HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02271990 - TC.1 To BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �f�
FRAM: Contra
Transportation Committee
CJIJJLa
DATE* Wu�y
February 13 , 1990
SUBJECT;
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Report
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION•
Accept report from the Transportation Committee on the Tri-Valley
Transportation Council
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS/BACKGROUND:
. At its January 11, 1990 meeting, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council
(TVTC) accepted the report, "A Perspective on Tri-Valley
Transportation, " which was prepared by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission at the request of the TVTC. The report is attached. for your
information (see Exhibit A) . This report marks completion of Phase I
of the TVTC's work program, identifying issues and .opportunities that
should be addressed in the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan.
The TVTC is contemplating undertaking the following actions in the near
future:
1. Adopt list of projects to address immediate transportation needs;
2 . Adopt estimate of revenues available for project list; and
3 . Develop financial plan, sub-regional fee, and schedule to
implement project list.
An item related to these near-term actions is a proposal to
cooperatively fund a $70, 000 deficit in the initial phase of the I-
580/I-680 interchange project. The TVTC requested all participating
jurisdictions to contribute a maximum of $10, 000 to the project. The
Transportation Committee will be submitting an agreement on the
County' s commitment for the Board' s consideration in March.
To address long term transportation needs, the TVTC is discussing the
development of a Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. The TVTC contemplates
hiring a project manager and consultant to prepare the plan and to
RIS/TT/slg:tvtcrpt.bo
Orig.Dept: CDD-TP
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:XX— YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY 1 STRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE
SIGNATURE s ert I. Schroder Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED C OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT _ ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT; BST N: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Gemyntinitr 6eve"�opmerrt-
CC: ATTESTED FEB 2 7 1990
PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY � nn
M382/7-83 ) � ,V ,DEPUTY
1
i
Board of Supervisors
February 13 , 1990
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Report
Page Two
create funding mechanisms to implement the plan. The plan would be
completed in 18 to 24 months. The Technical Advisory Committee will
present a detailed work program and cost estimate for the plan at the
TVTC meeting in March. Previous estimates for developing the plan were
in the neighborhood of $200, 000, a cost to be shared by all
participating jurisdictions.
A PERSPECTIVE ON TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION'. .
t'-
i
Prepared for
The Tri-Valley Technical Advisory Committee
and .- .. • , •
;.
„tt;�, �r• .. :�f .�;' :'• :.4' , is ;i .• ��
The Tri-Valley' Tr
ansportation Council
ailµ}• x.:;`� ",�,� f„
3 ' Y: •1-
1kt.t .5:Fa�pis"s� t-• .A
.u
.'.:•j'1'�''
.'
, _
f.4
a1l
r �.:i.'.
�;.
le
;4a
(
Yr. !.
i L
'r.
)• lr
l
r ,
.r :SS..
k \
tzf..
+i' a
- ;.ir:• lir:;rl`�} 1 r
�i
y'
1..
,,fir'
g, S
1�
'r
.
J'
�• ,t.
Th e M r f ,.
�. et o olitan Transr ortatiori Commi` n s J s
.Sf. .i:•:,' p. p Ss��f1:1. f� .. +� •.`
Novern
-
e
b 1
�.,` c' _,.':._. , .,'',3fie�,;,;y..:.F2::' ,�..�i;;;-.,•ll..:r►:'y:gr•y:�: ':e.
_ 1..,• -JA+ -T, nl.0 .�':>. s-;.. '.4 S�.,1,y�:•i.�;. ;)"'�?'`r: r"'L t- or••',jji'4-•e _�33 Rtr+.� :,. •f a
4911.,r• ':-r _f• �1 is
?I? .,'Ji yY Tyr :;�' t•
�.. _r4(. j;•-�'.+�e'u %L�..33 r11 �f'i.'' ;::. ..e �+ .'f�)•^�,.,.e• �. fT ,..j;....�i '�'%':
i'.',- .�: ,.i _i•7't%'' 1: „r.,�, '4+::'� 4,. t,�r v` %i1�,. i r}� l0. �• ti. '1� �V^•'' {9�
_. ',{5.:. N`.'.* ::S_a.. 7 q,,•ia:; �+5y�'��
'� �:.i.. � i�.� 70• ��„ r•`Y i'J.. .�,.r
Revised D :,� i.; .. :r, ,.,;•ray r r:a
YH'^ 'r ,,. �'�. ,�- '�. '•1 -fir. ;e;t%,;1`�. i::�
1••
!�
l
1M .•V
i"
Y'
f� -
s i'.
4
—
l'
Y, S
_ Ay
3'
Fti ,'Y
•'F
4 •, �/ L"
., ,� ,'• ;�' .�,": '-•."1`::;.i`:�: *;,�,sail �['F/� -�'f .:'K�}1;
ns
�J
e.Z
i(Ir.
- 1•
•'f' .her'.
•rw
.y-- t
�:
M _
T
METROPOLITAN ,'+�• , �i� -
Ih
.xr
•�y� ..
1� .'�':•
TRANSPORTATION �x;::•n.:� :.�,:.L,: ::.,,.'' �..; ,:,:'.` .;: •f.
0MMISSION
1�.
APERSPECTIVE ON TRI—VALLEY TRANSPORTATION
Prepared for
The Tri—Valley Technical Advisory Committee
and
The Tri-Valley Transportation Council
�4
I
by
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission
November 1989
Revised December 1989
• A PERSPECTIVE ON TRI—VALLEY TRANSPORTATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S E C T I ON P A G E
I . INTRODUCTION
1 . Study Purpose 1
2. Overview 1
II. POLICIES AND PLANS
1 . Comparison of General Plan Policies 3
2. Transportation Improvements
a) Programmed Improvements 6
b) Planned Improvements 8
c) Coordination of Facilities Planning 9
III . GROWTH ESTIMATES
1 . Population 11
2. Employment 11
3. Areas with Major Development Potential 11
4. Travel Demand 17
IV. ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
1 . Highway and Arterials 20
2. Transit 21
3. Air Quality 22
4. Land Use 22
5. Finance 24
V. POSSIBLE WORK PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
1 . Plan Content 25
2. Planning Process 27
A PERSPECTIVE ON TRI—VALLEY TRANSPORTATION
I. INTRODUCTION
1 . Study Purpose
At the request of the Tri—Valley Transportation Council , the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission has conducted a study of current and projected
future transportation conditions in the Tri—Valley area. The study area
contains the cities of Danville and San Ramon in Contra Costa County; the
cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore in Alameda County; and the
adjacent unincorporated portions of the two counties (see FIGURE 1) . The
goals of the study have been:
• to identify transportation issues and opportunities common to the
cities and counties within the Tri—Valley that might serve as a basis
for a cooperative, multi—jurisdictional planning endeavor; and
• to suggest an ongoing planning program which all participants would
support and contribute to, and potential strategies for administering
and funding the program.
MTC, with assistance from the Tri—Valley Technical Advisory Committee, has
pursued these objectives by reviewing -studies, plans, and policy documents
relating to transportation conditions in both individual cities and the
Tri—Valley as a whole; analyzing growth estimates and travel demand
forecasts for the Tri—Valley area; and based on discussions with key city
and county staffs, identifying critical transportation issues and
potential growth impacts in each of the member jurisdictions.
The rest of the Introduction provides an overview of current conditions in
the Tri—Valley, focusing primarily on the state of the transportation
system. Section II reviews various planning policies used to guide -
transportation decision making in the Tri—Valley; it also discusses
significant transportation programming and planning activities currently
underway. Section III provides a review of estimates of population,
employment, and travel demand for the Tri—Valley; the emphasis in this
section is on an evaluation of existing forecasts, rather than efforts to
develop new forecasts for this study. Section IV briefly discusses
significant issues and opportunities that arise from a review of the
materials presented in Sections II and III. Possible activities for an
ongoing work program are presented in Section V. Strategies for
administering and funding future planning efforts will be developed by the
Tri—Valley Technical Advisory Committee for Council consideration and
approval .
