HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11091993 - TC.2 TIC. Z
Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa
T:N'h
FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE "
County
DATE: November 8, 1993
SUBJECT: Report on the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Countywide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Authorize the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter
(see Exhibit A) transmitting the Board's comments on the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority's Countywide ' Comprehensive
Transportation Plan - Submittal 1.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On October 20, 1993, the. Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(Authority) approved for circulation and comment Submittal 1 of the
Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Preparation of the
(CCTP) is a requirement of the Measure C-1988 Contra Costa
Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program.
The CCTP is a long range transportation planning document prepared
and adopted by the Authority. It is intended to provide the
overall direction in Contra Costa for a coordinated approach to
achieving and maintaining a balanced and functioning transportation
system. It is also intended to "knit together" the Action Plans
under preparation by the Regional Transportation Planning
Committees (RTPC's) . The CCTP provides a forum for the RTPC's to
address issues of mutual concern and to arrive at a comprehensive
approach that achieves their goals in a consistent countywide
manner.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S) : Tom Powers Gayle Bishop
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: S.Goetz, CDD, 646-2134
orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED
cc: GMEDA PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Public Works Department, Transportation THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY DEPUTY
Report on the CCTA Countywide Comprehensive -Transportation Plan
November 8, 1993
Page Two
Submittal 1 is the first of five submittals that will be prepared during the
development of the CCTP:
Submittal 1: Introduction and Goals
Submittal 2 : Background Analysis
Submittal 3 : Traffic Service Objectives and Actions
Submittal 4 : Complete Draft of the CCTP
Submittal 5: Final CCTP
The complete draft, Submittal 4, is scheduled to be distributed in March 1994.
The Transportation Committee reviewed editorial comments prepared by staff (see
Exhibit B) and has discussed significant concerns regarding the overall direction
of the CCTP. The draft letter included as Exhibit A is for the Board's review and
consideration for transmittal to the Authority. This letter describes the
Committee's concerns and recommendations for preparation of a countywide
comprehensive transportation strategy.
EXHIBIT A Phil Batchelor
The Board of Supervisors Contra Clerk of the Board
P and
County Administration BuildingCosta County Administrator
651 Pine St., Room 106 (510)646-2371
Martinez, California 94553-1290 County
Tom Powers,1st District
Jeff Smith,2nd District
Gayle Bishop,3rd District pE-s e L• o
Sunne Wright McPeak,4th District _.
Tom Torlakson,5th District '
's November 9, 1993
C,
sr�•cou>'�
Darryl J. Tucker, Chair
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150
Walnut Creek CA 94596
Dear Chair u ker:
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors offers the following
comments on the first submittal of the Authority's Countywide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CCTP) .
The context of the Board's comments is best established by
reiterating the definition of the CCTP as stated on page 4,
emphasizing the terms we feel most important. "The CCTP is the
long-range transportation planning document prepared and adopted
by the OCTA. It is intended to provide the overall direction in
Contra Costa for a coordinated approach to achieving and
maintaining a balanced and functioning transportation system. . . .
It is also intended to knit together the Action Plans. The CCTP
provides a forum for the RTPCs to address issues of mutual
concern and to arrive at a coordinated approach that achieves
their goals and that establishes a consistent countywide
approach. "
The CCTP goals appropriately address the comprehensive intent of
this effort. They include not only congestion management, but
other issues significantly affected by our transportation system
such as the mobility needs of all residents, transportation
safety, land use coordination, and economic development. These
goals provide a solid basis for a truly countywide comprehensive
transportation strategy.
Based on the first submittal, there are several key points that
we wish the Authority. members to consider in developing this
countywide comprehensive transportation strategy:
- put other transportation needs on an equal footing with
congestion management;
- expand the focus of the transportation planning process to
address countywide and non-congestion management issues; and
- Define a process that addresses transportation issues in a
changing environment.
Mr. Tucker
November 9, 1993
Page Two
The remainder of our comments expand on these key points and
provide specific recommendations.
The CCTP's title and goals suggest that other transportation
issues in addition to congestion management will be addressed.
Future submittals should include an evaluation of these other
needs, such as the mobility needs of the transit dependent, goods
movement, intercity travel, intermodal connections, and
maintenance needs of existing transportation facilities. The
CCTP should provide the context to guide the allocation of our
limited resources among these various needs in an balanced,
integrated and mutually supportive fashion.
The CCTP planning process must expand its focus beyond knitting
together the five Action Plans under preparation. It is not
clear how the existing process will coordinate the relationship
of these Action Plans to the broader CCTP goals. Related
transportation planning activities of the Congestion Management
Agency, .the Air District and MTC are described, but the CCTP has
not integrated these activities into its planning process. Will
the CCTP provide specific recommendations for consideration in
the planning decisions of these agencies? How will the process
ensure these recommendations are given adequate consideration by
these agencies? Could the CCTP planning process consider
revisions or extensions to the Measure C Expenditure Plan and
Growth Management Program? Will bikeways be addressed?
The CCTP is an opportunity to define the "ongoing planning
process" for a coordinated approach to address transportation
issues in a changing environment. The CCTP should not be viewed
as a static document or be addressed in a checklist fashion. How
will it be used to affect planning decisions at the local,
county, regional and state levels? How will it be revised to
respond to changing circumstances? The CCTP is a planning tool
to address these dynamic issues and should show how these issues
will be monitored and reevaluated in the future.
Recommendations
1. Add a goal for protecting our investment in the existing
transportation system, and modify the air quality goal to
include energy efficiency;
2. Incorporate information from other transportation planning
activities such as the CCTA's Paratransit Plan and Bus
Study, MTC's Intermodal Goods Movement Study, and Caltrans'
Rail Passenger Development Program and California
Transportation Plan;
Mr. Tucker
November 9, 1993
Page Three
3. Request the Technical Coordinating Committee recommend a
process for identifying countywide issues and developing or
evaluating technical information on these issues;
4 . Add a description of countywide transportation issues and
non-congestion management issues in future submittals;
5. Add recommendations as appropriate regarding existing
funding programs, future funding mechanisms, and revisions
to the Measure C ordinance or procedures that will further
the goals of the CCTP; and
6. Request CCTA staff develop procedures for monitoring the
CCTP's implementation, reviewing and updating the CCTP, and
integrating the CCTP planning process into related plans and
programs of the Authority and other agencies.
In addition to these key concerns and recommendations, please be
aware that County staff has submitted specific editorial comments
on your first submittal that will be transmitted separately. The
Board commends the Authority for preparing this first submittal
of the CCTP to help stimulate our discussion of a vision for a
countywide comprehensive transportation strategy.
Sincereiy,,
Tom Torlakson, Chair
Board of Supervisors
Exhibit B
Community Contra Harvey E.Director of of ommun
Community Development
Development Costa
Department County
Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 945530095
Phone:
(510) 646-2134
rp,�.....µ .
November 9, 1993
Mr. .Martin Engelmann
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dear Mr. Engelmann:
This letter provides comments from County staff (Community
Development and Public Works Departments) on the October 26 draft
of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CCTP)
Submittal 1. I have attached a copy of the subject document with
specific editorial revisions noted. The remainder of this letter
explains some of the more significant revisions.
CHAPTER 1
Page 3: Figure 1. 1 should show all 18 cities, and with uniform
letter size and weight.
Page 4: Revisions are suggested for the Growth Management
Program summary. The five-year CIP does not attempt to balance
jobs with housing in a jurisdiction. Its focuses on projects
that encourage the construction of affordable housing. In
addition to the CIP requirement, the housing option and job
opportunities element has a significant and unique requirement to
evaluate the impact of land use plans on traffic congestion.
This unique requirement deserves specific mention in the CCTP's
summary of the Growth Management Program.
Page 6: The Congestion Management Program (CMP) and the Growth
Management Program requirements are not significantly different
regarding consideration of the balance between jobs and housing.
Government Code Section 65089(b) (3) requires the CMP to include
"a trip reduction and travel demand element that promotes
alternative transportation methods, such as carpools vanpools,
transit, bicycles, and park-and-ride lots; improvements in the
balance between jobs and housing; and other strategies, including
flexible work hours and parking management. " However, the Growth
Management Program additionally requires an implementation
program creating housing opportunities for all income levels, "
which is not specified in the CMP statute.
Mr. Engelmann
November 9, 1993
Page Two
Page 7: The relationship between the CCTP and the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) should be discussed in more detail.
The outline indicates the CCTP will include a capital improvement
program utilizing Federal and state funds, and therefore is
intimately tied to the RTP pursuant to SB 1435. The CCTP should
consider the 15 criteria established by ISTEA as well as be
consistent with the Clean Air Plan.
Page 8: The goals are not all traffic-oriented, so objectives in
addition to TSO's will be needed. A separate discussion. of
countywide issues such as the mobility needs of the transit-
dependent population and goods movement will by needed.
CHAPTER 3
Page The Carquinez and Benicia-Martinez bridges affect the
entire freeway corridor and need not be identified separately in
Figure- 3.1.
Page 4: I-80 should not be compared with State Route 24 since
their capacities are not comparable.
Page 4: Truck volume information is important on all corridors
and should be discussed as a countywide issue.
Page 4: Application of ramp metering and other traffic
management techniques should be given serious consideration along
all freeway corridors as a countywide issue. The description of
the impact of freeway congestion on I-80 sets the stage for
consideration of such management techniques. The CCTP should
explain that the capacity of freeways drop when freeway speeds
fall below 30 mph, which causes some traffic to divert to local
streets. It would be helpful to reference any research on the
impact of ramp metering and other corridor management techniques
to optimize the flow of traffic on freeways and parallel
arterials.
