Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11081994 - TC.1 Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa g FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEES Count} DATE: November 71 1994 SUBJECT: Report on the' Actions Plans for Routes of Regional Significance and the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt resolutions acknowledging the position of the Board of Supervisors on all draft Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance and the authorize the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to transmit a letter to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority describing the Board's concerns on the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (see Exhibits A through F) . FISCAL IMPACT Action Plans, when adopted, will establish additional requirements for the County to satisfy in order to receive it' s share of the Measure C-1988 return-to-source revenues, which amount to approximately $1.4 million annually. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Transportation Committee provides this report to inform the Board of Supervisors of the status of the "Circulation Draft" Action Plans prepared by the various Regional Transportation Planning Committees. See Exhibit G for a summary of issues for each Action Plan. Also provided for the Board's information is the Committee's comments on the Issues and Options paper prepared which will be discussed at the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (Authority's) November 18 workshop on the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CCTP) . A draft version of the Issues and Options paper is included as Exhibit H. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER A7 SIGNATURE(S) : ay Bishop Tom Torlakso ACTION OF BOARD ON NoVEffiFer 6 , T994 APPROVED AS RECO,1�I ENDED OTHER APPROVED the recommendations as presented above; DESIGNA ED Supervisor DeSaulnier to attend the transportation workshop on November 18 , 1994 . Vote: ayes : 1 , 2 ,3 ,4 , 5 ; noes : (none) AUTHORIZED the inclusion of the East County corridor in the East County Action Plan with the development of a mechanism to determine what the corridor will be composed of. (Vote : ayes : 1 , 2 ,4 , 3 ; noes : none ; abstain: 3) VOTE OF SUPERVISORS (see above) 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: Steven Goetz, CDD, 646-2134 November 8 1994 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED , cc: GMEDA PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works Department THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CCTA (via CDD) AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY Q, 2L DEPUTY Report on Actions Plans and the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 7, 1994 Page Two BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION (continued, The Board should be aware that the Action Plans will not be presented to the Board of supervisors and the affected jurisdictions for adoption. Each Regional Transportation Planning Committee (Regional Committee) , will adopt the Action Plans and transmit them to the Authority. Each jurisdiction' s representative on the Regional Committee will vote on behalf of their jurisdiction to approve the Action Plan. Adoption of Action Plans require unanimous approval of the representatives of the affected jurisdictions. Central County Action Plan (TRANSPAC) The Resolution in Exhibit A acknowledges the Board's willingness to comply with the following actions as conditions for receiving Measure C-1988 return-to-source funds: - In conjunction with other Central County jurisdictions, implement a signal metering and synchronization system to discourage use of arterial routes as bypass routes for freeways; - In conjunction with other Central County jurisdictions, consider the needs of non-motorized modes of transportation in the construction and maintenance of roadways and seek funding for planned bicycle facilities; - Implement the TDM ordinance; and - Assess if projects generating 100 peak hour trips violate any Action Plan tenet or objective, and report to TRANSPAC on such assessments if projects generate 500 peak hour trips. Resolution A further requests that the Action Plan acknowledge the following facts: - Specific actions to meter signals on Central County arterials are subject to further study and unanimous agreement by the affected jurisdictions prior to implementation; and - The ability of existing General Plans to meet the Action Plan's TSO's must be evaluated if compliance with the TSO's is to be mandated. East County Action Plan (TRANSPLAN) The resolution in Exhibit B acknowledges the Board's willingness to comply with the following actions as conditions for receiving Measure C-1988 return-to-source funds: - In conjunction with others: a) upgrade Route 4 to a full freeway with HOV lanes and a median for BART, b) construct, extend, or widen various arterials, and c) construct the East County Corridor between Brentwood and Livermore; - Report to the TRANSPLAN Committee the mitigation measures adopted for any land use approval that impacts a Regional Route; - Adopt the East County Regional Transportation Impact Fee to fund the Route 4 freeway upgrades, the Route 4 Bypass, and the Buchanan Bypass; - Construct specified intersection improvements to Regional Routes if freeway upgrades are delayed; - In conjunction with others, implement a freeway and arterial traffic management strategy; - Implement the TDM ordinance; and - In conjunction with others, explore commuter rail service to East County. Tri Valley Action Plan (Tri Valley Transportation Council) The resolution in Exhibit C acknowledges the Board' s willingness implement the following action in order to receive Measure C-1988 return-to-source funds: Report on Actions Plans and the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 7, 1994 Page Three BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION (continued) - Manage growth in the Dougherty Valley and construct road improvements as specified in the Settlement Agreement. The resolution further expresses the Board's desire for this Action Plan to acknowledge the following principles: - Any regional traffic impact fee for the Tri Valley area must provide benefits proportion to fees paid by new development in Contra Costa and require Alameda and San Joaquin counties to contribute their fare share for mitigating the impacts of growth on Regional Routes in the Tri Valley; - Compliance with TSO's cannot be mandated for those intersections where TSO's violations are predicted by the Action Plan; and - Any pro-active growth and congestion management strategy to address TSO violations cannot preempt local land use decisions, require local jurisdictions to accept unwanted construction projects or accept programs that create a fundamental conflict with the community's socioeconomic or environmental character. Lamorinda Action Plan The resolution in Exhibit D acknowledges the Board's willingness to comply with the following action as a condition for receiving Measure C-1988 return-to-source funds: - Work with the CHP to deter speeding on San Pablo Dam Road. The resolution further expresses the Board's desire for this Action Plan to include the following action for the Caldecott Tunnel: - Request the OCTA to sponsor a cooperative, multi-jurisdictional planning effort to evaluate the ability to provide priority treatment for High- Occupancy Vehicles at the approach to the Caldecott Tunnel in conjunction with other strategies to improve BART service along the State Route 24 corridor. West County (WCCTAC) Action Plan The resolution in Exhibit E acknowledges the Board's willingness to comply with the following actions as conditions for receiving Measure C-1988 return-to source funds: - Seek funding to study options for maintaining level of service on San Pablo Dam Road at Appian Way and review the feasibility of current improvement plans; - Determine current truck volumes on San Pablo Avenue in Rodeo; and - Pursue funding for improvements to Cummings Skyway. The resolution further expresses the Board's desire for the next Action Plan update to: - Determine if the proposed Actions will meet the TSO's in the E1 Sobrante area assuming the growth allowed by existing General Plans; and - Encourage an agreement between the County and Richmond to coordinate the funding and construction of road projects on Regional Routes in the E1 Sobrante area. Implications of the Action Plan Process on General Plan Policies The Authority adopted Growth Management Implementation Documents in December 1990 to guide the process for preparing Action Plans. These guidelines require Regional Committees to review major General Plan amendments for consistency with the Action Plans. The Implementation Documents mandate the following standards to demonstrate a general plan amendment's consistency with an Action Plan. Report on Actions Plans and the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 7, 1994 Page Four BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION (continued) The locality considering the amendment will have to either: a) Demonstrate that the amendment will not violate Action Plan policies or the ability to meet Action Plan Traffic Service Objectives; or b) propose modifications to the Action Plan that will prevent the General Plan amendment from adversely affecting the regional transportation network. Most of the Action Plans do not include information on the ability of existing general plans to meet TSO's. Consequently, a locality proposing a general plan amendment may find that an Action Plan' s TSOs can not be meet even without the general plan amendment. In order to stay in compliance with Measure C-1988, that locality must either deny. the general plan amendment or get the unanimous approval of the Regional Committee to change the Action Plan. This is a significant delegation of local land use authority that can not be fully understood unless each Action Plan demonstrates that existing general plans are consistent with its TSO' s. The Authority should consider revising its Implementation Guidelines to remove the mandate that all general plan amendments must comply with Action Plan TSO's in cases where Action Plans cannot demonstrate such compliance for existing General Plans. The resolution in Exhibit F will request the Authority to make such a change in the Implementation Documents. Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan The Authority's Planning and Governmental Affairs Committee has prepared an "Issues and Options" paper for discussion at the November 18 workshop of on the Plan. The most significant issues were evaluated by the Transportation Committee. A summary of the Committee's evaluation appears in bold face text following the description of each option. Deciding How Current Issues of Conflict are to be Resolved The following fundamental conflicts exists within or between sub-regions in Contra costa over growth and regional routes. To the extent possible, these conflicts need to be resolved to shape the direction of transportation and land use planning to 2010. - Conflicts between East County and Alameda County over planning for the East County Corridor. - Conflicts between Danville and the County over requirements that might be imposed on proposed development in the Tassajara Valley to mitigate impacts on Regional Routes in Danville. - Conflicts between East County and Central County over facilitating regional traffic on Kirker Pass/Ygnacio Valley Road. Option 1: The Authority could resolve these conflicts by deciding which projects to include and which to excluded from the Plan, and provide a specific direction for Danville and the County to resolve their disputes on Actions for Regional Routes. This option is inconsistent with the "bottoms-up" planning process embraced by Measure C-1988. It involves the Authority making a decision that overrides a Regional Committee, it could preempt local land use decisions, it could require a jurisdiction to accept an unwanted construction project, and it could be viewed by a local jurisdiction as creating a fundamental conflict with it's socioeconomic or environmental character. Option 2 : The Authority could request that the parties involved in such disputes form small negotiating teams and attempt to come to a resolution within a specified time frame. A final conflict resolution process could also be spelled out. This options appears consistent with the "bottoms-up" planning process and is something the Authority has done concerning Measure C-1988 compliance issues. The Transportation Committee .supports this option. Option 3 : The Authority could accept some issues as being irreconcilable at this time, and leave them to address in the future. Failure of the Authority to take some action to resolve a conflict could result in a "de-facto" decision that conflicts with the "bottoms-up" process by overriding a decision of a Regional Committee, preempting local land use decisions, requiring a jurisdiction to accept an unwanted construction project, or be viewed by a local jurisdiction as creating a fundamental conflict with it's socioeconomic or environmental character. Report on Actions Plans and the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 7, 1994 Page Five BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION (continued) Overall Unifying Vision for Contra Costa, 2010. What is the overall unifying vision for Contra Costa that will guide transportation decisions during the next 20 years in a way that supports other goals that are important to Contra Costa jurisdictions? Option 1: Strongly encourage development that is transit or HOV lane oriented, such as around the existing or planned BART stations, and/or along current and planned HOV lane corridors including I-80, I-680, and the future Route 4 East HOV lanes to Railroad Avenue. A transit-oriented development pattern would make more efficient use of the transportation investments but could be inconsistent with the land use plans for jurisdictions adjacent to BART stations (e.g. Lafayette, Orinda, and Walnut Creek) or jurisdictions far removed from major transit investments (e.g. Brentwood, Southeastern Antioch, and unincorporated Far East County) . Option 2 : In an effort to diminish forecast traffic problems, strongly encourage new development areas to; include a better jobs-housing balance, perhaps through balanced incremental commercial/housing development requirements; develop and promote policies to reduce out-commuting from Contra Costa to other counties; and reduce long-distance commuting within the County, for example by promoting more affordable housing near major employment centers. Promoting growth that balances jobs with housing would require improving Route 4 and the East County Corridor to make East County attractive to major employers. Policies to reduce out-commuting would not support BART extensions since BART serves long-distance commutes to job centers in Oakland and San Francisco, and would not support construction of the East County Corridor (conflicting with the objective to promote job growth in East County) . Promoting affordable housing near major employment centers may conflict with land use policies in Walnut Creek. Option 3 : Seek additional funding for capital improvements, and additional funding for transit operations, in order to provide both more facilities and more extensive transit opportunities within Contra Costa. Seeking additional funding for capital improvements would be consistent with the land use plans for jurisdictions that require significant capital investments to accommodate planned growth. Seeking additional funding for transit operations would be consistent with all jurisdictions goals to promote transit use. Option 4 : Promote geographic equity in the allocation of transportation revenues. Geographic equity has not been the basis for past transportation investments in Contra Costa. Since the1970's, virtually all state and federal transportation revenues have been allocated to West and Central County, far in excess of their share of the total County population. After completion of the projects included in the 1994 Regional Transportation Plan, the remaining unfunded project include completion of Route 4 West at $55 million, completion of Route 4 East at $250 million, construction ofi, the East County Corridor at about $400 million. These needs could not be met if funds were allocated based on geographic equity. The Transportation Committee selected a modified version of Option 3 for the Board to consider as the preferred vision for ;the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Preferred Option: Seek additional funding for capital improvements, and additional funding for transit operations, in order to provide more extensive transit opportunities within Contra Costa, and work with local jurisdictions and representatives of the business community to identify transportation investment priorities that will promote economic growth, improve access to affordable housing and reduce traffic congestion. The Transportation Committee recommends the Board send a letter to the Authority describing the Board's comments on the Issues and Options for the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and also describe the Board's position on three controversial County projects included in the Plan, the Diamond Boulevard Extension, the Southern Pacific Arterial, and the East County Corridor. A draft letter for the Board's consideration in included as Exhibit F. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on November 8 , 1994 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. 94/570 SUBJECT: Acknowledgement of the County's willingness) to implement certain actions pursuant to ) to Central County Action Plan as a ) condition for receiving Measure C-1988 ) Return Ito-Source funds. ) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVE: WHEREAS, the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program requires all Contra Costa jurisdictions to participate in the preparation of Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance (Action Plans) to determine the appropriate measures and programs for mitigation of regional traffic impacts WHEREAS, the County has participated with other jurisdictions on the TRANSPAC Committee to develop an Action Plan for Regional Routes in Central County; WHEREAS, the County's good faith efforts to implement specified actions in, the Action Plan will be a condition for receiving Measure C-1988 return-to-source funds. NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby acknowledge it's willingness to implement the following actions in Central County as a condition for receiving Measure C- 1988 return-to-source funds: 1. In conjunction with other Central County jurisdictions, implement a signal metering and synchronization system to discourage :use of arterial routes as bypass routes for freeways; 2 . In conjunction with other Central County jurisdictions, consider the needs of non-motorized modes of transportation in the construction and maintenance of roadways and seek funding for planned bicycle facilities; 3 . Implement the County's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance; and 4 . Assess if projects generating 100 peak hour trips violate any Action Plan tenet or objective, and report to TRANSPAC on such assessments if projects generate 500 peak hour trips. The Board of Supervisors . further acknowledges its understanding that the following facts must be considered in determining a jurisdiction's compliance with the Action Plan: 1. That specific actions to meter signals on Central County arterials are subject to further study and unanimous agreement by the affected jurisdictions prior to implementation; and 2 . That the ability of existing General Plans to meet the Action Plan's Traffic Service Objectives must be evaluated if compliance with the Traffic Service Objectives is to be mandated. RESOLUTION NO. 94/570 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors of the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed on this 8th day of November 1994 . Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator by: �' 0. D puty Clerk transpac. l Orig.Dept. :CDD/TP RESOLUTION NO. 94/570 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on November 8 , 1994 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop , DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. 94/571 SUBJECT: Acknowledgement of the County's willingness) to implement certain actions pursuant to ) to East County Action Plan as a condition ) for receiving Measure C-1988 Return-to- ) Source funds. ) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVE: WHEREAS, the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program requires all Contra Costa jurisdictions to participate in the preparation of Action Plans forRoutes of Regional Significance (Action Plans) to determine the appropriate measures and programs for mitigation of regional traffic impacts WHEREAS, the County has participated with other jurisdictions on the TRANSPLAN; Committee to develop an Action Plan for Regional Routes in East County; WHEREAS, the County's good faith efforts to implement specified actions in the Action Plan will be a condition for receiving Measure C-1988 return-to-source funds. NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby acknowledge it's willingness to implement the following actions in East County as a condition for receiving Measure C-1988 return-to-source : funds: 1. Take actions in conjunction with others to: a) upgrade State Route 4 to a full freeway with High Occupancy Vehicle lanes and a median for BART, b) construct, extend, or widen various arterials, and c) construct the East County Corridor between Brentwood and Livermore; 2 . Report to the TRANSPLAN Committee the mitigation measures adopted for any major land use approval that impacts a Regional Route; 3 . Adopt the East County Regional Transportation Impact Fee to fund the State Route 4 freeway upgrades, the State Route 4 Bypass, and , the Buchanan Bypass; 4 . Construct specified intersection improvements to Regional Routes if freeway upgrades are delayed; 5. In conjunction with others, implement a freeway and arterial traffic management strategy; 6. Implement the County's Transportation Demand Management ordinance; and 7. In conjunction with others, explore commuter rail service to East County: RESOLUTION NO. 94/571 I I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors of the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed on this 8th day ofNovember 01 1994. Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator by: g 69. _ eputy Clerk transplan. l Orig.Dept. :CDD/TP RESOLUTION NO. 94/571 E, h h t �= THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this order on November 8 , 1994 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. 94/572 SUBJECT: Acknowledgement of the County's willingness ) to implement certain actions pursuant to ) to the Tri Valley Action Plan as a condition) for receiving Measure C-1988 Return-to- ) Source funds. ) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVE: WHEREAS, the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program requires all Contra Costa jurisdictions to participate in the preparation of Action Plans for 'Routes of Regional Significance (Action Plans) to determine the appropriate measures and programs for mitigation of regional traffic impacts WHEREAS, the County has participated with other jurisdictions on the Tri Valley Transportation Council to develop an Action Plan for Regional Routes in the Tri Valley area; WHEREAS, the County's good faith efforts to implement specified actions in the Action Plan will be a condition for receiving Measure C-1988 return-to-source funds. NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby acknowledge it's willingness to implement the following actions in the Tri Valley area of Contra Costa as a condition for receiving Measure C-1988 return-to-source funds: - Manage growth in the Dougherty Valley and construct road improvements as specified in the Settlement Agreement; and The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby express it' s desire for ' this Action Plan to acknowledge the following principles: 1. Any regional traffic impact fee for the Tri Valley area must provide benefits in proportion to fees paid by new development in Contra Costa and require Alameda and San Joaquin counties to contribute their fare share for mitigating the impacts of growth on Regional Routes in the Tri Valley; 2 . Compliance with Traffic Service Objectives (TSO's) cannot be mandated for those intersections where TSO's violations are predicted by the Action Plan; and 3 . Any pro-active growth and congestion management strategy to address TSO violations cannot preempt local land use decisions, require local jurisdictions to accept unwanted construction projects or accept programs that create a fundamental conflict with the community's socioeconomic or environmental character. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors of the date aforesaid. RESOLUTION NO. 94/572 i Witness my hand and Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed on this 8th day of November , 1994 . Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator by: a- D puty Clerk tvtcplan.res Orig.Dept. :CDD/TP RESOLUTION NO. 94/572 i i i E�hLh +t THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on November 8 , 1994 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. 94/573 SUBJECT: Acknowledgement of the County's willingness) to implement certain actions pursuant to ) the Lamorinda Action Plan as a condition ) for receiving Measure C-1988 Return-to- ) Source funds. ) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVE: WHEREAS, the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program requires all Contra Costa jurisdictions to participate in the preparation of Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance (Action Plans) to determine the appropriate measures and programs for mitigation of regional traffic impacts WHEREAS, the County has participated with other jurisdictions on the Lamorinda Project Management Team to develop an Action Plan for Regional Routes in the Lamorinda area; WHEREAS, the County's good faith efforts to implement specified actions in the Action Plan will be a condition for receiving Measure C-1988 return-to-source funds. NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby acknowledge it's willingness to implement the following action in the Lamorinda area of Contra Costa as a condition for receiving Measure C-1988 return-to-source funds: - Work with the California Highway Patrol to deter speeding on San Pablo Dam Road. NOW THEREFORE, The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa also requests the Lamorinda Project Management Team to consider including the following action in the Action Plan for the Caldecott Tunnel: - Request the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to sponsor a cooperative, multi-jurisdictional planning effort to evaluate the ability to provide priority treatment for High- Occupancy Vehicles at the approach to the Caldecott Tunnel in conjunction with other strategies to improve BART service along the State Route 24 corridor. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors of the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed on this 8th day of November 1994. Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator by: 0 — De uty Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 94 573 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on November 8 , 1994 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. 94/574 SUBJECT: Acknowledgement of the County's willingness) to implement certain actions pursuant to ) the West County Action Plan as a condition ) for receiving Measure C-1988 Return-to- ) Source funds. ) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVE: WHEREAS, the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program requires all Contra Costa jurisdictions to participate in the preparation of Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance (Action Plans) to determine the appropriate measures and programs for mitigation of regional traffic impacts WHEREAS, the County has participated with other jurisdictions on the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) to develop an Action Plan for Regional Routes in West County; WHEREAS, the County's good faith efforts to implement specified actions in the Action Plan will be a condition for receiving Measure C-1988 return-to-source funds. NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby acknowledge it's willingness to implement the following actions in West County as a condition for receiving Measure C-1988 return-to-source funds: 1. Seek funding to study options for maintaining level of service on San Pablo, Dam Road at Appian Way and review the feasibility of current improvement plans; 2 . Determine truck volumes on San Pablo Avenue in Rodeo; and 3 . Pursue funding for improvements to Cummings Skyway. The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa county does hereby express its support for the next Action Plan update to: - Determine if the proposed Actions will meet the TSO's in the E1 Sobrante area assuming the growth allowed by existing General Plans; and - Encourage an agreement between the County and Richmond to coordinate the funding and construction of road projects on Regional Routes in the El Sobrante area. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors of the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed on this 8th day of November , 1994. Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator by: Q (� De uty Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 94/ 574 Phil The Board of Supervisors Contra Clerk ooffthe Board and County Administration BuildingCj Costa county Administrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (510)646-2371 Martinez,California 94553-1293 County Tom Powers,1 st District s ...t Jeff Smith,2nd District Gayle Bishop,3rd District .s� . Mark DeSauinier,4th District November 8, 1994 J< r Tom Torlakson,5th District T��"�"- sracoii;ct` Mr. Joel Keller, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Dear Chai er: The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors offers the following comments on the Action Plan process and the Authority's Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan that should be considered in conjunction with other comments received at the November 18 workshop on the Countywide Plan. Implications of the Action Plan Process on General Plans The County has participated in the preparation of all five Action Plans in Contra Costa and has found that most of the Action Plans do not include information on the ability of existing general plans to meet Traffic Service Objectives (TSO) . Consequently, a locality proposing a general plan amendment may find that an Action Plan's TSOs can not be meet even without adopting the general plan amendment. According to the Authority's Growth Management Implementation Documents, that locality must either deny the general plan amendment or get the unanimous approval of the Regional Committee to change the Action Plan in order to comply with Measure C-1988. This is a significant delegation of local land use authority that can not be fully understood unless each Action Plan demonstrates that existing general plans are consistent with its TSO's. The Authority should consider revising its Implementation Documents to remove the mandate that all general plan amendments must comply with Action Plan TSO's in cases where Action Plans cannot demonstrate such compliance for existing General Plans. Projects to Include in the Plan The Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan includes several controversial projects in the unincorporated area, the Diamond Boulevard extension, the Southern Pacific arterial, and the East County Corridor. The Board does not propose any specific date for implementation of the Diamond Boulevard and Southern Pacific arterial projects but they are included in the County's General Plan. Any action to deleted these projects from the Countywide Plan should be a result of action by the sponsoring agency and the affected Regional Committee, consistent with the bottom's-up planning process. It would not be appropriate for the Authority Mr. Keller November 8, 1994 Page Two to take such an action prior to decisions at the local level to remove such projects from long-range plans. The Board of Supervisor's support including the East County Corridor in the Plan. It is included in the County's General Plan and TRANPLAN's draft Action Plan. As a participating member of the Tri Valley Transportation Council, the Board has proposed an acknowledgement of the need to plan for additional capacity between East County and Alameda County in the Tri Valley Action Plan. If a conflict exists between two regions, the Authority should not take sides but should facilitate resolution of this conflict as part of the Countywide Plan. Deciding How Issues of Conflict are to be Resolved The Authority has outlined three issues of conflict for discussion at the November 18 workshop. The County is involved directly or indirectly in all three conflicts. The Board of Supervisors would support the Authority requesting that the parties involved in such disputes form small negotiating teams and attempt to come to a resolution within a specified time frame. A final conflict resolution process could also be spelled out. This option appears consistent with the "bottoms-up" planning process and is something the Authority has done concerning Measure C-1988 compliance issues. Overall Unifying Vision for Contra Costa. 2010 The Board believes that adoption of an overall unifying vision for the Countywide Plan is crucial if our future transportation investments are to support other long range goals of Contra Costa jurisdictions. The Board proposes the following vision as one that could be adopted now and be refined during the update of the next Plan as discussion on Countywide priorities continues. Seek additional funding for capital improvements, and additional funding for transit operations, in order to provide more extensive transit opportunities within Contra Costa, and work with local jurisdictions and representatives of the business community to identify transportation investment priorities that will promote economic growth, improve access to affordable housing and reduce traffic congestion. Thank you for considering these comments in your deliberations on the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. CSi , Tom Powers, Chair Board of Supervisors TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -=_ Contra FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE P , Costa DATE: October 24 1994 County SUBJECT: REPORT ON EVALUATION OF THE TRI VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ACTION PLAN SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the recommended changes to the ..Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (Circulation Draft) , as indicated on the attached Exhibit A. FISCAL IMPACT Without the recommended changes to the Action Plan, the County's Measure C-1988 return-to-source funds could be withheld, which amounts to approximately $1.4 million annually. BACKGROUND/REASON FCR RECOMMENDATIONS In June 21 1994, the Board of Supervisors received a report on the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (Action Plan) and requested the Transportation Committee to evaluate the Action Plan and provide the Board with any recommended changes to the Action Plan so that the Board can consider the matter and provide the Board' s representative to the Tri Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) with what .the Board is prepared to consent to have included in the Action Plan. This report responds to the Board' s request by evaluating the Circulation Draft of the Action Plan prepared in August 1994 . The Circulation Draft is .referenced as Exhibit B on file in the Community Development Department. The text changes proposed in Exhibit A are explained in the remainder of this report according to the issue the text changes address. Numbers are assigned to the text changes in Exhibit A to correspond with the numbers assigned to the issues in this report. Text changes that are not numbered are for editorial purposes. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURE _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S) : Gayle Bishop Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON November 19 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER APPROVED recommended changes to the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan as presented with the understanding that Issues No. 2 and No. 5 will be subsequently expanded. (Ayes: Supervisors Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Powers; Noes: Supervisor Smith) APPROVED additional language to Issue No. 2 to state that Contra Costa County will not impose a Regional Transportation Fee until Alameda and San Joaquin counties agree to impose a Regional Transportation Fee that is fair; APPROVED position as stated on Issue No. 5 to include the goals language to also be referenced in the Executive Summary and also in the goals of Chapter 3 of the Report to insure clarity. (Ayes: Supervisors Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Powers; Noes: Supervisor Bishop) VOTE OF SUPERVISORS (See Above for vote) 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. Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED November 1, 1994 Contact Person: Daniel Pulon, 646-2378 PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF cc: TVTC (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Public Works CCTA (via CDD) BY �. !� . �r� Lo , DEPUTY Report on the Circulation Draft of the Tri Valley Action Plan October 24, 1994 Page Two BACKGROUND/REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued) Issue No. 1: Establishment of Gateways to Constrain Traffic Growth: Issue No. 2 : Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program Issue No. 3 : Clarifying Actions that Determine Compliance with Measure C: Issue No. 4 : The Development Review Procedures Issue No. 5: Inability to Meet Traffic Service Objectives Issue No. 6: Procedures for Decision Making and Conflict Resolution Issue No. 1: Establishment of Gateways to Constrain Traffic Growth: The Action Plan establishes Tri Valley Gateways that would preclude widening of roadways connecting the Tri Valley to. other regions but would support projects that could accommodate transit and ridesharing. Vasco Road.. had been identified as a gateway facility; however, traffic in this corridor is changing from rural intercounty travel to a major commute corridor. The potential for capacity improvements should not be precluded by the Gateway designation. There are some General Plan inconsistencies regarding this facility between Contra Costa County and Alameda County that needs resolution in adequately linking East Contra Costa County housing to Alameda County jobs. Resolution of this issue is not just between Alameda County jurisdictions, but involves Contra Costa jurisdictions too. The Action Plan must also emphasize coordination of constraints to roadway capacity with: 1) efforts to provide viable transit and ridesharing options at these gateways and 2) actions that ensure job growth in the Tri Valley is matched by additional housing opportunities in the Tri Valley to avoid the need to import workers from eastern Contra Costa or the Central Valley. Issue No. 2 : Regional Transportation Impact Fee The Action Plan identified several under-funded and unfunded road improvements in the Tri-Valley area for implementation by the year 2010 and proposed development of a Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program to generate supplemental revenues from future development in the Tri Valley. The TVTC must resolve a number of issues before such a fee is implemented. The Transportation Committee has added some additional issues for the TVTC to consider as discussion of this concept continues. Issue No. 3 : Clarifying Actions that Determine Compliance with Measure C• Actions are recommended for facilities in Alameda County (I-580, I-680, Vasco Road, and State Route 84) that obligate all TVTC jurisdictions to secure funding for upgrading these facilities. These additional actions might compel Contra Costa jurisdictions to seek state and federal funds for Alameda County projects which would conflict with other funding priorities in Contra Costa. Any additional actions to seek funding beyond the Regional Transportation Impact Fee program should be handled by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency to avoid conflicts with funding priority in Contra Costa. Action Plans for Camino Tassajara and Crow Canyon' Road facilities have the Town of Danville's and Contra Costa County's versions of the Recommended Actions. Having two different versions of Recommended Actions for these facilities is confusing and unreflective of cooperative multi-jurisdictional planning. The Transportation Plan should only have one Action Plan for each of these facilities to avoid any semblance of un-cooperation among participating TVTC jurisdictions. The County' s wording reflects the Board' s Resolution 94-387 (follows page 168 in Exhibit B) and the Board Order of June 21, 1994 which declared the Board's understanding that the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement only applies to development in the Dougherty; Valley Specific Plan area. The Board will need to re-evaluate those actions if different wording is desired. The Action Plan declares an intent to pursue a "pro-active growth and congestion management strategy" that addresses Level of Service violations (including those forecasted on Camino Tassajara and Crow Canyon Road) , and suggests that this strategy could include tying land use approvals to a jurisdiction's ability to meet TSO' s. Resolution of the actions for Regional Routes shared by Danville and the County might be resolved by cooperatively developing procedures for this strategy. The County has previously agreed in-concept to consider pro-active land use and growth management, provided that all Tri-Valley jurisdictions agree to participate proportionately. Report on the Circulation Draft of the Tri Valley Action Plan October 24, 1994 Page Three BACKGROUND/REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued) The Plan includes procedures that obligate all TVTC jurisdictions to incorporate various elements of the Action Plan into their general plan. This obligation triggers concerns about environmental review for such General Plan amendments and coordinating policies for single subject plans with comprehensive plans that address multiple objectives and concerns. TVTC jurisdictions should be obligated to review their General Plans for any inconsistencies with the Action Plans but not require incorporation of the Action Plan's recommendations in General Plans. Contra Costa's Growth Management Element requires development applications to be consistent with actions expressed in relevant Action Plans. Further specificity may not be necessary. Issue No. 4 : The Development Review Procedures Review requirements for development applications and environmental impact report must not be so specific or limited as to preclude independent judgement in the evaluation of projects as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. The gateway constraint concept is a relatively new approach in transportation planning analysis for the Tri-Valley area. For it ' to become a viable transportation planning methodology in the Tri-Valley, all TVTC participating jurisdictions should use the Gateway Constrained methodology. for conducting traffic analysis Issue No. 5: Inability to Meet Traffic Service Objectives The Action Plan has indicated, even with the implementation of the expected land use and network assumptions, eleven road facilities would not meet Traffic Service Objectives (TSO) . The Action Plan may be internally inconsistent since it has not demonstrated TSO compliance with those facilities for year 2010. A possible solution for this situation is an Action Plan policy change: from making compliance with TSO's a mandatory requirement to making TSO compliance a goal to achieve at the specified intersections. Issue No. 6: Procedures for Decision Making and Conflict Resolution The Growth Management Implementation Documents, published by the Transportation Authority, extends the availability a Conflict Resolution mechanism to jurisdictions experiencing jurisdictional conflicts regarding Action Plan policy formulation and implementation responsibly. Integrating this mechanism into the Action Plan may facilitate TVTC policy formulation and implementation. ZZBIBIT A Goals and Transportation Service Objectives • Placing conditions on project approvals consistent with Action Plan policies (ag., requiring payment of fees or participation in the TSMITDM program). • Circulation of environmental documents as specified in Action Plans. • Submission to Regional Committee of proposed revisions)to Action Plan to mitigate impacts associated with proposed General Plan amendments. General Plan amendments that would reduce the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans may lead to a determination of non-compliance if the Action Plan cannot be revised with the approval of the Regional Committee and the CCTA. • Participation in Regional Mitigation Programs developed by the CCTA- Preliminary ISOs were presented to the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC)in February 1993. After discussion and subsequent modification, the TSOs were approved by the TVTC in March 1993. The following list presents the approved TSOs. One or more will be applied to each regional route, different routes may have different TSOs. r Link Levels of Service (LOS). LOS no worse than E.(V/C = 0.99)on freeways and ramps during the peak hours based on traffic counts. This represents a very busy condition, with speeds about 35 mph on freeways. This standard is sometimes not met � under today's traffic conditions. For freeways, this corresponds to the existing CMP standards. For arterials, the LOS standard is D on a link basis. These are also subject to an intersection LOS standard. Hours of Congestion. LOS E conditions on I-580 for no more than two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon, except over Altamont Pass, where no TSO has been adopted. LOS E on I-680 for no more than four hour in the morning and four hours in the evening. Given the gateway constraints discussed in Chapter 5, this is the best the plan can achieve. o Service. LOS no worse than D (VIC = 0.90)for signalized Intersection Levels f 6� intersections during peak hours. The methodology is the VCCC program, which is based on critical movement analysis, with adjustments to raw model output turning movements. This is the standard to which all Tri-Valley jurisdictions presently adhere. Under current conditions, only three of the study intersections violate this standard. Tri-Valley Gateways. I-580, 1-680, and Crow Canyon Road (Castro Valley to San Ramon) and ----'. No increase incapacity for single- occupant passenger vehicles. Widening of gateways would cause the Tri-Valley area to be negatively affected by interregional traffic. (See Chapter 7 for a complete discussion of this issue.) Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR). On average, reduce the number of vehicles used for commute trips. This has air quality as well as traffic benefits. The Average Vehicle Ridership is a measure recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Their recommended goal is AVR = 1.35 for large employers in the Tri-Valley by 1999. The current AVR is about 1.15. The transportation service objective is to increase the overall AVR for all employers, large and small, by 10 percent. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 39 Expected Forecasts Gateway Constraints The TVTC recognizes that the gateways act as constraint points regulating flow into and out of the area Thus, the demand volumes will never actually be reached. Based an their bability to get through the gateways, motorists will adjust their schedules to !ravel outside the peak hour or to carpool or use transit. This adjustment in 'travel schedules,which could be reinforced with ramp metering, will be most obvious on the feways and at interchanges. At intersections farther from the freeway,we can be Jess certain about adjustments to travel behavior. Motorists may adjust their sched- ules,or they may continue to travel during the peak hour but to a different destina- tion,or other peak-hour trips may occur to replace the trips displaced by freeway congestion. Nevertheless, the plan is based on a Tri-Valley Model run in which the overcapacity gateway trips have been removed from the assigned traffic volumes. This Is a major assamptian. TVTC has agreed to treat the Altamont Pass, Crow Canyon Road to Castro Valley,Dublin Grade, Sunol Grade,and I-680 aorth as physical gateways. It is unrealistic to plan local transportation fatalities to accommodate all peak-hour traffic projected to flow through state highway gateways if this traffic in actuality cannot get through the gateways. Constrained as well as unconstrained traffic volumes have been developed for the TSri-Valley network. The constrained traffic volumes back down the assigned traffic volumes in proportion to the origins and destinations of the total gateway traffic.PM peak-hour, directional traffic volumes are shown in Fig. we 5-2 for "unconstrained" traffic volumes,Figure 5-4 for the subtracted traffic, and on Figure 6.5 for the 'gateway constrained"traffic volumes. The constrained volumes are considered the baseline volumes. In order to develop rational action plans for locgl arterials, both unconstrained and constrained traffic volumes are shown in the plan. �1,Sr� rarnvni+e 4r�f�ir vnitr+ve �nrneL+�e� t„ w.rwse. wrs1... �..�..��..:��� ♦ -�!`- ---� -- - As actual capacities are more nearly reached monitoring of conditions may indicate the aced to reassess and amend the current action plan. bevel of service (LOS) at gateways for the constrained system is viewed to be no more than 1.0.Volume in excess of 1.0 which is projected is assumed to be spread over multiple hours of the peak period. The Plan espouses a policy of cooperation with adjacent jurisdictions to develop facilities management agreements in terms of ramp metering and freeway surveillance and control,which would fairly apportion available capacity in such a way that LOS F will be avoided except for unavoidable traffic incidents which create intermittent blockages of capacity. ewrtarrAschman AssocWes. kr- 77 TVTC jurlsdlctlons have not reached a consensus on the treatment of Vasco Road as a gateway north of Livermore. This section of Vasco Road In Alameda County travels through O sensitive terrain which would be difficult to widen. The Contra Costa General Plan does not provide for widening of Vasco Road north of the county line, but It does provide for development of a new transportation corridor crossing the county line, tabled as the East County Corridor, to accommodate the significant Increase In future travel projected to occur between eastern Contra Costa and Alameda counties. So general plan In Alameda County provides for the Bast County Corridor. Treatment of Vasco Road as a gateway supports the policies of Alameda County jurisdictions which do not want to provide for additional highway capacity crossing the county line. Treatment of Vasco Road as a gateway In not consistent with the Contra Costa General plan because It would fail to acknowledge traffic growth between the two counties and preclude development of the East County Corridor. The TvTC recognizes that imposition of a $2,800 fee on Zresidential development may stifle local efforts to provide affordable housing opportunities and encourage more Tri Rhandal Plan Valley workers to seek housing in Eastern Contra Costa or the Central Valley, father worsening congestion on Vasco Road and I-580. 