2. Overview of Current Conditions• State of the Valley
Over the past two decades, the Tri—Valley has been characterized by rapid
and sustained growth, initially in households and population and more
recently in employment and commercial development. Approximately 100,000
people lived in the Tri—Valley in 1970; by 1980, the population had grown
to 150,000. ABAG's Projections '89 forecast a further increase to about
235,000 by 1990, a growth of approximately 135% in 20 years. Employment
rose from 26,000 in 1970 to 46,000 in 1980, and is projected to reach
�. 108,000 by 1990, a growth rate of 315% since 1970. Tri—Valley population
JM/rbp/6349p
d
J680
31 o aa in '9'
VALLEJO awe ^1
78
enic SUISUN BAY
PABLO, AY-
Hercules DNS no
Pin e LOW PA�
a.A
C CORD SUC NAN AD I �PQESS D
IPO ANTIOCH
Sig rOaf E44 LONE TREE WY
PLEAS NT
ILL AD
,RICHMOND
e 24 CLAYTON BRENTWOOD
0 El Cerrito "APP, 0
'At E, !;�
WALNUT o l4
Albany,, ASLO5L CREEK CONTRA 4
L
OLAFAYETT CA
ERKELE (r COSTA fit
iv
RINDwA I v
IT
(
m , 0 ALAN 0 noii
pip Pied*" n 1 2 14aft
MORAGA (el
OAKLAND % oft
, owl
13 ',-,QANVLE 0 TAC-CAJAPA ii
Alam PC) 4A
C
80
cr
6800
U
San C
SA
z
Sao
BLI
isbane
Er EL
SIANL
South Z- HAYWARD -0 5
n Francisco Pl. ASA TON -
�pFay
O LIVERMOR&I
lip X
0
SA . BRUNO 0 %% % ti 04
(brae nion City
SAN %
r m ALAMEDA
MATED Fo er city 84 NT
18 Beirriom Newark
ow
101 FIGURE 1
an Carlos
---
-CALF REDWOOD TRINALLE1
MOON CITYAREA
3AY
-2-
growth, like growth in Central Contra Costa County, was originally spurred
by employed residents traveling to jobs in the "inner" Bay Area - San
Francisco, Oakland, and adjacent employment sites. With the construction
of Bishop Ranch and Hacienda Business Park, however, along with continuing
growth of employers such as Lawrence Livermore Laboratories and Sandia,
the Tri-Valley became an area that attracted commuters as well as one that
housed workers employed in other parts of the Bay Area. With increasing
business development and a comparatively slower rate of housing growth,
housing prices increased rapidly and fewer middle and low income workers
were able to purchase houses near their Tri-Valley jobs. Today,
therefore, the Tri-Valley experiences .two major "external" commute
movements in addition to commuter movements within the study area: an
"out-commute" of residents to jobs in San Francisco and East Bay cities
from Oakland to San Jose; and an "in-commute" of workers living in central
Contra Costa County, Pittsburg, Antioch, and cities in the Central Valley.
A growing amount of commuter traffic traveling to (or through) the
Tri-Valley is coming long distances. A number of recent studies have
shown that many Bay Area residents are moving to the Central Valley in
their search for affordable housing. San Joaquin County has absorbed most
of this "spill-over" growth, but rising housing prices in Tracy and
Manteca are now forcing new homebuyers south into Stanislaus County,
further lengthening commute distances. A 1988 survey conducted by MTC
indicated that almost half of those commuting between the Central Valley
and the Bay Area held jobs in the Tri-Valley; and had lived in their
Central Valley residences less than two years, with many of these new
Valley dwellers having moved from Bay Area cities such as Livermore, San
Jose and Fremont.
As residents and employees in the Tri-Valley know, traffic has become
increasingly congested over the past few years. Freeway congestion during
the morning peak is severe on 1-680 southbound, from Danville to Crow
Canyon Road, and on 1-580 westbound, with congestion starting east of
1-680 and continuing sporadically through Dublin Canyon into Hayward.
During the evening commute, congestion is most noticeable in the
southbound and westbound approaches to the 1-580/1-680 interchange.
Programmed widenings of 1-680 from Pleasanton to Danville and 1-580
through Dublin Canyon are expected to alleviate some of the worst
congestion over the short term. Local transportation problems include the
need for improved freeway access, unresolved questions about the Vasco
Road and Route 84 alignments, congestion on many arterials in the
Tri-Valley and expansion and coordination of transit systems, especially
as regards the BART extension.
II. POLICIES AND PLANS
1 . Comparison of General Plan Policies
General Plan policies for the seven jurisdictions are summarized in
TABLE 1 . This table is not a comprehensive listing of policies; rather,
it is a synopsis of principal policies meant to highlight those aspects of
each jurisdiction' s policy base that have implications for transportation.
The following generalizations can be drawn from a review of the table:
a. Residential and Officg/Commercial Development
• low density single family development policies predominate;
-3-
JM/rbp/6349p
v
� a
7—.•"—————.." Cpm——^..—..^......r..——^..— yy`—-.((..�y-1—;—— ,qC Na ✓ _ �7 M I
V V •. d L q� i •.. O Y -O V V ll ^C O L y✓1 O Y U L p O
t O J t � O '� 8 qC L O ••• 8 u V L N s
1u n10 43 pQ� y�R q ✓C t u Vo x « v
1 "zt � r '.
2 L V L � M ✓ � O � ✓ •� • W 3 ✓ µ< C u �
' < O K i C_
1 i d t• O P L L Y L u
[O q y a• p Y O
_ y •.�' � •^ V V M •C � ✓ � ✓ V M � M � Y a.� � ✓ L ✓ Y 4
c u ro {CCa i _ w i YYY y ✓ q _ �/ yy� vi 'i 'a > yY Q � .� [C Ey
x •✓ L i a>. L E « ✓ at \ .•t i st Y i i L O 4 'M V i N 7 G O r• Cw 7 ai C f 1
'}LCy pp pp _ 4 4. qp L ♦yy� _✓ 1Q� Vp ippa. O L N C 'VO _O _ _
« P N u Y 7 V A OL ± ■ •. O 'P. •V d u O 6 4V. 701 p �1 ll K P O 41 u 0. •• )
O Y O w N C H V � O rM� V � � •VC j� V O.. � O� q R Ca,�-• V ttI
P CCp .`. {CES [y wt� Oy Y ✓p {O. � � O ]� � O [6 C n y .J �
J 'OCV >. V,al
i�EV, ••+ \ CN �_
O O Y444C �r YNl 7 u 4. e>yK, ! •� { ✓ aY. O V N
` C w
« � � aN. a`p�, L V R � Y� " {yMQ.�• C � N M � 4 L m = W � ' V
G` •� t+! O q t` G
.. s° i G.•O• s O 7C a •» i = O.•^ < G YV ok u I 2 or
f • • Il •• f •p v f Sgt a .0
>' p C V Y ;• �Q� 4 U C
CL
O •• p «O w }•.0 .✓�. $ ` W O « H BOO « u ` « r y f
i .O' _ C bb •
r y N M P ♦ C V
q I w. 4 7 V r M � • L y SIII � � U � :/ • L Y w p •� � Y � { ,�+ L �
•' V C O L M O C '•• � V 'O P •
< P 4 w w
L �•
q O ✓ L N YL M C r 1 4 N N O Y N V
i IJ R� y O00 {� w M ✓ ' OI 4 *7
N ✓ '�M ,,,, .Y ✓ fl Y L M 'N .�.. L O V V2-1 -
10
•
[[ CQN
Y O w N e N .• I
_ ✓ L V 7 L C 4 u 0 3 4
x Wm.
fGGGii L4 o
x c
L S V >i pQ�Y ° G•"LEL N Y ✓ •`.. L q C V c
pp pp My1� L p q L Jt L N l J t
'4 y Y V O ✓ C Y C I 4 .' R 801 ire
O VV i
�M ✓ Gpo U `P N V �`• H eOp q y OuIn
a n �. u` t .+ O W r y s
4p M p u p
j •u•• C f G VI F Y V C L � � > a< L V O ? p � �.
O i[ \ Jl •✓ M Y M V V P c01 34,
4
x `
`lS K C O Y V 4 6 ✓ V
_ OVV6 N O d P T O 1 1
'^ •� +• •It M U i iii
o
O _
N & O• O -
,�j C > V 4 i•. y ..
O C Oop �a ✓ `Op•LC � O: (� O %* M n C
V � •� v .. � L •O yC"� •L � �O.• S 4 F •�O• � N C N N "G I O _ .. I
N y .� i L C _C O V yq b 9 < N W F M (IV�ry D l }• q cy � > Y 7 r
' RK[ V q V q L C V O ~ ` W .O OA .•�( 89 4 li U 7 CL G ` C .� •�
Y C1Wp,. • V Cp yyY J J ++ y p� .� YV r q
✓ Y O R� «y ✓ t"p` {yy! yyy������ V C ; .` 0
C 7 }<. Y GG✓ {�}; " Y
W S N +. •C N P Y LY 8 i. .71�• •O CY D pOp lr y� 4 Vy °D •O p - ,t
a 1777/ n 7 Z 4 •O L d 7 d Y 'Oil ✓ .J 6 Y LY O N N •O of M d m W 4 N V N
V N
L. tM1 Y I
S � eeefff��� fi
> � I
V _ t/WC9 h
yii O .A >. N ✓ ` S N .. O O T
< Y ✓ O N i ai O T [ O
U O \ j }, U N O O W O .+ {�j• U q L >p. [ O L y ✓ a v I
a C C V •� 6 •4 yYy CN LL T Y y L .} 7 O r l��I8 pn e�� ..