Page 5: The share of through traffic on San Pablo Avenue is
startling. Is this characteristic of the entire length of the
arterial or just one segment? The characteristics of traffic on
an arterial probably vary considerably along its length compared
to the parallel stretch of freeway.
Page 6: There should be some discussion in Section 3.3 about
tanker truck traffic between these two regions. Currently, both
San Pablo Dam Road and State Route 24 prohibit tanker trucks.
This is another goods movement issue.
Mr. Engelmann
November 9, 1993
Page Three
Page 7: Significant diversion of I-80 traffic onto San Pablo Dam
Road is a common perception. However, is this perception
substantiated by origin/destination data? If so, please
summarize this data. Land use or travel forecasts data from
Volume Two should be summarized in this chapter when describing
the more controversial problems and issues.
Page 10: Metering is typically implemented to increase a
facility's ability to accommodate traffic. The metering
suggested by the Transplan Committee is to inhibit the bridge's
ability to accommodate traffic. This distinction needs to be
clearly explained so that readers aren't confused with the
purpose of ramp metering techniques discussed elsewhere in this
chapter.
Page 10: Growth management should be mentioned as a strategy to
address the growth in congestion on I-680. MTC is investigating
this strategy in their 1994 RTP Update, particularly for
corridors where major transportation investments are planned.
Growth management plans should be considered not only to preserve
the congestion relief provided by major expansion to the
transportation system, but also to prevent excessive congestion
from developing where it presently doesn't exist.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment. County staff looks
forward to working with you on the CCTP in the coming months.
Sincerely,
Steven L. Goetz,
Transportation Planning Division
attachment
cc: Members, Board of Supervisors
V. Alexeeff, GMEDA
M. Shiu, PWD
J. Bueren, PWD
TPD Staff
I INTRODUCTION
As with other metropolitan area in the United States, the Bay Area is
experiencing a significant increase in the demands on its transportation system without a
parallel increase in funding for additional transportation facilities. Contra Costa County has
also been significantly affected by increased demand on the regional transportation system.
Since the end of World War II, the county has more than trebled in size and is now the third-
most populous county in the region. Recently it has also seen significant job growth.
This housing and job growth has led to increasing numbers of trips on the
county's roadways and transit systems as people travel between their homes,jobs, shopping
area and other destinations. The first phases of post-World War 11 suburbanization were
supported by the then existing system of surface streets. Later phases of the suburban growth
of Contra Costa County were supported by the development of several freeways including I-80
in the western county, I-680 through central county, State Route 24 to Berkeley and Oakland
and State Route 4 to Antioch. While early in the post-war era, transportation agencies
developed freeways to meet the demands of suburban growth, funding has slowed for such
major new facilities and political support has dwindled. As this occurred, local jurisdictions
have been compelled to look for new solutions and approaches to providing mobility within
Contra Costa County.
With the passage of Measure C in 1988, the voters of Contra Costa County
established both a method for funding transportation improvements and a process for growth
management and transportation planning. Measure C responded to increasing congestion and
loss of mobility — as well as a lack of funding for new transportation projects —with an
increased sales tax and requirements for cooperative, multijurisdictional planning. One of the
main planning tools called for in Measure C is the development of a Countywide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CCTP). As noted in Measure C, the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority shall:
support efforts to develop and maintain an ongoing planning process
with the cities and the county through the funding and development of o
Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
The following document is the first of two volumes that make up the Contra
Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CCTP). This first volume contains the
goals,Traffic Service Objectives and actions that the CCTA has established for addressing
eiao� 1 October 26, 1993
- o
Introduction Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
First Draft
transportation and land use issues in Contra Costa County, both countywide and within the
various sub-areas of the county. The second volume describes the land use and traffic forecasts
used to develop the CCTP, the regional transportation system and the Action Plans upon whose
direction and policies the CCTP builds.
1.1 Purpose of the Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan
The overall goal of the Growth Management Program established by Measure C
is to "achieve a cooperative process for Growth Management on a countywide basis, while
maintaining local authority over land use decisions and the establishment of performance
standards."'
The CCTP is one part of this growth management program. In addition to the
CCfP, the CCTA has developed a Strategic Plan, established local requirements for compliance
with the Growth Management Program, and funded the development of Action Plans. The
Strategic Plan defines strategies and priorities for funding transportation improvements in the
county.
Under die Growth Management Program, each local government must comply
with five general requirements to receive funds for transportation improvements from the-
CCTA:
6. Adopt a Growth Management Element as part of its General Plan that
establishes both level of service standards and performance standards for other
public facilities;
9. Adopt a development mitigation program that ensures that new development
will pay its fair share of the costs of additional facilities needed to support it;
0. Participate in cooperative planning with other jurisdictions in the county;
' Cantor Comm Tmraponstion Authority, The Revised Connor Coup rranVorm n bgprowmew and Gro*A
Marsagement Program. Adopted August 3, 1988. Page 9.
a t.�oa+taa�vs. 2 October 26, 1993
0
( ; SACRA ENTO
1 c t w+
• ,NAPA
so*4 WA 1
SOLANO
i
• '
<.. !anon
:
}> <>`` C ti
CONTRA COSTA Mid
cmb
p�,�,�•Z SAN
&0&0J O A Q U I N
So •`• /'/
ETA > .........:::::::..#::_ >:z:>'.>: s>> Satan./ CIMY
We
(inn
ALAMEDA
k
MUM
•`. %/
-y
S A N - --- 'STANISLAUS
�-
< '` > '< M A T E D fi1oo I
SANTA C L A R A 1
Wim.G
Regional Setting
Figure 1 •I
BLAYNEY
DYETT thboa.aa Regional Planners September 1993
Introduction Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Address housenl oejo✓1J &^4 fob opporfvA'+'Qs +o rtdvc.e.. First Draft
+r4rspor4aVi&^ dPmar,� end develop an 1w,Q1ar+-+ehtafioh pram
+-a+- cr h*es hovs�►t 0?P0r+VV;1+itS ;r- all lheovw+G lavelsiand
► Develop a five-year capital improvement program that alleviates the impacts of
new development within the jurisdiction and
E-ACV00'69es a;"661C ho�div�q
► Adopt a transportation demand management ordinance that complies with the J
direction of the OCTA.
The Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance are part of the
cooperative process of transportation and growth management in Contra Costa County. These
plans, funded in large part by the CCTA, address the cumulative impacts of existing and
forecast development on the regional transportation system. Each Action Plan addresses the
impacts and recommended actions for a sub-area of the county and for the designated Regional
Routes within those sub-areas. (The Regional Routes are shown in Figure 1.2.) The Action
Plans contain long-range assumptions about future land use within the sub-area and surrounding
region, traffic service objectives (TSOs) built on a quantifiable measurement of effectiveness,
specific actions to be implemented, and a process for review of environmental documents and
General Plan amendments. The CCTP builds on the analysis and recommendations of the
Action Plans.
J The CCTP is the long-range transportation planning document prepared and
adopted by the CCTA. It is intended to provide the overall direction in Contra Costa County
for a coordinated approach to achieving and maintaining a balanced and functioning
transportation system within the county. It is also intended to knit together the Action Plans.
eng�v be CCT? provides a forum for the RTPCs to address issues of mutual concern and to arrive
t 4ac;dkwW approach that achieves their goals and that establishes a consistent countywide
a rWah., rnannu.
After its completion, the CCTA will be able to use the CCT?to meet the
requirements of AB 3705, the State law that allows the preparation of countywide transportation
plans. This State legislation allows the countywide transportation plans to contain (but does not
limit them m): 1) recommendations for major improvements to major arterials, the State
highway system and the public transit facilities; 2) consideration of transportation system
management alternatives designed to increase the capacity of the system to move people and
goods; and 3) consideration of transportation impacts associated with land use development
under adopted General Plans and population forecasts. Once adopted, a countywide
transportation plan wiil be the primary basis for MTC's Regional Transportation Plan and will
be considered in the preparation of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program.
�a�es+ia �;.se 4 October 26, 1993
N N �
/ to F'
::::......:: ......., to u
..............
o
4.
Ll
es
woo
179
= a
o
Fi a
<
}
�y
i
,i: :x} o
ll
'-2g£?;dti9�i'}`:.
,�' by�?,:h.:: 'C�,' :1>, ';$" ..a.. T..;• :;5:}$,.�
'� .:.^.fir$#;�:fi:. :::.:}'.. ,,�,• ' ,F.,:.;f:f ..t: ::.
•,}o::� ry?.'•.i�::;<':•$;�> :`:a':r Wit;}:�{•.':i: ,•'?yGz;n;' :: �t:;%%- `,,,�,• �Q
v?{.f'!hjti;�y{�+.}•3-?��vY'::'J,.: :;}r}�iii�$: n(-}4:.
.. :{4••,:::h$: „.ci;� :1>.`o:%:tttkhs o
:.fin.,-,;s::ri::i- -• .fi•Y°c::;>iy%' .2:��•[:.:....
.,.i;.y--.vviiv��.v ..H:1}:,-v�iY:fi=i$':{::^,v,:x:�tit 4 �?i\$$::jai}' ...!�n.. :+liiv}$ji?�}}$$,•' $}:1;..:
'Y$}:.,..•'L�:;.: 'it;$yi%•.v•{. -$%:jv r'r i}}i:{Y}}i':$:i:: J� ;{;Jf off/i'•'?4ii}Y:tF:. �•� W
.?S;r :.:},^;i:•:.. '::•:;>:c{"w;:.-.-;:,:6' •'',Y„/i;{':,:. i::r�$•:}s OG fid
::`t}:;.;•::;::'::,t•:+•� ..........