2. The extent to which commercial-generated traffic contributes to peak-hour conges. tion. For example, AM peak-hour traffic generated by retail development generally occurs after the work-trip commute peak hour. These fees are illustrative of the level of impact fees required but are not meant to be final calculations. The TVTC must go beyond this plan to develop an impact fee program that would establish a legal nexus between development levels and fees charged and also clarify many ancillary issues. At a minimum, the program needs to consider the following issues: • Land Use Categories. Will there be one fee for all residential development or will it vary with density?Similarly,how many commercial categories will be used? Jurisdictions typically use three categories: retail,industrial, and office. Would even more categories be useful? • Credits. Should certain projects that have already contributed regional improve- ments, such as Hacienda Business Park, be entitled to a fee credit? end. +ndn-sib- beF�el deve•lopmerrtj • Fumptro IV. hould certain project with significant social value, such as low- income hour' , be exempt from fees? What about projects that significantly enhance the area's economic development? • Fee Collection. How and by whom should the fees be collected? Who will bank the funds and contract for transportation projects? • Transfer of Funds Between Jurisdictions. A subregional fee collected among the seven jurisdictions of Tri-Valley could potentially result in a situation where funds collected in one jurisdiction were expended on the construction of regional projects in another jurisdiction. The concept of a subregional fee for the Tri-Valley will need to address the acceptability and magnitude of cross jurisdictional transfers of fee revenues. TVTC has established that it does not wish for any regional fee revenues collected in Tri-Valley to be expended on projects outside of the Tri- Valley subarea. • Relationship to Future Countywide or Regionwide Fee Programa. If in the future, a countywide or regionwide (nine-county Bay Area) fee program is established, the relationship of those programs to the Tri-Valley regional fee will need to be addressed, especially with regarc:to crediting an in-place Teri-Valley fee toward a countywide fee. j ! 1 149 Barton-Asahman Assodates, IM Impact of the Fee on-Growth. . Fee levels that are two high for either residential or non-residential development may adversely affect the efforts of TVTC jurisdictions to promote economic growth or affordable housing opportunities. To address the concerns, the TVTC will seek the assistance of the Association of Bay Area Governments to evaluate the economic impacts of a regional transportation impact fee on economic and residential growth in the Tri Valley area. Z - Protection of the Fee's Revenue-Generating Potential. During the development of the Plan, major development proposals in the Tri Valley have been approved and their ability to generate revenues for regional transportation projects in has been lost. Further erosion of the revenue- generating potential of the fee program may continue as details on the fee program are resolved. An issue of highest priority for the TVTC is to consider whether local jurisdictions should begin now to condition any development approval with participation in a regional transportation impact fee program, contingent on the eventual agreement by Tri Valley jurisdictions on a fee program. ; U �� o. 8888 $ 8 $, 8888ao w m g v Jill ] Bt� o88 am AdW �40 40 MiV yrj N 4d vi ufN d E o � sow civ 45 t ra if.- If IIIJBIL Barton-Aschman Assodates, Inc �,�� t O LI. � till 8 a to RV ? d N d dui �e � Q. • � W 9. Action Plan The Action Plan lists each mute of regional significance along with the 2010 planned improvements and resulting traffic volume and levels of service. The Transportation Plan recommendations are distilled into distinct action statements for each route of regional. significance. Potential actions are also listed. These were considered by the TVTC and serve as background to the recommended actions. The Action Plan also includes a list of responsible agencies to implement the actions for each mute of regional significance. Actions of Regional Significance Listed below are regional actions which are intended to reduce congestion and improve efficiency on the regional transportation system. These actions are broader in nature than the route-specific actions identified in the following subsection. Implementation of regional actions requires a coordinated effort among local jurisdictions and regional agencies. The TVTC jurisdictions,while not able to directly implement these actions, agree to use every opportunity to work cooperatively with responsible agen`es,including Caltrans,BART, and MTC, toward their successful implementation. S11 Orr 1. Implement a subregional traffic impact fee to pay for planned, but unfunded, trans- portation improvements. 1. 2. Increase AVR for work(commute)trips from 1.1 to 12. Achieve this increase by requiring and enforcing employer-based TDM programs. Pleasanton's TSM ordinance is an example of how to implement a program. $. Install ramp metering at a1 freeway on-ramps, provided sufficient stacking space is available. Provide HQV bypass lanes wherever space permits. 4. Achieve.an overall jobs-housing balance within the Tri-Valley. Barton-Asohmen Associates. lnc 160 Action Plan 5. Support regional gasoline taxes to encourage commute alternatives and provide funds for needed transportation projects. 6. Support development of a seamless HOV network in the Teri-Valley to encourage the use of carpools and bus transit. TVTC shall Work cooperatively with Caltrans, MTC, and affected jurisdictions to explore opportunities for expanding the HOV system, especially on I.580, subject to cost-effectiveness analysis and/or change to legislation prohibiting them. Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance This section details the various objectives and actions for each designated route of regional significance within the Tri-Valley. Specific Traffic Service Objectives are present- ed, together with a set of actions directed at achieving those objectives. The parties responsible for implementing the actions are also identified. Once the Pian is adopted, each jurisdiction will be responsible for making a good-faith effort to implement the agreed-upon actions. In Contra Costa County, a jurisdiction's compliance with the 1998 Measure C Growth Management Program will be judged based upon its efforts to implement agreed-upon actions. The actions, programs, and measures identified in the following table are intended to mitigate congestion and achieve the Traffic Service Objectives assuming that future traffic will be constrained by the limited capacities of highway facilities serving the Tari-Valley Gateways (see Chapter 5, "Gateway Constraints"). An individual jurisdiction may also elect to implement more stringent actions, measures, or programs,in addition to those identified below, on facilities within its jurisdictio For example, a jurisdiction's individu- al mitigation program ould respond to higher fut traffic levels, assuming no gateway constraints (see Figure 5- +or developmerr+ o'er i f ma� 6aRon-Aschman Assodates, Inc. 161 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Responsibility for Implementation Pape Facility Responsible Agency Number 1-880 All 166 1-580 All 168 Sycamore Valley Road Danville 170 Danville Boulevard Danville, CCC 172 Camino Tassajara Danville, CCC 173 Crow Canyon Road San Ramon, AC, CCC, Danville 177 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Danville, San Ramon 185 Bollinger Canyon Road San Ramon, CCC 187 Aicosta Boulevard San Ramon 190 Dougherty Boulevard CCC, Dublin, San Ramon 191 Tassajara Road CCC, Dublin, AC 193 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, AC 195 San Ramon Road Dublin 199 Hopyard Road Pleasanton 200 Santa Rita Road Pleasanton 202 Stanley Boulevard Pleasanton, Livermore 204 Stoneridge Drive Pleasanton 206 Sunol Boulevard Pleasanton 207 Route 84 All 208 First Street (L.ivermore) Livermore 211 Vasco Road All D 212 The following are not routes of regional significance Stone Valley Road CCC 214 Falcon Road Dublin, AC 215 North Canyons Parkway Livermore, AC 217 Isabel Extension (North of 1.580) Livermore, AC 219 North Livermore Avenue Livermore, AC 221 Las Positas (Pleasanton) Pleasanton 222 .Bernal Avenue Pleasanton 224 Jack London Livermore 225 Hacienda Drive Pleasanton, Dublin 226 Ballon-Aschman Associates, Inc. 162 s Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Looniord ' roomy:bi90 North of LhWM at Bolinger South of 1.590 South of 10104"94 Esitdnp con5puraion 6 lanes - e lenan" " a lanes el E,a�rq Volurtw' 7.100 SAW 4,900 6AW E left Vic 1M 0.76 0.73 0.01 $010 Expected Network fWvwd dwgn:NOV lan",SR 24 to Dublin-4Wdor oonttrWdon;audisry{nog.Diable to 11olfter;60 b EB lye wW Ou011tt hook romps at 1i9WWW mono";inprom bderdmpe at Abals;add inMdw+po at Watt Las Posh 5010 pettAparadon 4.NOV 4•NOV•Aux. 4 6 I Molurno 7,900(constr@W) 5.500 1AM $AM(oonstreinod) Torah Sorvia(bus"Aour) 10 86 24 30 Torah Ridership(Ptak hour, 865 203 13 0 V/C eortstrainad pWore Acbn Pian) 1A0(1.39) 0.70 0.97 IAD(1 A7) (rrrtoorstrab+ed) 8 hours of congestion 7 hwim of oonl atwn Tr flit:Pattern Donvile 51% Dublin 12% Pleasanton 20!% Pbasanon 50% San Ramon 20% Ploulknion ifl% Dublin 20% Llwrmore 27% CCC 18% L w m wo 11% LM rmore 5% Dublin 13% Dublin 17% Danville 6% CCC f% CCC 5% ft"Santon 6% San Ramon 88% Danville 8% Throtph 19% Llwrrnore 4% CCC 0% San Ramon 14% anile 5% Through 15% Though 15% Through 15% San Ramon 4% TSO b d.achieved None.-Not within V/C a 0.99 V/C a 0.99 No rn0re wan five TVTC control tom of corgestion. 3 h a,4 e Recotnn,.We Aclbnt 1.Support mapr transdt 1.Punwe IrKWI for 1.Pursue Advoeaa NOV in"tment(w/Conaal auxiliary tan". for 1.690/1.590 lana.Rous 94 to County). kftrchinpa. Sunil Grade. 2.Support commute 2. Pursue Wndmp for 2.Seek funding 2.Advocate express attema"S Alocsta inwdanpe for NOV lanes bus tenice. (Bay Ammide). knprovaments. Alma to Flout.64. 5.support commute 5.oppose inveans to ahentaows. arixoddbw oapadty. 4.Oppose incroas- ai to rnixodfbw defipway Plan will be required M tM bvol of service beoonnt LOS F on any segment. copedty. BartorK4Wh=17 Assod 163 4. Support growth that achieves an overall balance 3n jobs and housing opportunities in the Tri Valley. Action Man Tri-Valley Action Pian Highways (Continued) ftw!r:1.680 went d Frew as Altamont K*ft CavdipuM*m •iemers •iteres •kme ,chop tAalml TOM slow fr,loo me tff.3a aot osis Moto fwd Metworit ilarued dwo&,.98 m n%*wet a W6M&W kftmhAnp,improv inwdw+pet a Pardo daiQn at Foorifit W Ramon, fafb it Chemo,Yasuo Road,OreerwAs Flood.Nath ifwnnm Avenw,and Fust Soros,»mow komhmp at Pontola; Odom of new fnwd►anpe at k"amralon(part of the Roca 84 project). 2010 081apuretion 6 6mts 3 lanes 3 fares VokmW 3.600(am"ked) $Am(cm rabred) #Am(W ) Tarek Servo(bum~ 13.URT 30 NOW Tmuft%d8aft(peak hour) 3,014 168 0 VIC oorwftned PWwo Accton Plan) IAD(IA?) Im(123) IaO(1.40) (1.112 flours of oor W*m) (4 fours of mrige - (5 hours of oonpes- wn) tion) Taft Pamm Dublin 23% cam& 0% tb►errnore 38% Piam,.i an 24% am Ramon 6% PMesanton 14% Lkwmonr 34% tlwnmone 80% ORM119 1% CCC 5% Dublin 16% Bart Ramon 6% Danville 1% Pleasanton 16% CCC 9% an Ramon 6% Ccc 3% Dub M 9% Through 16% Though 36% Through 40% Tf8O>D be md"ved Los F no neon than 2 LOSS F no more than None--not Wk* Iwour: t hotels TYTC ocn rol ileaotnn+rnded Acorns Mone. 1.Add NOY biros 1.8up n nw* Tamales to N. aaruh irmeunent in Lk ermore. sonidar. I.Oppose inaeasrs M mkocoow oapad- I b -Oftrft4h M A(MaW4%4a. 3.Seek rstn N. MOV iWm.NN. Wwwote b ooumy aw Oka:A dekbne.X plan wilt be requbed ff de bwl of WVive beoonnrr LOS F on arg epment Asrtan'Asch=n Amdates, ft. 163 1. Support growth that acMeves an overall balance In jobs and housjng appertUnjtjes In the Tri Valley. Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Laations Faculty:Teaaelars Read North of 1-W North of Dublin North of Fallon Exiong Con ppation 2 Pres 2 lanes 2 lana: Existing Volume' 200 200 200 m Existing V/0 0.11 0.11 0.11 3010 Expeofed Network � Planned dwvs:V dw*v b i!sues kora 1.d60 b Dublin Boulevard.6 brnrs norlh of Dublin Boulevard to County Line, 4 Ynts north of County Line. 3010 Confiprrtbn •fames !tants i fines Volume 3.700 3.750 2.600 Transit service(busesfiou* 13 20 Transit Pkbmhip(peak hour) IOU 64 120 VIC constrained{before Action Plan( 0.51 0.60 0.49 tuntannstrained) Trafbc Pattern Danville 0% Denville 0% Danville 1% Sm Ramon 0% titan Ramon 0% San Ramon 6% Dublin 35% Dublin 35% Dublin 17% CCC 36% CCC 36% Pleasanton 14% Ph"anton 19% Pleasanton 10% Cee 50% LMermore 10% Livermore 10% L.Mvmore 4% T.-rough 0% Through 0% TSO to be ac hieved VIC o 0.00 at inter- VIC mss-0.00 at inter- WC S 0.90 at atctions. sections. intersections. i 8ec1mmended Acdons 1.scour►developer 1.Secure dtvebper Now. finding for widening. funding for widening. ff� 2.Putin ptaarr�Vow mnut+itivvsr)+c�+an� i ft1^v%& to insure o"vement of TSO&. PM Pe444our 2010 Expected interaeedon LOS Without Action Plan We LOS Tassajara Road and Fallon Rand 0.76 C Tassajara Road and Highland Road 0.65 B Tas&*m Road and Dubin Bouievard 1.05 F Ta a*m Road and Gloom Avenue 0.70 B Taesajara Road and I-SW WB Ramps 0.64 D •Vokmm and oapadty refer b PAA peak-twur.peak4ireceon of low. Batton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 180 i i Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan k Highways (Continued) Kay Locution: label at Paddty:fRouw M on Wiledtos Jack London fid sting Confernation 2 Yres WA ralift Volume' 000 WA ftdaeng v/C 0.50 WA 1010 Expected Network Planned damps:Widening and upgredng Vallecims Road to 44are expressway,connecting and widening Is"to 64ane arterial,new Interchange at lsabe11480,grade separation at babel/Stanley. JIM conflguretlon 4 lanes 0 Innes volume 5.400 3,000 Transu Service(buNdiwuh 12 1E Transit Ridership(peak hour) 0 18 We constrained(before Aeon Planj 0.04 0.72 (unoonsvainad) Traft Pau rn CCC 0% Danville 0% Livermore 80% San Ramon 2% Pleasanton 2% Lkw more 40% Dublin 0% PNasanton 10% Through 17% Dublin 9% Danville 0% CCC 2% San Ramon 0% Through 28% TSO to be achieved Link V/C S Opti(no ln»rsection komections) V/C.10.00 Recommended Actions 1.Seam fundi or 1.Secure kmdinp ems— +tirh it,& Air ul a widening project nine pro- CQx e-y-tim KvIlmeht 'AL3Wcy - 2.Adopt recommen- 2.Accept LOS E at dations of TrWalley Jack London. Subcommittee on Route e4. 3.Adopt reoom- tnerdatioms of T6- Valley Suboommit- we on Route M. 3. See-j-' c OfaAi i vC f urJ pr O5rdvv 5 w'rfh Czn+ral ValI av,C1 Freml -5ou-t4n P- cl ® 1 r 'fur tscl t�,�-i o� -b tn;fi a� � 1rn�Gt f Barton-Asdtrnan Assodates, Inc. S 205 add I+iona 1 corn*v ,l✓ +raft is f j .h Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) • K,a,,,oaatta„E taethr.vistas ft" el.a brawl Ealension N.Of i aeo a.a"M ErtMtlnp Gotftwatbn s Mors s Murs 46M EsWlnp NOiurne' 1.100 1.300 1.100 a*"Vic 0.61 1.00 021 6010 Espwnwl/latrorh ftwwtd mss:Widening b bur Was from baba!Extension b Scenic,wicWft to 6 Mame frvrn sotnic to P'atrrtsn past:ttairnarnt and upprade in Comte Cats COunty due to reservoir.iew is on of 1-1ie0Natao inwaAanpe. E01e Cofilpuredon a Mur$ i lanes O bees Voknne 1AW(constrained) 3.580 8.150 Transit service No"011ow) 18 40 a8 Trt vk Ridership O uk hour) 105 158 am VIC constrained lbelore Ac*n Pitrnj 1A0(1.23) CA$ p+r+ssnst►sinedl Tm t:Patens Danvlia !% Pleasanton 9% PMaanbn 8% an Ramon tat% Lkwohm 73% LMrrrnore 70% LMennore 44% Dublin i% Dublin 7% Ple awlan 12% CCC +i% CCC s% CCC 4% San Rvtsbn 8% Ban Raman 1% oubiin 0% Danville 0% Oam►lie 1% Though s7% TWoupt, i% TOO t0 be achieved Nana-fat witl►in VIC 4C 0.90 at roar V/C 14.00 at MC control. "C,;;ns. ko"Wciaw. Asommended Actions I.Sown funding br iiwenh 4he. Alamwb C"Cs4ito operational imprsva Mawna�em#Af AYr meats on t *4"0 J aeyrrent in Alameda County. 2I Support transit ttrviot in coaidor. B#ROnAWhlndn ASSOO(MOS, MC. 209 3. Cooperate troth Contra Costa jurisdictions to develop consistent actions for relieving traffic congestion between Eastern Contra Costa and Alameda counties. . Support growth that achieves an overall balance In jobs and housing opportunities in the Tri Valley. Action Plan Even with implementation of the expected land use and network assumptions set forth in Chapter 5, the following TSO violations are forecast to occur: ItBerset an Vic LOS Dougherty Road and DWn Boulevard 0.93 E Tassalara Road and Dubin Boulevard 1.05 F Fallon Road and Dubin Boulevard 1.12 F Isabel and Jack London 0.95 E Isabel and North Canyons Parkway 0.92 E Santa Rita Road and 1•580 ES Ott•Rarrp 0.94 E Abosta Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road 1.06 F Daugherty Road and Crow Carryon Road 0.98 E Dougherty Road and Bolinger Canyon Road 1.11 F BlackhawlvOrow Canyon and Camino Tassalara 1.15 F Danville Boulevard and Stone Valley Road 1.08 F The TV X jurisdictions expect to implement a proactive Growth and Congestion Mangement strategy that addresses these violations. The strategy could include tying land use approvals to a jurisdiction's ability to meet TSOs. Prot-Wooes -6 1e%pleww-.4+ 4WIS ste"j+ � �,.�,�e v+ bee v� ae�v�!k d a ct w�it red u' re., Vr�h`�vRovS Prov 3 �+2-"✓ ►�U�.-r�-i `10 ri 5 d , C"�i OVI S r �.Y. 19 1 I Garton-Awhmen Associates, W. 225 SII i Flan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review This chapter describes how the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan will be implemented. Specific topics include plan adoption by member jurisdictions, collection of the subregional traffic impact fee, procedure for monitoring transportation service objectives, and procedures for handling development applications. Pian Adoption Since the Tri-Valley Transportation Council does not have any formal authority to make land use decisions or transportation investments, implementation of the Tri. Valley Transportation Plan will rest with the constituent jurisdi io ns through thein a 1-evi�.W individual general plans. Thus, the first step will be by membbirjunsMct oohs of� their general plans following elements from the Tzi Valley Transportation Plan: -tc erdOrf- +heir ccy is4sten i k?i' h • 2010 Planned Transportation Network • Transportation Service Objectives Individual Actions by Route • Financing Plan • Subregional Transportation Impact Fee V33ile compliance with the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan (TVTP)is essentially volun- tary among the Alameda County jurisdictions, at least until aspects of the TVTP become part of the Alameda County Congestion Management Program, the Contra Costa County jurisdictions have a mandate for compliance. The TVTP constitutes the Action Plan for the Contra Costa Tri Valley jurisdictions, as required by Measure C. Thus,to maintain compliance with Measure C. the Contra Costa County Tri-Valley jurisdictions must make a good-faith effort to implement the planned actions, or risk Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 226 Plan Irnp/emantation, Monitorfng, and R*WJ w as se+ �6r+k in Cjxp�er 91"Ac4ion pla449 losing their tura-to-source funds. Compliance is tied to local implementation of action police .'One locality cannot be judged ineligible for local street maintenance and improvement funds because of the unwillingness of another locality to participate in the process. The WW has not addressed the issue of whether an eavironmental impact report will be required for plan adoption. If an EIR is necessary,it should be jointly prepared by all jurisdictions,rather than prepared individually. Plan Financing Two elements of the financing plan for the TVTP require further study and action by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council and its member jurisdictions:the subregional transportation impact fee, and the cost-sharing formulae for road improvements that benefit multiple jurisdictions. Subrrgional Mnsportation Impact Fee. The TVTP lists the full range of projects that could be included in an impact fee program. First, the list needs to be finalised and adopted Next, the details of the impact fee program need to be worked out. The following issues should be considered. 1. How many development categories and what fee for each? IN z. Now? ww1d +he- fee in-fkiCf- row441 . 'S, Are there any exempted areas or land use types? 1K at 1. When will the fees be collected.? 5t. When will they be spent? (0,4. Who will act as banker? $v What is the priority for constructingim ct fee projects? . Are. In4ce ilml+re measures tyeeAJ whl If, 'fic about'. iswes arc re-,-01 vcc ? Atter these issues have been resolved and the program specified, each jurisdiction needs to adopt the program. Shand Facilities. Implementation of much of the planned arterial system will be the direct responsibility of new development. Many of the arterials, however, are shared among jurisdictions. Table 8.8 shows the jurisdictions sharing responsibility for each of the planned improvements that will be paid for directly by developers. For each of these improvements, a negotiated agreement needs to be reached about cost sharing between jurisdictions. The cost-sharing approach could be based on which jurisdiction's traffic is expected to use the facility, or it could be based simply on the boundaries within which the facility lies, or a combination. These agreements should 8arton-Aschmari Assodates, Inc. 227 . Plan kr;plementation, Monttorinp, and Review be negotiated in advance to that when development takes place, the responsibility for road improvements is clear. Monitorin9 Transportation ortation Service Objectives The Transportation Service Objectives =09) are the heart of the TVTP. While certain growth assumptions are a part of the plan,they serve merely to guide the specification of a planned transportati= system and financing program. The TVTP does not control growth directly but indirectly through the TSOs. Under a casting conditions,the TSOs relating to freeway and intersection levels of service are largely being met. Future growth should be matched with road Improvements to that the TSO* continue to be met. Achievement of the TSOs depends upon successful implementation of the actions, measures, and programs set forth in Chapter 9, "Action Plan."In Contra Data County,if,following good faith implementation of the Action Plan, a TSO is not met, then the Plan would need to be reevaluated through the forum of TVTC. Amendments to the Plan could include a relazation of Ma, a strengthening of actions, or a combination of these approaches. In Alameda County, the jurisdiction with the TSO violation can in consultation with the TVTC, elect to modify growth rates, improve the facility, or, as a last resort, seek a lower TSO standard through the amendment proms set forth in this chapter. The ISOs related to mode split and average vehicle ridership are goals for achievement by 2010. They need to be monitored and adjustments to the plan made if progress is not being made. Progress should be defined as increasing traaait ridership and increasing average vehicle ridership. t The TSOs should be monitored annually.The following describes how each should be measured. 1 Freeway Levels of Service. The TSOr, are expressed both in terms of volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C1 and hours of congestion. Volume-to-capacity ratio and hours of congestion can be measured with traffic counts or speed runs and should apply to mixed-flow lanes only. The plan uses a capacity of 2,200 vehicles per lane per hour (1,100 vehicles capacity for auxiliary lanes). Traffic counts can also be used to show duration of congestion. Freeway monitoring should be done by Caltrans or the CMA. Intersection Levels of Service. Intersection levels of service should be calculated using the VCCC program for AM and PM peak hours based on turning-movement counts. Intersection monitoring should be conducted by the jurisdiction in which the intersection lies. The intent of the TVTP is to maintain the intersection TSO at all signalized intersections. However, to avoid extensive data collection, each jurisdiction should establish a list of critical intersections for annual monitoring. lode Split. Mode split is virtually impossible to measure in the field, except through sztensive home interview and work place surveys. These data are available every BaRorrAschmah Associates, Inc. 228 Chapter 9 Indicates 11 Intersections Nill not meet the TSo given the land use and transportation network assumptions In the Plan. Compliance With the T5018 at thAF'-'location`will not be mandated until the Action Plan adopts actions to correct this Inconsistency. Plan trr4pMmentatlon, Monitodrnp, and Review decade from the V.S. Census and periodically from MTC. In between times, transit , ridership should be monitored as a surrogate for mode split. The mode split goal of the TVTP can only be met if transit ridership increases annually. The transit operators soutiasly collect'and repot annual ridership. Avenge Vehick M&rship.This TSO relates directly to commute trips.The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has defined average vehicle ridership(AVR)and how it can be calculated. 7o calculate AVR, annual employee surveys, conducted by employers,will be necessary. In many places these are already being done, and due to air quality regulations,AVR will soon be annually reported by all employers with over 100 employees. AD Tri•Valley jurisdictions have trip reduction wiUnanoes, so AVR should be increasing is the future.Employers can take credit for shifting trips out of the peals hour,shorter work weeks,and telecommuting in addition to promoting ride---. g and transit usage. AVR should be monitored by each jurisdiction through its trip reduction ordinance,or by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Development Applications Adoption of the Tri Valley Transportation Plan will bring additions to the analysis required of new development.This will affect both environmental impact reports and neral plan amendr—r ..AL► 9hubvnmental Impact Reports. These should be circulated to all jurisdictions that make up the TVTC, since most projects large enough to require an EIR will impact more than one jurisdiction. The cumulative analysis section of each EIR should con,ickr iseospereis the expected land use and transportation scenario on which the TVTP is based Transportation impacts should be stated in terms of whether or not the project would lead to a violation of Transportation Service Objectives. Transportation mitigation measures should be consistent with the TVTP network General Plan Amendments. The 2010 expected land use and transportation network, which are incorporated into the TVTP, are based on the general plans of the TVTC member jurisdictions as of June 1994. Any subsequent general plan amendments may affect either the adequacy of the planned network or the financing plan. Any jurisdiction considering a general plan amendment should evaluate its impact on the TVTP and demonstrate that the Transportation Service Objectives could still be met. If further transportation improvements are necessary beyond what are in the TVTP, the jurisdiction should specify how they will be funded. The Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance will be based upon adopted General Plan land uses, the existing road network, and planned improvements to the network Consistency with the Action Plans must be established for any changes to the General Plan that may siamificantly reduce the ability of the facility to most the Traffic Service Objectives. The RTPC will be responsible for establishing the type and size of amendment that will require review by the RTPC and the process for implementing this review.Approval of a General Plan Amendment found to be 6aImMsc hman Assodates, tris. 229 Transportation studies for development applications in the Tri valley area shall assume the Gateway 4v- Constraints described In this Plan. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority should acknowledge the use of Gateway Constraints In their TechnjcaI procedure Manual. Plan Implementation. Monitodnp, and Review faomsisteat with the adopted Action Plans may render the jurisdiction ineligible for Local Street Maintenance Improvement Funds from the CCTA. Consistency with the Action Plans can be achieved by revising the proposed amendment, adopting local actions to offset impacts to the Route of Regional Significance, or Council or Board denial of the amendment. 0?=vth Controls. The TVTP is not intended to be a land use control document. While the plan is based on a set of V wth assumptions, the plan should not be interpreted as limiting growth to the assumed levels. Nevertheless, the plan does establish Transportation Service Objectives,which may indirectly influence growth rates. Growth beyond what is assumed herein may occur provided the TS09 are met. Conversely,if the TS09 are violated early, growth in Contra Costa County jurisdictions should not occur up to the assumed levels or the plan should be amended. In Alameda County, individual jurisdictions have the option of slowing growth, maldng further transportation improvements, or lowering TSO standards. The tools and procedures for conducting Contra Costa County General Plan updates and analyzing proposed General Plan amendments will be the same as those used in preparing the Growth Management Elements. If the specific project or policy changes are large enough to meet requirements established by the region in its adopted Action Plan, the jurisdiction considering the Plan amendment must submit the amendment to the Regional Committee for evaluation of its impact on the ability to achieve Action Plan objectives. The Growth Management Program directs the RTPCs to evaluate proposed amendments only in relation to issues affecting Action Plan success and consistency. It will be the responsibility of the jurisdiction considering the amendment to either: 1. Demonstrate that the amendment will not violate Action Plan policies or the ability to meet Action Plan Traffic Service Objectives;or 2. Propose modification to the Action Plan that will prevent the General Plan amend- ment from adversely affecting the regional transportation network. If neither of these can be done, approval of the General Plan amendment may lead to a finding of non-compliance with the Growth Management Program. Amending the Plan Amendments can be triggered by:periodic review of the plan (every two to four years); identification of TSO violations; a jurisdiction's proposal to adopt a major general plan amendment that was not considered in the existing plan;and/or a change in the major assumptions underlying the Plan. A change in the assumptions for Gateway Constraints would constitute the latter. Badon-Aschnun AssocJates, Inc. 230 r Pten#Mlementation. Monitoring, and Review This plan is based upon the assumption that moor gateways into Tri.Valley will not be expanded beyond the capacities assumed in the Expected Network as set forth in Chapter 5.Any change in these assumptions, such as the addition of HOV lanes on I- 880 over the Altamont Pass,would require that this plan be amended to incorporate revised awzmptions for the W-Valley gateway constraints. Increased capacity at the t: gateways could significantly increase prgjected congestion on downstream freeway sections and arterial streets. Future Role of TVTC . It is anticipated that implementation of the Action Plan will rest primarily with the individual jurisdictions. However,the plan has identified some continuing functions for is the TVTC'as follows: • housing and future updates of the Tri•Valley Model • Updates and amendments to the Tri-Valley Transportation plan • Development and implementation of a regional traffic impact fee • Coordinated impkmeatatiom of Actions requiring interjurisdictional cooperation Decision making and Conflict .Resolution Because of the impo.--tance of support for the Plan by all members of the Tt'TC, the Committee should act on a consensus basis. However, in cases where the Committee cannot reach a consensus, the conflict resolution process established by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority offers an alternative to Contra Costa jurisdictions. Depending on the nature of the conflict within the Committee, the conflict resolution process may result in an arbitrated decision: which must be adhered to by Contra Costa jurisdictions In order to be considered in compliance with the Growth Management Program, or requirements for further work by the Committee. The conflict resolution process may be used at any point during .implementation. The OCTA will make determinations of compliance for the purpose of allocating return-to-source funds. It cannot preempt local land use decisions or require cities to accept unwanted construction projects. Compliance will mot require any Contra Costa jurisdiction to accept programs that create a fundamental conflict with the community•s socioeconomic or environmental character. darl+on,Asctitrmtt Assodates, circ. 231 s Date: REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (Two [2] Minute Limit) Complete this form and place it i the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: � Phone: Address: City: I am speaking for: ❑ Myself OR ❑ Organization: NAME OF ORGANIZATION CHECK ONE: on Agenda Item ❑ I wish to speakg My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: ❑ I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: � tt 0 f TRI=VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ ' ACTION PLAN f FOR a ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE (CIRCULATION DRAFT) � rnn IV 0O K W O rt rt �•►a n ro :3 N M 0 { Prepared for rt M Tri-Valley Transportation Council %0 + o Ln :0 rt w O IC O Prepared by o Tri Valley Technical Advisory Committee In conjunction with Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. f August 1994 a Note: Policy directions or"Actions" recommended in this draft report are subject to change pending review, comment, and approval by MC and its member ' jurisdictions. a TRI -VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ ACTION PLAN FOR ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE (CIRCULATION DRAFT) Prepared for Tri-Valley Transportation Council Prepared by Trl-Valley Technical Advisory Committee In conjunction with Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. August 1994 Note: Policy directions or "Actions" recommended in this draft report are subject to change pending review, comment, and approval by TVTC and its member jurisdictions. t � Contents Chapters . Page Executive Summary vi Existing Transportation Issues vi 2010 Traffic Conditions ix The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan X Financing the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan ziv Plan Implementation xiv 1 Introduction 1 Compliance Requirements on Regional Routes 2 2 Existing Transportation Conditions 11 Chapter Summary 11 Traffic Volumes and Capacity on Arterials 18 Freeway Levels of Service 18 Intersection Levels of Service 25 Tri-Valley Bicycle Network 28 Transit 29 Trip Reduction Programs 29 Trip Reduction/Travel Demand Management Ordinances 35 Existing Mode Split 36 Existing Travel Patterns 36 3 Goals and Transportation Service Objectives 38 4 Baseline Forecasts 41 Chapter Summary 41 Land Use Forecasts 42 Network Assumptions 42 Traffic Forecasts 50 Intersection Levels of Service 50 Travel Pattern 59 Mode Split 59 5 Expected Forecasts 63 Chapter Summary 63 Land Use Forecasts 64 Network Assumptions 64 Traffic Forecasts 73 Travel Patterns 82 Intersection Levels of Service 88 Interchange Analysis 92 Transit Ridership 97 A a. Contents (Continued) Chapters (Continued) Page 6 Plan Alternatives 98 Chapter Summary 98 Maximum Highway Investment 99 Maximum Transit Investment 99 Land Use Opportunities 110 Plan Evolution 114 7 Recommended Improvement Plan 117 Plan Overview 118 Road Improvement Plan 128 Critical Regional Projects 128 The Transit Plan 136 Freight Transportation 140 8 Financial Plan 141 Alameda County 141 Contra Costa County 144 Private Funding 144 Potential Future Funding Sources 153 Potential Future Transportation Projects 154 Detailed Finance Plan 155 9 Action Plan 160 Actions of Regional Significance 160 Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance 161 10 Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review 226 Plan Adoption 226 Plan Financing 227 Monitoring Transportation Service Objectives 228 Development Applications 229 Amending the Plan 230 Future Role of TVTC 231 Appendices Appendix A: Description of VCCC Program Appendix B: Comparison of Total Growth Through 2010 to Net New Growth Y 7 Contents (Continued) Tables Page ES-1 Proposed High-Priority Regional Transportation Projects and Available Funding xv 2-1 Traffic Volumes and Capacity for Routes of Regional Significance 21 2-2 Level of Service Definitions 25 2-3 Existing(1990) Intersection Level of Service Analysis 26 2-4 Bus Service in the Tri-Valley Area 34 2-5 Jobs-Housing Balance 36 4-1 Baseline Growth Forecasts 43 4-2 Baseline Intersection Level of Service Analysis—PM Peak Hour 55 4-3 Jobs Versus Workers (Baseline Growth Forecasts) 59 4-4 Mode Split for PM Peak Hour, Home-Based Work Trips (Baseline Forecasts) 62 5-1 Tri-Valley Growth Forecasts 65 5-2 Year 1990, Year 2000, and 2010 Network Improvements—Expected System 66 5-3 Year 2010 PM Peak-Hour Expected Forecasts Peak Spreading 73 5-4 Expected Intersection Level of Service Analysis—PM Peak Hour 89 5-5 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchange Overpasses-I-580 (PM Peak Hour) 93 5-6 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchange Overpasses— I-680 (PM Peak Hour) 94 5-7 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchanges—I-580 (PM Peak Hour) 95 5-8 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchanges—I-680 (PM Peak Hour) 96 5-9 2010 Expected Transit Ridership 97 6-1 Cost Estimate for Maximum Highway Network 102 6-2 Cost Estimate for Maximum Transit Network 107 6-3 Growth Management Options 111 6-4 Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Potential Alternatives 115 6-5 Consensus Alternative for Tri-Valley Transportation Plan 116 7-1 Detailed List of Planned Roadway Improvements 131 8-1 Alameda County Tier 1 Projects in Tri-Valley 142 8-2 Alameda County Tier 2 Projects in Tri-Valley 143 8-3 Proposed High-Priority Regional Transportation Projects and Available Funding147 8-4 Required Subregional Transportation Impact Fee 150 8-5 Traffic Pattern on High-Priority Regional Projects 151 8-6 Equity Analysis of Regional Impact Fee 152 8-8 Finance Plan—Tri-Valley 2010 Planned Network 156 t a. Contents (Continued) Figures Page E-1 Study Area and Primary Roads vii E-2 xi 1-1 Tri-Valley Subareas Used in This Report 3 1-2 Existing Routes of Regional Significance Network 5 1-3 Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) and Congestion Management Program (CMP) Routes 9 2-1 Existing Lane Configurations 12 2-2 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes 19 2-3 Existing Congested Locations 23 24 Existing Bikeways 30 2-5 Proposed Bikeways 32 2-6 Tri-Valley 1990 PM Peak-Hour Trip Characteristics 37 4-1 Baseline Assumed Road Network Changes 48 4-2 2010 Daily Traffic Volumes—Baseline Forecasts 51 4-3 Baseline Forecast Year 2010 Peak-Hour Overcapacity Links 53 4-4 2010 Total Trips by Type (PM Peak Hour) 60 5-1 Expected Transportation Network 71 5-2 Year 2010 Expected Forecast PM Peak Hour Traffic Demand (No Gateway Constraint) 74 5-3 Example of Gateway Peak-Spreading 76 5-4 Year 2010 Expected Forecast PM Peak-Hour Traffic Demand (No Gateway Constraint) 78 5-5 Year 2010 Peak-Hour Overcapacity Roadways With Gateway Constraint 80 5-6 Expected Network—Interchange Configurations 83 6-1 Maximum Highway Network—Changes From Baseline Network 100 6-2 Congested Roadways With Maximum Highway Alternative 103 6-3 Maximum Transit Alternative—Priority Express Bus Network 105 6-4 Maximum Transit Alternative—Intercity/Commuter Rail 106 6-5 Congested Roadways With Maximum Transit Alternative 108 6-6 Congested Roadways With Zero Growth Land Use Alternative 112 7-1 Planned Transportation Network 129 7-2 Park-and-Ride Lots 138 Exhibits 1 Projections '92 Forecast for Year 2010 Households and Employment in Tri-Valley Jurisdictions, Compared to CCTA LUIS and ABAG Projections '90 Forecasts 44 394-TIP/651193.9010D r } ` Executive Summary The purpose of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is to address transportation issues through the year 2010 within the Tri-Valley area including Danville, San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and unincorporated areas of Contra Costa and Alameda County. This document is in addition to existing policies, agreements, and regulations that exist in each jurisdiction or between jurisdictions. The study area and the primary roads are shown in Figure E-1. In addition to serving as a guide for transportation planning through 2010, this document represents the Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance for Contra Costa County jurisdictions, as mandated by Measure C. This document also provides information that can be incorporated into the Congestion Management Programs for Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. The Tri- Valley Transportation Plan is the culmination of a four-year work effort to identify existing and future transportation deficiencies and identify a financially feasible transportation plan that addresses the deficiencies. The Tri-Valley work was overseen by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC), an advisory board of representatives from each of the seven Tri-Valley jurisdictions. Funding for this effort was shared equally by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the Alameda County jurisdictions. The consulting firm of Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc., through a series of meetings with the TVTC, prepared the study. Existing Transportation Issues The study was initiated in 1991 with parallel efforts to develop the Tri-Valley Travel Forecasting Demand Model and assess study issues and existing conditions. Discussions with representatives from each community and preliminary technical analysis culminated with the following findings: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. vi t W 7pvG� \ \ O a 0 z a \ u r G y �5vt O . fF tY' 0 oa \ 0 O � rY 5 `,s c, , 1 to °�ewo 0 kfR r PJ °d V` ilillillillillilljlllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII by b N may' G n tf� O3 r\ to W dD cc .21T O ` G Li 0 -0 Oa 377WJ33a0 Q t, W ¢° C- oa ooC0 svn 0 , U ` ; >a rO R° 1\ Nps _ 0 Q PJ a W > OQ4 t V \ � O AV 380rva3N7 'N ¢ n i is S3iY70N ` x 0 78 V(3ibr6o 4 i t u Oa NOANVO AV 13BYSI \, 831770D N } 6 � T8 c AVMSIV O O < C V ONARRO +? 00 a` RD o QS a) Oa N077V3 Cr 16 4E a \ a VaVlYSs Vl r O < 70NnS U: 1 Q ` m .JOY O W va YAdOH g r D00r P ^ (D J tp z C13 ` L R° 00 tri \, �,�. O V N U) r-4 t A CO E l A s V n C 4OD O L cc r ti Executive Summary 1. Tri-Valley is relatively free of congestion. 2. Transit use is relatively low—four percent of total trips. 3. Existing average vehicle occupancy is about 1.1 for commute trips. 4. There are 14,000 more employed residents than jobs, so there is net out- commuting. 5. I-680 and I-580 are major regional highways. Each has 15 to 20 percent through traffic. 2010 Traffic Conditions Once the study issues and existing transportation system characteristics were identified, staff used the Tri-Valley Transportation Model to evaluate land use forecasts and alternative transportation systems. The land use forecasts were first developed in consultation with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and MTC. When the plan was started, ABAG's Projections '90 were the most current forecasts available. Projections '90 did not include forecasts for the year 2010. These forecasts were extrapolated from Projections '90 year 2005 forecasts in consultation with ABAG. Once developed, the TVTC determined that the forecasts did not reflect current land use or network planning. The TVTC refined the land use forecasts and transportation networks to reflect current general plans and Projections '92, which had significantly increased employment projections for some Alameda County jurisdictions. The "expected" land use forecasts were evaluated along with an "expected"transportation system. The results of this evaluation were as follows: • Highway gateways to the area (I-680 north of Alamo and south of Route 84, I-580 over Dublin Grade and Altamont Pass, Crow Canyon Road at the county line, and Vasco Road) will be overloaded given the demand. This would occur even without growth in the Tri-Valley due to regional traffic demands. • With some locally funded modifications, the majority of the arterial system within the Tri-Valley will operate at LOS D or better. • I-680 and I-580 within the Tri-Valley will operate at LOS E or better, provided ramp metering and HOV lanes are installed. • Jobs and housing growth for year 2010 is projected to be 99 percent and 84 percent, respectively. Jobs and housing would be in balance, that is, one job would exist for every employed resident. Provided there is a match between housing prices and salaries, this minimizes but does not eliminate in-commuting and out- commuting. The 1990 ratio of jobs to employed residents was 0.91. In 2010 the ratio is expected to increase to 0.99. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. ix Executive Summary • The transit mode share will increase slightly from existing conditions. • Average vehicle occupancy will not change appreciably from existing conditions. The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan The model results of the "expected" land use and "expected" transportation system were the basis for the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. The Plan is not projected to relieve all traffic congestion in Tri-Valley. Levels of service on some arterial segments and on freeway segments at the gateways will remain below E. Based on the results of the alternatives testing, the TAC and the TVTC decided to focus the ultimate improvement plan on the arterial corridors within Tri-Valley rather than the Tri-Valley gateways. The plan must address the primary question: What can we do to achieve the best level of service within the Tri-Valley? Three contributing factors influence the ability to respond to this question. • Financial constraints. • Physical limitations within corridors. • Development pattern. Financial resources for all projects are limited. The Measure C and Measure B sales tax programs provide substantial funding for spec projects in Tri-Valley. Other projects must compete for the relatively small pot of public funds. Developer fees, which have an upper limit, could help supplement public funds. Future sales tax or gasoline tax initiatives may or may not be successful. Expansion of major corridors within Tri-Valley is limited due to existing development and terrain. These limitations hinder the development of transportation corridors other than the existing I-680 and I-580 corridors. Development patterns within Tri-Valley have been geared toward relatively low housing and commercial densities. These patterns are expected to continue in the future. This development pattern is impossible to serve thoroughly with transit, given realistic funding expectations. The plan proposes no increases in gateway capacity for single-occupant vehicles. "Gateways" are the regional roads that connect the Tri-Valley to adjoining areas. This will help to meter traffic in and out of the area. The plan balances the internal transportation network with planned growth through the provision of several roadway and transit improvements. Figure E-2 shows the transportation plan network. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. x N r LLJ p OC ,o �— O i� 0 -0 W Z \, Q 1� \ Z N N \ Q � o A J \ /�• N O N 1 d C d yN p � Q O O \ >� d cOd O 3 N � O O NUJ (YSSYl ` 5 0 0 c c > \ a' c c > n � 1 1 z E io a _ u u n n oa O W W _ HR J � \ 3r ' � i-i co C cts �J I' o N CD a a Ccc E Lyg, rl ' O6' Q �QSI I ZRy cc m 0C-4 1 L i C? V co Cn Y\ : W T i Q2 k ttrt. o , G oa VIAN33ao V �o cc s •• T U V Jam°� o � W Z f CC W Q • y Z J _ co a `r is S3rnoH CL + �y -.WO083Nl .N Q + = o + z U ' co O 1 U O Oa NOANVJ m qo Q N `o O ' Ho7lY! + 1C ' al 0 � z • + 00 d c a V ` tt> w Qo � r O C Nl + 4 T o 0 w 67C ft,yd t o i -� , to 10 vs A .� ti W co V OD •• d l c o / tri S ,t Executive Summary Transportation Service Objectives A key element of the plan is the list of Transportation Service Objectives. These are goals that the Tri-Valley cities and counties should use as a guide to making transportation and land use decisions. In Contra Costa County under Measure C, the jurisdictions are required to make a good-faith effort to comply with the transportation service objectives on routes of regional significance or risk the loss of return-to-source funds. In Alameda County once the plan is adopted, individual jurisdictions are responsible for maintaining Transportation Service Objectives through their general plans. The transportation service objectives adopted by the TVTC are as follows: • Maintain Level of Service D (V/C < 0.90) on arterials, and measured at intersections. • Maintain level of Service E (V/C < 0.99) on freeways. • Maintain Level of Service E conditions on I-580 for no more than four hours per day (except on Altamont Pass) and on I-680 for no more than eight hours per day. • Do not increase capacity for single-occupant vehicles at gateways. • Increase average vehicle ridership for commute trips by 10 percent. • Increase the transit mode share through providing express transit travel times that are competitive with autos. The TVTP is not intended to be a land use control document, such as a General Plan. While the plan is based on a set of growth assumptions, the plan should not be interpreted as limiting growth to the assumed levels. Nevertheless, the plan does establish Transportation Service Objectives, which may indirectly influence growth rates. Growth beyond what is assumed herein may occur provided the TSOs are met. Conversely, if the TSOs are violated in the Contra Costa area according to Measure C, growth should not occur up to the assumed levels or the plan should be amended to provide further improvements. In the Alameda County area the jurisdiction with a TSO violation can in consultation with the TVTC stop growth, improve the facility, or as a last resort, seek a lower TSO standard through a plan amendment. Action Plans in Contra Costa County are required to include the following components: • Long-range assumptions regarding future land use based on local General Plans. • Procedure for review of impacts resulting from proposed local General Plan amendments that have the potential to influence the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans. The following are requirements for a Contra Costa County jurisdiction to be considered in compliance in relation to Regional Routes: • Submission to Regional Committee of proposed revision(s) to Action Plan to mitigate impacts associated with proposed General Plan amendments. General Plan amendments that would reduce the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. xiii F Executive Summary may lead to a determination of non-compliance if the Action Plan cannot be revised with the approval of the Regional Committee and the CCTA. Financing the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan was designed to be a feasible, realistic, financially constrained plan. Still, the plan will require additional funding beyond that provided by existing sources. Federal and state funds are limited. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is used as the source for estimating future public transportation revenues. Additional funding is suggested through the adoption of a subregional traffic impact fee on new, unapproved development. The Plan identifies 11 regional transportation improvements that could be funded through the impact fee (see Table E-1). Funding these 11 projects, the fee would calculate to about $2,800 per dwelling unit and $6 per square foot for commercial/office/industrial space. This discussion is preliminary in nature. The project list, cost estimates, and possible fees are subject to change pending further discussion at the TVTC and evaluation of the nexus relationship between new development and its impact on traffic. Plan Implementation In order for the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan to be implemented, it must be adopted by each TVTC member jurisdiction into their respective general plans. The following elements should be adopted: • 2010 Planned Transportation Network • Transportation Service Objectives Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance (see Chapter 9) • Financing Plan Subregional Transportation Impact Fee concept Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. xfv C .a .o a> — C cD M n ^ n c?LO CliCCD .' bM9 r q Cm r 00 N �MM c 69 E� R7 Q 0) C � N c C O LL LL EO _ C> p In p 000p) O O O O O O ^_ O � C ff� 6% C E9 O OD c O cm 'ca Q CO < > U Q � Q C L � cc8'� to c..c m }+ U c Ov> �' t U) c � S mL 0 U DO v U umi C 0 om O o Ca cm cm CIO CO Cn m c � 0 2 mJ m mcl1U U m m � o O � ani •c C N nGi H C O ? 2 Nv is 2 to � C) O O r n � lA M y CV uj N 20 M C Co C�7 c� O N O to pCD y C14 C) - O fl O fA 0 .0 C N = O w E _ 'ra CL s m cc c m 3 o, o C) cc O cm 0 �L CO O C U 'O •. U N C i O w C L_ nr m m 0 m IL m �, rn 3 ' m c m ' c m me � � cm O m w ccm r CO Co cc7H- ¢ m � c rn � Ear Q cm Mm cc c CO m � o m m e 2 J O O A C C C O C L y m `a- T C m �-. •fl C cc CO W N J m J m '►. i C O N N L N N ovv> c x ¢ VicCu °) > 4 > Ca a� L c caom (Dtom W O zz � � ca 0ulg 2m020 � g � U � CC � E C! Q m o � O C F- - = O > O O Q O ?� cg ~ N u0i O o o � v v co � cn � w -� c E CO O o m a z N i 2 Cn O c c coo Q N � to � � cL3 Ln 8 � Cm mm x � Q � a _ � � �m _ oo _o _ z � � - QUA > w N Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. xv f' t r • Introduction a t t r ♦ t l r r ♦ 1 . Introduction The purpose of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is to assess transportation issues within the Tri-Valley area through the year 2010. The study area includes Danville, San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and unincorporated portions of Contra Costa County and Alameda County. In addition to serving as a guide for transportation planning through 2010, this document represents the Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance for Contra Costa County jurisdictions, as mandated by Measure C. This document also provides information that can be incorporated into the Congestion Management Programs for Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. This document is in addition to existing policies, agreements, and regulations that exist in each jurisdiction or between jurisdictions. The plan was overseen by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC), which includes elected officials from each of the seven member jurisdictions, under a joint powers agreement. The TVTC was assisted by the Tri-Valley Technical Advisory Committee (TVTAC), which includes staff'transportation planners and engineers from each agency. These groups met monthly throughout the plan process, which began in November 1991. Funding for the Plan came from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the three Alameda Tri-Valley cities. The plan was prepared using the Tri-Valley Transportation Model (TVTM), which was developed by Barton-Aschman and TJKM and approved by the TVTC for transporta- tion planning. The zone structure for the Tri-Valley Transportation Model is compatible with the Alameda County, Contra Costa County, and MTC transportation models. The model has been certified by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. This transportation plan is intended to fulfill the requirement for preparation of Action Plans under Measure C in Contra Costa County. Alameda County does not Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. k. Introduction have a similar Action Plan requirement. Nevertheless, the same plan format is followed for the Alameda County portion of Tri-Valley. The TVTC joint powers agreement states that member jurisdictions are to consider the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan when adopting or amending the circulation elements of general plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, or capital improvement programs. The consultant team began meeting with Tri Valley representatives in November, 1991. Meetings were held once each month with the Tri-Valley Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). This committee provided guidance to the consultant and reviewed all work products prior to their submittal to the Tri Valley Technical Council (TVTC). The TVTC acted as the final approval body for all work completed by the consultant. Meetings between the TVTC, TVTAC, and the consultant also occurred on a monthly basis. Figure 1-1 shows the boundaries of planning areas used to summarize data in this report. These boundaries have no planning status except within this report, although attempts have been made to conform to city and sphere of influence boundaries. Routes of Regional Significance have been adopted by each city in Contra Costa County, as well as the County, as part of the Measure C Growth Management Program. Routes of Regional Significance are those roads that serve regional mobility, or act as reliever mutes for the regional system, and serve more than one jurisdiction. The designated routes are exempt from the Measure C basic route level of service standards. Other measures, Traffic Service Objectives are to be adopted for these routes. The plan also includes Routes of Regional Significance for Alameda County, although these are not mandated by county policy (see Figure 1-2). Compliance Requirements on Regional Routes Requirements for compliance with the provisions of the Growth Management Program relating to Routes of Regional Significance are: 1. Participation in development and adoption of Action Plans: Action Plans will be developed through the work of the Regional Committees. 2. Implementation of actions designed to attain traffic service objectives consistent with adopted Action Plan: Action Plans will specify actions to be taken by each jurisdiction. All localities will agree to the actions before the Plans are finalized and adopted. After adoption, cities and the county will have an obligation to implement specified actions consistent with the time frame of the Action Plan. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 2 7X. 00 0 0 too io to 00 0 o •ct � Cwt CCT T 4 r Glp � v �o CQ 0Z s cp.7 a� d d O �t Q a A W 0 co C3 clii co m A t»� d o C o O C1� o U. Ul T\ C-4 Q Z r ulU ol 0 ac — v\ CD \ d 0 woom \ 0 ul 4 \ cc z S U C O Z \'E O � Z 0 oa X37 rrs� ox�na o 1 , rn \ G � O 3 N w' 0cr oa �1438Mn tl 00 W t7 }OM1 4 a' ►�-1 � e ao N �dam, `�e�'t '�~- -✓ tl3 � opati coFEr ,.{ 6y A N do d7� �J 16- co 0 C14 `W r- 00 ? Z v'�o � W Q v, ' a _ C7 C? 021 377bW33Ma LJL 0 cc 0W tom- ou aasvn CC)t p RQ z o ~ J Q x 0 t V vg N \r a< Y W J � nr 3210Wb3v7 'N 4cc a t + m 1S S32Y7pH 2 78 YI3klL'/1W = 4 U O U 021 NOANYJ AV 13SYSi s 831170p a, O 1 W U Ut` AYMM T p J .E z S } U+ t y O VI p u 00 O Y Rd 0 1 Oa N077Vi 4f N 2 F+i 41 t 21 YXrTbSSY2 in 7 t � O 1 3 II W � � G.y ` YedON S Y c ca O / my ca F� co cc U a y o a co LOm Introduction 3. Placing conditions on project approval consistent with Action Plan policies: Some Action Plan policies may require implementation on an ongoing basis through the imposition of conditions on development approvals. These might relate to payment of mitigation fees, implementation of TSM/TDM measures, or phasing of development relative to infrastructure improvements. Two other regional systems have been designated in the Tri-Valley. These are described briefly below. Congestion Management Program (CMP) Routes These have been designated by Contra Costa County and Alameda County as part of the state-mandated CMP. In the Tri-Valley, they include only 1-680, 1-580, and Route 84. The respective county CMP's are shorter-range planning documents than the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) and National Highway System (NHS) Routes The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) defined a system, called the Metropolitan Transportation System, in the 1991 Regional Transportation Plan, and the system has been updated for the 1994 RTP. The purpose of the MTS is to define those facilities and services that are crucial to freight and passenger mobility in the Bay Area. The MTS includes streets and highways, transit systems, seaports, airports, truck terminals, rail yards, and transfer points. In addition to streets and highways, the MTS in the Tri-Valley includes transit corridors along I-680, I-580, and Route 84; the Altamont Pass railroad tracks, which continue to Fremont; and the Livermore airport. The criteria for defining streets and highways in the MTS are as follows: • Serves a major Bay Area activity center Provides important intercounty and/or interregional connections • Serves as a reliever for a freeway • Provides important connections in the MTS system • Serves as a major cross-town arterial for relieving congestion • Provides access to regional passenger and freight transfer facilities. Significance of MTS Designation. Roads that are part of the MTS may benefit from funding available to regional facilities. Any road not in the MTS is considered as serving primarily local travel. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 7 Al Introduction The National Highway System (NHS). The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) calls for the U.S. Congress to designate a National Highway System by December 1995. For the Bay Area, MTC has developed a recommended NHS, which is a subset of the MTS. The purpose of the NHS is to "provide an interconnected system of principal arterial routes which will serve major population centers, international border crossings, ports, airports, public transportation facilities, and other intermodal transportation facilities and other major travel destinations, meet national defense requirements, and serve interstate and interregional travel." The NHS was proposed to focus federal funds to improve a limited number of high priority routes. Figure 1-3 shows the MTS and NHS routes in the Tri-Valley area. Relationship to County Plans The Tri-Valley Action Plan will be combined with action plans from the other four subareas in Contra Costa County to create the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. In Alameda County, a countywide transportation plan was recently completed. The.Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is compatible with the Alameda County Transportation Plan, although it is more detailed and focused in the Tri-Valley Area. If adopted, the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan would be incorporated into future updates of the Alameda County Plan. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 8 I-0 ua ?� •! . ) Z W UJ 0 , 0 �.' I-- `�0 02 Q Q U) Q � I-- CC Z � C00 Q ulp 0 �- oc �+ O 0 2 +` . \L 0 r v 5; ' U3 oa ��H� yay�y55Y1 + , a U � a , o° e � r ii 11 oa 33N3a Mn Z •• v�'� t W .. , O 3 � f 3 �J 6 via Vi Od, r d �L to .aC .w+ td ` x V♦ -Z ul ~ C} co � d @ W T 4. 2 � r'. �r }G\T qa �NN33a0 c V) `f`►,Si V 10 CD oa oasYn 0 ct 0 .4 0 V,,,, cc 2 Rq �� � � V o �Q� .dc W O cc 0 ce rs a a v is ON 0 0` AY 3aona3NI N zo z ct 2 1 is aL3laanw UJI\` U o A m \ oa 1103 avA,afv Z $ O G Go1 ' z o � ,\ qa NOTk! �5 I Nns , 7 l t J < m o 0 d i) o co • t RO � pq ✓ w t , ? U O 0: •� N N A 1Zii • w. C7 .► J V H L�► '�7r.�' s O G D d1 R; i r i r r 2• Existing Transportation Conditions r { 2. Existing Transportation Conditions Chapter Summary • Tri-Valley is relatively free of congestion. Some occasional congestion occurs on the freeways, especially near the I-580/1-680 interchange. • Transit usage is relatively low—four percent of total trips. • Existing average vehicle ridership is about 1.1 for commute trips. • There are 14,000 more employed residents than jobs, so there is net out-commuting. • I-680 and I-580 are major regional highways serving substantial regional demand. Each has 15 to 20 percent through traffic. This chapter describes the existing transportation systems within the Tri-Valley area, including the routes of regional significance, the intersection levels of service at major intersection locations, traffic volumes, transit systems, and bicycle routes serving the area. Figure 2-1 shows the number of lanes on the Routes of Regional Significance. Each is described below. State Highways Interstate 580 a-580) is an eight-lane east/west freeway designated as a route of regional significance through the Tri-Valley area. Auxiliary lanes exist between Foothill Road and Santa Rita Road. I-580 is a critical freight route as designated by the Alameda County CMA. A truck-climbing lane exists in the westbound direction from Foothill Road to the top of the Dublin grade. Figure 2-1 shows interchange locations. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 11 1 T\ hl Z (D Q 0\G v o � cr. ,\ 4 4 \ ` 3 SJR , N ` i U C0 � O , (w} O t U N G'y U) 5 W y�td115SYj �iviy►J N d o , J 'y a 0-0 d N \A d E 7 7 O Z!Y tt 3�a Mn ted' co 00 A � � W aS C+ r v v C3 to to aa a'�8H4 cif> ��►11"� �Q' r' CA a ,N c v +/ tV a � � O o b— cd s7 W Z N 0 N V c V .>G -7 0 \0 N ,'r 010 O •� as aos"A a W a7\w N os \ co Gp Ra ego v \ J�4aa to ,a 2 o go N +^ N o m is sarnoH V/ a "" d iaanW N isZ \ M ro � 7 No l0 �s r \ as 83 0 xd Pf NV iA \ SO- \ E`cR° tNtS N S J` a c0 s ioNns & \ z SPNSAz N o R,SA R �4 N o ��svi yt tQ � z m ar W c 3� o � co °ro"S " co iO v` R° ,A G'N 0 O (� d\ pQUG o r � to o a ILO o r+ o A o co Att G c ctS a o d) � 1 d y G 0 ' M � Existing Transportation Conditions I-680 is a six-lane north/south freeway through the Tri-Valley area. Figure 2-1 shows interchange locations. High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are under construction between SR 24 in Walnut Creek and the county line at A,lcosta Boulevard. I-680 from I-580 to Santa Clara County was widened a few years ago and includes sufficient right-of-way for additional lanes. I-680 is a designated major freight route by the Alameda County CMA, and there are truck climbing lanes over the Sunol grade. State Route 84 (SR 84) is an arterial street including First Street and Holmes Street through Livermore and Vallecitos Road south of Pleasanton. SR 84 diagonally connects I-684 to I-580. First Street has a varied lane configuration and varied land uses along the length of its corridor. From I-584 to Portola Avenue, First Street is a six-lane road. From Portola Avenue to Holmes Street, First Street is a four-lane road with sidewalks, bike lanes, and a raised median. (In some locations the median becomes a two-way, left-turn lane or disappears entirely.) Parking is permitted along some sections of First Street. Holmes Street also has a varied lane configuration that changes from four lanes with sidewalks and median, to two lanes with a wide painted median and sidewalk, to two lanes with no median. The land use varies from light commercial to residential to rural. Bike lanes are present where the street narrows to two lanes. Vallecitos Road is a two-lane winding, rural road that passes through mostly undeveloped farm land and hills. Routes of Regional Significance in Livermore Area Vasco Road is a north/south arterial that is defined as a route of regional significance through Contra Costa County and Alameda County to its termination at Tesla Road in the City of Livermore. Vasco Road is a two-lane road along most of its length, except in developed areas near Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories where it widens to four lanes with concrete curbs, bike lanes, and a raised landscaped median. Stanley Boulevard is an east/west route that is defined as a route of regional signifi- cance from its intersection with First Street and Holmes Street in Livermore to its intersection with First Street in Pleasanton. Stanley Boulevard is four lanes along its entire length. Bike lanes are continuous along Stanley Boulevard except in the region near Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area where the bike lanes convert into a two- way bike path on the south side of the road. First Street and Holmes Street are part of Route 84 (see above). Routes of Regional Signfcance in Pleasanton Area First Street is a two-lane, north/south route defined as a route of regional significance from Stanley Boulevard in the north, to Bernal Avenue in the south. North of down- town, First Street has bike lanes on both sides. Through downtown Pleasanton, First Street has a center turn lane, one lane each way, parking on both sides, and sidewalks. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. t4 Existing Transportation Conditions Sunol Boulevard is a north/south route defined as a route of regional significance from Bernal Avenue to its interchange with I-680. South of Bernal Avenue, Sunol Boulevard is four lanes with raised median, sidewalk, and bike lanes, with adjacent commercial and residential land uses. South of Junipero Street, Sunol Boulevard narrows to two lanes with no median. Santa Rita Road is a north/south route that is defined as a route of regional signifi- cance from its intersection with I-580 in the north, to its intersection with Stanley Boulevard and Main Street near downtown Pleasanton. Santa Rita Road is a six-lane road with sidewalks and raised medians south of I-580. At Valley Avenue, Santa Rita Road narrows to four lanes. A residential frontage road on the east side of Santa Rita Road exists in the segment between Valley Avenue and Stanley Boulevard. Main Street is the continuation of Santa Rita Road and is defined as a route of regional significance to Bernal Avenue. Main Street is a two-lane road with left-turn lanes at Ray Street/St. John Street, St. Mary, and Ray Street/Neal Street. Main Street has sidewalks and parking along both sides in the downtown area. Hopyard Road is a north/south route that is defined as a route of regional significance from its intersection with I-580 to its intersection with Del Valle Parkway and Division Street. South of I-580 to Valley Avenue, Hopyard Road is a six-lane road with wide lanes, sidewalks, and a raised median. A right-turn lane exists between intersections at Owens Drive and Las Positas Boulevard on the east side (northbound direction) of the road. Between Valley Avenue and Division Street, Hopyard Road transitions from six lanes with median sidewalks and bike lanes, to a three-lane and then a two-lane road with an asphalt concrete path on the west side. Division Street is a continuation of Hopyard Road and is defined as a route of regional significance to its intersection with St. Mary Street. Division Street is a two-lane road with a sidewalk on the west side only. St. Mary Street is a continuation of Division Street and is defined as a route of regional significance to its intersection with Main Street in downtown Pleasanton. St. Mary Street is a two-lane road with sidewalks and parking on both sides. St. Mary Street has a center turn lane between Peters Avenue and Main Street. Stoneridge Drive is an east/west route designated as a route of regional significance from Foothill Road to east of Santa Rita Road. Stoneridge Drive is planned to connect to Jack London Boulevard at El Charro Road. Stoneridge Drive varies between four and six lanes with raised median, sidewalks, and bike lanes from Foothill Road to Santa Rita Road. East of Santa Rita Road, Stoneridge Drive narrows to a two-lane road with sidewalks and bike lanes on the south side of the street. Stoneridge Drive is planned for six lanes for its entire length. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 15 Existing Transportation Conditions Routes of Regional Significance in Dublin Area San Ramon Road is the continuation of San Ramon Valley Boulevard into the City of Dublin. San Ramon Road is designated as a route of regional significance from the northern city limit to the southern city limit. From Alcosta Boulevard to Amador Valley Boulevard, San Ramon Road has four lanes with a raised median, bike lanes and sidewalks. South of Amador Valley Boulevard, San Ramon Road widens to six lanes. Tassajara Road is a north/south route that is defined as a route of regional signifi- cance from Camino Tassajara to 1-580. Tassajara Road is a two-lane road from Camino Tassajara to the 1-580 on- and off-ramps where it becomes four lanes. Land use along Tassajara Road is mainly rural. Dougherty Road is a north/south route that is defined as a route of regional signifi- cance from Crow Canyon Road to 1-580. From Crow Canyon Road to the Dublin City Limit, Dougherty Road is a winding two-lane road. From the city limit, Dougherty Road has four travel lanes. Some sidewalks exist adjacent to completed housing developments. A bike path (two-way bike lanes) exists on the east side of the street. South of Sierra Lane, Dougherty Road becomes a five-lane road with the addition of a center left-turn lane. The center left turn-lane is replaced by a northbound lane just north of 1-580 (three northbound lanes, two southbound lanes). Dublin Boulevard is an east/west route that is defined as a route of regional signifi- cance from San Ramon Road to Tassajara. Road. Dublin Boulevard is a four-lane road with sidewalks on both sides and a raised median from San Ramon Road to Dougherty Road and a two-lane road from Dougherty Road to Tassajara. Road. West of 1-680, parking is permitted along both sides of the road. Land use along Dublin Boulevard is mostly commercial/retail. Routes of Regional Significance in San Ramon Area San Ramon Valley Boulevard is a north/south route that is designated as a route of regional significance from Danville to the Dublin City Limit. San Ramon Valley Boulevard is a two-lane road at the Danville Town Limits, and widens to a four-lane road with raised median, bike lanes, and sidewalks. Where land use is more rural, between Montevideo and Alcosta Boulevard, San Ramon Valley Boulevard is a two- lane road with bike lanes on both sides. Between Crow Canyon and Norris Canyon, San Ramon Valley Boulevard is a six-lane road with heavy commercial use. The remaining segments of San Ramon Valley Boulevard consist of four lanes. Alcosta Boulevard is a four-lane, east/west route with a raised median and sidewalks, defined as a route of regional significance for only a short segment from 1-680 to Village Parkway. Alcosta Boulevard extends from San Ramon Valley Boulevard to Crow Canyon Road, and includes a full interchange with 1-680. Barron-Aschman Associates, Inc. 16 Existing Transportation Conditions Bollinger Canyon Road is an east/west route defined as a route of regional significance from San Ramon Valley Boulevard to Alcosta Boulevard. Bollinger Canyon is a four- lane road with a raised median and sidewalks from Crow Canyon Road to I-680 and widens to six lanes from I-680 to Alcosta Boulevard. In conjunction with development of the Dougherty Vallley, Bollinger Canyon Road will be extended east to intersect Dougherty Road. Crow Canyon Road is an east/west route defined as a route of regional significance from the Alameda County/Contra Costa County border to Camino Tassajara. At the county line, Crow Canyon is a rural two-lane road which widens to four-lanes and then six-lanes with a raised median and sidewalks where land use is more commercial. Crow Canyon Road remains six lanes until Alcosta Boulevard, where it narrows again to four lanes. A variety of medians and roadside development exists depending on locations of existing land development. At Indian Rice Road, Crow Canyon widens to six lanes and remains six lanes to Camino Tassajara. Routes of Regional Significance in Danville Area Camino Tassajara is an east/west route of regional significance from Sycamore Valley Road to Crow Canyon Road. Camino Tassajara is a four-lane road with a raised median, curbs, sidewalks, and bike lanes as it leaves the community of Blackhawk and narrows to a two lane rural roadway south of Lawrence Road. Land uses in the vicinity of Blackhawk are commercial and residential. Land uses for the southern portions of Camino Tassajara are residential and rural. Sycamore Valley Road is an east/west four-lane route of regional significance with a raised median and sidewalks from I-680 to Camino Tassajara. Hartz Avenue is a two-lane route of regional significance from Danville Boulevard(it is a continuation of Danville Boulevard) to San Ramon Valley Boulevard. Hartz Avenue is a main street in downtown Danville with sidewalks and parking on both sides. Danville Boulevard is a north/south route of regional significance from the northern boundary of the Tri-Valley area to Hartz Avenue. Danville Boulevard is two lanes north of Las Trampas Road, with a center turn lane and narrows to two lanes south of Las Trampas Road. At El Cerro, Danville Boulevard widens to four lanes with parking on both sides and bike lanes. San Ramon Valley Boulevard is also a route of regional significance in Danville. It is the continuation of Hartz Avenue south of Railroad Avenue. San Ramon Valley Boulevard has two lanes to the Danville town limit. Crow Canyon Road has a short segment that is within the Town of Danville. This segment is between Tassajara Ranch Drive and Camino Tassajara and is six lanes wide. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 17 Existing Transportation Conditions Traffic Volumes and Capacity on Arterials Traffic volumes for the routes of regional significance were compiled from individual jurisdictions and Caltrans. These volumes are shown on Figure 2-2. Volumes on the routes of regional significance are shown as average daily traffic (ADT)volumes. These roadway volumes are largest near major development/job centers and smallest on the fringes of the Tri-Valley area. Volumes are also high at certain major freeway interchanges such as I-680/Crow Canyon Road and 1-580/ Dougherty Road/Hopyard Drive. Table 2-1 compares the volumes to typical capacity ranges. The roads that are nearing capacity based on ADT are Vasco Road, Vallecitos Road (Highway 84), First Street in Pleasanton, the two-lane section of San Ramon Valley Boulevard in San Ramon, Crow Canyon Road near 1-680, Hopyard Road north of Owens, San Ramon Road near I-580, Dougherty Road near I-580, and Dublin Boulevard west of 1-680. First Street in Pleasanton, however, is a downtown street, and congestion in this location is expected due to the dense development. Freeway Levels of Service Level of service descriptions for both I-580 and I-680 were obtained from the I-680 Corridor Study Existing Conditions report prepared by TJKM for the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and from freeway travel times studies prepared by Abrams Associates for the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. These values are shown on Figure 2-3. The freeway lane capacity is assumed to be 2,200 vehicles per hour. I-580 operates at LOS C or better in both directions throughout the Tri-Valley area during peak hours with the exception of a short segment between the 1-580/1-680 interchange and the Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road interchange in Pleasanton. This section occasionally becomes congested during peak hours. I-680 operates at LOS C or better in both directions throughout most of the Tri-Valley area. However, a section of northbound I-680 between Stoneridge and the 1-680/1-580 interchange occasionally becomes congested during peak hours as does the southbound segment between Alcosta and the 1-680/1-580 interchange. All these problems on I-580 and I-680 near the I-680/1-580 interchange are caused by the interchange design with loop ramps and weaving sections. The other segments of I-680 that occasionally become congested are from Crow Canyon Road north to the 1-680/24 interchange. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 18 o C14 Cl)1 1 N tu T d , 0o LA- • 0 01-0 > Q \ CG a \ d x C'3 , \ Z xo \r 'f� x � 0 va sv1 ON1N'bJ , lu O M Oa 3ON38 MY, G ` , , 00�, 0 000 � o+ 4 F Q00 �O , .�... o a ao oo is �arO Q ? T x titi f.? os tiJ O .d••# M� W s CV x a00 ' N 3 od 31TAN3380 n r ' Oa OJSrn N�,S V o p LL J�ScD RD ,o0 00. U. i a �, ✓ � '� � doe 0\ ge 0 Y 4 tfs0i L) N AV 3NOM&3At7 'N a �S31T � 70H O Cl o , 79Z d13 aanrvOp z Z z N ...� \ AV 13SYS/ Dom— ♦/) 2l3�170J u+0 �/ \ 18 AVM?iiY X� � w'"j 4 0 oa Et C RRD 1 RD O co 00. !! au N017i+3 co p � t (`J o a 7.300 OX v�+lb55Ytm Ry(A RD Ob.01 78 70Nn5 �` Oq a 00621 00� z a a0 `�" z O 43 0 `n .tdOH Y dco N N \`14*Add Oa LO o$t> _ Q) ucMER7Y OOV 1 Z z .6-0 1 RD cc d B 0 i OO ey' r oU�� A ��pN Rp O ,LC1 cc co a �° / A c 0 00 ccs m Existing Transportation Conditions Table 2-1 Traffic Volumes and Capacity for Routes of Regional Significance Existing Typical Capacity Range' Jurisdiction/Route Lanes ADT (in thousands) Livermore Vasco Road 2 13,500 17-20 Stanley Boulevard 4 24,300 27-36 Pleasanton First Street (north of Neal) 2 18,500 15-20 Sunol Boulevard (south of Bernal) 4 17,700 27-36 Santa Rita Road (north of Las 6 27,900 40-56 Positas) Main Street (north of Rose) 2 9,800 12-17 Hopyard Road (north of Owens) 6 43,000 40-56 Division Street 2 6,900 12-17 Stoneridge Drive west of 1-680 6 29,000 40-56 east of Santa Rita Road 4 17,000 27-36 Dublin San Ramon Road north of Amador Valley 4 23,600 27-36 south of Dublin Boulevard 6 48,600 40-56 Dougherty Road north of Dublin Boulevard 4 21,400 27-36 south of Dublin Boulevard 6 44,200 40-56 Dublin Boulevard east of 1-680 4 24,000 27-36 west of 1-680 4 32,100 27-36 San Ramon San Ramon Valley Boulevard north of Alcosta Boulevard 2 12,100 12-17 north of Crow Canyon Road 4 21,300 27-36 Alcosta Boulevard 4 24,600 27-36 - Bollinger Canyon Road 6 36,400 40-56 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 21 Existing Transportation Conditions Table 2-1 (Continued) Traffic Volumes and Capacity for Routes of Regional Significance Existing Typical Capacity Range' Jurisdiction/Route Lanes ADT (in thousands) Crow Canyon Road west of San Ramon 2 20,000 17-20 west of 1-680 6 . 44,300 40-56 east of 1-680 6 48,200 40-56 west of Dougherty Road 4 13,000 27-36 Danville Camino Tassajara 4 18,000 27-36 Sycamore Valley Road 4 18,900 27-36 Hartz Avenue 2 10,400 12-17 Danville Boulevard 4 18,700 27-36 San Ramon Valley Boulevard 2 12-17 Crow Canyon Road 6 18,000 40-56 State Route 84 First Street north of Portola Avenue 6 27,200 40-56 north of Holmes Street 4 12,700 27-36 Holmes Street 4 23,000 27-36 Vallecitos Road 2 11,000 12-17 Niles Canyon Road 2 12,500 12-17 ' Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 22 � vJ y a G cV Z + t V p p W U� ' W 4 z o � 0 O v , d , V Y i ` c m J C _Z CL U Qa O O O O 11 !1 W W01 ,4 I'm 10 Oa UGHE 1 go c � , cc O pd V c C �cc + yob �T� ON d /C13 6Z WWW z N 0 � O Gf O ? c? v as 0�? •,, s V H 0 J \o? O a , � h \ S A i \ g g m is S3"H \ 3a014M � N Y131Hanw \ $ so c m \\� 10D �yMaN i O co N W ` oa NO f9. o ioNns 0 vi o . z \ J u m co to O o \ RO a W O • U 11 \` \0 N v 0 � J N A d , ao � co - o G l D �p Existing Transportation Conditions Intersection Levels of Service The operating conditions at intersections of routes of regional significance and at certain freeway off-/on-ramps were evaluated with level of service calculations. Level of Service is a qualitative description of an intersection's operation, ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay time at the intersection, to LOS F, or highly congested conditions with long delays at the intersection (see Table 2-2). Table 2-2 Level of Service Definitions Level of Service Interpretation V/C Ratio A Uncongested operations; all queues clear in a single Less Than 0.60 signal cycle. B Very light congestion; an occasional approach phase is 0.60-0.70 fully utilized. C Light congestion; occasional backups on critical 0.70-0.80 approaches. D Significant congestion on critical approaches, but 0.80-0.90 intersection functional. Cars required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. No longstanding queues formed. E Severe congestion with some long-standing queues on 0.90-0.99 critical approaches. Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements. Traffic queue may block nearby intersections(s) upstream of critical approach(es). F Total breakdown, stop-and-go operation. 1.00 and Greater A signalized intersection's level of service can be calculated with a number of methods. For this study, a method based on critical movement analysis, called the VCCC method was used. VCCC stands for Volume-to-Capacity Contra Costa County. See Appendix A for a full description of the VCCC program. This method is identical to the Circular 212 method except that the saturation flow is increased from 1,500 to 1,800 vehicles per hour. This adjustment was based on saturation-flow rate studies conduct- ed by CCTA in Contra Costa County. The volumes of cars on a critical movement are summed and divided by the capacity of the movement. This V/C ratio of each critical movement at an intersection is used to produce an overall intersection V/C ratio also taking into account signal phasing. The overall V/C ratio is then correlated to a level of service (see Table 2-2). AM peak-hour and PM peak-hour levels of service are shown by city in Table 2-3. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 25 • F Existing Transportation Conditions Table 2-3 Existing (1990) Intersection Level of Service Analysis AM Peak PM Peak City N/S Street E/W Street V/C LOS V/C LOS Dublin Foothill Road 1-580 WB Off 0.27 A 0.50 A San Ramon Road Dublin Boulevard 0.49 A 0.87 D San Ramon Valley Amador Valley 0.38 A 0.58 A Village Parkway Amador Valley 0.51 A 0.71 C Dougherty Road 1-580 WB Off 0.56 A 0.68 B Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard 0.58 A 0.84 D Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard 0.24 A 0.72 C Dougherty Road Amador Valley 0.46 A 0.39 A Amador Plaza Dublin Boulevard 0.22 A 0.50 A Regional Street Dublin Boulevard 0.26 A 0.58 A Village Parkway Brighton Drive 0.25 A 0.36 A Livermore Murrietta Blvd Portola Avenue 0.53 A 0.15 B North Livermore Portola Avenue 0.35 A 0.50 A North Livermore 1-580 EB Off 0.44 A 0.21 A Murrietta Blvd Stanley Boulevard 0.80 C 0.78 C Holmes Street Murrietta/4th 0.89 D 0.87 D Murrietta Blvd Jack London 0.37 A 0.39 A First Street 1-580 EB Off 0.74 C 0.81 D East Vallecitos East Vineyard Avenue 0.75 C 0.86 D Vasco Road 1-580 WB Off 0.42 A 0.97 E North Livermore 1-580 WB Off 0.39 A 0.86 D Vasco Road 1-580 EB Off 1.09 F 0.93 E Owens Drive West Las Positas 0.23 A 0.25 A Vasco Road East Avenue 0.81 D 0.53 A Holmes Street Concannon Boulevard 0.54 A 0.50 A North Mines East Street 0.47 A 0.58 A First Street 1-580 WB Off 0.77 C 0.64 B Airway Boulevard 1-580 EB Off 0.56 A 0.56 A Airway Boulevard 1-580 WB Off 0.53 A 0.27 A Pleasanton Hopyard Road Owens Drive 0.56 A 0.69 B Santa Rita Road West Las Positas 0.36 A 0.45 A Tassajara Road 1-580 WB Off 0.75 C 0.56 A Hopyard Road Stoneridge Drive 0.43 A 0.53 A Hopyard Road 1-580 EB Off 0.67 B 0.66 B Hopyard Road West Las Positas 0.43 A 0.51 A Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 26 Existing Transportation Conditions Table 2-3 Existing (1990) Intersection Level of Service Analysis (Continued) AM Peak PM Peak City N/S Street E/W Street V/C LOS V/C LOS Hopyard Road Valley Avenue 0.41 A 0.49 A Santa Rita Road Valley Avenue 0.55 A 0.65 B Foothill Road 1-580 EB Off 0.24 A 0.40 A First/Sunol Bernal Avenue 0.51 A 0.50 A 1-680 SB Off Bernal Avenue 0.36 A 0.40 A 1-680 NB Off Bernal Avenue 0.35 A 0.49 A 1-680 SB Off Sunol Boulevard 0.53 A 0.28 A 1-680 NB Off Sunol Boulevard 0.44 A 0.48 A Santa Rita Road 1-580 EB Off 0.60 A 0.70 B First Street Ray/Vineyard 0.65 B 0.70 B Main Street Stanley Boulevard 0.23 A 0.34 A Santa Rita Road Stoneridge Drive 0.43 A 0.57 A 1-680 SB Off Stoneridge Drive 0.34 A 0.36 A 1-680 NB Off Stoneridge Drive 0.33 A 0.31 A Foothill Road Dublin Canyon 0.31 A 0.70 B Valley Avenue Stanley Boulevard 0.56 A 0.58 A Stoneridge Drive West Las Positas 0.26 A 0.31 A San Ramon San Ramon Valley Bollinger Canyon 0.46 A 0.50 A Village Parkway Alcosta Boulevard 0.18 A 0.31 A 1-680 NB Off Crow Canyon Road 0.52 A 0.40 A San Ramon Valley Norris Canyon 0.51 A 0.87 D Alcosta Boulevard Crow Canyon Road 0.46 A 0.61 B Alcosta Boulevard Bollinger Canyon 0.53 A 0.55 A Bollinger Canyon Crow Canyon Road 0.64 B 0.71 C San Ramon Valley Alcosta Boulevard 0.49 A 0.49 A 1-680 SB Off Alcosta Boulevard 0.72 C 0.65 B 1-680 SB Off Crow Canyon Road 0.65 B 0.57 A 1-680 SB Off Bollinger Canyon 0.42 A 0.76 C 1-680 NB Off Bollinger Canyon 0.77 C 0.56 A Dougherty Road Crow Canyon 0.20 A 0.24 A 1-680 NB Off Alcosta Boulevard 0.67 B 0.87 D Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 27 Existing Transportation Conditions Table 2-3 Existing (1990) Intersection Level of Service Analysis (Continued) AM Peak PM Peak City N/S Street E/W Street V/C LOS V/C LOS Danville San Ramon Valley Sycamore Valley 0.37 A 0.77 C 1-680 SB Off Sycamore Valley 0.41 A 0.66 B Camino Tassajara Sycamore Valley 0.41 A 0.35 A Hartz Avenue Diablo Road 0.36 A 0.45 A 1-680 NB On Sycamore Valley 0.53 A 0.45 A Camino Tassajara Diablo Road 0.64 B 0.83 D Diablo Road EI Cerro Road 0.46 A 0.44 A 1-680 SB Off Diablo Road 0.53 A 0.47 A 1-680 NB Off Diablo Road 0.54 A 0.59 A 1-680 SB Off El Cerro Boulevard 0.47 A 0.55 A 1-680 NB Off EI Cerro Boulevard 0.73 C 0.50 A San Ramon Railroad Avenue 0.38 A 0.46 A Blackhawk Road Camino Tassajara 0.36 A 0.37 A Unincorporated Danville Boulevard Stone Valley 0.77 C 1.08 F CCC 1-680 SB Off Stone Valley 0.49 A 0.59 A 1-680 NB Off Stone Valley 0.53 A 0.46 A 1-680 NB Off Livoma Road 0.41 A 0.31 A 1-680 SB Off Livorna Road 0.34 A 0.34 A Most intersections of routes of regional significance in the Tri-Valley area operate at LOS D or better. LOS D is generally considered to be an acceptable operating condi- tion for major intersections. All but one intersection meet this criteria in the AM peak hour. The exception is Vasco/I-580 EB Off-Ramp (LOS F). During the PM peak hour three intersections operate at Level of Service E or F: Vasco/I-580 WB Off, Vasco/I-580 EB Off, and Danville/Stone Valley. Tri-Valley Bicycle Network The bicycle network in Tri-Valley consists of three different types of bicycle facilities: bicycle paths (Class I), bicycle lanes (Class II), and bicycle routes (Class III). A bicycle path is an off-street bicycle facility for the exclusive use of bicycles. These facilities are physically separate from streets or sidewalks. A bicycle lane is a one-way path on the side of a roadway that is specifically signed and striped for bicycle travel. A bicycle route is a shared, either with pedestrians on the sidewalk or with vehicles on the street, bicycle facility on the roadway with no striped designation for bicycle travel. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 28 Existing Transportation Conditions The majority of bicycle facilities in the Tri-Valley area are Class II and Class III bikeways. A few Class I bicycle facilities are available, including the Iron Horse Trail. The Iron Horse Trail is a mixed-use path for pedestrians, bicycles and horses. This trail runs along the Southern Pacific right-of-way between Walnut Creek and Dublin. Figure 2-4 shows the existing bicycle network for the Tri-Valley Area and Figure 2-5 shows the future bicycle network. These networks were defined on the Tri-Valley Bike Plan approved by the TVTC in February 1992. Transit There are several transit options available in the Tri-Valley area. Areawide bus service is provided by local carriers. Dial-a-ride service is also provided for those transit patrons that are unable to utilize regular bus service. Transit services provided by larger Tri-Valley employers augment areawide bus service by either providing special shuttles, as in the case of Bishop Ranch, or by distributing free transit passes as in the case of Hacienda Business Park. Connections to other locations in the Bay Area outside of Tri-Valley are available through the BART Express bus service, which carries patrons to BART stations in Hayward and Walnut Creek. Connections from Stockton to the Tri-Valley area are also available through a subscription bus service. Areawide Bus Service Bus service in the Tri-Valley area is provided by Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCTA), which operates County Connection; Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), which operates WHEELS; and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), which operates the BART Express Buses. County Connection operates scheduled, fixed-route, and dial-a-ride bus service in the suburban portions of Contra Costa County. Three routes serve the Tri-Valley cities of Danville and San Ramon. BART express buses are operated by BART and provide feeder service between park-n- ride lots, business parks, and BART stations. BART operates six routes in the Tri- Valley, serving the Bayfair and Walnut Creek BART stations. WHEELS bus routes, operated by the Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority, provide scheduled, fixed- route, and dial-a-ride bus services to the Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore. Pleasanton also provides its own dial-a-ride service. Table 2-4 briefly describes the bus routes serving the Tri-Valley. Trip Reduction Programs The Tri-Valley area includes two major business parks: Bishop Ranch in San Ramon and Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton. Both of these parks have implemented innovative trip reduction programs intended to reduce the number of single-occupant automobiles on commute routes to these major employment centers. The City of San Ramon oversees the program in Bishop Ranch. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 29 v � cr) T\ � G N > i y o v Z CD X \, W r' \ o , Z 0b � N N N \ N N N 1 O O _0 U U U II 11 II Ob \� 3ON38 1AY1 W _3 1 1\ 00 00 3� JQP ep Cd Q \\� c �+ •� coo C �o \ ty ca cc co J A ' Z Mc W .` 00 CO T N pttG L V � -Tnm.33210 tS` 3 im .� moo\d r i oa Aasrn - R \\� err Ra K f\\� `�■ X4� W t nY 32faYt273N1 W t o f�� 78 Y131X2tt}W i ` - z o U ON NOdNYJ _.�- { nY 139Ysr t 213111Da ( �. j u 1 8 .xdi art L t1 C1 00 , RA �y ON No77Y.! aj 1 a! nl MH w� - 11 ON ✓21YldSSYl � Q��A1 {�++ 1,y+� { Roff { RISS A i )a It _ = ` m C a o in U U U d 1 DOUGHERTY RA Oa 0 YAd01� OD as i 1 z 4� cc .0co � A V < oiS LOC13 s C-4 d d w G7� G x cJ o��J�� 0 aU a O lit Nop3molo mo r—ll 00* W ` as � ����� r � � r t i r G fJ+ d� . � CD LOLO LO 'C14 > off, 0 \o i o ,v W N0 Vo Oa 3771nN33&0 Y 0 %(I) & m ,E 0\ w W RD � F G , ,E 0b o9SVn ~ M4�� Q O % LIJ aI 1 oc q� `— � b4 AV 3SOMb3N7 w - Jy 1s S3ly , 70H .ill / v131banry� 12: 4. U \ 08 NOANYJ —n—I W�11—u II II—n AY 738VS1 � 1Y m c� EL CFVR ' 41 I10 W w D W ,F..tI Ob NOTryj lz Li W ^� obII vdwvr15sv1 SS_ ,>�orons J N N N ,! 319 •y N 41 N � L F C W U U U \p0 NERtt RD ori,\ a DA ` II II 11 It ��� 00 LAJ -w-+ � cc � At UCAo 0 o co LOm a� tau c_ c E c E E y U) C> CO N m N C m O C_ C_ C_ C_ C E E E E E E E E E coo E i� CO (D (D M to 0 to (D lA O 0) Y Q w C YCO Cc C Cu Q Y O Y O Y O Y O •C d Ca CO Cl Ca d Ca a Ca t1 O Cu -0 a) a> a) > H to v, o d O ao ao no � Cn y N N � N N � c� a) oa) a� ma� a� om a� mma> mm mama; mm > > > > > > > > > > > > 7 > > > > > > > > > C_ C_ C_ C_ C_ C C_ C C_ C_ C _C C C C C C C C C C C o E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E .E 00 00000000 000000 0000 00 M M CD M CD M (0 0 to M (V M (0 Cl M (D M CO M N M CD a C > O Q C = L a CL Ct CL (l1 O m CD m C m (ts m m O E = RSm m 'per p ►J. p p -p Mcc CDmmm00 C O 'C 'C 'C " " i _ r r C L C M C C C (D C to( 0 «3 cC C C 0 o (n o � E o 0 0 iaM cc ca ca (a� � (n M v) o Q (A CO in > C) Q CO CO m CO cc Ca J J � C C Q cC c0 L a� CO EL CLza mz10 a '0 '0 a) m m (� y ff Cr m to m H c p C o F.. CO m e �_ c m ..1 c (n «. a (LJmQCO 00 0) v c c v Q o ma' vv () 'O 'ov _.. •' m C CO 0) w C O C C C C 'c C E c >. m � Cu m c> ca Hma� �.mmm (C U M Ca mC cc S? C _O (3C a M C W M O R. (VO O «t Q� LL 0 0 J = CL > a. = J (nJCL `i_ = JIf) 2 W q3 Cr N o U Q to m N CO a Y ►- m O f' r- N Z > Cr C1 0 V N N —j Q O r N V CD Q X J CL X m 0X UT- r Z _j 04 CO vt ln (Dr- 0 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 34 Existing Transportation Conditions Bishop Ranch The Bishop Ranch Business Park operates a shuttle that provides two types of service—a commuter service and a convenience/shopping service. The commuter service runs from the Walnut Creek BART Station to Bishop Ranch. This service is provided exclusively for employees of tenants of Sunset Development Corporation. (This service is not available to Chevron, Pacific Bell, or AT&T employees.) This service operates with 20-minute headways from 5:30 AM to 9:30 AM and from 3:30 PM to 6:10 PM. Average weekday ridership is 250 patrons per day. The conveniencelshopping service runs from Bishop Ranch to Crow Canyon Commons, Diablo Plaza, and Marketplace Plaza (commercial/retail centers in the area). This service is provided for employees of tenants of Sunset Development Corporation and employees of Pacific Bell. This service operates with 10-minute headways from 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM. Average weekday ridership is 40 patrons per day. Both shuttle services are provided free of charge. In addition to the shuttle service, Bishop Ranch provides other transportation services. The transportation center is linked with the RIDES Bay Area ridesharing commuter network and two full-time employees are available to assist potential carpool/vanpool riders get matched. Other services provided by Bishop Ranch include the sale of local transit tickets, promotional events, a preferential parking program, and bicycle facilities. Bishop Ranch has been offering transportation services for over eight years. The Bishop Ranch shuttle has operated near or at capacity since it began. Other types of commute modes are monitored by Bishop Ranch, and percentages of drive-alone trips have decreased in the past year, while percentages of carpool, vanpool, and other non-single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips have increased. Hacienda Business Park Hacienda Business Park maintains two transit contracts—one with BART and one with WHEELS—that allow employees of Hacienda Business Park to ride free. Participation in the BART program generates approximately 150 patrons per day. Participation in the WHEELS program runs approximately 160 patrons per day and has increased by more than 100 percent since 1990,according to John Deaver at the Hacienda Business Park Owners' Association. Hacienda Business Park also provides to its employees preferential parking for carpools and vanpools and connections on-site, through FAX and phone, to the RIDES Bay Area ridesharing commuter network. Trip Reduction/Travel Demand Management Ordinances All Tri-Valley cities and counties have trip reduction ordinances in compliance with CMP requirements and Regulation 13 of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. These are targeted at major employers with the intention of reducing peak- hour trip-making. Many employers have employee commute coordinators, who monitor Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 35 Existing Transportation Conditions trip-making and encourage alternatives to driving alone during peak hours. Typical incentives include ridesharing-matching services, preferential parking for carpools, and flexible or staggered work hours. Existing Mode Split The mode split for commute trips in the Tri-Valley area in 1990 was estimated using the Tri-Valley Transportation Model. The existing estimated mode split is 79 percent drive-alone trips, 17 percent carpools, and 4 percent transit trips. This calculates to an average vehicle ridership of 1.15 persons per car for peak-hour commute trips. Driveway counts done by the City of Pleasanton in the Hacienda Business Park indicate an average vehicle occupancy of 1.12, which supports the calculations of the model. Existing Travel Patterns The Tri-Valley presently has about 11,000 more employed residents than local jobs (see Table 2-5). Hence, it is an area of net out-commuting. However, even areas with a perfect job-housing balance experience out-commuting by some residents and in- commuting by others. Figure 2-6 shows that 58 percent of total PM peak-hour trips in Tri-Valley involve internal trips, 20 percent are external to internal (out-commuters returning home), 20 percent are internal to external (in-commuters leaving their jobs), and 2 percent are through trips. "Internal" trips are defined as those with both trip ends in the Tri- Valley. For persons working in Tri-Valley but living elsewhere the major residence locations are other Contra Costa County cities and other Alameda County cities. Also, 17 percent live in the Central Valley. For Tri-Valley residents that work elsewhere, the major destinations are again other Alameda County cities and other Contra Costa County cities. Table 2-5 Jobs-Housing Balance Employed Residents 122,882 Jobs 111,651 Source: ABAG Projections 90. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 36 Figure 2-6 1990 TOTAL TRIPS BY TYPE PM PEAK HOUR EXTERNAL TO EXTERNAL txTER94L TO INTERNAL (2,2%) (19.9%) INTERNAL TO EX/ERNAL (20.2%) NRERW TRIPS (57.8%) TRIPS FROM TRI-VALLEY TO- OTHER BAY AREA CENTRAL VALLEY (4.6%) (17.2%) OTHER CONTRA COSTA CO. (36.7%) SAMA CUBA CO. (3.5%) ....... :.. '.. (38.0%) OTHER AL WM4 CO. V C m TRIPS TO TRI-VALLEY FROM (o OTHER BAY AREA CENTRAL VALLEY 07HER CONTRA COSTA CO. N (9.7%) (27.5%) ft SANTA CLA% CO. . . CC Q OTHER ALAMEDA CO. 0 (42.8%) t+ cc Source: Tri—Valley Transportation Model 3 ` Goals and Transportation Service Objectives 3. Goals and Transportation Service Objectives Consistent with the Contra Costa and Alameda countywide transportation plans, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council has adopted the following broad goals to guide this planning effort. • Improve safety • Manage congestion • Enhance mobility • Provide and encourage the use of alternatives to single-occupant auto use • Provide adequate transportation systems to support land use plans • Integrate transportation planning with concerns relating to air quality, community character and other environmental factors • Sustain and support the economic vitality of the region through enhanced mobility. According to Action Plan guidelines, these goals are to be achieved through the specification and monitoring of Transportation Service Objectives (TSOs). TSOs are quantifiable measures of effectiveness that establish a standard for evaluating transportation system effectiveness. No one jurisdiction's actions can assure that traffic service objectives on Regional Routes will be met. Compliance will be determined on the basis of participation and implementation of Action Plans. The following are requirements for a jurisdiction to be considered in compliance in relation to Regional Routes: • Participation in development and adoption of Action Plans. • Local implementation of actions designed to attain traffic service objectives consis- tent with adopted Action Plans. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 38 Goals and Transportation Service Objectives • Placing conditions on project approvals consistent with Action Plan policies (e.g., requiring payment of fees or participation in the TSM/TDM program). • Circulation of environmental documents as specified in Action Plans. • Submission to Regional Committee of proposed revision(s) to Action Plan to mitigate impacts associated with proposed General Plan amendments. General Plan amendments that would reduce the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans may lead to a determination of non-compliance if the Action Plan cannot be revised with the approval of the Regional Committee and the CCTA. • Participation in Regional Mitigation Programs developed by the CCTA. Preliminary TSOs were presented to the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) in February 1993. After discussion and subsequent modification, the TSOs were approved by the TVTC in March 1993. The following list presents the approved TSOs. One or more will be applied to each regional route, different routes may have different TSOs. Link-Levels of Service (LOS). LOS no worse than E (V/C = 0.99) on freeways and ramps during the peak hours based on traffic counts. This represents a very busy condition, with speeds about 35 mph on freeways. This standard is sometimes not met under today's traffic conditions. For freeways, this corresponds to the existing CMP standards. For arterials, the LOS standard is D on a link basis. These are also subject to an intersection LOS standard. Hours of Congestion. LOS E conditions on I-580 for no more than two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon, except over Altamont Pass, where no TSO has been adopted. LOS E on I-680 for no more than four hours in the morning and four hours in the evening. Given the gateway constraints discussed in Chapter 5, this is the best the plan can achieve. Intersection Levels of Service. LOS no worse than D (V/C = 0.90) for signalized intersections during peak hours. The methodology is the VCCC program, which is based on critical movement analysis, with adjustments to raw model output turning movements. This is the standard to which all Tri-Valley jurisdictions presently adhere. Under current conditions, only three of the study intersections violate this standard. Tri-Valley Gateways. I-580, I-680, and Crow Canyon Road (Castro Valley to San Ramon) and Vasco Road (north of Livermore). No increase in capacity for single- occupant passenger vehicles. Widening of gateways would cause the Tri-Valley area to be negatively affected by interregional traffic. (See Chapter 7 for a complete discussion of this issue.) Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR). On average, reduce the number of vehicles used for commute trips. This has air quality as well as traffic benefits. The Average Vehicle Ridership is a measure recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Their recommended goal is AVR = 1.35 for large employers in the Tri-Valley by 1999. The current AVR is about 1.15. The transportation service objective is to increase the overall AVR for all employers, large and small, by 10 percent. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 39 Goals and Transportation Service Objectives Transit Travel Times. Express transit options should be provided that equal or better auto travel times in the major corridors (I-680 and I-580). Transit travel times must be reasonably competitive with auto travel times in order to attract riders. Transit travel time should be reduced through the provision of more frequent service, more express service versus local service, with high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and with ramp metering and HOV bypass lanes. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 40 i f i t 1 4 Baseline Forecasts i s i t f i f i t 4. Baseline Forecasts Chapter Summary • Baseline forecasts representing ABAG Projections '90 land use data are required for Action Plans. • The baseline forecasts do not reflect current land use or network planning by the TVTC. • The planned, baseline transportation system would be inadequate to support the 2010 baseline growth levels. The baseline traffic forecasts are for the years 2000 and 2010. They are based on land use projections from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)Projections '90. Land use adjustments between individual zones were made to reflect discussions with local staff. The overall total dwelling units and jobs projections for the Tri-Valley were not altered. The assumed road network was based on input from the member jurisdic- tions of the TVTC as of 1992. This chapter describes the model inputs and the traffic forecasts and their impact on the road system. Baseline forecasts presented in this chapter are mandated by CCTA and the Alameda County CMA as part of their planning processes to insure consistency with ABAG projections throughout the counties. However, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) believes that the "expected land use" scenario provides a better basis for the development of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan recommendations. The TVTC defined their expectations for land use and network projections, which are presented in Chapter 5. Banton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 41 Baseline Forecasts Land Use Forecasts The land use forecasts used in the baseline traffic estimates are based on ABAG Projections '90 (see Table 4-1). Minor modifications were made to the ABAG data to shift some future houses and jobs between jurisdictions, but the Tri-Valley land use totals are within one percent of the ABAG forecasts. Note that ABAG forecasts are not constrained by infrastructure availability or political viability. For comparison purposes, Exhibit 1 shows a comparison to ABAG Projections '92. The 2010 land use forecasts do not represent buildout of the Tri-Valley area, as speed by each jurisdiction's general plan. Rather, the forecasts represent likely absorption rates for new houses and businesses between now and 2010. Network Assumptions Staff-from the Tri-Valley jurisdictions outlined the future road network assumptions as of 1992 (see Figure 4-1). The major criterion that was considered when including a particular improvement in the future road network was whether that improvement was likely to be constructed by 2000 or 2010. Not all of the future road network is currently funded. This is discussed further in Chapter 7. The improvements to state highways included in the future road networks were shown in the MTC 1991 Regional Transportation Plan and are either fully or partially funded. These include high occupancy vehicle (HOV)lanes on I-680, auxiliary lanes on I-680, a southbound-to-eastbound flyover ramp at the I-580/1-680 interchange, and widening of Route 84. Also in the category of regional improvements, the 2010 network included the extension of BART service to East Dublin/Pleasanton. The local road widenings and extensions included in the future networks are all included in local general plans and are all funded or expected to be funded by 2010. Many are anticipated to befunded with impact fees on new development or will be built by developers to serve their development projects. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 42 � M N O O T O to r CD O In 00 CD st N O r r 0 0 M O Ln CO O � r\ NV, T LS (D O C'i LQrl cc � Ln Ln N tC) T O_ T 00 Ln T N O T it V T r\ O r N Ch N O O T O O CO (D O O Ln Cn CD V I CO r r r` O Cl) a) LO O O U) r r CV) 'Kr CO OT CO O T O r 19tT O Cl) CD T OD Nr O rCi LO � N C7 T O N O CL E O 0 N V CO r C) Cn r- CD O T Iq N v t` w 0 r T r O O Ln N c� Ln CD In In tt T O CD O C'7 h N �t N Ln CO N r sr N T O CO N Ln r` Ch T O C) r tD r O Cr) U) Cn O r O r U) T CO O C`) u) O T O N M a) LO Ln Cn (D O CO 00 et (D O CO v 'T N C7 Ln CO CD T T O CT N r N CO N r T r m CO W 'ql r O CO CO N N tt O Ln rn O 0D O C) OD O CO (� Ln N CO IT N C`) O 00 Lnl O O CD f\ OD (C CD Iq M Ch T In In T T Op O T p) rl- v Ln CA Itr CO O IrT OO N CO O CO r T T N N N tD C T ,O U O Co 'V Ln 0D g 00 r` O M V O N MW a? Cn Q) O CO CA 0O Ln CO Nt C'7 N C') to 00 Ln .�. C (D r\ CO O CO q1t M T 00 Cl) U) M CO CO Co a C N r .4 Ln CD N CD O N 00 N CD N T m D T r r N N T M (�} T Q — Q O CD v T Ln of CO r\ a) N (D r- O 0 �- C O 0) 00 CO qT r Ln "Cr Iq O T CO Cr) NU') O CD R Ln n v C7 CD CO C") r, C'7 CO M 'Cr N r\ V U) r (O O T N N T O m r CO CO .a yCO a) CO r CD V a) O Cn � r` Ln O N N) v y ++ O mO t` O r r` N v Ln N r C� N r Ln Ln E y (n (n T T T T CO r- CO T r Ln m CC Ln O C CD Cn N w U) r✓ O O c U. j C .L. O .�` FL Ca C j otS Y n m m 0 � ��t 3 m m o o m m E V L (a _m C EOO Cv C m> >' CC 5 r C c c > E (a oc w0 � 0c > >Ero :3 ca U c (a a O 0 0 CD CA Q m c oH ¢ ¢ U) s ` 3ujaa Ca 0no � < zCO 122 nm Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 43 J k r dC N u O O 10 O LO N - O O o = O . CA �A O) Cl N t r v.p LC) CUR W m M n m m m m m N 0 C W Co Er IL m t t tt $ t C p O q m O O q m q m O q " N a = O 2 t[) Z O Z C 2 tnD� C. ^ 3 cc E r rn oNt m $. NCl) } 00 O ` p d 9 LL = Z O C m tp C m C to N n 8 n th M O O T coo N w to to O O Nas V. m O O QQ O tD h t0 N O C`7 OO�+j t0 m N O C co d Q .�- Nw co CO C7 N tD L O U Wi -a CD N N q h m b L l0 C � m to Q tD Of tO `p CD t` W 7 t` O C7 N q a p 0 c 3 o n m o C I Z m � m c�S tNq aa: � cct c o tta n `o Q m tT tp t0 N t` tp O N cb N N 0 N N 0O Z 1A p O vai $ c � ' cc .=. ^ q N m O to Ln co O N L y O p O a C7 tIN aD tq N 'mm t7 N co N � W W 4 m o d m m m m to m b m N m m d o m > o m 2yy $ m m to to L c coNa $ htCli p Iq O O _ } LL CD p O C m CM FL E O O O O O O O 4 O O 0 CL N E C ccl d ^ m N N m 0 N 0 `o N CD G O N a E W u Wq�� t Wy rcc C i m • n $ 0 0 0 $ m �- W C LL m a o " L CM N q L q L g q L q L n $ °° v to C13 c m E = v_ 2 u� 2 Z W 2 2 0, m to — c CO Q! $ O ID N O tD m N q O O C CALL O 2 tai L O S a C1 ;r C d m a `o m S a N m n o `o N Lf) o, o `a aoD' a N `� > G. .fir T S t0 t0 fD v_ N _ Cl) a7 p� t0 U m z m J O to t` t` .' �N., t7 N N N N c9 L ppC m H N Q E Q E N .0 J O) Q I- m W �� w ZQ L CO c0 Q U q tD � � my rn m ao oiow m yr LO C', co b rn m rno L = m � o � o oa°i 2 � "� � o n � n c� � N m `o W m w Na0 Q cis C O th N t0 t\ Ol N N 2 Q Q N CA = LL C 9 3 J = � Q C N 0 CD LLE T V T Q cCD o m m Q m n n c �' p tD a0 m Y V m C H32 O O m O o H Q > m j 8 a c c m e > E € an d CL Q ; a m 0 o ti c6 c m C m : y m m € m 0 0 ci m m Y o N tco ,co coo Em ►- O v> > Uw3 m Ua rn m Utnz cn D oo 'o o to ¢ D 0 a a N N W N x o F 0 ° m O o V � r C. a� r Or 6 $$ o Z Z N `- � 0co r m_ a O Z c gi CIO c- °�. o d► r T = � � m � Z to d) AL o r us y � 4 m Qcol S. 70' p CL $ o s N om m �iIm„ a► N 3 mZUb 4 G ch w d ,d O O m p Z o otS _ t O VA $ cp $ Z � N � W a m N m $ .. �- tC l4 V gi ea c� m a .mc o v i¢ V m y x'96 o Z r (7 ✓� � d .00a c8 N O r o mID $ Z N g N r m a im Z c? a co d G' m d ? A p G m u1 3 N O o N I V t' p b p q p N N S O t c CM N Off O N �, Q� O O a, a cs �. av M �, c0 ?� LO ui o p� e m oa N M 4 uS Lu m a ' t 8, 0 . p n m mWai a y N N 'x Z N Z N h Z a Q T p y W mr j O CV c9 CO imp r C N u } p O N N �" L c Cc '4 ¢C�p N O v t0 � h�yy tp O .� T N vS h N b p b- O V M CD h N �! N 1A M Iq N_ SKS � � �m co O C M M T V~ by Cl) M hd Ln _c ti V r E cc d a b 'cc'+_ p o ._ _C G VC4 tD pO Qi y�0., w h 0, �t ONb tT O N t`') C.) 4 tL ++ t t: co Y1 �t t0 � aD 4G>) t+i h T ch c� 0 Q Vm b r 1A r r r. a7 M r N N N T N o o T C m U d S T r cc 4 O p :3 C G1 ap � 0 —yy T � t7 co CV U) r a b 17f � tq Ov Cl) C~D CSD C N t? co m Cc O. m ae m m TZcm 4 t a cc E t 12, t r q1 p a k0 K T H m y 8 In � Lb - (n ? ` a` t o ° ° `o `o a c E a �s 2 m r: '� Z Z 2 m 3 0 cam„ C%l Q T T r c LL = o! g N o a r $ rz m +a ea p h ai cvr3 t r C o :h E V O a N -p T 4� 0 N Q cm bp' W W V W exp eeWpp tb rb s `OF � m ii �pp q � pp Q! cc 1:Q m O U. a i a w m N Q3 y 'D Cc spy ,L r to Q? 0 2 N Z ~ z Cb 0 .T- wo hT p p GXi N (0 t0 0) N y �z p = O T W O Z P O W Q o m ch r wan T r. tq o Ch M m I-- go ,�—� b` Q. i! (A p h h r in to Q1 C) to 8} O CD � CV � CO O c; �. 8 m f0 tG st ♦,T N r M M to t0 t��S+ W) V iR Ct a O N N T ! � m CO O N M m C 441 04 Q' O. N N Cl) T t9 *� WUW Q m C T tiara U9 .ms� N vrl� T N Oi co Cc p t o T N 0) '� a� a r: n T N ffhD `O m ffl on w {l� m O mm O r vi ui co n w of N N rn KL Q � � r LL = CD us �0 ~ c U c U � �, U y� om m V >, N U 40 m U m Ei m ,� o o m ¢ m o. c>: Q S > m 0 c§ c oc Ix E a o �. r m € € > is A O m m iv In CO) l�0 Q € m l c, o `� o U o o o m �° Ls o h 0 0 Q m D m m art C 05 a � h � 0 a c in � A ipc c � a o c � r � F- N 2 S E Q a aC mo d as c mm o m € m o o � V .0 0 cUU co E c h0 t!) Uwy'' to ym UC to UcnZ cn W 0 J 10 x 0 CL O o � t i +• O m LCD`� @ O O � z O r N O O 1n 9 � V p dCh N m O O ►. U. = O N m C e0CIS C ag 016 a► d U $t d z 2 arul m $. N Z IN S O r. C4 2L N m 'o tDp �iZ �y p y tG y N a p`, wCD H g to10 1 ee m -A O m y p o car► m p O L� n C10 Q � m mN Z ^" .. o E $ z CD yI O, O l4 G m —°. Em Q1 m 1 U0. �' o 0 o r 3 d N Q d !A �r � � Q► O y a OJ O N � d p O A � y O to G! es N • L^ m O 7„ ✓ O G O O G O C S] N U "0 •d py d 7 t, !0 G N D y d T a O s[ a G N G m ip Ji G nlcn V p G O to C O 0 G J (9 ''p� y. U d Q d C1 Q D a m A � � V �„ co: 2 U cC IGu0 CD � a co •• CD O N o` o co i co r � � �o y \ � •r ar. P+ , d � to I N E 03 0*0 O • 1 •� y ,V ♦ ,d, r� N d 4 N N c O *` N \ g a N p N l °' to o w a o a o •'+ i O m a v d O d'i Baseline Forecasts Traffic Forecasts The 2010 baseline forecasts show substantial growth in traffic volumes on Tri-Valley roads. Figure 4-2 shows traffic forecasts for several critical roadways. Plots showing traffic forecasts for all Tri-Valley roads are included in the Technical Appendix of the Tri-Valley Transportation Model report (Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., July 1993). If these traffic increases occur as predicted, without road widenings and additions beyond the baseline network, severe congestion will result (see Figure 4-3). Congested locations are defined as freeways with a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of more than 1.0 (volume exceeds capacity) and arterial streets with V/C greater than 0.90 (volume equals 90 percent of capacity or more). Figure 4-3 shows that by 2010 almost all regional routes would be congested. In many cases the predicted V/C ratio is greater than 1.0. In reality, the volume can never exceed capacity. However, the traffic model reports demand volume (how many vehicles would like to use the road in the peak). When V/C ratios greater than 1.0 are shown, this means that "peak spreading" would occur. "Peak spreading" means that congested conditions would last longer than an hour. The effects of peak spreading are addressed more rigorously in the expected forecasts (Chapter 5). Intersection levels of Service Intersection levels of service (LOS) were calculated using traffic model-generated turning movements and the VCCC program (see Table 4-2). Future year lane configurations were based on input from individual jurisdictions. The intersection analysis included 85 locations. Only two or three intersections are congested under existing conditions. Congestion is defined as LOS E or F. During the PM peak hour, the number of congested intersections would rise to 14 by the year 2000 and 36 by the year 2010, according to the baseline forecasts. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 50 C14 O st � T ul V C7' l.7 Q 4 � o V / A> 2L L% Cl) Ul cc Q U. ul s ` Y \ 1 ul\` C^ \` 04 z N C4 Y � O as ��� vavrvrnj oH�rrv' 000,x£ \ , R `\ aG� � 4� \ \ oa o 30,938 My' O GN�ttf \ O aOd .t 00.1 �+0 IN Oco , S ' �apd IOR r r � r W 1b � ay 6 o� O � o a, s 04 Oa s p� QQO j.► Q o ON o o\�`� N CD t OQ nY ° ie r13+�nw J\ r iggds� `ro 4O NQS TY ~'h.J M N ti o p t Y �jr✓( OD .� t\ P "OTN! O els 78 io"ns 00 O r t Ra �. • t �� E co ,d* O d G C4 m NUl�CD � x s ° p Ul U. p„ d 0 4. GOA 2 T_ d -4 ' v Q fl ` t�,f}tu W d 4 ? mwa N � 0 0 O d V,f U Od O oa N , , s0 J (7 0 tAf) v / f- N sy C O O .n M O ' _ LC) d0 zp UJ CC ?— �� 0 4 ON 7 v \o v oa 3iivYa33ao o \ a) W ��¢� Z 0 CL �N0s rr J {� ` Q >z co uj o g \ � o St, /1Y 3a0Wa3'Vi O wiaanW z 0 U AY 13Bt5� as riowYJ 1 Y 00 Z � o oa NOTWJ v � W l C O d a ..�"' o a 3 L) YO 31�Y U �v+ 0 !� Go Ui > (D\ ¢ C6 " W � F� 0 w R co ..� iA cc A s S 00 oNow as CD C/) O w u.w m w Q w w Q Q Q m w w w w w u.W Q m O Q O a 0 0 N U > O O In r M 0 U) f- (D O 1- (f) Cn t- M LO It M M N to (D tt CD t� CT CD a) to (D N O) a) U) Cr) 't CD (`7 0) O 11) (D N Cl) M 00 Ul) 00 qq O O C; O O r r O O O O O O r O r O O r r N C; C; O O r 0 LL CO U U W W Q U W Q U CO U U W Q Q W U W U m m Q W O 0 0 O N > CD (D O � CA r O N I- a) r N st O r st O O � In CO CO CO C) M O (D O P- C) O) CD r- O) C') 1-- CD 1l- 1- O Cn CC) Cl) t,- N f- CO (D Lr) a) r' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O r O O r O r O O O O O L O O Q U CO O U Q Q Q Q m Q Q U O Q O w Q w Q Q Q Q m O 5 x Y W Ca U ►� 00 r 00 tt N O O O CD In O *' O O r O C7 lf) M O CD ep 00 In 1� CO OD C� 1t) M CD to N OO @? tl0 to C7 m N CC) Cn In w Ca O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O C O O O C CL L I W CO _m (a Ca (a ca tCf m > 0 N d Q dv c' 'S ' > > 0 O p> > o o > oo , CO %- mm m c Q Q CUJ COCOCOmQ) U, m c g m m V ci) c 0 0o c c c c0 Ca o 0 0 a o 0 0 0 > E E CO > > E > > c°) o o �° (No °) v� o CO O Q Q _ O O Q O O M a a - cn J _ _ _ _ 3 W U w CO O coo v v O O (a > Ca ' d (a m-ja CL > 0) m m O > 0 C O (Eo CO m t m D o J J = 0 = ¢ J m N ¢ N !n Cr 0) Q C71 Q CT C O t t !n p L p C p Qi L !n c c (a > > (o o 'v) «s t r E E 't w (U) CU) Ov) E U) (a cts = o o = o E w _ � o o M o N Z m m > O O > O Q m > m Z Z 2 m 2 E > Z > > S Z U. i CD C CD N C st -- 0 C E Ca Fescc - CO U O J Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 55 U) O o U w w w m o LL U w Q w ¢ U ¢ w w o a w ¢ a w w w w O 0 N > M N CA 1- f- Cn CD to M V qt qqt , Cr Cn M rt CA N Cn CT C) a) q n 00 T Lf) Co O O CO r -c� 00 O 1- v O 4 v O 00 v O Cn In O O 0 0 0 0 ( ; 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 U m o ¢ om ¢ m a m o U a o a ¢ o w o a 0 O O N � U 'D > N CO r CD M It Cn r M — qq N CO Co CO CA CO O CO Cl) r V O N r O co 00 00 Cn I- f- f- 1- CD 00 V (D C'') 1- qq CD 00 00 Cr) 00 Ln Cn Cn O CO CD O CO 0 6 0 0 0 0 C; 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C C C U V) �. o a ¢ m a a a m ¢ ¢ m a ¢ Q a a a m m a Q a a m o a a o 2 N X Y w U cc tD h O to t0 M CD O W O O O M O O O O V N CD O cD O d > U) N co tt to Cn cD Cn v cD v Cn v v N v t� h M Cn M M r` 00 CA ch Ca O O O O O O C O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O CL G N m c .� > p m o '� O 0 > > > = > > > v 0 - " D c e`o 3 o W c C co J Q ¢ W a Q ¢ m m LU m C C98 ' U cc C V O O C "' O mco c O — y d O to co cts O O O 0) C > Q) •� f� co u co Cti CII co m 0) N > > Lo cc w O O O 7 � cc m m _ > > _ m m m m m _ ¢ m m Cl) m o w m 3 N y- p PO JCp Pc'o co C13 vca d2ir10 p 10 co u o Cc CC_i ¢ cc v vcts v o° M aaM O 6 m 0 O0oo � o c mm °° ° m avoCo va2vmmm � m> .+ v3 ca cc >. cc o O Cl o era U) � o o N z as = t° i ) ( cc S gn ► ii = (1LLn w > W d - C N p o � c co N ca mU CL 0 a a 0 W U o a m a U w m a U W U U a a W W m m U J O O N W 1� r O CO (D CO N M r In U) O to N M W O In O r O In LO 0:) 't 1l- 00 LO (D to h O (D N 1* r I- r- LO to r O (D (D 1l- 0 0 0 r 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 O Q Q U D a a o m Q m m Q w W Q m a W 0 m m U J O O O N > (`? OD 00 1� O O 0 U7 O m t- ; O m O O @7 eh N 0 It M tT O U) (D m r 00 W (D r� C O r O O O O O O O r�+ C U U) O a a m Q U a m a U a a a o U m a a a o a a a Q � O J O S N x Y W U LQ qlt to in t� (D In 1� to N p OD n (D q s! "It 00 th It q1t LQ Q. O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O t7 O C C Co O C C O a ;, ca c0 ca v o c c 'R E o cc Q o. > >� cc o, �. > > gni a) (1) c0 C C C C C O ? C C C C 4) a) (z cc m i0 y d C w O O c0 O j O O c0 «s O � > > > > > 'p > p (n p Q U c c U C o o a U U � O o o m o a) o m o m o o O c0 cD L c0 m m c0 " �- M m m m V mc U3 U mc U3 Q rn _ cu (aca CC � cc ccd amo oQ 0OU) 0U Cl) E a3 s 3 > O O O O O Cppo O OoV Vo (0 c0 Q m O U - Q Q cn cn cn 0 cn 0 U W 0 0 O d a� v v -o co ca 0v �, c0 c0 > _ (2) aa) c > _ o > c° _ > ctsU) Co p o b o o U o 0 0 0 m,, o , o o 0 �c o Z5 m E m m m E m co m m r E a co E m > m ~ 3 0 co m O Qz ;o t0 o, � cncncnzrCC mz � cn gQz r r Ocnz C1 cn c o cc0 c°S c°$ c°8 c°$ o cca 10 o c E cc c°S c°S y z cn - aamcn - _ _ .: ocn > cn - vi - Uma _ _ i C C1 N 0C E a, 4 •— co — a: ca M U 0) o 0 O u.LL m ¢ 0 u- w LL ¢ ¢ ¢ J • O_ O N 00 CD 00 CO O O tf 00 Cfl OD CO r (D Op r O N O In V O O U U ¢ ¢ LL ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ J 0 0 0 N U O N N r t1) In In O LO N r- w 1- to to W w r t1) to to to C O O O C C r O O C O C 0 U U) i O ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ IL ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ O J O E X .Y w U > l[) In m m M O In v 0 M a O O O O O O r O C C O a .� cccc m > > m C 0 0 co ca > Nami ami c�i cc m Q m m m 0 m ¢ to — — — 0 0 a: cc F- Q cc o om 0 0 0 > > > cc cv V m m 0 E '� U U > 0 .� m 0 _0 0 0 0 W W J J cc U (A V3 Cl) J J 0 P 0 m J O O o x cc 0 0 0 2wzzw L °'wzzw cc +r Cl) o 0 0 0 Y > o 0 0 0 z (Co d c N C U et — U H m U Baseline Forecasts Travel Pattern The results of the traffic model show that the Tri-Valley will continue to experience out- commuting and in-commuting. Overall, the baseline forecasts show 18,000 more employed residents than jobs, which would reinforce the Tri-Valley's existing pattern of net out- commuting. Table 43 Jobs Versus Workers (Baseline Growth Forecasts) Year Jobs Workers 1990 111,651 122,882 2000 160,420 167,826 2010 202,887 221,431 Figure 4-4 shows that the traffic model predicts 63 percent of the trips will be internal in 2010, compared to 50 percent today. The other 37 percent of trips will be primarily in- commuting(16 percent) and out-commuting (18 percent). Only four percent of trips during commute hours will be through trips (traffic from other areas passing through the Tri- Valley). However, this four percent looms large on some parts of the freeway system. Using the Tri-Valley Transportation Model, 2010 peak-hour through trips were estimated to range from 15 percent on I-680, to 20 percent on I-580 through Tri-Valley, to 40 percent over the Altamont Pass. For persons working in the Tri-Valley but living elsewhere, the major residence locations will be other Contra Costa County cities, other Alameda County cities, and the Central Valley. For persons living in the Tri-Valley but working elsewhere, the major job locations will be in other Alameda County cities. To a lesser extent, some will work in other Contra Costa County cities or in Santa Clara County. Mode Split The existing mode split in Tri-Valley involves 4 percent transit use for peak-hour commute trips, and that is not expected to change in the baseline 2010 forecasts. Ta- ble 4-4 shows the mode split estimated by the traffic model. The model predicts the drive- alone percentage to increase slightly. This conclusion is based on MTC-derived assump- tions about the costs of driving, which are assumed to keep pace with inflation. Transit and carpool usage are highly dependent on driving costs and travel times. Relative travel costs and time between drive-alone and other modes are not expected to change through 2010. BART will attract substantial ridership but will not cause a significant mode shift. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 59 Figure 4-4 2010 TOTAL. TRIPS BY TYPE PM PEAK HOUR EXTERNAL TO EXTERNAL EXTERNAL TO WTERNAL (4.2%) (17.6X) INTERNAL TO EXTERtOL ��••�����«i���a�•� INTERNAL TRIPS "•`� (62.8%) TRIPS FROM TRI-VALLEY TOO OTHER CTRA COSTA CO. CENTR L VALLEY ON (35.3% (20.0x} OTHER BAY AREA (3.8x) SANTA CLAPA CO. (4.5%) OTHER ALAMEDA CO. (36.4%) V C ai TRIPS TO TRI-VALLEY FROM ai .www-0 CENTRAL VALLEY • (B.4x) V is OTHER CONTRA COSTA co. OTHER BAY AREA p (24.7%) ... Cl) «.•.... N .... .•••• sANTA cLARA co. ' • (12.4%) _ G cc •G V CO) G (48.6%) OTHER ALAWWA CO. Source: Tri—Volley Tronsportotion Model co Baseline Forecasts Table 4-4 Mode Split for PM Peak Hour, Home-Based Work Trips (Baseline Forecasts) Percent Usage Mode 1990 2000 2010 Drive-Alone 76% 80% 80% 2-Person Carpool 15% 12% 12% 3+ Person Carpool 5% 4% 4% Transit 4% 4% 4% 100% 100% 100% Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 62 Expected Forecasts 5. Expected Forecasts Chapter Summary • Job and housing growth to the year 2010 is projected to be 99 percent and 84 percent, respectively, which exceeds historical growth trends. Jobs and housing would be in balance within the Tri-Valley. This would minimize, but not elimi- nate, in-commuting and out-commuting. • Highway gateways to the area (I-680 north and south, I-580 over Altamont Pass and Dublin Grade, Crow Canyon Road to Castro Valley, and Vasco Road) would be overloaded given the demand. • Unacceptable levels of service would also occur on I-580 between Tassajara Road and North Livermore Avenue and at 13 signalized intersections. • Transit mode share would not change appreciably from existing conditions, despite the BART extension. • Average vehicle ridership would not change appreciably from existing conditions. • Through traffic on the freeways would remain at 15 to 20 percent. The baseline forecasts were prepared to satisfy CCTA guidelines, and they are compatible with ABAG Projections '90. However, there were several jurisdictions dissatisfied with the land use forecasts, which did not reflect general plan amend- ments approved after 1992. Also, the 2010 transportation network assumed in the baseline forecasts did not reflect current planning. This led to the development of the "expected" scenario, which reflects each jurisdiction's most accurate prediction of 2010 land use totals and network expectations. This chapter describes the results of expected traffic forecasts using the Tri-Valley Traffic Model. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 63 Expected Forecasts Land Use Forecasts The land use forecasts used in the expected traffic projections are based on informa- tion provided by the member jurisdictions of the TVTC (see Table 5-1). The 2010 land use forecasts do not represent buildout of the Tri-Valley area, as specified by the jurisdiction's general plan, nor do they represent ABAG projections. Rather, the forecasts represent each jurisdiction's estimate of absorption rates for new houses and businesses through 2010. Note that the estimates were based on a five percent vacancy rate. The "expected" forecasts show an increase in both housing and employment from that assumed under "baseline" forecasts discussed in the previous chapter. The "baseline" forecasts assume a 78 percent and 82 percent increase in housing and employment, respectively, between 1990 and 2010. Under the "expected" forecast, the increase would be 84 and 99 percent, respectively, which exceeds historic growth trends. The reason for the increase is that Contra Costa County, Alameda County, Dublin, and Livermore had passed general plan amendments that were not reflected in the baseline forecasts. Overall, "expected" forecasts balance employed residents to employment. 1990 land use data shows a slight imbalance with 122,882 employed residents and 111,656 jobs. The "expected" forecasts increase employment at a greater rate than housing resulting in 224,733 employed residents and 222,024 jobs. Note that no adjustments were made to the forecasts to reflect changes in the absorption rate as a result of higher traffic impact fees. Network Assumptions Staff from the Tri-Valley jurisdictions outlined the future road network assumptions. These network assumptions are shown in Table 5-2 and Figure 5-1. The major criterion that was considered when including a particular improvement in the future road network was whether that improvement was likely to be constructed by 2010. Not all of the future road network is currently funded. See Chapter 7 for a further discussion of the unfunded portions. The local road widening and extension projects included in the future network are all included in local general plans and are all funded or expected to be funded by 2010. Many are expected to be funded with impact fees on new development or will be built by developers to serve their projects. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 64 N j M O to O n O) to N r� a0 O M D) n n r- CD M 0 O tD D Co M M Cl M M n CJI n C Cl .= r M In In r 1-1 to N n M n • m Nr r N n O r N N M t0 M U) O n CD O M N t O tT 0 0 M O O '�t CD n N LC) _O m CD M C' C M O M act C tt O C O ti r O tt) r tt M CO CO Cn r N CD N r N to to N N >, W O a O M N O _M - _ CD 0) O O M 00 LU W OC O Co y CD C6 -7 N C4 Nm � CD N m O M n O r O N M M to M CD Qi CD O COS M O) n M n O Ln Z; t0 n - Co Cr) r N `Y. CA O) M N t1) N Cr) to O -t Col to M CD CD M n O O to n to CJ) tD N O a0 O M O Of a0 N CD t0 O N M _� O M to Cz CJ) r O CD to j N N r r N t! M C\ C m N m N NV M O) Cn N M N tD to O O (D M m p m Co CD to Cl) n O O N n to N CD M r t5 a0 O M Cn C Oct Cl CD CD It N n CD u p N N O r N r r N O N W N CL Eto CD T` n Co M N •- '-T to n N . OLLJOi CD O r N r- n O1 COD O0) 0 n l Co O p N M M N r r M 0 M I O O N O a0 to N U') n r.- n O r to O M �O r CD COCn IMO N 0a0 O)lA lA NCD O O a000 �a0 I� CO O CD n r pN N Cr) W M m r r a M "I" to W 'It CO CJI 0 CD to M COI '1 � N O 0 In N In n � n O Cn Cn CA m r CO OD M N CO 0 N N O N a0 sN� O t; CD ' to Co CD n C CC N r �! N N r C w !T C CD CD CD st to CD 9 n n n M N Co O) m 0) Iq CO 0) Co n O CO to to to to 0 C Co n aD O CD q�t N r CO O CJI CD CD '- r� qqto CO N CF; O O C6 N to p y r M N r V) N to N m rr W M CD r CJ) OD O N O M OI Ca O O) C- O n n v 0 M 0 Cn Cl p C O r r r Cl O n ao to E i.. C D tO O .M-- CD Cr; N C 8 O N LL y O y C C cg c • L fi[ ca Q 4 r e[ Y y U N () m 3 m m Cn m m 4 Qcc A s Co ccm E m mQ > d Lb a c o m m E o cF- m o !ti m to m o C4 C 0 � a m � o •� CC 'to C] m E r U 0 .I mto C C t m > O L O m m (� Fri- a a0Cno � Sowa � zbF - ¢ _ N Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 65 x M Q m O N Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q m Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q` c N O O p w w .r w .t O . w NEqv w w v N O m E > > $ Z o O O a a N ¢ ¢ Q ¢ Q Q Q a Q Q Q O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O N E E , v to N v v N v N N U rnQ t0 tD U Ctwo 1 N d I N N N N N l�0 Ea: O O�'+ > CD C O U C N V 0 o d w cc m m CC 0 � 0 Cc cc Im Ca M Cc 3 O E m m > CO m ) > m m 75 CL U m cc o C Y H Cr O �( Q $ p� d w aD oc oc t$ aD c° O' C •co N m t U ~O C C 'eo C C 9j C C N C .0 .0 CO N m C f0 qOq N m y � M CO d H a (n y O W W O O C3 h- U- O to a O 2 O E m •U ' C C Q J O Q 0 'O � O 0 Cd CC 0 cc E m m O Q 3 O C m c p O i CCC CO cc OC � CS t$ `� 3 a `� $ CO� C Q m O c c o mcc - V E 5 c ? S c t E w CO U a a H c c m COO ago m 73 CO � E � m � � O` � m twoO 7 t0 O O v U)Ln O O to TO O O O LL cc o _ zoo ►- o y o w _ o x LL. 8 o 0 Z 0 T N O a N � m 7t Y C 8O COm V LO m cc CO C Q m m W U c p m N o _ c i m CO cccc cc m o d oN ; O M cc cc LA r mm i sI 'Som lC W' m 4! " tm6 vC vC oc 0c 0c O OO m �� O� Oe O N CC Cr m m m m O Cr > > > > > � Q c Q CC Q U) V) v d m m o r t •� c c c c c m m m ,� �, cc ca ago ao dm aa � g ' c c CO o t v v m m m c H am, ayi o Cc �) tD to t0 to t0 7 O O O co > n > > > co cp m m m 0 0 m m > Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 66 CD p aa a a o 0 0 0 . . p p C N v v pEE p Eq p E E Ep m co (c v J U U U U cc O m E z' � d ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢o ¢ ¢ o p o O O O O O O O O O C N N w E N N N U I U 't .O p N N N U d U 0 U rn 0 0 U U U U U 0 I 0 0 O j O N N N N N a N U aa) N o cr-*'' c n :3 N 'O p 00 V Im m U N m O 0O CO C > C 00 mCC IL cc ¢ Y m C >` m l� C. m � m m m m x . `o > c o oC v m Q o U V m m U O m O O m H 2Nz ?. �. _ H L m m L L O O co > m t00co C c C �q cc O O co N �- _ y _ _ d > y 5 w > Z cg �' Z U- ii Z O c m E > m a i °` m _ oCD 0 E 0 m m o Q C N C O m Q mO Q0 goED U ¢ oo U u C mo v 8 rn o o y o '� s t d o m N a m o vs a) LL cg > 3 ao "_' a _ a > w z o O c4 " 23 _ Z O m rnC T L Nm m V m c C cc M m � m ILCc cc L L Crn g w j U ` m tl7 C CD _m _m � Y2 � O 8 C C 3 c E N m an 0 m ; m m c m c 2 2mm Cm � Q 3 0 0 X X C C m N C UJ w O O L m m Z Y d Q m "� p > >. Q ep x C �.. 0 0 m m I a� - w m 3 w Y z w ro m .. Q m m 3 75 W W m Q m > cr ¢ m `° c� m w O o cS r$ > > o m m 8 0 > > > Q Q 0 `o o °c oc 'c 'c N m C C C m m m y m o cya o 3 m m 0 -a 0 0 � � � w 0 ¢ � � o U c c ¢ ¢ > io eo at io coo iu .` ¢ ¢ ¢ o o p L (Q p mU o rCO, N m 75 O O O O O O j mOD co Go co OD CD -0 Y n' d m r C pm o CJ �i C3 to Lnc co am, ml J Z Z Z Z d 0� cH o d d ¢ d a ¢ ¢ a a d a J . . p p . E E N 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 8 8 m E z Q a s a a a a a aa a C . . Q 0 • Q p p p Q Q Q Q O N 3 n E E a} Cl) � o d �-+ C r- C N a N N N N N N N N It N a O N U 42) +• N OOD DD O S a cd 1n U) a +V c o C. —, -- m 'D m Z to 3 m O O> C y >` fQOm m > m CD p Q 75 a pC. m mC O Q 09- O co m m> C0 > a � p co W Z mm CC } >m mm r ° .S o m ° m '5c Fa LiQ Wc > 2LL n i _ p C Q} 0 m o o Y D q o} Q, rr CD a 1 l0 c0 U? 1[1 O Z: > a O O aC C Z Z O O O m m m m CD }t. of m L C tlf M C C a: m Q 07 Of 3. m > N m m U N N = m .- : ¢ Aa E m aoo m 9 *9 CO r 2 m Y o in @ O ns o y, ° us ca ua vs Rn a E E $ 4, o � � � o �'i o � o o �' d _ a 9 z N . u. Y [i > � ua _ ria Q ua '� > Z 0 T m .N c m ccCA *^ v C; t � O m m m O c N c m i.. 3 � o > > Yg a0 a a a:O m uuuQ Z m cit CL > > > > a o m s o o v vmm 't6 . ma v CY 8 ° >. m a a L � Q U $ v !c E a oR o�•m am oU S a co co >rooZa aD muQpuw 2 :292 - 2 0> I _ $ m $ �_ m 0 • • 0 0 0. 0 0 a. .. o a . . . m ¢ ¢ cm N to to to d d co E m E co too EE 8 Cc8 8 0 `m E z c, ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Q Q ¢ Q ¢ ¢ p • O O O • • O • • > > • 0 D O • ' O O O O O CO N (D to d d d d co d d d N d co N d 9 N Q OO O Q Q Q Q d Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 0. Q Q Q �.+ U 0) O O O a p p ' D O > > U E Op N U d d d 0 d N N d N N d tr N N d 0 N U ' 0 � m m s� C W QI Ocaco 0 c0 >` m V ( m M > 'O > CC CCCCU cr U > O > O O o O > C N C � m > mm tv Cc � �o m 0 m CO` - >1 va Q= 3 ca m C 1C Q c Er o g 0 Q -D > cc N Om tcc LU ro ca C U U m Q m E U m $ c $ >, 0 co m m C U) C CCO m 0 ca O N N J cn 0 cn w tO c� co a c7� � � � � o a U) o c 4-0E al a� > y O cc o b CL o °C m m 0 c o_ > m v cc v G Q o c coo o > c - 0 Qa 5 Q. Q .be ;g m > Q o m m 3 Q cr CD to o E w to Q _ v CC O m o CC C E U p >, m U o = Y T a E C) O c 3 M , m % m m o , o 0 = to m o° o i° o c Z c cc o $ 0 cm LL 0 _ z cn u. - m w z o U in w U z cn o a F- Z o > U m T j Om 04 c E m m C td O 8 m (� L m Q C U � v O > > m O m o o m 3 m 2 c � i c6 to > 18 c m > me > > m >. m m m o _m .y Qp .D W } O O m `° m c m > > c o to m m m m c m m m o a w o 07 > > c`o e`o m 'y v > 9 o n Q > pp o > > > N O Q D O m m c a d c co n ca $ = U V o `i to T $ rn rn o o > N N O U E 3 a CO v o L 3cr v_ v_ m m J J m as U 0 `° is io o U cca o, m C c m > o o c .D M1 C C C C m y y = C Co C p m N co co C H E � O COD 1� Er U) c'oo Z5 0) c'n > 3 o o U) t° w 0 o U- 2 `O con 3 O ag < o co u' C � ' ' ' � % \ ƒ S « < < < < < § q E v g o 0 � t h c § o < < D \ . 0 0 � E $ � cn / lo k 0 7 CLa @ @ ; x _ _ E o � � k $ r k k k k k \ � . $ E § � 2 � CD k 0 k CL 5 z w E . e E 2 \ :3 cr. 0 § $ E E D oCC � 0 E 3 c _ 2 0� 0 0 ts CD z . a C N � . c & C k b E ta TO CD / V w § © » 2 m k § I � _ /d k / C / 2 % & � 2EE2 . C) $ & § _ ■ � § o ■ 2 e � G / '0 M CD � ® kk6@f 2 2R� wk \ £ fq © $ ` - » ? 2 c w0A , A00 . 5g2 | T1 � z � p Q G 0 ,o v� Lo 0 -0 aw a o , o 0Z LLI v ' Z ,\ Q 4 \�O W X� Q JWN I y N `N Cv O v � atl D LI'VSsw y J J ti I u tiOD N _G N y j II 11 ..I it aa ` 30N3a'Me'1 C] LtJ co ¢Q 00 CO 0 3r eP � co e C3 S hP 1 0 C co �d �O •a•.• dpi �X i V pd �l '9 via a CD cc N Oy r od 2 ZcFQ co V Z �a 4 `1�E r 6 a s._ cc m 0 0 cu oCt TTTIn032io � \v 5 0 t o �.." JP z4 Ij1 1� i ` Q \ qK W J 2 Juj \\ nd 3,VOlya3nlT N m 1S S3W70H X O O ul \ 2 \ z \ q c� \ O t \ ANS $ a3tT'100 sa � \ Q OD Do rn ` ao OS \\ as N �\ NOTIVJ 4 Go 1 \ t, 11 x G l 2 • �\ OQLO ✓d q 00 —00 CT , 1 C O G t u • ft l o \ m 4 00 N C N o o d d „ w > l A C zLOtt W Ca i y '-Act a' illillillillillllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIilillilljlllllllllllllillillilliillillillillillillillilliililllllllllllllllllllIlI .. o � LY1 Expected Forecasts The key transit improvement in the Tri-Valley is the extension of BART to Dub- lin/Pleasanton with two local stations. Local WHEELS routes will be rerouted to serve the BART stations and create transit centers with timed transfers between modes. WHEELS and County Connection routes are also rerouted and augmented to serve new development areas in the expected network: North Livermore, East Dublin, and Tassajara Valley. The expected network also includes nine new express bus routes to connect the Tri- Valley with portions of Contra Costa County, Alameda County, and Santa Clara County that are not served by BART. More details regarding the expected transit network are included in the Appendix. Traffic Forecasts The 2010 expected forecasts show substantial growth in traffic demand on Tri-Valley roads. If these traffic increases were to occur, severe congestion would result almost everywhere on the freeway system. Congested locations are defined as freeways with a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of more than 1.0 (volume exceeds capacity) and arterial streets with V/C greater than 0.90 (volume equals 90 percent of capacity or more). Figure 5-2 identifies the unconstrained 2010 link demand on the regional routes. In many cases the demand-based V/C ratio would be greater than 1.0. This is particu- larly true at the gateways to the area, including I-680 north of Alamo, I-680 through Sunol, the Altamont Pass, and Vasco Road. In reality, the volume can never exceed capacity. However, the traffic model reports demand volume (how many vehicles would like to use the road in the peak). When V/C ratios greater than 1.0 are shown, this means that "peak spreading" would occur. "Peak spreading" means that congested conditions would last longer than an hour. Based on model projections, many roads in Tri-Valley would be congested for over three hours during the peak period(See Table 5-3). Peak-spreading diagrams are included in the Appendix. Figure 5-3 shows an example. Table 5-3 Year 2010 PM Peak-Hour Expected Forecasts Peak Spreading Gateway Hours of Congestion 1-680 north of Alamo 7 1-680 south of Route 84 7 1-580 west of Dublin 1 1-580 Agamont Pass 4 Vasco Road north of Livermore 2 Crow Canyon Road at the County Line 2 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 73 N 2 i Z 0 , o 0 O O 000 � s W a \ O \ Nlu d o �4- ap;oma b \ ul 9' pooh. 4 oa 09 � R e o� 00 0 0 ON a M`l oo, r 300 o G \ 0 0 gp0Cc) M� 000 OSI 0 ° 9~ 00 I c3 .i od o .. s V" wrR �s A I fir. �d G Ca • N tf} Cl) z z < OD 000't � (,) oot oa 311AN33N0 UJ W Q7 O x cc z � O � �o p a 00t'Z Da oas+A �\a� LL (� 006't 00Z'1 006 Q) OOt 006 O ' < cl RD - L Q v' � uu d ?pUJ G T � �o �' �✓ �aOn �, ON N { n V V \O fl H td0 rr" ) ri 5 X D 0 mat' 0 3 000'a s W 0 z t 3` Ar 3aorw3An w 0011 t � 4 ao£'t 1S 53iy)DH Q 001.1 T.. 0, o d Ct z 00 r 0 ooT,T00 , 1` ad NOANr36 0 002't Ar 738rS1 oot N3T09 d�. S i N1 is 0 Na W it Arnut O d >- CL i N } v+ p n Ew� Ro ,�,� 0000 OD 1.200 o0 goo o t 1F�00 a n p� —4 �0 4p0 000.F �a s o06 nrss a k s t OOL oa rars5r� A a�! RttA RD 00 t't OOg•� Op9,t OOF ■� 0! ElD 3! 00000 cdaH g O oz'z ° c ` RD ` F'f luj d t p f� � 900 C s►�' X00 cc .� 1 l00 wj V > ,r) o A C � a Q ca in CL C\j CL < C\j E 0 < CD cc � W � � i Q co LU < EZ w C*01 4 < a... (D coj I c I j O I I , LL o U') 0 in U) cD C3 w < u E (D ct) co < .2 0 cc ca cr) > .5 x C) 0 c LLJ CIS < > C\l LL :3 u cc < E _0 C.) c 0 0 0 V) < O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co rl- (D In IT cr) C\l o puewe(] 01:4,ej 0 z f• e Expected Forecasts Gateway Constraints The TVTC recognizes that the gateways act as constraint points regulating flow into and out of the area. Thus, the demand volumes will never actually be reached. Based on their inability to get through the gateways, motorists will adjust their schedules to travel outside the peak hour or to carpool or use transit. This adjustment in travel schedules, which could be reinforced with ramp metering, will be most obvious on the freeways and at interchanges. At intersections farther from the freeway, we can be less certain about adjustments to travel behavior. Motorists may adjust their sched- ules, or they may continue to travel during the peak hour but to a different destina- tion, or other peak-hour trips may occur to replace the trips displaced by freeway congestion. Nevertheless, the plan is based on a Tri-Valley Model run in which the overcapacity gateway trips have been removed from the assigned traffic volumes. This is a major assumption. TVTC has agreed to treat the Altamont Pass, Vasco Road, Crow Canyon Road to Castro Valley, Dublin Grade, Sunol Grade, and I-680 north as physical gateways. It is unrealistic to plan local transportation facilities to accommodate all peak-hour traffic projected to flow through state highway gateways if this traffic in actuality cannot get through the gateways. Constrained as well as unconstrained traffic volumes have been developed for the Tri-Valley network. The constrained traffic volumes back down the assigned traffic volumes in proportion to the origins and destinations of the total gateway traffic. PM peak-hour, directional traffic volumes are shown in Fig- ure 5-2 for "unconstrained" traffic volumes, Figure 5-4 for the subtracted traffic, and on Figure 5-5 for the "gateway constrained" traffic volumes. The constrained volumes are considered the baseline volumes. In order to develop rational action plans for local arterials, both unctraffic onstrained and constrained trac volumes are shown in the plan. In light of the fact that critical arterial facilities may be several miles remote from the constrained gateways, local jurisdictions are given flexibility to develop action plans which recognize traffic volumes somewhat in excess of the constrained traffic volumes. As actual capacities are more nearly reached monitoring of conditions may indicate the need to reassess and amend the current action plan. Level of service (LOS) at gateways for the constrained system is viewed to be no more than 1.0. Volume in excess of 1.0 which is projected is assumed to be spread over multiple hours of the peak period. The Plan espouses a policy of cooperation with adjacent jurisdictions to develop facilities management agreements in terms of ramp metering and freeway surveillance and control, which would fairly apportion available capacity in such a way that LOS F will be avoided except for unavoidable traffic incidents which create intermittent blockages of capacity. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 77 Z Qd � W ul Cf) \� CCQ O 000 °� U. 0000 G;d Cl U.lip ul 3: d \ 0 Z U Ncc �' Z N t11 :Z ti >. CL iii avrm� Q oa �k� ,�„asstii p ,00 N3^ J QM 625 pk 00 et p i ao<� 00 , 19 . Q coro- Alf. 40- a . 0 A-0 ta co � Wp � o 3�10433a0 a �O � �► ��� 0 69' oa ova ` Ob 035an r �� r 0 V 584 00 U1 VPp p9�zp Z' p2�C e � r ls, d zis S3WlON � I J a3n`' " 1l1 a O� `� O na 3a0" is a�3��nW Dov\'Oo 0 Q— 6 GQ• a's ` c� � .n is aD as °n �a'naa: O 9 orb*z— u o Esc 6s` ,Dans 0 \ n co t ` as W �O R n y fto CA c� e� N `Dj o n r i O N 2 d .. 0 d�► (1) Zz G � -, L)\,-, WW +n Cr C) z 71 LL U _.,. 0\ LL >- 1 W Q a: Lu a. cc 0 X = _ W 0 t- C:) = r `1 V 3. r O ` N < W r Z 1 a. N _ S OaHW n g�� `1 W �G OS >- CL , RO ' hn , 40 021 � 30tf321 MYt ��h .t� '� F eD `RO h/ j ! 0 N Q SY , ri 2 675 0 782 +5`�6 , 89f .05 G Cnll to o r .H� 0 1 O C." 3a � g N wo n CD cc cc cc ,� U) Z z o o` U cc U 009 Oa 311+nN33ztO LLJ LU co ❑ cr. Q Z a 0 0 p 16't oa oOsvn �\�£sLL ft0 U 00$'t OOZ't 006 SZ£ 006 1.4U. Q p a VASGO 6 W Z �-- w A�° a� ~ N b YS CC 0 vi, W 0 !- 01 nv 38OMd3Nl N 060`t 2 a f00't !s fl' OOt't Y vt3+a8nw� 4m N w C> /Y+ a. 008 t08'Z IL)-- 865 Li. oa NOANV:) n 9£r'£ nv 138V5+ 001 a� a3+lla3 +r s W ,�vmarr o10 \ _ Do Q >Q G d _ r GRRp Z, ap tr E4 � z 1,700 Ro A 900 00 GH Norni 'n q4 o h a? r CO. 0� p n n�vs Q+ 4'500 ££$'Z 6$9oa varrvssvl 0 01 R+ RD £90'1 00S 00$OD too C) cb r, - ti V � cti CV ` as 310 ...� ` h p9 b H DO J LZO'Z t° � ; 0 z � UGRERTy ra M CC a _ a to O� d�' 90Q RO sus 3�� c p E cc) `^'+r i 0 co ca /. Expected Forecasts Adjusted Forecasts To plan for the true expected traffic flow, excess gateway trips, beyond design capaci- ties, were removed from the system. Residual congestion would still occur in some locations, as listed below (see Figure 5-6 1-680 north of Danville (gateway) 1-680 south of Pleasanton (gateway) 1-580 over Altamont Pass (gateway) 1-580 between Tassajara Road and North Livermore Avenue Danville Boulevard (gateway) Vasco Road north of Livermore (gateway) Camino Tassajara east of Crow Canyon Road Crow Canyon Road between Castro Valley and San Ramon (gateway) Crow Canyon Road east of Dougherty Bollinger Canyon Road east of Alcosta Tassajara Road near 1-580 Fallon Road near 1-580 Dublin Boulevard extension between Tassajara and Fallon Route 84 between 1-580 and Jack London Travel Patterns With the expected forecasts, Tri-Valley would continue to experience in-commuting and out-commuting. This would occur even with a jobs/housing balance: 224,733 employed residents and 222,024 jobs. Trips within Tri-Valley would make up 63 percent of the total trips, compared to 50 percent under existing conditions. Out- commuting and in-commuting would make up 18 percent and 16 percent of the total trips, respectively. The remaining 4 percent of the trips would be through trips, traffic passing through Tri-Valley. This percentage is low overall but would be significant on the freeway system. 1-680 would comprise 15 percent through traffic, and through traffic on 1-580 would vary from 16 percent at Foothill Road to 40 percent over Altamont Pass. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 82 Tt Q N 0 rn a LL- cc o , a �>' CO tL ,� 0 Q 0 �- o w °C "" _ o G tG N ' 1 L, Of° t w < �-- O C �� 'h'SSYl py ,V 0 UJ /�� W Cj x RD W NGN , L t a WFP " ' ire , , HE , cs O t C �2T QP 00 , v yj� I N �s ~ �Ri o & o� ooa & rJt 00 Q ' Ale E( OL j co R/! 77 m oy i �► N _Z cc LA- cr- < \� oa 371uw33a0 W < Q Z W 1 CL 0 O\ RD V � �d as oasvn d z o c z J e Cc E- L AV 3a0wa3,v7 'N a GL m 1S 57"7pM W _„/ q i� 7s v13188nw z r 1 - z cc V �i� 08 NOANVp AV 13UVSI WW ', a3t77a7 - A 78 m K Y X AVrna z a' O 4 $ < z W o �{ Z YH 1 C, U GIRD -0 d z fl RD Pi o0 co oa Np co l7 i 4 ,� oa rarrvss y y�,ta �s� MIA RD� c i \ 78 k3ronS 1v O C 1 Z C W O jvo 311 • p > V J O ` DO TY RD oi! a .tdOH g r 0 11 U 3 of W AZ Od J6' �(� W [ ] hf RD V CD ��� 00 N Lki 4� x R ft < sr 0 .ri C A CC co V d l o .> 00 O / LO .F.r cc W Expected Forecasts Intersection levels of Service One hundred and thirty-five intersections were evaluated for the PM peak hour (see Table 5-4). Lane configurations were based on the 2010 expected network and are shown in the Technical Appendix. Figure 5-6 summarizes the intersections shown to operate at LOS E or F in 2010. They are: Blackhawk/Crow Canyon and Camino Tassajara Crow Canyon and Dougherty Alcosta and Bollinger Canyon Dougherty and Bollinger Canyon Dougherty and Dublin Tassajara and Dublin Fallon and Dublin Santa Rita and I-580 EB Off-Ramp Isabel and North Canyons Parkway Isabel and Airway Isabel and Jack London ti . Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 88 Expected Forecasts Table 5-4 Expected Intersection Level of Service Analysis--PM Peak Hour Existing 2010 City N/S Street E/W Street V/C LOS V/C LOS Dublin Foothill Road 1-580 WB Off 0.50 A 0.47 A San Ramon Road Dublin Boulevard 0.87 D 0.90 D San Ramon Valley Amador Valley 0.58 A 0.45 A Village Parkway Amador Valley 0.71 C 0.71 C Dougherty Road 1-580 WB Off 0.68 B 0.77 C Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard 0.84 D 0.93 E Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard 0.72 C 0.82 D Dougherty Road Amador Valley 0.39 A 0.78 C. Amador Plaza Dublin Boulevard 0.50 A 0.85 D Regional Street Dublin Boulevard 0.58 A 0.56 A Village Parkway Brighton Drive 0.36 A 0.33 A Tassajara Road Dublin Boulevard -- 1.05 F Fallon Road Dublin Boulevard -- 1.12 F Livermore Murrietta Blvd Portola Avenue 0.65 B 0.59 A North Livermore Portola Avenue 0.50 A 0.66 B North Livermore 1-580 EB Off 0.21 A 0.74 C Murrietta Blvd Stanley Boulevard 0.78 C 0.74 C Holmes Street Murrietta/4th 0.87 D 0.87 D Murrietta Blvd Las Positas 0.39 A 0.45 A First Street 1-580 EB Off 0.81 D 0.59 A Vasco Road 1-580 WB Off 0.97 E 0.69 B North Livermore 1-580 WB Off 0.39 A 0.58 A Vasco Road 1-580 EB Off 0.93 E 0.70 B Vasco Road Est Avenue 0.53 A 0.55 A Holmes Street Concannon Boulevard 0.50 A 0.71 C North Mines East Street 0.58 A 0.41 A First Street 1-580 WB Off 0.64 B 0.61 B Airway Boulevard 1-580 EB Off 0.56 A 0.66 B Airway Boulevard 1-580 WB Off 0.27 A 0.73 C Isabel (Route 84) Jack London -- 0.95 E Isabel North Canyons Pkwy -- 0.92 E Pleasanton Hopyard Road Owens Drive 0.69 B 0.85 D Owens Drive West Las Positas 0.25 A 0.87 D Santa Rita Road West Las Positas 0.45 A 0.75 C Tassajara Road 1-580 WB Off 0.56 A 0.84 D Hopyard Road Stoneridge Drive 0.53 A 0.58 A Hopyard Road 1-580 EB Off 0.66 B 0.79 C Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 89 Expected Forecasts Table 5-4 Expected Intersection Level of Service Analysis - PM Peak Hour (Continued) Existing 2010 City N/S Street E/W Street V/C LOS V/C LOS Hopyard Road West Las Positas 0.51 A 0.91 E Hopyard Road Valley Avenue 0.49 A 0.66 B Santa Rita Road Valley Avenue 0.65 B 0.75 C Foothill Road 1-580 EB Off 0.40 A 0.58 A First/Sunol Bernal Avenue 0.50 A 0.80 C 1-680 SB Off Bernal Avenue 0.40 A 0.83 D 1-680 NB Off Bernal Avenue 0.49 A 0.56 A 1-680 SB Off Sunol Boulevard 0.28 A 0.58 A 1-680 NB Off Sunol Boulevard 0.48 A 0.54 A Santa Rita Road 1-580 EB Off 0.70 B 0.94 E First Street Ray/Vineyard 0.70 B 0.71 C Main Street Stanley Boulevard 0.34 A 0.37 A Santa Rita Road Stoneridge Drive 0.57 A 0.85 D 1-680 SB Off Stoneridge Drive 0.36 A 0.49 A 1-680 NB Off Stoneridge Drive 0.31 A 0.52 A Foothill Road Dublin Canyon 0.70 B 0.75 C East Vallecitos East Vineyard Avenue 0.86 D 0.87 D Valley Avenue Stanley Boulevard 0.58 A 0.93 E Stoneridge Drive West Las Positas 0.31 A 0.81 D San Ramon San Ramon Valley Bollinger Canyon 0.50 A 0.46 A 1-680 NB Off Crow Canyon Road 0.40 A 0.68 B San Ramon Valley Norris Canyon 0.87 D 0.76 C Alcosta Boulevard Crow Canyon Road 0.61 B 0.82 D Alcosta Boulevard Bollinger Canyon 0.55 A 1.06 F Bollinger Canyon Crow Canyon Road 0.71 C 0.63 B San Ramon Valley Alcosta Boulevard 0.49 A 0.60 A 1-680 SB Off Alcosta Boulevard 0.65 B 1-680 SB Off Crow Canyon Road 0.57 A 0.48 A 1-680 SB Off Bollinger Canyon 0.76 C 0.34 A 1-680 NB Off Bollinger Canyon 0.56 A 0.71 C Dougherty Road Crow Canyon 0.24 A 0.98 E San Ramon Valley 1-680 SB Off -- 0.41 A Village Parkway Alcosta Boulevard 0.31 A 0.34 A 1-680 NB Off Alcosta Boulevard 0.87 D 0.84 D Dougherty Road Bollinger Cnyn Rd -- -- 1.11 F Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 90 Expected Forecasts Table 5-4 Expected Intersection Level of Service Analysis - PM Peak Hour (Continued) Existing 2010 City N/S Street E/W Street V/C LOS V/C LOS Danville Danville Boulevard Stone Valley 1.08 F 1.08 F 1-680 SB Off Stone Valley 0.59 A 0.56 A 1-680 NB Off Stone Valley 0.46 A 0.40 A San Ramon Valley Sycamore Valley 0.77 C 0.81 D 1-680 SB Off Sycamore Valley 0.66 B 0.63 B Camino Tassajara Sycamore Valley 0.35 A 0.37 A Hartz Avenue Diablo Road 0.45 A 0.38 A Blackhawk Road Camino Tassajara 0.37 A 1.15 F 1-680 NB On Sycamore Valley 0.45 A 0.79 C Camino Tassajara Diablo Road 0.83 D 0.39 A Diablo Road EI Cerro Road 0.44 A 0.32 A 1-680 SB Off Diablo Road 0.47 A 0.42 A 1-680 NB Off Diablo Road 0.59 A 0.55 A 1-680 SB Off EI Cerro Boulevard 0.55 A 0.62 B 1-680 NB Off EI Cerro Boulevard 0.50 A 0.60 A 1-680 NB Off Livorna Road 0.31 A 0.31 A 1-680 SB Off Uvoma Road 0.34 A 0.28 A San Ramon Railroad Avenue 0.46 A 0.63 B Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 91 Expected Forecasts Interchange Analysis The 2010 expected network includes changes to several freeway interchanges. Fig- ure 5-7 shows the interchange configurations for existing and 2010 conditions. The following three new interchanges will be added to the network: • I-580/Shaeffer Ranch Road • I-580/Isabel (Route 84) • I-680/West Las Positas The following 10 interchanges will be reconfigured or expanded: 0 I-580/Foothill. Conversion from full cloverleaf to partial cloverleaf design. 0 1-580/1-680. Addition of a southbound-to-eastbound flyover ramp, addition of hook ramps to Dublin. • 1-580/Fallon. Widening of overpass to six lanes. Conversion to partial cloverleaf design. 