N .4 O ✓ Y N w d •• Y ~ Y p L 7 1Y+ M L 47 N V q C P 4 • �=4 .N. Q s J _
$ s ' • Y < ro g S3 ✓ o +' r° s c ✓ q o 4 N v E 4 4 _' C - 'J
_ x N U > N L n •o
+{ M > r r .•C. V m « O _� .•4. J ^ w N Y p� 4t V >. « a. C M O ` Y G, ` Y
O [ LL •• C _ p, > � g q q C O l
tic jQ`{ OI q P CYp 4• `� �_ M O •i► we W y} y3Y W 4 n(� `Oa Y Z LN ✓ - V L O J
` i 4 .� ^ L •8 li. Y • li. 1 Y Y V G � � y fr $ q� 4 •C 4 Vv � x ` Q }�. q " i
I = U N i G i 000 s ♦ i " 9 U i o. - o C, E+• i3 t _
gta4
py. Q1 y:
N c 'u Y Y G •O L Lp L ✓ C •� � yY1 l
•� L .wr •@� �{ 7pi .r )•,,•r wt V L M L ' '" ✓ '= y C O
> G
u u
R o o u
Y R�r
•L�j •G ja. L u L � � � >C7• � t>.
O t 4 VNoQpQ(.
K Y r Y ✓ M V q_. M L .>• b � a
U > •+ ; N > w y u � � _ � � y M •�. � •N q N O 'U � N q C O I
•P ` L O � L q C < a 0 V V O •^ C l � � C ` > ✓ V 4 N � V - 1
CCCC pp qq Q CO U VV9 y7, .,C _ Y " q L `• 7 I
V V v�N 'p✓ QCT E q 7 V O C O _V L O
O 4 O 4 e ••b11� q ` — Y M V t M L O Cy✓ OI C r0 O .. L E •V
Y 4 V K q V! > N co O ti. Z CVt 1 M C W 4 = Y C .`+ V q
M C
y >• � N Y 1
'o,
•9 Y O V3 >• O •. � � L C w q � o
W V gF F b � � w � � ✓ v g � � q ' P, _ i
p jC¢L� "p
C VV ECn >. P O Y f! f. OI •' N « d q - r > .
•- N Cq •� Y O C ✓ L .^ V H f. Y }r VX; 5 M V .r, y a O O
(S w gC `�q F > 4 � � � � � � •L].I• L � ✓ � ^ � � LO7. � L)) q 10
N C D U. Y• V O L C 7 Y
Wo[ 4 nu 10
Y 10 > MN .� • ' 9
xE w P V
I `- `^ C2
OI P
z �
t O YQ 41
V W ►
J �
• � N f � a• � Of w ~ , .. •
f
Mr pr
OF W r MF W
+ policies reflect a growing concern for residential growth management;
+ most jurisdictions support additional office and commercial
development, and emphasize locational patterns that reinforce
existing job centers (downtowns, major business parks) .
b. Job/Housing Balance
+ most Jurisdictions recognize a need to balance gobs and housing and
to do this within the Tri-Valley area rather than within each
jurisdiction; but
+ it is unclear from General Plan policies, whether "balance" means
providing housing opportunities equal to employment opportunities in
order to create a statistical balance, or means providing a range of
housing types and values reflecting the income levels of employees
working in the Tri-Valley (the issue of "affordability") .
C. Roadways/Traffic
+ there is a shared concern over two basic freeway issues: (1 ) access
to I-580 and I-680 (the need for interchange improvements); and (2)
mitigation of freeway impacts on local streets (need for a reliever
route system) ;
+ most cities address specific improvements to selected arterials (eg.
Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard, Vasco Road, etc.) ; and
+ several jurisdictions reference the need to monitor the level of
service on local arterials as a basis for determining performance
standards.
d. Transit
+ there is recognition of the need for expanded, coordinated bus
service (CCCTA, LAVTA) in the corridor; and
+ Dublin, Pleasanton and Alameda County support a BART extension into
East County. Livermore assumes no BART or LRT before 2010.
e. Abandoned Railroad Rights-of-Way
+ Contra Costa County, Danville and San Ramon have jointly agreed not
to use the SP right-of-way in the San Ramon Valley for transit; a
preference for using the right-of-way as a linear parkway or bikeway
is recommended instead. The I-680 corridor is viewed as a preferred
alignment for future transit development; and
+ Alameda County jurisdictions recommend protecting SP rights-of-way in
East County as possible future transportation corridors; Alameda
County has identified the potential for LRT in these corridors.
f. Transportation Systems Management
+ TSM ordinances have been adopted in Pleasanton, San Ramon and Contra
Costa County; Livermore', two major employers have their own TSM
programs;
+ Alameda County will prepare TSM policies for major employers and
developers; and
+ Danville and Dublin lack a major employer base to warrant adoption of
TSM policies.
-5-
JM/rbp/6349p
g. Air Quality
• most of the emphasis is on the need for increased monitoring and
evaluation of air quality; and
• Livermore policies reference the need to limit growth until air
quality problems are corrected.
h. Transportation Funding
A variety of mechanisms are used within the Tri-Valley to finance local
transportation improvements:
• project specific developer fees are collected by Pleasanton and
Dublin for specific improvements;
• fixed rate developer fees are collected by San Ramon, Livermore and
Contra Costa county for city(county)-wide improvements;
• additional mitigation measures are required by San Ramon for projects
with major traffic impacts;
• assessment districts are used in Danville, Dublin, Pleasanton and
Contra Costa County;
• a joint exercise of powers agreement allows for shared financing of
specific improvements in Danville, San Ramon and Contra Costa County,
and
• both counties have 1/2 cent sales tax measures to finance
transportation improvements.
i . Inter-jurisdictional Planning
• all jurisdictions indicate a need to cooperate on a variety of
planning issues: reducing freeway congestion, bus service, specific
arterial improvements (Dublin, Livermore, and Alameda County
cooperation regarding extensions of Hacienda Drive, Stoneridge Drive,
etc. ) , new roadway alignments (Vasco Road) , etc. ; and
• Contra Costa County policies address the possibility of establishing
multi-jurisdictional planning processes and forums to develop
strategies for reducing the cumulative traffic impacts of development.
2. Transportation Improvements
The following information summarizes current programs and plans for
upgrading transportation facilities and services in the Tri-Valley.
a. Programmed Improvements
1 ) 1988 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
The STIP programs approximately $116,000,000 ($1988) for improvements
to I-680 and I-580 in the Tri-Valley. These projects include
interchange constructions and upgrades along I-580, widenings of
I-680, and interchange and overcrossing improvements along I-680.
Many of the projects are being funded in total or in part with local
funds. The specific projects and programmed expenditures are listed
below.
-6-
JM/rbp/6349p
Cost (1000$)
I-680:
• Widen I-680 to 6 lanes between Route 238 and Route 84 $ 10,939
• Construct soundwalls on I-680 south of I-580 2,500
• Widen overcrossing and construct ramps, etc. , at 13,908*
I-680 and Stoneridge Drive
• Modify ramps and signals at I-680/ 1 ,500**
Crow Canyon Rd. interchange
• Widen I-680 to 8 lanes, from north of I-580 to 25,128
Rudgear Road
• Construct soundwalls on I-680, from north of I-580 to 10,000
Rudgear Road
1_580:
• Modify I-580/Route 84 (First Street) interchange $ 4,839*
• Construct I-580/Collier Canyon Road interchange 7,688*
• Modify I-580/Airway Boulevard interchange 3,848*
• Construct additional overcrossing and ramps at 6,811*
I-580/Santa Rita Road
• Construct new interchange, etc. , at I-580/ 14,037*
Hacienda Drive extension
* Indicates totally locally funded project
** Indicates project partially funded with local monies
A combination of local money and Federal-Aid-Urban (FAU) money
totalling approximately $5,000,000 is also programmed to upgrade
local streets and roads (widenings, signals) in the Tri-Valley.
2) Contra Costa County's One-Half Cent Sales Tax Measure (Measure C)
Contra Costa County' s sales tax expenditure plan provides . for
$13,600,000 ($1988) in sales tax revenues to be spent in the San
Ramon Valley. A final list of projects has not yet been prepared,
but the following projects were listed in the project description
section of the expenditure plan and would likely be given high
priority in the final list:
• construction of I-680 auxiliary lanes between E1 Cerro Boulevard
and Bollinger Canyon Road;
• construction of Fostoria Way overcrossing;
• widening of San Ramon Valley Boulevard between Hartz Avenue and
Alcosta Boulevard;
• widening of Dougherty Road from the Alameda County line to Crow
Canyon Road; and
• widening of Crow Canyon Road from the Alameda County line to
Bollinger Canyon Road.