.n,.y .y �.s. ,.i�<F.•}• '.�vt:�:af:}:+{:?:•.. � I I i�
is:'vYt.A-+i'-;•+FtT,.}$:r' ::::!Y.,YS%!??ttt::.}. :�ti:�:�:•'.,'r}}: :.J?Y. :�!?ti {::<'..,...$:v�-::::t:'•:`•{':X:Fiiv.:i.
,,qq •.;y..,{: .:f-.•:.ekvi{}-- rvf': v:::Y :}i0.}L::y::Mr v:Y.?::{•:::A,Yi v: ::}•:.v.}}}i:i'�:
•^::}• 'v`•$F:•.} ��tt.}4k:L:•nhhi:•.v}ivd$$$'Ss.:}:• hi?J� %J..}il}$::}:%.. ':::.h}%?O:•i.+h,}f-}}.'S�':iiy:$iii::.: � �
•' y.c^:.}:•}`•' i}tiF'{4'v;..::.¢v•{$}.v.'•�;},.. v:$::::":!!vv
.v
:... vti ir_ ..r.::::v::n. a ;;.}s-• �YY�
.hi:':i A$.}f•}:•: ::.}i•v n{.n• ,:`•.v. ..:::.: ....�C{.Y.?S}:tn:. .}•. ,.y:}:+fv.......... ..::.........}}}}h .
• � r
Introduction Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
First Draft
1.2 Relationship to other plans and programs
Congestion Management Program. As directed by State law, the jurisdictions
of Contra Costa County must meet the requirements of the Congestion Management Program
(CMP) in addition to the Measure C Growth Management Program. Since the State used the
Growth Management Program as a model in developing the CMP legislation,there is
considerable overlap between the two programs. Both require.the adoption of TDM
ordinances, the establishment of performance standards for the transportation system, the
creation of a process to analyze the impact of land use changes on the regional transportation
system and a capital improvement program to maintain the regional transportation system.
Both also require local compliance with each program for local jurisdictions to receive funds
for transportation improvements through these programs.
There are differences as well between the Growth Management Program and
the CMP requirements. The Growth Management Program allows greater flexibility in setting
standards for Regional Routes but establishes standards for more roads in the county and
requires performance standards for additional public services. The Growth Management
Program requires greater consideration ofd r '
'• 4rt�}iha havb',ho� cp?or4 Jri+its 411 ircowC. IeVeIS
The OCTA.also serves as the Congestion Management Agency for Contra Costa
County with the responsibility for preparing and implementing the county's CMP.
Air Quality Planning. Both federal and State legislation sets standards for air
quality and requires the preparation of plans to remedy violations of those standards. Within
the Bay Area, two plans have been adopted to address air quality violations. The 1982 Air
Quality Plan was adopted as the required State Implementation Plan (SIP)to meet federal
requirements. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District adopted the Bay Area 'PI dean
Air Plan (CAP) to meet new requirements of the California Clean Air Act.
Both of these plans include transportation control measures (TCMs) designed to
reduce air pollution caused by automobiles and other transportation facilities. These TCMs
include, for example, maintaining and expanding traffic signal timing programs (federal TCMs
24 and 25), adopting an employer-based trip reduction ordinance (State TCM 2), improving
access to rail transit(State TCM S), constructing HOV lanes on freeways (State TCM 8), and
encouraging greater density near transit centers (State TCM 18).
The Growth Management Program established by Measure C d* also
incorporates some of these TCMs as a way of improving the functioning of the regional
�a�aauovd. 6 October 26, 1993
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Introduction
First Draft
transportation system. These measures include the requirement that local jurisdictions adopt a
Travel Demand Management Ordinance to discourage single-occupant vehicle trips and increase
vehicle occupancy within the county. The Growth Management Program does not require these
measures, however, to meet the provisions of the air quality plans. Although Measure C does
not explicitly include air quality requirements for the Growth Management Program, the State
CMP legislation does. u requires CMPs to conform to air quality emissions measures. The
CCTP will review and incorporate, appropriate those TCMs that are not already part of the
Growth Management Program requiremen �ihcludii, Gri}��,a �v be Sect �-o �e �w+iry�,
Regional Transportation Plan and Metropolitan Trdnsportation S ern.
State and federal law requires the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to prepare
and update periodically a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The most recent RTP was
adopted in 1991. MTC is in the process of developing a new RTP that responds to both
changes in conditions and transportation needs and changes in federal and State legislation,
especially the new federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
The RTP provides the overall, long-range direction for the transportation
system in the Bay Area just as the CCTP will provide similar direction for Contra Costa
County. ISTEA requires the RTP to plan for improvements to the regional transportation
system over the next 20 years and it requires the RTP to include a financial plan that shows
how it can be implemented within the 20-year time frame.
The new federal act also established 15 criteria that MTC and all other similar
transportation planning agencies in the country must consider when developing their RTP.
These new criteria expand the scope of the RTP to include a consideration of its effect on land
use and other social, economic, energy and environmental concerns. It also emphasizes the
preservation of existing transportation facilities, the relief of congestion within the region and
the connection of the region to adjoining areas.
State legislation requires each CMP to be consistent with the RTP that applies
to its county,just as the RTP must be consistent with the State Transportation Plan and
applicable air quality plans. There is no similar requirement for countywide transportation
plans. To obtain funding through almost all State and federal sources, however, projects must
be included in the RTP. kf- +%Z GC-TP m "pervc pvr,1v&w ' i A153105'
5%)16e1'10,e4 MTC wAl be. re ju wd Im vse, 4 Ve.. CC-TP Project- recow►w�t►�la-fio�c
ESQ-pr�rr,s�r� b�5►S for RT? rtcow►w►Ghd�fio,�s affec+-ihfa
Cos'�a, 9
Qa,as.iRsa,�. 7 October 26, 1993
i
lob,oduction Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
First Draft
1.3 Contents of the Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan c i ►�S�
The CCTP is organ' ' to two volumes of which this volume is the first.
7be first volume contains the goalstd ffic service objectives (ISOs)—and the actions and
projects proposed to implement those go and ISOs. The second volume contains the
background information and analysis as well as a summary of the policies and proposed actions
of the Action Plans upon which the CCT? builds.
ob;QchV0-3
Volume One has fo sections including this introduction. The second section
of the CCTP will outline the goals, .'Cls and actions of that have regional or countywide
significance. Following this section will be a discussion of the various issue areas that the
CCTP will address. For each issue area addressed, the CCTP will describe the issues facing
that issue area, list the TSOs for those areas, and outline the proposed improvement projects
and other proposed actions that would help achieve the TSOs.; The CCTP will address ten
issue areas from the Carquinez Bridge and I-80 corridor in the west to the East County
commute (including Vasco Road and Byron Highway) and the I-580-Altamont Pass commute in
the east. Finally, the CCTP will outline future actions that CCTA, RTPCs, local jurisdictions
and regi�nal agencies will investigate for inclusion in updates;of the CCTP.
1.4 Progress To Date
This draft submittal includes — in addition to this introduction— draft goals for
the CCTP, a description of the issues in the different corridors of the county, and a description
of the status of the Action Plans and sub-area models. The draft goals were revised in response
to earlier comments from the RTPCs. As progress on the Action Plans and draft CCTP
submittals proceeds, the description of the transportation corridors will be expanded to include
a description of proposed Traffic Service Objectives and actions to meet them. As drafts of the
Action Plans are completed, summaries of the routes,ISOs and actions will also be added.
The next submittal will focus on Volume Two of the CCTP. This draft
submittal will describe and analyze information from the CCTA's Land Use Information
System, the results of travel demand modelling, and the regional transportation system.
8 October 26, 1993
. i
i
2 COUNTYWIDE GOALS, TRAFFIC SERVICE
OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS
2.1 Goals
Building on the goals expressed in the Measure C legislation and responding to
the comments received from the Regional Transportation Planning Committee's, the CCTA has
developed the following overall goals for the CCTP:
► Enhance mobility;
► Improve safety;
► Provide and encourage the use of alternatives to single-occupant auto use;
► Coordinate local land use planning and regional transportation planning;
► Integrate transportation planning with concerns relating to air quality,
community character and other environmental factors;
► Encourage economic development; and
► Manage congestion.
These goals form the foundation of the TSOs recommended in the CCTP and
the actions designed to meet those TSOs.
� ioa+ar�r•r 1 October 26, 1993
Goals Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
First Draft
e ��a� 2 October 26, 1993
3 TRANSPORTATION ISSUES OF REGIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE
The following chapter of the CCTP addresses regional issues within Contra
Costa County. These issue areas focus on particular commute corridors in the county and the
problems of ensuring mobility and accessibility within and through them. The general location
of each transportation corridor is shown in Figure 2. For each issue area, this chapter of the
CCTP will describe the existing and future problems there, the recommended ISOs for each
and the actions — both specific transportation projects and other actions — proposed to meet
those TSOs.
Issues. Resolving the issues described below will require looking at the three
issues of supply, demand and operation. All of these raise hard questions and demand hard
answers. The demand for an expanded supply of transportation facilities is a function both of
population and job increaseSand the pattern that new land uses take. It can be addressed
through changes in land use patterns and site design, incentives for carpooling and transit use
and programs that limit trip making in general. .{0_ItC*v- %uk iez4i rAS. C n5es+ er1 rig ;hq
Increasing supply — that is, the size and capacity of the facilities in the corridor J
— is difficult given the limited funds available to make improvements. Perhaps as importantly,
these increases can create additional problems. Increased capacity can encourage increased trip-
making resulting in the demand for even more facilities. It can also have secondary
environmental impacts — noise, air pollution, habitat loss —'that make such improvements
controversial. The difficulties of expanding supply apply equally to roadways and transit.
