rural route safety project: mark bike lanes and shared lanes, calm traffic (speed feedback/edge lines), provide safety measures like warning signs at key locations.$Low Reliez Valley Rd Grayson Rd Gloria Ter 0.70 West Pleasant Hill Trail Class I Construct Class I path along Reliez Valley Rd $$Low Sellers Ave Delta Rd Brentwood Blvd 3.93 East County Bike Class II Pave shoulder and stripe Class II bike lanes. Upgrade to buffered bike lanes where feasible within existing right of way. Coordinate with Brentwood on implementation.$$$$Low Sycamore Ave Franklin Canyon Rd County Border 0.35 Hercules Bike Class IIB Stripe Class IIB buffered bike lanes to connect to Franklin Canyon Trail.$Low Waterbird Way Waterfront Rd Meadowlark Ridge Loop 0.18 Martinez Bike Class II Stripe bike lanes.$Low Waterfront Rd I-680 Waterbird Way 0.59 Martinez Bike Class IIB Pave shoulder and stripe Class II buffered bike lanes. Connect to the Iron Horse Trail extension and the planned Pacheco Marsh Park.$Low Waterfront Rd Waterbird Way Future Iron Horse Trail 1.15 Martinez Bike Class II Extend bike lanes on Waterfront Rd to future Pacheco Marsh Park.$$Low 160 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 169 of 248 Roadway NameFromToMilesNeighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway TypeProject DescriptionCost EstimatePriority Willow Pass Rd Avila RdEvora Rd0.29Bay PointBikeClass IVCoordinate with Caltrans on a bicycle safety project through interchange.$Medium Willow Pass Rd At Evora Rd and Willow Pass Ct (west) ----Bay PointIntersectionClass IWith extension of Delta de Anza Trail, reconstruct intersection with trail crossing.$$Medium Willow Pass Rd At Evora Rd and San Marco Blvd (east) ----Bay PointIntersection--Reconstruct, potentially as a protected intersection. Provide bike/ped crossings on all legs. With Willow Pass cycle track project, construct two-way bike crossings.$$Medium Balfour Rd Sellers Ave Bixler Rd3.01East CountyBikeClass IIB Upgrade to buffered Class II bike lanes where possible.$$Low Bear Creek RdAlhambra Valley Rd San Pablo Dam Rd8.30RuralBikeClass II and III Rural route safety project: mark bike lanes where space in shoulder and shared lanes where not, calm traffic, adding speed feedback and warning signs, and provide safety measures at key locations such as widened shoulders in some areas. Repair pavement where needed for safety. Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions where ROW is not continuous. $$$$Low Bethel Island RdWells RdGateway Rd0.63Bethel IslandComplete StreetsClass IIConsider road diet and install Class II or Class IV bike lanes. Close sidewalk gaps and enhance pedestrian crossings.$Low Boulevard WayCounty limit Del Hambre CirGarden Ct0.48SaranapComplete StreetsClass IIB Implement road diet, upgraded pedestrian crossings, and buffered bike lanes.$Low Canyon Rd Pinehurst Rd Valle Vista trailhead0.66CanyonBikeClass IIClose bike lane gap between Valle Vista trailhead and Pinehurst Rd.$Low E Cypress RdKnightsen AveJersey Island Rd0.50East County/OakleyBikeClass IIB Repave and stripe Class II bike lanes, and upgrade buffered bike lanes where ROW permits. $Low Franklin Canyon RdSycamore AveCummings Skyway3.51Class IStudy feasibility of a Class I side path. Coordinate with regional partners on potential alignments. Potential Class I connection along Hwy 4 with Caltrans partnership.$$$$Low Gateway RdBethel Island RdStone Rd1.68Bethel IslandTrailClass IConstruct Class I shared use path on north side.$$$Low Grayson Creek Trail2nd AveAspen Dr0.12PachecoTrailClass IPave existing path and coordinate with Concord to connect trail corridor.$Low Hemme AveDanville Blvd End (Ringtail Cat Staging Area) 0.50AlamoComplete StreetsClass IIIB Complete sidewalks on north side between Danville Blvd and La Sonoma Way. Provide bike boulevard traffic calming along entire length, including speed humps and shared lane markings. Enhance and traffic calm Iron Horse trail crossing and strip high visibility crosswalks at Danville Blvd. $Low Holway Dr Byron HwyMain Street 0.17ByronPedestrian--Construct sidewalk on one side, with high-visibility crosswalks at Main St and close sidewalk gap on Main St between the intersection and the post office.$$Low Los Vaqueros Watershed TrailWalnut BlvdLos Vaqueros Blvd11.11 East County TrailClass ICoordinate with Contra Costa Water District to provide bicycle/pedestrian access through watershed.$Low Marsh Creek RdDeer Valley RdVasco Rd5.11 East County TrailClass IConstruct Class I path along Marsh Creek Rd$$$$Low Marsh Creek TrailConcord AveMarsh Creek Rd0.76East County TrailClass IComplete Marsh Creek Trail.$$$Low Miranda AveStone Valley RdLivorna Rd1.24AlamoBikeClass IIBUpgrade to buffered bike lanes.$$Low Mokelumne Coast to Crest TrailGarin PkwyCounty Limit7.07East County TrailClass IConstruct Class I path along pipeline right of way.$$$$Low Mountain View BlvdPalmer RdMynah Ct0.06RudgearPedestrian--Close sidewalk gaps and provide crosswalks for access to bus stops.$$Low Pacheco BlvdAt Arthur Rd----Vine HillIntersection--Intersection safety project including high-visibility crosswalks, curb ramps, and potentially slip lane closure with further study.$$Low Palmer RdMountain View BlvdHolly Hill Dr0.33RudgearPedestrian-- Close sidewalk gaps on one side and provide high-visibility crosswalks at Mountain View Blvd, Hawthorne Dr, and Holly Hill Dr where needed to transition between sidewalks. Prioritize sidewalk connections to bus stops. $$Low Piper RdGateway RdWillow Rd0.95Bethel IslandTrailClass IConstruct Class I shared use path on east side.$$$Low Pleasant Hill Rd Camino Verde Rancho View Dr1.09 West Pleasant HillBikeClass IIClose gaps for continuous Class II bike lane on Pleasant Hill Rd and study protected/off-street facilities$$Low Pleasant Hill Rd At Taylor Blvd----Pleasant HillIntersection--Reconfigure intersection to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. Provide controlled and separated crossings.$$Low Pomona St Rolph Ave Baldwin Ave0.59CrockettBikeClass IIInstall traffic calming and uphill bike lanes. Update wayfinding signage and implement traffic calming including speed feedback and safety signage in downhill direction.$Low Roadway Name From To Miles Neighborhood/ Area of Benefit Project Type Bikeway Type Project Description Cost Estimate Priority Reliez Valley Rd County limit (near Brookwood) Alhambra Valley Rd 0.57 Briones Bike Class III Rural route safety project: mark bike lanes and shared lanes, calm traffic (speed feedback/edge lines), provide safety measures like warning signs at key locations.$Low Reliez Valley Rd Grayson Rd Gloria Ter 0.70 West Pleasant Hill Trail Class I Construct Class I path along Reliez Valley Rd $$Low Sellers Ave Delta Rd Brentwood Blvd 3.93 East County Bike Class II Pave shoulder and stripe Class II bike lanes. Upgrade to buffered bike lanes where feasible within existing right of way. Coordinate with Brentwood on implementation.$$$$Low Sycamore Ave Franklin Canyon Rd County Border 0.35 Hercules Bike Class IIB Stripe Class IIB buffered bike lanes to connect to Franklin Canyon Trail.$Low Waterbird Way Waterfront Rd Meadowlark Ridge Loop 0.18 Martinez Bike Class II Stripe bike lanes.$Low Waterfront Rd I-680 Waterbird Way 0.59 Martinez Bike Class IIB Pave shoulder and stripe Class II buffered bike lanes. Connect to the Iron Horse Trail extension and the planned Pacheco Marsh Park.$Low Waterfront Rd Waterbird Way Future Iron Horse Trail 1.15 Martinez Bike Class II Extend bike lanes on Waterfront Rd to future Pacheco Marsh Park.$$Low 161Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 170 of 248 APPENDIX B 162 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 171 of 248 FUNDING SOURCES This appendix provides an overview of funding sources available for project implementation from federal, state, and local sources. 163Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 172 of 248 SB 1 Funding California’s Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), also known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, is a landmark transportation investment to rebuild California by fixing neighborhood streets, freeways, and bridges in communities across California and targeting funding toward transit and congested trade and commute corridor improvements. The largest portion of SB 1 funding goes to California’s state-maintained transportation infrastructure. With this funding, Caltrans has a goal of repairing or replacing 17,000 miles of pavement in 10 years, spending $250 million annually for congestion solutions, over $700 million for better transit commutes, and supporting freight improvements. The other portion of SB 1 funding will go to local roads, transit agencies, and expanding the state’s pedestrian and cycle routes. SB 1 funds various grant programs. Local Partnership Program (LPP) The Local Partnership Program’s purpose is to provide local and regional transportation agencies that have passed sales tax measures, developer fees, or other imposed transportation fees, with a funding of $200 million annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to fund aging infrastructure, road conditions, active transportation, and health and safety benefits projects. LPP funds are distributed through a 50% statewide competitive component and a 50% formulaic component. Both programs are eligible to jurisdictions with voter approved taxes, tolls, and fees dedicated solely to transportation and the competitive program. Local Streets and Roads Program (LSRP) California has dedicated approximately $1.5 billion per year appointed by the State Controller (Controller) to cities and counties for basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety projects on the local streets and roads system. Cities and counties must submit a proposed projects list adopted at a regular meeting by their board or council that is then submitted to the California Transportation Commission (Commission). Once reviewed and adopted by the Commission, eligible cities and counties receive funding from the Controller and an Annual Project Expenditure Report is sent to the Commission to be transparent with program funding received and expended. 164 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 173 of 248 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Funding The Active Transportation Program (ATP) was created by Senate Bill 99 to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation such as walking and biking. The goals of the ATP include, but are not limited to, increasing the proportion of trips accomplished by walking and biking, increasing the safety and mobility of non- motorized users, advancing efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals, enhancing public health, and providing a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of users, including disadvantaged communities. SB 1  directs $100 million annually to the ATP, with more than 400 of the funded projects being Safe Routes to School projects and programs that encourage a healthy and active lifestyle throughout students’ lives. Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants The Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants include two parts: Sustainable Communities Grants and Strategic Partnerships Grants. The Sustainable Communities Grants have $29.5 million set aside to encourage local and regional planning goals and best practices cited in the Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines. The Strategic Partnerships Grants set aside $4.5 million to identify and address statewide, interregional, or regional transportation deficiencies on the state highway system in partnership with Caltrans. These grants were released for Fiscal Year 2020-21 and applications were due October 17, 2019. Grant award announcements were made in June 2020. There is the possibility of another grant on the horizon, but Caltrans has not released any new information yet. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Funding Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a program promoting walking and bicycling to school through infrastructure improvements, tools, safety education, and incentives to encourage these modes of travel. Nationally, 10% to 14% of car trips during the morning rush hour are for school travel. SRTS can be implemented at the state, community, or local school district level. Competitive federal funding is available through the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). Depending on the existing infrastructure, SRTS may require that education, transportation, public safety, and city planning agencies coordinate their effort. 165Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 174 of 248 California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant Programs OTS administers traffic safety grants in the following areas: alcohol impaired driving, distracted driving, drug- impaired driving, emergency medical services, motorcycle safety, occupant protection, pedestrian and bicycle safety, police traffic services, public relations, advertising, and roadway safety and traffic records. Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 TDA Article 3 is perhaps the most readily available source of local funding for bicycle projects. TDA funds are derived from a statewide quarter-cent retail sales tax. This tax is returned to the county of origin and distributed to the cities and county on a population basis. Under TDA Article 3, two percent of each entity’s TDA allocation is set aside for pedestrian and bicycle projects; this generates approximately $3 million in the Bay Area annually. Eligible projects include the design and construction of walkways, bicycle paths and bicycle lanes, and safety education programs. According to MTC Resolution 875, these projects must be included in an adopted general plan or bicycle plan and must have been reviewed by County’s bicycle advisory committee. California Cap-and- Trade Funding The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) directed the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to institute programs to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Cap-and-Trade Program, a key element of the ARB’s plan to reduce emissions, funds several programs that support the goals of AB 32. Several of these programs relate to transportation and mode shift. The Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC), for one, provides funding to support active transportation and complete streets initiatives, among other project types. 