-7-
JM/rbp/6349p
3. Alameda County' s One Half Cent Sales Tax Measure (Measure B) 1
In 1986 Alameda County voters approved a one-half cent sales tax
increase for transportation expenditures. A total of $234,000,000;
($1986) in sales tax revenues is targeted for the following projects :
• I-580/I-680 interchange modification $ 44,000,000
• new Route 84 facility (Isabel Avenue) 20,000,000
• BART Dublin Extension 170,000,000
These projects are to be supported with approximately $85,000,000 in
additional funding from other sources, including local assessment
districts and private contributions.
* Since the passage of Measure B, estimates of sales tax revenues
have been reduced. Accordingly the County' s Transportation Authority
has rolled back the amount of Measure B support for each project by
13%. Project scopes have not been revised, however.
4. Transit Programming
Aside from previously referenced Measure B funding for the BART
Dublin extension, programmed transit improvements in the Tri-Valley
are relatively modest. Currently the Livermore/Amador Valley Transit
Authority (LAVTA) has $6,300,000 in capital improvements programmed
in FY 1989/90. The Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA)
has a total of $11 ,000,000 in capital improvements programmed over
the next five years; however, no estimate can be made of what portion
of these improvements will specifically benefit the Tri-Valley.
b. Planned Improvements 1
1 ) Caltrans Planning
Caltrans ' Route Concept Reports describe the ultimate planned widths
for state and interstate highways in California. The current Route
Concepts for Tri-Valley highways are:
• I-680- 8 lanes from Pleasanton to Danville (assumes demand in
excess of 8 lane capacity will be accommodated by
transit);
• I-580- 8 lanes from the San Joaquin County line to I-680;
10 lanes from I-680 to Hayward;
• Route 84- 6 lanes from I-680 to I-580 (Vallecitos Road) ; 4 to
61anes from I-580 to Route 160 (This unbuilt section
of the facility will be located in the Vasco Road
corridor though a specific alignment has not yet been
determined) .
Following the completion of the projects programmed in the 1988 STIP,
I-680 will be at its Route Concept width from I-580 through
Danville. I-580 is already at its Route Concept width between I-680
and the county line.
i
f
JM/rbp/6349p
i
2) Local Planning
City and county General Plans indicate a sizeable inventory of
proposed but as yet unfunded additions to the existing local. street
and arterial system. Significant improvements include the following:
• modification of I-680/Stone Valley Road interchange;
• an expansion of Crow Canyon Road to 6 lanes from the Alameda
County line to the current 6 lane segment;
• expansion of Dougherty Road;
• extension of Dublin Boulevard to connect with the proposed north
Canyons Parkway in Livermore;
• extension of Hacienda Drive to new segment of Dublin Boulevard,
and perhaps beyond to the Dougherty Valley;
• modification and upgrade of the E1 Charro Road/Fallon Road
interchange with I-580;
• expansion and coordination of Stoneridge Drive in Pleasanton and
Las Positas Boulevard in Livermore;
• widening and possible realignment of Route 84 (Vallecitos Road)
between I-680 and I-580;
• relocation and expansion of Vasco Road north of I-580.
3) Transit Planning.
BART's plan for expansion (beyond Measure B proposals) include
extension of BART east of Dublin to Livermore with three
additional stations (east Dublin/Hacienda, west Livermore,. east
Livermore) ; and park-and-ride lots in West Livermore and Dublin
and possibly next to the Santa Rita jail (the Dublin lot would
be temporary pending construction of the Dublin station) .
The current CCCTA service plan includes redesigning routes to
serve Bishop Ranch during commute periods, implementing a van
feeder service in the Danville/San Ramon area and introducing
express bus service from North Concord to AT &. T in Hacienda
Business Park. In addition, peak period service along I-680
(Route #121 ) may be doubled, and a new route developed to link
east San Ramon with its downtown.
LAVTA' s Short-Range Transit Plan recommends several
modifications to service to be implemented in September 1990:
increasing peak period service on roughly half of the LAVTA
fixed routes; and providing direct peak period service to Bishop
Ranch from park-and-ride lots at West Livermore and Hacienda
Business Park. In addition, LAVTA is studying the feasibility
of replacing its fixed route service with dial-a-ride service
during mid-days and Saturdays.
C. Coordination of Facilities Planning
The Tri-Valley Transportation newtwork shown in FIGURE 2 shows
long-range proposals for arterial development in the Valley based on
existing general plans, or in Contra Costa County' s case, a draft
plan. There are a number of inconsistencies and uncertainties along
jurisdictional boundaries that need to be addressed in a continuing
planning process. Four of the more significant ones are as follows:
-9-
JM/rbp/6349p
_
/
tyl
14
44 41
41 0
14 0
93
PH SITTAUG920
01 ,0 14 4J
80 pir 0099A
es Rd
As
DAY
11153!!! 1:111 Illul
7pH6 00 "A I
UO
coo
14
OAV
41
10 In
SA AojTVA
V4 0
PH
we 00 eb
10
' 0
~
Ix
' -
10 �
. u� �
• Hacienda Drive. This facility, which currently stops south of
I-580, will be connected to I-580 with a new interchange.
Pleasanton and San Ramon advocate extending the road north into
the Dougherty Valley through county/federal lands. Dublin' s
plan calls for extending the facility no further north than the
planned Dublin Boulevard extension.
• Dougherty Road (Crow Canyon Road to Dublin Boulevard) . Danville
and San Ramon propose that the facility be widened to six
lanes. Contra Costa County's plan calls for the arterial to be
operated as a two lane expressway.
• Crow Canyon Road (I-680 to I-580). This facility has become a
popular I-680/I-580 interchange bypass for commuters travelling
between the San Ramon Valley and the East Bay. Principal
concerns focus on adequacy of facility capacity through the
dcorridor and neighborhood impacts.
• Route 84. The location of this facility is an issue both north
and south of I-580. Because of the pending construction of two
reservoirs to the north in Contra Costa County, Vasco Road is
being relocated. Livermore' s plan shows the facility relocated
west of its current location to connect at I-580 with the
previously mentioned new Route 84 (Isabel Road) facility funded
by Measure B. Caltrans planning for a freeway in the corridor
has also considered alignments to the east, including one that
could connect with Greenville Road at I-580. The potential to
build a Route 84 bypass of -Livermore around the city' s southern
flank was considered a number of years ago. This concept is
currently dormant.
III. GROWTH ESTIMATES
As mentioned, The Tri-Valley has been growing at a faster rate than the entire
Bay Area and it is anticipated that this will continue over the next two
decades. Tri-Valley cities are rapidly building out towards shared boundaries
and the emergence of large scale development in new locations will add to the
Valley' s transportation problems. The following data and information provide
quantitative measures of this growth:
1 . Population
Js
Population estimates for the Tri-Valley are shown in TABLE 2. These data
come from two sources: a series of ABAG projections and local estimates.
While a number of differences exist between the two data sets at the city
level , in the aggregate the estimates are very close. An inspection of
the ABAG Projections 89 data reveals the following:
• percentage wise, population growth in the Tri-Valley between 1989 and
2005 ,is estimated to be more than three times that estimated for the
Bay Area (48% compared to 15X) ;
• for the five year period between 2005 and 2010 the Valley' s growth is
estimated at six times that of the Bay Area (15% compared to 2X) ;
• projected population growth in the Valley between 1989 and 2010 is
the equivalent of adding the residential population of one more
Livermore and two more Pleasantons; and
• as might be expected, Alameda County cities in the Tri-Valley grow
more substantially than their counterparts in Contra Costa County.
-11-
JM/rbp/6349p
4� N
P-1 Mj VO ll%'V 1\1
r
1 Q r,r,l 1 r.v Il ll r•J
a m�'
,,ay.E
ar m
F 3
w 0Cz
F E
�- --t, s i
o -
cn -
- l
6L
(13
W
W
V
i
h
to -
W
`.
1.
O
00e
R
D.
T.
Q) Aad'
P
0
L
1
M
� Q
$0
O
EA
z
E
io
i
1
W
0
N
1
n
O
Y
BL..
W
O
N
C14
r
v -
_ t
0
Q
C
P
C -
7
- E
.o
o tea.
O -
t
�c
m / 0 \ _ o
° v .pCU er ;
C •J rfrn� QU r //.
/ CL U
f � C \�
O
_lQ_
--------------------------;----————————
C
E
Ou
6 CL w
'o u m m cL
0
&A CL L- cD 4)
%A N T 0 > 0 0 co Im
m a L. m
06 Ln "a w u x OZ co c 0 0
L.
cu w
M 'a a c
c 111
m
a. C
>* CM '0 fA ra
c — L- 0 0 c 0
ee 0 06
-V >1
C
4) c
ee c - LAj (u 9 m
M 4) to fo 0 u wl 06 0) 10 0
V — W c 4, > m I-
r= c 's 0. L. M L. .- Im
CL C • %jM 0, z I- m _j .5
0
a . Z
M a, 4- c 4.
w a c 9L 4- CD L.
