HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10191993 - H.7 f f• 7
f - Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON °°T; --;;''
County
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: October 19, 1993
SUBJECT: Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Development Workshop
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION($) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Define the preferred alternative to be used by the Tri-Valley
Transportation Council for the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS'
The Tri-Valley Transportation Council !(TVTC) , consisting of elected
members of jurisdictions in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, has
been involved in transportation planning efforts in developing a
comprehensive Transportation Plan in the Tri-Valley Area. These
planning efforts involved computer modelling of future land uses
and roadway network based on jurisdictional General Plans.
The modelling results have yielded the conclusion that, with year
2010 land use and road improvement assumptions, most of the
regional arterial road facilities will function below the desired
levels of service (LOS) standards.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON October 19, 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER XX
CONTINUED to October 26, 1993, at 2:15 p.m. the workshop on selecting a preferred
alternative for the Tri Valley Transportation -Council Action Plan/Transportation Plan.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I, IV 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: Daniel Pulon (510/646-2378) ATTESTED Oct. 19, 1993
CC: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
DP\: �,,0 it V--i6os BY fD• DEPUTY
The Transportation Plan will consist comprehensively of area strategies focusing
specifically on future transportation conditions. To assist in the development
of those strategies the TVTC has requested that its members and Planning
Commissions provide jurisdictional preference of transportation strategies for
the TVTC to pursue from the matrix of potential alternatives (Attachment "A") ,
or from their own developed transportation strategies not in the matrix.
All alternatives would be financially constrained to existing revenue mechanisms
or revenues from the proposed regional transportation impact fee (developer
fee) . Each alternative is described according to how it would vary from the
"Expected" land use and road network (see Attachment "B") scenario, which is a
reflection of the existing plans and policies of the participating
jurisdictions. .
The following is a brief narrative description of the four alternatives, with
reference to relevant County Plans and policies:
ALTERNATIVE 1
Emphasize Road Improvements: Major road improvements appear to be among the
most effective strategies to achieve Level of Service (LOS) standards. However,
additional freeway lanes are viewed by the Air District as inconsistent with
efforts to improve air quality. This alternative reflects a continuation of the
development pattern that has occurred in the San Ramon Valley since the 19601s.
The Route 84/Vasco Road expressway assumes some financial participation from
jurisdictions in eastern Contra Costa County. Vasco Road expansion is
consistent with our General Plan which includes the East County Transportation
Corridor. Without this improvement, the bottleneck on Vasco Road will
significantly worsen by 2010.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Emphasize Transit Improvements: Major transit improvements can help achieve
Transportation Demand Management goals (increased average vehicle ridership) ,
but at the price of increased congestion (reduced LOS) . Future development will
be steered away from some areas poorly served by transit and concentrated at
other locations well served by transit. Densities will need to be at least
fifteen units/acre and eight units/acre to support rail and bus transit,
respectively, compared to the average density of five units/acre planned for the
Dougherty Valley Specific Plan area. Financial constraints will prevent
extension of BART beyond the Eastern Dublin station currently under
construction, or the extension of a fixed-guideway transit facility through the
Dougherty Valley. Most transit improvements will consist of high frequency
trunk-line bus service.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Emphasize Policy Options: Local land use policies would be emphasized at the
expense of LOS standards under this alternative. Aside from some enhancements
to roads and transit service, traffic growth would be addressed through vigorous
implementation of TDM strategies by all employers to significantly increase
average vehicle ridership. Measure C-1988 allows for such flexibility in LOS
standards through the Regional Route category, where policies other than LOS
standards, such as Transportation Service Objectives (see Attachment "C") can
be used to manage traffic in major arterial roads and freeways. This alternative
recognizes the difficulty at meeting the proposed LOS E standard for the
freeways, State Road 84, and Vasco Road by 2010.
ALTERNATIVE 4
Emphasize Growth Management: Local land use plans would be constrained
significantly below the development levels "expected" by Year 2010 in order to
achieve .LOS standards. Some of the permitted development would be intensified
adjacent to major transit stations. The technique used in our General Plan's
Growth Management Element to ensure compliance with LOS standards is to permit
development only in those areas where adequate infrastructure can be
demonstrated. The definition of "adequate infrastructure" on Regional Routes
is being developed as part of the Measure C-1988 Action Plans, based on the
draft Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs) .
The TVTC will test only one of the selected alternatives to develop the Tri-
Valley Transportation Plan.
WORKSHOP TRANSPORTATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT
At this Workshop, staff will briefly review the purpose of the Tri-Valley
Transportation Plan and information the TVTC has prepared on each plan
alternative. County Transportation Planning Division staff will facilitate the
discussion on the evaluation of each alternative.
. Staff will request, as a workshop activity, that each Member of the Board
prioritize the matrix transportation alternatives aspects (enclosed) by circling
each as: high, medium, low, or none (to be dropped from further consideration) .
After each Board Member has completed this task, staff will combine everyone's
selection to assist the Board to formulate a Transportation Plan Recommendation
to the TVTC.
A caveat: some elements of alternatives may be contradictive when combined or
discounted with other elements, such as:
• Emphasizing Road Improvements with a significant amount of
Transit improvements (too costly and additional road capacity
undercuts transit ridership) ; and
• Emphasizing transit improvements without higher land use
densities, or reductions in LOS standards.