0 I-580/Portola. Removal of the ramps, will become just an overcrossing. • I-580/North Livermore. Conversion from diamond to partial cloverleaf design, widening of overcrossing. • 1-580/First Street. Widening of overcrossing. 0 I-580/Vasco, Widening of overcrossing. • 1-580/Greenville. Conversion from hook ramps to partial cloverleaf design. • I-680/Sycamore Valley. Elimination of the northbound-to-westbound off-loop. • 1-680/Alcosta. Addition of hook ramps to San Ramon Valley Boulevard, removal of southbound off-ramp. • 1-680/Bemal. Conversion to standard partial cloverleaf design. Tables 5-5 through 5-8 show the 2010 expected volume on the overcrossing and ramps at each interchange for the PM peak hour. The tables also show the number of lanes required to accommodate the expected volume. In all cases, the existing or planned interchange configuration will be adequate. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 92 INTERCHANGE EXISTING 2010 LOCATION Palomares Road '� ~ 1-580 �' SAME it, i Schafer Ranch Road !!ii PVCH RD ® 1-580 l Foothill Road ,111 411 r � r 'N, ® 1-580 111111 FOMML pm illtsi FOaMi.FW 1-680 ~ ® 1-580 / 1f Dougherty Road/ Hopyard Road SAME ® 1-580 !!!iii W�DOA 0R Hacienda Dr SAME @ I-580 c TASSAWM RD to Tassajara Road/ I '` III` ♦OD Santa Rita Road ►� � �� cc V ® 1-580 o SMrtA RIFA RD SWTA NTA W N !!1 iii FA101"D Q Fallon Road/EI Charro IF, cc ® 1-580 E r l S Q Figure 5-7 EXPECTED NETWORK— INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS cc ,m INTERCHANGE EXISTING 2010 LOCATION Airway Blvd jj it r 1-580 1-580 SAME jt ARrAr eiw Isabel Pkwy III1t1 ® 1-580 � r 1111M Portola Ave NO 1-580 P.W.Aw UVEAIIOn AVE L%VWORE AVE N. Livermore Ave j t jjj iii ® 1-580 '� ~ � � r First Street r 11 rrll ® 1-580 l f 1 l rl till FNM ST n U c Vasco Road C N @ 1-580 co •o VASW�l 110 U1 tit V' jj ti Greenville Road E ® 1-580 rl j t l 0 �n Q Figure 5-7 o EXPECTED NETWORK- INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS cc M _ INTERCHANGE EXISTING 2010 . LOCATION ~� Si s, SN 64 SR 84 � .%, � r� ® 1-680 1 f f1 .�11 A r�r rur Sunol Blvd 1-680 rrf lrfff 1 • I1 � M Bernal Ave @ I-680 W. Las Positas Blvd ® 1-680 W.W PMAS aiw V cliC i-eso CID Stoneridge Dr cc V ® 1-680 O �. c SAME a c cc s co Figure 5-7 Q o EXPECTED NETWORK- -&- INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS cc m INTERCHANGE EXISTING 2010 LOCATION Alcosta Blvd 1-680 ALCWu BLVD ALCMA NYD SMW"M VALLLYW &MMMON VAUEYFW Bollinger Canyon Road COMM 1-680 SAME Crow Canyon Road CWW CAW" 1-680 P/11' SAM E 1—no CV C Sycamore Valley Road .� ® 1-680 cc J \ _ •U r �! r O �� \ MNIpiE VI 1 C cc E E � Figure 5-7 Q EXPECTED NETWORK— INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS cc IM INTERCHANGE EXISTING 2010 LOCATION Diablo Road ® 1-680 1 DD SAME EI Cerro Blvd a CfWD 0.w 1-680 SAME EI Pintado Rd a PWADO 1-680 K-sw SAME Stone Valley Rd ® 1-680 ~ r -+ / STOW SAME ti v c v� m Livorna Roadcc UJOM"RD .0 I-680 O SAME N Q r,, C c0 E .0 cri Figure 5-7 Q EXPECTED NETWORK— INTERCHANGE CONFIGURATIONS cc m Expected Forecasts Table 5-5 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchange Overpasses-1-580 (PM Peak Hour) SB NB Required Required Location Volume Lanes Volume Lanes Shaeffer Ranch 401 1 194 1 Palomares 92 1 63 1 San Ramon/Foothill 367 1 570 1 1-680/1-580 2,457 2 4,210 2 Dougherty/Hopyard 2,572 3 3,541 3 Hacienda 2,751 3 3,390 3 Tassajara/Santa Rita 2,504 3 3,033 3 Fallon/EI Cerro 1,258 2 1,483 2 Airway 593 1 451 1 Isabel (Route 84) 2,264 2 3,302 3 North Livermore 1,044 1 3,301 3 First Street 587 1 1,386 2 Vasco 401 1 2,955 3 Greenville 416 1 707 1 Note: Assumes capacity of 1,200 per lane, except freeways 2,200 per lane. None predicted to be overcapacity. Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 93 Expected Forecasts Table 5-6 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchange Overpasses- 1-680 (PM Peak Hour) Westbound Eastbound Required Required Location Volume Lanes Volume Lanes Livorna 46 1 534 1 Stone Valley 962 1 1,26 1 EI Pintado 26 1 376 1 EI Cerro 138 1 625 1 Diablo 582 1 837 1 Sycamore Valley 757 1 1,588 2 Crow Canyon 1,219 1 2,141 2 Bollinger Canyon 2,307 2 1,617 2 Alcosta 740 1 531 1 1-680/1-580 5,407 3 8,067 4 Stoneridge 1,593 2 1,318 1 Las Positas 775 1 426 1 Bernal 480 1 1,593 2 Sunol 852 1 285 1 Route 84 1,537 2 490 1 Note: Assumes capacity of 1,200 per lane, except freeways 2,200 per lane. None predicted to be overcapacity. Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 94 • Expected Forecasts Table 5-7 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchanges---1-580 (PM Peak Hour) WB WB WB WB N N N N Location Off Diag Off Loop On Diag On Loop Off Diag Off Loop On Diag On Loop Shaeffer Ranch 387 - 534 - 533 - 270 - Palomares 92 - 130 - 1296 - 468 - San Ramon/Foothill 388 627 875 769 340 875 1,441 336 Dougherty/Hopyard 1,601 - 727 1,243 1574 - 775 1,156 Hacienda 1,451 841 1,093 1768 - 1,287 671 Tassajara/Santa Rita 1,583 - 1,472 533 1231 - 1,439 515 Fallon/EI Cerro 1,558 - 1,507 - 1231 - 969 - Airway - 475 371 - 742 - - 529 Isabel (Route 84) 1,244 - 924 1,353 2438 ' - 2,000 ' 578 Morth Livermore 793 - 805 1,186 2580 ' - 150 192 First Street 667 - 167 610 1258 - 958 37 Vasco 40 93 1,295 1,622' 1046 1549 518 - Greenvifle 576 - 27 514 93 - 663 59 ' Requires two-lane ramp. Note: Assumes capacity of 1,800 vph for diagonal ramp; 1,600 vph for loop ramp. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 95 Expected Forecasts Table 5-8 2010 Expected Forecast Analysis of Interchanges-1-680 (PM Peak Hour) SB SB SB SB NB NB NB NB Location Off Diag Off Loop On Diag On Loop Off Diag Off Loop On Diag On Loop Livorna 625 - 14 - 46 - 386 - Stone Valley 239 431 629 - 417 685 691 - EI Pintado 66 - - - - - 324 - EI Cerro 578 - 72 - 303 - 477 - Diablo 458 - 652 - 737 - 303 - Sycamore Valley 458 1,357 729 - 494 489 917 - Crow Canyon 2,196 , - 521 316 1,345 - 1,591 1,256 Bollinger Canyon 1,396 - 309 1,212 1,270 - 1,749 248 Alcosta 432 - 146 233 1,761 - 377 - Dublin Hook 359 - 613 - 138 - 733 - 1-680/1-580 266 2,624 s 1,184 1,114 461 1,244 2,179 ' 919 Stoneridge 585 - 650 557 625 - 791 271 Las Positas - 476 644 - - 706 617 - Bernal 1,763 - 225 - 292 - 1,315 - Sunol 510 - 703 - 994 - 185 - Route 84 14 429 246 1,201 2,9560 21 0 ' Requires two-lane ramp. z Two-lane flyover. Note: Assumes capacity of 1,800 vph for diagonal ramp, 1,600 vph for bop ramp. Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 96 Expected Forecasts Transit Ridership The existing mode split in Tri-Valley involves 4 percent transit use for peak-hour commute trips, and this is expected to increase to 5 percent for the expected 2010 forecasts. Nevertheless, the drive-alone percentage is predicted to increase slightly from 76 percent to 80 percent. The traffic model estimates transit and carpool usage by taking into account travel time, travel cost, and transit availability. The model does not include policy direction that might lead to more carpooling or transit ridership—for example, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District goals to increase average vehicle ridership. Table 5-9 summarizes the transit ridership forecast for the expected transit network. Transit ridership is predicted by the Tri-Valley Transportation Model to almost triple by 2010, compared to a doubling of population and employment. The drive-alone percentage is expected to remain high, however. This is a function of time and cost factors, which will continue to favor driving alone. A complete breakdown of transit information for the "expected" 2010 forecast is included in the Appendix. Table 5-9 2010 Expected Transit Ridership 1990 2010 Carrier Daily Ridership' Daily Ridership2 County Connection 3,097 13,404 WHEELS 16,698 41,433 BART 19,482 52,0583 Express Buses — 6,041 Total 39,277 112,935 ' For routes that serve the Tri-Valley, based on Tri-Valley Transportation Model validation run. 2 For routes that serve the Tri-Valley, based on Tri-Valley Transportation Model expected run. 2 Daily boardings of 44,000 on the BART line, the remainder on BART buses. Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 97 e� 6. Plan Alternatives 6. Plan Alternatives Chapter Summary. • The Transportation Service Objective of Level of Service E for the freeways cannot be met based on demand, regardless of transportation network or land use assumptions. • Even if there were no further development in the Tri-Valley, the freeway system would still become increasingly congested by long-distance commuters that neither live nor work in the Tri-Valley. (This assumes that neighboring communities will continue to grow as planned.) • The plan should restrict increases in gateway capacity for single-occupant vehicles, insure that the internal transportation system operates at acceptable levels of service through selective network improvements and freeway ramp metering, and achieve a jobs-housing balance. Ridesharing and transit usage should be particu- larly emphasized at the gateways. This chapter describes the alternatives tested to develop the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. Potential actions and strategies to address the projected transportation deficien- cies were developed by the consultant, the TAC and the TVTC. These actions and strategies can generally be divided into three groups: increase transportation supply through highway investment, increase transportation system efficiency through more reliance on transit, and decrease transportation demand through land use adjust- ments. Note that the evaluation of transportation alternatives was conducted with the baseline forecasts and did not include the gateway constraint concept. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 98 Plan Altematives Maximum Highway Investment The purpose of testing an alternative that maximized highway investment was to see if, regardless of cost, it would be possible for the Tri-Valley to build its way out of the problem of traffic congestion. All physically and potentially politically acceptable road improvements were included. The assumed maximum highway network changes are shown on Figure 6-1. Expenditures for these improvements are summarized, by improvement, in Table 6-1. Funding levels for the maximum highway investment would require an additional $598 million beyond that required for the assumed baseline improvements. Approximately $547 million of this amount would be unfunded. These changes included substantial capital expenditures on new roads and road widening projects throughout the Tri Valley area. The additional road capacity would alleviate, to some degree, congestion on arterial corridors in Tri Valley. The gateways to Tri.Valley (I-680, Altamont Pass and Vasco Road) would continue to be congested during peak conditions. Figure 6-2 shows the congested routes with the maximum highway alternative. Maximum Transit Investment This alternative was to test the ability of transit systems to relieve highway conges- tion. Transit systems offering travel times superior to automobiles were included in the major corridors. Potential transit improvements are shown on Figures 6-3 and 6-4. Cost estimates for the maximum transit investment is summarized in Table 6-2. The maximum transit investment would require an additional $1.136 billion in capital and operating costs through 2010 beyond the baseline improvements. None of this amount is funded. Potential projects include BART service extended to Eastern Livermore, Altamont Pass Rail service from Stockton to San Jose, and north/south corridor priority express bus transit. Extensive bus service feeding the proposed rail stations was also assumed. The additional system capacity would not eliminate congestion on either arterial corridors or the gateways to Tri-Valley (I-680, Altamont Pass and Vasco Road). Figure 6-5 shows the congested routes with the maximum transit alternative. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 99 „,so c� WOO J rON7N'YJ ` D� d l??Nld l •• •!\M!!!! a 0 G � O 0M N r ZI a MY\ O y OG \1 u t,7 ♦ , o ' II^^ yto 1 �l N � c � 0 ca � � O c0 N CJS t"2� T zz LO L) \0v 0 CD L)4 4 � d Gam " c 5000 W 7 4) � T. 2 d. W ,2 0 cc r O • y. + r a ,''.a ✓s iii m 1S S3mON ' CD 380AS3N, O ¢ ull \ 7g r�3�aanw '�j �rJ1� nr 3a�)9 p" d (fid M3 08 NO 5 \ o No77re + + 79 7ONQS �ya�• � � � Go 00 o J a o lE 4 .s po 7- 0° b o N .04 p c Z to `\ d ) A r A _ W W OD H U') b � Ado. O OD o X W oxm F- �. v o o`v Q h 3 0 -0 V J , 2 O\ < UJ o ¢ cr OQ \ w = 0 z D 3 2 U — X vbwvsSYl �Myy� Q d O ,t U \R oa C9 W 3aN3a Mn ` J \ Hc,,Ty RO , 00 c o o U r4 C N Od C A 0 � o � Z In Plan Alternatives Table 6-1 Cost Estimate for Maximum Highway Network Cost Potential Element (in millions) Funded Source Funds Source Unfunded HOV lanes on 1-680 to Santa $80 $80 Clara County HOV lanes on 1-580 Foothill to $112 $112 Greenville Route 84, upgrade to six-lane $50 $50 freeway 1-680 to 1-580 1-580/1-680 Interchange $120 $120 NB to WB ramp 1-680/Bernal interchange im- $15 $15 provement Bollinger Canyon Rd. widened $8 $8 Developer to six lanes Dougherty Rd. widened to six $15 $15 Developer lanes Hacienda Dr. extended $12 $12 Developer New road: East Branch to High- $6 $6 Developer land Tassajara Rd.widened to 6 $10 $10 Developer Two new overpasses in Dublin $10 $10 N. Livermore/Highland Drive $40 $40 widened to four lanes Vasco widened to six-lane ex- $120 $120 pressway, 1-580 to Delta Ex- pressway Total $598 $51 $547 Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 102 k ; , zw N V. ' ,P% Lo co � 4 QQa Tnm33ao \0 RQ p Q p�\-O oa ossvA04 Ecc , °fid oN o V— > \ Q ox ['( rs h l f► it 15 S3 02 o i�+ \ z ie vi3kaanw � "si,,� \ oa NQANMo o , 8 r, � \� 0a, to y CR° it Old i \ i o � ` oa NOTWI \ rx � s 78 'ioNf1S f!T yyvrV55V j O oa a a \ m � N � O o lz V U RD c0 Qo 0 � v } A 0 r V z J co w LO O / z G .:j s.. CO tp y h 4 Q s Z LU Ilk oc z W W o o w Q ' . co Utcc is x S S3K10N W Cc a ffi ac C. �N SANTA • C ` ON A4Nfto CD g C'i� c tl�J CO d } v go O SA" CO) SL c �r a /C� � cV O E/ w v Q IV V 0 o O AV a o o.o 1 4 in V) 0 © _'' cn�C< Cc a AA a) � �°a z w J d0 42) cp >� G rG. r+ cc O � � OC <t uJ cc , I-- Z 1— T o► .1tr CC v,o �•- ov OV OJSSY'A o, x Q a V v '♦ 01is` �... Lr ► S3W70H �W x � soy Z O (R+Yh '�•1 7 , 1 nT�'7 N ► 1HMYSSYI RD SANTA RITA Aw^, J•�f.� �� ► � kW/1S V s C ► s m o or .urs H '� L+ r o CO `ng �i stn V 3 C* & $� RAS"ao ,C o& co 10 o E. - dd �r UV O C.J S!N o`VQ �" N J co p 0) _.ir µR12 N C u AY O O O CL Z ( d O Q+ d C y� n H ccAAo Plan Alternatives Table 6-2 Cost Estimate for Maximum Transit Network Cost Potential Element (in millions) Funded Source Funds Source Unfunded Priority transit lines' in 1-680 $56 $56 and 1-580 corridors BART extension to $900 $900 Livermore with 2 stations Altamont Pass Rail $136 $136 (Alameda County portion) Express Bus Service $26 $26 11 lines Enhanced local bus service 18 18 Subtotal $1,136 $1,136 Source: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. ' These are super express bus lines that have signal-preemption capability. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 107 W co Q UJ v t\� as ��""�a0 & .. 0 ,v N Ro tp + ( Cl) + G y .fir Q a �� WCC x C W < + W ■.i ~S' 0 1 Y \+ nY OWa3N N is S3 2 O + 7B Y137Na/1W + v nY i3B+57 + \ < 08 NO1'T0� m trd co 41 \ c000 N \ aS 0 0 ' as N07W..! W Q sj ' R"p 1e 7ONns O ' G \ m > rx a d w co 0 V '\ TY RD to C ao c�� o u ` v .F+7 C9 G b a N u � c c E t b v0 �►V�y J Z LO C O f� mw E.- > all a c n cc Cl) <r cc 05 T \ Z m O 3 x v o av x a d � V2lYN5SY1 QNtyryD � v+ c O y U , RD LAJ ta.! Da s ��NERN RD\ i t r t-40 O 0 co ca cc 30 /' 0 a 0 / 0 J � "� yN 0 cc c \ of a T rH U 0 o P6 C cc ° t� Z . Plan Alternatives Land Use Opportunities Given the high cost, limited availability of funds, and lack of overall system improve- ment for either a maximum highway or maximum transit network, the consultant was instructed by the TVTC to test modifications to proposed land uses. A real estate economics firm, Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), was contracted to prepare a study of how a reduced land use plan might be structured. Their complete land use study is included in the Appendix. They prepared the following list of criteria for structuring the reduced growth plan. Criteria for Developing Managed Growth Land Use Scenario 1. Determine Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) that are the significant contributions to traffic congestion (producing trips in excess of network link capacity). 2. Identify TAZs where residential and employment density could be increased where access to transit is high (transit-oriented development). 3. Identify TAZs where infrastructure capacity (e.g., arterial roadways) exists that can support higher density residential and employment mixed-use development. 4. Reduce proposed residential density in TAZs with limited or nonexistent network and poor transit service potential. 5. Reduce employment land use designations and/or proposed capacity in areas with limited road network and transit access, undeveloped or underdeveloped backbone infrastructure, or weak market demand. 6. Construct a "Managed Growth Scenario"by redistributing and reducing 2010 Expected Growth to achieve a level of service policy on Baseline Network. EPS used these criteria to develop specific reduced-growth recommendations (see Table 6-3). These recommendations were considered but not adopted by the TVTC. Several land use reduction treatments were tested with the traffic model. None produced satisfactory results with respect to eliminating overcapacity demand on the freeway system. As a worst-case test, the consultant tested an alternative with zero growth through 2010 in the Tri-Valley while allowing growth to occur as predicted in neighboring communities. Through this evaluation, it was determined that congestion at the gateways (I-680, Altamont Pass, and Vasco Road) would not be influenced by Tri Valley growth but rather growth in neighboring communities. In other words, there is no way to control the freeway system demand by only adjusting growth within Tri Valley. Figure 6-6 shows the congested links with the zero growth alternative. The lack of local control over freeway volumes at the gateways, as evidenced by the zero growth alternatives, lead to the policy of gateway constraints. This is discussed further in Chapter 7. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 110 N N m m m m C m m m O N N O_ O 8 N M > O_ UCC C �pp C py 0 C pNp O) m �CC C w O y > o > o m O O O = m y > C E m a m av m a 0 m •� O C C O E y O t6 C E y .0 C N aCD _ m C c0 m C U c0 O pCD m M m 2 E m °' E mE ' m o, EE m ac — E CDC �' m C n c v v o v m m m C t0 0 j C 8 p •N c� O S -� Y w j C m Q. m CO N C v m ° � m ° c m m ° m E m N m m — m m m m CO CD Ca m 8 C m 'O 7 3 C p m m m m C m m c o gc ovc vv vc c '� C � O c C EE r- 0 aL v coo cc -0 ¢ Cr v E U > Z 0 Z Z u1 0 Z m j > > M t s` i° _2 6 m O fd m N > C cN m p N - 'Dm 3 j E 3 m O CL E C HCm � 0 Em m o> mo Mc 4 o 8 . 8 o m CD CD O �, m j = >. d T = > m >, O m 7 C 0 15 .0 ; .0 :3 N N Q7 CO m D ; m cc 3 M f0 CO Yc0 fa >. ?. a C N m (0 Y m m CD m m ro m m c� M rn•X m m E v m z z z U _ U ;3 U) m Cr z ac 0CL M m M v 12 0 N N {0 m m > m o. m M o. m o_ m m E m �pCx D p C C R) OC C U M m 8 M m C � to to ca m C O C CO O 8 l'a C m z m C 0 to O -0'D m S C J C oC m C ° C8 CD 0 CG CS 0. v vM 8 8 1 M m CO M M M OCOm COO0 8 w 8 - mN O, NN o m CD N m O M.0 m C O � CO �00�° �X � �0 0E0m cE� m0 — oo ° m ° omo m om W > m �mo � E � S :3 :3 � wC7U w x O m E v CD Cv > o m C � C j M v > OC _ aD t p m > A O t3UU ° O Cs m M m t0 m CO >._a m S N M m 0 N C � m aE � m0 m0 cr m Ecm � U° m o ` 0 mn m .2- 308 £ y �` mn o . E - $ m � m �r .�.+ ani m 3 0 3 o. C m e c O. m C: Q o rn m E' ci m ' N O O 3 m M - Ci M M m M E O M of 9 C- o c � — mn E ccccE .igv' m � c � m > Cvr � U `mt EE 0 m 8 � c $ � c S E � cr E � o � c $ 0 3 m $ E r.. Eea > mm mm mm ,� mm m mea mo ns mQ mm m C 8 > C .0 n. ccM m m r a m L 'Z5 n � tEB m o m o m m m CD m 10 0 m 3 3 cc E r m 3 t c v E m U E E m E c ' 3 � �CD E c o >, E c >` E E "' m mea g' w ¢ US 'D v) 9cc8 v8 oCmav8 = ci8 2C CCBcCEIr FL C m °° C13 O 3 m m Of m ` >� C M Cucc > g m a > o WcD � > > N m .n m m o ,J C c U d 9 wc o cc M� L maC B y r CO) C CO)V m 5 (� a o o° o cis w D z a a in -S 3 (S Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 111 + oul ?ko 0 0 1U, f j ■ U3 CC Ul 4 2 u'n V i 0 3: o � a 9 0 oa 'may �ry5S�+1 oxi�j o � m a ,. RD , cc o w. l t► oa p 3ON38 MVl c+RO O �a �et U1 CCS � V 2 dJ V + T M O Q o a� m ^^ TA V r Act lu �'\0 � 3tnnN33a� & J � '� as oasYn CC F+ 1 U \ C3J \ J m O YS [qul OT1 } \, 3a0Wal 'N m 15 $ari o a \ z V \ is vl3iaanW � V ( ' \ w sa cc \ nr t38� 0�i \ pa NpANV� ^'m o a3i1103 ig 0\ s g Z N co 1U 6 , o \ as NOTN3 ca W Rp la tONtTS 9 \ as vbvN'SY1 O t 2 O } � \ W c± V .� q \ pDUW�TM RD O o D U O \ R >. � O � CT U V• C cc b O y= H O V Z 4 s ao 4 4 Plan Alternatives The reduced growth scenario was shown, however, to have a profound effect on traffic levels on the arterial system. The TAC concluded that congestion on the arterial system could be controlled through growth management, even though congestion on the freeway system could not. Plan Evolution The TVTAC outlined four alternatives for consideration by the TVTC (see Table 6-4). These were combinations of various elements discussed and tested throughout the plan evolution. These four alternatives were presented to the individual councils of each city and the boards of the two counties. These elected representatives provided input as to which plan elements should be pursued further. Table 6-5 shows the composite of positions taken by each body. The TVTAC interpretation of the policy direction was as follows: 1. Road Improvements. Pursue the maximum amount of improvement within the limits of physical feasibility, but keep the regional impact fee within the $1,000- $2,000 per dwelling unit range. This was thought to be the highest politically feasible subregional traffic impact fee. 2. Transit Improvements. Provide transit options in the well-travelled corridors, but recognize that transit cannot carry a significant mode share given the suburban land use pattern of the area. 3. Higher Densities. The benefit of higher densities from a transportation perspective is that transit can be a more effective alternative to driving. There was some interest in changing development patterns to increase overall densities, especially in transit corridors. Recently approved specific plans for East Dublin and North Livermore create some higher-density areas. Densities necessary to support significant transit usage need to be at least 15 dwelling units per acre. 4. Growth Management. Reductions in growth rates through 2010 were considered to be a last resort for achieving TSOs in specific locations where no other option was available. 5. Reduced LOS Standards. These were considered only for the freeway system in locations where through traffic made achievement of TSOs impossible for the TVTC to achieve. While demand volumes could not be accommodated, ramp metering would allow achievement of CMP-mandated levels of service on the freeways. 6. TDM Measures. The need for realistically achievable ridesharing goals was recognized. However, the TVTC is not in favor of simply assuming away problems. They also are not in favor of aggressive programs such as paid parking. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 114 C COcE E > a) > °° c 0 � ca Q cD O . , m � E � 0 0 o aE c � 0 a4) U) cam) 0 U) CO p Q z o ca c`a v v v, o CO m ca C oCu 0 F- L > j t O U >. m jC6 Q) Cf3, O Np v0 c o () C C o aa)) C o - N a) J CO V) O m (n O V Q cc Z cc U) aEi �/j o m C o a >. �a o m o m .0 us o E -6 E o C M E us in. > O a) LO m x CO U N m O a) a) a) m ca > C O LCC) 0 E to C 70O a) o C%S cc U) m Q OZ N 0. Z x 2 O O p -(5 O UN CO CCO> O -j wo — Om U) CU � = c ccxa CO 0. N mO G> m aC _ CcN m m O N as c o m E o 3 w- = co o acs a) z O m mos Q 3 Z cn >, m m m E "O m ca v a) c > .. 03 No c � Q0 � axi � m v, E C J o a) o f w m a) rn � cmcc > � avi3 0 � voi vs in E o coca ►= oox z 0V) Q aci � U) 2 Z m CL >. Z i EpoptL > m0 c vi mo`s0 p O U Q Cr_ C Q N O a) C 5 U U O t O "DO ca Ca 10 ca 4) >\ 6. 0 2 0 0. >. Xz Q p Z NN CO � .. Z vi0 m d � Q "sL o ca c O.V LOC C � C � U C CO c`') .0 U O � N C.0 w m d rn E m m 0 ... a E ¢ 00 d y W .- 4) ° Qv .:• LO E � ° � = a mm3 co ». CL O mE y0c O of q mN �► to cm CLE CL Ca U)4)) - c 0 m o m CU Co C 0y .2: CO a° of cc > m — o m e m m > a) c � E� N c c � �-- cc F- _ ea Lu ca CO F- o t C C t et N o E g E S o E o cD ccM .a W a W a LU a W a m > m ..'.. r (D m r 0 r ami = m Cc F... Q o 4 o Q o Q o a o Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 115 > CiLO CO'n CD a) Q) Ca E c E E E a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U) « z (n (n z z U) Cn 0 0 8 ' (D cc 0) -j > CD P 2 — >lz� — C o >1 C- CU mCU w k > ■ CD00EaEEa)0 0 .0a) 0 0 0 0 0 cr- 05 U) 0 U) m z fn z z z CO 0 D a) m r_ lu U3 lu (D -3 C '16 = 0 C a: (D E M a) cc 0 E E E C 0 10) 2 0 0 0 0 < U) cc Z < to En < RD r 0 E E E E § E E 0 (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 < U) U) U) U) U) W 0 CL U) cc E L- a) z :I-_: > 2 E E e E / E cc z E 0 0 0 0 0 0 4) 0 E 0) U) U) CD Cn 0 2 tn. 0 E (D > 2 CL > E E 2 E K E E U) 0 0 0 0 0 CO0 0 E CO CO U) CO U) U) 0 Cr CO Cf) t5 L- Mn . � � � / � U) U) -r- 0 0 8 r 0 0 —0 E (D w 0 4) 0 a m W "D a) cc E 'a cc > w > 2 E a .0 0 C . a D 4? 1 a- > 0 �D m 0 2 C/) CS L) a. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 116 } e f 7. Recommended improvement Plan f 7. Recommended Improvement Plan Based on the results of the alternatives testing, the TAC and the TVTC decided to focus the ultimate improvement plan on the arterial corridors within Tri-Valley rather than the Tri-Valley gateways. The plan must address the primary question: What can we do to achieve the best level of service within the Tri-Valley? Three contributing factors influence the ability to respond to this question. • Financial constraints. • Physical limitations within corridors. • Development pattern. Financial resources for all projects are limited. The Measure C and Measure B sales tax programs provide substantial funding for spec projects in Tri-Valley. Other projects must compete for the relatively small pot of public funds. Developer fees, which have an upper limit, could help supplement public funds. Future sales tax or gasoline tax initiatives may or may not be successful. . Expansion of major corridors within Tri-Valley is limited due to existing development and terrain. These limitations hinder the development of transportation corridors other than the existing I-680 and I-580 corridors. Development patterns within Tri-Valley have been geared toward relatively low housing and commercial densities. These patterns are expected to continue in the future. This development pattern is impossible to serve thoroughly with transit, given realistic funding expectations. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 117 Recommended Improvement Plan Plan Overview The TVTAC used the policy direction to create a set of actions comprising an integrat- ed plan. The transportation plan comprises enhancement to roadway capacity coupled with increased transit service, control of demand (growth management and TDM), and acceptance of congestion in locations where it cannot be avoided. The plan is financial- ly constrained in that it includes only elements that are already funded, likely to be funded given extension of federal and state programs, or fundable by new development at an affordable level. Chapter 8 describes the financing plan. The following sections provide an overview of the plan. Road Improvements The plan includes many improvement projects for freeways, interchanges, arterials, and intersections. These are all based on the reality of gateway constraints. Gateway Constraints. Analysis of alternatives through the planning process showed that the TVTC's best interests would not be served by widening any of the gateways for single-occupant vehicles leading into the area. The gateways include I-680 north and south, I-580 east and west, Crow Canyon Road to Castro Valley, and Vasco Road. Widening of these gateways would still leave the freeways congested, would lead to more through traffic, and would increase traffic volumes on other Tri-Valley roads. This is true because of the Tri-Valley's strategic location between San Joaquin County and the Bay Area and also between Central and Eastern Contra Costa County and Santa Clara County. The implication of gateway constraints for roadway planning is that the interior freeways and arterials should be sized to handle only what traffic can get through the gateways. Thus, the plan recognizes that congestion will occur for several hours each weekday at the gateways, but this will have the positive effect of metering single- occupant vehicle travel to and from the area. Within the Tri-Valley area, the road system is designed to minimize congestion. While not ideal (the ideal would be to have no congestion anywhere), the roadway plan when combined with a balance between jobs and housing, produces the best conditions to be reasonably expected. The reasons behind the gateway constraint concept are different for different gate- ways, as discussed below: I-680 North. The section north of Diablo Road cannot practically be widened beyond the HOV lanes under construction. The gateway constraint assumption recognizes this reality. I-680 South. The section south of Route 84 has room to be widened, and limited widening would support the investment in Route 84 capacity. Accordingly, the plan recommends the addition of HOV lanes (see Chapter 7). Gateway constraints would still apply for single-occupant vehicles. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 118 Recommended Improvement Plan I-580 West. This section between Tri-Valley and Castro Valley has a projected demand of 10,300 vehicles eastbound in the PM peak hour. Widening beyond the current four lanes is infeasible. I-580 East (Altamont Pass):Alameda County policy, in recognition of the need to encourage shorter commuter and not overload Tri-Valley roads with regional traffic, opposes increases to capacity for single-occupant vehicles. Therefore, gateway constraint is warranted. The plan includes HOV lanes, as a second priority project, in recognition of the importance of I-580 as a regional facility (see Chapter 7). Crow Canyon Road (to Castro Valley). Safety improvements are planned for this seciton of Crow Canyon Road. However, the TVTC supports maintaining the two- lane cross-section. Vasco Road. Vasco Road is planned for implementation as a two-lane road. However, the two-lane road project should be done in such a manner to not preclude future accommodation of public transit or other improvements as subse- quently determined appropriate. The Plan is based upon the following set of assumptions regarding gateway capacity on the freeways and major arterials which access the Tri-Valley: • I-680 to the north. Six lanes plus HOV lanes. • I-580. Eight lanes. • I-680 to the south. Six lanes plus HOV lanes. • Crow Canyon Road to Castro Valley. Two lanes. Vasco Road north of I-580. Two lanes. Any departure from these assumptions would required amending the Plan. The TVTP/AP, by incorporating a gateway constraint methodology, is breaking new ground. Action Plans being prepared for adjacent subareas in Contra Costa County have not employed this methodology. Consequently, the use of the gateway constraint methodology could raise a consistency issue between the TVTP/AP and adjacent Action Plans in Central, East, and Southwest Contra Costa County. Furthermore, no formal- ized approach for conducting the gateway constraint method of analysis has been adopted by either the Alameda or Contra Costa CMAs. The Contra Costa Transporta- tion Authority's Technical Procedures is reticent on the gateway constraint methodology. Current gateways are established by two factors: geographic constraints and financial constraints. To some degree the geographic constraints can be overcome through significant capital investments in new highway projects. However, the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is based upon the assumption that significant capacity enhance- ments to the gateways serving Tri-Valley are financially infeasible. The Policy of the Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 119 Recommended Improvement Plan' Tri-Valley Transportation Council is to work closely with neighboring jurisdictions, Congestion Management Agencies, Caltrans, and MTC to resolve capacity problems at the gateways and as needed through the partnership activities and to subsequently adjust our Transportation Plan should funding of mutual acceptable facilities become possible. Freeway Ramp Metering. Ramp metering is a way of controlling the volume of traffic entering a freeway so the system is as efficient as possible. A survey made for the Federal Highway Administration of seven ramp metering systems in the United States and Canada revealed that average highway speeds increased by 29 percent after installing ramp metering and travel times decreased 16.5 percent. At the same time reductions of freeway congestion averaged approximately 60 percent. An analysis of the FLOW system in Seattle (ramp metering and HOV lanes) revealed that in addition to similar improvements in speed and travel time, highway throughput increased from 12 to 40 percent as a result of ramp metering. An additional benefit from ramp metering is a decrease in the accident rate. Reductions from 20 to 58 percent have been achieved through improved merging operations. Without ramp metering, bottlenecks will develop on the freeway that decrease throughput and lead to longer delays than motorists face at the meters themselves. Ramp meters also encourage the peak spreading that needs to occur to keep the gateways flowing. This happens because motorists are willing to accept only up to about a 10-minute wait at the meters. Beyond that, they will adjust their trip-making (i.e., choose to travel at a different time or choose a different mode). This peak spreading helps to get the most out of the system when gateway constraints are a reality. Without ramp metering it is projected that the freeway flow will break down and be congested for long periods of time with the on-ramps not being able to flow at their designed flow rates. The on-ramps will be metered by freeway congestion rather than planned rates. Staff believes a metered system will move more people more effectively and equitably than an unmanaged system. The unmetered system is also more prone to be blocked by congestion-induced accidents than a metered system. An additional major benefit of ramp metering is that it can be combined with HOV bypass to provide an additional powerful incentive for carpooling and can help buses increase average speeds. When combined with HOV lanes on the freeways, the ramp metering-with-bypass system allows carpools and buses to travel unimpeded through- out the system. Ramp metering has two potential drawbacks: backups on the local street system, and rewarding long-distance commuters. The potential for backups on local streets can be minimized through ramp widening and strategic placement of the meters. The risk of rewarding long-distance commutes can be minimized by instituting a system of ramp metering for the entire length of a freeway, rather than in isolated locations. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 120 Recommended Improvement Plan The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan includes ramp metering with HOV bypass with the proviso that this not seriously impact local streets and that local implementation be tied with implementation along all of 1-680 and 1-580 in neighboring communities. Freeway HOV Lanes. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes are under construction along 1-680 between Rudgear Road and 1-580. HOV lanes provide the advantage of reducing travel times for ridesharers and transit patrons. They also enhance mobility during off-peak hours by being available for all vehicles. This is especially important when considering truck traffic, which increasingly relies on off-peak hours to reach destinations without undue delays. The TVTC recognizes the benefits of HOV lanes, but realizes that take-a-lane pro- grams do not work. Such an ill-fated attempt at providing HOV lanes on 1-580 resulted in federal legislation prohibiting their use on that freeway in unincorporated areas. Thus, HOV lanes must be added to the freeways. HOV lanes on both 1-680 and 1-580 are included in the plan. Due to the expense of the projects, however, some segments are included as lower priority projects. 1-680 south of 1-580 has been designed to accommodate the addition of HOV lanes, but pavement widening would be required. Top funding priority should be given to the section south of Route 84 to the top of the Sunol Grade, which is the border of Area 4 in the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan. This section will experience significant traffic increases due to the planned capacity increases to Route 84. The section of 1-680 between Alcosta Boulevard and Route 84 should also be planned to include HOV lanes but with a lower funding priority. On 1-580, HOV lanes would be more difficult and costly to build because the inter- changes have not been built to accommodate them. However, the Caltrans Route Concept calls for 10 lanes plus BART in the median for 1-580. The most important segment for funding priority on 1-580 is the segment between Tassajara Road and North Livermore Avenue. This segment is predicted to experience the highest traffic demand along 1-580 in the Tri-Valley. To accommodate the extra freeway width, the interchanges at El Charro/Fallon and Airway would need to be rebuilt. The El Charrot Fallon interchange is planned to be rebuilt anyway. In addition, the planned new interchange at Isabel Avenue (Route 84) would need to be built to accommodate the width. As a lower funding priority, the plan also includes extending the 1-580 HOV lanes east to the Alameda County border. This would require widening four interchanges in Livermore (N. Livermore, First, Vasco, and Greenville), which are planned to be rebuilt anyway, and three interchanges/crossings east of Livermore. Extending HOV lanes on 1-580 west of Santa Rita Road is more problematic. With the BART extension and the 1-580/1-680 interchange project, this section will be built out to its full Route Concept width of 10 lanes plus BART. The section will have four through lanes, as it does today, plus auxiliary lanes between interchanges. Thus, HOV lanes on 1-580 west of Santa Rita are not included in the plan. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 121 Recommended Improvement Plan Arterial Issues: The planned arterial system has been designed to provide smooth circulation in and between the Tri-Valley cities and to provide access to the freeway system. Intersections and freeway interchanges are the focal points of the arterial system. All of the widenings and extensions are necessary to serve new development, so the plan calls for direct developer construction or at least funding. The primary issue is how to share costs between jurisdictions having joint respon- sibility for a particular road. This is discussed further in the Financing Plan chapter. There are two major arterials in the Tri-Valley that do not provide direct access to planned development but rather serve interregional traffic between Alameda County and Contra Costa County. These two arterials are Crow Canyon Road and Vasco Road. Crow Canyon Road. The portion of Crow Canyon Road west of Bollinger Canyon Road is a two-lane rural road that lies within the jurisdiction of Alameda County and Contra Costa County. While once used by its adjacent residents to bring goods to the market, today, Crow Canyon Road is being used by commuters as an alternate route to the 1-580/1-680 freeways. Development in the vicinity of Crow Canyon Road, especially in the fast-growing San Ramon Valley area, has generat- ed a significant increase in traffic on this roadway. The expected forecast for this roadway is LOS F. The roadway, which is a narrow and winding road, was not designed to handle commuter traffic and does not have adequate width and alignment. The Alameda County, in collaboration with Contra Costa County and the City of San Ramon prepared and developed a project study report, pursuant to California Senate Bill 1149. The report recommended the construction of eight-foot shoulders, climbing lanes and road realignment eliminating short-radii curves. Contra Costa County has in its Measure C program the improvement of Crow Canyon Road within Contra Costa County. Alameda County, however, is seeking for funds to improve the two-lane section of the roadway. Unfortunately, improve- ment of this portion of Crow Canyon Road cannot be directed to a particular developer construction. But since the traffic forecast clearly indicates that traffic increase on this roadway is development related, it is recommended that subregional transportation impact fees be used to improve the section of Crow Canyon Road within the Tri-Valley area. Vasco Road. Vasco Road is a narrow and winding rural road that is a major commuter and truck route linking the Tri-Valley with eastern Contra Costa County. Approximately 17 miles of Vasco Road, starting at a point on Vasco Road approximately one-half mile south of the County Line to the intersection of Camino Diablo in Contra Costa County, will be relocated as a result of the construction of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. This portion of Vasco Road is designed as a two-lane highway based on state and county standards for new roads with comfortable speeds of up to 65 mph. Meanwhile, the remaining section of the Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 122 Recommended Improvement Plan roadway in Alameda County (approximately three miles in length) has tight curves and narrow shoulders with advisory speeds along curves of less than 35 mph. Vasco Road is expected to have a Level of Service F in the year 2010. As much as the Plan calls for a policy limiting the capacity of Vasco Road to two lanes, it is necessary that this roadway be realigned to improve traffic flow and safety. Alameda County is currently seeking funds to improve the section of the roadway from the new Vasco Road to the Livermore City Limit. This proposed improvement includes realignment of the roadway, widening of shoulders,a nd installing passing lanes without increasing its capacity, consistent with the standards being used in the Los Vaqueros-Vasco Road project. Projected congestion on this roadway cannot be directed to a particular develop- ment but its future congestion is truly the result of developments in the region. It is also recommended that subregional traffic mitigation fees be used to improve this facility. Transit Improvements The key transit improvement in the Tri-Valley is the extension of BART to Dub- lin/Pleasanton with two local stations. Local WHEELS routes will be rerouted to serve the BART stations and create transit centers with timed transfers between modes. WHEELS and County Connection routes will also need to be rerouted and augmented to serve new development areas: North Livermore, East Dublin, and Dougherty Valley. In addition, nine new express bus routes are included in the plan to serve the follow- ing corridors not served by BART: I-680 north to Walnut Creek, Vasco Road to East County, and I-680 south to Fremont. The Tri-Valley Transit Plan has been developed to correspond to expected funding levels. Since the area is expected to almost double in population, the assumption is that transit funding will also double. It is important to note that this assumption may not be realized. Transit funding may not keep pace with population increase..Never- theless, the plan includes the provision for significant new services plus greater use of existing routes that have available capacity. Additional riders can be served without additional investment. Note, however, that the development pattern in the Tri-Valley is one of overall low density, and the new areas proposed for development will generally reinforce the low- density pattern. The low-density pattern does not support the extensive use of transit or cost-effective transit operations. If transit is to serve a much greater role than it does today, development densities will need to increase. Growth Management The TVTC recognizes that its mission is not to plan land use. Land use inputs to the plan came from the planning department of each member jurisdiction. Projections are also available from ABAG, and the "expected" land use on which the plan is based is Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 123 Recommended Improvement Plan 11,000 dwelling units higher than Projections '92 for the Tri-Valley as a whole. Tri- Valley staff expects future ABAG projections to very closely match Tri-Valley expected land use figures. Nevertheless, Action Plans in Contra Costa County are mandated by Measure C to address growth management issues when TSOs cannot otherwise be met. CCTA guidelines for Action Plans state that they may include policies to prohibit urban expansion in specified geographic areas and to change the distribution of planned land uses to reduce impacts on regional routes. It should be noted that the TVTP is a 2010 plan and land use recommendations apply to 2010 and not buildout. Action Plans in Contra Costa County are required to include the following components: • Long-range assumptions regarding future land use based on local General Plans. • Procedure for review of impacts resulting from proposed local General Plan amendments that have the potential to influence the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans. ,The following are requirements for a Contra Costa County jurisdiction to be considered in compliance in relation to Regional Routes: • Submission to Regional Committee of proposed revision(s) to Action Plan to mitigate impacts associated with proposed General Plan amendments. General Plan amendments that would reduce the effectiveness of adopted Action Plans may lead to a determination of non-compliance if the Action Plan cannot be revised with the approval of the Regional Committee and the CCTA. Contra Costa County Action Plans may include the following types of actions: Land Use Policy 1. Modify allowable densities for newly developing areas of areas where redevelop- ment is anticipated. 2. Change distribution of planned land uses (new or redeveloped) to reduce impacts on Regional Routes. 3. Prohibit urban expansion in specified geographic areas. 4. Condition development approvals on progress in attaining traffic service objectives. Capital Projects • Construction of new roads or transit facilities • Street or freeway widening • HOV lane construction • Adding turn lanes Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 124 Recommended Improvement Plan Operational Improvements • Traffic signal coordination • Ramp metering • Revisions to transit routes and schedules • Augmentation of bus service on Regional Routes Trip Reduction Programs • More stringent TDM requirements within corridor • Focused ridesharing campaigns • Parking limitations and charges Institutional Intergovernmental Programs • Coordinated efforts to attract State and Federal funding for projects in the County. • Communication and cooperation with jurisdictions in adjacent counties. General Plan Amendments in Contra Costa County The tools and procedures for conducting General Plan updates and analyzing proposed General Plan amendments will be the same as those used in preparing the Growth Management Elements. If the specific project or policy changes are large enough to meet requirements established by the region in its adopted Action Plan, the jurisdic- tion considering the Plan amendment must submit the amendment the Regional Committee for evaluation of its impact on the ability to achieve Action Plan objectives. The Growth Management Program directs the RTPCs to evaluate proposed amend- ments only in relation to issues affecting Action Plan success and consistency. It will be the responsibility of the jurisdiction considering the amendment to either: 1. Demonstrate that the amendment will not violate Action Plan policies or the ability to meet Action Plan Traffic Service Objectives; or 2. Propose modification to the Action Plan that will prevent the General Plan amend- ment from adversely affecting the regional transportation network. If neither of these can be done, approval of the General Plan amendment may lead to a findings of non-compliance with the Growth Management Program. General Plan Consistency with Contra Costa County Action Plans The Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance will be based upon adopted General Plan land uses, the existing road network, and planned improvements to the network. Consistency with the Action Plans must be established for any changes to the Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 125 Recommended Improvement Plan General Plan that may significantly reduce the ability of the facility to meet the Traffic Service Objectives. The RTPC will be responsible for establishing the type and size of amendment that will require review by the RTPC and the process for imple- menting this review. Approval of a General Plan Amendment found to be inconsistent with the adopted Action Plans may render the jurisdiction ineligible for Local Street Maintenance Improvement Funds from the CCTA. Consistency with the Action Plans can be achieved by revising the proposed amend- ment, adopting local actions to offset impacts to the Route of Regional Significance, or Council or Board denial of the amendment. The TVTC jurisdictions expect to implement a proactive Growth and Congestion Management strategy to address anticvipated TSO violations. The strategy could include tying land use approvals to a jurisdiction's ability to meet the TSOs. Jobs-Housing Balance Another aspect of land use growth relevant to transportation planning is jobs-housing balance. The Tri-Valley now has more housing than jobs. The 2010 expected land use scenario includes more job growth than housing growth, which will establish a balance. Because of the dynamics of the Bay Area, in-commuting and out-commuting will still occur, but at least they are reduced with a jobs-housing balance in the Tri- Valley. The importance of a jobs-housing balance is further reinforced by the gateway constraints that will exist in the Tri-Valley area. Trip-making into and out of the area will become increasingly difficult in the future. The provision of a job for every employed resident and vice versa will minimize the need for residents to leave the area for work. This will minimize the traffic pressure at the gateways. An important issue to remember with regard to jobs-housing balance is that the numerical count alone is insufficient to achieve the desired result of minimizing travel. The housing must be of a variety to be affordable to each income level. Reduced Level of Service Standards The TVTC has seen that the originally intended transportation service objective of LOS E on the freeways based on demand cannot be met in many locations regardless of land use assumptions. In fact, this standard cannot even be met with today's volumes. This is true because growth in San Joaquin County, Santa Clara County, and Central and East Contra Costa County will fill up the Tri-Valley freeways even if Tri- Valley jurisdictions do not grow. Therefore, the TVTC will accept congestion at the gateways recognizing that while it is not ideal, at least it will minimize through traffic. The focus then shifts to maintaining adequate levels of service, and providing transit options, for trips within the Tri-Valley. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 126 Recommended Improvement Plan The transportation plan succeeds in avoiding congestion on the arterial system. Also, I-680 between Alamo and Route 84 is expected to flow smoothly. Level of Service F conditions, however, are expected on I-580 westbound in the morning and eastbound in the evening between Tassajara Road and North Livermore Avenue. This would be partially alleviated with high occupancy vehicle lanes and ramp metering. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) The TVTC supports TDM measures; however, TVTC does not want to base the Transportation Plan on unrealistic TDM goals without supporting programs. Through the plan process, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)-mandat- ed average vehicle ridership (AVR) of 1.35 was tested. This applies to employers with 100 or more employees. The TVTC estimated that such large employers make up only about 10 percent of all employment. This, coupled with the fact that commute trips make up about 35 percent to 40 percent of the PM peak-hour traffic stream, means that the BAAQMD mandate will have negligible impact on traffic levels. The TVTC also investigated the impact of achieving an AVR of 1.35 for all employers, throughout the Bay Area, large and small. Compared to the "ambient"AVR of 1.10- 1.15, this would be a 20 percent improvement. Given the commute trip proportion of total PM peak-hour traffic, a 20 percent increase in AVR would translate into 7 percent to 8 percent less traffic on the roads. While this would create a significant improvement in operations, it would not significantly reduce the need for road building. Nevertheless, if at least a 10 percent increase in AVR were not achieved, additional intersection improvements, beyond what are included in the plan, would probably be necessary. The achievement of a 20 percent increase in AVR would not be easy. The TVTC believes that this would require a significant increase in the cost of solo commuting. However, the TVTC is not in favor of parking charges. Gasoline tax increases would be more acceptable, provided they were levied regionwide (including San Joaquin County). Gas tax increases would encourage commute alternatives and would provide more money for transportation investments. The plan is based on a more-achievable goal of an average 10 percent increase in AVR for all employers. This increase would be realized through the adoption and enforce- ment of local trip reduction ordinances. The 10 percent increase in AVR will bring some of the intersections otherwise projected to be borderline unacceptable back into compliance with the TSOs. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 127 Recommended Improvement Plan Road Improvement Plan The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan includes many road improvement projects. These projects were developed by the member jurisdictions of the TVTC. Projects range from intersection modifications to freeway improvements and new roads. The resulting system would provide good circulation within the Tri-Valley area. Figure 7-1 shows the planned roadway system. Figure 5-2 in Chapter 5 shows the planned changes to freeway interchanges. Details on planned intersection lane configurations are included in the Technical Appendix. A detailed listing of the planned roadway improvements is shown in Table 7-1. Critical Regional Projects Since most arterial improvements and extensions are local-serving and will be paid for by new development, the financial plan needs to focus on the funding of the larger projects with regional significance. The TVTC developed the following list of criteria to define projects for inclusion in a potential regional impact fee program: 1. The project must involve a route of regional significance as defined by the TVTC for the transportation plan (see Figure 1-1). 2. Transit projects can be included. 3. The project must be identified in an adopted plan. 4. The project would not be built as a direct developer improvement. While not a part of the originally adopted list, a fifth criterion discussed by the TVTC is that the project should serve more than one jurisdiction. By these criteria, the following planned projects would qualify as being regionally significant. These have been determined to be of highest priority for funding due to their demonstrated need in meeting the TSOs through 2010. 1. I-580/1-680 Interchange. Southbound-to-eastbound flyover. 2. Route 84. Four lanes on Vallecitos Road, six lanes on Isabel Avenue, including interchange improvement at I-580/Vallecitos and a new interchange at I-580/Isabel. 3. I-680 Auxiliary Lanes. From Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Road. 4. BART Extension. From Castro Valley to East Dublin, including two stations in the Tz i-Valley. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 128 Z Y O CC �' o o\`-moo �` �.— �"• v `\) CC W .� O Z 0 �\ Cl) Z \, Q F-- 0 W Z Z N N J \ 0. c a, N Z C W J Q O O _ \ T C I O Ob O O 4) I o �N�� lYSsw N r 0 o a ` w w >v \ c c E J J o`a , o I I Z E t0 d _ Z � 3�N3b MYl W0 � C.D O W MR J � ' , , 00 • _�� o 0 C ms00 x CO) cis •� lkCD 6 Jr O N E '; 2 �. Oy ca Im r 1 �Q. 3� ro 1 os 2 ` os ol isoyxd' O " p o m V"' \ _ 25 53)Y70N Ay 3tiOI'R13N = `� l c o \ 03 xy 00 qo ` }4 �. NOTiVj \ W N Y ' o � �x d G CfJ TO !v • Q J ac 00 c 0 tX a p p 4 O V N •iJ %�' '� DE i + \ n I .. a V! S Q. G x 7 a • ¢ W m y oC O a c a c 0 0 0 C] O a O N • o • m d E m E m m d d t0 t0 N E S E d d tD d d d d J 2 n. Q UY N V CJ O (DD m E > > 8 z' o 0 o m m ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ C N N N Ep EE I • I ( I I • • N 0 0 • N 0 O N O O N O a) L ( D I I I I D 0 0 0 0 I 0 N d tD N d d N O a` Cd C > >1 m C Ca U v y C o n. 0 o cc CC F°- a8 Uog ay ca= Z cg � ` v v OmQmto C 3 C m > CN O > > ap m > CO CD 5 c -0 e a` O C -)Ccc LA > > � m5m > dc$ er $C 9 xS $m ¢ 0 oo t0 m m m cc t ccc rtm Cl p m to m � m > > m O 0 O a C Ca 0 O — N O w w LL O U) CET v CD CD U N � _ r-• C J O Z.C w m O m .U1 3 O � C) a` �m to CO D. m m c m .0 V c c E �1 L j CD of y J U L D H C C m 7 m m co L 0 E > > m O m — O 0 LO O m m i0 O ��` Cr o cO ¢ a H z Z O O P O t4 S O w — 0 2 F- LL > O CL E m O o /r Y 2. lair O O Ov CO C C m o C m w >, [0 c a m CO ° $ COz ; Cr L N ?, 78O r•+ C m m S N m N N Cd aC J z z CC C C C m m m m m m m m m O e0 m m cc O O m m > > > > > m c >c > > > cc T 0 ap J J J J Q C _C 7 > > > > cm0 Cr cn cn E 0 0 0 0 0 0 o S S tS S CS L m m C C 0 m m U m � � Cpo pCo Cp m m •� Q Q c6 A 2 = = 2 C L L y � C C C C C � m m m N W 9i a` (Q UWtMW W M = m • _ m _m CQ 7 O O - 7 7 > > 0 cc 0 D 0 [ O F- to Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 131 o Q a Q ¢ a a m m m m > a a Q a s Ti a a n 0 0 0 O p c NcOo p QQE Epp QEp QEp CD co cu w v (D cc J CJ CJ CJ U O m L 72 Z OQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q m Q Q Q Q Q Q Q p D 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 a • U D D O O O O U • D cO N N v N v 11tD tD E a N N N N � v v N N a O N N N N N N c O O U mj Q O > m m cc c Q c o d 0 Q> Y Er c 00 > c O 3 m o c V N� c c$ r$ a c o ¢ m o U co O C O ` m M O O m H i m m H L L C O m 5 7 Ln > � O to t6 C c c t0 O Q _ami }, c7 0 — 0 _ H _ _ a > a S 5 2 m > z C� C U U C Ecc c com oU O s S> o Q �o c c: c o .0pmm C> m -D cr T C m cr co c 0 0 � > O ¢ om p 3 10 CL o m — o $ co U co — CD 3 cc cis c0cis m L p m m kyr C c ii m m t0 m C> M C, V p� m L CC L 0) m C m > ` O C m mm � Y � > cc . m Z y m ; m m = m Q. m C m z >ca S 3 0 1 Qwo tw m Zo ; J >. ca m ¢ YNcc > > mc W m w mQ tocc w Y>. cis a s 8 a T O O co �. c c YD L m co C 7 C c 0 Q 0 O O ti aso cso m o m ` c c m m m (7 Z > a 3 m m m -2 90 CO a ca o o > > m m > > > r eo o eo € U c c Q Q > w o is io ao a6 a Q Q J o o U U m m `� o o m o o O o o o ,� a s > H C13w0m i z pp Z N ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ 6s.Q ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ m p p p p p p , p 0,0 p p p p p C N •t to CD st to st SID tD le et to a t6 J O m E n oo ¢ JO ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ p V p p p p p p O p p p p p N �y N N tt WtD tt M N WIt W fn N ¢ U Q1 < ¢ ¢ ¢ < ¢ ¢ , ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ N = 't N a N N N N N N N N N N (h N N t9 R Y co co C 'D O tp LO � m O W C: o a - _ � m z N ��^^W'`�• C _ _ U>N. C N ON OM m >. C co cO OC > a pm > CD m > oO ° O5C ¢ Om C >N m N NC im FmCn C mmD — o o io LO to O E o ' '"o p y C C U ccc O O 1 OOCID Go � LO � a m � m > m 'o c o o C� r r two 0 C cc 2 0 Cc m N m C cc N to C C c � C m > m 01 3 O) C f/) O m t U U ` m m V m m = m D E a c o rn "c o c m E E o L E o V m C C o 01 o C o U- ii d ton' tmn Ln to Ln o E E o ID o m ° to ° m ° o cK 8 a z N 10 w Y ii > � 05 v� p to '� cc CIO Q� C C cc a 0 N O m o >> 3 �+ x C W m > > v m m m Cd ..1 w m m o 0 0 0 U) L-0 U) io ¢ 0 t ` Z= YCW >Q Ir 7 7 C C r :) 7 > > Q0 Cor c C v v v c c c c v 0c cc a 8 8 8 8 8 8 > r r C m m 0 N N D D D R °' E .c. m O D U U 0 6 cc z z ao 0. `° e0 t0 to o O to to to to m m > > > > z z !, CO 2 y 'a m m m m m' o 0 w w 0 U- _ $ m m m a ¢ ¢ ¢ a Q m > m m o m a 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . . a E n . . C NE EQo to to v v 0 J CJ CJ tJ cc CJ O m E Z O Qm tD Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q o a s 0 0 0 0 Z) Z 0 0 0 O 0 0 C N E E 0 W Nt st d tD et et v N v w _O p p C? rn Q 0 0 Q Q Q Q a Q Q Q Q Q Q Q n Q Q Q cS a U U O O D a 0 0 0 0 D O V 0 c 0 0 0 a 'st V N N It N N V N N IT cc CD m �p > m OOD ca O tti 2 0>` t�0 CC tm0 > _> O CC VUC � m ca m o ld o C O > C N C m > m o m it Ir v m R 0 m >. Q >° CL c o co o rn � ag tB c ¢ C CC M ; m CC v_ > U co U o to E C /b (n t0 t m m m C t0 ; m C - C U OD to C >. C m O H O m H C H �' R t0 tD tff N .. ca CD ro � o v) w s U �i (L cn c7 U U O a N a v C U co . m �. p 00 O (� E cc 0 Ir CC m O C d ` cd co m �_ p m v E C Q O C O O cCC > m R Y p QCQ 0 > «� cc r m > O m pl 3 CC o 'p E t- i. Q C Q _ a: O p l0 p O 0 m CL >. >. cn s >, o f m o t ,>m E m v a c w ` o n. M V y E m o ' H Ui > 2 ui U. t4 m ti 2 O N in Ui U N a CD v c4 al 3 > �l O U m V ` CD O CL Rf i6 c E m 0 m c o m m m 5 � 3 ca m 8 m to YY m b > > C c m rn to m CD $ m a m� $ � m -2 3 >, Cs m m m > m o $ o o m > W N o 0 co o m m a) m o Q o` ¢o J Cc = � �¢ m �x go c > > vv cd c _ WC o� Q C.)iO v � > o > o .O o < oo ar $ c c $ co p-W > vgmAU LL7: U) o o 0 U) E Q� G i0 0 i0 0 m m Q J J cr o t6 id U o l0 W v) c0 to 0 CD CO O CO 100 CO CO O C p o 7 i0 tD m W c0 eCd CO C O O m C Hx N in in v) m > 3 3 0 o N _ � v o < < 0 0 C C�j (D w E E E w 8 8 8 16 0 .0 E :3 0 < < < < < < z o 0 0 0 to a C4 C\j -t cD 't < ME 79 0 CD 0 0 () = e c c Cc ro > 0 (0 Ln 0 co M th c 10 v c to o 0 0 0 :3 cc cc cCD C2 0 c 5 C-) to CL -e -e tr E E co 0 cc C8 ca V cc 0 C 2 E E 0 > S,CD 0 zx r) 3 CD v E 4!'' 'm > 0 91 tv .6 8 a- E 0. 4.0 ui o 0 e CO E to CC0 CC c CD.1 c < 0 0 0 to -0 to CD :3 co c c 0 0 CL c 0 .0 -0 =9 '00 0 0 CC 0 0 0 3 U a Cs0 U- 0 w = CC cc 0 ui 2) 8 c < 0 0 co w M < co 7@ M 0 0 0 C13 000 3 9 P LL > w Recommended Improvement Plan 5. 1-580 HOV Lanes. From Tassajara Road to North Livermore Avenue. 6. I-680 HOV Lanes. From Route 84 to top of Sunol Grade. 7. Ramp Metering. Add ramp metering with HOV bypass to all freeway interchanges in the Tri-Valley. 8. I-680/Alcosta Interchange. Capacity improvements including replacement of southbound off-ramp with hook ramp. 9. 1-580/Foothill Interchange. Conversion to partial cloverleaf design. 10. Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements. This project consists of realigning the roadway, construction of shoulders and improving sight distance, all aimed at improving traffic flow and safety on Crow Canyon Road between Bollinger Canyon Road and MM 4.45 (located one mile north of Norris Canyon Road). 11. Vasco Road Safety Improvements. This project consists of the realignment of Vasco Road from the new Vasco Road to the Livermore City limit, without increasing the capacity of the gateway. This is consistent with the standards used in the Vasco Road relocation project by the Contra Costa Water District in conjunction with the Los Vaqueros reservoir project. The following three projects are also included in the transportation plan but are considered by the TVTC to be of lower priority for the 2010 planning horizon. These projects are considered important to the future of transportation in the Tri-Valley but are not needed to meet the Transportation Service Objectives through 2010. 1. 1-580 HOV Lanes. Completion of the HOV project on I-580 from Livermore Avenue to the Alameda County border. 2. 1-680 HOV Lanes. Completion of the 1-680 HOV Lane project from I-580 to Route 84. This would create a system of continuous HOV lanes on I-680 through the Tri-Valley. 3. 1-58011-680 Interchange. Construction of the northbound to westbound flyover ramp. This improvement has been identified by Caltrans as the next step in improving the I-58011-680 interchange. This second flyover ramp would eliminate all existing weaving sections. The Transit Plan The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan includes several transit improvements. These were developed by a transit subcommittee of the TVTAC. The subcommittee included representatives from BART, CCCTA (County Connection), LAVTA (WHEELS), and Contra Costa County. The plan includes the following major components: BART extension to east Dublin (two stations), park-n-ride lots, express bus service in heavily Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 136 r Recommended Improvement Plan traveled corridors, local bus service to new development areas, reoriented local bus service to serve BART and park-and-ride lots, and decreased headways on existing routes. For modeling purposes, specific bus routes were developed and tested. Howev- er, the TVTP is not intended to be a detailed long-range plan for transit provision. Therefore, the specific routes, which are described in the Appendix, should not be interpreted literally, but as representative of the type of service (headways and corridors served) that should be provided. The following are descriptions of the planned transit service. BART Extension: The plan includes the BART extension to East Dublin with two stations in the Tri-Valley. The extension is currently under construction and is projected to open in 1996. The planned BART headways are nine minutes. Both stations are assumed to have park-n-ride lots. The patronage forecasts from the traffic model indicate demand for at least 6,000 parking spaces combined for the two stations. Two BART feeder bus lines would be operated: one to Bishop Ranch and Danville, and one to Livermore. Both would have 30-minute headways. Park-n-Ride Lots: The plan includes 11 new park-n-ride lots (See Figure 7-2). These would be served by various bus lines and could also serve as staging locations for carpools. County Connection: The plan calls for the expansion of service from the current three lines serving Tri-Valley (30-minute headways) to eight lines. Three lines would have 30-minute headways and five lines would have 20-minute headways. The lines would serve Danville, San Ramon, Bishop Ranch, Dougherty Valley, and some would extend down to the East Dublin BART station. WHEELS: Under the plan, WHEELS service would expand from the current 11 lines with 30-60 minute headways to 21 lines, all with 30-minute headways. The route system would be extensively revised to serve the two BART stations, park-n-ride lots, and the newly developed areas of East Dublin and North Livermore. Some routes would also extend into San Ramon and Danville. Express Bus Service:The plan calls for the provision of nine new express bus routes operating in the I-680, I-580, and Vasco Road corridors. The following areas are served: 1. Santa Clara County to Pleasanton 2. Hayward to San Ramon 3. Santa Clara County to San Ramon 4. Fremont to San Ramon 5. Brentwood to Pleasanton 6. Brentwood to Livermore 7. Fremont to Livermore 8. Hayward to Pleasanton 9. Hayward to Livermore Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. i37 C T 0 n 0O u \` cc \ Q Q CL a \ 't 1 t i O , r \ oa O ` , ��^'w yuvrvssvl �viiy� � RO G Pa �, 4a ' t 3�K3Nµrt t , a* QT lz r= Ul �y U 1 co ua°ss U "d o<� �y� �• cri cis E b- C13 m N r 0 CP 00 \ 7 2 Oa 3��33aD & �o 0 \0 oa OD50 0COWN 0 � {ice � e J \ N 0 Z Q� 0 J w 0 N CS ` \ AV 380viONI N ,o yy�+boy, o u �d o � m � ', Da NprrNO i9 Z,, i #MSN Z s a 4 co N i Eti GRA V Z O I1. \ u �S ND'iT» 18 JoNns � is Oa � � o it V1 Oa Vaa, 4 Z � 7 2 J m d z D 3+ co \ n b VadOH g Jo co 0 , RD • \ BOG RO Op �17 cn ' ,a R J Rr D N .0 n d v co G C? C4 Recommended Improvement Plan These routes each have 20-minute headways. The plan does not specify what agency would operate the express routes. To serve the Altamont Pass commute, it is anticipat- ed that the San Joaquin Regional Transit District will offer express bus service to various locations in the Bay Area. Freight Transportation Freight transportation provides an important contribution to the economy. As such, it is both necessary and appropriate that the Plan give strategic priority to the move- ment of freight. To highlight the strategic importance of freight transportation, this plan designates I-580 as a Critical Freight Route and I-680 as a Major Freight Route. These designations are consistent with the Alameda County Long-Range Transporta- tion Plan. Truck volume studies show that I-580 at the Altamont Pass carries more than 20,000 trucks each weekday while I-680 at the Sunol Pass carries more than 15,000 trucks per day. As a Critical Freight Route, I-580 should be accorded priority for intermodal funding under ISTEA. Also, I-580 should be operated in a manner which ensures that freight can be moved with maximum efficiency. To this end. expenditure priority should be given to those operational improvements necessary to prevent the encroachment of commute traffic from congesting Critical Freight Routes during midday hours (midday hours are defined from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM). As a Major Freight Route, I-680 should be given consideration for intermodal funding under ISTEA. One transportation management strategy to be evaluated further and considered later is to implement ramp metering during midday hours, as necessary, to maintain acceptable speeds on I-580 and I-680. At such time as environmental review is conducted for a systemwide ramp metering plan for the Tri-Valley, ramp metering during midday hours to maintain smooth freight movements should also be considered. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 140 8. c��� Pian ,9In0n r 8. Financial Plan Implementation of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan will be financed through a combination of public and private sources. The primary existing funding sources include the Measure C program in Contra Costa County and the Alameda County Measure B program. Funds are also available through various federal, state and local programs. These are administered through MTC via the Regional Transportation Plan. All assumptions for state and federal funding are taken from MTC/RTP estimates. Alameda County Measure B Alameda County voters approved Measure B, a 15-year one-half percent sales tax, in November, 1986. Measure B was based on the August, 1986 Alameda County Trans- portation Expenditure Plan. Approximately two-thirds of the total Measure B revenue is to be spent on 10 capital improvement projects. Three of the 10 projects are located in the Tri-Valley area. The total Measure B funding programmed to Tri-Valley is $293.6 million. • Interstate 580/680 Interchange. $89.3 million to provide a southbound-to- eastbound direct connector. • Route 84. $19.9 million to construct a two-lane road on the Isabel Avenue align- ment between Jack London and Concannon. Other sources (MTC, Livermore impact fees, Ruby Hills development) will contribute $43.0 million to overall Route 84 improvements. • BART Extension. $170 million to extend BART from San Leandro to Pleasanton/Dublin. Other sources will contribute $367 million to this project. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 141 Financial Plan Refer to the Alameda County Transportation Authority's Strategic Plan, Fiscal year 1993/94, for project and funding specifics. The remaining money is being distributed directly to local entities for current transportation needs. Alameda County Plan The Alameda County Long-Range Transportation Plan identifies a two-phased, Tier 1 and Tier 2, investment program to maintain and enhance the county transportation network. The Tier 1 program is based on reasonable expectations of available revenue sources over the next 20 years to 2014. The County is expecting to receive a total of$1.15 billion during this period. These sources are in addition to the Measure B funds. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission has gone through a similar process for the whole Bay Area and identified what they call "Track 1" projects. These are projects that would be funded by the assumed continuation of existing state and federal funding programs. Table 8-1 shows the Tier 1 projects in the Tri-Valley and compares the Alameda County list to MTC's Track I. Table &1 Alameda County Tier 1 Projects in Tri-Valley MTC Track 1 AC Tier 1 Comments/ Description (mil esc.$) (mil esc. $) Clarifications Altamont Rail Service— See Com- 3.2 Funding for initial stage planned by Demonstration Project ments San Joaquin County. MTC staff stated they will include a footnote in the RTP stating support, if San Joaquin County allocates funds to the project. Enhanced Bus Service 0 $5.0 To serve Planning Area 4. 1-580/1-680 SB to EB flyover, hook 16.0 17.0 Pending review of 1-580/1-680 inter- ramps, and complete ramp braid to change funding program. Construction retain Hopyard Road access. scheduled to begin '97. West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station 19.0 27.5 BART extension to be completed by '95,will build shell for West Dublin station. New Route 84/1-580 30.0 20.0 Project Study Report being interchange developed. 1-580 truck/auto separation on WB 12.0 0 Safety-operational improvements to 1-205 at 1-580. interchange. Dependent on San Joaq- uin County provision of$5 million. Total $77.0 $72.7 Ballon-Aschman Associates, Inc. 142 Financial Plan The Alameda County Tier 2 program is essentially unfunded, being based on assump- tions about new revenue sources, such as the continuation of Measure B and a regional gas tax. Table 8-2 shows the Tier 2 project list for Tri-Valley. Table &2 Alameda County Tier 2 Projects in Tri-Valley AC Tier 2 Comments/ Description (mil esc$) Clarifications Local Transit Operations— 4.7 CMA allocation is for ADA shortfall. LAVTA Altamont Pass Rail Service— 0.0 Pending corridor study results. CMA recom- Demonstration Project mends funding Alameda County share of demo service in Tier 1. 1-580/1-680 flyover, complete 6.0 To be determined pending review of 1-580/1- hook ramps to Dublin, and 680 interchange funding program. complete ramp braid to retain Hopyard Road access 1-580 HOV lane 0.0 To be determined pending outcome of corri- dor study. West Dublin BART Station 0.0 CMA recommends project for Tier 1 and Track I. Route 84 Freeway/Expressway 180.0 Reallocate $27.5 million of the$180 million to and complete Route 84/1-580 West Dublin BART station if MTC adopts RTP Interchange with BART station in Track 11. Enhanced Bus Service 23.0 To serve Planning Area 4. Vasco Road Operational 16.0 Improvements Total $229.7 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 143 Financial Plan Contra Costa County On November 8, 1988, the voters of Contra Costa County approved Measure C, which became effective in April 1989. The Measure C "Expenditure Plan" directs funds generated through Measure C to a wide variety of planning, operational and capital improvements, collectively designed to improve transportation service in Contra Costa County. The "Expenditure Plan" includes Capital Improvement projects that fall into three categories: (1) Highways and Arterials, (2) Transit, and (3) Trails. In addition there are five programs included within Measure C: (1) Elderly and Handicapped Transit Service, (2) Local Street Maintenance and Improvements, (3) Carpools, Vanpools and Park and Ride Lots, (4) Bus Transit Improvements and Coordination, and (5) Regional Transportation Planning and Growth Management. Approximately 70 percent of the revenues are allocated to capital improvement projects and 30 percent to programs. The seven-year"Strategic Plan" provides detailed specific commitments for spec projects. The balance of the program is represented as lump sum amounts shown by year. The current "Strategic Plan" is detailed through fiscal year 1997. It is updated every two years and is currently undergoing its first update. Tri-Valley projects identified by CCTA for Measure C funding to date include the following. The total Measure C funding in Tri-Valley is $27.4 million. • I-680 Auxiliary Innes: $10 million to construct auxiliary lanes between Diablo Road and Bollinger Canyon Road interchanges. Other sources must contribute $27 million. (Source: Regional Transportation Plan, MTC.) • Construct Fostoria Parkway Overcrossing: $11.5 million to construct the I-680 overcrossing. Other funding sources amount to $1.8 million. (Source: OCTA, 1993 Congestion Management Program, Appendix E.) • Arterial Street Improvements: $5.9 million to modify/improve the arterial road network in Tri-Valley. (Source: CCTA, 1993 Congestion Management Program, Appendix E.) Private Funding The majority of the arterial system and interchange improvements in the Tri-Valley will be built or funded by new development. This is reflective of the fact that the arterial extensions and widenings are to build additional capacity to serve new development. The new roads and widenings will either be built directly by the developers or will be paid for through local traffic impact fees. Livermore, Pleasanton, Danville, and San Ramon all have development fees. These fees will in a large measure fund the needed arterial infrastructure for the expected year 2010 transporta- tion system. However, there are 11 critical regional projects that either lack funding entirely or are not completely funded. The need for these projects cannot be tied to any single development or even any single city. These are described below. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 144 Financial Plan Critical Regional Projects Since most arterial improvements and extensions are local-serving and will be paid for by new development, the financial plan needs to focus on the funding of the larger projects with regional significance. If the developer-funded, assumed local arterial improvements are not built, changes to the financing plan would be necessary. The TVTC developed the following list of criteria to define projects for inclusion in a potential regional impact fee program: 1. The project must involve a route of regional significance as defined by the TVTC for the transportation plan (see Figure 1-1). 2. Transit projects can be included. 3. The project must be identified in an adopted plan. 4. The project would not be built as a direct developer improvement. While not a part of the originally adopted list, a fifth criterion discussed by the TVTC is that the project should serve more than one jurisdiction. By these criteria, the following planned projects would qualify as being regionally significant. These have been determined to be of highest priority for funding due to their demonstrated need in meeting the transportation service objectives through 2010. 1. 1-58011-680 Interchange. Southbound-to-eastbound flyover. 2. Route 84. Four lanes on Vallecitos Road, six lanes on Isabel Avenue, including a new interchange at I-580/Isabel. 3. 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes. From Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Road. 4. BART Extension. From Castro Valley to East Dublin, including two stations in the Tri-Valley. 5. 1-580 HOV Lanes. From Tassajara Road to North Livermore Avenue. 6. 1-680 HOV Lanes. From Route 84 to top of Sunol Grade. 7. Ramp Metering. Add ramp metering with HOV bypass to all freeway interchanges in the Tri-Valley. 8. I-6801AI.costa Interchange. Capacity improvements including replacement of southbound off-ramp with hook ramp. 9. 1-580/Foothill Interchange. Conversion to partial cloverleaf design. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 145 I )r Financial Plan 10. Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements. Realigning the roadway, construction of shoulders and improving sight distance, all aimed at improving traffic flow and safety on Crow Canyon Road between Bollinger Canyon Road and one mile north of Norris Canyon Road. 11. Vasco Road Operational Improvements. Realignment and upgrading of Vasco Road from the Alameda County line to the Livermore City limit, while retaining the two-lane cross-section. 12. Express Bus Service. Providing the capital cost of adding nine express bus routes connecting the Tri-Valley with surrounding communities and taking advantage of the freeway HOV lanes. The following three projects are also included in the transportation plan but are considered by the TVTC to be of lower priority for the 2010 planning horizon. These projects are considered important to the future of transportation in the Tri-Valley but are not needed to meet the Transportation Service Objectives through 2010. 1. I-580 HOV Lanes. Completion of the HOV project on I-580 from Livermore Avenue to the San Joaquin County border. 2. I-680 HOV Lanes. Completion of the I-680 HOV Lane project from Alcosta Boule- vard to Route 84. This would create a system of continuous HOV lanes on I-680 through the Tri-Valley. 3. I-580/1-680 Interchange. Construction of the northbound to westbound flyover ramp. This improvement has been identified by Caltrans as the next step in improving the I-5805-680 interchange. This second flyover ramp would eliminate all existing weaving sections. Funding for Regional Projects Most of the regional projects have some funding already committed (see Table 8-3). Additional funds are needed to make up the shortfall. This plan does not rely on Alameda County Tier 2 funding becoming available. The total shortfall is $311.1 million. The regional improvements are all necessary to serve new development. Because Tier 2 funding is uncertain and because the regional projects are vital to safe and efficient transportation in the Tri-Valley, a subregional impact fee should be adopted to cover the shortfall. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 146 r c a o m _ M CVCO r- T , LO Cp � E '� Cli � Cl) � 64).O N � � r C)C C 6H 69 69 69 69 DR Q C �N O O C LL U- E M CD LOIn m CMD O O 0 6%q 09 069609 O d OD C 64 69 � 69619, 69 O ¢O C M •� C ¢ CO U Q � � •r V m c ti cc V 0 V L m CC C z 0 t C m CO U m U u o �' a U- m m O m �' -o j 5 � c t � 0 .' CO m CO M Y �+ w O CCSm m > m m ;� w cc m �. icon m mn m 2050 occ m O m •� Q c o F- tA N (D O 1 U m v cc 2 N CO cc L •O ` CD m 00 r- M _ O N �_ M U) CND C ' E C O V 6969 6M9 fA � � 69y � 69 � _: > n - O w E E a o- m m � M cc 3 oo C� mp CO O cn U `° o`to CD IL m m m e IS cmc o cc �, E m c L rn m o a Q 0 m •oc rn2 Em cc c m ' s Jm cY O ami (D °' � 0 E w m ao Owccc cis cc cc cti c > � tn m `c et m e x Q S"c c m > > c`c y Y c CCO E O m am> GO N w oo m o w ga M m � � g U — m y o E CD o m : UO � �' Y � O > oo a0 3 $ H mN O cU� pp CO CL m .0 CO J C E CO O O m OL t m .LZ O O CO O C C CD p Q N O In CD :3 Cr_ to V 2 ♦COQ `M x F— Q c L tL �. Cr •v m v O Z V) i. Q U (n / w r N Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 147 . y Financial Plan Subregional Impact Fees There is general consensus at TVTC that unbuilt development should pay its fair share to mitigate the impacts of traffic generated by that development. Construction of the major regional improvement projects listed in Table 8-3 is estimated to cost close to $1 billion, and constitutes the regional improvement program needed to serve existing and planned development in the Tri-Valley and surrounding region. Roughly 70 percent of the total project cost is expected to be funded through local, state, and federal sources over the next 20 years. The remaining 30 percent is unfunded. TVTC wishes to explore the possibility of generating revenues for this unfunded portion through implementation of a subregional transportation impact fee. For illustrative purposes, a fee amount was estimated assuming that at the need for new transportation facilities will be generated equally by residential and commercial growth, and that funding responsibility would be equally divided among these two types of development. Furthermore, the fee calculation uses a "trip-based" methodolo- gy, which means that the amount of the fee would depend upon the number of peak- hour trips generated by each new development project. Finally, it was assumed that the total unfunded amount shown in Table 8-3 would be paid for through the subregional transportation impact fee. This final assumption is subject to change, given that the estimates for future public funding of$694 million is tenuous at best, and that the nexus relationship between traffic impacts generated by new develop- ment, and project needs, would need to be fully evaluated before a fee could be adopted. Also a number of procedural and administrative hurdles would need to be cleared in order to adopt such a fee. The results of the trip-based fee calculation was translated into equivalent dwelling units for residential development, and square footage for non-residential development. The fee amount for new residential development would be approximately $2,800 per dwelling unit. The amount for office, commercial, or industrial use would be approxi- mately $6 per square foot. This discussion is preliminary in nature. The project list, cost estimates, and possible fees are subject to change pending further discussion at the TVTC and evaluation of the nexus relationship between new development and its impact on traffic. TVTC recognizes that imposition of$6 per square foot fee on non-residential develop- ment could have a negative impact on the economic development of the Tri-Valley area. Accordingly, TVTC will explore in greater detail the fee calculation methodology, and approaches to reducing the fee burden on projects that could significantly support continued economic growth in Tri-Valley. At a minimum, further study will be needed to determine the following: 1. The extent to which traffic generated by commercial development uses the freeway facilities identified in Table 8-3; and Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 148 Financial Plan 2. The extent to which commercial-generated traffic contributes to peak-hour conges- tion. For example, AM peak-hour traffic generated by retail development generally occurs after the work-trip commute peak hour. These fees are illustrative of the level of impact fees required but are not meant to be final calculations. The TVTC must go beyond this plan to develop an impact fee program that would establish a legal nexus between development levels and fees charged and also clarify many ancillary issues. At a minimum, the program needs to consider the following issues: • Land Use Categories. Will there be one fee for all residential development or will it vary with density? Similarly, how many commercial categories will be used? Jurisdictions typically use three categories: retail, industrial, and office. Would even more categories be useful? • Credits. Should certain projects that have already contributed regional improve- ments, such as Hacienda Business Park, be entitled to a fee credit? • Exemptions. Should certain project with significant social value, such as low- income housing, be exempt from fees? What about projects that significantly enhance the area's economic development? • Fee Collection. How and by whom should the fees be collected? Who will bank the funds and contract for transportation projects? • Transfer of Funds Between Jurisdictions. A subregional fee collected among the seven jurisdictions of Tri-Valley could potentially result in a situation where funds collected in one jurisdiction were expended on the construction of regional projects in another jurisdiction. The concept of a subregional fee for the Tri-Valley will need to address the acceptability and magnitude of cross jurisdictional transfers of fee revenues. TVTC has established that it does not wish for any regional fee revenues collected in Tri-Valley to be expended on projects outside of the Tri- Valley subarea. • Relationship to Future Countywide or Regionwide Fee Programs. If in the future, a countywide or regionwide (nine-county Bay Area) fee program is established, the relationship of those programs to the Tri-Valley regional fee will need to be addressed, especially with regard to crediting an in-place Tri-Valley fee toward a countywide fee. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 149 ƒ _ 2f . ¥ � % � 7 � K �g k k \ \ k CD a � A � �+ ko t ? \% f a- t � 0 5 ! � � « « _ U. U. to $ 51� ffk Cl) ' g00,00 « Jr-- i q= C,4 5 o ttik to %g � f 03 © 06 � to k It: c a O g CPCD # a;? %m% S fi Ro . 0.-0 0 k \k A G. %- k_ k � t ° ° D g -0 CP 2 D U) 15 & 7 ° % _ A Y §O on A schniAssoe e ' � w Financial Plan Spatial Distribution of Fees and Benefits Elected officials are concerned about where impact fees are collected and where they are spent. Table 8-5 shows the 2010 estimated peak-hour usage pattern for each of the high-priority projects. Each jurisdiction would benefit from two or more of the regional projects. Table &5 Traffic Pattern on High-Priority Regional Projects 2010 Traffic Origin San Uninc. Project Danville Ramon CCC Dublin Pleasanton Livermore Through 1-580/1-680 Interchange 6% 6% 60/0 20% 34% 14% 14% Route 84 1% 1% 2% 9% 10% 49% 28% 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes 23% 22% 16% 10% 10% 4% 15% BART Extension 20/9 5% 60/0 14% 16% 22% 34% 1-580 HOV Lanes 0% 6% 3% 15% 15% 39% 28% 1-680 HOV Lanes 3% 4% 5% 13% 30% 27% 19% 1-680/Alcosta 00/0 38% 280/6 280/9 2% 00/0 0% 1-580/Foothill 2% 6% 12% 43% 31% 6% 0% Crow Canyon Safety 36% 31% 9% 3% 2% 0% 19% Vasco Safety 1% 1% 10% 9% 12% 44% 23% Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 151 Financial Plan Table 8-6 compares payment to expenditures by jurisdiction. Expenditures are summa- rized based on the physical location of improvements and based on the amount of new development trips using the new facilities. Based on usage, Livermore is the primary beneficiary of impact fees because of two factors: (1) Livermore has more planned growth than any other jurisdiction; and (2) Livermore will be the primary user of Route 84, which is the largest unfunded component of the plan. Whether considering benefit by facility location or by usage pattern, the impact fees would result in a transfer of$18 to 20 million from Contra Costa County jurisdictions to Alameda County jurisdictions. However, this calculation includes only the unfunded portion of each project. If Measure C and Measure B monies are added to the analysis, then the amount spent in each county is almost exactly equal to the money generated. Table &6 Equity Analysis of Regional Impact Fee Fees Spent ($ millions) Fees Generated Based on Based on Jurisdiction ($ millions) Geography Usage Danville 2 17 5 San Ramon 2 17 16 Contra Costa County 50 0 15 Contra Costa County Subtotal 54 34 36 Dublin 74 24 47 Pleasanton 75 95 48 Livermore 105 95 179 Alameda County 2 63 0 Alameda Subtotal 257 277 275 Total 311 311 311 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 152 Financial Plan Potential Future Funding Sources Other future funding sources have been discussed for the Tri-Valley. Alameda County has discussed a Tier 2 funding program, which includes a 10-cent regional gas tax and a continuation of Measure B. There is also the State and Local Transportation Partnership Program (SLTPP), which could provide up to 50 percent reimbursement of construction costs. The Mid-State Toll Road has also been proposed to provide trans- portation capacity in the Route 84 corridor without public investment. The major potential future sources are discussed briefly below, although because of their uncer- tainty, the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan does not rely on their provision. County Sales Tax Measures The county sales tax measures, currently funding several transportation improve- ments, have a limited life span. Measure B in Alameda County will expire in 2002. Measure C in Contra Costa County will expire in 2008. There is a chance that these sales tax programs, through a successful election, could be extended. They were originally passed with a simple majority vote. Recent court decisions in other counties, however, have shown that a two-thirds vote may be required to enact future tax initiatives. Achieving a super majority at the polls is considered nearly impossible for a proposed tax increase ballot measure. County Gas Tax/Regional Gas Tax A county tax or regional tax may be imposed on motor vehicle fuels for the purposes of transportation investment according to enabling state legislation which was adopted in 1981. The tax would be imposed in increments of one cent per gallon per year with no state-imposed lifetime limit. Prior to imposition and collection of a tax, a proposition granting authority to the county to impose the tax must be submitted and approved by the voters at an election. A proposition may be submitted to the voters only if a written agreement is made with respect to allocation of the revenues between the county and the cities. Additional gas taxes would provide several benefits. Drivers will look for alternatives to the private automobile as driving costs (e.g., increased fuel prices) increase, reducing systemwide demands. Demand may be reduced by telecommuting, ride- sharing, transit, or linking trip purposes. The additional revenue obtained as a result of the higher tax would create a larger"pot of money" for transportation related projects. Toll Financing A toll road, the Mid-State Toll Road, has been proposed for the Route 84 corridor, connecting between I-680 in Sunol and the Antioch area. The toll road is now in the planning stages, with an environmental impact report(EIR) under development. At the request of MTC and Tri-Valley agencies, the EIR. will study several options in the Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 153 Financial Plan corridor, including transit. The City of Livermore and the Alameda County CMA have adopted resolutions opposing a private toll road in the Route 84 corridor. A public toll road has also been discussed, although no official positions have been taken. Because of the uncertain nature of the Mid-State Toll Road, either public or private, it is not included as a funding source for the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that $137 million of the unfunded portion of the plan is attribut- able to Route 84. If the decision were made to adopt and build a toll road within the 2010 horizon of this plan, the proposed regional impact fee could be reduced, or the $137 million could be applied to one of the second priority regional projects discussed in the next section. This assumes that none of the $137 million would be needed to provide the required "free" roadway in the toll road corridor. Potential Future Transportation Projects The plan identifies three regional transportation projects that would be desirable for the area but are not required to meet transportation service objectives: high-occupancy vehicle lanes on I-680 between Alcosta and Route 84, high-occupancy vehicle lanes on I-580 between North Livermore Avenue and the San Joaquin County line, and the addition of a northbound to westbound flyover ramp at the I-580/1-680 interchange. If more transportation funds become available than were assumed in this plan, the TVTC would like them to be allocated to these projects. Table 8-7 provides preliminary cost estimates for these projects. In current dollars the total cost would be $245 million. Table &7 Cost Estimates for Second Priority Regional Projects Cost (millions of Project current dollars) 1-580 HOV Lanes $85 (N. Livermore Avenue to San Joaquin County Line) 1-680 HOV Lanes 40 (Alcosta to Route 84) 1-580/1-680 Interchange— 120 NB to WB Flyover Ramp Total $245 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 154 Financial Plan Detailed Finance Plan Table 8-8 provides the detailed financing plan for the 2010 planned network. Note that the cost estimates are preliminary and ultimately need to be refined by the responsible jurisdiction. The overall program cost is projected to be $1,482,310,000. Approximately 47 percent of the projected cost ($695,690,000) is publicly funded, primarily through Measure B and Measure C programs. Thirty-three percent ($491,720,000) of the projected cost would be funded by direct developer exactions from localities. These would be either local impact fees or required project mitigation improvements. The remaining 20 percent ($294,900,000) of the program cost would be funded by the subregional transportation impact fee. Besides the subregional impact fee, the other aspect of the finance plan that needs to be finalized is the cost sharing arrangement between jurisdictions that have responsi- bility for a particular route of regional significance. One option is to adopt a policy that each jurisdiction is responsible for the routes within its boundaries. Another option is to determine where traffic goes from each jurisdiction and assess funding responsibili- ty based on proportional traffic shares. In any event, the cost sharing formulae need to be developed through negotiation between affected jurisdictions. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 155 Ca CD cCD o 0 o LLt3)t5 ., CD O O O O N N M N N C7 �( ig -0 o- N E c o� v m m m m m m m m 1 0 5t; o 0 0 o m LL U U U m o m U U U U U L U U U e Q e U U U U Q > > > > > > > > > > > > a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N CD m CD ,,1m1 CD m m 0 m m 0 m D mm OOOOOa OO O O O mmmmmmmmm O > > m > > > > > > > > mmO > > O CD m m m m m m m C9 m m m m m m 00000000000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O > > C V O CO U) Ln r CV CV h CV `Ci LO N •` LL. r r r r r (h Q. r to c Co r to 2 flf O U m H � Co Co U m CD L C1 N y N N (` j Co to to N r 3 �2L,10 U m Cii 0 0 0 W ao Z Oi M O O OI N 00 V 0- LL r to N CD C ^y 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 O1O O N OlA O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O h C I- 1- It cD O h `1 Cn W to to .- N CV I'- N ";r to (V to N t7 r N CO r- r N r r r r r r r r T Q 'i fH N W) Of Y• v C CD T N o m Co rn E N CC c cc — xx CDs W mo v, CD my O c 8o cac ,� c 0 o • O O I NO cc c Q °' 3"c m ea m io cim c y c : m v rn cca 0. CO CDU CD C Q ecs r O H 52 v rn o r m c t Q ca c Q ai m Z 3 m m m m y 3 CD2 d m m Q tv m N cCD rn o m `m v > m C 3 c •y w Ca Co d w o :co m c J J 'CD p m v v m N p 0 ccc > v ctv os � x � �O �pm m � Co my e� � o ° _d c C CO Q m 0 2 S uyi c t r m m In O 7S O .O LL CD m F- m o• — y c c — m m E r aoo aoo m H m m a E a �' c � � om 3 'C3 3 ui ca ° aoo � Ll. 2 In O CD Q m In Co X M 7 O � 7 7 Lo m W CD to U N In t`� - ¢ - m � _ _ u, ct coy- oo _ zxzCl) U— Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 156 � m o LL m� m m � a E to - rn ri Ei N o m U O LL M s n V C1 V m m m C4 tD m m m m mm m m m m m m � �- kL- VZ vz vs J J J J J J J J J J J . i J CL a s a. a s a. m N a m o m m m m m > m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 m N N N N N m N N N m N m m m m N m m N N > > m m m m 0 > m 0 m > m > > > > m > > m m Cn p LL U. LL LL LL LL p LL LL LL p LL p p p p LL p p LL LL m m O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O) O N 01 O O O -zg 9 O 1Cf CA O O O 0 O O O O Cn In Cn O O CA O q O Cn q O > j to C7 N a0 C to CD N C'7 co N O C[) h O C 14 C7 O C711 r a CD N —LL r r C C C Ctl U N a. Y i o 0 Q C0 U 0 d g m w CL LL d N O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Of O NM O O O C C O CA Cn O O O CA O O O O to Ln Cn O O IA O C7 O CA C7 CO H •O CA CO N CD t00 CD CD N Cr) CSD N0 CA 1- N a O C90 C7 'q N cc a � •E r r . c C) =- T C C N t m c `o d c E c o 1U2 -! a m CD cL C m O O C C C :2 O C N Z C O C 3 m I C C C +' m C - C C' O m 0) O N C CA O m ` m m v $ c U- 3 z 3 m v m > 9 m 0 CD m cc o m X 3 o $ ' vv 3 m m a m m 0 3 0 :o CI- CC -0 m Cl N Y t0 a o m M m o 3 X .D •3 3 IL o m j p E > a � � CC c c : 3 0 CO tC{ m 3 C o v Cao Go C1 � >' c m Q � m coo 0 CC c m > ; coo m o o o m m Cho a c t o � C CC O U E Q m CctS Ln > p N E M i a Q � Z V c Q m c m U o v m e m E c r cJ os o : N > c Ca C E m m r m ° m Y a °' c r m I r � � c C � > U o a !Co Ll- m > �a m m @1 eNo o 0 o v ca o • m E m o 0 w J (g (g p (3 c J J z Z a. m > z d m ._ m p 0 W LL 2 � m o tio o C? ch cD o cD m N N O NI cl) a � E cn — N c m o� m t5 f; u N m m � Ti t"i ti t'i O m m a n. cLaa. a. as 0 c co U) a N CL m m m m m m m m m m m O O O O O O O O O ►V- O m m O M m ow m N m m m m m > > m m > m > > m > > > > cn U. 0 0 IL LL 0 LL 0 0 u. 0 0 0 O T M m O CO O r ch O 0) r N O O O O O O O O� IA O h 0 0 C7 �I aD O O N h O� 0) O O > O) r r r CV (D O C7 CV O OO O O CO CO cV I cV CL-C U- C C ° C 0 co Ucc ..i m U U U a m m m .�C ` o m 0 Oo m m m E cn U o U m O co O OI O co C7 t- 1*_ Z D C p r (D N co r r r M 7 a. U- r— N O co 0 0 (7 0 0) O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O C O (A O CO O O O (�7 �) h O OI O O O N C7 O OI to M O OI C7 N O 01 r r r N to N O fh (^D• (D N CO CO O 0 r CV OD - O cm N P, a � E r r r Cl T— a N m �. rn E cc m _ t > ` o cc m E c c (Lcn .9 c (cam o p 3 m o p ; J2 c w V) CO V � c m H C y m J rn m y m ; co E m 3 m m > m E c m O t m c C .0 m m c > m > > CO m >. O m .� t0 E m c x m E m > c 0 m m m � -0 H m co m m m m v CO CL ro m o CC C c s _ Q jr v m (n E > o _ c c m > > c �j — 3 > 0 3 0 = = o - c E 10 c M o (L c° c C� c° c > C t N O C p O /6 O O U >. N O m O >. m O V O) .O m -0 m O m 0 c "D 0 c > p 00 c m rn > > (L — 5 m E >, : E ca o E 3 ns eo m a: _y c t > c m Q L N � � = c° toy 10 �, U o Q cc to cA m U c m Ri m (o m m o m o ca v a o E 3 0 in E ; C m Y (Ca O j f0 w H m W (c0 COD W O ° m Go (ca m (c Q j M HLL w � cninincn > - � = otn - cAmU0 - cn3 ¢ U0 > 16 0 c 0 .9 LL -0 CL cn E 64 E .0 7:b 2 0 CD E t ti 16 ts A= t- eeeee 0 CD (D "D t5 CD 0 E 0- 0. 0) E (D 0 0 CD o > > > > ts m °? o al 0 C> 0 0 0 0 Q > (6 c; 6 of 0 >, CV C� CD -6 L 't 8 (D ts O co3: x CD CD CY) CL to 0 Z ST ui 0 0; :) Z) a) > M LL CD co �Q 403- �o ig ol o 6 .0 Sl 0 C) 0 C) 0 c j-: c 0 ti: C6 (6 6 6 t6 ;-- C: of C14 IT 0 0 co 0 CD Z-f 0 CD rn E 0 E c C%4N.0 - - -0 .0 E py c > cc 0 -0 > ca 0- CC (v E c 0' W CL cr 0 9) 3 L.w 0u m cr > E CD cr_c - CD F -0 CL 0 iF c 6 me 2E mm 0 = 'D c m - — 00 Q3 a: uj — o w a: 0 = B .0- m U, c C " C C6 c E E �� -6 .5 (D M (s M 5 .0 m 0 0 0 co :3 0 E Q coo a 0 c 0- c FL E X ME180 0 0 0 CL-j cCr. M z as o a7i m z 0 z 0 D 9. Action Plan The Action Plan lists each route of regional significance along with the 2010 planned improvements and resulting traffic volume and levels of service. The Transportation Plan recommendations are distilled into distinct action statements for each route of regional significance. Potential actions are also listed. These were considered by the TVTC and serve as background to the recommended actions. The Action Plan also includes a list of responsible agencies to implement the actions for each route of regional significance. Actions of Regional Significance Listed below are regional actions which are intended to reduce congestion and improve efficiency on the regional transportation system. These actions are broader in nature than the route-specific actions identified in the following subsection. Implementation of regional actions requires a coordinated effort among local jurisdictions and regional agencies. The TVTC jurisdictions, while not able to directly implement these actions, agree to use every opportunity to work cooperatively with responsible agencies, including Caltrans, BART, and MTC, toward their successful implementation. 1. Implement a subregional traffic impact fee to pay for planned, but unfunded, trans- portation improvements. 