CL L. 0 0 -0
(D 44 0 a .4
r
> U N 0 -V w
X 0 WIS Ij To 4C) &Z Lo IV L. (X E 'o
%A 4) wx 0 4)
EN Ip 0 N 0. m
CL c a L T > N. :,% c
M m 10 L.
os L. C c d L. (M 0m A
0 w m w UP.c w 0 0 a, m
10
4. E w to 0 0 0 L. X w
I
-W A 0 06 > 14 4- (U oG M -0
.0 ra r+ . 0. a w troN
13 c 4- 6
w 0
;1% --E W > E C-w 0 10 W cr (D
14
.
_j 0 lo 4- > L. .0
C) 39 cc — .- 0
0. 0) '0 4W L- w .0 W 0 w c M _j 4.
C.j ou r= vo. r= — a -a C S 10 r= 10 c C
M >* 10 c = C
a an
>% Nfs lu lo
4j .j fa 0 L. V) C
a z
V 4-)
c -C qu
19 0 a- CL -V E j "0
(U C > 0 *j 'a C
&- .0 CL = ;" >. 0 x 9L CL
c — Z ; QP ou C W
SO L3 1: L: m — = E
le Q m m 0 c L. go a 0. 4)
cc m 0 c 0
L. > 6. w L- L. I- L. -0 aj� 0 OLD* — W c
ao c 10 la w w 0 O. 4) tj #6 0) a w M m Q " C 0 Ij
cu c ); — o c c C 0 w 0 M 06 4) a > r 4D
- 'A w 0 — [- w = a W L. i- C CL 06 (u 0 rj
InL7 Q 10 -V —4D = oa CL CD -.4 — 'A 0 ; L7 n 0 z
——— — —— ———————————————————
%A L-
0
E 0
c > N, >.
M c c co •L-
J OC Waj W > In W a
_j c c 0) M CD >1 > c D
co LC- ;7 C
0 u-) c cc to
6 — L -V 4n
U >
c 4j 31
cz m 1- 0 r- u 0 .; — LLA co 0 1"
f-) r w co > cn L- &- co m w 6. L-
- = .0 IU f-) ap I- fw --
qr Lu an 0 = " c a 0 1N
ix '0 cu
Uj P-- 0) = .. w 'v c 0 cc f"
C
>. :; 4A It 40 fA
0 "0 C) c — Aj C5 I.-
co a 4A 'D m CD w co
C 4- 10
w %0 0 0 co >. 00 4n 4, fj
X w >. IV Ln 4) 4j In
m E
C
M cc -0 fa cc c 0
LAJ > Li 0 0 > I* = 0 Z L.
Vl 6. .. w = 4A CZ 10 W CL cu 00 c 0 -C z 0
LZ LA. m > > Ln 0 .0 u (j c
0Z7 C
cz X 'a c 00 1* go In
co Ou
m ai
uj L. = L- c•r m w >
V 0 co kx� z a
m r c c w to
J co 0 L. 10 S %0 N O L. m
= >, w " -i 44 Z >
W
> O
ma C a lo FO T a 0 m i m 0 C — . M co 00 v 00 0
L) Li 9x L- > z 06 0 CC ; In to to =
> fo
----------- — c
------- -- -
---- ----- — do
--------
w c
C
V
o CD 4
j CD
C c CD L.
C;
i O
O 0 0 10 C"D cQ)
.0 0 . O. C 41
LnM do W w
Z O C�
M > .0
4- E CD
0 0 Cl 0.
In r N P. r vo t% .0 L. I.- In
.... -————————————————————————---------•.--- 0
4-
.0
C5 C.
en u :n
CD C,
0: v co 0
do 0 ou
C L
C�
A- M AJ paW -n
C C — lu L. a C
c E c E c w c- c m
c 0 0 16 m >
0 0 o 0
Li Li 1w m <
------------------------------- -----
ea a c
-C
L- 11-0 gm o
6.
op c
cr >, -r
0 E 'A > cj
m i"d 0 fd M n a) 0 z L-
> CC LU 0 c -a
—————————————————————————————————————I—— >
ro
15
--------------------
d
C m 3 c c
U c E
N � •L d +� « �
D A x A L d I
d « r r c 01 O b
A 7 U 2 A N C
O u U O. •U ++ L. LL
« N d •2 d A r
O 'A O1 O O L
E A A V d d d
r O! u ++ c
L C O T U C A d
O N N « O •� L 01
w b r •.• •, L O
H d A C V G d a
C O
U
2 A r AA C ++ A «
c d c A O C •C C
W Of j L O1 N C L > >
_ •N "DA •N LN O
d C w d O « V
A
Y A O "D CLd L A 0
N c L N N L O G T
V A A C 7 N a+ O N
ILIL CLA
r L c d r O. O� OAL.C A0 O «
7 O U L CO O. L N
N « c N O Q\ d d L
« A ••"f ^ N N• �
T 7 A L T A N A C W
C d CD C ^ u A ++
7 L c c 7 'o r O d 7 0C N
O me O O C A L L O ►+ 7 i V A A — .V A r.. G m Z w Z
►�, ————————————————————
Q c
�yj T d
J C N Of
J A d
Q V c N y C •L
C r > r A d •-
�„� A •= Q r C O
d o v u O CO
O d L CA
O W L = A C li COO C O Go
u
v P.- } 0 9 _C L d \ 1A A Y c
Q Z J CY CL u » O O .� A
„y W O L OC CO - CO d w L
Lw X W d c N d J Ln d %O > V- U
J N f•- > O C « O m Q A L
m J V T O - U •• C •• L d
QW J C kn LA. re c '> fa le
cl: N• A d « «
W W •- V A O > U c. C
a V CO O] L A L d .
H LY L 11'1 - r d t d N U1
J w W d T CO •C « u DD Q A O
Q J m O Z •- A L ^ L CF W d N
U r 2 « d t > I-
LL)
� V O N r •- >> L 6F O « « d u O
z Q H Aa « O -0 L « co
..
y� w > V OC U7
S d
CL o w ie o
O N 7 O
O J d d u U)
W W L L L
... Q W O = A E O N
an C] CD NCD
OO O
.. N Q N O IOn \ f. «
W 1•- O O r O u O O O
o ,n
CDa
Co
0
W O O O LnLl CD {sR"
W Cl C CD N ^ & V ■
OC lc N V f a
Qr r r �p .•. Q yw
Z ——
O
H
-0 IV H C
<
.. O T 'C T � � A C t
O d « d ++ d d N 7 ++
N E C E c E E Q c
.. ►+ A O A 7 A A A 7
OC r Or O r c O O
.. ——— —————--=————— N
c N o.
d O Ln
L c
A
w a=+ d A M T C vdi Cl
Q Z
-------------------=16_ Y f
2. Employment
Employment is expected to grow even faster than population over the next
twenty years. TABLE 3 shows ABAG and local estimates of employment for
2005 and 2010. Significant findings include the following:
• Tri-Valley employment growth will be two and one half times more
rapid than Bay Area employment growth for the period 1989 to 2005
(70% compared to 5%);
* between 2005 and 2010 the Tri-Valley percentage increase will be
nearly twice that of the Bay Area (9x compared to 5%);
* Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon will come close to doubling their
combined present number of jobs by 2005 or build-out; and
* Dublin will experience considerable employment growth with the
addition of substantial acreage in office, commercial and industrial
uses.
3. Areas with Major Development Potential
While much information about the location, scale and density of future
development in the Tri-Valley can be obtained from General Plans, many
large scale developments are currently in the early planning stages.
FIGURE 3 shows those emerging developments assumed to have the greatest
potential to impact local and subregional traffic. Known details about
these developments are presented in TABLE 4.
It should be noted that none of the development shown on the map had been
approved at the time this study was completed. Further, the shaded areas
showing where potential development would occur are schematic
representations only.
A qualitative assessment of these growth areas leads to the following
assumptions about impacts on freeways and arterials:
+ I-580 and I-680 will carry large amounts of local and regional
traffic;
+ access to I-680 from new development in the Dougherty and Tassajara
Valleys will put strains on east-west arterials through San Ramon and
Danville;
* congestion at certain freeway interchanges will probably affect
traffic flows on local streets;
* depending on how close the alignment of the proposed Dublin
Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway is to I-580, there may be vehicle
storage problems on approaches to I-580 interchanges; and
+ upgraded and/or new north-south routes crossing two or more
jurisdictions will likely be needed to improve access to I-580 from
potential development in San Ramon and Contra Costa County.