Changes in the operation of facilities can also help to resolve transportation
issues. The placement of toll plazas, the coordination of traffic signals, the coordination of
transit schedules, ramp metering and HOV lanes can all address problems by improving the
efficiency of the regional transportation system.
3.1 Carquinez Bridge
The Carquinez Bridge is the main gateway into western Contra Costa County
from the north along I-80. It carries both major commute traffic to and from the growing
suburban areas of Solano County and significant state and national trucking traffic from
Sacramento and the east. Together, these two types of traffic make the I-80 corridor over the
Carquinez Bridge one of the most congested in the state.
1 October 26, 1993
cc
10
in
lo
Cill
Of
LO
el
el
Of NJ
e
<
IE
fm
ZI-
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issues
First Draft
'}�►re z.
The bridge itself is made up of two structures, both of which carry fKr lanes
of traffic. The western span is the older of the structures and Caltrans is investigating
replacing it (or supplementing it) with a new western span. As with other bridges in the Bay
Area, the Carquinez Bridge has a toll plaza, like the Benicia-Martinez Bridge, located on the
eastbound direction of I-80 past the bridge itself.
Although the majority of trips from Solano County and east on the I-80
corridor cross the Carquinez Bridge, two other modes of commuting are available. The Vallejo
ferry carries some commute trips from Vallejo to San Francisco. In addition,the Capitol
Corridor and AMTRAK rail service carry some other commute trips between San Josd and the
East Bay on the one hand and Solano County and Sacramento on the other. Vallajo transit
provides express bus service over the bridge during the commute period. This express bus
service, which runs from Fairfield, Vallejo and Suisun City to BART'S EI Cerrito del Norte
station, frequently operates above capacity (standing room only)during peak periods.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Demand. Currently, demand at the Carquinez Bridge exceeds capacity during
peak periods. Modelling suggests that average daily volumes across the bridge will increase by
about 40 percent between 1990 and 2010. This forecast increase will result primarily from
housing growth north of the bridge (without compensating increases in jobs)and from
continued job growth south of the bridge. Although jobs in Solano County between 1990 and
2010 will grow at a faster rate than employed residents will, the county will still add more
workers than jobs during that period. Since ABAG forecasts that there will be one employed
resident for every 0.8 jobs in the county, at least one of every five workers will have to
commut q&for work.
4o 0-4+�+e r c ou riti es
Supply. Bridges are one of the most expensive transportation facilities to build
and to maintain. Without increases in their capacity, however, they can become significant
"bottlenecks"on the regional transportation system. The Carquinez Bridge is currently at
capacity during peak commute hours and Caltrans is investigating the construction of a new
western span. (The 1993 Contra Costa CMP includes about$380 million for this project.)
The bridge project will only add an HOV lane southbound. The new HOV lane will encourage
carpooling and improve express bus access from Solano County into West County. %Yip,m3+'he. Aor�k-.
bo�r+A span -6 add Jh kV iahe. W")) 8ko be tC0S"4e-V'PA us por+#P 44, brtdgd oneol&ttOperation. In addition to the significant issues of supply and dem , e key
issue of operation of the bridge is being discussed. As with the Benicia-Martinez Bridge,the
placement of the toll plaza and the direction of toll collection have become controversial.
Unlike the bridges into San Francisco and the San Mateo Peninsula, the Carquinez and Benicia-
e�m►iaor�u....: 3 October 26, 1993
Inues Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
First Draft
Martinez Bridges collect tolls as vehicles go out from the center of the Bay Area, rather than as
they go towards it. This means that traffic is "metered" in the peak direction of the evening
commute out of Contra Costa County; morning commute trips are not "metered" into Contra
Costa County.
Contra Costa jurisdictions would prefer that Caltrans move the toll plaza to the
mouthbound direction on the Solano County side of the strait. Supporters of the move hope that
this move would smooth out the commute on I-80 through at least the northern parts of Contra
Costa County although it could create some backup into Vallejo during the morning commute.
No studies have been conducted to study the effects of this move. The potential replacement of
the toll booths with an automatic vehicle identification system for assessing tolls on vehicles
crossing the bridge would limit the "metering" effect that toll taking would have on traffic
across the bridge, however.
3.2 1-80 Corridor
The I-80 corridor is one of the most congested corridors in the Bay Area
' In West County, traffic
in the I-80 corridor is split between local trips, through trips and trips with either destinations
or origins in West County. About half of the trips on I-80 itself are regional commute and
interstate traffic that travel through West County from the gateway at the Carquinez Bridge to
Alameda County and the Bay Bridge. The other half either start or end in West Contra Costa
(or both).
-80 is currently congested (at LOS E or F)throughout its length during peak
4kr�ce commute periods. This congestion is forecast to continue at least until 2010. This congestion
has o impactsst, it has led to "peak spreading." That is, the eriod during which TI,i r�
commute tra is volumes exceed capacity has lengthened. Se6,gQ this congestion during the
peak period has encouraged drivers to divert`from I-80 to parallel surface streets. San Pablo
Avenue, the only alternate route that parallels I-80 through West County, carries considerable
traffic diverted from the freeway.
i
Supplementing the freeways and surface streets in the corridor are BART's
Richmond line and the Capitol Corridor tl AMTRAK service. Bus service includes an
extensive network of routes provided by AC Transit and Westcat on the surface streets with
some express bus service on I-80. The express bus service includes service linking Solano
County with BART's El Cerrito del Norte station.
Firs+, '1+c.40ses 411, &dual 4%duc�ian in -Fhe. VolUmLO4 -fra;�L on +kP— ;reewQI cyte ;ceewa,�
Speeds Fall 6e1ow 31) mj*i . (1)
sr4 October 26, 1993
�i)`I��ahSper� ion ?w67rdffir- Svtineerie� Ika4cvk , of Trw+sporlrFiM EjInePr'$
P
�84-. r
e
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issues
First Draft
PROBLEM STATEMENT
• Demand. The same issues of demand discussed for the Carquinez Bridge apply
to the whole of the I-80 corridor. Development of housing in Solano County is forecast to
continue to outpace job development leading to a growing commute volume along I-80 with
significant diversion of traffic onto San Pablo Avenue. In 1990, all of I-80 and several links
on San Pablo Avenue were congested (that is, a V/C ratio above 0.90). By 2000, additional
segments on San Pablo Avenue are forecast to be congested. Completion of planned HOV
lanes between Willow Avenue and the Carquinez Bridge by 2010^would not remove the
congestion on 1-80 or San Pablo Avenue. woutd Pfov'ide, ;ra••;iow c0Y4;4�i"'- 'fir c6rPoo1S.
vav,pools 4-4 bvsxs, 6v+
Increases in demand will vary along the I-80 corridor. The northern segments
are forecast to increase up to 40 percent over 1990 levels while more southern segments would
increase less, somewhere between 15 and 25 percent. These differences can be explained
partly by the higher levels of congestion on the southern segments where increases in demand
will lead to diversion onto parallel routes, primarily San Pablo Avenue. The segments of San
d Pablo Avenue between Hilltop Drive and Highway 4 show forecast increases of between 65 and
o + 135 percent while southern segments show no more than a 30 percent increase.
o The growth in the number of jobs in West Contra Costa, particularly in
Richmond, will also..-
lso change commute patterns and demand within West County. If this job
v growth materializes, West County will attract more trips from other areas and "capture" more
4 of the trips now passing through the county. Modelling suggests that 52 percent of trips in
{ 1990 on I-80 during the a.m. peak hour traveled through West Contra Costa County. By
° 2010, the same modelling suggests that only 41 percent would travel through West County
a while the other 59 percent would have either an origin or destination in West Contra Costa.
.'- Similarly, in 1990, around 55 percent of tries on San Pablo Avenue were local trips (both
+� starting and ending in West County). By 2010, the share of local trips in the a.m. peak period
would drop to between 35 and 45 percent.
These increases in demand would require expansions of roadway opacity
3N beyond what is feasible given existing right-0f--way constraints, funding and environmental
,4 considerations.
C O
-o
s 'L Supply. I-80 is the primary regional transportation facility in the corridor.
3 N L The primary improvements to it in the next 20 years is es
the construction of HOV lanes from Solano
�J County to the Bay Bridge. Further expansions to the freeway are not contemplated. San Pablo
Avenue, the primary parallel roadway to I-80, has similar constraints, although an expansion
5 October 26, 1993
Issues Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
First Draft
in 4e61 eli"0i,,I
from two to three lanes between Potrero and Cutting is planned. AC Transit is, however,
studying the potential for a new light rail along San Pablo Avenue from downtown Oakland. +o cd,rr�
4r&IIA4 tasse,►t" r%orC cosh-:04c4-iv&Ll ii.� wl+k bvsq�ssl 4v
The increasing congestion on 1-80 will lead to increased diversion on\vparallel �►
Meets. The ability to expand San Pablo Avenue and other parallel routes is also constrained.
Most of these routes are bordered by urban development along their whole length..