2. Increase AVR for work (commute) trips from 1.1 to 1.2. Achieve this increase by requiring and enforcing employer-based TDM programs. Pleasanton's TSM ordinance is an example of how to implement a program. 3. Install ramp metering at al freeway on-ramps, provided sufficient stacking space is available. Provide HOV bypass lanes wherever space permits. 4. Achieve an overall jobs-housing balance within the Tri-Valley. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 160 Action Plan 5. Support regional gasoline taxes to encourage commute alternatives and provide funds for needed transportation projects. 6. Support development of a seamless HOV network in the Tri-Valley to encourage the use of carpools and bus transit. TVTC shall work cooperatively with Caltrans, MTC, and affected jurisdictions to explore opportunities for expanding the HOV system, especially on I-580, subject to cost-effectiveness analysis and/or change to legislation prohibiting them. Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance This section details the various objectives and actions for each designated route of regional significance within the Tri-Valley. Specific Traffic Service Objectives are present- ed, together with a set of actions directed at achieving those objectives. The parties responsible for implementing the actions are also identified. Once the Plan is adopted, .each jurisdiction will be responsible for making a good-faith effort to implement the agreed-upon actions. In Contra Costa County, a jurisdiction's compliance with the 1998 Measure C Growth Management Program will be judged based upon its efforts to implement agreed-upon actions. The actions, programs, and measures identified in the following table are intended to mitigate congestion and achieve the Traffic Service Objectives assuming that future traffic will be constrained by the limited capacities of highway facilities serving the Tri-Valley Gateways (see Chapter 5, "Gateway Constraints"). An individual jurisdiction may also elect to implement more stringent actions, measures, or programs, in addition to those identified below, on facilities within its jurisdiction. For example, a jurisdiction's individu- al mitigation program could respond to higher future traffic levels, assuming no gateway constraints(see Figure 5-4). Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 161 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Responsibility for Implementation Page Facility Responsible Agency Number 1-680 All 166 1-580 All 168 Sycamore Valley Road Danville 170 Danville Boulevard Danville, CCC 172 Camino Tassajara Danville, CCC 173 Crow Canyon Road San Ramon, AC, CCC, Danville 177 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Danville, San Ramon 185 Bollinger Canyon Road San Ramon, CCC 187 Alcosta Boulevard San Ramon 190 Dougherty Boulevard CCC, Dublin, San Ramon 191 Tassajara Road CCC, Dublin, AC 193 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, AC 195 San Ramon Road Dublin 199 Hopyard Road Pleasanton 200 Santa Rita Road Pleasanton 202 Stanley Boulevard Pleasanton, Livermore 204 Stoneridge Drive Pleasanton 206 Sunol Boulevard Pleasanton 207 Route 84 All 208 First Street (Livermore) Livermore 211 Vasco Road Livermore, AC 212 The following are not routes of regional significance Stone Valley Road CCC 214 Fallon Road Dublin, AC 215 North Canyons Parkway Livermore, AC 217 Isabel Extension (North of 1-580) Livermore, AC 219 North Livermore Avenue Livermore, AC 221 Las Positas (Pleasanton) Pleasanton 222 _Bernal Avenue Pleasanton 224 Jack London Livermore 225 Hacienda Drive Pleasanton, Dublin 226 162 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Action Plan� Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:I-680 North of Livonia at Bollinger South of 1-580 South of Route 84 Existing Configuration 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes Existing Volume' 7,100 5,000 4,800 6,000 Existing VJC 1.08 0.76 0.73 0.91 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: HOV lanes,SR 24 to Dublin--under construction;auxiliary lanes, Diablo to Bollinger;SB to EB flyover and Dublin hook ramps at 1-68011-580 interchange;improve interchange at Alcosta;add interchange at West Las Positas 2010 Configuration 6+HOV 6+HOV+Aux. 6 6 Volume 7,800(constrained) 6,300 5,800 6,600(constrained) Transit Service(busesAwur) 10 36 24 30 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 365 203 13 0 V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 1.00(1.39) 0.70 0.87 1.00(l.47) (unconstrained) 8 hours of congestion 7 hours of congestion Traffic Pattern Danville 31% Dublin 120/6 Pleasanton 28% Pleasanton 30% San Ramon 200% Pleasanton 181% Dublin 2096 Livermore 27% CCC 18% Livermore 11% Livermore 5% Dublin 13% Dublin 17% Danville 6% CCC 9% CCC 5% Pleasanton 60/6 San Ramon 380/6 Danville 8% Through 19% Livermore 4% GCC 0% San Ramon 14% Danville 3% Through 15% Through 15% Through 15% San Ramon 4% TSO to be achieved None Not within WC a 0.99 VIC=0.99 No more than five TVTC control hours of congestion Recommended Actions 1.Support major transit 1. Pursue funding for 1. Pursue funding 1.Advocate HOV investment(w/Central auxiliary lanes. for 1-68OA-580 lanes,Route 84 to County). interchange. Sunol Grade. 2. Support commute 2. Pursue funding for 2. Seek funding 2.Advocate express alternatives Alcosta interchange for HOV lanes bus service. (Bay Areawide). improvements. Alcosta to Route 84. 3.Support commute 3. Oppose increases to altematives. mixed-flow capacity. 4.Oppose increas- es to mixed-flow Note:A deficiency pian will be required if the level of service becomes LOS F on any segment. capacity. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 163 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:I-680 North of Livoma at Bollinger South of 1-580 South of Route 84 Potential Actions Highway Solution Widen to 10 lanes+ Widen to 10 lanes. HOV Transit Solution Would require an add- Would require 80 tional 50 buses per buses per hour or hour(peak direction)or LRT with 5-minute LRT with 5-minute headways or BART headways or BART. or Altamont Pass Rail with 15-minute headways. TDM Solution Would require 20% Would require 60% increase in AVR for all increase in AVR for trip types,or spread all trips,or spread commute over 16 hours commute over 16 per day. hours per day. Land Use Solution Reduce growth in CCC Reduce growth by portion of Tri-Valley by 63,000 units,similar 33,850 units,similar decrease in jobs, decrease in jobs. similar decrease in Santa Clara County. Policy Solution Tolerate congestion, Tolerate congestion, will act as a valve to will reduce trip promote shorter com- lengths. mutes. TSO met. TSO met. ' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-drection of How. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 164 Action Plan" Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:1480 West of Foothill at Tassalara at Altamont Existing Configuration 8 lanes 8 lanes 8 lanes Existing Volume' 7,000 8,000 5,100 Existing V/C 0.80 0.91 0.58 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:SB to ES flyover at 1-680/1-580 interchange,improve interchanges to parclo design at Foothill/San Ramon, Fallon/El Charm,Vasco Road, Greenville Road, North Livermore Avenue, and First Street,remove interchange at Portola; addition of new interchange at Isabel extension(part of the Route 84 project). 2010'Configuration 8 lanes 8 lanes 8 lanes Volume 8,800(constrained) 8,800(constrained) 8,800(constrained) Transit Service(busesthour) 18+BART 20 None Transit Ridership(peak hour) 3,914 168 0 V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 1.00(1.07) 1.00(1.23) 1.00(l.40) (unconstrained) (1-1/2 hours of congestion) (4 hours of conges- (5 hours of conges- tion) tion) Traffic Pattern Dublin 23% Danville 0% Livermore 25% Pleasanton 24% San Ramon 6% Pleasanton 14% Livermore 24% Livermore 39% Danville 1% CCC 5% Dublin 15% San Ramon 8% Danville 1% Pleasanton 15% 00C 3% San Ramon 5% COC 3% Dublin 9% Through 166/0 Through 28% Through 400/6 TSO to be achieved Los F no more than 2 LOS F no more than None--not within hours 2 hours TVTC control Recommended Actions None. 1.Add HOV lanes 1.Support major Tassajara to N. transit investment in Livermore. corridor. 2.Oppose increases in mixed-flow capaci- ty- 3.Seek funding for HOV lanes, N. Livermore to county line. Note:A deficiency plan will be required if the level of service becomes LOS F on any segment. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 165 .t r Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: 1-580 West of Foothill at Tassajara at Altamont Potential Actions Highway Solution Widen to 10 lanes or 8+ Widen to 10 lanes Widen to 12 lanes HOV (would cause major problems downstream) Transit Solution Increase BART ridership by Add 40 buses per Add bus service(70 600 in peak hour hour or LRT with 10- buses per hour)or rail minute headways or (10-minute headways extend BART. would be required). TDM Solution Increase AVR by 70/6 for all Increase AVR by 40% Increase AVR by 40% trip types,or spread com- for all trip types, or for all trip types, or mute to 3 hours per day. spread commute to 8 spread commute to hours per day. 10 hours per day. Land Use Solution Reduce development in AC Reduce development Reduce TV jobs by portion of TV by 9,500 as follows: about 35,000,must units. be accompanied by Livermore: 11,000 similar decreases in units TV households,San Joaquin households, Dublin:6,500 units and Bay Area jobs. Pleasanton:6,500 units Similar reductions in employment. Policy Solution Tolerate moderate conges- Tolerate congestion, Tolerate congestion, tion,revise TSO to LOS F revise TSO to LOS F will encourage job no more than two hours. for no more than 4 development in San hours. Joaquin. 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 166 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways—Danville Version Key Locations Facility:Sycamore Valley Road East of 1-680 Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' 1,800 Existing V/C 0.50 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:None 2010 Configuration 4 lanes Volume 2,360 Transit Service(buses/hour) 8 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 58 V/C constrained[before Action Plan) 0.65 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Danville 44% San Ramon 2% CCC 48% Livermore 6% Pleasanton 0% Dublin 0% TSO to be achieved V/C<0.90 at inter- section. Recommended Actions 1.Oppose any consideration of additional vehicular capacity on Sycamore Valley Road.Sycamore Valley Road has a 2010 capacity consisting of four through lanes, acceleration/deceleration lanes at all intersections,left-tum pockets at all intersec- tions,and Caltrans standard Class It bicycle lanes. No action shall be considered that would eliminate such acceleration/deceleration lanes or bicycle lanes. PAA Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Sycamore Valley Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard 0.81 D Sycamore Valley Road and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.63 B Sycamore Valley Road and 1-580 NB Ramps 0.79 C Sycamore Valley Road and Camino Tassa)ara 0.37 A Sycamore Valley Road and Brookside Drive 0.47 A 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 167 r Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways--Contra Costa County Version Key Locations Facility:Sycamore Valley Road East of 1-680 Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' 1,800 Existing V/C 0.50 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:None 2010 Configuration 4 lanes Volume 2,360 Transit Service(buses/hour) 8 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 58 WC constrained[before Action Plan] 0.65(0.65) (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Danville 44% San Ramon 2% CCC 48% Livermore 6% Pleasanton 0% Dublin 0% TSO to be achieved V/C<0.90 at inter- section. Recommended Actions In order to meet the TSO requirements, the level of development that may be approved by a local jurisdiction shall be consistent with the identified transportation improvements and programs for which funding is reasonably assured.Other jurisdictions may elect not to implement such improvements and programs within their jurisdiction,and the minimum level of service may than be exceeded without violating the TSO. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Sycamore Valley Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard 0.81 D Sycamore Valley Road and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.63 B Sycamore Valley Road and 1-580 NB Ramps 0.79 C Sycamore Valley Road and Camino Tassajara 0.37 A Sycamore Valley Road and Brookside Drive 0.47 A Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 168 CXfIIUIL G TC w IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SUBJECT: In the Matter of the Evaluation ) of the Tri Valley Transportation ) Plan/Action Plan, 2nd Draft I RESOLUTION NO. 94/387 The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costs County RESOLVES THAT: WHEREAS, the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program (Measure C-1988) compliance requirements for Regional Routes requires each jurisdiction to implement specified local actions designed to attain Traffic Service Objectives (TSO's) in a timely manner, consistent with adopted Action Plans; WHEREAS, the Draft Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, 2nd Draft (Draft Action Plan), proposes local actions that include growth controls and prohibits certain transportation improvements that, coupled with the Levet of Service TSO's, would preempt local land use decisions on proposals that are currently under review by the Board of Supervisors; WHEREAS Measure C-1988 compliance requirements cannot preempt local land use decisions or require local jurisdictions to accept unwanted construction projects; WHEREAS the Draft Action Plan includes a TSO for Bollinger Canyon Road that is not consistent with the minimum Level of Service standard required for development in the Dougherty Valley; WHEREAS the Draft Action Plan includes statements interpreting the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement that are inconsistent with the interpretation of the Board of Supervisors: WHEREAS the Draft Action Plan does not substantiate at this time that the actions it recommends or potential actions,will reasonably ensure compliance with the TSO's in 2010; WHEREAS the Draft Action Plan does not provide an adequate nexus between the recommended regional fees to be paid by new development in Contra Costa with the benefit these fees provide such development; WHEREAS various other actions in the Draft Action Plan do not reflect the Board's concerns in managing regional traffic impacts from future growth in the Tri Valley area; WHEREAS all affected jurisdictions must agree to the actions before the Action Plans are finalized and adopted; and WHEREAS this resolution does not conflict with the condition included in the Contra Costs Transportation Authority's July 20, `1994 approval on the County's Measure C-1988 Annual Compliance Checklist regarding the application of certain traffic level of service standards for intersection in Danville and San Ramon. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County to support the following modifications to the Draft Action Plan: Recommended actions for growth limits outside the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan area shall be deleted from the Action Plan; Recommended prohibitions to road improvements in Danville shall be deleted from the Action Plan and replaced with a process for meeting TSO's that will not impose an unwanted construction project in Danville or preempt I.-Cal land use decisions on proposals that are currently under review by the Board of Supervisors. This process for meeting TSO's should be defined as follows: in order to meet the TSO requirements, the level of development that may be approved by a local jurisdiction shall be consistent with the identified transportation improvements and programs for which funding is reasonably assured. Other jurisdictions may elect not to implement such improvements and programs within their jurisdiction, and the minimum level of Service may then be exceeded without violating the TSO. RESOLUTION NO. 94/3$1 A!1✓I l L r Evaluation of the Tri Valley Transportation Pian/Action Plan, 2nd Draft Continued -Page Two The TSO for Bollinger Canyon Road shall be consistent with the minimum Level of Service required for the Board of Supervisors for future development in the Dougherty Valley. Statements in the Action Plan that interpret consistency of potential actions with the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement shall be deleted. The Action Plan shall specify that the recommended projects and programs in the Action Plan are not exclusive actions intended to limit the scope or nature of other projects or programs that do not conflict with the Action Plan. The Action Plan shall specify where appropriate that the ability of potential actions described for Regional Routes to reasonably meet the TSO"s has not been specifically substantiated through the Tri Valley Transportation Model. The Action Plan shall provide an adequate nexus between any regional or sub-regional transportation impact fee paid by new development in Contra Costa and the benefits these fees provide to such development. The Action Plan shall revise the recommended action No. 2 for Vasco Road as shown in the following italicized text: Oppose increases to mixed-flow capacity or. Vasco Road in Alameda County. The Action Plan shall specify that the actions to be used for compliance with Measure C-1988 shall be only those actions implemented in Contra Costa jurisdictions for the purpose to satisfying Traffic Service Objectives for Regional Routes in Contra Costa jurisdictions. The Action Plan shall extend the Routes of Regional Significance designation to include Bollinger Canyon Road east of Alcosta Boulevard and its future extension east of its present terminus. The Action Plan shall extend the Routes of Regional Significance designation to include the entire segment of Dougherty Road north of the Alameda County line. The Action Plan shall address potential conflicts where an action to satisfy a Traffic Service Objective cause violations in other Traffic Service Objectives. PASSED by the following vote of the Board of Supervisors on the 26th day of July, 1994: AYES: Supervisors Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Powers NOES: Supervisor Bishop ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Contact: Steven L. Goetz (5101646-2134) cc: Community Development Department (CDD) Witness my hand and the Seal of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council tvu cDo1 Coard of Supervisors effixod on this 26th day of Ju1Y , 1994. Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: `�Deputy Ct mS:tNra+.•.s7 RESOLUTION NO. 941387 Action Plan 4 Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:Danville Boulevard At Stone Valley Existing Configuration 2 lanes Existing Volume' 1,100 Existing V/C 0.61 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:None 2010 Configuration 2 lanes Volume 1,100(constrained) Transit Service(buses/hour) 20 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 157 V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.61 (1.10) (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Danville 44% San Ramon 170/6 CCC 16% Pleasanton 4% Dublin 5% Livermore 4% Through 10'/0 TSO to be achieved V/C<0.90 at inter- sections Recommended Actions None.This route is directly affected by the bottleneck on 1-680.Any capacity increases would lead to cut-through traffic. Phil Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Danville Boulevard and Stone Valley 0.82 D Hartz Avenue and Diablo Road 0.38 A Danville Boulevard and Livoma Road 0.76 C ' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 169 r � Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways—Danville Version Key Locations East of Sycamore East of Facility:Camino Tassalara Valley Road Crow Canyon Existing Configuration 4 lanes 4 lanes Existing Volume' 1,300 760 Existing V/C 0.36 0.21 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to four lanes from Danville Town Limits to Contra Costa County Line. 2010 Configuration 4 lanes 4 lanes Volume 1,840 2,320 Transit Service(buses/hour) 10 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 128 V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.51 0.64 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Danville 420/6 CCC 53% CCC 49% San Ramon 200/0 San Ramon 20/6 Danville 180/ Pleasanton 6% Pleasanton 1% Dublin 0% Dublin 2% Livermore 2% Livermore 6% TSO to be achieved V/C<0.90 at inter- WC<0.90 at intersec- sections tions Recommended Actions None Required. 1.An initial level of development of 8,500 units may be con- structed in the Dougherty Valley based on the Settlement Agree- ment Up to 11,000 units may be considered pending the com- pletion of additional traffic studies.This action is based on the Agreement to Settle Litigation Relating to the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment,Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report. This action was agreed to by Danville,San Ramon,and Contra Costa County in the Settlement Agreement 2.The plan should be based on land use assumptions for TVPOA that would not result in a violation of transportation service objectives.This action is based on the Agreement to Settle Litigation Relating to the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment,Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report This action was agreed to by Danville,San Ramon,and Contra Costa County in the Settlement Agreement. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 170 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways—Danville Version (Continued) Key Locations East of Sycamore East of Facility:Camino Tassajara Valley Road Crow Canyon 3.Oppose any consideration of additional vehicular capacity on Camino Tassajara. Camino Tassajara within the Town of Danville has a 2010 capacity consisting of four through lanes, acceleration/deceleration lanes at all intersections,left-tum pockets at all intersections,and Caltrans standard Class II bicycle lanes. No action shall be considered that would eliminate such acceleration/deceleration lanes or bicycle lanes.This action is based on the Agreement to Settle Litigation Relating to the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment,Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report.This action was agreed to by Danville,San Ramon,and Contra Costa County in the Settle- ment Agreement. The northbound approach at the Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk Road/Crow Canyon Road intersection may be reconfigured to consist of a 4-foot median island,two 12-foot left-tum lanes,one 12-foot through lane, one 12-foot through plus right-tum lane, and one 12-foot right-tum lane.This requires reducing the exist- ing median island from 12 feet to 4 feet, and reducing the exist- ing 16-foot right-tum lane to a 12-foot right-tum lane.This can be accomplished within existing curb-to-curb width.Any expansion or modifications at this intersection shall be subject to the ap- proval of the Town of Danville.The Town of Danville has sole discretion to determine whether any widening of this intersection may occur to a configuration with outside curb-to-curb widths that are greater than currently exist. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Unconstrained V/C Camino Tassajara and Blackhawk/Crow Canyon 1.15 F 1.35 Camino Tassajara and Sycamore Valley Road 0.37 A Camino Tassajara and Diablo 0.39 A ' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 171 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways--Danville Version (Continued) Key Locations East of Sycamore East of Facility:Camino Tassalare Valley Road Crow Canyon Potential Actions Highway Solution "Widen Camino Tassajara to 6 lanes Transit Solution Add 40 buses per hour service to Dougherty Valley and Tassajara Valley;must be full to achieve TSO. TDM Solution Restrict DV and HPOA peak-hour and peak-period trip gener- ation to DV-77%of normal,and TVPOA- 8%of normal. Land Use Solution Restrict DV to 8,500 units by 2010,TVPOA to 119 units. Policy Solution 'Accept LOS F at Camino Tassajara/ Blackhawk intersection (deficiency plan re- quired) TSO Met These potential actions violate the Town of Danville General Plan and the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement between Contra Costa County, Danville, and San Ramon,dated May 11, 1994. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 172 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways—Contra Costa County Version Key Locations East of Sycamore East of Facility:Camino Tassa)ara Valley Road Crow Canyon Existing Configuration 4 lanes 4 lanes Existing Volume' 1,300 760 Existing V/C 0.36 0.21 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to four lanes from Danville Town Limits to Contra Costa County Line. 2010 Configuration 4 lanes 4 lanes Volume 1,840 2,320 Transit Service(buses/hour) 10 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 128 V/C constrained[before Acton Plan) 0.51 () 0.64() (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Danville 42% CCC 53% CCC 49% San Ramon 200% San Ramon 20% Danville 18% Pleasanton 6% Pleasanton 1% Dublin 0% Dublin 2% Livermore 2% Livermore 6% TSO to be achieved WC<0.90 at inter- V/C<0.90 at intersec- sections tions Recommended Actions None Required. In order to meet the TSO requirements,the level of development that may be approved by a local jurisdiction shall be consistent with the identified transportation improvements and programs for which funding is reasonably assured. Other jurisdictions may elect not to implement such improvements and programs within their jurisdiction,and the minimum level of service may then be exceeded without violating the TSO. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected tnteraection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Unconstrained V/C Camino Tassajara and Blackhawk/Crow Canyon 1.15 F 1.35 Camino Tassajara and Sycamore Valley Road 0.37 A Camino Tassajara and Diablo 0.39 A Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 173 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Pian Highways—Danville Version Key Locations East of Dougherty South of Camino Tassajara Facility:Crow Canyon Road at County Line East of 1-680 (San Ramon) (Danville) Existing Configuration 2 lanes 8 lanes 4 lanes 6 lanes Existing Volume' 1,200 1,900 1,800 1,800 Existing V/C 0.80 0.26 0.50 0.33 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Operational improvements on two-lane section;widening to 6 lanes-Alcosta to Tassajara Ranch Road. 2010 Configuration 2 lanes 8 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes Volume 1,400 2,560 3,690 3,810 Transit Service(buses/hour) 4 56 12 12 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 5 204 170 170 V/C constrained[before Action 0.93 0.36 0.68 0.71 Plan](unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Danville 36% San Ramon 590% San Ramon 27% San Ramon 27% San Ramon 31% Danville 21% Danville 25% Danville 25% CCC 9% CCC 18% CCC 35% CCC 35% Dublin 3% Dublin 1% Dublin 5% Dublin 5% Pleasanton 1% Pleasanton 0% Pleasanton 5% Pleasanton 5% Livermore 1% Livermore 1% Livermore 3% Livermore 3% Through 190/6 Through 0% Through 0% Through 0% TSO to be achieved Maximum operating V/C=<0.90 at V/C=<0.90 at inter- WC=<0.90 at intersec- speeds within 2- intersections. sections. tions. lane cross-section. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 174 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways—Danville Version (Continued) Key Locations East of Dougherty South of Camino Tassajara Facility:Crow Canyon Road at County Line East of 1-6W (San Ramon) (Danville) Recommended Actions 1. Secure funding None. 1.Secure funding for 1.An initial level of devel- for operational widening to 6 lanes. opment of 8,500 units may improvements. be constructed in the Dougherty Valley based on 2.An initial level of de- the Settlement Agreement. velopment of 8,500 Up to 11,000 units may be units may be construct- considered pending the ed in the Dougherty completion of additional Valley based on the traffic studies.This action is Settlement Agreement. based on the Agreement to Up to 11,000 units may Settle Litigation Relating to be considered pending the Dougherty Valley Gen- the completion of addi- eral Plan Amendment,Spe- tional traffic studies. cific Plan and Environmen- tal Impact Report.This action was agreed to by Danville,San Ramon,and Contra Costa County in the Settlement Agreement. 2.The plan should be based on land use assump- tions for TVPOA that would not result in a violation of transportation service objec- tives.This action was de- veloped by the Town of Danville.Contra Costa County may support differ- ent actions.This action is based on the Agreement to Settle Litigation Relating to the Dougherty Valley Gen- eral Plan Amendment,Spe- cific Plan and Environmen- tal Impact Report.This action was agreed to by Danville,San Ramon,and Contra Costa County in the Settlement Agreement. 3. Improve Camino Tassajara intersection(see Camino Tassajar`a) 4.Oppose additional widen- ing of Crow Canyon Road within Danville. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 175 r Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways—Danville Version (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Unconstrained V/C Crow Canyon Road and Crow Canyon PI. 0.68 B Crow Canyon Road and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.48 A Crow Canyon Road and Camino Tassajara 1.15 F 1.35 Crow Canyon Road and Dougherty 0.98 E Crow Canyon Road and 1-680 NB Ramps 0.68 B Crow Canyon Road and Camino Ramon 0.89 D Crow Canyon Road and San Ramon Valley Boulevard 0.79 C Crow Canyon Road and Alcosta 0.82 D Crow Canyon Road and Bollinger Canyon 0.63 B 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. 176 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways—Danville Version (Continued) Key Locations East of Dougherty South of Camino Tassajara Facility:Crow Canyon Road at County Line East of 1-680 (San Ramon) (Danville) Potential Actions Highway Solution 8 lanes on 6 lanes on Camino Crow Canyon. Tassajara.' Transit Solution Add 40 buses per hour Add 40 buses per hour service to DV and service to DV and TVPOA; TVPOA;buses must be buses must be full. full. TDM Solution Restrict DV to 779'0 of Restrict DV to 77%of nor- normal trip-making, mal trip-making,TVPOA to TVPOA to 8%of nor- 8%of normal trip-making. mal trip-making. Land Use Solution Restrict DV 2010 to Restrict DV 2010 to 8,500 8,500 units,TVPOA to units,TVPOA to 119 units 119 units in 2010. in 2010. Policy Solution Accept LOS E at 'Accept LOS F at Crow Crow Canyon/ Canyon/Camino Tassajara Dougherty. (requires deficiency plan). TSO met TSO met. "These potential actions violate the Town of Danville General Plan and the Dougherty Valley settlement Agreement between Contra Costa County, Danville,and San Ramon, dated May 11, 1994. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 177 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways—Contra Costa County Version Key Locations East of Dougherty South of Camino Tassajara Facility:Crow Canyon Road at County Line East of 1-680 (San Ramon) (Danville) Existing Configuration 2 lanes Blanes 4 lanes Blanes Existing Volume' 1,200 1,900 1,800 1,800 Existing V/C 0.80 0.26 0.50 0.33 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Operational improvements on two-lane section;widening to 6 lanes-Alcosta to Tassajara Ranch Road. 2010 Configuration 2 lanes Blanes 6 lanes 6 lanes Volume 1,400 2,560 3,690 3,810 Transit Service(buses/hour) 4 56 12 12 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 5 204 170 170 WC constrained[before Action 0.93 0.36 0.68 0.71 Planj(unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Danville 36% San Ramon 5906 San Ramon 270/6 San Ramon 27% San Ramon 31% Danville 21% Danville 25% Danville 25% CCC 9% CCC 180/0 CCC 35% CCC 35% Dublin 3% Dublin 1% Dublin 5% Dublin 5% Pleasanton 1% Pleasanton 0% Pleasanton 5% Pleasanton 5% Livermore 1% Livermore 1% Livermore 3% Livermore 3% Through 19°,6 Through 0% Through 0% Through 0% TSO to be achieved Maximum operating V/C=<0.90 at WC=<0.90 at intersec- V/C=<0.90 at intersec- speeds within 2- intersections. tions. tions. lane cross-section. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 178 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways—Contra Costa County Version (Continued) Key Locations East of Dougherty South of Camino Tassajara Facility:Crow Canyon Road at County Line East of 1-680 (San Ramon) (Danville) Recommended Actions 1. Secure funding None. 1.Secure funding for 1.An initial level of devel- for operational widening to 6 lanes, opment of 8,500 units may improvements. be constructed in the 2.An initial level of de- Dougherty Valley based on velopment of 8,500 units the Settlement Agreement. may be constructed in Up to 11,000 units may be the Dougherty Valley considered pending the based on the Settlement completion of additional Agreement. Up to 11,000 traffic studies. units may be considered pending the completion In order to meet the TSO of additional traffic requirements,the level of studies. development that may be approved by a local In order to meet the TSO jurisdiction shall be requirements,the level consistent with the of development that may identified transportation be approved by a local improvements and jurisdiction shall be programs for which funding consistent with the is reasonably assured. identified transportation Other jurisdictions may improvements and elect not to implement such programs for which improvements and funding is reasonably programs within their assured.Other jurisdiction,and the jurisdictions may elect minimum level of service not to implement such may then be exceeded improvements and without violating the TSO. programs within their Jurisdiction,and the minimum level of service may then be exceeded without violating the TSO. Barton`Aschman Associates, Inc. 179 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways—Contra Costa County Version (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Crow Canyon Road and Crow Canyon PI. 0.68 B Crow Canyon Road and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.48 A Crow Canyon Road and Camino Tassajara 1.15 F Crow Canyon Road and Dougherty 0.98 E Crow Canyon Road and 1-680 NB Ramps 0.68 B Crow Canyon Road and Camino Ramon 0.89 D Crow Canyon Road and San Ramon Valley Boule- 0.79 C vard Crow Canyon Road and Alcosta 0.82 D Crow Canyon Road and Bollinger Canyon 0.63 B ' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 180 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways—Contra Costa County Version (Continued) Key Locations East of Dougherty South of Camino Tassajara Facility:Crow Canyon Road at County Line East of 1-680 (San Ramon) (Danville) Potential Actions Highway Solution 8 lanes on 6 lanes on Camino Crow Canyon. Tassajara. Transit Solution Add 40 buses per hour Add 40 buses per hour service to DV and service to DV and TVPOA; TVPOA;buses must be buses must be full. full. TDM Solution Restrict DV to 770%of Restrict DV to 77%of nor- normal trip-making. mal trip-making. Land Use Solution Restrict DV 2010 to Restrict DV 2010 to 8,500 8,500 units. units. Policy Solution Accept LOS E at Crow Accept LOS F at Crow Canyon/Dougherty. Canyon/Camino Tassajara TSO met. TSO met. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 1$1 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Paan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:San Ramon Valley North of Sycamore Boulevard At Bollinger Valley(load Existing Configuration 5 lanes 2 lanes Existing Volume' 900 1,025 Existing V/C 0.25 0.57 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to 4 lanes through Danville;Widening to 4 lanes through San Ramon. 2010 Configuration 5 lanes 4 lanes Volume 1,000 1,540 Transit Service(busesthour) 10 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 84 437 V/C constrained[before Action Pian] 0.28 0.43 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Danville 11% Danville 55% San Ramon 690/6 San Ramon 43% CCC 3% CCC 1% Dublin 11% Dublin 0% Pleasanton 1% Pleasanton 0% Livermore 1% Livermore 0% Through 0% Through 0% TSO to be achieved V/C<0.90 at inter- V/C<0.90 at inter- sections. sections. Recommended Actions None. None. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc- 182 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Railroad Avenue 0.63 B San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Sycamore Valley Boulevard 0.81 D San Ramon Valley Boulevard and 1-680 SB Ramps(Alcosta) 0.41 A San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road 0.46 A San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Norris Canyon Road 0.76 C San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Crow Canyon Road 0.79 C San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Alcosta Boulevard 0.60 A San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Amador Valley Road 0.45 A 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 183 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:Bollinger Canyon Road East of 1 80 East of Alcosta Existing Configuration 8 lanes 4 lanes Existing Volume' 2,700 400 Existing WC 0.38 0.11 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:None on the section that is a route of regional significance.Extension east to Dougherty Road(4 lanes- 6 lanes), not a route of regional significance. 2010 Configuration 8 lanes 6 lanes Volume 3,200 2,820 Transit Service(busesthour) 54 24 Transit Ridership (peak hour) 539 550 V/C constrained[before Action Plan) 0.44 0.52 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Danville 6% Danville 4% San Ramon 44% CCC 490/6 CCC 420/9 San Ramon 420% Dublin 6% Dublin 4% Pleasanton 2% Pleasanton 1% Livermore 1% Livermore 0% Through 0% Through 0% TSO V/C<0.90 at inter- V/C<0.90 at inter- sections. sections. Recommended Actions 1. Improve intersec- 1.Control growth tion of Bollinger and to meet intersec- Sunset. tion level of service standards. 2. Improve Bolling- er Canyon Road/Alcosta Bou- levard Intersection. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 184 CTJ Ln co LL W < U Q m 0 < W LL P't It cq Nt 1p 0000000 — c 0 0 > o r 0 CL z 0 >V) z j_- o- co 20 ° 9 a e c c c c c c 0 ul tc v Cd to 0 0 0 m wc CU 13 'D m _0 2!� vU40 CIC Co 0 C) c) U -L) 0 m cas o SD 99 C yc = 8 88 gig 89 88 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Pian Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:Bollinger Canyon Road East of 1-680 East of Alcosta Potential Actions Highway Solution Add free right-tum Widen intersection lane SB on Sunset. at Alcosta to 6 lanes on Bollinger. Transit Solution 16 additional peak- 16 additional peak- hour buses;must be hour buses;must full. be full. TDM Solution Restrict DV peak-hour Restrict DV peak- trip generation to 77% hour trip generation of normal. to 770/6 of normal. Land Use Solution Reduce DV 2010 Reduce DV 2010 development by 3,600 development by units. 3,600 units. Policy Solution Accept LOS F at Bo{- Accept LOS F at linger/Sunset. Bollinger Canyon/Alcosta intersection. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 186 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:Alcosta Boulevard East of 1-680 Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' 600 Existing V/C 0,17 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Reconfiguration of Aloostai1-680 interchange to improve intersection operation. 2010 Configuration 41anes Volume 1,600 Transit Service(buses/hour) 10 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 65 WC constrained(before Action Plan) 0.44 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern► Danville 3% San Ramon 381. Dublin 280/0 CCC 28% Pleasanton 216 Livermore 0% TSO to be achieved WC<0.90 at intersections. Recommended Actions 1. Secure funding for inter- change improvements. 2. Improvements at Bolling- er Canyon/Alcosta. PM Pesk4iour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan VIC LOS Ajoosta Boulevard and 1-680 NB Ramps 0.84 D Aicosta Boulevard and Montevideo Road 0.34 A Aicosta Boulevard and Village Parkway 0.34 A Aicosta Boulevard and Crow Canyon 0.82 D Aicosta Boulevard and Norris Canyon 0.63 B Alcosta Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road 1.06 F AJcosta Boulevard and San Ramon Boulevard 0.60 A Volumes and capacity refer to PM mak hour,peak-drection of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc 187 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations North of North of Facility: Dougherty Road North of 1-580 Dublin Boulevard Old Ranch Road North of Bollinger Existing Configuration 6 lanes 4 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes Existing Volume' 2,700 1,300 300 300 Existing V/C 0.50 0.36 0.17 0.17 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to 8 lanes from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard and 6 lanes north of Dublin Boulevard. 2010 Configuration 8 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes Volume 4,200 2,300 3,310 2,990 Transit Service(buses/hour) 28 28 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 677 423 679 258 V/C constrained[before Action Plan[ 0.58 0.43 0.61 0.55 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Danville 11% Danville 11% Danville 8% Danville 22% Pleasanton 27% Pleasanton 27% San Ramon 6% San Ramon 18% CCC 27% CCC 27% Other CCC 46% CCC 39% Dublin 20% Dublin 20% Dublin 15% Dublin 8% Livermore 6% Livermore 6% Pleasanton 16% Pleasanton 9% Through 0% Through 0% Livermore 3% Livermore 3% San Ramon 9% San Ramon 9% TSO to be achieved V/C<0.90 at inter- WC<0.90 at inter- V/C<0.90 at inter- V/C<0.90 at inter- sections. sections. sections. sections. Recommended Actions 1.Secure developer 1.Secure developer 1.Secure developer 1.Secure developer funding for planned funding for planned funding for planned funding for planned widening. widening. widening. widening. 2. Increase areawide 2. Put in place 2. Put in place growth AVR by 10%. growth controls to controls to insure insure achievement achievement of of TSOs. TSOs. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 188 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Mitigation V/C LOS Dougherty Road and Bollinger Canyon Road(North) F Dougherty Road and Crow Canyon Road E Daugherty Road and Old Ranch Road A Dougherty Road and Bollinger Canyon Road(South) A Dougherty Road and 1-580 WB Ramps C Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard E Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Road C 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-drection of flow. Key Locations North of North of Old Ranch Facility:Dougherty Road North of 1-580 Dublin Boulevard Road North of Bollinger Potential Actions Highway Solution Grade separation at Grade separation at Grade separation at Grade separation at Dougherty/Dublin Dougherty/Bollinger Dougherty/Bollinger Dougherty/Bollinger Boulevard intersec- Canyon Road(N) Canyon Road(N) Canyon Road(N) tion,extension of intersection,extension intersection,exten- intersection,exten- Hacienda Drive to of Hacienda Drive to sion of Hacienda sion of Hacienda Windemere Parkway. Windemere Parkway. Drive to Windemere Drive to Windemere Parkway. Parkway. Transit Solution Increase ridership on 16 additional peak- 16 additional peak- 16 additional peak- local route. hour buses on Bol- hour buses on Bot- hour buses on Bol- linger Canyon Road. linger Canyon linger Canyon Road. Road. TDM Solution Increase overall AVR Restrict DV to 771%of Restrict DV to 77% Restrict DV to 77%of by 5%. normal peak-hour trip of normal peak-hour normal peak-hour trip rate. trip rate. rate. Land Use Solution Restrict DV develop- Restrict DV develop- Restrict DV devel- Restrict DV develop- ment to 8,500 units in ment to 8,500 units in op-ment to 8,500 ment to 8,500 units in 2010. 2010. units in 2010. 2010. Policy Solution Accept LOS E at Accept LOS E at Accept LOS F at Accept LOS F at Dougherty/Dublin Dougherty/Dublin Dougherty/Bollinger Dougherty/Bollinger intersection. intersection. Canyon. Canyon. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 189 1 W Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:Tassa]ars Road North of 1-580 North of Dublin North of Fallon Existing Configuration 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes Existing Volume' 200 P00 200 Existing V/C 0.11 0.11 0.11 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to 8 lanes from 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard,6 lanes north of Dublin Boulevard to County Line, 4 lanes north of County Line. 2010 Configuration 8 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes Volume 3,700 3,750 2,600 Transit Service(busesthour) 18 20 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 1,066 84 120 V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.51 0.69 0.48 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Danville 00/0 Danville 00% Danville 1% San Ramon 0% San Ramon 0% San Ramon 6% Dublin 35% Dublin 35% Dublin 17% CCC 36% CCC 36% Pleasanton 14% Pleasanton 18% Pleasanton 18% CCC 58% Livermore 10% Livermore 100% Livermore 4% Through 0% Through 0% TSO to be achieved V/C<0.90 at inter- V/C<0.90 at inter- V/C<0.90 at sections. sections. intersections. Recommended Actions 1.Secure developer 1.Secure developer None. funding for widening. funding for widening. 2. Put in place growth controls to insure achievement of TSOs. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Tassajara Road and Fallon Road 0.76 C Tassajara Road and Highland Road 0.65 B Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard 1.05 F Tassajara Road and Gleason Avenue 0.70 B Tassajara Road and 1-580 WB Ramps 0.84 D ' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Barton-ASChman Associates, Inc. 190 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:Tassajars Road North of 1-580 North of Dublin North of Fallon Potential Actions Highway Solution Grade separation at Grade separation at Tassajara/Dublin inter- Tassajara/Dublin section,or extension intersection,or ex- of Hacienda Drive to tension of Hacienda Windemere Parkway Drive to Windemere Parkway Transit Solution Increased ridership to Increased ridership TVPOA. to TVPOA. TDM Solution Restrict TVPOA to Restrict TVPOA to 85%of its normal trip 85%of its normal generation,or achieve trip generation,or 15%increase in over- achieve 15% all AVR. increase in overall AVR. Land Use Solution Reduce development Reduce develop- adjacent to Tassajara ment adacent to Road by 900 units. Tassajara Road by 900 units. Policy Solution Accept LOS F at Accept LOS F at Tassajara and Dublin Tassajara and Dub- intersection. lin intersection. TSO met. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 191 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility;Dublin Boulevard West of 1-680 East of 1-680 East of Dougherty East of Tassajara Existing Configuration 4 lanes 4 lanes N/A N/A Existing Volume' 1100 1,030 N/A N/A Existing WC 0.31 0.29 N/A WA 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to 6 lanes from Donlon to Tassajara;extension as 6 lanes to N. Canyon Parkway. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes Volume 2,000 2,035 2,765 2,520 Transit Service(buses/hour) 14 16 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 75 152 38 1,042 V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.37 0.38 0.51 0.47 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Danville 2% Danville 2% Danville 1% Danville 1% San Ramon 2% San Ramon 10% San Ramon 9% San Ramon 5% Dublin 581YO CCC 20/0 CCC 5% Livermore 36% CCC 14% Dublin 570/6 Dublin 57% Dublin 24% Pleasanton 13'/0 Pleasanton 9% Pleasanton 4% Pleasanton 13% Livermore 11% Livermore 21% Livermore 25% CCC 5% Through 0% Through 6% TSO to be achieved WC<0.90 at inter- V/C<0.90 at inter- WC<0.90 at V/C <0.90 at inter- sections. sections. intersections. sections. Recommended Actions 1.Secure developer 1.Secure funding 1.Secure funding 1.Secure funding funding for widening. for widening/ for widening/ for widening/ extension, extension. extension. 2. Increase 2.Pursue HOV areawide AVR by lanes on 1-580. 10%, 3. Pursue HOV lanes on 1-580. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 192 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza 0.85 D Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street 0.56 A Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive 0.73 C Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road 1.12 F Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road 1.05 F Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road 0.90 D Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road 0.93 E Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway 0.82 D ' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 193 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: Dublin Boulevard West of 1-680 East of 1-680 East of Dougherty East of Tassajara Potential Actions Highway Solution Widen Dublin Bou- Widen Dublin Bou- levard to 8 lanes levard to 8 lanes or or provide grade provide grade sepa- separations at rations at Dougherty, Dougherty, Tassajara,and Tassajara,and Fallon.Add HOV Fallon.Add HOV lanes to 1-580. lanes to 1-580. Transit Solution Increase local bus Increase local bus service,decrease service,decrease headways to 5 headways to 5 min- minutes. utes. TDM Solution Achieve AVR in- Achieve AVR in- crease of about crease of about 150k,or restrict E. 15%,or restrict E. Dublin trip genera- Dublin trip genera- tion to 85%of nor- tion to 85%of nor- mal. mal. 2 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 194 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility: Dublin Boulevard West of 1-680 East of 1-680 East of Dougherty East of Tassajara Land Use Solution reduce E. Dublin Reduce E. Dublin land use by about land use by about 200/6 overall,or 20%overall,or combine with re- combine with re- ductions in DV and ductions in DV and TVPOA. TVPOA. Policy Solution Accept LOS F at Accept LOS F at Tassajara and at Tassajara and at Fallon (requires Fallon (requires deficiency plan) deficiency plan)and and LOS E at LOS E at Dougherty. Dougherty. TSO met. TSO met. 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-drection of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc- 195 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:San Ramon Road North of Dublin Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' 1,200 Existing V/C 0.333 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:None. 2010 Configuration 4 lanes Volume 1,000 Transit Service(busesthour) 4 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 7 V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.28 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Danville 5% Dublin 55% San Ramon 23% Pleasanton 2% Livermore 100/0 CCC 5% Through 0% TSO to be achieved V/C<0.90 at intersections Recommended Actions None. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard 0.90 D C San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Road 0.45 A C 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 196 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:Hopyard Road at Stoneridge Existing Configuration 6 lanes Existing Volume' 2,400 Existing V/C 0.44 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to 4 lanes between Valley and Division. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes Volume 2,400 Transit Service(buses hour) 20 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 78 V/C constrained(before Action Phan} 0.44 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Pleasanton 64% Dublin 23% Danville 1% San Ramon 2`Ya CCC 6% Livermore 4% Through 0% TSO to be achieved V/C<0.90 at inter- sections Recommended Actions 1.Enforce existing growth controls in Pleasanton to insure achievement of TSOs. 2. Build adequate Route 84 to reduce cut-through traffic from West Las Positas Boulevard. 