166 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 175 of 248 Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Program The TCC Program funds community-led development and infrastructure projects that strive to make major advances in environmental, health, and economic benefits in California’s most disadvantages communities. Eligible improvements for this funding source include active transportation and public transit projects, transit ridership programs and passes for low-income riders, and encouraging education and planning activities to promote increased use of active modes of transportation. California State Parks Recreational Trails Program (RTP) The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides funds for recreational trails and trails- related projects, including Class I Bicycle Paths. The program is administered at the state level by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and the Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP). The County would be responsible for obtaining a match amount that is at least 12% of the total project cost. Transportation for Livable Communities MTC created the Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program in 1998. MTC uses this program to finance pedestrian, bicycle and streetscape improvements near public transit in cities around the Bay Area. The purpose of TLC is to support community- based transportation projects that bring new vibrancy to downtown areas, commercial cores, neighborhoods and transit corridors, making them places where people want to live, work and visit. Pedestrian- and transit-friendly developments are hallmarks of the program. The TLC program has been incorporated into the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program. 167Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 176 of 248 Signage at the entrance of Kennedy Grove Recreation Area along San Pablo Dam Road 168 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 177 of 248 One Bay Area Grants (OBAG) Currently preparing for January 2022 adoption of its third funding round, OBAG uses federal STBG and CMAQ funds to maintain MTC’s commitments to regional transportation priorities while also advancing the Bay Area’s land-use and housing goals. Cities and counties can use these OBAG funds to invest in bicycle and pedestrian improvements, Safe Routes to School projects, TLC projects and planning for Priority Development Areas among other uses. MTC distributes OBAG funds to county Congestion Management Agencies in each Bay Area County. The CMAs are then responsible for selecting eligible projects within each county. Bay Trail Grants The San Francisco Bay Trail Project—a non-profit organization administered by the Association of Bay Area Governments—provides grants to plan, design, and construct segments of the Bay Trail. The amount, and even availability, of Bay Trail grants vary from year to year, depending on whether the Bay Trail Project has identified a source of funds for the program. As of 2016, the Bay Trail Project is not currently offering grants, but may in the future. Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) TFCA is a grant program administered by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and funded through a surcharge on motor vehicles registered in the Bay Area. The Air District offers funding to public agencies for trip reduction, bikeways and bicycle parking, and clean air vehicle projects. A subprogram of the TFCA is the Bikeways, Roads, Lanes and Paths program, which offers funding for bicycle parking and bikeway projects (Class I-IV). Funding will be offered on a first- come, first-served basis until the funds are spent. Bicycle projects may also be funded through the TFCA’s County Program Manager Fund. Under this subprogram, 40% of TFCA revenues collected in each Bay Area county is returned to that county’s congestion management agency (CMA) for allocation. Applications are made directly to the CMAs, but must also be approved by the BAAQMD. 169Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 178 of 248 return to-source funds. Measure J also requires local jurisdictions comply with the County’s Growth Management Program (GMP), which is described below, to be eligible for funding through two of the measure’s programs. Measure J requires that local jurisdictions comply with CCTA’s Growth Management Program (GMP) to be eligible for funding through two of the Measure’s programs. Among the requirements of the GMP is that each jurisdiction “incorporate policies and standards into its development approval process that support transit, bicycle and pedestrian access in new developments.” The Authority has been implementing the GMP since the adoption of Measure C in 1988. The GMP requires jurisdictions to work together to address regional and countywide transportation issues. CCTA works with RTPCs to implement a Regional Transportation Mitigation Program, which is built from the fees and impact programs adopted by individual RTPCs. CCTA requires jurisdictions to adopt standards for evaluating the impacts of new development on walking, bicycling and transit and also develops and maintains computer models and develops methodologies for analyzing the effects of land use changes and transportation improvements. Measure J In November 2004, Contra Costa voters approved Measure J, which extended Measure C (approved 1988), the county’s half-percent sales tax for transportation, until 2034. The most explicit source of funding for pedestrian and bicycle projects is through Measure J’s Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trail Facilities (PBTF) program, which funds projects identified in the CBPP. The Measure J Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program also supports mixed-use, walkable and transit-accessible development and projects that encourage walking and bicycling as its primary goals. The measure also encourages jurisdictions to fund bicycle and pedestrian facilities through other Measure J programs including their shares of the 18% 170 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 179 of 248 VMT Mitigation Fees Robust and safe active transportation networks are necessary to increase walking and bicycling to existing destinations and new development. A VMT impact fee is an option to ensure new developments are paying their fair share for improvements needed to create these networks. This fee could be based on vehicle trip generation, trip length, and the share of new trips per land use type. This fee could provide a local source of funding and contribute to the local match required for various funding sources. For some projects, alternatives to reducing VMT may be limited, and a fee benefiting active transportation projects may be a viable option to offset VMT increases. Franklin Canyon Road 171Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 180 of 248 APPENDIX C 172 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 181 of 248 COLLISION PROFILES The CCC Vision Zero Plan includes a series of collision profiles to summarize the trends across the countywide High Injury Network. Profiles 6-11 pertain to bicycle and pedestrian collisions and are included in the following pages. Each collision profile includes a description of the profile, a map of the relevant collisions, and identification of applicable countermeasures for feasibility and implementation consideration. 173Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 182 of 248 PROFILE 6 Bicycle-Involved Collisions Along Rural Roadways Where Bicycle Facilities Do Not Exist Recreational bicyclists commonly travel on rural roadways throughout the County, especially on weekends, and many of these roadways do not provide dedicated bicycle facilities. This profile highlights these rural roadways where 13 bicycle KSI collisions occurred, accounting for 45% of all bicycle KSI collisions. Installing dedicated bicycle facilities is the primary focus of the profile, which may include Class II bike lanes, or widened shoulders. Countermeasures to consider include bike signage, shoulder maintenance, and a need to implement traffic calming and speed reduction treatments along rural roadways. Profile Statistics 10 KSI COLLISIONS FIT THIS PROFILE 40% SHARE OF BICYCLE KSI CRASHES Potential Countermeasures Class II Bike Lane Green Bike Lane Conflict Zone Marking Widen or Pave Shoulder Protected Facility on Intersection Approach Class I Bike Path Bike Signage 174 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 183 of 248 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_VZ\basemap\Profile6.mxdCountywide High Injury Network – All Collisions Figure 1A RURAL, CountyNetwork !<Null>, 1 !1, 1 Incorporated Areas KSI COLLISIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROFILE 6, 2014-2018 • RURAL COLLISIONS 175Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 184 of 248 PROFILE 7 Bicycle-Involved Broadside Collisions at Urban Intersections This profile focuses on bicycle-involved broadside collisions at urban intersections. All four KSI collisions occurred where Class II bike facilities are present, and resulted from conflicts between bicyclists and turning traffic. This profile suggests countermeasures such as extending green time for bicyclists, striping green conflict zone markings, and installing bike boxes. Profile Statistics 4 KSI COLLISIONS FIT THIS PROFILE 16% SHARE OF BICYCLE KSI CRASHES Potential Countermeasures Green Bike Lane Conflict Zone Marking Protected Intersection Prohibit Right-Turn- On-RedON RED Bike Box Bicycle Signal Extend Green Time for Bikes+Two-Stage Turn Queue Bike Box Protected Facility on Intersection Approach 176 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 185 of 248 ! ! ! ! 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_VZ\basemap\Profile7.mxdCountywide High Injury Network – All Collisions Figure 1A CCC_collisions_1418_snapped_lanes selection RURAL, CountyNetwork !<Null>, 1 !1, 1 Incorporated Areas KSI COLLISIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROFILE 7, 2014-2018 • URBAN COLLISIONS 177Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 186 of 248 PROFILE 8 Pedestrian-Involved Collisions on Rural Roads Where No Sidewalk or Marked Crosswalks are Present On rural roads where no sidewalk or marked crosswalks are present, pedestrians must walk along the roadway and cross when they see a gap in oncoming traffic. Four rural KSI collisions fit this profile, which comprises all of the rural pedestrian KSI collisions in unincorporated Contra Costa County. Three collisions occurred at night. Recommendations for this profile include an evaluation to assess why pedestrians are walking along these roadways, where they are going, and how to increase the visibility of pedestrians. Countermeasures to consider include installing pedestrian paths (which may include shoulder widening along with installing delineator posts, bollards, or landscaping for physical protection), installing enhanced crosswalks, and pedestrian-scale lighting. Profile Statistics 4 KSI COLLISIONS FIT THIS PROFILE 12% SHARE OF PEDESTRIAN KSI CRASHES Potential Countermeasures Pedestrian Path Widen Shoulder Pedestrian- Scale Lighting Bus Stop Relocation Install High Visibility Crosswalk Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Install Delineators/ Bollards 178 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 187 of 248 ! ! ! ! 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_VZ\basemap\Profile8.mxdCountywide High Injury Network – All Collisions Figure 1A RURAL, CountyNetwork !<Null>, 1 !1, 1 Incorporated Areas KSI COLLISIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROFILE 8, 2014-2018 • RURAL COLLISIONS 179Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 188 of 248 PROFILE 9 Pedestrians Crossing Urban Roadways Midblock Outside Marked Crosswalks This profile focuses on pedestrian midblock crossings on urban roadways outside of marked crosswalks. Six out of eight KSI collisions that fit this profile occurred at night. Many factors may contribute to these collisions including a need for enhanced crossings at key desire lines or removing sight-line obstructions. Potential countermeasures to consider are installing pedestrian paths, installing raised pedestrian crossings, installing high-visibility crosswalks, installing an RRFB or a PHB, and installing pedestrian scale lighting and signage. Profile Statistics 8 KSI COLLISIONS FIT THIS PROFILE 24% Potential Countermeasures Pedestrian Path Install High Visibility Crosswalk Pedestrian- Scale Lighting Pedestrian Signage Pedestrian Median Barrier Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon SHARE OF PEDESTRIAN KSI CRASHES Raised Crosswalk 180 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 189 of 248 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_VZ\basemap\Profile9.mxdCountywide High Injury Network – All Collisions Figure 1A RURAL, CountyNetwork !<Null>, 1 !1, 1 Incorporated Areas KSI COLLISIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROFILE 9, 2014-2018 • URBAN COLLISIONS 181Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 190 of 248 PROFILE 10 Pedestrian-Involved Collisions at Signalized Urban Intersections Pedestrian-involved collisions at signalized urban intersections make up 12% of pedestrian KSI collisions on Contra Costa County roads. All of these collisions occurred at night. Suggested countermeasures for this profile include separating roadway users, addressing channelized rights, addressing dual turning movements, improving pedestrian visibility, and reducing exposure by installing crosswalks where absent, installing leading pedestrian intervals, installing curb extensions, and extending pedestrian crossing times. Profile Statistics 4 KSI COLLISIONS FIT THIS PROFILE 12% Potential Countermeasures Pedestrian Refuge Island Pedestrian- Scale Lighting Install High Visibility Crosswalk Leading Pedestrian Interval Extend Pedestrian Crossing Time +Curb Extensions Reduce Cycle Lengths -Pedestrian Phase Recall Additional Signal Heads+ Pedestrian Scramble Extend Yellow and All-Red Time +Install Pedestrian Countdown Timer Reduce Curb Radius SHARE OF PEDESTRIAN KSI CRASHES Reconfigure or Remove Slip Lane 182 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 191 of 248 ! !! ! 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_VZ\basemap\Profile10.mxdCountywide High Injury Network – All Collisions Figure 1A RURAL, CountyNetwork !