Transportation capacity could be increased through the reliance on alternative
� t modes. Currently, BART runs from Richmond south to San Francisco and Fremont. BART is
4 s investigating an extension of this line north to Hercules or Crockett and, perhaps, across the
_ Carquinez Strait to Vallejo. The Capitol Corridor and AMTRAK lines could be expanded to
connect West Contra Costa with Solano and Central and East Contra Costa with additional
scommuter service. AC Transit is also looking into light rail service between downtown
u Oakland and the Hilltop Mall along San Pablo Avenue. The existing ferry service from Vallejo
could be supplemented with new ferries from Martin and Rodeo and new ferry service from
Richmond has also been proposed. Together, however these improvements may result in a
-+- decrease in congestion in the corridor of less than 20 p cent — not enough to solve congestion
-v
problems within the corridor. '1+ 'Is 6o+ sMVic 1 paw }e of y"* 9h',44c� .�. wew
F +rih5+ Q�i-r�h a�t •
Operation. Both HOV and TDM methods could improve efficiency in the I-80
a corridor. The addition of HOV lanes from Solano County to the Bay Bridge is an integral
$ strategy in the expansion of I-80. These HOV lanes would serve two purposes. First, the
availability of these lanes would encourage carpooling and more person-trips per vehicle and
second, they would provide improved access to and through the county for longer-distance
? express buses. WCCTAC is also considering the creation of a shuttle bus service that would
'0 link major employment centers and regional transit services to encourage greater use of transit
c -Q
._ for commuting. ( dd d d�s c u Ss�o� � r&w,p M't+!f�r�>
3 .0 3.3 West-Central Commute — Highway 4 and San
Pablo Dam Road
Incl-de d i sv%I iI m o; +,i4ev, '}rvok m4+,r; ++"I av d- c4"v5s �o� the �ra.,+5�tt dep•��e Kt1
Two roadways form the main commute routes between West and Central p°P�la♦'0�
Contra Costa: Highway 4 and San Pablo Dam Road, supplemented by Cummings Sky�waa '. h+er e�
(Alhambra Valley Road also carries a minor amount of traffic.) The Capitol Corridor*sa vice ra
connects Martinez in Central County and points north with stations in West County.
Both Highway 4 and San Pablo Dam Road serve commuters travelling between
Central and West County. With the growing congestion on I-80 — especially after the
destruction of the Cypress Freeway link in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake— commuters to
� �e �... 6 October 26, 1993
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issues
First Draft
(Plow.r. t va,A'44). D nes -1-ti►e X990 Saloc� IihIL t ha
5 P Da+� Rd 9 uavr4-i
Alameda and San Francisco have increasingly diverted onto San Pablo Dam Road. These
southbound trips shift from 1-80 onto San Pablo Dam Road. Once through Orinda, these trips
turn west on Highway 24 and head through the Caldecott Tunnel to the East Bay.
Compared to other commutes in the county, the West-Central commute carries
relatively few trips. While about 5,200 trips travel between West and Central Counties during
the a.m. peak hour, about 6,500 trips are made across the Benicia-Martinez Bridge and 7,700
trips are made across the Carquinez Bridge. Nonetheless, these routes provide important links
between West and Central County.F -b••d kLva
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Demand. The commute between West and Central Contra Costa County is not
one of the most significant commutes now and forecasts suggest that it will remain of secondary
status into the future. Although the east-west volumes are not insignificant,the primary
commute in West and Central County is north and south. The proposed construction of the
western sections of Highway 4 as a full freeway will increase capacity on that route which will
draw trips from other more congested roadways.
Supply. The West-Central Commute involves crossing the East Bay Hills
Q o whose steepness and land.:ownership (much of it is in watershed and permanent open space)
limit the expansion of roadways. San Pablo Dam Road is two lanes throw most of these
P Y • 8h
N S s watershed and open space areas. It is four lanes at its western end in Richmond and El
L s Sobrante and at its eastern end where it becomes Camino Pablo in Orinda. The Town of
Orinda has expressed concern that capacity increases on San Pablo Dam Road would
3 encourage trips to shift from Highway 4 and I-80/HiPhway 24. Increases in traffic on San
s s-9 Pablo Dam Road would add traffic and affect levels,of service on Camino Pablo. Only minor
s s' increases on this roadway are forecast between 1990 and 2010. Likewise, the potential for
y w capacity increases in El Sobrante is limited. :
t o
F s Highway 4 is currently a two-lane highway between I-80 and Cummings
D Skyway and a four-lane freeway east of there. The reconstruction of the western part of
N N Highway 4 as a full freeway is expected to occur sometime between 2000 and 2010. The
v capacity increases resulting from this construction (along with other improvements in the area)
0 •-c ,s will draw demand from other more congested roadways.
Alhambra Valley Road does not carry significant commute traffic between West
and Central County although it serves significant local traffic at its western end. It's location in
7 October 26, 1993
r a
Issues Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
First Draft
designated open space, watershed and rural area limits its potential expansion as a significant
commute route.
BART and the Capitol Corridor/AMTRAK service will carry a relatively small
amount of the West-Central Commute. The Capitol Corridor and AMTRAK service will serve
primarily those commuters who live or work close to those rail stations in West County or live
or work close to the Martinez station. In addition, BART service between the two parts of the
county are not direct and require transfers at the MacArthur Station in Oakland.
Operation. Signal synchronization along the four-lane sections of San Pablo
Dam koad cculd improve flow through the more developed parts of that roadway. The shuttle
bus service mentioned under the 1-80 corridor could also encourage some commuters to shift
from Highway 4 or Sar Pablo Dam Road to transit.
3.4 I-S80 Corridor (John T. Knox Freeway)
CAccess � -Fhe ��.r+5it .depe.^clw+f�Pv�a�n+� is 2n i ss�G�
The recently-completed John T. Knox Freeway in West County replaces several
surface streets as the link between Marin County and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge and
Contra Costa County. Before the construction of this freeway link (it is part of I-580), trips
from Marin County connected with West Contra Costa and the rest of the county along Cutting
Boulevard and Carlson Boulevard (going east and south) and Castro Street, Garrard Boulevard,
Rumrill Boulevard and others (going to the east and north).
The new I-580 link significantly expanded the capacity of the corridor for trips
between I-80 and the west, both within West County and across San Francisco Bay to Marin
Country. Compared with other corridors, levels of service on the freeway are good and
expected to remain so at least until 2010. Some congestion occurs, however, where I-580
merges with congested I-80. The completion of the new Richmond Parkway will also add
significant capacity to the commute north from the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.
This commute is also served (at least for part of its length)by BART.
Commuters from Marin and parts of Richmond who might drive along 1-580 could instead take
BART from the Richmond Station.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Demand and Supply. Although significant increases in demand are forecast
within the corridor, capacity increases made (I-580) or being made (the Richmond Parkway)
. �:... 8 October 26, 1993
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issues
First Draft
will limit congestion on both the freeways and surface streets. Back-ups, however, are
expected during the a.m. peak period where I-580 merges with I-80. Modelling suggests that
by 2000 traffic will back-up three mites on I-580 during the a.m. commute and will back-up
four miles (to Harbor Boulevard) by 2010.
Operation. 1-580 incorporates HOV lanes in both directions. Actions to
encourage greater use of these facilities could help maintain capacity in the corridor. These
could include the creation of Park-and-Ride lots in Marin County and the extension of the HOV
lanes across the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge 4P%A expb►•,nt•,g-rt,e, I+v,jn fe-e 4i►t. oprr4o+ o
c� +�N& HHV lav%a,
3.5 Benicia-Martinez Bridge
The Benicia-Martinez Bridge is the main gateway into Central Contra Costa
County from the north along 1-680. It was built following World War 11 to replace the ferry
between Martinez and Benicia. It carries both major commute traffic to and from the growing
suburban areas of Solano County and significant state and national trucking traffic from
Benicia, Sacramento and the east. (The Carquinez Bridge carries truck traffic primarily headed
toward the central areas of San Francisco while the Benicia-Martinez Bridge carries more truck
traffic headed for Central County, the Tri-Valley and San Josd.)
The bridge itself is made up of one six-lane structure. Caltrans is designing a
new structure to be built east of the existing one. As with other bridges in the Bay Area, the
Benicia-Martinet Bridge has a toll plaza and, like the Carquinez Bridge, the toll plaza is located
in the eastbound direction, on the northside of the bridge itself.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Demand. Solan County is forecast to add both jobs and employed residents at
a faster rate than any other county in the Bay Area. Although it will add jobs at a faster rate
than employed residents between 1990 and 2010, the county will still add more workers than
jobs. With a one employed residents for every 0.8 jobs, at least one of every five workers in
the county will have to commute out for work. The growth of housing in Solano County will
be accompanied by job growth in Central County and areas to the south (especially in the Tri-
Valley) and west that will likely be the location of work for many of these workers.
Information suggests that average daily volumes will increase on the bridge by about 45 percent
between 1990 and 2010.
9 October 26, 1993
1 '
Issues Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Fast Drag
1is 10 no+ Ga,^5i5��- ►����
4k'k currQv►f Cal a,�„S
Proposal
Supply. Bridges are one of the most expensive transportation facilities to build
and to maintain. Without increases in their capacity, however, they can become significant
'bottlenecks"on the regional transportation system. The Benicia-Martinez Bridge is currently
at capacity during peak commute hours and Caltrans is planning to construct a new eastern
span. With the new eastern span, there could be as many as five lanes in each direction.
Caltrans, however, is continuing to study the lane configuration and the potential incorporation
of HOV and transit facilities. This proposed expansion in capacity could make the bridge
adequate for forecast demands at least until 2010. In the longer term, however,jurisdictions in
Contra Costa County are concerned that the design of the new bridge should accommodate both
single-occupant vehicles and other modes of travel. These could include HOV lanes and mom
for transit, whether bus or rail.--m fog b;cYcle&as well a ,
sa. "This k#b been, resolved i., 4i+,a currevit C�I�►ahs
proposal)
Currently, congestion at the I-80/1-680 interchange in Cordelia "meters" trips a
into Contra Costa County during the a.m. peak period. ' , o
s
sttHIEF law of tZ N s t 1
iae:ehange.) Completion of planned improvements there will move the congestion to the south ar ja-
of the bridge, which already has substantial congestion during peak periods. One potential - d
mitigating action would be to put HOV lanes into place south of the bridge before the
construction of the,bridge itself. This action would provide additional capacity to deal with the ' pv it 5
vehicles and congestion shifted to the south by the completion of the I-8011-680 interchange. 4 o
3
Operation. Decisions on the capacity of the bridge and the incorporation of d�
operational approaches are intertwined. The existing congestion on the bridge serves as a o- o
"meter" on I-680 and helps limit congestion to the south. This metering effect would remain -if c
the new span were not built.