3.Install traffic signal phase overlap at HopyardlW. Las Positas. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc, 197 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Hopyard Road and Owens Drive 0.85 D Hopyard Road and Stoneridge Drive 0.58 A Hopyard Road and 1-580 EB Ramps 0.79 C Hopyard Road and West Las Positas 0.91 E Hopyard Road and Valley Avenue 0.66 B ' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Key Locations Facility:Hopyard Road at Stoneridge, Potential Actions i Highway Solution Widen Hopyard Road to 8 lanes. Build ade- quate Route 84 to reduce cut-through traffic from West Las Positas Boulevard. Install traffic signal phase overlap at Hopyard/W. Las Positas. Transit Solution Increase local bus ridership. TDM Solution Increase overall AVR by about 2%. Land Use Solution Reduce development in Pleasanton by about 2%,focused on vicinity of Hopyard Road. Policy Solution Accept LOS E(0.91) at intersection of Hopyard/Las Positas. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 198 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:Santa Rita Road at Stoneridge 1-580 EB Off-Ramp Existing Configuration 6 lanes 3 lanes Existing Volume' 1,300 Existing V/C 0.24 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to 6 lanes from 1-580 to Old Santa Rita Road($1.6 million),developer funding. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes 3 lanes Volume 2,700 1,231 Transit Service(busesthour) 6 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 63 100 V/C constrained[before Action Plan](un- 0.50 0.38 constrained) Traffic Patter Pleasanton 59% Dublin 25% Livermore 10% Danville 00/0 San Ramon 2% CCC 4% Through 0% TSO to be achieved V/C<0.90 at inter- V/C<0.90 at inter- section. section. Recommended Actions Noire. 1.Agreement by Dublin/Contra Costa County to widen EB off-ramp. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 199 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Santa Rita Road and West Las Positas 0.75 C Santa Rita Road and Valley Avenue 0.75 C .Santa Rita Road and 1-580 EB Ramps 0.94 E Santa Rita Road and Stoneridge 0.85 D ' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Key Locations Facility:Santa Rita Road at Stoneridge 1-580 EB Off-Ramp Potential Actions Highway Solution Widen EB off-ramp from 1-580 to Santa Rita Road for second EB left-tum lane. Transit Solution Increase local bus ridership(how?). TDM Solution Increase overall AVR by 4%. Land Use Solution Reduce develop- ment in Pleasanton, Dublin,or HPOA by 4,600 units. Policy Solution Accept LOS E (V/C=0.94)at San- ta Rita/1-580 EB ramps intersection. TSO met. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 200 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:Stanley Boulevard at Valley Avenue Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' 800 Existing V/C 0.22 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Grade separation at intersection with Isabel (part of Route 84 project). 2010 Configuration 4 lanes Volume 1,200 Transit Service(buses/hour) 4 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 41 V/C constrained[before Action Plan) 0.33 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Livermore 50% Pleasanton 25% Through 25% Danville 0% San Ramon 0% CCC 0% Dublin 0% TSO to be achieved V/C<0.90 at inter- sections Recommended Actions 1.At Valley/Stanley intersection,widen for EB double left-tum lanes. 2.Reduce cut-through traffic with adequate Highway 84. 3.increase areawide AVR by 101/0. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 201 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Stanley Boulevard and Valley Avenue 0.93 E Stanley Boulevard and Main Street 0.37 A Stanley Boulevard and Isabel Extension Grade Separation Stanley Boulevard and Murrieta Boulevard 0.74 C ' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. Key Locations Facility:Stanley Boulevard at Valley Avenue Potential Actions Highway Solution at Valley/Stanley wid- en eastbound for double left-tum lanes. Transit Solution Increase local transit ridership. TDM Solution Increase overall AVR by 30%for all trip purposes. Land Use Solution Reduce Livermore and Pleasanton devel- opment by about 13,400 units,similar to reduction in jobs. Policy Solution Accept LOS E(V/C= 0.93)at Stanley and Valley. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 202 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:Stoneridge Drive at Hopyard at El Charro Existing Configuration 6 lanes N/A Existing Volume' 1,200 NIA Existing V/C 0.22 N/A 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Extension as 6 lanes to El Charro to link with Jack London. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes 6tanes Volume 1,200 700 Transit Service(buses/hour) 26 None Transit Ridership(peak hour) 99 0 V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.22 0.13 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Danville 1% Danville 01/0 San Ramon 9% San Ramon 2% Pleasanton 53% Livermore 51% Livermore 19% Pleasanton "% Dublin 15% CCC 0% CCC 1% Dublin 1% Through 20/. Through 2% TSO to be achieved V/C<0.90 at inter- V/C<0.90 at inter- sections. sections. Recommended Actions None. None. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Stoneridge Drive and W. Las Positas 0.81 D Stoneridge Drive and I-M SB Ramps 0.49 A Stoneridge Drive and I-M NB Ramps 0.52 A Stoneridge Drive and Hopyard Road 0.58 A Stoneridge Drive and Santa Rita Road 0.85 D 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of How. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 203 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:Sunol Boulevard East of 1-680 Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' 800 Existing V/C 0.22 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to 6 lanes 1-680 to First Street. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes Volume 1,320 Transit Service(buses/hour) 4 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 23 WC constrained[before Action Plan] 0.24 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Danville 0% San Ramon 1% Pleasanton 46% Livermore 33% Dublin 1% CCC 0°/G Through 14% TSO to be achieved V/C<0.90 at inter- sections. Recommended Actions None. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Sunol Boulevard and Bernal Avenue 0.80 C Sunil Boulevard and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.58 A Sunol Boulevard and 1-680 NB Ramps 0.54 A 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak rection of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 204 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Isabel at Facility:Route 84 on Vallecitos Jack London Existing Configuration 2 lanes N/A Existing Volume' 900 N/A Existing V/C 0.50 NIA 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening and upgrading Vallecitos Road to 4-lane expressway,connecting and widening Isabel to 6-lane arterial,new interchange at IsabeV1-580,grade separation at Isabel/Stanley. 2010 Configuration 4 lanes 6 lanes Volume 3,400 3,900 Transit Service(busesthour) 12 16 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 0 18 WC constrained(before Action Plan) 0.94 0.72 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern CCC 0% Danville 0% Livermore 80% San Ramon 206 Pleasanton 3% Livermore 49% Dublin 0% Pleasanton 10°10 Through 17% Dublin 9% Danville 0% GCC 2% San Raman 0% Through 28% TSO to be achieved Link V/C<0.99(no Intersection intersections) V/C<0.90 Recommended Actions 1.Secure funding for 1.Secure funding widening project for widening pro- ject 2.Adopt recommen- 2.Accept LOS E at dations of Tri-Valley Jack London. Subcommittee on Route 84. 3.Adopt recom- mendations of Tri- Valley Subcommit- tee on Route 84. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 205 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Isabel(Route 84)and Airway Boulevard D Isabel(Route 84)and Jack London 0.95 E Isabel(Route 84)and Vallecitos Road 0.76 C Isabel(Route 84)and Stanley Boulevard Grade separation Vailecitos Road and Vineyard 0.87 D ' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 206 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Isabel at Facility: Route 84 on Vallecitos Jack London Potential Actions Highway Solution Upgrade to expressway,grade separation at Jack London Transit Solution Substantially in- creased transit service-17 buses per hour,must be full. TDM Solution Increase overall AVR by 30%for all trip types. Land Use Solution Reduce develop- ment in Pleasanton and Livermore by about 13,400 units. Policy Solution Accept LOS E at Jack London. TSO met. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 207 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations East of Facility:First Street(Livermore) South Livermore Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' 1,100 Existing V/C 0.31 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Reconfiguration of 1-580/First Street interchange to Parclo design. 2010 Configuration 4 lanes Volume 1,200 Transit Service(buses/hour) 4 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 53 V/C constrained[before Action Plan) 0.33 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern CCC 0% Danville 096 San Ramon 0% Livermore 889'0 Pleasanton 7% Dublin 0% Through 5% TSO to be achieved V/C<0.90 at inter- sections Recommended Actions 1. Secure funding for interchange improve- ments. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS First Street and 1-580 WB Ramps 0.61 B First Street and 1-580 EB Ramps 0.59 A 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-erection of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 208 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:Vasco Road N.of Isabel Extension N.of 1-580 S.of 1-580 Existing Configuration 2 lanes 2 lanes 4 lanes Existing Volume' 1,100 1,800 1,100 Existing V/C 0.61 1.00 0.31 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to four lanes from Isabel Extension to Scenic, widening to 6 lanes from Scenic to Patterson Pass; realignment and upgrade in Contra Costa County due to reservoir,reconstruction of 1-580/Vasco interchange. 2010 Configuration 2 lanes 6 lanes 6 lanes Volume 1,500(constrained) 2,580 3,150 Transit Service(buses/hour) 18 40 28 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 105 158 236 V/C constrained[before Action Plan) 1.00(1.23) 0.48 0.58 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Danville 2% Pleasanton 9% Pleasanton 8% San Ramon 6% Livermore 730/6 Livermore 78% Livermore 44% Dublin 5% Dublin 7% Pleasanton 12% CCC 4% CCC 5% CCC 4% San Ramon 3% San Ramon 1% Dublin 9% Danville 0% Danville 1% Through 23% Through 6% TSO to be achieved None—not within V/C<0.90 at inter- V/C<0.90 at TVTC control. sections. intersections. Recommended Actions 1.Secure funding for operational improve- ments on two-lane segment in Alameda County. 2.Oppose increases to mixed-flow capaci- ty. 3.Support transit service in corridor. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 209 Q Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Vasco Road and East Avenue 0.55 A Vasco Road and Isabel Extension 0.60 A Vasco Road and 1-580 WB Ramps 0.69 B Vasco Road and 1-580 EB Ramps 070 B ' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour, peak-direction of flow. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc- 210 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:Stone Valley Road East of 1-680 Existing Configuration 2 lanes Existing Volume' g40 Existing V/C 0.52 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:None. 2010 Configuration 2 lanes Volume 1,400 Transit Service(buses/hour) 8 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 5 V/C constrained[before Acton Plan] 0.78 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Danville 44% San Ramon 19% CCC 24% Dublin 4% Pleasanton 5% Livermore 4% Alameda Co. TSO lobe achieved V/C<0.90 at inter- sections Recommended Actions None. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Stone Valley Road and Danville Boulevard 0,82 D Stone Valley Road and 1-680 SB Ramps 0,56 A Stone Valley Road and I-680 NB Ramps 0.40 A 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. =Not a route of regional significance. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 211 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:Fallon Road= N.of 1-580 N. of Dublin Existing Configuration 2 lanes 2 lanes Existing Volume' 10 10 Existing V/C 0.01 0.01 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening and extension at 6 lanes from 1-580 to Tassajara Road;reconstruction of the Fallon/EI Charro and 1-580 interchange. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes 6 lanes Volume 2,900 2,450 Transit Service(buses/hour) 4 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 0.54 0 V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.45 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Danville 10% Danville 11% San Ramon 5% San Ramon 9% CCC 0% CCC 1% Dublin 63% Dublin 55% Pleasanton 15% Pleasanton 12% Livermore 7% Livermore 13% Through 0% TSO to be achieved V/C<0.90 at inter- WC<0.90 at inter- sections. sections. Recommended Actions 1.Secure funding for 1.Secure funding widening/extension. for widening/ extension. 2. Pursue HOV lanes 2. Pursue HOV on 1-580. lanes on 1-580. 3.Secure funding for 1-580/Fallon interchange improve- ments. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 212 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Fallon Road and Gleason Road 0.62 B Fallon Road and I-580 WB Ramps 0.72 C EI Charro Road and 1-580 EB Ramps 0.63 B Fallon Road and Tassajara Road 0.76 C Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard 1,12 F ' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-drection of flow. t Not a route of regional significance. Key Locations Facility:Fallon Road N.of 1-580 N.of Dublin Potential Actions Highway Solution Grade separation at Grade separation at Fallon Drive/Dublin Fallon Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersec- Boulevard intersec- tion.Add HOV lane to tion.Add HOV lane 1-580. to 1-580. Transit Solution Add 20 buses per Add 20 buses per hour to Fallon Road; hour to Fallon Road; local service to East local service to East Dublin. Dublin. TDM Solution Increase overall AVR Increase overall by about 25%for all AVR by about 250% trip types. for all trip types. Land Use Solution Reduce East Dublin Reduce East Dublin development by 1,000 development by units or shift 1,000 1,000 units or shift units away from 1,000 units away Fallon/Dublin intersec- from Fallon/Dublin tion. intersection. Policy Solution Accept LOS F at Dub- Accept LOS F at lin/Fallon intersection. Dublin/Fallon inter- section. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 213 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:North Canyons Parkway W.of Isabel Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' ? Existing V/C ? 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening and extension as 6 lanes from Doolan to Isabel Extension. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes Volume 3,090 Transit Service(buses/hour) 20 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 229 V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.57 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Livermore 58% Dublin 21% Pleasanton 100/0 CCC 3% Danville 0% San Ramon 3% Through 5% TSO WC<0.90 at inter- sections. Recommended Actions 1. Increase areawide AVR by 10%. 2. Improve the inter- section of N.Canyons Parkway and Collier Canyon. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan Vic LOS North Canyons Parkway and Collier Canyon 1.02 F North Canyons Parkway and Isabel Extension 0.92 E 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Not a route of regional significance Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 214 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:North Canyons Parkway W.of Isabel Potential Actions Highway Solution Add 2nd LT lane NB on Cattier Canyon at N. Canyons Parkway, grade separation at Isabel Extension. Transit Solution Increase in transit ridership in N. Livermore. TDM Solution increase overall AVR by 10%for all trip types. LandUse Solution Decrease develop- ment levels in N. Livermore by 200 units_ Policy Solution Accept poor intersec- tion Levels of service. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 215 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations N.of North Facility:Isabel Extension' Canyons Parkway Existing Configuration WA Existing Volume' N/A Existing V/C N/A 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Extension from 1-580 as a 6-lane/4-lane arterial to Vasco Road. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes Volume 3,330 Transit Service(buses/hour) 12 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 98 V/C constrained[before Action Plan) 0.62 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Livermore 61% Dublin 14% Pleasanton 130/6 CCC 3% Danville 0% San Ramon 3% Through 7% TSO to be achieved. V/C<0.90 at inter- sections. Recommended Actions 1.Secure funding for extension. 2. Increase areawide AVR by 10%. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Isabel Extension and Vasco Road 0.60 A Isabel Extension and North Livermore Avenue 0.68 8 Isabel Extension and North Canyon Parkway 0.92 E 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. 'Not a route of regional significance Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 216 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations N.of North Facility:Isabel Extension Canyons Parkway Potential Actions Highway Solution Grade separation at N. Canyons Parkway. Transit Solution Increase transit rider- ship in N. Uvermore. TDM Solution Increase overall AVR by 21%for all trip types Land Use Solution Decrease develop- ment in N. Livermore by 200 units. Policy Solution Accept LOS E at N. Canyons Parkway i intersection. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 217 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:North UvermorW N.of 1-580 Existing Configuration 2 lanes Existing Volume' 100 Existing V/C 0.06 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to 6 lanes from 1-580 to 1-1/2 miles north,4 lanes to Isabel Extension;modify and widen 1-580/N. Livermore interchange. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes Volume 2,610 Transit Service(busesthour) 4 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 69 V/C constrained[before Action Plan] 0.48 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Livermore 82% Dublin 8% Pleasanton 7% CCC 2% Danville 0% San Ramon 1% TSO to be achieved V/C<0.90 at inter- sections. Recommended Actions 1.Secure funding for 1-580/N.Livermore interchange improve- ments. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS North Livermore Avenue and Isabel Extension 0.68 B North Livermore Avenue and Portola Avenue 0.66 B North Livermore Avenue and 1-580 EB Ramps 0.74 C North Livermore Avenue and 1-580 WB Ramps 0.58 A 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. =Not a route of regional significance. Balton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 218 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:W.Las Positas (Pleasanton)' E. of 1-680 Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' 480 Existing V/C 0.13 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Addition of interchange at 1-6801W.Las Positas;widening to 4 lanes Foothill to Payne,widening to 6 lanes Hopyard to Stoneridge. 2010 Configuration 4 lanes Volume 1,350 Transit Service(buses/hour) 4 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 67 V/C constrained[before Action Plan) 0.38 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Danville 0% San Ramon 0°/0 Pleasanton 61% Dublin 15% Livermore 10% CCC 3% Through 10% TSO to be achieved V/C<0.90 at inter- sections Recommended Actions 1. Enforce existing growth controls to ensure achievement of TSOs. 2. Reduce through traffic by constructing an adequate Route 84. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 219 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan WC LOS W. Las Positas and Stoneridge Drive 0.81 D W. Las Positas and Hacienda Drive 0.42 A W. Las Positas and Santa Rita Road 0.75 C W. Las Positas and Hopyard Road 0.91 E W. Las Positas and Owens Drive 0.87 D ' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-erection of flow. =Not a route of regional significance. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 220 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways Key Locations Facility:Bernal Avenue2 E.of 1-680 Existing Configuration 4 lanes Existing Volume' 1,300 Existing VIC 0.36 2010 Expected Network Planned changes:Widening to 6 lanes 1-680 to Valley,widening to 4 lanes Foothill to 1-680,widening to 4 lanes First Street to Stanley. 2010 Configuration 6 lanes Volume 1,700 Transit Service(busesthour) 10 Transit Ridership(peak hour) 15 VIC constrained[before Action Plan] 0.31 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Pleasanton 82°� Dublin 1% Livermore 9% CCC 6% Danville 1% San Ramon 1% TSO to be achieved VIC<0.90 at inter- sections. Recommended Actions None. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan VIC LOS Bernal Avenue and 1-680 SB Ramps 0.83 D Bernal Avenue and 1-680 NB Ramps 0.56 A Bernal Avenue and First 0.80 C 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. 2 Not a route of regional significance. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 221 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:Jack London= at Isabel Existing Configuration N/A Existing Volume' N/A Existing V/C N/A 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Extension as 4 lanes to EI Charro linking with Stoneridge. 2010 Configuration 4 lanes Volume 1,860 Transit Service(buses/hour) None Transit Ridership(peak hour) N/A V/C constrained[before Action Plan[ 0.52 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Livermore 54% Pleasanton 400,6 Dublin 3% CCC 0% San Ramon 3% Danville 0% TSO to be achieved V/C <0.90 at inter- sections Recommended Actions 1.Increase areawide AVR by 10%. 2.Accept LOS E at Jack London/Isabel intersection. PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Jack London and Isabel 0.95 E ' Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. ' Not a route of regional significance. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 222 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) Key Locations Facility:Hacienda Drive= N.of 1-580 N. of Dublin Blvd. Existing Configuration 4 lanes — Existing Volume' 7 — Existing V/C 7 — 2010 Expected Network Planned changes: Extension to Gleason Drive as 4 lanes, widening to 6 lanes 1-580 to Dublin Boulevard. 2010.Configuration 6 lanes 4 lanes Volume 3,600 Transit Service(busesthour) Transit Ridership(peak hour) V/C constrained[before Action Pian] 0.67 (unconstrained) Traffic Pattern Dublin 56% Pleasanton 250/9 Livermore 20/ CCC 1506 Danville 1% San Ramon 1% TSO V/C <0.90 at inter- sections Recommended Actions 1.Secure funding for widening and exten- sion in Dublin. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 223 Action Plan Tri-Valley Action Plan Highways (Continued) PM Peak-Hour 2010 Expected Intersection LOS Without Action Plan V/C LOS Hacienda Drive and 1-580 EB Ramps 0.79 C Hacienda Drive and 1-580 WB Ramps 0.79 C Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard 0.73 C Hacienda Drive and Owens Drive 0.81 D Hacienda Drive and West Las Positas 0.42 A 'Volumes and capacity refer to PM peak-hour,peak-direction of flow. Not a route of regional significance. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 224 Action Plan Even with implementation of the expected land use and network assumptions set forth in Chapter 5, the following TSO violations are forecast to occur: Intersection V/C LOS Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard 0.93 E Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard 1.05 F Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard 1.12 F Isabel and Jack London 0.95 E Isabel and North Canyons Parkway 0.92 E Santa Rita Road and 1-580 EB Off-Ramp 0.94 E Alcosta Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road 1.06 F Dougherty Road and Crow Canyon Road 0.98 E Dougherty Road and Bollinger Canyon Road 1.11 F Blackhawk/Crow Canyon and Camino Tassajara 1.15 F Danville Boulevard and Stone Valley Road 1.08 F The TVTC jurisdictions expect to implement a proactive Growth and Congestion Mangement strategy that addresses these violations. The strategy could include tying land use approvals to a jurisdiction's ability to meet TSOs. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 225 10. Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review 10. Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review This chapter describes how the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan will be implemented. Specific topics include plan adoption by member jurisdictions, collection of the subregional traffic impact fee, procedure for monitoring transportation service objectives, and procedures for handling development applications. Plan Adoption Since the Tri-Valley Transportation Council does not have any formal authority to make land use decisions or transportation investments, implementation of the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan will rest with the constituent jurisdictions through their individual general plans. Thus, the first step will be adoption by member jurisdictions and incorporation into their general plans the following elements from the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan: • 2010 Planned Transportation Network • Transportation Service Objectives • Individual Actions by Route • Financing Plan • Subregional Transportation Impact Fee While compliance with the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan (TVTP)is essentially volun- tary among the Alameda County jurisdictions, at least until aspects of the TVTP become part of the Alameda County Congestion Management Program, the Contra Costa County jurisdictions have a mandate for compliance. The TVTP constitutes the Action Plan for the Contra Costa Tri-Valley jurisdictions, as required by Measure C. Thus, to maintain compliance with Measure C, the Contra Costa County Tri-Valley jurisdictions must make a good-faith effort to implement the planned actions, or risk 226 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review losing their return-to-source funds. Compliance is tied to local implementation of action policies. One locality cannot be judged ineligible for local street maintenance and improvement funds because of the unwillingness of another locality to participate in the process. The TVTC has not addressed the issue of whether an environmental impact report will be required for plan adoption. If an EIR is necessary, it should be jointly prepared by all jurisdictions, rather than prepared individually. Plan Financing Two elements of the financing plan for the TVTP require further study and action by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council and its member jurisdictions: the subregional transportation impact fee, and the cost-sharing formulae for road improvements that benefit multiple jurisdictions. Subregional Transportation Impact Fee. The TVTP lists the full range of projects that could be included in an impact fee program. First, the list needs to be finalized and adopted. Next, the details of the impact fee program need to be worked out. The following issues should be considered. 1. How many development categories and what fee for each? 2. Are there any exempted areas or land use types? 3. When will the fees be collected? 4. When will they be spent? 5. Who will act as banker? 6. What is the priority for constructing impact fee projects? After these issues have been resolved and the program specified, each jurisdiction needs to adopt the program. Shared Facilities. Implementation of much of the planned arterial system will be the direct responsibility of new development. Many of the arterials, however, are shared among jurisdictions. Table 8-8 shows the jurisdictions sharing responsibility for each of the planned improvements that will be paid for directly by developers. For each of these improvements, a negotiated agreement needs to be reached about cost sharing between jurisdictions. The cost-sharing approach could be based on which jurisdiction's traffic is expected to use the facility, or it could be based simply on the boundaries within which the facility lies, or a combination. These agreements should Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 227 Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review be negotiated in advance so that when development takes place, the responsibility for road improvements is clear. Monitoring Transportation Service Objectives The Transportation Service Objectives (TSOs) are the heart of the TVTP. While certain growth assumptions are a part of the plan, they serve merely to guide the specification of a planned transportation system and financing program. The TVTP does not control growth directly but indirectly through the TSOs. Under existing conditions, the TSOs relating to freeway and intersection levels of service are largely being met. Future growth should be matched with road improvements so that the TSOs continue to be met. Achievement of the TSOs depends upon successful implementation of the actions, measures, and programs set forth in Chapter 9, "Action Plan." In Contra Costa County, if, following good faith implementation of the Action Plan, a TSO is not met, then the Plan would need to be reevaluated through the forum of TVTC. Amendments to the Plan could include a relaxation of TSOs, a strengthening of actions, or a combination of these approaches. In Alameda County, the jurisdiction with the TSO violation can in consultation with the TVTC, elect to modify growth rates, improve the facility, or, as a last resort, seek a lower TSO standard through the amendment process set forth in this chapter. The TSOs related to mode split and average vehicle ridership are goals for achievement by 2010. They need to be monitored and adjustments to the plan made if progress is not being made. Progress should be defined as increasing transit ridership and increasing average vehicle ridership. The TSOs should be monitored annually. The following describes how each should be measured. Freeway Levels of Service. The TSOs are expressed both in terms of volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) and hours of congestion. Volume-to-capacity ratio and hours of congestion can be measured with traffic counts or speed runs and should apply to mixed-flow lanes only. The plan uses a capacity of 2,200 vehicles per lane per hour (1,100 vehicles capacity for auxiliary lanes). Traffic counts can also be used to show duration of congestion. Freeway monitoring should be done by Caltrans or the CMA. Intersection Levels of Service. Intersection levels of service should be calculated using the VCCC program for AM and PM peak hours based on turning-movement counts. Intersection monitoring should be conducted by the jurisdiction in which the intersection lies. The intent of the TVTP is to maintain the intersection TSO at all signalized intersections. However, to avoid extensive data collection, each jurisdiction should establish a list of critical intersections for annual monitoring. Mode Split. Mode split is virtually impossible to measure in the field, except through extensive home interview and work place surveys. These data are available every Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 228 A Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review decade from the U.S. Census and periodically from MTC. In between times, transit ridership should be monitored as a surrogate for mode split. The mode split goal of the TVTP can only be met if transit ridership increases annually. The transit operators routinely collect and report annual ridership. Average Vehicle Ridership. This TSO relates directly to commute trips. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has defined average vehicle ridership (AVR) and how it can be calculated. To calculate AVR, annual employee surveys, conducted by employers, will be necessary. In many places these are already being done, and due to air quality regulations, AVR will soon be annually reported by all employers with over 100 employees. All Tri-Valley jurisdictions have trip reduction ordinances, so AVR should be increasing in the future. Employers can take credit for shifting trips out of the peak hour, shorter work weeks, and telecommuting in addition to promoting ridesharing and transit usage. AVR should be monitored by each jurisdiction through its trip reduction ordinance, or by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Development Applications Adoption of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan will bring additions to the analysis required of new development. This will affect both environmental impact reports and general plan amendments. Environmental Impact Reports. These should be circulated to all jurisdictions that make up the TVTC, since most projects large enough to require an EIR will impact more than one jurisdiction. The cumulative analysis section of each EIR should incorporate the expected land use and transportation scenario on which the TVTP is based. Transportation impacts should be stated in terms of whether or not the project would lead to a violation of Transportation Service Objectives. Transportation mitigation measures should be consistent with the TVTP network. General Plan Amendments. The 2010 expected land use and transportation network, which are incorporated into the TVTP, are based on the general plans of the TVTC member jurisdictions as of June 1994. Any subsequent general plan amendments may affect either the adequacy of the planned network or the financing plan. Any jurisdiction considering a general plan amendment should evaluate its impact on the TVTP and demonstrate that the Transportation Service Objectives could still be met. If further transportation improvements are necessary beyond what are in the TVTP, the jurisdiction should specify how they will be funded. The Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance will be based upon adopted General Plan land uses, the existing road network, and planned improvements to the network. Consistency with the Action Plans must be established for any changes to the General Plan that may significantly reduce the ability of the facility to meet the Traffic Service Objectives. The RTPC will be responsible for establishing the type and size of amendment that will require review by the RTPC and the process for implementing this review. Approval of a General Plan Amendment found to be Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 229 Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review inconsistent with the adopted Action Plans may render the jurisdiction ineligible for Local Street Maintenance Improvement Funds from the CCTA. Consistency with the Action Plans can be achieved by revising the proposed amendment, adopting local actions to offset impacts to the Route of Regional Significance, or Council or Board denial of the amendment. Growth Controls. The TVTP is not intended to be a land use control document. While the plan is based on a set of growth assumptions, the plan should not be interpreted as limiting growth to the assumed levels. Nevertheless, the plan does establish Transportation Service Objectives, which may indirectly influence growth rates. Growth beyond what is assumed herein may occur provided the TSOs are met. Conversely, if the TSOs are violated early, growth in Contra Costa County jurisdictions should not occur up to the assumed levels or the plan should be amended. In Alameda County, individual jurisdictions have the option of slowing growth, making further transportation improvements, or lowering TSO standards. The tools and procedures for conducting Contra Costa County General Plan updates and analyzing proposed General Plan amendments will be the same as those used in preparing the Growth Management Elements. If the specific project or policy changes are large enough to meet requirements established by the region in its adopted Action Plan, the jurisdiction considering the Plan amendment must submit the amendment to the Regional Committee for evaluation of its impact on the ability to achieve Action Plan objectives. The Growth Management Program directs the RTPCs to evaluate proposed amendments only in relation to issues affecting Action Plan success and consistency. It will be the responsibility of the jurisdiction considering the amendment to either: 1. Demonstrate that the amendment will not violate Action Plan policies or the ability to meet Action Plan Traffic Service Objectives; or 2. Propose modification to the Action Plan that will prevent the General Plan amend- went from adversely affecting the regional transportation network. If neither of these can be done, approval of the General Plan amendment may lead to a finding of non-compliance with the Growth Management Program. Amending the Plan Amendments can be triggered by: periodic review of the plan (every two to four years); identification of TSO violations; a jurisdiction's proposal to adopt a major general plan amendment that was not considered in the existing plan; and/or a change in the major assumptions underlying the Plan. A change in the assumptions for Gateway Constraints would constitute the latter. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 230 Plan Implementation, Monitoring, and Review This plan is based upon the assumption that major gateways into Tri-Valley will not be expanded beyond the capacities assumed in the Expected Network as set forth in Chapter 5. Any change in these assumptions, such as the addition of HOV lanes on I- 580 over the Altamont Pass, would require that this plan be amended to incorporate revised assumptions for the Tri-Valley gateway constraints. Increased capacity at the gateways could significantly increase projected congestion on downstream freeway sections and arterial streets. Future Role of TWC It is anticipated that implementation of the Action Plan will rest primarily with the individual jurisdictions. However, the plan has identified some continuing functions for the TVTC, as follows: • Housing and future updates of the Tri-Valley Model 0 Updates and amendments to the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan • Development and implementation of a regional traffic impact fee • Coordinated implementation of Actions requiring interjurisdictional cooperation Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 231 end ices , Appendix A Description of VCCC Program a Technical Procedures 7 LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY FOR INTERSECTIONS Level of Service is the primary measure of effectiveness to be used in evaluating traffic operations at intersections on Basic Routes. All participating jurisdictions must use the adopted Level of Service methodology in developing their General Plan Growth Management Element, monitoring of Level of Service at Reporting Intersections, and preparing Traffic Impact Studies. If a jurisdiction elects to use another method for calculating Level of Service, it must be used in addition to the adopted methodology described in this section. Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance may also include Level of Service as a quantifiable measure of effectiveness for Regional Routes. In these cases, the adopted Level of Service methodology shall also be used. The Level of Service methodology will be used to evaluate actual signalized intersection levels of service given traffic count data. It will also be used to evaluate future levels of service given traffic projections. The adopted method is similar to the Circular 212 Planning Method except that through movement capacity has been increased from 1,500 vehicles per hour to 1,800 vehicles per hour. Level of Service is calculated by critical movement with lower capacities assumed for turning movements. 7.1 SATURATION FLOW RATES The saturation flow rate is the basis for determining the capacity of an intersection. It represents the maximum number of vehicles that can pass through an intersection under prevailing traffic conditions. The CCTA has modified the Circular 212 Operations and Design Method by assuming a saturation flow rate of 1,800 vehicles per hour, (rather than 1,500 vehicles per hour). Saturation flow rates were measured at four intersections in Contra Costa County in February, 1990 to verify the appropriateness of this saturation flow rate. The method for collecting saturation flow rate data described in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual was used. The results are summarized in Table 8. Considerable variation in saturation flow rates were observed at each intersection. The data suggested that the operations and design capacities based on the 1,800 vehicles per hour saturation flow rate are frequently achieved within Contra Costa County. wktec4ro.10 43 ; s Technical Procedures TABLE 8 Measured PM Peak Hour Saturation Flow Rates Selected Intersections in Contra Costa County Number of Highest Intersection Movement Samples Measured Treat/Clayton Left 4 1,752 Left/Thru 4 2,054 Thru 8 2,487 ThruCRight 4 1,793 Buchanan/Somersville Left 8 2,048 Thru 2 2,014 Alcosta/Crow Canyon . Left 3 2,152 Thru 5 2,261 Right 1 2,531 Blume/Hilltop Left 4 2,084 Thru 4 1,807 WEIGHTED AVERAGE Left 19 2,152 Left/Thru 4 2,054 Thru 19 2,487 Thru/Right 4 1,793 Right 1 2,531 Source: Patterson Associates 2/90 44 .:uxepM.to Technical Procedures As indicated in Table 8, the saturation flow rates varied by movement type. Exclusive left-turn saturation flow rates were approximately 10 percent less than those for through lanes. Saturation flow rates for shared left and through lanes were 18 percent lower than for through lanes. Sufficient data was not collected to provide statistical accuracy for these averages. They were consistent, however, with the passenger car equivalent (PCE) values adjustments provided in Circular 212. 7.2 OPTIONAL CAPACITY REDUCTION The effect of vehicle mix, intersection geometrics and other factors on intersection capacity is well documented. These factors, however, are not considered directly in the Circular 212 Planning Methodology. This was why a lower capacity (1,500 vph) was originally selected for use in Circular 212. The CCTA methodology, which uses a higher capacity (1,800 vph), may underestimate existing or future congestion at some locations. The reductions in the capacities provided in Table 9 are therefore optional, provided that measurement of saturation flow rates justify the lower capacities. Once an intersection's capacity is reduced, it cannot be increased unless intersection geometrics are improved and higher saturation flow rates have been measured in the field. Under no circumstances can a signalized intersection capacity above 1,800 vph be used under the CCTA methodology. Saturation flow rates must be measured using the technique described in Chapter 9, Appendix IV of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. (A copy is provided in Appendix A of these Technical Procedures). The saturation flow rates must be adjusted to establish the capacity for the traffic movement considered. Adjustment of the saturation flow rates should be performed as described in equation 9-1 of the 1985 HCM: C, = St (C); Where (for lane group or approach i) c, = capacity in vehicles per hour; s, = saturation flow rate in vehicles per hour; g = effective green time in seconds; and C = intersection cycle length in seconds. .:uaepb.io 45 Technical Procedures 7.3 SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF DELAY Because the CCTA Level of Service method applies fixed critical lane volumes uniformly throughout the county, the method may underestimate congestion at locations with poor geometrics (older intersections with poor turning radii and small approach widths), or overestimate congestion at locations with excellent geometrics (newer intersections with ideal conditions) and aggressive drivers. The selected method may not identify locations where severe congestion is limited to a single intersection approach, nor does it reflect significant peaking and congestion within the peak hour. To address these shortcomings, the following supplemental analyses may be performed in addition to using the CCTA's method to identify congested locations: Field measurement of delay on the congested approach or full intersection can be collected using the methodology described in Chapter 9, Appendix III of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The measured delay should be compared with those provided in Table 9-1 of the HCM. The summary of intersection levels of service should be supplemented to reflect the results of the delay analyses when significant variations are found. 7.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION METHOD Signalized intersection levels of service should be calculated using the following nine steps: STEP 1: Lane Geometry Identify the number and type of lanes for each approach. STEP 2: Intersection Volumes Identify by counting (if analysis of existing conditions) or estimating (if analysis of future conditions) left-turn, through, and right-turn volumes for each approach for the peak (design) hour volumes in vehicles per hour for each peak hour to be analyzed. In most cases, the analysis will assess both the AM and PM weekday peak hour. For projects with peak periods that occur during midday or on weekends, additional time periods should be analyzed. caro.10 46 Technical Procedures STEP 3: Phasing Identify the type of phasing (protected lefts turns, shared, or split) to be used at the intersection. STEP 4: Left-Turn Check The left turn check will apply to Level of Service calculations for future conditions where the demand is estimated. Determination of the need for left turn phasing for existing conditions should be made based on actual traffic count, left turn delay, observed queuing and accident history data. If permissive left turn phasing is provided, a check must be made to determine if sufficient left turn capacity if provided. The left turn capacity is the combination of left turn made against opposing through movements and left made during the yellow change interval. The capacity during the yellow change interval (Vc) — the maximum numbers of left turns that can clean in this period — equals two times the number of signal cycles per hour. If the number of cycles per hour is not known, assume that the maximum number of left turns that can clear the intersection in one hour equals 90. The capacity for left turns during the green cycle (VL) — the maximum number of left turns that can clear against opposing traffic volumes — is estimated using the following equation: VL = 1,200(C} – Vo Where: VL = left-turn volume, in vehicles per hour, that can clear during the green for opposing through traffic. G = maximum green plus yellow time.* C = cycle time for opposing through traffic.* Vo = sum of opposing through and right-turn volumes, in vehicles per hour. cktac4ro.io 47 V i Technical Procedures * If either the maximum green time or the cycle time is not known, use the through and right-turn volumes for the approach divided by the number of lanes. Add the number of left-turns calculated in the change interval Vc to the number calculated in the permitted left for a total number of left-turns which can clear without a protected left VL. If the number of left-turns calculated above (Left turn capacity) is more than those estimated for the project, no protected left-turn phase is needed. If the number of left turns calculated above is less than the left turn demand, operating difficulties and increasing delays will be experienced. . STEP 5: Adjust Turning Volumes Two situations may require adjustment of observed turning volumes: 1. Right turns where no separate right turn lane is provided and significant pedestrian activity exists, 2. Left turns where no separate left turn lane is provided. The PCE adjustments recommended in Circular 212 (see Appendix A of the Technical Procedures) should be used. If the VCCC model is used, adjustments to the turn volumes should be made prior to entering into the program. STEP 6. Calculate Volume-to-Capacity Ratio by Movement The volume-to-capacity ratio of each of the 12 individual movements and any combined movements of the intersection are calculated as follows: ► Right turn volumes from exclusive right turn lanes are adjusted for right turns on red by the non-conflicting left turn volumes with a minimum reduction of 90 vehicles per hour. (Non-conflicting left turns go concurrently with the right turn. For example, the non-conflicting left turn for the northbound right turn is the westbound left turn.) IN. Determine the capacity of each movement and each combined movement from Table 9. wu.awro.ao 48 Technical Procedures ► Calculate the volume-to-capacity ratio for each movement and combined movement by dividing the adjusted volumes by the capacities. For combined movements, use the combined volumes divided by the combined capacities. TABLE 9 Lane Capacities' Lane Type 2-Phase 3-Phase 4+-Phase Exclusive Lane 1,800 1,720 1,650 Shared Lane 1,800 1,720 1,650 Dual Turn Lanes-' 1,636 1,564 1,500 Triple Turn Lanes" 1,565 1,496 1,435 ' Capacities for single lane. If multiple lanes are provided, capacity in the table is multiplied by number of lanes to obtain total capacity for movement group. 2 Can include one shared lane (e.g. one exclusive left, plus one shared through left is considered dual turn lane). 3 Assumes 45%-55% lane split. 4 Assumes lane use 15% higher in the most used lane. STEP 7. Determine Critical Volume-to-Capacity Ratios Determine the highest total conflicting volume-to-capacity ratios for both the north-south and east-west directions. For a non-split phased direction, the highest total of the right-turn or the through (or through plus right-turn if no exclusive right-turn lane exists) plus the opposing left-turn volume-to-capacity ratios are chosen. For a split phased direction, the highest volume-to-capacity ratio from each of the approachs is chosen. Free right turns are not included in the calculation since they are not under signal control. Circular 212 does not clearly indicate how the critical movements are to be selected for single lane approaches (that is, when all right, left and thru movements are made from single approach lane). Under the Circular either the approach with the highest volume or both approaches could be designated as the critical movement. As part of the Level of Service method adopted by the CCTA, however, both approaches should be considered critical movements. .Awc4,o.ao 49 Technical Procedures STEP 8: Sum the critical volume-to-capacity ratios for each approach. STEP 9: Compare the sum of the critical volume-to-capacity ratio with the ranges in Table 10 to determine the intersection Level of Service. TABLE 10 LEVEL OF SERVICE RANGES LOS Sum of Critical V/C A <_ 0.60 B 0.61 - 0.70 C 0.71 - 0.80 D 0.80 - 0.90 E 0.91 - 1.00 F > 1.00 „AWC4".10 50 Appendix B Comparison of Total Growth Through 2010 to Net New Growth ta. �z c. y't N O O 'I7 w `Q N U? Z O Q� N. T O T M N O N M ti O O O T CO O 0 > Cd T L O M L t70 N to t0 r- 1-- qt O p O th 1W r' LO a tq tN m 1- N W N N coo CO T s O 3 d t d M ui L zT T T LO o N to o O� T- C N �? O Mr- o N O W o = to rn o T rr IV v_ CV 3d > N N T N T d s p T 0 O n O O O s O O` top On W P G c c,0 I ~ U' M N tp M O f` to N T T T T tp s ° �3 O 0 . 'E T � (} U c o m cc O :0 5 U t 9 O U M F- M QLn �.- 'E m O U Q � M c 72 N O 78 m m o N C L C m TSN m E tin .9 :5 M (D cc xx m b� C.) o cn D 0 a '_'', D �0- w N Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. iv