<Null>, 1 !1, 1 Incorporated Areas KSI COLLISIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROFILE 10, 2014-2018 • URBAN COLLISIONS 183Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 192 of 248 PROFILE 11 Pedestrian-Involved Collisions at Unsignalized Urban Intersections Pedestrian-involved collisions at unsignalized urban intersections with crosswalks make up 18% of pedestrian KSI collisions on Contra Costa County roads. Five out of six of these collisions occurred at night. This profile suggests an evaluation of crossing improvements to improve pedestrian visibility and driver compliance including striping high-visibility crosswalks, installing medians, installing raised crosswalks, a road diet, and installing pedestrian-scale lighting. Profile Statistics 6 KSI COLLISIONS FIT THIS PROFILE 18% Potential Countermeasures Pedestrian- Scale Lighting Install High Visibility Crosswalk Pedestrian Signage Speed Feedback Signs YOURSPEED Sightline Obstruction Removal Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon SHARE OF PEDESTRIAN KSI CRASHES Raised Crosswalk Raised Median Road Diet 184 Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 193 of 248 ! ! ! ! !! 3101 3101 ·123 ·160 ·242 ·24 ·4 !"80 %&580 %&680 C:\CCC_VZ\basemap\Profile11.mxdCountywide High Injury Network – All Collisions Figure 1A RURAL, CountyNetwork !<Null>, 1 !1, 1 Incorporated Areas KSI COLLISIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROFILE 11, 2014-2018 • URBAN COLLISIONS 185Contra Costa County Active Transportation Plan3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 194 of 248 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:03/14/2022   Subject:ACCEPT the recommendations from the Hazardous Materials Commission to address the potential impacts of sea level rise and DIRECT staff as appropriate. Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 5   Referral Name: Review projects, plans and legislative matters that may affect the health of the San Francisco Bay and Delta, including but not limited to...climate change...  Presenter: Michael Kent, Contra Costa Health Services Contact: Michael Kent, (925) 250-3227 Referral History: The Hazardous Materials Commission previously wrote a letter to the Board of Supervisors on January 26, 2017, encouraging them to take action in response to the recommendations of the Adapting to Rising Tides study that was completed for most of the Contra Costa County shoreline by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 2016. Subsequent to that report, another Adapting to Rising Tides study was completed by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 2019 for the Eastern-most shoreline area of the County not addressed in the first study. Also in 2019, a Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Study was completed for the Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs. These studies laid out potential health and environmental impacts from Sea Level Rise to Contra Costa County, and potential adaptation measures that could be taken to address these potential impacts. The Hazardous Materials Commission received a presentation on the Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Study completed for the Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs in 2019. This study was also presented to TWIC in December, 2020. In response to the findings of this study, the Hazardous Materials Commission wrote a letter to TWIC on February 26, 2021, encouraging them to take further action to address the potential impacts of Sea Level Rise. The Commission’s letter was discussed at the April 12, 2021, TWIC meeting. TWIC directed the Hazardous Materials Commission to return with next steps on how to proceed. On June 8, 2021, Supervisor Burgis and County Administrator Monica Nino wrote a letter to County Departmental Directors requesting them to work with the Hazardous Materials Commission in providing data and any preliminary reports related to sea level rise. Michael Kent gave an update to TWIC on the progress of the Hazardous Materials Commission efforts to responds to TWIC’s directions on August 9, 2021. The Hazardous Materials Commission provided TWIC with their recommendations in a letter dated September 13, 2021, which was discussed at the September 31, 2021, TWIC meeting. At that meeting, the Commission also informed the members of TWIC that they were preparing to conduct a survey of businesses that handle hazardous materials that will potentially be impacted by sea level rise as to their planning and actions concerning sea level rise that will be shared with TWIC. Referral Update: The Hazardous Materials Commission conducted their business survey from October 1 - October 21, 2021. The attached letter dated February 24, 2022, contains the Hazardous Materials Commission’s analysis of the results of the survey and their recommendations for next steps. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): ACCEPT the recommendations from the Hazardous Materials Commission to address the potential impacts of sea level rise, and DIRECT staff as appropriate. 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 195 of 248 Fiscal Impact (if any): Unknown. This would depend on the direction TWIC gives to County staff. Attachments HMC let to TWIC, SLR w Glueck sig, 9,13,21 HMC SLR let to TWIC w Glueck sig, 2,24,22 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 196 of 248 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 197 of 248 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 198 of 248 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 199 of 248 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 200 of 248 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 201 of 248 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7. Meeting Date:03/14/2022   Subject:Consider Supporting the Shortcut Pipeline Replacement Project Proposed by the Contra Costa Water District Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 4   Referral Name: Monitor EBMUD and Contra Costa Water District projects and activities.  Presenter: Ryan Hernandez Contact: (925) 655-2919 Referral History: Contra Costa Water District's (CCWD) Shortcut Pipeline Phase 3 Improvements Project has not been heard by the Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee. Referral Update: The existing Shortcut Pipeline is a large diameter, concrete pipeline that was installed in 1972 with an average flow of 13 million gallons per day of untreated water. The five-mile pipeline starts at Contra Costa Canal in Clyde and terminates at the Martinez Reservoir. CCWD is responsible for operating and maintaining the Shortcut Pipeline under contract with the US Bureau of Reclamation and has completed three leak repairs since the pipeline was constructed, including one near Walnut Creek and the Concord Fault after the Loma Prieta Earthquake. The Shortcut Pipeline is the primary source of drinking water for the City of Martinez and provides an uninterrupted supply of process water to large industrial users including the PBF Martinez Refinery. An inspection in 2018 identified a compromised section of pipeline under the western flood control levee of the Lower Walnut Creek channel, as shown in the attached project vicinity map. Adding risk, the approximate half-mile section of compromised pipeline is also near the Concord Fault. It has been determined this section of the pipeline is no longer reliable. The Shortcut Pipeline Phase 3 Improvements Project proposes to install two High Density Polyethylene pipelines under the Walnut Creek channel and connect them to the existing pipeline to bypass the damaged section of pipe. Dual pipelines ensure sufficient capacity and provides increased redundancy and seismic reliability. The pipelines will be installed by Horizontal Directional Drilling, which is an innovative and proven trenchless technology that minimizes environmental impacts. Additionally, the pipelines are proposed to be installed deep below the Walnut Creek channel, which provides safety and protects against future settlement.  The Phase 3 Improvements Project is 60% designed and documents for pubic review, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, are being prepared. CCWD anticipates the project will got to bid February 2023 and planned construction from August 2023 through December 2024 (17months).  The Shortcut Pipeline Phase 3 Improvements Project is a significant investment ($14 million) that is critically important as it improves reliable delivery of water for public health (drinking water), public safety (fire protection), and economic vitality (industrial users) to Contra Costa County and the region. CCWD is actively pursuing federal funding through the Senate Energy and Water Development Bill (Fiscal Year 2023) for construction, and they are also seeking outside funding for portions of the project through state and federal implementation, infrastructure, and hazard mitigation grant programs. CCWD requests a letter of support from the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors for the Phase 3 Improvements Project.  Staff recommends the Committee refer the attached letter of support to the Board of Supervisors for approval.3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 202 of 248 Staff recommends the Committee refer the attached letter of support to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): CONSIDER recommending the Chair of the Board of Supervisors sign a letter expressing the County's support for the Contra Costa Water District's pursuit of grant funding for the timely replacement and completion of their Shortcut Pipeline Phase 3 Improvements Project.  Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impact to the County is associated with supporting the pursuit of grant funding for CCWD's Shortcut Pipeline Phase 3 Improvements Project.  Attachments Project Vicinity Map Draft - CCC Support Letter for SCPL Funding 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 203 of 248 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 204 of 248 March 29, 2022 Board of Directors Contra Costa Water District 1331 Concord Avenue Concord, CA 94520 RE : Support for the Shortcut Pipeline Phase 3 Improvements Project To Whom It May Concern: The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors supports the construction and pursuit of grant funding for the Shortcut Pipeline Phase 3 Improvements Project (Project) proposed by the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). The Project is a significant investment that is critically important for the region as it improves reliable delivery of water for public health (drinking water), public safety (fire protection), and economic vitality (industrial users) to the City of Martinez and Contra Costa County. CCWD is actively pursuing federal funding through the Senate Energy and Water Development Bill (Fiscal Year 2023) for construction, and they are also seeking outside funding for portions of the project through state and federal implementation, infrastructure, and hazard mitigation grant programs. The Project improves water delivery reliability by replacing a compromised section of the pipeline under the Walnut Creek Channel and in the vicinity of the Concord Fault. The Shortcut Pipeline is vulnerable, and a substantial earthquake event could render the existing pipeline unusable and water deliveries would be interrupted. As such, this priority Project requires prompt completion by CCWD to increase seismic resiliency of critical water infrastructure for the region. We appreciate consideration of this important Project and encourage its funding. If you have any questions regarding Contra Costa County’s comments, please contact Ryan Hernandez at (925) 655-2919. Sincerely, Karen Mitchoff Chair of the County Board of Supervisors 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 205 of 248 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 8. Meeting Date:03/14/2022   Subject:CONSIDER report: Local, Regional, State, and Federal Transportation Issues: Legislation, Studies, Miscellaneous Updates, take ACTION as Appropriate Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 1   Referral Name: REVIEW legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925)655-2915 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. This report includes four sections, 1: LOCAL , 2: REGIONAL, 3: STATE, and 4: FEDERAL . 1. LOCAL Accessible Transportation Strategic (ATS) Plan Staff from the County and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) continue to pursue the implementation of the ATS Plan which was approved by the Board of Supervisors and the CCTA Board in March 2021. Milestones include: Received approval for Measure X funding directed towards four ATS Plan "Quick Wins".  Formed and convened the ATS Task Force (a recommendation of the ATS Plan) Formed and convened subcommittees to review material regarding the Coordinating Entity and Guiding Principles Developed technical memoranda regarding the fare subsidy program, cases studies to inform the Coordinating Entity discussion/decision, and other ATS recommendations.  2. REGIONAL No report in March.  3. STATE Attached: 3-2-2022 Letter: Board of Supervisors to Assemblymember Ward re: AB2120 Investing Federal Funding in Local Bridges. Update The County's legislative advocate will be in attendance at the March meeting to provide an update. Miscellaneous communication from Mr. Watts is attached to this report.  Potential State Budget Request In consultation with the County's legislative advocate staff is proposing requesting a State budget request to fund the implementation of the Accessible Transportation Strategic (ATS) Plan. The impetus for the proposal includes the signficant shortfall in funding to successfully implement the ATS Plan combined with positive messaging from the Assembly 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 206 of 248 Transportation Committee. Other actions at the state increase our confidence that such a budget request would be viewed favorably by the legislature.  Given our our shared legislative delegation and responsibility for ATS Plan implementation, County staff met with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) staff to review this proposal. The meeting was positive, CCTA staff is expected to attend the March 14th TWIC meeting to discuss. The proposal is consistent with our State Legislative Platform, excerpts below. SUPPORT efforts to address the underlying determinants of health and health equity, such as housing and prevention of displacement, educational attainment and livable wage jobs, and accessible transportation. SUPPORT the provision of a safe, reliable, efficient, and accessible transportation system that balances social, environmental, and economic needs of the County. PROVIDE an integrated, multi-modal transportation system that safely and efficiently meets the transportation needs of all economic and social segments of the County and provides for the transport of goods and services throughout Contra Costa County. Increased regional coordination, while reflecting local input, is necessary for public transit (paratransit and fixed route), roads, trails, advanced mobility technology, and greenhouse gas reduction related projects. 4. FEDERAL No report in March. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): CONSIDER report on Local, Regional, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. Fiscal Impact (if any): There is no fiscal impact. Attachments 3-2-2022 Letter: BOS to AM Ward re: AB2120 Federal Funding/Local Bridges AB 1909 (Friedman) Vehicles: bicycle omnibus bill SB 942(Newman) Low Carbon Transit Operations Program: free or reduced fare transit program AB 1944(Lee) Local government: open and public meetings The 2022-23 Budget: Transportation Infrastructure Package 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 207 of 248 The Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 1025 Escobar St., 4th floor Martinez, California 94553 John Gioia, 1st District Candace Andersen, 2nd District Diane Burgis, 3rd District Karen Mitchoff, 4th District Federal D. Glover, 5th District March 2, 2022 The Honorable Christopher M. Ward Member, California State Assembly 1021 O Street, Suite 4220 Sacramento, CA 94249 RE: AB 2120 (Ward): Investing Federal Funding in Local Bridges As introduced on February 14, 2022 – SUPPORT Dear Assemblymember Ward: Contra Costa County supports your Assembly Bill 2120, which would ensure a fair and needs- based allocation of bridge formula funding from the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). These funds would help close the significant gap between what is needed to repair and replace deteriorated local bridges and the $300 million per year currently available statewide. The County is currently pursuing funding for numerous bridge projects, but without the additional funding allocated by AB 2120, it will be years before meaningful progress is made on these critical facilities. Specifically, AB 2120 would apply California’s historic formula from the prior federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program to the distribution of bridge formula funds from the IIJA, allocating 55% to local projects. AB 2120 would also require the state to maintain its current commitment of flexible federal highway funding to local bridges. Taken together, these changes would increase federal funding available to local bridges from approximately $300 million annually to approximately $800 million annually. California has over 12,000 locally-owned bridges—more than 4,300 of which need costly repairs. Despite a typical design life of 75 to 100 years, nearly one-fifth of local bridges are at least 80 years old. There is a significant disparity in the condition of state and local bridges, with 11.5% of local bridges in poor condition compared to only 3.3% of state bridges. At the current rate of funding, the percentage of local bridges in poor condition will climb to above 50% within the next 20 years. Simply preventing further decay in local bridge conditions would require nearly $800 million each year—an increase of approximately $500 million annually. Contra Costa County has 16 structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges in need of repair or replacement, many of which await federal funding. These structures are critical links in the Monica Nino Clerk of the Board and County Administrator (925) 655-2075 Contra Costa County 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 208 of 248 /users/liabristol/documents/support letters/bos to am ward march 2022 (ab2120-bridge funding).docx transportation network which support emergency response, commerce, and community connectivity, additional funding is needed to preserve this functionality. Thank you for your leadership in addressing this important issue for counties. Contra Costa County strongly supports AB 2120. Sincerely, Karen Mitchoff, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors cc: • Contra Costa County Legislative Delegation • The Honorable Laura Friedman, Chair, Assembly Transportation Committee • Honorable Members, Assembly Transportation Committee • Julia Kingsley, Consultant, Assembly Transportation Committee • Daniel Ballon, Consultant, Assembly Republican Caucus • Brian Balbas – Director, Public Works • John Kopchik – Director, Conservation and Development • Marina Espinoza, California State Association of Counties 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 209 of 248 california legislature—2021–22 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1909 Introduced by Assembly Member Friedman February 9, 2022 An act to amend Sections 21207.5, 21456, 21456.2, 21760, and 39002 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. legislative counsel’s digest AB 1909, as introduced, Friedman. Vehicles: bicycle omnibus bill. Existing law generally regulates the operation of bicycles upon a highway. A violation of these provisions, generally, is punishable as an infraction. (1)  Existing law prohibits the operation of a motorized bicycle or a class 3 electric bicycle on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, as specified. Existing law authorizes a local authority to additionally prohibit the operation of class 1 and class 2 electric bicycles on these facilities. This bill would remove the prohibition of class 3 electric bicycles on these facilities and would remove the authority of a local jurisdiction to prohibit class 1 and class 2 electric bicycles on these facilities. The bill would instead authorize a local authority to prohibit the operation of a class 3 electric bicycle at a motor-assisted speed greater than 20 miles per hour. (2)  Existing law requires a vehicle at an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal, or traffic light, to stop or proceed as directed by the signal. Existing law makes these provisions applicable to pedestrians and bicycles, as specified. Under existing law, a pedestrian facing a solid red traffic control signal may enter the intersection if directed to 99 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 210 of 248 do so by a pedestrian control signal displaying “WALK” or an approved “walking person” symbol. This bill would extend this authorization to cross the intersection to a bicycle, unless otherwise directed by a bicycle control signal. (3)  Existing law requires the driver of a motor vehicle that is passing or overtaking a bicycle to do so in a safe manner, as specified, and in no case at a distance of less than 3 feet. This bill would additionally require a vehicle that is passing or overtaking a vehicle to move over to an adjacent lane of traffic, as specified, if one is available, before passing or overtaking the bicycle. (4)  Existing law authorizes a local authority to adopt a bicycle licensing ordinance or resolution, as specified. Existing law authorizes a local authority that has adopted a bicycle licensing ordinance or resolution to prohibit a resident of that jurisdiction to operate a bicycle in a public place within the jurisdiction unless the bicycle is licensed. This bill would instead prohibit a jurisdiction from requiring any bicycle operated within its jurisdiction to be licensed. (5)  By changing the existing elements of existing infractions, 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.​ The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. Section 21207.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended line 2 to read: line 3 21207.5. (a)  Notwithstanding Sections 21207 and 23127 of line 4 this code, or any other law, a motorized bicycle or class 3 electric line 5 bicycle shall not be operated on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, line 6 bicycle lane established pursuant to Section 21207, equestrian line 7 trail, or hiking or recreational trail, unless it is within or adjacent line 8 to a roadway or unless the local authority or the governing body line 9 of a public agency having jurisdiction over the path or trail permits, line 10 by ordinance, that operation. 99 — 2 — AB 1909 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 211 of 248 line 1 (b)  The local authority or governing body of a public agency line 2 having jurisdiction over a bicycle path or trail, equestrian trail, or line 3 hiking or recreational trail, may prohibit, by ordinance, the line 4 operation of a class 1 or class 2 3 electric bicycle at a line 5 motor-assisted speed exceeding 20 miles per hour on that path or line 6 trail. line 7 SEC. 2. Section 21456 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read: line 8 21456. If a pedestrian control signal showing the words line 9 “WALK” or “WAIT” or “DON’T WALK” or other approved line 10 symbol is in place, the signal shall indicate as follows: line 11 (a)  A “WALK” or approved “Walking Person” symbol means line 12 a pedestrian facing the signal may proceed across the roadway in line 13 the direction of the signal, but shall yield the right-of-way to line 14 vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time that signal is line 15 first shown. Except as otherwise directed by a bicycle control line 16 signal described in Section 21456.3, the operator of a bicycle line 17 facing a pedestrian control signal displaying a “WALK” or line 18 approved “Walking Person” symbol may proceed across the line 19 roadway in the direction of the signal, but shall yield the right of line 20 way to any vehicles or pedestrians lawfully within the intersection. line 21 (b)  A flashing “DON’T WALK” or “WAIT” or approved line 22 “Upraised Hand” symbol with a “countdown” signal indicating line 23 the time remaining for a pedestrian to cross the roadway means a line 24 pedestrian facing the signal may start to cross the roadway in the line 25 direction of the signal but must complete the crossing prior to the line 26 display of the steady “DON’T WALK” or “WAIT” or approved line 27 “Upraised Hand” symbol when the “countdown” ends. line 28 (c)  A steady “DON’T WALK” or “WAIT” or approved line 29 “Upraised Hand” symbol or a flashing “DON’T WALK” or line 30 “WAIT” or approved “Upraised Hand” without a “countdown” line 31 signal indicating the time remaining for a pedestrian to cross the line 32 roadway means a pedestrian facing the signal shall not start to line 33 cross the roadway in the direction of the signal, but any pedestrian line 34 who started the crossing during the display of the “WALK” or line 35 approved “Walking Person” symbol and who has partially line 36 completed crossing shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety zone or line 37 otherwise leave the roadway while the steady “WAIT” or “DON’T line 38 WALK” or approved “Upraised Hand” symbol is showing. line 39 SEC. 3. Section 21456.2 of the Vehicle Code is amended to line 40 read: 99 AB 1909 — 3 — 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 212 of 248 line 1 21456.2. (a)  Unless otherwise directed by a bicycle signal as line 2 provided in Section 21456.3, or as otherwise provided in line 3 subdivision (a) of Section 21456, an operator of a bicycle shall line 4 obey the provisions of this article applicable to the driver of a line 5 vehicle. line 6 (b)  Whenever an official traffic control signal exhibiting line 7 different colored bicycle symbols is shown concurrently with line 8 official traffic control signals or pedestrian control signals line 9 exhibiting different colored lights or arrows, an operator of a line 10 bicycle facing those traffic control signals shall obey the bicycle line 11 signals as provided in Section 21456.3. line 12 SEC. 4. Section 21760 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read: line 13 21760. (a)  This section shall be known and may be cited as line 14 the Three Feet for Safety Act. line 15 (b)  The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking and passing a line 16 bicycle that is proceeding in the same direction on a highway shall line 17 pass in compliance with the requirements of this article applicable line 18 to overtaking and passing a vehicle, and shall do so at a safe line 19 distance that does not interfere with the safe operation of the line 20 overtaken bicycle, having due regard for the size and speed of the line 21 motor vehicle and the bicycle, traffic conditions, weather, visibility, line 22 and the surface and width of the highway. line 23 (c)  A driver of a motor vehicle shall not overtake or pass a line 24 bicycle proceeding in the same direction on a highway at a distance line 25 of less than three feet between any part of the motor vehicle and line 26 any part of the bicycle or its operator. line 27 (d)  If the driver of a motor vehicle is unable to comply with line 28 subdivision (c), due to traffic or roadway conditions, the driver line 29 shall slow to a speed that is reasonable and prudent, and may pass line 30 only when doing so would not endanger the safety of the operator line 31 of the bicycle, taking into account the size and speed of the motor line 32 vehicle and bicycle, traffic conditions, weather, visibility, and line 33 surface and width of the highway. line 34 (e)  The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking or passing a bicycle line 35 that is proceeding in the same direction and in the same lane of line 36 travel shall, if another lane of traffic proceeding in the same line 37 direction is available, make a lane change into another available line 38 lane with due regard for safety and traffic conditions, if practicable line 39 and not prohibited by law, before overtaking or passing the bicycle. line 40 (e) 99 — 4 — AB 1909 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 213 of 248 line 1 (f)  (1)  A violation of subdivision (b), (c), or (d) (d), or (e) is an line 2 infraction punishable by a fine of thirty-five dollars ($35). line 3 (2)  If a collision occurs between a motor vehicle and a bicycle line 4 causing bodily injury to the operator of the bicycle, and the driver line 5 of the motor vehicle is found to be in violation of subdivision (b), line 6 (c), or (d), (d), or (e), a two-hundred-twenty-dollar ($220) fine line 7 shall be imposed on that driver. line 8 (f)  This section shall become operative on September 16, 2014. line 9 SEC. 5. Section 39002 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read: line 10 39002. (a)  A city or county, which adopts a bicycle licensing line 11 ordinance or resolution, may provide in the ordinance or resolution line 12 that no resident shall operate any bicycle, as specified in the line 13 ordinance, on any street, road, highway, or other public property line 14 within the jurisdiction of the city or county, as the case may be, line 15 unless the bicycle is licensed in accordance with this division. shall line 16 not prohibit the operation of an unlicensed bicycle. line 17 (b)  It is unlawful for any person to tamper with, destroy, line 18 mutilate, or alter any license indicia or registration form, or to line 19 remove, alter, or mutilate the serial number, or the identifying line 20 marks of a licensing agency’s identifying symbol, on any bicycle line 21 frame licensed under this division. line 22 SEC. 6. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 23 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because line 24 the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school line 25 district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or line 26 infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty line 27 for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of line 28 the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within line 29 the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California line 30 Constitution. O 99 AB 1909 — 5 — 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 214 of 248 SENATE BILL No. 942 Introduced by Senator Newman February 8, 2022 An act to amend Section 75230 of the Public Resources Code, relating to transportation, and making an appropriation therefor. legislative counsel’s digest SB 942, as introduced, Newman. Low Carbon Transit Operations Program: free or reduced fare transit program. Existing law requires all moneys, except for fines and penalties, collected by the State Air Resources Board as part of a market-based compliance mechanism to be deposited into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and to be available upon appropriation. Existing law continuously appropriates specified portions of the annual proceeds in the fund to various programs, including 5% for the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, which is administered by the Department of Transportation and provides operating and capital assistance for transit agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve mobility. Existing law requires each of those transit agencies to demonstrate that each expenditure of program moneys allocated to the transit agency reduces the emissions of greenhouse gases and does not supplant another source of funds, to use those moneys to provide transit operating or capital assistance, to use at least 50% of those moneys to benefit disadvantaged communities, and to submit specified information to the department before seeking a disbursement of those program moneys, as specified. This bill would authorize a transit agency that uses program moneys to fund a free or reduced fare transit program and that demonstrates compliance with the above-described requirements in its initial program application to continue to use those moneys to maintain that program 99 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 215 of 248 on an ongoing basis without demonstrating continued compliance with those requirements. Existing law authorizes a transit agency that has used program moneys for certain authorized operational assistance purposes in a previous fiscal year to use those moneys to continue the same service or program in any subsequent fiscal year if the agency can demonstrate that reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases can be realized. This bill would exempt transit agencies using program moneys for the continuation of a free or reduced fare transit program from the above-described provision and authorize those transit agencies to continue to use those moneys for that purpose without any restriction to length of time. Because this bill would expand the number of transit agencies eligible to receive an allocation of the funds continuously appropriated pursuant to the program, the bill would make an appropriation. Vote: 2⁄3. Appropriation: yes. Fiscal committee: yes.​ State-mandated local program: no.​ The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. Section 75230 of the Public Resources Code is line 2 amended to read: line 3 75230. (a)  The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program is line 4 hereby created to provide operating and capital assistance for transit line 5 agencies to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gas emissions gases line 6 and improve mobility, with a priority on serving disadvantaged line 7 communities. line 8 (b)  Funding for the program is continuously appropriated line 9 pursuant to Section 39719 of the Health and Safety Code from the line 10 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund established pursuant to Section line 11 16428.8 of the Government Code. line 12 (c)  Except as provided in subdivision (v), (w), funding shall be line 13 allocated by the Controller on a formula basis consistent with the line 14 requirements of this part and with Section 39719 of the Health and line 15 Safety Code, upon a determination by the Department of line 16 Transportation that the expenditures proposed by a recipient transit line 17 agency meet the requirements of this part and guidelines developed line 18 pursuant to this section, and that the amount of funding requested line 19 is currently available. 99 — 2 — SB 942 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 216 of 248 line 1 (d)  A recipient transit agency shall demonstrate that each line 2 expenditure of program moneys allocated to the agency reduces line 3 the emissions of greenhouse gas emissions. gases. line 4 (e)  A recipient transit agency shall demonstrate that each line 5 expenditure of program moneys does not supplant another source line 6 of funds. line 7 (f)  Moneys for the program shall be expended to provide transit line 8 operating or capital assistance that meets any of the following: line 9 (1)  Expenditures that directly enhance or expand transit service line 10 by supporting new or expanded bus or rail services, new or line 11 expanded water-borne transit, or expanded intermodal transit line 12 facilities, and may include equipment acquisition, fueling, and line 13 maintenance, and other costs to operate those services or facilities. line 14 (2)  Operational expenditures that increase transit mode share. line 15 (3)  Expenditures related to the purchase of zero-emission buses, line 16 including electric buses, and the installation of the necessary line 17 equipment and infrastructure to operate and support these line 18 zero-emission buses. line 19 (g)  (1)  For recipient transit agencies whose service areas include line 20 disadvantaged communities, as identified pursuant to Section line 21 39711 of the Health and Safety Code, at least 50 percent of the line 22 total moneys received pursuant to this chapter shall be expended line 23 on projects or services that meet the requirements of subdivisions line 24 (d), (e), and (f) and benefit the disadvantaged communities, as line 25 identified consistent with the guidance developed by the State Air line 26 Resources Board pursuant to Section 39715 of the Health and line 27 Safety Code. line 28 (2)  The requirement of paragraph (1) is waived if the recipient line 29 transit agencies expend the funding provided pursuant to this line 30 section on any of the following: line 31 (A)  New or expanded transit service that connects with transit line 32 service serving disadvantaged communities, as identified in Section line 33 39711 of, or in low-income communities, as defined in paragraph line 34 (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 39713 of, the Health and Safety line 35 Code. line 36 (B)  Transit fare subsidies and network and fare integration line 37 technology improvements, including, but not limited to, discounted line 38 or free student transit passes. line 39 (C)  The purchase of zero-emission transit buses and supporting line 40 infrastructure. 99 SB 942 — 3 — 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 217 of 248 line 1 (3)  Expenditures made pursuant to paragraph (2) shall be line 2 deemed to have met all applicable requirements established line 3 pursuant to Section 39713 of the Health and Safety Code. line 4 (4)  This section does not require a recipient transit agency to line 5 provide individual rider data to the Department of Transportation line 6 or the State Air Resources Board. line 7 (h)  The Department of Transportation, in coordination with the line 8 State Air Resources Board, shall develop guidelines that describe line 9 the methodologies that recipient transit agencies shall use to line 10 demonstrate that proposed expenditures will meet the criteria in line 11 subdivisions (d), (e), (f), and (g) and establish the reporting line 12 requirements for documenting ongoing compliance with those line 13 criteria. line 14 (i)  Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of line 15 Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code does not apply to line 16 the development of guidelines for the program pursuant to this line 17 section. line 18 (j)  A recipient transit agency shall submit the following line 19 information to the Department of Transportation before seeking a line 20 disbursement of funds pursuant to this part: line 21 (1)  A list of proposed expense types for anticipated funding line 22 levels. line 23 (2)  The documentation required by the guidelines developed line 24 pursuant to this section to demonstrate compliance with line 25 subdivisions (d), (e), (f), and (g). line 26 (k)  For capital projects, the recipient transit agency shall also line 27 do all of the following: line 28 (1)  Specify the phases of work for which the agency is seeking line 29 an allocation of moneys from the program. line 30 (2)  Identify the sources and timing of all moneys required to line 31 undertake and complete any phase of a project for which the line 32 recipient agency is seeking an allocation of moneys from the line 33 program. line 34 (3)  Describe intended sources and timing of funding to complete line 35 any subsequent phases of the project, through construction or line 36 procurement. line 37 (l)  A recipient transit agency that has used program moneys for line 38 any type of operational assistance allowed by subdivision (f) in a line 39 previous fiscal year may use program moneys to continue the same line 40 service or program in any subsequent fiscal year if the agency can 99 — 4 — SB 942 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 218 of 248 line 1 demonstrate that reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gas line 2 emissions gases can be realized. line 3 (m)  A recipient transit agency that uses program moneys to line 4 fund a free or reduced fare transit program that demonstrates line 5 compliance with subdivisions (d), (e), (f), and (g) in the initial line 6 application, may continue to use program moneys to maintain that line 7 program on an ongoing basis without demonstrating continued line 8 compliance with those subdivisions, or having to submit further line 9 documentation pursuant to subdivision (j). Transit agencies using line 10 program moneys for the continuation of a free or reduced fare line 11 transit program shall not be subject to the provisions outlined in line 12 subdivision (l) and may continue to use program moneys for such line 13 purpose without any restriction to length of time. line 14 (m) line 15 (n)  Before authorizing the disbursement of funds, the line 16 Department of Transportation, in coordination with the State Air line 17 Resources Board, shall determine the eligibility, in whole or in line 18 part, of the proposed list of expense types, based on the line 19 documentation provided by the recipient transit agency to ensure line 20 ongoing compliance with the guidelines developed pursuant to line 21 this section. line 22 (n) line 23 (o)  The Department of Transportation shall notify the Controller line 24 of approved expenditures for each recipient transit agency, and line 25 the amount of the allocation for each agency determined to be line 26 available at that time of approval. line 27 (o) line 28 (p)  A recipient transit agency that does not submit an line 29 expenditure for funding in a particular fiscal year may retain its line 30 funding share, and may accumulate and use that funding share in line 31 a subsequent fiscal year for a larger expenditure, including line 32 operating assistance. The recipient transit agency must first specify line 33 the number of fiscal years that it intends to retain its funding share line 34 and the expenditure for which the agency intends to use these line 35 moneys. A recipient transit agency may only retain its funding line 36 share for a maximum of four fiscal years. line 37 (p) line 38 (q)  A recipient transit agency may, in any particular fiscal year, line 39 loan or transfer its funding share to another recipient transit agency line 40 within the same region for any identified eligible expenditure under 99 SB 942 — 5 — 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 219 of 248 line 1 the program, including operating assistance, in accordance with line 2 procedures incorporated by the Department of Transportation in line 3 the guidelines developed pursuant to this section, which procedures line 4 shall be consistent with the requirement in subdivision (g). line 5 (q) line 6 (r)  A recipient transit agency may apply to the Department of line 7 Transportation to reassign any savings of surplus moneys allocated line 8 under this section to the agency for an expenditure that has been line 9 completed to another eligible expenditure under the program, line 10 including operating assistance. A recipient transit agency may also line 11 apply to the Department of Transportation to reassign to another line 12 eligible expenditure any moneys from the program previously line 13 allocated to the agency for an expenditure that the agency has line 14 determined is no longer a priority for the use of those moneys. line 15 (r) line 16 (s)  The recipient transit agency shall provide annual reports to line 17 the Department of Transportation, in the format and manner line 18 prescribed by the department, consistent with the internal line 19 administrative procedures for the use of the fund proceeds line 20 developed by the State Air Resources Board. line 21 (s) line 22 (t)  The Department of Transportation and recipient transit line 23 agencies shall comply with the guidelines developed by the State line 24 Air Resources Board pursuant to Section 39715 of the Health and line 25 Safety Code to ensure that the requirements of Section 39713 of line 26 the Health and Safety Code are met to maximize the benefits to line 27 disadvantaged communities, as described in Section 39711 of the line 28 Health and Safety Code. line 29 (t) line 30 (u)  A recipient transit agency shall comply with all applicable line 31 legal requirements, including the requirements of the California line 32 Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section line 33 21000)), and civil rights and environmental justice obligations line 34 under state and federal law. This section does not expand or extend line 35 the applicability of those laws to recipient transit agencies. line 