If the new span is built, Central Contra Costa jurisdictions are looking for other t° s
metering measures. One of the most controversial measures is the location of the toll plaza. R
Caltrans has indicated that moving the toll plaza to the southbound direction on the north side �- H
of the bridge would have unacceptable impacts on operations. Likewise, a location on the '5_ 0
c
south side of the bridge in the southbound direction would have unacceptable safety impacts. o
O
lbey suggest locating it on the northbound direction at the south end of the bridge.
►{ +kt +ell plata 'ts no♦ oPera�d a+ Poh 1L4pdei+,r CQW4 f-'_9
Contra Costa jurisdictions note at locating the toll plaza there 4quldlead to _I-
backups
Sbackups on I-680 past its intersection with SR , creating significant congestion on several S
roadways. They favor the northside location which, as with the Carquinez Bridge, would also
meter trips into Contra Costa County. The implementation of automatic vehicle identification
y' u
.s�os►t �:...i.e 10 October 26, 1993 -1 S `�
t
1
0
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issues
First Draft
(AVI) could reduce the metering effect that current manual toll taking would have. One
alternative would be to install metering lights .40 .11"11164 4�t f/o car
e4- {rtwc, nom' itnt s�aJ•r�� iAKo'i 1,tv a14-rV%0�VE is +0 lw��llwC,�f'
ik+{e�yics J'1,s+- rldife vf— job 5row4A^ "w% sojih of +he 6f19t r_ nor4H of 'FH�C. br !d 2
3.6 1-680 Corridor from Benicia-Martinez Bridge to n�W �,ua hem
Rudgear Road
This corridor carries some of tate highest volumes within the county. Only '
Highway 24 (at the Caldecott Tunnel) and I-80 have higher volumes. I-680 is the main
roadway in the corridor, connecting Central County with Solano County and 1-80 to the north
and Alameda and Santa Clara Counties to the south. At its northern end, I-680 links trips to
and from Solano County, East County and West County. At the southern end, it links with
routes carrying trips west on Highway 24 to Alameda County and San Francisco and further
south on I-680 to the Tri-Valley and Santa Clara. I-680 is three-to four-lane freeway through
this segment with no HOV lanes or ramp metering. Existing average daily traffic volumes
range from 95,000 north of Highway 4 to 215,000 between Monument and Contra Costa
Boulevards.
The older roadways that I-680 replaced — Contra Costa Boulevard, Main
Street and Danville Boulevard — remain in place but carry significantly lower commute
volumes. The roadways 'run within no more than several hundred feet of I-680 and cross it
twice in Walnut Creek. In addition to these parallel routes, there are other alternatives such as
Pleasant Hill Road and Alhambra Avenue which commuters to tate west can use instead of
I-680.
The Concord BART line provides another commute method from Central
County to the west. This BART line starts in Concord with stops at Pleasant Hill and Walnut
Creek before turning west. BART is currently extending the Concord line to West Pittsburg
along the Highway 4 right-0f--way with an intervening station at North Concord.
znd (Mo l octl ; ,Y,ds weer, used -b ccos4ror+ Z•4000)
State 4 federal aM W'V governments responded to the growth of housing and
jobs to the east of the East Bay Hills after World War II by establishing I-680 as an alternative
to I-80 and 1480 along San Francisco Bay. This freeway supported the growth of the north-
south commuting to and through Central County.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Demand. Central Contra Costa County is the most populous and job-rich area
in the county. This concentration of jobs and housing makes it one of the main destinations
11 October 26, 1993
J.
Issues Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Fust Draft
and origins of trips in the county. After World War II, Concord, Pleasant Hill,Walnut Creek
and the other cities of Central County grew as residential suburbs for San Francisco and
Oakland. More recently, they have added considerable employment while still retaining its
"bedroom community" role. The BART line serves these commutes between Central County
and the west. Many of the new jobs were filled by new residents who lived to the east in
Antioch and Pittsburg and to the north in Solano County, which placed additional demands on
I-680. In addition, significant job growth in the Tri-Valley increased the demands on 1-680 by
trips through Central County.
The growth of jobs in Central County and the Tri-Valley will require new
housing. Some of this new housing'will occur in these two areas. Much of it, however, is
expected to be built in East County and Solano County and commuters from these areas will
increase demands on I-680. In addition, Alameda, Santa Clara and San Francisco will continue
to draw commuters who will use the.I-680 corridor.
Supply. Caltrans is constructing a new interchange between 1-680 and
Highway 24. This work, which will remove a significant bottleneck along I-690, will include
expanding the freeway to ten lanes (plus auxiliary lanes) between Highways 24 and 242. 4 we
of oboe.-e lones would Nholy "we as es. This project would also improve or revise
interchanges both to the north and south. A later project would add HOV lanes to I-680
between SR 242 and.the Benicia-Martinez Bridge. NOV lanes or T-(oBC� ,so944% vtP-W4
in ve'Aer Cir►S4rvC+;0ve j
The existing urban development along I-680 itself will limit further expansion
of capacity to that roadway. Local jurisdictions have discussed the development of the Contra
Costa Commuterway —bus/van commute lanes connecting the residential areas of East and
Central County with job centers in Central County and the Tri-Valley. This commuterway, as
described in Measure C, would use the rights-of-way of I-680 and Highways 4 and 242. The
commuterway is still being better defined.
The extension of BART to East County can take some trips off I-680 and limit
the impacts of housing growth there, although growth in automobile trips will remain
significant. Some discussion of constructing a new light rail line from Central County (perhaps
from Martinez) south to the Tri-Valley along the corridor has occurred. Significant questions
about funding, demand, alignment and environmental impacts (especially noise impacts on
adjoining residents) need to be answered before such a project could go forward.
Operation. This section of I-80 does not now have HOV lanes or ramp
metering although these operational improvements have been discussed. Caltrans has plans for
them. TRANSPAC proposes and the CMP contains a project that would involve restripping
e �wr.� 12 October 26, 1993
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issues
First Draft
lanes and adding a structure to add HOV lanes between the Benicia-Martina Bridge and
Highway 242. The lack of vacant land along the freeway limits the ability to expand the right-
of-way to add any additional lanes, whether HOV or mixed-flow.
acco.v,n^c86j., +r+orE. fk+�'c 4h +fie. 4ae')6'1 4hih vrdat forges}�1 0ve-Aelot-gn eo�diiien5
As Caltrans modifies interchanges, h is adding the hardware necessary to
operate ramp metering, even though this equipment will not be turned on until local
jurisdictions concur. While in general ramp metering can flow and yde 1"S
it can also worsen traffic flow on local streets by creating eesgestiva at
ramp intersections and diverting trips onto parallel arterial street. (The CMP legislation does,
however, exempt traffic problems caused by ramp metering.) Amore definitive Eandwill
ent o
ramp metering on I-680 and parallel streets will require additional studies of the lar
conditions in the corridor. Caltrans is planning ramp metering in Solano County addthe hardware as part of any interchange improvements in Contra Costa County.
CNojr I; v+�eA-t'"Cl
-kaNr- 44,ah
3.7 I-680 Corridor from Rudgear Road to I-S80
This section of I-680 connects trips coming from Central County (and East
County and Solano County) to job centers in San Ramon and further south in the Tri-Valley.
The commute along this section of I-680 is highly directional with the commute from the north
to jobs in the south dominating. The job centers of Central County (and Alameda County, to a
lesser extent) also draw significant traffic in the opposite direction. This northward commute is
forecast to grow faster than the southbound commute with a shift in peak direction to the
northward, Central County expected by 2010. Danville Boulevard, a mostly two-lane roadway,
parallels I-680. D4,,villt, Blvd cwe4iAA% so-All 0"'Ik S&,., Ra.",e,r► S Sa,., 14"P, Blvd
2 Vxt V k l eS ;my^ 4 WO4-0 *601, 1 b vies,
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Demand. Forecast growth of housing and jobs in the county and surrounding
areas will generate substantial numbers of new trips on 1-680. This increased demand will
exceed the capacity of the freeway even with improvements under construction or planned for
the freeway. Despite planned housing growth in the Tri-Valley, the expansion of job centers
such as Bishop Ranch in San Ramon and Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton will draw
commuters from East County, Solano County and other parts the Bay Area south along I490.
If no alternative routes are available for those trips, many of these commuters will use 1-680.
Supply. Some of the worst congestion is expected on the peak direction near
Alamo and Danville during both peak periods.
The expansion of Vasco Road or the construction of some,?dw
13 October 26, 1993
Issues Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
First Draft
e between East County and job centers in the Tri-Valle ra
could potentially
reduce congestion in the peak period. IfttrevtA vilt e�- 41%c k0V me, w i�-ti express bus
Seevice. iS c4v%U4 NN r- PA-m-k;ol S'D)V-P M.
Operation. The construction of HOV lanes south to Alcosta Boulevard in San
Ramon and auxiliary lanes from Diablo Boulevard to Bollinger Canyon Road are planned for
I-680. Beyond these projects, there are no plans for additional operational improvements to
I-680. Ramp metering could be considered as a way to smooth out the flow on the freeway.