4. Travel Demand
Over the past decade, the Tri-Valley has been the subject of a number of
transportation studies. Some of these have focused specifically on the
Tri-Valley while others have focused on a portion of it or have included
the area within a larger regional planning context. The larger regional
studies have relied primarily on ABAG population and employment forecasts;
the smaller Valley specific studies have used local General Plan
projections or have estimated traffic on the basis of trip generation
factors specific to different kinds of land use activity. However,
-17-
JM/rbp/6349p
BASE CASE
Projected Levels of Service (LOS) in the Two Hour A.M. Peak Period
on 1.680/1-580 Corridor Highways, in the Year 2005
I
d
680
37
VALLEJO pe 1, 0
%
78
enic SUISUN'diW— BAY
RAY
Hercules
160
0
u 0
Pin e
A
CORE) Po DQESS 0
80 ANT CH
A6 LONE TQ(f
PLEASANT0
RICHMOND ILL F
CLAYTON �J
1,--NTWO
Ir
0 El Cerrito
of4pp"
I cr
WALNUT
i4loany,,. CREEK
CONTRA Was.
. BERKEL 8 cLAFAYET COSTA QO
m
80 I e ca ALAMO 12, 40 MORAGA
. ....... OAK A hlb,-� 0
DANVILL T A L Q
13
Ala SA80
185
Nkv;
u y \. 4
San C,
usJIN
? 58C
11111 00
-s!)ine
SIMNLE
soul"I % H YWARD
n FtanCISCO ,S.SANTON
N, LIVERMORE
% .%%
BRUNO
SA 0
"brae
% ion City
SAN
m IV
"ALAMEDA
MATO A.
Fo er City N
84
Betm 1`11 Newark
101
an Carlos ......
--IALF REDWOOD
MOON CIT
3AY
LOS A or B (Little to No Delay) Source: 1.6801-580 Corridor Study (MTC)
LOS C or D (Tolerable Delay}
FIGURE 4
LOS E or F (ln!o'e'ab'e Delay)
-28-
regardless of the level of analysis or growth assumptions used, these
studies all come to the same conclusion: if current trends continue
lengthy segments of the Tri-Valley freeway and arterial system will
experience much higher levels of congestion in the future than they do
today.
a. I-680/I-580 Corridor Study
In 1986, MTC completed a study of transportation for the area covering all
of Alameda and Contra Costa counties east of the East Bay Hills. Based on
ABAG projections current at the time, and employing a sub-regional model
specifically designed for the study, travel forecasts for the two hour
morning peak period in the year 2005 showed considerable congestion on
trunkline facilities throughout the study area. FIGURE 4 shows the levels
of service (LOS)* projected for freeways in the study area assuming only
modest improvements to the existing system (no additional improvement to
existing freeway system except for programmed projects, no BART
extensions) . Note the congested segments on I-680, I-580 and the
Vallecitos Road.
As part of this study MTC also investigated the traffic impacts of
"building-out" the local General Plans. Peak period vehicle trips under
this scenario were found to exceed trips based on ABAG projections by 10%
in the San Ramon Valley and by 92% in Eastern Alameda County leading to
even higher levels of congestion on both freeways and local arterials.
b. East County Corridor Study
In 1987, Contra Costa County used a variant of the MTC I-680/I-580 model
to identify a preferred corridor for the extension of Vasco Road between
Livermore and Antioch. The route selected by the study had an alignment
east of the existing Vasco Road alignment to the north and west of the
alignment through Livermore connecting with I-580 at the Isabel
Road/Kittyhawk Road interchange. The study determined that the new
facility would need to be constructed as a six lane freeway to avoid
operating at LOS E or F between the Alameda/Contra Costa county line and
I-580.
C. Tri-Valley Transportation Study
In 1983 the TJKM consulting firm developed an overall assessment of
transportation facilities for much of the Tri-Valley. The study tested
four potential growth scenarios which differentiated between "reasonably
foreseeable" and "contemplated" levels of growth. Three of the four
scenarios did not differ dramatically from ABAG forecasts and produced
projections which could be fairly well accommodated by the existing
freeway system. Under the fourth scenario, a "build-out" of all
reasonably foreseeable and contemplated development, both I-680 southbound
and I-580 westbound were projected to be LOS-F throughout the study area,
except for I-680 north of Bernal Avenue (LOS-E) .
' The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed a system for
classifying highway service levels (or congestion levels) that ranks
roadway segments from A to F. A represents free flow condition (no
congestion) while F represents stop-and-go, bumper to bumper traffic.
-19-
JM/rbp/6349p
d. 1-580/1-205 Origin-Destination Survey
In May 1988 MTC and the San Joaquin Area County of Governments jointly
undertook a survey of commuters using 1-580 over the Altamont Pass. The
survey which included the counting of trips, classification of vehicles
and commuter questionnaire revealed the following:
• on an average work day approximately 12,000 vehicles cross the
Alameda/San Joaquin county line on 1-580 in the peak direction during
the peak three hour periods;
• 1-580 over the Altamont Pass is relatively congestion free at all
times,
• during a twelve hour period, 86% of the vehicles were autos (66%
single occupant) and 13% trucks;
• 86% of the trips made by the 3,000 respondents to the origin
destination questionnaire were commuter trips (i .e. 5 out of 6 trips) ;
• 70% of the home locations of the respondents were in San Joaquin
County (33% Tracy, 20% Manteca, 10% Stockton; 7% other)
• 52% of the commuters were commuting to jobs in the Tri-Valley (14%
Pleasanton, 12% Livermore, 5% Dublin, 5% San Ramon, 3% Danville/Alamo
and 13% Alameda County) ; and
• 16% of the commuter trips were to Santa Clara County job sites.
The importance of Bay Area-Central Valley commuting is well known: peak hour
volumes on 1-580 through the Altamont pass increased from 4,250 in 1980 to
6,200 in 1986, an increase of approximately 50% in just six years; and Contra
Costa County demographic data for 2005 indicate 31 ,000 work trips will travel
daily through the pass. The potential for new developments east of the county
line (Mountain House Road project) could reinforce and intensify the
inter-regional commute with potentially dire consequences for 1-580.
IV. ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
The following list of issues and opportunities is intended to stimulate
thinking about the future role of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council . It
is based on information presented in the preceding sections which indicates
that in the face of rapid growth the Tri-Valley will confront transportation
problems of increasing severity; and there is a need to refine and implement
local plans and policies in a more Valley-wide context than is currently the
case.
1 . Highway and Arterials
a. Tri Valley Arterial System
Perhaps the principal catalyst for consensus building in the Tri-Valley is
its network of major streets and roads. Development of the system shown
in FIGURE 2 (page 10) will benefit from multi-jurisdictional cooperation
in planning the size, alignment and lane continuity of arterials.
Deserving special attention are those arterials that run through a number
of jurisdictions: e.g. , north-south routes - Dougherty Road, Tassajara
Road/Camino Tassajara, Collier Canyon Road, Livermore Avenue/Highland
Road, Vasco Road; east-west routes - Crow Canyon Road., Dublin
Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway, Stoneridge Drive (Pleasanton)/Las Positas
Boulevard (Livermore) extension, Stanley Boulevard.
-20-
JM/rbp/6349p
b. Congestion Mitigation
There is potential in the Tri-Valley to upgrade strategically located
major arterials to reduce congestion on adjacent freeways and minor local
streets, make more efficient use of the roadway network, improve safety
and environmental quality, and enhance the ability of these routes to
attract federal funding through emerging flexible funding policies.
Improvements would include consideration of signal synchronization,
removal of parking, access restrictions, turning lanes, spot widenings ,
grade separations and arterial completion. This concept is being
aggressively pursued in the Bay Area and in the Greater Los Angeles Area.
Among the candidate arterials in the study area are the proposed Dublin
Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway extension, the Stoneridge Drive
(Pleasanton)/Las Positas Drive (Livermore) extension, and Stanley
Boulevard.
A number of other congestion mitigation measures deserve consideration.
These include ramp meterings, HOV lanes and employing a traffic operations
system, an emerging Caltrans strategy for improving freeway operations; it
incorporates surveillance, motorist information and management systems to
minimize congestion related delays.
C. Traffic Monitoring
Traffic monitoring is a requirement of two government mandates: Contra
Costa County' s Measure C and AB 471 (its provisions to be voted on by the
electorate in June, 1990) . To receive a percentage of Measure C sales tax
revenues, Contra Costa jurisdictions must monitor traffic levels at key
intersections, compare these traffic levels .with specific levels of
service standards included in their General Plans, and periodically report
these findings to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. All
jurisdictions in Contra Costa have adopted resolutions indicating their
intent to comply with traffic monitoring and level of service requirements
included in Measure C.
The provisions of AB 471 , if approved in next June' s election, will
require that each county develop a congestion management program (CMP) to
improve traffic flow on local streets. An important part of this program
is the establishment of levels of service standards for major arterials.
The development of such a program will require the implementation of a
` .� standardized system for counting vehicles at key locations on the
Tri-Valley arterial system. Information of this type will also assist in
coordinating signals on inter-jurisdictional arterials and ramp metering
signals with signals on adjacent city streets.
d. Tri-Valley Program
TSM Pr r m
•
While some communities and major employers have fairly successful TSM
programs in place, there is no Valley-wide TSM program. Such a program
could borrow from the successes of existing programs while implementing
comprehensiy a and uniform standards over a large area. Such a program
would benefit from having the large commuter base necessary to promote a
successful ridesharing program. A Valley-wide TSM program would also
ensure that no single community would be at a disadvantage for enforcing a
strict TSM program.