36 (u) line 37 (v)  The audit of public transportation operator finances already line 38 required under the Transportation Development line 39 Mills-Alquist-Deddeh Act (Chapter 4 (commencing with Section line 40 99200) of Part 11 of Division 10 of the Public Utilities Code) 99 — 6 — SB 942 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 220 of 248 line 1 pursuant to Section 99245 of that code the Public Utilities Code line 2 shall be expanded to include verification of receipt and appropriate line 3 expenditure of moneys from the program. Each recipient transit line 4 agency receiving moneys from the program in a fiscal year for line 5 which an audit is conducted shall transmit a copy of the audit to line 6 the Department of Transportation, and the department shall make line 7 the audits available to the Legislature and the Controller for review line 8 on request. line 9 (v) line 10 (w)  Notwithstanding subdivision (c), the Controller shall allocate line 11 funding pursuant to this section for the 2019–20 to 2022–23, line 12 inclusive, fiscal years to recipient transit agencies pursuant to the line 13 individual operator ratios described in Section 99314.10 of the line 14 Public Utilities Code. O 99 SB 942 — 7 — 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 221 of 248 AB 1944 ASSEMBLYMEMBER ALEX LEE OFFICE OF ASSEMBLYMEMBER ALEX LEE AB 1944 FACT SHEET | UPDATED 02/22/22 THIS BILL This bill would allow members of a local legislative body, upon majority vote, to waive the Brown Act requirements of publishing their private address on the meeting agenda and making this address open to members of the public. It would also require a remote participation option for members of the public to address the body. BACKGROUND The Ralph M. Brown Act passed in 1953 requires local government business to be conducted at open and public meetings, except in certain limited situations. Existing law allows the legislative body of a local agency to use teleconferencing as long as a quorum of the members participate from locations within the boundaries of the agency’s jurisdiction. In order to teleconference, each teleconference location is required to be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting, as well as be accessible to the public. On March 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 which waived the teleconference requirements for local agencies during the COVID -19 pandemic. This order has since expired. AB 361 (Rivas, 2021) permits local agencies to continue to meet virtually and remotely during a state-declared emergency without having to meet a quorum and other requirements of teleconference meetings under the Brown Act. Local legislative bodies may continue to meet virtually pursuant to AB 361 until the end of the current state of emergency and during any future state of emergency up until January 1, 2024. The legislative body is required to take a majority vote every 30 days in order to continue allowing members to participate virtually without meeting existing Brown Act requirements. PROBLEM Given the last few years of the COVID-19 pandemic, many members of Brown Act bodies have participated remotely in official business, and have shown effective leadership while keeping themselves and their families healthy and safe. However, even with existing legislation, the protections are only in place during a declared state of emergency. In addition, if there is no majority vote every 30 days, members who choose to teleconference are required to make private addresses publicly known and accessible. Since there are many members of Brown Act bodies who have families that may be immunocompromised or may need to teleconference from a private location that cannot be made accessible to the public, there are still many concerns with existing legislation. For example, if outside of the pandemic a local elected is teleconferencing from a hospital room after giving birth, she would be forced to either reveal the location she is teleconferencing from or make the room publicly available, or she would not be able to attend the meeting and partake in her official duties. Another example is if a Planning Commissioner is immunocompromised, or has immunocompromised family members at home, they may choose to teleconference into meetings. However, they would be required to share their private home address and make it publicly accessible. SOLUTION AB 1944 would ensure that:  Brown Act bodies can vote to allow their members to teleconference into a meeting without having to reveal private addresses or make private addresses accessible to the public, to continue performing their official duties  Livestreams of meetings are required whenever members teleconference into meetings so the public has access to observe and participate in meetings  Members of the public can address their elected officials either through a call-in or video option, ensuring that they are able to participate in government 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 222 of 248 OFFICE OF ASSEMBLYMEMBER ALEX LEE AB 1944 FACT SHEET | UPDATED 02/22/22 SUPPORT Gilroy City Councilmember Zach Hilton Pinole Mayor Pro Tem Devin T. Murphy Santa Clara School Board Member Vickie Fairchild Santa Clara School Board Member Bonnie Lieberman San Jose Housing Commissioner Martha O’Connell Seaside City Councilmember Jon Wizard South San Francisco Councilmember James Coleman San Bruno Park District Trustee Andriana Shea Santa Ana City Councilmember Jessie Lopez Sacramento City Councilmember Katie Valenzuela South San Francisco Unified School District Board of Trustees John Baker North Westwood Neighborhood Councilmember Andrew Lewis CONTACT Maria Montchal, Legislative Aide Office of Assemblymember Alex Lee 916-319-2025 | Maria.Montchal@asm.ca.gov 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 223 of 248 www.lao.ca.gov 2022-23 BUDGET 1 Summary Governor Proposes $4.9 Billion General Fund for Various Transportation Purposes. The Governor’s budget includes a total of $4.9 billion in General Fund for a package of proposals to support various transportation infrastructure projects, including transit and rail, grade separation, active transportation, climate adaptation, and highway conversion. The proposed package includes (1) $3.4 billion that was agreed to in the 2021-22 budget package, but was reverted to the General Fund because subsequent legislation was not enacted as required, and (2) $1.5 billion that would be allocated between programs from last year’s package and a new set of proposed programs. Assessment of Proposals. Based on our initial assessment of the Governor’s proposed package, we have four main findings. First, we find that the proposed spending on transportation infrastructure could complement new federal transportation funding that the state is expected to receive from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) that was enacted in November 2021. Second, we find that it is important to consider the merits and trade-offs of using a competitive process to allocate the transit and rail funding, particularly in terms of ensuring funding allocations are distributed equitably across all regions of the state. Third, we find that although the new proposed programs have merit, the programs could benefit from evaluations to measure the extent to which they are meeting their core objectives. Finally, we note that the proposed spending is excluded from the state appropriations limit (SAL), which limits the Legislature’s flexibility to reallocate funding from the Governor’s transportation infrastructure package to other purposes. Recommendations. As a result of the above findings, we have several recommendations for legislative consideration. In order to maximize available funding for transportation, we recommend the Legislature consider the Governor’s proposed package in context of the anticipated federal funding, to ensure state funds are used strategically—supporting legislative priorities where federal funds are not as significant or absent, as well as helping California be competitive in receiving discretionary federal grants. In addition, we recommend the Legislature consider geographic equity in transit and rail funding, to the extent that the Legislature prioritizes that some level of base funding for the projects should be provided to all regions of the state. We also recommend the Legislature require evaluations of the new proposed programs to ensure the administration provides key information regarding programmatic outcomes to inform future policy and funding decisions. Lastly, we recommend the Legislature be mindful of SAL considerations in assessing the Governor’s proposed package, as any reallocations of this funding will need to be for a similarly SAL-related purpose. GABRIEL PETEK | LEGISLATIVE ANALYST FEBRUARY 2022 The 2022-23 Budget: Transportation Infrastructure Package 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 224 of 248 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2022-23 BUDGET 2 BACKGROUND Overview of California’s Transportation System. California’s transportation system consists of streets, highways, railways, airports, seaports, bicycle routes, and pedestrian pathways. All of these various modes provide people and businesses the ability to access destinations and move goods and services throughout the state. Funding for the state’s transportation system comes from numerous local, state, and federal sources, and private investments. State funding primarily comes from various fuel taxes and vehicle fees that are dedicated to specified transportation purposes. Most of the state’s transportation funding is dedicated to maintaining, rehabilitating, and improving state highways and local streets and roads, with a smaller amount dedicated to supporting transit operations and capital improvements. Funding for 2021-22 Transportation Package Reverted Back to General Fund. The 2021-22 budget package included a total of $3.4 billion in General Fund for the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to implement a package of proposals focused on various transportation improvements. Provisional budget language made these funds available on the condition that subsequent legislation to guide funding allocations be enacted by October 10, 2021. Given that no such legislation was enacted by this date, the $3.4 billion reverted back to the General Fund, as required in the budget act. Governor’s Proposal Provides $4.9 Billion General Fund for Various Transportation Purposes. The Governor’s budget includes a total of $4.9 billion in General Fund resources for CalSTA and Caltrans to implement a package of proposals focused on transportation infrastructure. (In addition to this package, the Governor continues to request $4.2 billion in bond funds for the state’s high-speed rail project.) As shown in Figure 1, the proposed package includes the $3.4 billion agreed to in the 2021-22 budget package that was subsequently reverted to the General Fund, as well as an additional $1.5 billion that would be allocated between programs from last year’s package and a new set of proposed programs. Figure 1 Governor’s Proposed Transportation Infrastructure Package General Fund (In Millions) Activity Department Approved in 2021-22 Budget, but Reverted to General Funda Additional Proposed Augmentations Total Proposed Package Statewide transit and rail projects CalSTA $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 Southern California transit and rail projects CalSTA 1,000 250 1,250 Grade separation projects CalSTA b 500 —500 Active Transportation Program Caltransc 500 —500 Climate adaptation programs Caltransc 400 —400 Highways to Boulevards Pilot Program Caltrans —150 150 Bicycle and pedestrian safety projects Caltrans —100 100 Totals $3,400 $1,500 $4,900 a Funds reverted to the General Fund because subsequent legislation to allocate the funds was not enacted by October 10, 2021, as required in the 2021-22 budget. b Funds would be competitively awarded through CalSTA, but $250 million included in Caltrans budget to reflect that some portion of funding would be spent on the state highway system. c Programs in Caltrans budget, but the California Transportation Commission would have role in creating program guidelines and awarding funding. CalSTA = California State Transportation Agency and Caltrans = California Department of Transportation. 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 225 of 248 www.lao.ca.gov 2022-23 BUDGET 3 The components of the Governor’s transportation infrastructure package include the following: • Statewide Transit and Rail Projects ($2 Billion). The Governor’s budget includes funding for the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), which allocates grants through a competitive process for capital improvements on intercity rail and transit (bus and rail) systems to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle miles traveled, and congestion. Funding would be allocated by CalSTA to all regions of the state—including Southern California, which has a specific set aside in the Governor’s budget (discussed below). • Southern California Transit and Rail Projects ($1.3 Billion). The Governor proposes funding through TIRCP for projects specifically within the Southern California region. As part of the transportation budget package approved last year, this funding was originally set aside to support critical projects for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games. Under the Governor’s proposed package, the use of the funding would be available for any eligible transit and rail project in the broader Southern California region. • Grade Separation Projects ($500 Million). The Governor’s proposal includes funding through TIRCP specifically for high-priority grade separations—projects that create a physical separation between railroad tracks and roadways. • Active Transportation Program (ATP) ($500 Million). The ATP, which is administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and Caltrans, provides grants to local and regional entities through a competitive process for projects that encourage an increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking. Similar to last year’s package, the Governor proposes allocating the requested funding to support high-scoring projects that did not receive funding in previous ATP grant cycles. According to CTC, the cost to fund all of the projects that had clearly met the evaluation criteria would be about $1.5 billion. • Climate Adaptation Programs ($400 Million). The Governor’s budget includes funding for (1) Caltrans to plan and implement state climate adaptation projects, (2) CTC to administer a new competitive grant program to implement local climate adaptation projects, and (3) Caltrans to administer a new competitive program to support local adaptation planning that identifies transportation system vulnerabilities and climate-related risks. • Highways to Boulevards Pilot Program ($150 Million). The Governor proposes allocating funding to Caltrans for a new pilot program that would provide competitive planning and implementation grants to local entities for the conversion or transformation of underutilized highways to benefit residents of underserved communities. • Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Projects ($100 Million). The Governor’s budget includes funding for bicycle and pedestrian safety projects through Caltrans’ Highway Safety Improvement Program. Funding would be split evenly between state and local projects, with local projects being selected on a competitive basis. Reflects Anticipated Federal Infrastructure Funds. In addition to the funding in the above package, the Governor’s budget includes a five-year federal fund augmentation for Caltrans’ Capital Outlay Program and Local Assistance Program associated with the Federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) enacted in November 2021—$1.7 billion in 2021-22 and increasing annually each year to $2.2 billion in 2025-26. (These amounts include the formula-based funding the state is expected to receive from IIJA for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, which we assess in a forthcoming brief.) Future Caltrans budget proposals related to IIJA are expected in the coming months, such as for the Capital Outlay Support Program. (Please see the box on the next page for more detailed information on the transportation funding the state is anticipated to receive from IIJA.) 