As discussed for other corridors, besides these positive effects Fo
traffic flow on the freeways,
ramp metering can inhibit traffic movement on surface streets, ating problems for local
governments.
dp2ci� dh�
3.8 Route 24 and the Caldecott Tunnel
Highway 24, which connects Central and East County with Alameda County
and San Francisco, carries some of the heaviest volumes in the county. More trips pass
through the Caldecott Tunnel than any other road at the county line. The commute from
Central County and the Lamorinda cities on this corridor is one of the first suburban commutes
in Contra Costa County and remains one of the most significant despite the growth in
importance of I-680. The continued concentration of jobs in Alameda County and San
Francisco ensure that this commute will remain important.
The transportation facilities in the corridor consist primarily of Highway 24 and
BART. No single roadway runs the length of the freeway corridor although roads like Olympic
Boulevard and Mount Diablo Boulevard run along parts of Highway 24. BART, however,
provides an alternative to the freeway. The Concord line now running in the median of the
freeway is being extended to West Pittsburg which could serve
additional trips that would otherwise take Highway 24.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Demand. Although job growth in Central County and the Tri-Valley will not
generate new trips in the peak direction in the corridor, the combination of continued job
growth in Alameda County and San Francisco and housing growth in Central and East County
will. Traffic demand modelling suggests that traffic along Highway 24 will grow about 12
percent between 1990 and 2010. Although this growth rate is relatively small compared to
growth rates in other corridors, it translates into the need for another half lane of freeway
capacity. C'Ibis modelling assumes some increases in BART capacity.)
�r.,.e►,os�r...r.a 14 October 26, 1993
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issues
First Draft
Supply. Any increase in roadway capacity in the Highway 24 corridor will be
constrained by the most significant bottleneck there: the Caldecon Tunnel. Currently, the
o mel is made up of three "bores" each of which contains two lanes. The middle bore is
operated as a set of reversible lanes that shift with shifts in the peak direction. While there has
been talk of adding a fourth bore, its cost is prohibitive. Adding lanes on Highway 24 without
adding the fourth bore will only shift the congestion to the tunnel more quickly.
Operation. Both HOV lanes and ramp metering could improve traffic flow in
the morning on the freeway. Currently, there is some "casual carpooling" along the corridor
to take advantage of HOV lanes at the Bay Bridge toll plaza. In the past, Caltrans has
proposed adding an HOV lane in the shoulder of Highway 24 westbound.
Ramp metering would be tied both to flows along the freeway and the back-up
at the tunnel. With the completion of the improvements to the I-680/SR 24 interchange, a
major point of congestion and "metering measure" will be removed. When that happens, ramp
metering may need to be extended further up I-680 and perhaps SR 242 and SR 4 to maintain
flows through the tunnel.
3.9 East-Central Commute — highway 4 and other routes
One of the fastest growing commutes in the Bay Area is from East Contra
Costa County across the Diablo Range into and through Central County. The primary route in
this commute is Highway 4, a freeway from Antioch across Willow Pass and a two-lane
highway from San Joaquin County through Brentwood. In addition to Highway 4, commuters
also use Bailey Road (which connects with Clayton Road), Kirker Pass Road (which connects
with Ygnacio Valley Road) and Clayton Road to get to and through Central County. Transit is
Currently limited to buses although BART is extending the Concord line to West Pittsburg. In
addition, commuter rail service to Brentwood using existing rail lines is being discussed as
either a short-or long-term addition to the corridor's facilities.
t.ev►h� J,he siw� �L �Re�}e,4" e„ i5C
4 a 1Pa5g The most controversial facilities in East County are (a bypass
to Highway 4 from Antioch pass Brentwood), the East County Corridor which would include
to I-580 in the Tri-Valley, and the Mid-State Toll Road, a
aparate facility that would run from Highway 4 to I-680 near Sunol. These facilities would
significantly increase transportation capacity in East County. To achieve the planned and
approved development in East County some additional capacity will be needed.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
15 October 26, 1993
luau Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
First Draft
Demand. Although the jurisdictions in East County plan for significant job
growth, significantly more housing growth is forecast. The area already contains substantially
more houses than jobs with the result that many workers commute to jobs outside of East
County. Many of these jobs are located in Central County, the Tri-Valley, other parts of
Alameda County and even Santa Clara and San Francisco. The recently-adopted Brentwood
General Plan would allow a five-fold increase to about 60,000 persons over the next 20 years.
The City of Antioch has approved development agreements and tentative maps for around
12,000 new housing units. Proposed development in unincorporated Contra Costa County
such as the Cowell Ranch would add more development, both jobs and housing. East County
jurisdictions have relied oni nal transportation improvement in their planning and these
improvement will be ed to support forecast development.
Supply. Several major capacity-improving projects are planned in East County.
These include the widening of Highway 4 through Antioch and Pittsburg and the extension of
BART to Bailey and Railroad Avenues. Additional capacity is necessary, however, to serve
forecast development. The development of even a relatively small portion of planned housing
v and jobs would increase congestion problems on Highway 4.
A
The primary commute path now follows the location of the most capacity, along
eo Highway 4 over Willow Pass with some diversion onto Bailey Road and Kirker Pass. The
dition of transportation capacity in the southeastern Antioch and Brentwood area —such as
the y — would follow that commute path since it would feed trips from
Antioch, Brentwood and Oakley onto the freeway. (Other planned roadway improvements such
as the Buchanan Bypass and the Leland Extension would add capacity parallel to Highway 4.
p The Buchanan Bypass could encourage the growth of trips across Kirker Pass Road onto
N Ygnacio Valley Road in Concord and Walnut Creek.)
A significant number of trips from East County have their destination at jobs
In the Tri-Valley. Although Vasco Road provides a direct route, it capacity is low.
Alternative routes would take most of these trips through Central County on their way to the
TriValley. The addition of capacity in the East County Corridor has been discussed for many
years as a way of serving planned development in East County while limiting its impacts on
roadways in Central County. These improvement in capacity in the East County Corridor,
however, are controversial. (See below.)
The development of transit facilities such as BART to Antioch or commuter rail
to Brentwood could meet some of this increased demand. Much of the planned land uses in
East County, as in other areas, are designed around the automobile making transit less able to
meet the demands of all the trips that this development would generate.
16 October 26, 1993
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issues
First Draft
One supply issue for transit is whether commuter rail is a short-term solution
while funds are collected for extending BART to Antioch or a longer-term solution that would
remain in service to Brentwood even as BART was extended.
Operation. One of the main measures being considered to improve supply in
this corridor through operations is the Contra Costa Commuterway. This system of HOV and
bus lanes (as described in Measure C)would run from Highway 4 in Fast County along
Highway 242 and I-680 to the Tri-Valley. HOV lanes on Highway 4 are part of the planned
expansions for that roadway. There are operational problems for adding HOV lanes on
Highway 242 that must be addressed before the eommuterway can be developed along that
stretch. Reversible lanes on Highway 242 are possible but will require additional study. As
Mod above, adding HOV lanes to I-680 would require right-of-way expansions (an approach
favored by Caltrans but limited by adjoining development) or restripping (an approach
advocated by some but not favored by Caltrans). Improving HOV capacity on the freeways is
one of the tenets of the TRANSPAC approach to transportation problems in Central County.
To maintain levels of service on both local streets in Central County and main
freeway connections,TRANSPAC is investigating traffic management systems that would deal
with commuter trips from East County. Ramp metering is one method along Highway 4 as a
coordinated system that includes I-680, Highway 24 and Highway 242. TRANSPAC is also
looking at traffic management systems on Kirker Pass and Bailey Roads where they enter
Central County. This approach would combine metering as the trips entered Central County
with traffic signal optimization to minimize trip lengths once vehicles got onto local streets.
3.10 East County Corridor including Vasco Road and
Byron Highway
As noted above, many trips from East County are destined for jobs in the Tri-
Valley. Currently, the only direct route is on Vasco Road, a two-lane country road across the
Diablo Range. Although this road will be relocated as part of the construction of the Los
Vaqueros Reservoir,its capacity will not be increased. With planned and approved housing
growth in East County and jobs in the Tri-Valley, the demand for a direct route will grow.
Byron Highway provides a direct route to the east but that would require commuters to cross
Altamont Pass. I-580 (as noted below) is currently experiencing congestion along several
segments and will remain so with housing growth in Tracy, Mountain House and other
developing areas of San Joaquin County. Altamont Pass on I-580 will also remain congested,
discouraging diversion onto Byron Highway for trips from East County.
17 October 26, 1993
Issues Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
First Draft
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Demand. Basically, as with many other corridors, trips forecast by the travel
demand models are much more than the capacity of Vasco Road. East County is one of the
only parts of the Bay Area where reasonably affordable housing is planned and supported
making transportation improvements necessary. If transportation improvements in this corridor
or the East-Central Commute corridor are not possible, it would discourage this planned
development (especially with local growth management programs and Measure C and CMP
requirements in place). Growth would likely shift to the Central Valley where I-580 is already
at capacity with little relief planned.:
In addition, with the congestion (and weigh stations)on I-580, trucks are more
frequently diverting onto Byron Highway and Highway 4. This diversion makes the Delta
Expressway necessary to keep trucks out of central Brentwood. It also will increase congestion
through Antioch and Pittsburg as well as points further west.