-21-
JM/rbp/6349p
2. Transit
a. Enhanced Transit Planning
Local plans and policies support improved transit service in the
Tri-Valley. As the sub-region grows there will be a need to emphasize:
• coordination and expansion of LAVTA and CCCTA bus service;
• coordination of marketing and promotion;
• planning of feeder service to future BART stations; and
• operation of express bus service to major employment centers.
b. Corridor Transit Studies
Limitations on increasing I-680 capacity, combined with the opposition to
transit development in the parallel SP right-of-way, suggest that a
transit system in the I-680 corridor may be a partial solution to freeway
congestion. (Caltrans has indicated in its Route Concept Report for I-680
that 12 lanes of freeway would be required through the San Ramon Valley by
2005 to accommodate anticipated traffic; Caltrans suggests providing
capacity beyond 8 lanes would be impractical ) . A feasibility study that
considers various types of transit/freeway improvements in the I-680
corridor would be an important first step towards increasing mobility in
the corridor. Caltrans, Central Contra Costa County cities, and Solano
County should also participate in the study.
Alameda County has acquired title to most of the abandoned railroad
rights-of-way through Pleasanton and Livermore and has made a preliminary
assessment of their potential use for light rail service. This potential
combined with emerging interests in connecting the Bay Area and the
Central Valley with rail service through the Altamont Pass suggest more
detailed analyses of these corridors to be in order.
C. BART extension to Dublin and Beyond
Short-range issues include fundingthe Dublin b extension shortfall (in
excess of $100 million ) and the potentially adverse impacts of the Dublin
station as an end of the line station on downtown Dublin parking and
circulation.
Long-range considerations relate to funding BART' s extension to Livermore
(and possibly into the Central Valley) , and development policies for
stations and their environs.
3. Air Ouality
Air pollution is a significant problem in the Tri-Valley, particularly in
Livermore. The main source of air pollution in the Valley is the
automobile. Improving air quality will require reducing vehicle emissions
throughout a much larger area than the Tri-Valley. In general , to improve
air quality it will be necessary to:
• C
• reduce the number of vehicle trips through increased use of car
pools, transit and non-motorized transportation; and
• reduce traffic congestion through various techniques including better
coordination of traffic signal timing (particularly on
inter-jurisdictional routes) , freeway ramp metering, and HOV lanes. !
L
-22-
JM/rbp/6349p
' The Air Quality issue is particularly serious because the Bay Region did
not attain federally mandated air quality standards for ozone and carbon
monoxide by August 1988 as required by the Federal Clean Air Act. This
fact combined with new, more stringent state air quality standards has
resulted in MTC spearheading an effort to develop a transportation control
measures plan to reduce vehicular emissions by June 30, 1990, a state
mandated deadline.
4. Land Use
a. Ultimate Levels of Growth in Major Areas
FIGURE 3 and TABLE 4 in Section III show the location and extent of
proposed developments in the Tri-Valley. The development potential of two
of these areas is particularly uncertain because of competing
jurisdictional interests: Dougherty Valley (San Ramon and Contra Costa
County) ; and the area north of I-580 near Fallon Road (Dublin and
Livermore). It is important that planning differences be resolved and the
kind, scale and staging of development in all developing areas be
determined as soon as possible. These decisions may have more affect on
Tri-Valley transportation during the next twenty years than any others .
b. Monitoring and Responding to the Impacts of Growth on Transportation
A number of related policies and practices dealing with the impacts of
growth on transportation are either currently in force or will be if voter
approved. Each of these policies and practices provides a framework for
Tri-Valley planning corporation.
• Measure C. To receive a percentage of Measure C sales tax revenues,
Contra Costa jurisdictions must incorporate growth management
elements into their General Plans. The growth management element is ..
required to demonstrate that the land use element and circulation
element can meet specific intersection level of service standards
included in their General Plans. Each jurisdiction is also req.uired
to participate in a multi-jurisdictional planning process to reduce
the cumulative regional traffic impacts of development. Through this
process, decisions will be made on appropriate mitigation for
regional traffic impacts. All jurisdictions in Contra Costa County
have adopted resolutions indicating their intent to comply with these
growth management requirements;
• AB 3705. This legislation permits counties, with city cooperation,
to develop countywide plans. By law, these plans are to include
improvement proposals for a 10 to 20 year period for highways and
transit, including TSM measures, and an analysis of land use impacts
on transportation. Alameda County is in the process of developing
` its countywide plan and Contra Costa County is preparing to do so; and
• AB 471 . If SCA-1 is approved by the voters in June, 1990, each
county working with its cities will be required to develop congestion
management programs (CMPs). CMPs are to establish level of service
standards for specific intensities of land use, develop a TSM
program, employ modeling techniques to analyze the impacts of land
use decisions on the regional transportation system, prepare an
estimate of the costs associated with mitigating adverse impacts, and
develop a seven year program of highway and transit projects to
maintain and improve traffic, and transit service, while conforming
-23-
JM/rbp/6349p
to air quality requirements. AB 471 requirements differ from thos'e
of AB 3705 in that they are mandatory (if SCA-1 passes) , translate
directly into programming recommendations, (i .e. , they're project
specific) and are prerequisite for receipt of state transportation
funds. MTC is developing regional guidelines to integrate the
development of these plans and programs.
C. Jobs/Housing Balance
The consequences of not developing adequate housing opportunities to match
the employment opportunities being generated in the Tri-Valley are obvious
- the practice of long distance commuting will continue, further
congesting the freeways and adding to the financial burden required to
improve the transportation system. As previously mentioned in this
report, the principal concern is the supply of housing within the study
area which is affordable to the employees working in the Tri-Valley.
Recognition of the jobs/housing balance in this context could lead to an
inter-jurisdictional effort to define the problem more precisely and
determine what policies hold the most promise for addressing it on a
Valley-wide basis.
d. Integration of Development and Transportation Decision Making
Increasingly, the need to better integrate decisions about development and
transportation is being recognized and the Tri-Valley presents a unique
opportunity to do this. The future extension of BART to Dublin and
Livermore combined with rail potential of the abandoned railroad
rights-of-way in Eastern Alameda County provide the opportunity to review
and modify, if appropriate, development policies for adjacent lands to
ensure the highest degree of complementation. Higher density residential
use combined with more mixed-use development patterns than are currently
planned for may be in order in select locations to increase transit
' patronage and revenue base. It may also be appropriate to revise policies
concerning station location, park-and-ride lots and feeder bus service.
5. Finance
a. Local Funding
Basic to the development of a financial plan to implement proposals the
Council may wish to recommend is an appreciation that in all probability
much of the funding will have to come from local sources; federal and
state assistance are limited in amount, aggressively competed for and
restricted in use. Joint participation in funding Tri-Valley
transportation improvements would have two advantages:
• it would ensure the realization of critical improvements in a manner
consistent with Tri-Valley priorities; and
• it would help leverage federal and state monies which are
increasingly being made more available to self help counties and
cities than to other communities.
Of the numerous local funding mechanisms currently being used in the
Valley - sales tax revenues, developer impact fees, assessment district
fees - the one which may have the most potential for application on a
Valley-wide basis is a sub-regional traffic mitigation fee. Under this
proposal all new development would be assessed a uniform impact fee with
the revenues derived being used to improve or construct transportation
-24-
JM/rbp/6349p
• facilities in the Tri-Valley transportation system Because of its
uniformity, the fee would not give any Valley city an advantage or
disadvantage in the competition for development.
A full range of possible local funding mechanisms is being evaluated as
part of the development of the Alameda county-wide transportation plan.
The results of this work should provide insights on funding mechanisms
appropriate to the Tri-Valley.
b. Toll Roads
Toll roads are becoming more common throughout the U.S. as traditional
highway construction funds from the states and federal governments become
increasingly scarce. Three toll roads are currently being developed in
Orange County, financed through developer fees and right-of-way
contributions as well as anticipated toll revenues .
The future Route 84/Vasco Road corridor is a possible candidate for
development as a toll road. An initial feasibility study for such a toll
road in this corridor was performed for MTC in 1987. At that time, the
study concluded that in the near term, revenue generated by the users of
the facility would not be sufficient to justify the capital investment.
This of course would not rule out the potential profitability of such a
facility in the longer range, particularly, given the scale of residential
development anticipated in eastern Contra Costa County.
Serious evaluation of the Route 84/Vasco Road corridor as a potential toll
facility would involve other jurisdictions beyond the Tri-Valley and
require consideration of many concerns, including those associated with
inter-regional travel patterns.