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 226 of 248 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2022-23 BUDGET 4 Assessment State Spending Could Complement Increased Federal Funds. As mentioned above, IIJA is expected to provide the state with a significant increase in formula-based transportation funding over a five-year period. At the same time, the act also will make available over $100 billion in new funding for federal competitive grants nationwide. We find that spending state resources on transportation infrastructure provides an opportunity for the state to complement and leverage the anticipated federal funding—both formula-based and competitive. In particular, state spending could complement federal funds by focusing on state priorities where funding from IIJA might not be as large or available. Additionally, state spending could better position state and local projects in obtaining competitively awarded federal grants, such as by providing the funding needed to advance project readiness and feasibility. Trade-Offs in Using Competitive Process to Distribute Transit and Rail Funding. The state currently has several programs that fund transit and rail projects, with some allocating funds competitively and others providing formula-based funding. As previously discussed, the Governor proposes to distribute additional funding for transit and rail projects through TIRCP, a competitive grant program. Under TIRCP, applications for funding are selected based on how well they meet the grant criteria. While a competitive allocation process could better ensure that the highest quality projects are funded, it also could result in funding allocations that are not distributed equitably across all regions of the state. Moreover, as proposed, Southern California would be the only geographic region in the state guaranteed to receive some level of funding for transit and rail projects. Alternatively, distributing funds for transit and rail projects through a formula-based program, such as the State Transportation Improvement Program or the State Transit Assistance program, would ensure that every region receives some level of funding. Overview of New Federal Funding for Transportation In November 2021, the federal government enacted the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), a $1.2 trillion spending package for various types of infrastructure, including transportation, energy, water, and broadband. Within IIJA, there is a new five-year federal surface transportation reauthorization that replaced the expired Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. In total, IIJA authorizes $567 billion in spending for federal transportation programs over five years, which is an increase of $274 billion above previous FAST Act spending levels over five years. Funding will go to existing and new federal transportation programs (formula-based and competitive) that support highways, transit, rail, and freight. California is estimated to receive almost $40 billion from formula-based transportation programs over five years under IIJA, which is an increase of $10 billion when compared to previous allocations from the FAST Act. Specifically, the state is estimated to receive the following in guaranteed formula-based transportation funding: (1) $29.5 billion from federal-aid highway programs ($19.4 billion under the FAST Act), (2) $9.5 billion from federal transit programs ($8.1 billion under the FAST Act), and (3) $384 million from a new federal program to support the expansion of electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Funding the state receives from federal-aid highway programs largely is provided to Caltrans. Historically, 60 percent of the funding is used for state activities—such as highway maintenance and rehabilitation—and 40 percent is apportioned to local agencies. In contrast, most of the funding from federal transit programs is allocated to transit agencies in the state directly from the federal government. 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 227 of 248 www.lao.ca.gov 2022-23 BUDGET 5 New Highways to Boulevards Pilot Program and Climate Adaptation Programs Have Merit, but Lack Evaluation Components. The Governor’s budget includes funding and budget trailer legislation to establish the Highways to Boulevards Pilot Program and several climate adaptation programs. Overall, we find that these programs appear reasonable and could provide several benefits. For instance, the climate adaptation programs would support state and local transportation systems in planning for and adapting to climate change impacts—such as from sea-level rise undermining coastal roadways and bridges. Moreover, the Highways to Boulevards Pilot Program would support local entities in planning and implementing projects that increase access to biking, walking, transit infrastructure, and green space in underserved communities by converting or modifying underutilized highways. In addition, we find that allocating one-time funding to these new programs would provide the opportunity to pursue and pilot different types of projects of varying scope to help guide future budget and policy decisions. However, as currently proposed, the budget trailer legislation to implement these programs does not include any statutory requirements for Caltrans to evaluate programmatic outcomes. In order to guide future legislative decisions, we find that it is particularly important for the state to conduct robust program evaluations to measure the extent to which new programs are meeting their core objectives. Having these evaluations would better inform the Legislature on the successes and challenges of the programs, and, in turn, guide whether (and at what level) to continue funding these programs, or if any programmatic modifications are needed. For instance, if enhancing multimodal connectivity along state highways is an objective of the Highways to Boulevards Pilot Program, it should be evaluated—using measurable metrics—to assess the extent to which the program meets this goal. Proposed Spending Excluded From State Appropriations Limit (SAL). The California Constitution limits how the state can spend revenues that exceed a specific threshold. Appropriations for capital outlay are excluded from the limit. The proposed spending in the transportation infrastructure package meets the definition of capital outlay under the SAL, and so this spending is excluded under the Governor’s budget. As a result, the Legislature has limited flexibility to reallocate funding from this proposal to other purposes that would not be excluded. That is, the Legislature would generally need to repurpose the associated funding for other SAL-related purposes, such as tax reductions or an alternative excluded expenditure. (In our recent report, The 2022-23 Budget: Initial Comments on the State Appropriations Limit Proposal, we cover SAL issues in more detail.) Recommendations Consider Governor’s Proposed Package in Context of Anticipated Federal Funds. Over the next several years, California is expected to receive a significant amount of federal funding for transportation. The Legislature will want to consider how additional state funding for transportation infrastructure can complement these federal funds—supporting legislative priorities where federal funds are not as significant or are absent—as well as how state funding can help California be competitive in receiving discretionary federal grants. Consider Geographic Equity in Transit and Rail Funding. If the Legislature believes that some level of base funding for transit and rail projects should be provided to all regions of the state, it could consider allocating a portion of the proposed funding for transit and rail projects on a formula-basis, or providing additional dedicated funds for different regions. For example, the Legislature could provide some of the funding for transit and rail projects through existing formula-based programs, such as the State Transportation Improvement Program or the State Transit Assistance program, to ensure some level of geographic funding equity across the state. Require Robust Evaluations of New Programs Funded. We recommend the Legislature add requirements—through budget trailer legislation— for program evaluations of any new transportation programs that are established and funded in the budget. For example, to the extent the Legislature approves funding for the proposed Highways to 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 228 of 248 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2022-23 BUDGET 6 Boulevards Pilot Program and climate adaptation programs, it could require Caltrans to evaluate and report on the outcomes of each program. These requirements could include measuring specific metrics that the Legislature would find useful in (1) determining whether the programs are meeting their intended objectives and (2) guiding future budget and policy decisions regarding how to support these efforts going forward. Consider SAL Implications. In considering the proposed transportation infrastructure package, we recommend the Legislature be mindful of SAL considerations. In particular, if the Legislature were to reject or approve a lower amount of General Fund spending than the administration on transportation infrastructure, it likely would need to repurpose the associated funding to other SAL-related purposes. 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 229 of 248 www.lao.ca.gov 2022-23 BUDGET 73-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 230 of 248 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2022-23 BUDGET 8 LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Frank Jimenez and Eunice Roh, and reviewed by Anthony Simbol. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, California 95814. 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 231 of 248 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 9. Meeting Date:03/14/2022   Subject:TWIC Referrals for 2022 Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: N/A  Presenter: John Cunningham Contact: John Cunningham, 791-1368 Referral History: This is an annual Administrative Item of the Committee. Referral Update: No changes are being proposed by staff to the Committee referals at the time this agenda packet was published. Staff is consulting with impacted Departments and may bring revisions to the meeting.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Consider recommendations on referrals to the Committee for 2022, revise as necessary, and direct staff to bring the list to the full Board of Supervisors for approval. Fiscal Impact (if any): None.  Attachments DRAFT 2022 TWIC Referrals 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 232 of 248 DRAFT 2022 Referrals to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (To be Considered by TWIC at their March 14, 2022 Meeting.) 1. Review legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure. 2. Review applications for transportation, water and infrastructure grants to be prepared by the Public Works and Conservation and Development Departments. 3. Monitor the Contra Costa Transportation Authority including efforts to implement Measure J. 4. Monitor EBMUD and Contra Costa Water District projects and activities. 5. Review projects, plans and legislative matters that may affect the health of the San Francisco Bay and Delta, including but not limited to conveyance, flood control, dredging, climate change, habitat conservation, governance, water storage, development of an ordinance regarding polystyrene foam food containers, water quality, supply and reliability, consistent with the Board of Supervisors adopted Delta Water Platform. 6. Review and monitor the establishment of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies and Groundwater Sustainability Plans for the three medium priority groundwater basins within Contra Costa County as required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. 7. Review issues associated with County flood control facilities. 8. Monitor creek and watershed issues and seek funding for improvement projects related to these issues. 9. Monitor the implementation of the Integrated Pest Management policy. 10. Monitor the status of county park maintenance issues including, but not limited to, transfer of some County park maintenance responsibilities to other agencies and implementation of Measure WW grants and expenditure plan. 11. Monitor and report on the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan. 12. Monitor the implementation of the County Complete Streets Policy. 13. Monitor and report on the Underground Utilities Program. 14. Monitor implementation of the Letter of Understanding with PG&E for the maintenance of PG&E streetlights in Contra Costa. 