In the end of this process, the Members of the Board will have selected for TVTC
Recommendation:
• one of the alternatives;
• a blending of alternative elements (to formulate one) ; or
• an unlisted alternative transportation strategy.
— ` m O
a � 3 -� pm c m
W� c � c3 ..
C Q to O ? tin < N o, N N N
C a tD
(D p
jp Z H N Z O o D
J n A N O O lD:N j
eco m � � m mQW.
o Popo �cv �-► 0
m cD' CD OL m cD
�, . . ry n
_o CD
N�: N z > > z A z Z O
<' C
': �.tn x Z
o o 0 oaN o o:� CD 3
� N m m : ; m am d x o 0
D.N. ' N. O.m m y Cl. CD 7
m e r CD
r 3: rv �
°: a 'a _ Qom
N •<: O Li. : <D N O N �
. ' m: O:n
.7 c x C1
A ID `� .O m.. x Z H`c •x7 �D Z
O .a O O CD
O N �`� O
ep 0
O 3 PCD
c p :� y gyp- CD
ailim
.O+ O O N r 61 Ot z
: Z
Q'QCD
A n c<D l •w x Z o x fn �< x �+ Z
S: N. O m>. N O N O o (D
n, cD O
00 � .. 3 � � a
3,;? p O A O c0.;y O m e
A
A.� 3 � 3CDm
0N :r
..V:
: r o�
:� CD
aOC
�..'X O 2 x Z N p Z r � z O
J • . �• • .;
n ~
G1 T++ N N S
• M
oci.:.a..j. o N.. o a m o T:>> 0 7J
N z p< cD 3m 3 fM D
moo ? m m � m 3 ' gym � n
a w o ^v y am
m r a r r N -. t" 0) o.
x a < y
3 ''° z H z N z v m zrzx
n n b O o n u u u
c m -► � 3
o c x Z m x D x � x� to — o
ch toG
to y z� m CD ;� a
O W y a G y CD 0 n O
m tG r r 7o N r7] c d H. I- n
O 'v CD �-1 `C r0'S t+
p
7
Z Z z Z r`C
a JJ
r�
a �
9
r y
r �
L d
his �e+
t/!
s
Y
r� r >
8 b
FtD
df �
Q�
a �
sm-1,*RD �►
�r K
YS 1
Q1 sUNCt. yYN
St ♦f`� .Y
�OCD
AD V
14 Ia.
°°no
tjKQ
} q R N�AMiLP` OD/
CP O MgR.`ri
♦Y"'�Y�� a r
0
7�(l
Mb ot
N CP
�ry rt N
� r r
15
s
Q �
Attachment C
BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
E22 Ea^.=". ay•BerKe ey.CaMcma 9-:7-0 USA•t5101548-7340•Fax_:='r)5484946
Awrovoof �
MEMORANDUM Q3�ZL��t3
TO: Tri-Valley Transportation Council
'FROM: Gary Black .,IV
DATE: March 16, 1993
SUBJECT: Potential Transportation Service Objectives (TSOs)
Part of the Action Plan scope of work for the CCTA portion of our Transportation Plan
Involves the definition of TSOs. Irrespective of the requirement, it is a good idea to define
what we are trying to accomplish when we develop and evaluate plan alternatives. The
following is a list of suggested TSOs. These represent operational goals that we will try to
achieve in developing the plan. One or more will be applied to each regional route. Different
routes may have different TSOs depending on whether or not they are in a transit corridor
and depending on the level of congestion we are willing to accept. These TSOs are a
starting point and may be modified as we complete the Transportation Plan.
Recommended TSOs
1. Link Levels of Service (LOS) — LOS no worse than E (V/C = 0.99) on freeways and
ramps during the peak hours. This represents a very busy condition, but speeds would still
be near the limit. Also, the busy period would last for only about one hour. V/C ratios higher
than 1.0 would represent peak spreading. For arterials, we recommend a LOS standard of D
on a link basis. These will also be subject to an intersection LOS standard.
Z. Intersection LOS — LOS no worse than D for signalized intersections during peak
hours. The recommended methodology is the VCCC program, which is based on critical
movement analysis, with adjustments to raw model output turning movements.
3. Altamont Pass — No greater than 8,000 vehicles per hour, per direction. This
represents the current capacity of the pass. Widening of 1-580 to allow more vehicles over
the pass would cause the Tri-Valley area to be negatively affected by regional traffic.
4. Vehicle/Employee Ratio — We should strive to reduce the number of vehicles used for
commute trips. This has air quality as well as traffic benefits. The Vehicle/Employee Ratio
(VER)is a measure recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Their
recommended goal is VER` '= 0.71 for the Tri-Valley by 1999. The current VER is about 0.87.
93.7.0051.651
�. PARSONS
Tri-Valley Transportation Council
March 12, 1993
Page 2
5. Mode Split — We should also specify a mode split goal of increased transit ridership.
The VER can be calculated only region-wide, whereas mode split can be calculated for
specific routes or corridors. The 2010 baseline mode split is about 2.5% transit for commute
trips.
6. Transit Travel Times -To encourage transit ridership, we may include a TSO dealing
with transit travel times. Transit travel times must be competitive with auto travel times in
order to attract riders. Transit travel time may be reduced through the provision of more
service, more express service versus local service, with high-occupancy vehicle lanes, or with
ramp metering and HOV bypass.
1 .7.0051.651