Supply. A group of East County jurisdictions is exploring the effects of
constructing the East County Corridor. (An EIR is expected soon. This EIR will evaluate the
effects of the East County Corridor program as well.as the project-level effects of the Dem Z S b
Expressway.) The East County Corridor, as analyzed in the EIR, would include a'llWfoot
right-of-way that would accommodate up to an eight-lane limited access roadway. It could also
accommodate rail transit in the median. .
This roadway (and the toll road proposed by the Mid-State Toll Road) are
extremely controversial. Environmental groups and agencies are concerned that the
development of this corridor would spur additional land use development in East County
beyond that already planned with attendant conversion of prime, unique and important farmland
and wildlife habitat.
Operation. No operational improvements have been discussed as part of the
roadway although the location of interchanges could affect the capacity and flow of traffic on
the roadway.
3.11 I-580-Altamont Pass Commute
As noted above, the Altamont Pass and I-580 corridor serve trips from the
Central Valley and trips through the Tri-Valley. The growth of jobs in the Bay Area and
especially Pleasanton, San Ramon and Livermore in the Tri-Valley have encouraged housing
etpniu... 18 October 26, 1993
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issues
First Draft
growth in Tracy and other parts of San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties. The primary roadway
serving this commute is I-580 over Altamont Pass.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Demand. The Central Valley towns along I-580 have seen considerable
growth as people move to find affordable housing outside the Bay Area. With only limited
opportunities for housing development and significant employment growth in the rest of the Bay
Area, this housing growth is expected to continue. While San Joaquin County is studying
renewed rail service between there and the Tri-Valley and Santa Clara County, I-580 will
remain the main route for these commuters. In addition, as noted above, congestion on I-580
is being diverted to Byron Highway and Highway 4.
Supply and Operation. The extension of BART into the Tri-Valley area will
encourage commuters into the East Bay and San Francisco areas to shift onto rail transit for at
least part of their trip. The further extension of BART to Livermore could make this shift even
more attractive to commuters. It would not, however, address congestion problems on I-580 at
Altamont Pass.
The steepness of Altamont Pass limits expansion as well as limited funds. Rail
service between the Central Valley and the Tri-Valley and East and South Bays is one potential
solution. Low densities for both jobs and housing will likely translate into low transit
ridership, however. Increased parking costs, gas taxes and other penalties for driving could
encourage ridership but are difficult to implement.
A -01 o,wr:806AW 19 October 26, 1993
fives Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
First Draft
20 October 26, 1993
l
4 SUMMARY OF ACTION PLANS
The following chapter summarizes the recommendations of the Action Plans for
Routes of Regional Significance. The Action Plans are being prepared for designated Routes of
Regional Significance within each of five sub-areas of the county. Like the CCTP, the Action
Plans will establish Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs)and actions intended to meet those TSOs
within the county sub-area. Action Plans are being prepared for West County, East County,
Central County, the Lamorinda communities, and the Tri-Valley area (m conjunction with
several jurisdictions in Alameda County).
Each section below will describe the Regional Routes addressed in the Action
Plans, the TSOs established for those Regional Routes and the actions recommended to achieve
those TSOs. Since the Action Plans are in various stages of their preparation, this version of
tine CCTP will summarize the current status of the Action Plans. This summary of Action Plan
status will describe the status of both the modelling for the Action Plans and the Action Plans
themselves.
4.1 West County — WCCTAC
Modelling. Consultants for the WCCTAC have completed the traffic demand
modelling for the West County Action Plan and have prepared supporting documentation for it.
Action Plan. WCCTAC staff has prepared a preliminary draft Action Plan that
recommends TSOs and actions for each of the designated Regional Routes in the sub-area.
WCCTAC staff is taking the preliminary draft Action Plan to city councils in West County.
Staff will add more detail to the list of actions and projects in October. This additional
information, which responds to comments from WCCTAC members, will include more
information on projects ('including costs), revised notification procedures for project and
General Plan Amendment review, and additional scenarios for addressing level of service or
TSO problems on intersections where currant actions do not suffice.
The focus of the West County Action Plan, however, has shifted to the I-80
corridor. WCCTAC has begun a multi jurisdictional effort to resolve issues and develop
actions for the corridor. Their first step is a recommended set of guiding principles for this
effort. These guiding principles for the I-80 corridor include:
1 October 26, 1993
r,
,f
-rr.
Action Plans Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
First Draft
► Viewing the 1-80 Corridor as multi-modal transportation system vital to the
movement of goods and people in the region.
► Investment in the corridor should balance regional and local mobility with
environmental, geographic equity and economic objectives.
► Investments should be strategically aimed at the overall improvement of
performance in the corridor.
► The improvements should discourage singl"ccupant vehicles and diversion of
through traffic onto local streets.
► Constraints in the corridor limit options to bus, rail and ferry service; HOV
lanes; and safety improvements.
This planning effort will involve jurisdictions in Contra Costa, Alameda and
Solano Counties as well as transit providers, the Greater East Day Rail Opportunities Coalition,
Caltrans and MTC.
4.2 Central County — TRANSPAC
Modelling. Consultants working with TRANSPAC have completed the traffic
demand model and have prepared draft final documentation describing it. Because it is the
central model of the four traffic demand models used, the Central-Lamorinda model will be
used in the preparation of both the Central County Action Plan and the CCTP.
Action Plan. The Action Plan consultants are redoing the baseline forecasts for
the Action Plan using the newly completed traffic demand model. They have also prepared
lists of potential actions for the Action Plan that TRANSPAC could choose from. TRANSPAC
has reviewed these actions once, the subgommittee on actions has reviewed them twice and
TRANSPAC has reviewed them again. Generally, they eliminated actions that would be
difficult for them to implement or that would require others for implementation (although the
Action Plan could include those actions as recommendations for other agencies).
TRANSPAC has also adopted three "tenets"on which they will bund the
Action Plan. These three tenets are to:
2 October 26, 1993
r(
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Action Plans
First Draft
1 To improve freeway corridors and transit facilities for through traffic to limit
diversion of these trips onto local meets and arterials; these improvements
could include HOV lanes on Central County freeways and other projects that
support an HOV system that connects the East, Central and Tri-Valley areas of
the county;
2 Establish a traffic management and signal synchronization plan within Central
County; and
3 Develop effective transit where financially feasible to alleviate demand on the
road network.
TRANSPAC held a countywide workshop on the Action Plans on September
23, 1993. At this workshop, they presented their three tenets, reviewed the status of the
Central County Action Plan and discussed issues of mobility on arterials with a panel of
experts.
4.3 Fast County — TRANSPLAN
Modelling. The modelling consultant is revising the traffic demand model to
respond to comments from MTC.
Action Plan. The TRANSPLAN TAC and consultant will test three packages
of actions that they are now putting together. They are also working on a regional development
fee proposal that would help fund transportation improvements in East County.
TRANSPLAN in June, 1993 again gave their support to the draft TSOs. For
exatnple, they want to keep the proposed TSO of a peak hour of 2.25 hours on SR 4 in
Pittsburg and Antioch even though the modelling of future conditions shows a violation of this
TSO.
4.4 - Lamorinda
Modelling. The Lamorinda Action Plan will rely on the Cenral/Lamorinda
traffic demand model. As noted above, consultants working with TRANSPAC have completed
the traffic demand model and have prepared draft final documentation describing it.
3 October 26, 1993
e
,1
Action Plans Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
First Draft
Action Plan. Because State Route 24 is the main Regional Route within the
Lamorimb area, the Action Plan will focus on that route. Consultants have prepared a list of
potential TSOs and actions for State Route 24 for the Lamorinda Project Management
Committee to review. (In addition, San Pablo Dam Road from Bear Creek Road to West
County has been designated a Regional Route. TSOs and actions will be added for that route
as well.)
4.5 Tri-Valley — TVTC
Modelling. Consultants have completed the preparation of the Tri-Valley
traffic demand model and have prepared the supported documentation.
Action Plan. To move the Action Plan along, the consultants have prepared
four alternative programs of actions. Each alternative emphasizes a "theme" such as improved
transit or growth management. Specifically, these alternatives are:
Emphasis Description
1 Road Improvements 10 lanes on 1-S80. Route 84Nasco Road as 6-lane freeway.
Interchange improvements. 8 lanes an 1480 south of Route 84.
Required 1.3S AVR for large employers. Set LOS F standard for
some freeway segments. Assumes forecast 2010 Ind use.
2 Transit Improvements Extensive express bus service. Substantial density increases near transit
codes. HOV lanes on 1-680. Some reduced growth by 2010. Relaxed
LOS standards on freeways. Required 1AS AVR for large employers.
3 Policy Options Improve arterial system but act freeways. Additional trunk line transit
service. Relaxed LOS standards on all roadways. Substantial TDM
measures including mandatory trip reductions.
4 Growth Management hwrease density near transit nodes. Overall, decrease to one-half of
forecast development by 2010. Growth options include allowing ady
1)approved GPAs.2)a proportion for each jurisdiction band an
percentage of expected growth,or 3)growth that can be served by
available infrastructure.
4 October 26, 1993
c
1
Contra Coca Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Action Plans
Fast Draft
Both the TAC and the Tri-Valley Council have reviewed these four alternatives
and the alternatives described above reflect their comments. On September 30, 1993,the Tri-
Valley will be holding their quarterly meeting with all elected officials in the Tri-Valley. At
this meeting, staff and the consultant will present the four alternatives to get a broader review.
Following this presentation and comment from those attending, City staff will take the
alternatives (with any revisions)to each of the City Councils and both County Boards in the
Tri-Valley. This more detailed review will occur in October. The consultant will then begin
preparing the draft Tri-Valley Action Plan based on any comments received and technical
analyses.
eyania�ro�w. 5 October 26, 1993
T
4
Action Plant Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
First Draft
6 October 26, 1993