15. Freight transportation issues, including but not limited to potential increases in rail traffic such as that proposed by the Port of Oakland and other possible service increases, safety of freight trains, rail corridors, and trucks that transport hazardous materials, the planned truck route for North Richmond; freight issues related to the Northern Waterfront (and coordinate with the Northern Waterfront Ad Hoc Committee as needed), and the deepening of the San Francisco-to-Stockton Ship Channel. 16. Monitor the Iron Horse Corridor Management Program. 17. Monitor and report on the East County Integrated Transit Study. 18. Review transportation plans and services for specific populations, including but not limited to County Low Income Transportation Action Plan, Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan for the Bay Area, Priorities for Senior Mobility, Bay Point Community Based Transportation Plan, and the Contra Costa County Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan. 19. Monitor issues of interest in the provision and enhancement of general transportation services, including but not limited to public transportation, taxicab/transportation network companies, and navigation apps. 20. Monitor the statewide infrastructure bond programs. 21. Monitor implementation and ensure compliance with the single-use carryout bag ban consistent with Public Resources Code, Chapter 5.3 (resulting from Senate Bill 270 [Padilla – 2014]). 22. Monitor efforts at the State to revise school siting guidelines and statutes. 23. Monitor issues related to docked and dockless bike share programs. 24. Monitor efforts related to water conservation including but not limited to turf conversion, graywater, and other related landscaping issues. 25. Monitor the County’s conversion to solar/distributed energy systems. 26. Monitor issues with County Airports as they relate to surrounding land use, transportation, and related infrastructure. G:\Conservation\TWIC\2022\03‐14‐22 TWIC Mtg\TWIC Referrals 2022 ‐ DRAFT.Doc  3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 233 of 248 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 10. Meeting Date:03/14/2022   Subject:REVIEW Communication, News, Miscellaneous Items of Interest to the Committee and DIRECT staff as appropriate. Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: N/A  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925)655-2915 Referral History: This is a standing item on the TWIC agenda. Referral Update: Communication Received: 12-12-2021 email from Leland Frayseth (county resident) to the California Water commission (copy to TWIC) re: "Sites Project is ineligible and unfeasible" January 2022 email exchange between WCCTAC and DCD re: bus shelter program. News Clippings: 12-13-2021: Streetsblog: Op-Ed: Funding & Reforms Needed to Prevent Bay Area Transit Going off a Cliff 12-18-2021: Planetizen: Study: More Bike Infrastructure Could Prevent 15,000 Deaths Annually Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECEIVE information and DIRECT staff as appropriate. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments 12-12-21 email_CC resident to CWC OpEd: Prevent Bay Area Transit From Going Off a Cliff Bus Stop Funding: West County: Email Exchange Study: More Bike Infrastructure Could Prevent 15,000 Deaths Annually 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 234 of 248 1 John Cunningham From:Leland Frayseth <leland.frayseth@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 12, 2021 6:07 PM To:Samantha.Arthur@cwc.ca.gov; Alexandre.Makler@cwc.ca.gov; daniel.curtin@cwc.ca.gov; Teresa.Alvarado@cwc.ca.gov; Matthew.Swanson@cwc.ca.gov; Kimberly.Gallagher@cwc.ca.gov; fern.steiner@cwc.ca.gov; jose.solorio@cwc.ca.gov; cwc@water.ca.gov; Shoemaker, Brianna@DWR; amy.young@water.ca.gov; Cambra, Paul@CWC; Yun, Joseph@DWR; Klopfenstein, Rachael@DeltaCouncil; erik.erreca@deltacouncil.ca.gov; John Cunningham; spalmer@zone7water.com; john@goldenstatesalmon.org; Bob Wright; Obegi, Doug; Daniel Bacher; Scott Anderson; Rachel Murphy; Kennedy, Kellye J; Jennifer Allen; EIR-EIS- Comments@sitesproject.org Subject:Sites Project is ineligible and unfeasible Subject:  Sites Project is ineligible and unfeasible     Dear Commissioners, Staff, the Public and readers of Sites Environmental Impact Report (EIR) comments,    This is my 44th letter to the California Water Commission (CWC).  Please add this comment to the 15 Dec 2021 CWC  meeting agenda item 10 Sites Project Continuing Eligibility and Feasibility Determination.    The West currently has millions of acre feet in unused water surface storage capacity in the Colorado, Sacramento and  San Joaquin river basins.  Building more off stream reservoirs like Sites is a waste of money and the diesel powered  construction and earth moving equipment will just add more carbon to the atmosphere worsening climate change.  Sites  off stream reservoir is a dumb idea.  Los Vaqueros off stream reservoir is a dumb idea.  These failed projects degrade my  water quality and kill salmon and steelhead.    I know Jerry Brown Sites Executive Director. He used to be the General Manager for Contra Costa Water District (CCWD)  that provides nasty, expensive tap water to my home.  I have been on the receiving end of Jerry Brown's lies and  obfuscation.    In preparation for this comment I was not surprised to read in the Sites board agenda which he dictates that he listed  negotiations with Fish and Wildlife followed by his performance evaluation in a Closed Session.    3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 235 of 248 2     The next month Jerry Brown's consulting contract was increased to $37,275/month, annualized that is 2.6 times what  Governor Newsom makes.  He is not worth minimum wage in my opinion.      3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 236 of 248 3   How are the fish fairing in the Fish and Wildlife negotiations on Sites construction, operation terms, conditions and  agreements?  I have experienced Jerry Brown's obfuscation so I wasn't going to waste my time sending Sites project  authority a public records request so I sent a request to Fish and Wildlife.    3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 237 of 248 4   After some back and forth Fish and Wildlife wrote me they are searching for records and will try to respond within 90  days of my original request.    3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 238 of 248 5 In scheduling this Sites continuing eligibility determination on the CWC agenda and Sites EIR comments for 15 Dec 2021  you are left with no alternative but to determine Sites ineligible for continued Prop 1 funding and recirculate the Sites  EIR when we all have read "Sites Project construction and operation terms, conditions and agreements with the State of  California, Department of Fish & Wildlife".    Thank you for reading my comments. I will continue to track and provide comments on this important matter.    Leland Frayseth            3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 239 of 248 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 240 of 248 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 241 of 248 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 242 of 248 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 243 of 248 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 244 of 248 1 John Cunningham From:John Nemeth <jnemeth@wcctac.org> Sent:Wednesday, January 5, 2022 1:36 PM To:John Cunningham Cc:Jamar Stamps Subject:RE: AC Transit bus shelters and the County Thanks John. I’m still absorbing the background and context from AC Transit. It sounds like -from Carissa Lee at AC- that AC Transit will pay to maintain the cost of shelters on County property (or do the maintenance themselves, I’m not sure which). So, it’s looking like you may not need to worry about the narrow issue of the County being asked to contribute $. You’re right, though, that there’s a larger issue of needing to find some more stable way of paying for shelter maintenance. WCCTAC’s contribution would be a one-time bridge to buy some time to find a more durable solution. John Nemeth WCCTAC - Executive Director 6333 Potrero Ave, Suite 100 El Cerrito, CA 94530 510-210-5933 jnemeth@wcctac.org From: John Cunningham <John.Cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us> Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 9:39 AM To: John Nemeth <jnemeth@wcctac.org> Cc: Jamar Stamps <Jamar.Stamps@dcd.cccounty.us> Subject: RE: AC Transit bus shelters and the County John, Happy New Year to you as well! I’m copying Jamar as west county is his area right now, he may have additional comments to add. I wasn’t aware of any change to the Clear Channel bus shelter contract or that it is even a model that was still in use. If I’m understanding it correctly, I find the direct tie between advertising and shelter maintenance to be problematic. Responses to your questions:  Can you confirm that the County is affected by this issue?: Yes, this impacts the County whether or not there are stops/shelters in the unincorporated area, it’s a network that spans jurisdictional boundaries.  Has the County discussed the issue?: No, we have not discussed this issue, is the first I’ve heard of it. I will bring the issue to the BOS transportation subcommittee when they meet again in February. I’ll also reach out to District 1 staff and encourage them to attend given the geography of the issue.  Do you think the County would be interested in WCCTAC covering maintenance costs for a year? : With one caveat I think that is a good use of WCCTAC funds. I believe that WCCTAC should only provide bridge funding if that action includes sending a strong message from your Board to CCTA and the other RTPC’s that we should establish a 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 245 of 248 2 consistent countywide bus stop/shelter program at the earliest possible opportunity. Again, if I’m understanding it correctly, the linkage between advertising and shelter maintenance is arcane and should be broken. This is serious accessibility, infrastructure, and coherence issue and should be prioritized as such in budgets and M&O activities, the linkage to advertising contracts diminishes the issue. Of course we should generate as much revenue as possible with advertising but that should just be plowed in to the budget and the shelter program should be a normally funded program.  Do you know what the required dollar contribution is for the County? We are planning to focus just on funds needed for maintenance and not for potential upgrades.: I don’t think I’m following this question, is this to determine cost allocation by jurisdiction based on number of stops? If that is the case I would suggest that the funds just be taken off the top of the program rather than trying to isolate costs by jurisdiction which I think would be problematic…but maybe I’m misunderstanding the question. Thanks very much for looping the County in John, please let me know how you intend to proceed so I can keep the BOS informed. - John From: John Nemeth <jnemeth@wcctac.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 12:05 PM To: John Cunningham <John.Cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us> Subject: AC Transit bus shelters and the County Hi John, Happy New Year! As you may know, Clear Channel is changing its contractual relationship with AC Transit for bus shelter maintenance. At the moment, the value of bus shelter advertising is down, so local jurisdictions are being asked to pay for bus shelter maintenance for the April 2022 - April 2023 period while AC Transit explores other funding sources/ideas. I’m pretty sure that there are AC shelters in Unincorporated County - for example in the Rollingwood area. I’ve been talking with Richmond, El Cerrito, and San Pablo staff about WCCTAC covering the maintenance cost for one year. I’m planning to bring this to the TAC on Jan 13 th for discussion and then to the WCCTAC Board on Jan 28th. As of Dec 31, WCCTAC will have about $660K in its flexible Measure J 28b pot of funds. To cover a year of shelter maintenance, we’d be using roughly $100K total, I think. I’ll loop you into ongoing conversation but also had a few questions:  Can you confirm that the County is affected by this issue?  Has the County discussed the issue?  Do you think the County would be interested in WCCTAC covering maintenance costs for a year?  Do you know what the required dollar contribution isfor the County? We are planning to focus just on funds needed for maintenance and not for potential upgrades. I also have a call in to AC Transit to verify context but would love any info or thoughts that you have. John Nemeth WCCTAC - Executive Director 6333 Potrero Ave, Suite 100 El Cerrito, CA 94530 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 246 of 248 3 510-210-5933 jnemeth@wcctac.org 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 247 of 248 Study: More Bike Infrastructure Could Prevent 15,000 Deaths Annually In addition to reducing air pollution and congestion, improving bike infrastructure could save thousands of lives each year, according to new research. December 8, 2021, 5:00 AM PST By Diana Ionescu @aworkoction Arina P Habich / Shutterstock A new study that models the "comprehensive global public health impacts of the mode shift to cycling" found that replacing car trips with bike trips can prevent over 15,000 deaths per year in the U.S. alone, reports Kea Wilson for Streetsblog. The study analyzed rates of premature deaths due to car crashes and pollution-related disease, as well as how many car trips could be replaced with robust investment in bike infrastructure and other incentives. Even if just 8 percent of those new bike trips replaced journeys in a car — an extraordinarily conservative estimate, considering that in this hypothetical world, every urban area in the world would be outtted with Amsterdam-levels of bike lanes — researchers say that 18,589 lives could be saved across the globe, 1,227 of which would be in the U.S. alone. Meanwhile, even people not using bikes would benet from improved air quality, reduced congestion, and better overall mobility. "In addition to the impacts modeled in his study, [study author David] Rojas points out that bikeable communities typically have more green space, more real estate to devote to aordable housing, healthy food providers, and other essential services in every neighborhood, and lower levels of noise pollution, all of which have an impact on the physical and mental health of their residents." FULL STORY: STUDY: Better Bike Policy Could Prevent 15K U.S. Deaths Every Year — And Not Just in Crashes Thursday, December 2, 2021 in Streetsblog USA INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION WORLD UNITED STATES BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE View More Copyright Planetizen, Inc. © 2000 - 2021. All rights reserved. 3-14-22 TWIC Meeting - Agenda Packet, Page 248 of 248