C. Post Intorstate Fundina Policies
s
As the Federal Interstate Program terminates the federal government is
rethinking its transportation policies. A number of new proposals are
being advocated which if enacted could result in policies that better
serve local needs. Some of the proposals would increase the federal gas
tax, provide more money for highway maintenance needs and transit
operating costs and allow more flexibility in how federal monies can be
spent. The concept of flexibility could result in funds currently
restricted to highway purposes being made available to improve major
county/city arterials (freeway reliever routes) or transit systems. MTC
is an active participant in the national debate on this issue, which if
successful could result in significant new funding opportunities for the
Tri-Valley.
V. POSSIBLE WORK PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
The development of an ongoing work program for the Tri-Valley should reflect
cc.-,sideration of three basic assumptions:
• there are transportation problems (and opportunities) in the
Tri-Valley that cut across county/city boundaries, including those
associated with growth/congestion management, and the development of
countywide plans (these have been identified in this report) ;
• the resolution of these problems is better served by a decision
making process in which the seven jurisdictions act in concert rather
than alone; and
-25-
JM/rbp/6349p
• to establish credibility, a joint planning effort must demonstrate
its effectiveness by making recommendations that can be implemented;
therefore, and especially in the near-term, the work program should
focus on activities that produce tangible results.
The principal focus of a work program should be the development- of a
Tri-Valley transportation plan, with its supporting implementation program and
funding strategy, that describes the facilities and programs required to
address inter-jurisdictional transportation problems. The plan and program
should be consistent with city, county and regional transportation plans and
programs .
1 . Plan Content
Plan content should reflect accommodation of three planning agendae, each
of which is characterized by a different degree of certainty and consensus
about both the nature of the problems addressed and the kinds of solutions
best suited to resolving them.
a. Planning for the Near Term (First Priority)
This agenda addresses the need to deal with existing deficiencies on the
Valley' s transportation system. It reflects a consensus recognition that
parts of the system are broken and need fixing: the location and nature
of the problems are known; no further study is warranted; solutions have
been identified and near-term action is required. For the most part these
deficiencies will be seriously congested segments on the Tri-Valley
arterial system. Addressing these problems should b'e the Council ' s first
priority and the focus of its earliest planning activity. Success in
resolving some of the more serious existing problems will help establish
the Council ' s credibility and effectiveness as a forum for cooperative
planning in the Valley.
Principal staff work in support of the Council ' s actions to resolve
near-term transportation problems would include:
• preparation of an inventory of existing major system deficiencies in
priority order;
• identification of appropriate strategies for addressing these
problems (capacity improvements, congestion mitigation measures,
etc. ) ; and
• estimation of costs and funding sources.
b. Planning for the Long Term (Second Priority)
This agenda addresses the need to know more than we do about the potential
impacts of future growth and development on the longer-range
transportation facilities and services identified in Tri-Valley plans and
policies: how well will the system perform? What changes may be required
to facility size and location and amount of service provided? What are
the possible consequences of alternative transportation plans and p
policies? At this time the answers to these questions are either vague or
unknown. More analysis is required to remove uncertainties that exist
concerning both the nature of longer-range problems and .their solutions;
and to provide the Council with better information as a basis for decision
making. Implementation of this agenda will extend over time; it should
proceed, however, concommitantly with implementation of the near-term
agenda.
-26-
JM/rbp/6349p
Staff support for the Council ' s work in addressing longer-range
transportation needs would include:
• analyses of the potential impacts of anticipated growth on the
planned Tri-Valley transportation system to identify problems , these
analyses to be based in part on the use of a computer model ;
• evaluation of the potential for alternative transportation plans and
policies to mitigate future problems, again using the computer model ;
and
• providing Council with recommendations, including, those associated
with funding and implemetation, on how current plans and policies
might be changed to address longer-range needs.
C. New Approaches to Planning (Third Priority)
This agenda recognizes that it is impractical , if not impossible, to
assume we can build our way out of the congestion dilemma; and that
changes in land use patterns can influence the effectiveness of transit,
automobile use, the length of commuter trips and overall congestion
levels. Because many of these approaches are new, of uncertain political
consensus, and largely untested in the Tri-Valley, it is suggested that
the Council proceed slowly and cautiously to incorporate them in its
planning program. However, as the Council successfully initiates its
near-term program, and begins to better understand the long-term
consequences of current policy and develops mutual trust in working
together, it should consider the potential of new approaches . Two of the
more promising approaches are:
• development of a strategy to balance jobs with affordable housing in
the Tri-Valley; and
• review and modification, as appropriate, of development and
transportation policies in potential rail corridors, to ensure the
highest degree of complementation.
2. Planning Process
The development of a Tri-Valley transportation plan and program would
involve the following sequence of events:
a. Identify major deficiencies on the existing transportation system
that require immediate attention.
As already stated, fixing these problems should be the Council ' s first
priority and constitute the basis for its near-term planning efforts.
b. Define a long-range network of highway, arterial and transit
facilities for the Tri-Valley (Tri-Valley Transportation System) and
evaluate its potential to accommodate travel .
Considerable work has been done to define this system (see FIGURE 2) .
Additional work will be necessary to incorporate transit considerations
and refinement of the capacity designations for key arterials.
Once a subregional transportation system has been defined, its ability to
accommodate future traffic levels should be evaluated.
-27-
JM/rbp/6349p
While there are a number of ways in which this objective could be
achieved, it is imperative that the method selected be one that employs a
computer model possessing the following attributes. It should:
• use a data and assumption base common to all jurisdictions;
• be compatible with models used by MTC, Alameda and Contra Costa
counties;
• provide a grain of analysis appropriate to Tri-Valley needs; and
• be sensitive to large and small scale land use and network changes
C. Select strategies to address system deficiencies.
System deficiencies for the most part will show up as segments where
traffic volumes approach or exceed facility capacity resulting in reduced
levels of service or "congestion". Empirical data available in each
jurisdiction, combined with information about possible future conditions
derived from the TJKM work, already provide insights about system
-performance.
Depending on the nature of the deficiencies, an assortment of strategies
to improve capacity and/or circulation can be identified, evaluated and
selected from. These include:
• system capacity improvements such as roadway widenings, intersection
and interchange improvements, arterial upgrades, etc. ;
• traffic management strategies such as HOV lanes, ramp metering, park
and ride lots, signal coordination, etc. ;
• a Tri-Valley Transportation System Management (TSM) program to reduce
peak hour traffic through comprehensive transit and ridesharing
programs;
• improved transit service (frequency, coverage, coordination) ; and
• modification of development policies to reduce demand in locations
where it is either impractical and/or too costly to increase
capacity.
d. Prepare a Tri-Valley Transportation Implementation Program and
Funding Strategy
This program would guide the implementation of strategies recommended to
improve transportation in the Tri-Valley. When completed it would be
incorporated in the capital improvement programs of appropriate
implementing bodies (state, region, county, city). It would consist of
projects with cost estimates arrayed in priority order. Priority would be
assigned on the basis of need (projects fixing immediate needs would get
highest priority) , state of readiness (measured in terms of environmental
constraints, and political/community support) and funding availability.
This program would have to be consistent with county. regional and state
programming practices especially when federal and state funding sources
are being looked to for assistance.
For a number of reasons it is assumed local financing of Tri-Valley
transportation improvements will be important to the success of plan
implementation:
• state and federal monies are in short supply and heavily competed for;
• state funding policies increasingly favor self-help counties; Alameda
and Contra Costa counties are already leaders in this regard; and
-28-
JM/rbp/6349p
' • local funds can be raised more quickly and used more flexibly than
state and federal funds.
Funding for improvements identified as an outcome of inter-jurisdictional
transportation planning could be generated in a number of ways, some of
these are already being practised at the local level .
• Tri-Valley traffic mitigation fees applied to new developments;
• assessment districts;
• special fees based on number of jobs, parking spaces, etc.
• redevelopment/tax increment financing
• revenue from joint development activities
The development of a funding strategy in support of the planning
recommendations will benefit from the consultant work associated with the
preparation of the Alameda countywide transportation plan.
To summarize, the sequence of tasks leading to the development of a
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Implementation Program are:
1 ) identify and provide for the elimination of major existing system
deficiencies: prioritize needs, design projects, determine costs,
provide funding (consider using Tri-Valley mitigation fee) , and
implement;
2) define the Tri-Valley transportation system (refine FIGURE 2) ;
3) select an appropriate forecasting model ;
4) run the model and identify system deficiencies;
5) evaluate alternative strategies for eliminating deficiencies;
6) select preferred alternatives and identify their costs;
7) develop a funding strategy to finance improvements; and
8) develop an incremental implementation program that reflects
consideration of short and long-term needs, project status and
funding availability. (This program would become part of the capital
improvement programs of appropriate implementing agencies at the
state, regional , county and city levels.)
a1
-29-
JM/rbp/6349p